4 ms·
What are the best defenses for AI builders against malicious tools like this one?
by josephcsible 4y ago
What are the best defenses for AI builders against malicious tools like this one?
- esteth 4y agoAsking permission before building upon someone else's licensed work.
- sebzim4500 4y agoYou will never be able to train an image model by asking permission from every artist, unless you are Disney and train on every frame of your video library. In this case, you don't need to do anthing special to work around this tool, just do what everyone is already doing and resize all your training images to a common size, thus defeating Glaze entirely.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kweingar 4y agoIf training AI models on these images is fair game, then artists publishing images that are adversarial to the model is also fair game. Regardless of your stance on the AI art/IP debate, it seems enormously hypocritical for AI builders to say that they not only have the moral right to use images against the artists’ wishes, but that the artists also have a moral obligation to provide these AI builders with clear, denoised versions of their work. Edit: if you use a tool to thwart internet data collection systems, thus making your data less useful for advertisers, are the data collectors justified in bitterly calling you a “malicious user”?
- josephcsible 4y agoI'm not saying that artists shouldn't be allowed to perform this attack. I'm just asking how it should be defended against. E.g., in football, asking "how do I defend my team's quarterback from a blitz?" is not the same as saying "I think the rules of football should be changed to prohibit blitzing".
- kweingar 4y agoIt is the word “malicious” that added venom to your first question. If I asked how artists can thwart “malicious” tools like Midjourney, you could reasonably assume that I disapprove of Midjourney and think they ought to stop doing what they do.
- josephcsible 4y agoThat is the way artists often talk about tools like Midjourney. I chose that word exactly to turn the tables and call attention to that implicit venom on their part.
- egypturnash 4y agoWhat are best ways for burglars to defend against malicious tools like alarms, locks, and security patrols? What are the best ways for crackers to defend against malicious tools like copy protection?
- josephcsible 4y agoBurglary is bad whether a human or some kind of a robot does it. There's nothing wrong with an art school taking students to a museum to look at established artists' work. Isn't training AI on existing art the equivalent of that? If so, why does it being AI instead of human make it bad? If not, what's the difference?
- MattRix 4y agoNo they are not the same. An artist taking time and effort to study and learn a new art style is not the same as an company writing a program that gobbles up every image on the internet. There is a fundamental difference between when a human does it and a machine does it. I feel like this is obvious and yet people keep making this argument for some reason.
- 4y ago
- ilyt 4y agoSo, wouldn't licensing image with clause "can not be used for AI learning" solve that ?
- pretendscholar 4y agoMake models that work without freeloading.
- bakugo 4y ago> trying to stop me from stealing your art is malicious Yep, this is exactly the kind of take I'd expect from the AI crowd.
- burnished 4y agoThe thing about theft is that it involves deprivation of an asset or resource. Calling it stealing seems overwrought.
- egypturnash 4y agoCall it piracy, then. Except instead of lone crackers breaking the protection on products of big corporations, it's corporations hoovering up the works of zillions of individuals, running it through their copyright-washing algorithm, and selling the results.
- zirgs 4y agoThe AI learned about copyrighted characters largely from marketing materials. So why should corpos be able to force me to watch the ad for, say, the latest Iron Man movie, but at the same time say that I'm stealing from them when I use that ad to train the AI?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- burnished 4y agoGuess what my stance on 'piracy' is.
- egypturnash 4y agoAh, so, the tragedy of the commons: you'll happily pirate every digital good you want, relying on others to make it worth its creators' time and resources to make it. Awesome.
- noobermin 4y agoCalling this "malicious" is a bit telling. It sounds like a thief calling a lock malicious. I know this isn't the typical response here (I hope not) but it does sound like you particularly do think that training on art inputs is theft at some level.
- CatWChainsaw 4y agoProvide a cogent argument for why you are entitled to art that a given artist does not want in training sets and is clearly communicating that intent with this tool, in a similar manner to software licensing or copyrighting. Or just... downvote, lol. best argument ever, HN intellectual debate on full display.
- usrbinbash 4y agoHow is this tool "clearly communicating" that intent? The tool changes the image. Okay. So does cropping, changing color composition and a gazillion other things. Wanna clearly communicate that intent? robots.txt. Exif data. Attributes in `<img>` elements.
- x-complexity 4y ago> What are the best defenses for AI builders against malicious tools like this one? Technically? Incorporate Glaze into the training process. Glaze takes advantage of an ML model's fragility towards noise and uses that against the model. The simplest way of incorporation is to run Glaze on all of the training data, whilst duplicating Glaze, reductively speaking, is the adversarial part of a GAN, wherein MidJourney/SD is the generator part of the whole system. What's happening now is that the adversarial part of the GAN is purposefully producing noise to throw the generator off of its rocking horse, and now the generator needs to learn to "remove" said noise when training.