4 ms·

It's snake oil, and it'd be snake oil even if it worked. I've yet to hear of it doing anything. I've never heard anyone in an AI group worried about it in any

It's snake oil, and it'd be snake oil even if it worked. I've yet to hear of it doing anything. I've never heard anyone in an AI group worried about it in any way. No "damn, Glaze ruined my LoRA". To the extent anyone talks about it, it's either non-technical artist groups, or AI groups where somebody intentionally sets out to play with it to see if they can actually make it do something. But even if it worked in its intended scope, even then it'd be snake oil. Because you can't defeat every AI system simultaneously. Flaws can be exploited, but flaws aren't guaranteed to (and almost certainly won't be) conserved on the long term. So anything that works now isn't going to work tomorrow. And defending against known models today is pointless because they were already successfully created. The whole idea of attacking an already finished product is a fundamentally flawed approach, and would only possibly work in extremely unlikely and contrived cases. Like v1 not being very good, so the model's maker for some reason decided to pull in additional data, long past a well published adversarial attack on v1, and incorporate that into v2.

techjamie 10mo ago
I wonder if it's a matter of the relative usage of those tools being very small compared to what already exists, and the few artists that want to muddy their work fir it. But even if it was significant, I'm sure the next thing to release would be AI models designed to try and revert nightshade/glaze changes into something that works again. I wonder if one could do something to protect images in a similar way that Anubis protects webpages from scrapers. Where the data sent from the server is mathematically obfuscated such that the client has to do some heavy calculating to get the final product. It wouldn't stop an individual from collecting a small sample set, but it would discourage mass scraping.
- dale_glass 10mo ago
  > But even if it was significant, I'm sure the next thing to release would be AI models designed to try and revert nightshade/glaze changes into something that works again. I don't think it's even "reverting". Glaze isn't generically anti-AI, Glaze tries to exploit flaws in one particular image AI implementation, by actually testing its reaction to a disturbance in the image. The approach only works if the model at all cares about the type of disturbance being created. Other models likely don't notice anything at all, there's nothing for them to revert. > It wouldn't stop an individual from collecting a small sample set, but it would discourage mass scraping. IMO, if they want to, they will do it. AI training already requires mass amounts of CPU/GPU power. They can also use it to solve your calculation challenge, and anyone training models will have enough horsepower available as to dwarf anything any reasonable client machine could deal with.

techjamie 10mo ago

I wonder if it's a matter of the relative usage of those tools being very small compared to what already exists, and the few artists that want to muddy their work fir it. But even if it was significant, I'm sure the next thing to release would be AI models designed to try and revert nightshade/glaze changes into something that works again. I wonder if one could do something to protect images in a similar way that Anubis protects webpages from scrapers. Where the data sent from the server is mathematically obfuscated such that the client has to do some heavy calculating to get the final product. It wouldn't stop an individual from collecting a small sample set, but it would discourage mass scraping.

dale_glass 10mo ago
> But even if it was significant, I'm sure the next thing to release would be AI models designed to try and revert nightshade/glaze changes into something that works again. I don't think it's even "reverting". Glaze isn't generically anti-AI, Glaze tries to exploit flaws in one particular image AI implementation, by actually testing its reaction to a disturbance in the image. The approach only works if the model at all cares about the type of disturbance being created. Other models likely don't notice anything at all, there's nothing for them to revert. > It wouldn't stop an individual from collecting a small sample set, but it would discourage mass scraping. IMO, if they want to, they will do it. AI training already requires mass amounts of CPU/GPU power. They can also use it to solve your calculation challenge, and anyone training models will have enough horsepower available as to dwarf anything any reasonable client machine could deal with.