• Margot Robbie
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And as I said there, it is utterly hypocritical for him to sell snake oil to artists, allegedly to help them fight copyright violations, while committing actual copyright violations.

      • @hperrin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2211 year ago

        You don’t follow the license that it was distributed under.

        Commonly, if you use open source code in your project and that code is under a license that requires your project to be open source if you do that, but then you keep yours closed source.

      • @Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        781 year ago

        He took GPLv3 code, which is a copyleft license that requires you share your source code and license your project under the same terms as the code you used. You also can’t distribute your project as a binary-only or proprietary software. When pressed, they only released the code for their front end, remaining in violation of GPLv3.

        • @Miaou@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Probably the reason they’re moving to a Web offering. They could just take down the binary files and be gpl compliant, this whole thing is so stupid

            • lad
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              Yes, but if the code they took is not AGPL then this loophole still applies

              • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                Yes, I meant more that AGPL was created to plug this particular loophole. As in, if it was AGPL, they couldn’t do this.

                • lad
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s true

                  Although I personally am not a fan of licences this strict, MIT+Apache2.0 seems good enough for me. Of course, that might change with time and precedents like this 😅

  • Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    221 year ago

    is anyone else excited to see poisoned AI artwork? This might be the element that makes it weird enough.

    Also, re: the guy lol’ing that someone says this is illegal - it might be. is it wrong? absolutely not. does the woefully broad computer fraud and abuse act contain language that this might violate? it depends, the CFAA has two requirements for something to be in violation of it.

    1. the act in question affects a government computer, a financial institution’s computer, OR a computer “which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication” (that last one is the biggie because it means that almost 100% of internet activity falls under its auspices)

    2. the act “knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;” (with ‘protected computer’ being defined in 1)

    Quotes are from the law directly, as quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

    the poisoned artwork is information created with the intent of causing it to be transmitted to computers across state or international borders and damaging those computers. Using this technique to protect what’s yours might be a felony in the US, and because it would be considered intentionally damaging a protected computer by the knowing transmission of information designed to cause damage, you could face up to 10 years in prison for it. Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft, they don’t even have to give you some of the money they use your art to make, but if you try to stop them you go to prison for a decade.

    The CFAA is the same law that Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz was prosecuted under. His crime was downloading things from JSTOR that he had a right to download as an account holder, but more quickly than they felt he should have. He was charged with 13 felonies and faced 50 years and over a million dollars in fines alongside a lifetime ban from ever using an internet connected computer again when he died by suicide. The charges were then dropped.

    • @captainthroatfuck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      It’s not damaging a computer, it’s poisoning the models ai uses to create the images. The program will work just fine, and as expected given the model that it has, the difference is the model might not be accurate. It’s like saying you’re breaking a screen if you’re now looking at a low res version of an image

        • @captainthroatfuck@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          My big thing here is if there’s no contract, where is the onus for having correct models? Yah, the models are worth money, but is it the artist or softwares responsible for those correct models? I’d say most people who understand how software works would say software, unless they were corporate shills. Make better software, or pay the artists, the reaction shouldn’t be “artists are fooling me, they should pay”

          Taking it to an extreme. Say somehow they had this same software back in the 90s, could the generative software sue because all the images were in 256 colors? From your perspective, yes, cause it was messing up their models that are built for many more colors

    • @barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Damage to a computer” is legal logorrhoea, possible interpretations range from not even crashing a program to STUXNET, completely under-defined so it’s up to the courts to give it meaning. I’m not at all acquainted with US precedent but I very much doubt they’ll put the boundary at the very extreme of the space of interpretation, which “causes a program to expose a bug in itself without further affecting functioning in any way” indeed is.

      Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft,

      Learning from an image, studying it, is absolutely not theft. Otherwise I shall sue you for reading this comment of mine.

      • Alien Nathan Edward
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Damage to a computer” is legal logorrhoea

        The model is the thing of value that is damaged.

        Learning from an image is not theft

        But making works derivative from someone else’s copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.

        • @locuester@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          So any art done in a style of another artist is theft? Of course not. Learning from looking at others is what all of us do. It’s far more complicated than you’re making it sound.

