309
Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
309 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59039 readers
3369 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
"Just don't make a living with your art if you aren't okay with AI venture capitalists using it to train their plagiarism machines without getting permission from you or compensating you in any way!"
If y'all hate artists so much then only interact with AI content and see how much you enjoy it. 🤷♂️
That's simply not how AI works, if you look inside the models after training, you will not see a shred of the original training data. Just a bunch of numbers and weights.
| Just a bunch of numbers and weights
I agree with your sentiment, but it's not just that the data is encoded as a model, but it's extremely lossy. Compression, encoding, digital photography, etc is just turning pictures into different numbers to be processed by some math machine. It's the fact that a huge amount of information is actually lost during training, intentionally, that makes a huge difference. If it was just compression, it would be a gaming changing piece of tech for other reasons. YouTube would be using it today, but it is not good at keeping the original data from the training.
Rant not really for you, but in case someone else nitpicks in the future :)
If the individual images are so unimportant then it won't be a problem to only train it on images you have the rights to.
They do have the rights because this falls under fair use, It doesn't matter if a picture is copyrighted as long as the outcome is transformative.
I'm sure you know something the Valve lawyers don't.
It has literally nothing to do with plagiarism.
Every artist has looked at other art for inspiration. It's the most common thing in the world. Literally what you do in art school.
It's not an artist any more than a xerox machine is. It hasn't gone to art school. It doesn't have thoughts, ideas, or the ability to create. It can only take and reuse what has already been created.
The ideas are what the prompts and fine tuning is for. If you think it's literally copying an existing piece of art you just lack understanding because that's not how it works at all.
It has nothing to do with AI venture capitalists. Also not every profession is entitled to income, some are fine to remain as primarily hobbies.
AI art is replacing corporate art which is not something we should be worried about. Less people working on that drivel is a net good for humanity. If can get billions of hours wasted on designing ads towards real meaningful contributions we should added billions extra hours to our actual productivity. That is good.
The ratio of using AI to replace ad art:fraud/plagiarism has to be somewhere around 1:1000.
“Actual productivity” is a nonsense term when it comes to art. Why is this
less “meaningful” than this? 
Without checking the source, can you even tell which one is art for an ad and which isn’t?
I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy
I'm not sure what's your point here? Majority of art is drivel. Most art is produced for marketing. Literally. If that can be automated away what are we losing here? McDonald's logos? Not everything needs to be a career.
What a shitty shitty shitty take
Nah. In literally being proven right real time. You can set a reminder or something :)
Not sure how you can be "right" to generally just shit on the concept of art and think it's better replaced by ai.
Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension my dude. Maybe use AI to help you out?
Maybe AI can write your shitty dipshit responses for you so you can devote your free time to getting art class taken out of schools or something equally moronic?
Clearly all you can do is throw strawmans out when you finally clear up that your argument makes no reasonable sense.
Lol what a fuck
Yes it is. Otherwise it is not a profession. People go to school for years to become professional artists. They are absolutely entitled to income.
But hey, you want your murals painted by robots and your wall art printed out, have fun. I'm not interested in your brave new world.
The robots are far better at giving me what I want than humans ever were, so yeah, I I ironically am stoked for robot wall art and murals
I'm literally a professional artist lol
So you think you're not entitled to income from your work? That doesn't sound like something a professional would say. "I'm obsolete, don't pay me."
Nah I understand what's going on. AI is not replacing real artists. It's replacing sweatshops. And even when it will eventually replace most of art grunt work we'll find something more interesting to do like curate the art, mix, match, add extra meta layers and so on.
This closed mind protectionism is just silly. Not only it's not sustainable because you will never win it's also incredibly desperate. No real artist would cry and whine here when given this super power.
Also pay is not everything in life. Maybe think about that for a second when you discuss art
Pay is not everything in life, but it does buy things like paint and canvases.
And I really have to question a self-proclaimed professional artist saying, again, that artists do not deserve to be paid for their work.
No, they don't.
Work has to have value.
Some work - some art - has value. Some does not.
Sometimes you spend money and buy lumber and build a chair and you can sell it because it is worth something to someone. Sometimes it's shit and goes in the trash.
Just because you made a chair doesn't mean you get money.
This thread is incredibly disconnected to the point where it seems to be invaded by hobby artists that think too highly of themselves.
"Deserve" - clearly you don't understand the issue at hand if you're using definitions like this. There's no "deserve" in art.