6 ms·

This is going to be an arms race. Inevitably Glaze will be thwarted, and a new version will need to be made. Generative art models will always have the advanta

This is going to be an arms race. Inevitably Glaze will be thwarted, and a new version will need to be made. Generative art models will always have the advantage in this fight. For them, they just need to crack the protection and update their model. For artists who want to protect their work, they’ll have to continually update their whole portfolio of images and republish them whenever a new version of Glaze comes out (and attempt to ensure that their images with old versions of Glaze don’t end up in a training set, which will be difficult if not impossible).

falcolas 4y ago
On the “plus” side, glaze will cost commercial AI model creators both time and money. And they won’t really hurt academic research use cases. Kind of a David and Goliath situation (yes, David is an acknowledged sniper).
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > And they won’t really hurt academic research use cases. How do you figure?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    It’s just additional data to academics - something that helps them identify issues and hallucinations in their models. They’re not trying to produce sellable images; free adversarial images are useful to them.
    - j16sdiz 4y ago
      > ; free adversarial images are useful to them. Only if they were correctly tagged/ labelled. Of course, academics always have access to cheap labour, aka undergrads.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      How is that not also true to commercial AI model creators who will train against these adversarial images?
egypturnash 4y ago
Imagine a GUI-less version of Glaze designed to be plugged into other systems. Stuff it into a plugin for your portfolio CMS. Add it to the popular gallery site you run. Add it to the tool you use to post art to a half-dozen galleries with one click. When a new version of Glaze comes out, update it, and push the button that starts to re-glaze the original copies of the uploaded images, and replaces the publicly-displayed stuff.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Imagine a CMS that takes 40 minutes to return a single image. More seriously, reglazing old images isn't very helpful, since they will amost always be already in training datasets by that point.
  - wokwokwok 4y ago
    Well... 1) That's not how it works. LAION is a set of urls, not images. Actually distributing the images would be blatant copyright infringement and, even if you don't care, is prohibitively massive. So, yes, modifying the source images will be effective against new players who want to scrape the dataset... and yes, as the tech to 'build your own stable diffusion' becomes more commoditized, you can be 100% assured that multiple groups will be doing it in the future. ...this also has a FAQ that states even a limited number of poisoned images (eg. most recent art by Greg) can cause artifacting in outputs. 2) ...but more importantly, are you joking? Artists complain and artstation does what, update their TOS? That obviously does nothing. So, companies start inventing this anti-ai watermarking tech that shops like deviantart and artstation can pickup and put into their pipelines and make into a pro-feature. If you think it's not going to happen, you are 100% deluding yourself. The playbook is so obvious, I'd be amazed if it's not already a WIP for these places. Artist friendly. Make money. Big players can work around it and small players are screwed out of any good images to use for training. It's going to happen. 3) '40 minutes to return a single image...' Oh come on. Are you objecting because you think the process has no technical merits, or because you don't like it? Technically, this isn't a limitation. These places already have massive image processing pipelines for resizing, thumbnailing, etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Avicebron 4y ago
Right, so off the bat, if you're going into a situation with your generative art model, and you're first thought is, "we're totally going to break through this attempt at someone trying to protect their artwork"....aren't you automatically in the wrong?
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Wrong? It's just a fact that generative AI can simply train against these "protected" images. I don't think the parent said anything about ethics, if this is even an ethical issue in the first place.
- userbinator 4y ago
  Not if you don't believe in Imaginary Property.
  - wwweston 4y ago
    All property is imaginary. It also turns out to be useful in often helping human beings coexist relatively peacefully and sometimes negotiating mutual interests productively, so like a number of things that don't exist until enough people agree to conduct themselves as if they do, it's probably a good idea in general. Intellectual property has some distinct characteristics, but it's fundamentally the same. And assuming entitlement to any available data for ingestion into a training set without a moment's regard to the labor and agency of the people who produced it has things in common with the ethic of a thief who, coming upon your stuff, decides that if they can take it, it's theirs, society's construction of property be damned.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Except that intellectual property can be copied while leaving the original behind, but this is a centuries-old debate and I doubt we'll break new ground going 'round the mulberry bush about it again here. (... I'm literally wearing a "YOU WOULDN'T REIMPLEMENT AN API" t-shirt as I type this.)

