826
Nightshade, the free tool that ‘poisons’ AI models, is now available for artists to use
(venturebeat.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
826 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How're we supposed to have things like reviews, research findings, reverse engineering, or indexes if you have to ask first? The scams you could pull if you could attack anyone caught reviewing you. These rights exist to protect us from the monopolies on expression that would increase disparities and divisions, manipulate discourse, and in the end, fundamentally alter how we interact online with each other for the worse.
I'm just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I'm suggesting is:
"Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist."
I read that. That's what I've been responding to the whole time. This is a way to analyze and reverse engineer images so you can make your own original works. In the US, the first major case that established reverse engineering as fair use was Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc in 1992, and then affirmed in Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation in 2000. Do you think SONY or SEGA would have allowed anyone to reverse engineer their stuff if they asked nice? Artists have already said they would deny anyone.
It's not about the data, people having a way to make quality art themselves is an attack on their status, and when asked about generators that didn't use their art, they came out overwhelmingly against with the same condescending and reductive takes they've been using this whole time.
Those are corporations. I'm concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.
I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You're essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren't hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You're refusing to even ask her if she's okay with her creations being used in this way.
You're wrong. What you're describing is immoral. I don't care about corporations. They're not who I'm interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You're also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It's cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That's its best use case at the moment. It's gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.
I have always been focused on impacts to individuals. Let me make my self clear. It is wrong for IP-holders, be they corporations or independent artists, to have the power to control speech to the degree you're suggesting. Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work and how the rights we have work.
Then let's amend my statements and limit them to only the loud, belligerent minority online. I know most artists don't care, I've seen it myself. I apologize for that. And I am saying not enough people would say yes to that option. Self-interest is a powerful force, without agreements by people ahead of time, some would absolutely degrade the experience of those around by initiating a race to the bottom to take more for themselves. That's why it isn't Charlotte's place to police what others talk about, this is something we've learned over hundreds of years. She is afforded a part of speech to protect her specific expressions, to ask for more than that, to want to encroach on people who aren't infringing on her piece of the pie is greedy and malicious. Even if the ramifications of her actions aren't apparent to her, especially if the ramifications aren't apart to her.
Styles are equivalent to ideas and Ideas are the property of nobody, this is a requirement because everyone in existence has derived their work from the work of others. Art isn't a product, it is expression, it is speech, it is inspiration, it is joy, it is what all humans are entitled to do. This is my first time seeing so many seriously considering cordoning off such a huge part of the human experience for the profit of a few, and it is concerning.
I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.
'Charlotte' draws for people. She's good at it, and it's her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That's it. It's not complicated. You shouldn't get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it's very bad at doing so).
AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It's spit on the face of art as a concept. It's art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It's no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It's mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I'm not about it.
AI in pretty well any other case? I'm on board. Let's automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I'm totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I've got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I'm very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn't genuine human expression.
Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.
Most of this is personal opinion and snobbery that I can't do much about except maybe ask that you examine how anarcho-capitalist your takes sound. Saying generative art will render what she does useless is like saying you quit singing in the shower because autotune exists. I just can't follow that logic. Art is something you do for you, to enjoy making any way you know how.
I also feel like you're ignoring the hundreds of open source models already available to everyone to use for free. Real tangible benefit that is being enjoyed by the everyman right now. I see others benefit every day and benefit from it myself. To say it really only stands to benefit corporations is a flat out lie. A tool that helps us better communicate, inspire, create, and connect with each other in ways they may not have been able to before is not a bad thing.
I mean, this part is pretty hyperbolic and pretty insulting, but thanks. No one is trying to do away with human art. It took us 100,000 years to get from cave drawings to Leonard Da Vinci. This is just another step for artists, like Camera Obscura was in the past. It's important to remember that early man was as smart as we are, they just lacked the interconnectivity and tools that we have.
Anyone copying their works should be sued for infringement, but that's not what's happening here. People are trying to take another piece of the public's increasingly limited rights and access to information. To fashion themselves as a new insidious owner class, owners of ideas. Even people you deem to not have talent have rights, and their rights aren't any less important. You can't now take those opportunities from them because it's their turn now.
Art is about bringing your ideas into the world, anything beyond that is fetish. Needing to be born talented or spending hundreds of hours to learn a skill is not art, that's work. If part of the work is how laborious was to make, that's fine, but if it's not, there's nothing wrong with that.
