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.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    “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. 🤷‍♂️

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      using it to train their plagiarism machines

      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.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        | 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 :)

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Astarii_Tyler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

    • teichflamme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • teichflamme@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

            • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nah. In literally being proven right real time. You can set a reminder or something :)

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                11 months ago

                Not sure how you can be “right” to generally just shit on the concept of art and think it’s better replaced by ai.

                • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension my dude. Maybe use AI to help you out?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Also not every profession is entitled to income

        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.

        • Kedly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.”

            • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    This thread is incredibly disconnected to the point where it seems to be invaded by hobby artists that think too highly of themselves.

                • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  “Deserve” - clearly you don’t understand the issue at hand if you’re using definitions like this. There’s no “deserve” in art.