4 ms·
Artists can now poison their images to deter misuse by AI
- dang 3y agoComments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39058428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39058428.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brucethemoose2 3y agoWhat the article doesn't illustrate is that it destroys fine detail in the image, even in the thumbnails of the reference paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13828.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13828.pdf Also... Maybe I am naive, but it seems rather trivial to work around with a quick prefilter? I don't know if tradition denoising would be enough, but worst case you could run img2img diffusion.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago>misuse Do today's artists pay royalties to the classics of the past they "misuse" when they do studies in art school? I'm really getting tired of reading these sorts of articles. Clerks didn't complain this much when machines learned to do their work with index cards, they adapted and learned to integrate the march of labor saving technology into their workflow. Even programmers haven't been anywhere near this entitled, and our work is actually possible (and in fact easier) to mostly copy rather than actually learn the data patterns the hard way. Yet digital artists act as though they are being uniquely victimized by targeted flat piracy instead of just living in the era when a manufactured contraption is finally sophisticated enough to do what they did to learn their art. I'm generally much more sympathetic to complaints about piracy abd copyright violation than most of the HN hivemind seems to be, but it seems to me in this case another round of copy-that-floppy hysteria is gaining traction.