Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators::As AI developers indiscriminately suck up online content to train their models, artists are seeking ways to fight back.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”.

        • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah yes, just because lockpickers can enter a house suddenly everyone’s allowed to break and enter. 🙄

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            they create statistical models based on input data.

            Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright

            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)

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

              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.

            • BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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

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

      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?

      • Delta_V@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Delta_V@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            AI does not learn and transform something like a human does.

            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.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?