309
Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You've strayed very far from:

    if you post publicly, expect it to be used publicly

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •