Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

pugsly ,
@pugsly@lemmy.l0l.city avatar

Ok, but who is going to reign in military & law enforcement AI tech?

Zealousideal_Fox900 ,

As an artist, nightshade is not something I will ever use. All my art is public domain, including AI. Let people generate as many pigeon pictures as they want I say!

nightwatch_admin ,

That’s great for you, truly it is, but for others it’s not.

Zealousideal_Fox900 ,

Mind explaining what artists it isn't good for? I genuinely don't see why it is so hard to let others remix and remake.

Drewelite ,

Yeah same. Empowering people to be more creative has never stuck me as something that needs to be gatekept. Tools have constantly improved allowing more people to become artists. If it's the copying of styles you're worried about, I'd take it up with every artist that's learned from Picasso or Da Vinci.

beebarfbadger ,

The artists whose stuff was stolen with the intent to profit from replacing their labour with the click of a button.

Mustard ,

Believe it or not I need to eat food. Crazy I know.

Zealousideal_Fox900 ,

Oh hey nice! So do I!

Mustard ,

Do you have a means of securely and reliably getting it? Cause I don't.

You really come across as coming from a place of privilege whilst lamenting that the reason poor people are worried about this is because they're just not as nice as you.

Zealousideal_Fox900 ,

Lmao I have never been rich, in my entire life. It isn't like my art is being directly copied.

Zeon ,

Well, if you can't beat them, join them! You have to adjust to the pace of what society is moving towards.

anarchy79 ,
@anarchy79@lemmy.world avatar

What if it's adjusting towards segregation and fascism? Should we go for that too?

Zeon ,

Seriously? This literally has nothing to do with segregation and facism.

vsis ,
@vsis@feddit.cl avatar

It's not FOSS and I don't see a way to review if what they claim is actually true.

It may be a way to just help to diferentiate legitimate human made work vs machine-generated ones, thus helping AI training models.

Can't demostrate that fact neither, because of its license that expressly forbids sofware adaptions to other uses.

Edit, alter, modify, adapt, translate or otherwise change the whole or any part of the Software
nor permit the whole or any part of the Software to be combined with or become incorporated
in any other software, nor decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer the Software or
attempt to do any such things

sauce: https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/downloads.html

JATtho ,

I read the article enough to find that the Nightshade tool is under EULA... :(

Because it definitely is not FOSS, use it with caution, preferably on a system not connected to internet.

nybble41 ,

The EULA also prohibits using Nightshade "for any commercial purpose", so arguably if you make money from your art—in any way—you're not allowed to use Nightshade to "poison" it.

Nommer ,

This is the part most people will ignore but I get that's it's mainly meant for big actors.

ScaredDuck ,

Won't this thing actually help the AI models in the long run? The biggest issue I've heard is the possibility of AI generated images getting into the training dataset, but "poisoned" artworks are basically guaranteed to be of human origin.

wildginger ,

Unless you intentionally poison AI generated images and add them to circulation, which is not hard to do nor a great leap of logic to do if you hate AI

cpjoa ,

Better poison everything, then

zwaetschgeraeuber ,

doesnt work anyway lol

HexesofVexes ,

Ah, another arms race has begun. Just be wary, what one person creates another will circumvent.

EmperorHenry ,
@EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I hope every artist starts using it.

AI art isn't real art.

h3rm17 ,

Your opinion, not a fact. Most art is as derivative or more than AI art.

Hadriscus ,

No, that's fact. AI-generated images aren't art. They're hallucinations without meaning or purpose.

zwaetschgeraeuber ,

you need to learn the difference between opinion and fact then

FellowEnt ,

What if it's 50/50 text-to-image and manual brush work?

shifted_drifter ,

Then it's multimedia art

FellowEnt ,

Does it stay multimedia art till it's 99% text-to-image or is there a cutoff?!

Chee_Koala ,

Just because some creator (or in your words hallucinator) did not intend meaning, does not prohibit or somehow prevent any beholder to still derive or instill meaning. Your weird comment is also art. The webpage or app we are viewing it on is art. Remember this?. The definition you use may suit you personally, but words are for communicating with others, and to most others it's definition will be crucially different than yours. Consider adjusting your view or the words you use.

Nommer ,

Stupid opinion. If I ask AI to draw an image, that has no meaning or purpose? So if I did the exact same thing with a pencil then it's suddenly art? AI is just a tool and people like you need to get over it or fully commit and say anything digital isn't art because a computer really did it. Anything made in Photoshop can't be art according to you because a program made it. Blender renders aren't art because a computer generated it. All you did in either case was tell it what to do.

Hadriscus ,

Do you reply to people this way in person ?

Nommer ,

If they're stupid yes.

Hadriscus ,

ok, well I guess good luck in this world

Nommer ,

You too. Maybe stop presenting your opinions as facts and maybe you'll get a better reply next time.

daellat ,

How can any human made art be more derivative than ai art that's impossible

EmperorHenry ,
@EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Ai doesn't create anything, it's not even real AI yet, it's just an automated data-scraper. When you tell it to "make" something, it just pulls up bits and pieces that match that description and forms it into a Frankenstein's monster of what you asked it to make

Wiz ,

I like the idea, but Nightshade and Glaze take some pretty high-end graphics specifications. Sadly, I have a Nvidia GTX 1660 which apparently has issues with Pytorch.😢

nodsocket ,

Wait I thought DRM was bad?

doctorcrimson ,

That's like saying stealing food from the homeless is the same as stealing paperclips from work. Everyone deserves at least credit for their work.

nodsocket ,

Even Sony?

yukijoou ,

sony isn't a person

kromem ,

This doesn't work outside of laboratory conditions.

It's the equivalent of "doctors find cure for cancer (in mice)."

bier ,

I like that example, everytime you hear about some discovery that x kills 100% of cancer cells in a petri dish. You always have to think, so does bleach.

Worx ,

Nice, maybe we should try injecting bleach. I heard it also cures Covid!

CancerMancer ,

You ever heard of Miracle Mineral Solution? It's bleach with extra steps and some of the 5G loonies give their autistic kids enemas with it to drive out the "toxins" giving their kids autism.

Wiz ,

It hasn't worked much outside of the laboratory, because they just released it from the laboratory. They've already proven it works in their paper with about 90% effectiveness.

Meowoem ,

It's clever really, people who don't like ai are very lonelye to also not understand the technology, if you're going to grift then it's a perfect set of rubes - tell them your magic code will defeat the evil magic code of the ai and that's all they need to know, fudge some numbers and they'll throw their money at you

Grippler ,

The tool is free...

wildginger ,

Its clever really, the people who hate protecting your art from usage you dont approve of are very likely to not understand the technology, if youre going to mock them theyre the perfect set of rubes.

Meowoem ,

And they never get any money off the back of it...

It's funny how people will willingly forget how the world works when they really want magic to be real.

Misconduct ,

What's not clever is making stuff up to not really make a point after typing a whole paragraph lmao

Miaou ,

Yeah I wouldn't take this number at face value, let's wait for some real world usage

M0oP0o ,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

They clam a credit to using AI to make the thumbnail..... The same people who did nothing more then ask Chat GPT to make a picture to represent the article on a tool that poisons AI models to protect people who make pictures for a living from having Chat GPT use their work to make; say a picture to represent an article on a tool that poisons AI models......

bonus_crab ,

big companies already have all your uncorrupted artwork, all this does is eliminate any new competition from cropping up.

BoneALisa ,
@BoneALisa@lemm.ee avatar

Good

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

because supporting monopolies is good? stifling competition and development is good? wut?

trolololol ,

Because stealing creative work is good /s

petrol_sniff_king ,

Only if I respect the product, buddy.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

you're a product.

BoneALisa ,
@BoneALisa@lemm.ee avatar

Whoda thunk one word isnt enough to describe my feelings lol.

Good as in startups shoukd be allowed to be founded around stolen data.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

so, established companies should be allowed to steal from start ups and release their products for less than startups could ever make them, effectively shutting out all competition forever?

or are you just a fucking hypocrite?

BoneALisa ,
@BoneALisa@lemm.ee avatar

No lol, no one should. Me saying AI tech startups shouldnt be allowed to use stolen data means i endorse existing companies who have already stolen it.

But just because companies have already done it also doesnt mean we should be allowing new companies to also do the same thing.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

fuck you're a stupid piece of shit. you're a fucking hypocrite.

BoneALisa ,
@BoneALisa@lemm.ee avatar

Lmao what? Please, explain to me how thinking neither new companies or existing companies should be allowed to be doing what their doing, is hypocritical.

Jyek ,

It corrupts the training data to recategorize all images generated in the future. It's not about protecting a single image, that's what glaze is for. This is about making the AI worse at making new images.

wildginger ,

"Its over jimmy. They stole the money you made last week. I would pay you for this week, with this money you didnt have yet so it couldnt be stolen, but they already have some of your money. All that would do is make the robbers who took your previous weeks pay have fewer competition."

LunchEnjoyer ,

Sorry if this is a stupid question.. But can this be used for profile pictures on social media too? That way if your profile picture is scrapped by some bot it will just poison the set instead?

reverendsteveii ,

is anyone else excited to see poisoned AI artwork? This might be the element that makes it weird enough.

Also, re: the guy lol'ing that someone says this is illegal - it might be. is it wrong? absolutely not. does the woefully broad computer fraud and abuse act contain language that this might violate? it depends, the CFAA has two requirements for something to be in violation of it.

  1. the act in question affects a government computer, a financial institution's computer, OR a computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication" (that last one is the biggie because it means that almost 100% of internet activity falls under its auspices)

  2. the act "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;" (with 'protected computer' being defined in 1)

Quotes are from the law directly, as quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

the poisoned artwork is information created with the intent of causing it to be transmitted to computers across state or international borders and damaging those computers. Using this technique to protect what's yours might be a felony in the US, and because it would be considered intentionally damaging a protected computer by the knowing transmission of information designed to cause damage, you could face up to 10 years in prison for it. Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft, they don't even have to give you some of the money they use your art to make, but if you try to stop them you go to prison for a decade.

The CFAA is the same law that Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz was prosecuted under. His crime was downloading things from JSTOR that he had a right to download as an account holder, but more quickly than they felt he should have. He was charged with 13 felonies and faced 50 years and over a million dollars in fines alongside a lifetime ban from ever using an internet connected computer again when he died by suicide. The charges were then dropped.

barsoap ,

"Damage to a computer" is legal logorrhoea, possible interpretations range from not even crashing a program to STUXNET, completely under-defined so it's up to the courts to give it meaning. I'm not at all acquainted with US precedent but I very much doubt they'll put the boundary at the very extreme of the space of interpretation, which "causes a program to expose a bug in itself without further affecting functioning in any way" indeed is.

Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft,

Learning from an image, studying it, is absolutely not theft. Otherwise I shall sue you for reading this comment of mine.

reverendsteveii ,

Damage to a computer” is legal logorrhoea

The model is the thing of value that is damaged.

Learning from an image is not theft

But making works derivative from someone else's copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.

locuester ,

So any art done in a style of another artist is theft? Of course not. Learning from looking at others is what all of us do. It’s far more complicated than you’re making it sound.

IMO, If the derivative that the model makes is too close to someone else’s, the person distributing such work would be at fault. Not the model itself.

But again, it’s very nuanced. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.

Miaou ,

Of course not, but what does this have to do with generative models? Deep learning has as much to do with learning as democratic people's north Korea does with democracy.

barsoap ,

The model is the thing of value that is damaged.

It does not get damaged, it stays as it is. Also it's a bunch of floats, not a computer.

But making works derivative from someone else’s copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.

"Derivative work" doesn't mean "inspired by". For a work to be derivative it needs to include major copyrightable elements of the original work(s). Things such as style aren't even copyrightable. Character design is, but then you should wonder whether you actually want to enforce that in non-commercial settings like fanart, even commissioned fanart, if e.g. Marvel doesn't care as long as you're not making movies or actual comics. They gain nothing from there not being, say, a Deadpool version of the Drake meme.

wikibot Bot ,

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U. S. C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^
^article^ ^|^ ^about^

pinkdrunkenelephants ,

And this is why we don't obey the law.

captainthroatfuck ,

It's not damaging a computer, it's poisoning the models ai uses to create the images. The program will work just fine, and as expected given the model that it has, the difference is the model might not be accurate. It's like saying you're breaking a screen if you're now looking at a low res version of an image

reverendsteveii ,

the models are worth money and are damaged. that's how the law will see it.

captainthroatfuck ,

My big thing here is if there's no contract, where is the onus for having correct models? Yah, the models are worth money, but is it the artist or softwares responsible for those correct models? I'd say most people who understand how software works would say software, unless they were corporate shills. Make better software, or pay the artists, the reaction shouldn't be "artists are fooling me, they should pay"

Taking it to an extreme. Say somehow they had this same software back in the 90s, could the generative software sue because all the images were in 256 colors? From your perspective, yes, cause it was messing up their models that are built for many more colors

mtchristo ,

I bet scientists will find a workaround very soon.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •