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.

  • V H@lemmy.stad.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Society is built to distribute wealth, so that everyone can live a decent life.

    As a goal, I admire it, but if you intend this as a description of how things are it’d be boundlessly naive.

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s absolutely not how it is now, just the goal we should set for ourselves. A goal I believe we should consider when regulating AI

      • V H@lemmy.stad.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        To me, that’s not an argument for regulating AI, though, because most regulation we can come up with will benefit those with deep enough pockets to buy themselves out of the problem, while solving nothing.

        E.g. as I’ve pointed out in other debates like this, Getty Images has a market cap of <$2bn. OpenAI may have had a valuation in the $90bn range. Google, MS, Adobe all also have shares prices that would trivially allow them to purchase someone like Getty to get ownership of a large training set of photos. Adobe already has rights to a huge selection via their own stock service.

        Bertelsmann owns Penguin Random-House and a range ofter publishing subsidiaries. It’s market cap is around 15 billion Euro. Also well within price for a large AI contender to buy to be able to insert clauses about AI rights. (You think authors will refuse to accept that? All but the top sellers will generally be unable to afford to turn down a publishing deal, especially if it’s sugar-coated enough, but they also sit on a shit-ton of works where the source text is out-of-copyright but they own the right to the translations outright as works-for-hire)

        That’s before considering simply hiring a bunch of writers and artists to produce data for hire.

        So any regulation you put in place to limit the use of copyrighted works only creates a “tax” effectively.

        E.g. OpenAI might not be able to copy artist X’s images, but they’ll be able to hire artist Y on the cheap to churn out art in artist X’s style for hire, and then train on that. They might not be able to use author Z’s work, but they can hire a bunch of hungry writers (published books sells ca 200 copies on average; the average full time author in the UK earns below minimum wage from their writing) as a content farm.

        The net result for most creators will be the same.

        Even wonder why Sam Altmann of OpenAI has been lobbying about the dangers of AI? This is why. And its just the start. As soon as these companies have enough capital to buy themselves access for data, regulations preventing training on copyrighted data will be them pulling up the drawbridge and making it cost-prohibitive for people to build open, publicly accessible models in ways that can be legally used.

        And in doing so they’ll effectively get to charge an “AI tax” on everyone else.

        If we’re going to protect artists, we’d be far better off finding other ways of compensating them for the effects, not least because it will actually provide them some protection.

        • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          UBI is the known solution to protect workers. Solution is there, people aren’t ready for it

          • V H@lemmy.stad.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            As long as people aren’t ready for it, then it doesn’t solve the immediate problem that needs to be solved today.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol.

            How does UBI break trademark and copyright law (and therefore legal cases)?

            Do you really think the current power brokers will suddenly sit in their hands and stop trying to (mostly successfully) control as much as they can?

            • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              UBI is needed because most of the jobs people are currently doing are already not needed. They are needed just to redistribute wealth, but most of the jobs are currently already useless (if you work in corporate, public sector or retail you know what I am talking about). In the future more will become useless. Current copyright laws are already outdated and don’t work anymore. Only safe solution for people who want to dedicate their lives to visual art is UBI. Because of the known reasons. Most “artists” are not really doing art, simply a job for entertainment industry that in the future will be done by much fewer people due to technological and organizational changes. As it is already happening now, even before AI.

              UBI is a solution for similar situations, that will be even more common in future. We need better solutions to redistribute wealth, from what you call “power brokers” to larger society