308
Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
308 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59582 readers
2808 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
Right, if you post publicly, expect it to be used publicly
Yeah, no. There's a difference between posting your work for someone to enjoy, and posting it to be used in a commercial enterprise with no recompense to you.
Wait until you find out how human artists learn.
They learn completely different from an AI model, considering an AI model cannot learn
Prove it.
And you don't see how those two things are different?
And you don't see how those two things are similar?
How are you going to stop that lol it's ridiculous. Would you stop a corporate suit from viewing your painting because they might learn how to make a similar one? It's makes absolutely zero sense and I can't believe delulus online are failing to comprehend such simple concept of "computers being able to learn".
Ah yes, just because lockpickers can enter a house suddenly everyone's allowed to break and enter. 🙄
What a terrible analogy for learning 🙄
It’s not learning
It is. You should try it sometimes.
You're not learning, that much is obvious.
Computers can’t learn. I’m really tired of seeing this idea paraded around.
You’re clearly showing your ignorance here. Computers do not learn, they create statistical models based on input data.
A human seeing a piece of art and being inspired isn’t comparable to a machine reducing that to 1’s and 0’s and then adjusting weights in a table somewhere. It does not “understand” the concept, nor did it “learn” about a new piece of art.
Enforcement is simple. Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright against every artist who’s art was used illegally to train the model. If the copyright holders of all the training data are compensated and have opt-in agreed to be used for training then, and only then would the output of the model be able to be used.
There's no copyright violation, you said it yourself, any output is just the result of a statistical model and the original art would be under fair use derivative work (If it falls under copyright at all)
Considering most models can spit out training data, that’s not a true statement. Training data may not be explicitly saved, but it can be retrieved from these models.
Existing copyright law can’t be applied here because it doesn’t cover something like this.
It 100% should be a copyright infringement for every image generated using the stolen work of others.
You can get it to spit out something very close, maybe even exact depending on how much of your art was used in the training (Because that would make your style influence the weights and model more)
But that's no different than me tracing your art or taking samples of your art to someone else and paying them to make an exact copy, in that case that specific output is a copyright violation. Just because it can do that, doesn't mean every output is suddenly a copyright violation.
However since it’s required to use all of the illegally obtained and in-licensed work to create it, it is a copyright violation, just as tracing over something would be. Again, existing copyright law cannot be applied here because this technology works in a vastly different way than a human artist.
A hard line has to be made that will protect artists. I’d prefer it go even farther in protecting individual copyright while weakening overall copyright for corporate owners.
It what jurisdiction is it illegal?
And is "obtained" even the right word?...
There’s currently multiple lawsuits in the courts to decide just that.
If they’re scraping the internet to add to a database of training data, I’d consider that obtaining and storing the work.
Except they're not storing the work. They store information about the work.
It's literally in the name. Machine learning. Ignorance is not an excuse.
That’s just one of the dumbest things I’ve heard.
Naming has nothing to do with how the tech actually works. Ignorance isn’t an excuse. Neither is stupidity
And yet you wield both!
Are you actually suggesting that if I post a drawing of a dog, Disney should be allowed to use it in a movie and not compensate me?
Everyone should be assumed to be able to look at it, learn from it, and add your style to their artistic toolbox. That's an intrinsic property of all art. When you put it on display, don't be surprised or outraged when people or AIs look at it.
AI does not learn and transform something like a human does. I have no problem with human artists taking inspiration, I do have a problem with art being reduced to a soulless generation that requires stealing real artists work to create something that isn’t original.
you don't know how humans learn and transform something
regardless, it does learn and transform something
But they do learn. How human-like that learning may be isn't relevant. A parrot learns to talk differently than a human does too, but African greys can still hold a conversation. Likewise, when an AI learns how to make art by studying what others have made, they may not do it in exactly the same way a human does it, but the products of the process are their own creations just as much as the creations of human artists that parrot other human artists' styles and techniques.
Ofc not, that's way different, that's beyond the use of public use.
If I browse to your Instagram, look at some of your art, record some numbers about it, observe your style and then leave that's perfectly fine right? If I then took my numbers and observations from your art and everybody else's that I looked and merged them together to make my own style that would also be fine right? Well that's AI, that's all it does on a simple level
But they are still profiting off of it. Dall-E doesn't make images out of the kindness of OpenAI's heart. They're a for-profit company. That really doesn't make it different from Disney, does it?
Sure, Dall-E has a profit motive, but then what about all the open source models that are trained on the same or similar data and artworks?
You've strayed very far from:
What is the difference between Dall-E scraping the art and an open source model doing it other than Dall-E making money at it? It's still using it publicly.
I didn't really stray far, you brought up that Dall-E has a profit motive and I acknowledged that yea that was true, but there also open source models that don't