A new tool lets artists add invisible changes to the pixels in their art before they upload it online so that if it’s scraped into an AI training set, it can cause the resulting model to break in chaotic and unpredictable ways.

The tool, called Nightshade, is intended as a way to fight back against AI companies that use artists’ work to train their models without the creator’s permission.
[…]
Zhao’s team also developed Glaze, a tool that allows artists to “mask” their own personal style to prevent it from being scraped by AI companies. It works in a similar way to Nightshade: by changing the pixels of images in subtle ways that are invisible to the human eye but manipulate machine-learning models to interpret the image as something different from what it actually shows.

  • 0xD@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t see a problem with it training on all materials, fuck copyright. I see the problem in it infringing on everyone’s copyright and then being proprietary, monetized bullshit.

    If it trains on an open dataset, it must be completely and fully open. Everything else is peak capitalism.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not owed nor entitled to an artist’s time and work for free.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Of course not, it’s the artists decision to put it on the internet for free.

        Technically that’s the root of the issue. This does not grant a license to everyone who looks at it, but if a license is required to train a model is unclear and currently discussed in court.

        • kayrae_42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is the only way for artists to get people to see and eventually buy their art or commissions is to post some of their work publicly. Historically you would go out on the street and set up a stall, now social media is our digital street. Galleries don’t take everyone, having the ability to even get a meeting with one is difficult without the right connections. Most artists are never successful enough to completely live off their art, if they can make any money at all it is great for them. Then along comes an AI model that takes their work because it’s on the internet scrapes it into its training set and now any chance they had in an over saturated market is even smaller, because hey, I can just do this with AI. This idea that copyright and IP shouldn’t exist at all is kinda absurd. Would you just go through a street art walk, take high res photos of every picture they have on display, not take any business cards, and when they ask what you are doing, go “it’s ok, I’m training an AI data model so people can just make work that looks exactly like this. They shouldn’t have to ever buy from you. Capitalism is a joke. Bye!” The art walk was free, but it was also a sales pitch, because that’s how the art world works. You are hoping to get seen, that someone likes it enough to buy, and maybe buy more.

          • V H@lemmy.stad.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            This idea that copyright and IP shouldn’t exist at all is kinda absurd.

            For the majority of human existence, that was the default.

            Copyright exists as an explicit tradeoff between the rights of the public to be able to do as they please with stuff introduced into the public sphere, and a legal limitation infringing on the publics liberty for a limited time for the purpose of encouraging the creation of more works for the public benefit. It was not introduced as some sort of inherent right, but as a trade between the public and creators to incentivise them.

            Stripping it away from existing artists who has come to depend on it without some alternative would be grossly unfair, but there’s nothing absurd about wanting to change the bargain over time. After all, that has been done many times, and the copyright we have now is vastly different and far more expansive and lengthy than early copyright protection.

            Personally, I’d be in favour of finding alternative means of supporting creators and stripping back copyright as a tradeoff. The vast majority of creators earn next to nothing from their works; only a very tiny minority makes a livable wage of art of any form at all, and of the rest the vast majority of profits take place in a very short period of initial exploitation of a work, so we could allow the vast majority to earn more from their art relatively cheaply, and affect the rest to a relatively limited degree, while benefiting from the reduced restrictions.

            • kayrae_42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree that copyright lasts far too long, but the idea I can post a picture today, and in a hour it’s in an AI model without my consent bothers me. Historically there was a person to person exchange. But now we are so detached from it all I don’t think we can have that same affordance of no types of protections. I’m not saying one person can solve this. But I don’t see UBI or anything like that ever happening. As a person who has lived on disability most of their life, people don’t like to share their wealth with anyone for any reason. I’ve never been able to sell art for a living and am now going to school for data science. So I know about both ends of this. Just scraping without consent is unethical and many who do this have no idea about the art world or how artist create in general.

              • V H@lemmy.stad.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I doesn’t need to be full on UBI. In a lot of countries grants mechanisms and public purchasing mechanisms for art already make up a significant proportion of income for artists. Especially in smaller countries, this is very common (more so for literary works, movies and music where language provides a significant barrier to accessing a bigger audience, but for other art too). Imagine perhaps a tax/compulsory licensing mechanism that doesn’t stop AI training but instead massively expands those funding sources for people whose data are included in training sets.

                This is not stoppable, not least because it’s “too cheap” to buy content outright.

                I pointed out elsewhere that e.g. OpenAI could buy all of Getty Images for ~2% of their currently estimated market cap based on a rumoured recent cash infusion. Financing vast amounts of works for hire just creates a moat for smaller players while the big players will still be able to keep improving their models.

                As such it will do nothing to protect established artists, so we need expansion of ways to fund artists whether or not inclusion of copyrighted works in training sets becomes restricted.

                • kayrae_42@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Those grants, and public purchases make up a significant portion of income for established main stream artists. If you work on commission only online, or never went to art school those won’t cover you.