falcolas 4y ago

On the “plus” side, glaze will cost commercial AI model creators both time and money. And they won’t really hurt academic research use cases. Kind of a David and Goliath situation (yes, David is an acknowledged sniper).

josephcsible 4y ago
> And they won’t really hurt academic research use cases. How do you figure?
- falcolas 4y ago
  It’s just additional data to academics - something that helps them identify issues and hallucinations in their models. They’re not trying to produce sellable images; free adversarial images are useful to them.
  - j16sdiz 4y ago
    > ; free adversarial images are useful to them. Only if they were correctly tagged/ labelled. Of course, academics always have access to cheap labour, aka undergrads.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    How is that not also true to commercial AI model creators who will train against these adversarial images?

egypturnash 4y ago

Imagine a GUI-less version of Glaze designed to be plugged into other systems. Stuff it into a plugin for your portfolio CMS. Add it to the popular gallery site you run. Add it to the tool you use to post art to a half-dozen galleries with one click. When a new version of Glaze comes out, update it, and push the button that starts to re-glaze the original copies of the uploaded images, and replaces the publicly-displayed stuff.

sebzim4500 4y ago
Imagine a CMS that takes 40 minutes to return a single image. More seriously, reglazing old images isn't very helpful, since they will amost always be already in training datasets by that point.
- wokwokwok 4y ago
  Well... 1) That's not how it works. LAION is a set of urls, not images. Actually distributing the images would be blatant copyright infringement and, even if you don't care, is prohibitively massive. So, yes, modifying the source images will be effective against new players who want to scrape the dataset... and yes, as the tech to 'build your own stable diffusion' becomes more commoditized, you can be 100% assured that multiple groups will be doing it in the future. ...this also has a FAQ that states even a limited number of poisoned images (eg. most recent art by Greg) can cause artifacting in outputs. 2) ...but more importantly, are you joking? Artists complain and artstation does what, update their TOS? That obviously does nothing. So, companies start inventing this anti-ai watermarking tech that shops like deviantart and artstation can pickup and put into their pipelines and make into a pro-feature. If you think it's not going to happen, you are 100% deluding yourself. The playbook is so obvious, I'd be amazed if it's not already a WIP for these places. Artist friendly. Make money. Big players can work around it and small players are screwed out of any good images to use for training. It's going to happen. 3) '40 minutes to return a single image...' Oh come on. Are you objecting because you think the process has no technical merits, or because you don't like it? Technically, this isn't a limitation. These places already have massive image processing pipelines for resizing, thumbnailing, etc.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Avicebron 4y ago

Right, so off the bat, if you're going into a situation with your generative art model, and you're first thought is, "we're totally going to break through this attempt at someone trying to protect their artwork"....aren't you automatically in the wrong?

satvikpendem 4y ago
Wrong? It's just a fact that generative AI can simply train against these "protected" images. I don't think the parent said anything about ethics, if this is even an ethical issue in the first place.
userbinator 4y ago
Not if you don't believe in Imaginary Property.
- wwweston 4y ago
  All property is imaginary. It also turns out to be useful in often helping human beings coexist relatively peacefully and sometimes negotiating mutual interests productively, so like a number of things that don't exist until enough people agree to conduct themselves as if they do, it's probably a good idea in general. Intellectual property has some distinct characteristics, but it's fundamentally the same. And assuming entitlement to any available data for ingestion into a training set without a moment's regard to the labor and agency of the people who produced it has things in common with the ethic of a thief who, coming upon your stuff, decides that if they can take it, it's theirs, society's construction of property be damned.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Except that intellectual property can be copied while leaving the original behind, but this is a centuries-old debate and I doubt we'll break new ground going 'round the mulberry bush about it again here. (... I'm literally wearing a "YOU WOULDN'T REIMPLEMENT AN API" t-shirt as I type this.)