5 ms·

I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegall

I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?

tbalsam 3y ago
Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that gray area is where things do get dicey.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part. > Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here don't support that.
  - tbalsam 3y ago
    I would recommend at least on the legal side of things looking into the Duty of Care history, it's not necessarily intuitive though I think it makes sense in the end. As another person said, oftentimes it comes down to intent (though negligence can play a role in the matter as I personally understand).
- thethimble 3y ago
  I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?
  - tbalsam 3y ago
    Nightshade is intended to make minimal changes so I think that might be one argument though a difficult sell to some. The original post is mainly about the current legality, I'm torn as to what the moral balance is, but poisoning data is similar to a lot of historical asymmetrical methods of topical influence through intentional property destruction, and that's an issue. For example, the counterintuitive example of you poisoning a sandwich if your coworker is eating it makes you liable even if the original action is wrong on the coworker's part, if that makes sense. It's not necessarily an intuitive legal construct but a necessary one at least. That said, I think w.r.t. a final solution, grassroots vs big money legal will be the long-term playing field and I think efforts would be well spent on that. Though I worry about the perceived desperation of the field if people are this ready to poison open-field data in order to protect what they determine their own interests to be. I think that's the big marker here that we should look at and be worried about, usually when ignored that tends to preclude different types of issues/problems.

tbalsam 3y ago

Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that gray area is where things do get dicey.

BadHumans 3y ago
The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part. > Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here don't support that.
- tbalsam 3y ago
  I would recommend at least on the legal side of things looking into the Duty of Care history, it's not necessarily intuitive though I think it makes sense in the end. As another person said, oftentimes it comes down to intent (though negligence can play a role in the matter as I personally understand).
thethimble 3y ago
I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?
- tbalsam 3y ago
  Nightshade is intended to make minimal changes so I think that might be one argument though a difficult sell to some. The original post is mainly about the current legality, I'm torn as to what the moral balance is, but poisoning data is similar to a lot of historical asymmetrical methods of topical influence through intentional property destruction, and that's an issue. For example, the counterintuitive example of you poisoning a sandwich if your coworker is eating it makes you liable even if the original action is wrong on the coworker's part, if that makes sense. It's not necessarily an intuitive legal construct but a necessary one at least. That said, I think w.r.t. a final solution, grassroots vs big money legal will be the long-term playing field and I think efforts would be well spent on that. Though I worry about the perceived desperation of the field if people are this ready to poison open-field data in order to protect what they determine their own interests to be. I think that's the big marker here that we should look at and be worried about, usually when ignored that tends to preclude different types of issues/problems.