                  These large tech companies become so highly valued at the start because of venture capital and then in 5-10 years collapse under their own weight. How many of these have come up and are now close to drowning after pushing out all competitors? Sorry if I’m not excited about an infusion of cash into a large for profit company that is just gobbling up anything anyone posts online without consent to make a quick buck.

                  I’m not against AI. I’m against the ethics of AI at the moment because it’s awful. And AI leans into biases it finds and there are not a lot of oversights on this.

                  • V H@lemmy.stad.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If you work on commission only online, or never went to art school those won’t cover you.

                    There’s no reason it has to stay like that. And most people in that position are not making a living from art as it is; expanding public funding to cover a large proportion of working artists at a better level than today would cost a pittance.

                    These large tech companies become so highly valued at the start because of venture capital and then in 5-10 years collapse under their own weight. How many of these have come up and are now close to drowning after pushing out all competitors? Sorry if I’m not excited about an infusion of cash into a large for profit company that is just gobbling up anything anyone posts online without consent to make a quick buck.

                    MS, Apple, Meta, Google etc. are massively profitable. OpenAI is not, but sitting on a huge hoard of Microsoft cash. It doesn’t matter that many are close to drowning. The point is the amount of cash floating around that enable the big tech companies to outright buy more than enough content if they have to means that regulation to prevent them from gobbling up anything anyone posts online without consent will not stop them. So that isn’t a solution. It will stop new entrants with little cash, but not the big ones. And even OpenAI can afford to buy up some of the largest content owners in the world.

                    The point was not to make you excited about that, but to illustrate that fighting a battle to restrict what they can train on is fighting a battle that the big AI companies won’t care if they lose - they might even be better off if they lose, because if they lose, while they’ll need to pay more money to buy content, they won’t have competition from open models or new startups for a while.

                    So we need to find other solutions, because whether or not we regulate copyright to training data, these models will continue to improve. The cat is out of the bag, and the computational cost to improving these models keeps dropping. We’re also just a few years away from people being able to train models competitive to present-day models on computers within reach of hobbyists, so even if we were to ban these models outright artists will soon compete with output from them anyway, no matter the legality.

                    Focusing on the copyright issue is a distraction from focusing on ensuring there is funding for art. One presumes the survival of only one specific model that doesn’t really work very well even today and which is set to fail irrespective of regulation, while the latter opens up the conversation to a much broader set of options and has at least a chance of providing working possibilities.

          • Turun@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This idea that copyright and IP shouldn’t exist at all is kinda absurd

            I don’t hold this opinion at all.

            I’m just saying that there are uses for which you don’t need a license. Say, visiting an art exhibition and then going home and trying to draw similar pictures. Wether AI training falls into this category or instead requires a license is currently unclear.

            Btw, two spaces before the line break
            Creates the spacing you want.

            • kayrae_42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              As an artist who studies data science, I would say doing art and generating art are an entirely different process. AI has no reference outside of the information we give it. It had no real understanding of lighting, spacial awareness. We can tell it every tank is a cat, every flashlight is a pig and it will never question it. If we tell a toddler that every tank is a cat, they may call a tank a cat, but they will never think a that “cat” is a house pet. They will never think that “pig” will oink or be turned into steaks. An AI however would if your language conventions were the same in the prompt.

              If you go to the art walk and go home and try to recreate a style, you were inspired. If an AI model is trained on many styles and you tell it “portrait, woman, Van Gogh style, painterly, blue tones” then do you understand what you asked for? Was the ai inspired by Van Gogh? Did the ai study his techniques? No. It broke down his art pixel by pixel, rearranged it in a filter styled overlay over a woman, most likely a young woman-because of algorithmic bias which has been studied- in shades of blue. Humans take the time to study the why, the how. Ai does not. Humans are not just meat robots.

              I should say I’m not against AI art. I’m against gathering against consent. If it was opt in, or if there was some type of pay for program that would be fine. Even if it was pennies each month. But the fact that they scrape without consent. Or are now going back and adding it into TOS where it never was before feels scummy. AI art has a place, and is a helpful tool. But it’s not a replacement for artists, it has many flaws still, that might never be worked out.

              Thank you for helping me with line break.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am perfectly entitled to type random stuff into google images, pick out images for a mood board and some as reference, regardless of their copyright status, thank you. Studying is not infringement.

        It’s what every artist does, it’s perfectly legal, and what those models do is actually even less infringing because they’re not directly looking at your picture of a giraffe and my picture of a zebra when drawing a zebra-striped giraffe, they’re doing it from memory.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And if you think that working with AI does not take effort you either did not try, or don’t have an artistic bone in your body. Randos typing “Woman with huge bazingas” into an UI and hitting generate don’t get copyright on the output, rightly so: Not just did they not do anything artistic, they also overlook all the issues with whatever gets generated because they lack the trained eye of an artist.