Objectivist, perhaps. They're the ones who obsess over controlling and monetizing free external benefits. There is no copyright in anarcho-capitalism (including "moral rights" etc.) so the GP doesn't sound at all anarcho-capitalist while arguing for infringement of others' real property rights to prop up their own artificial (non-rivalrous) "intellectual property" rights.
I see.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
John Atkinson Grimshaw (6 September 1836 – 13 October 1893) was an English Victorian-era artist best known for his nocturnal scenes of urban landscapes. He was called a "remarkable and imaginative painter" by the critic and historian Christopher Wood in Victorian Painting (1999). Grimshaw's love for realism stemmed from a passion for photography, which would eventually lend itself to the creative process. Though entirely self-taught, he is known to have used a camera obscura or lenses to project scenes onto canvas, which made up for his shortcomings as a draughtsman and his imperfect knowledge of perspective. This technique, which Caravaggio and Vermeer may also have used, was condemned by a number of his contemporaries who believed it demonstrated less skill than painting by eye, with some claiming that his paintings appeared to "show no marks of handling or brushwork", while others "were doubtful whether they could be accepted as paintings at all".
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^
Yes, an-caps lol famous for standing up for small time by commission digital artists trying to avoid exploitation of their creations. Totally yup you got me. All my criticism of corporations and pointing how AI art specifically benefits corporations at the detriment of actual human beings is very ancap of me.
Your whole bit about a new owner class is just, so far out there I don't even know what you're on. I don't have time to try and work through the justifications for why you think that you're entitled to make a mimic program for other peoples stuff. Not just to do it, but to claim that it makes you an artist.
Sorry but nah you're in the minority here. In this specific community in this specific space your voice is overrepresented. I've never met another person who agrees that our prototypical Charlotte and others like her are demonic overlords of the new ruling class who are seeking to subvert creativity and lock it in their hands. God, most of the artists I know willingly train others and a lot of them make content to train others. Now you're essentially complaining that you can't draw lmao like it's just ridiculous. I can't draw either, that's fine I don't want to put in the work to be able to create real visual art. I can live with that. I wouldn't use an ethically sourced AI image generator anyway, as it's literally an elaborate RNG function with a mimicry algorithm attached to it. It has no meaning and is empty.
Like typing "a cool painting" into bing image generator, which then tries its best to copy other real paintings made by real people, makes you an artist somehow. It doesn't. And you're not going to convince me of that, of all people. Let alone the majority of society who definitely do not agree that that makes you an artist, or that it makes it right to scrape images from artists like that.
Also the bit about me deeming people to have talent is just stupid. I'm not judging their artistic ability, I'm saying they're literally not making art they're not showcasing any artistic ability whether I think it's good or not.
You ignore the consequences of the kind of unregulated capitalism ownership of ideas would bring, and favor the interests of the privileged and the selfish.
I've already explained it multiple times, after you supposedly read the article I linked that explains it too, and I never claimed to be an artist.
What Charlotte wants is detrimental to everyone else and herself. No one should own ideas.
Never mentioned wanting to be an artist. You're either projecting on to me or just plain putting words in my mouth. I also don't use Bing Image creator.
This is just more snobbery. People don't need to conform to your standards of artistic ability to make art.
I don't think images on instagram were used to train open source AI. It's not exactly public. But Charlotte has allowed Meta to train AI on her images.
I think this may be part of the reason why the communication is unsatisfactory. You say you are concerned about the impact on individuals, but what you propose decidedly favors large corporations and the rich. I don't see what difference it makes for Charlotte's life, if an AI is trained on her images. I do see the benefit to Meta and others like it if open AI and smaller start-ups are curtailed.
I don't understand how your proposal would help someone like Charlotte.
Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?
It obviously benefits Meta by hindering the competition and by giving them another source of income.
As to OpenAI, I expect that Microsoft could supply them with quite some user data but I don't think OAI would be a major beneficiary, at first. OpenAI is, after all, a comparatively recent start-up. I think the biggest immediate gains would go to the established Big Tech firms that have their fingers on a lot of user data.
Major content owners, like the NYT, would be able to sell their content again. They have that lying around anyway, so it's pure profit for the owners. Corporations like Getty would also be able to make a killing, not just for being major content owners, but also because they are in the business of ensuring the "provenance" of media. If it's necessary to ask everyone and keep proof on file then they got you covered, for a price.
In the long run, I would expect companies like OpenAI to come out on top. They have their fingers on content generation, so the inequalities would just compound.