          IMO, If the derivative that the model makes is too close to someone else’s, the person distributing such work would be at fault. Not the model itself.

          But again, it’s very nuanced. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.

          • @Miaou@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Of course not, but what does this have to do with generative models? Deep learning has as much to do with learning as democratic people’s north Korea does with democracy.

        • @barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          The model is the thing of value that is damaged.

          It does not get damaged, it stays as it is. Also it’s a bunch of floats, not a computer.

          But making works derivative from someone else’s copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.

          “Derivative work” doesn’t mean “inspired by”. For a work to be derivative it needs to include major copyrightable elements of the original work(s). Things such as style aren’t even copyrightable. Character design is, but then you should wonder whether you actually want to enforce that in non-commercial settings like fanart, even commissioned fanart, if e.g. Marvel doesn’t care as long as you’re not making movies or actual comics. They gain nothing from there not being, say, a Deadpool version of the Drake meme.

    • @wikibot@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

      The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U. S. C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.

      to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

  • @bonus_crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    big companies already have all your uncorrupted artwork, all this does is eliminate any new competition from cropping up.

    • @Jyek@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      It corrupts the training data to recategorize all images generated in the future. It’s not about protecting a single image, that’s what glaze is for. This is about making the AI worse at making new images.

    • @wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      “Its over jimmy. They stole the money you made last week. I would pay you for this week, with this money you didnt have yet so it couldnt be stolen, but they already have some of your money. All that would do is make the robbers who took your previous weeks pay have fewer competition.”

        • @BoneALisa@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Whoda thunk one word isnt enough to describe my feelings lol.

          Good as in startups shoukd be allowed to be founded around stolen data.

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            so, established companies should be allowed to steal from start ups and release their products for less than startups could ever make them, effectively shutting out all competition forever?

            or are you just a fucking hypocrite?

            • @BoneALisa@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              No lol, no one should. Me saying AI tech startups shouldnt be allowed to use stolen data means i endorse existing companies who have already stolen it.

              But just because companies have already done it also doesnt mean we should be allowing new companies to also do the same thing.

                • @BoneALisa@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Lmao what? Please, explain to me how thinking neither new companies or existing companies should be allowed to be doing what their doing, is hypocritical.

  • @KittyCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 year ago

    In the long run this will only improve the strength of models as they adapt to the changes this introduces and get that much stronger for it.

    • @r_se_random@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      That’s like saying people shouldn’t have developed a vaccine for Covid, only because Covid will adapt to the vaccines at some point.

      What do you want artists to do? Accept that all their future work is also used without any compensation?

      • @nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -21 year ago

        They didn’t say it shouldn’t have been developed. Improving the AI models so they can deal with this kind of malicious interference gracefully is a good thing.

  • @M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They clam a credit to using AI to make the thumbnail… The same people who did nothing more then ask Chat GPT to make a picture to represent the article on a tool that poisons AI models to protect people who make pictures for a living from having Chat GPT use their work to make; say a picture to represent an article on a tool that poisons AI models…

  • @kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    531 year ago

    This doesn’t work outside of laboratory conditions.

    It’s the equivalent of “doctors find cure for cancer (in mice).”

    • @bier@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      181 year ago

      I like that example, everytime you hear about some discovery that x kills 100% of cancer cells in a petri dish. You always have to think, so does bleach.

        • @CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          You ever heard of Miracle Mineral Solution? It’s bleach with extra steps and some of the 5G loonies give their autistic kids enemas with it to drive out the “toxins” giving their kids autism.

      • @Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Yeah I wouldn’t take this number at face value, let’s wait for some real world usage

      • @Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -201 year ago

        It’s clever really, people who don’t like ai are very lonelye to also not understand the technology, if you’re going to grift then it’s a perfect set of rubes - tell them your magic code will defeat the evil magic code of the ai and that’s all they need to know, fudge some numbers and they’ll throw their money at you

          • @wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -21 year ago

            Its clever really, the people who hate protecting your art from usage you dont approve of are very likely to not understand the technology, if youre going to mock them theyre the perfect set of rubes.

          • @Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            And they never get any money off the back of it…

            It’s funny how people will willingly forget how the world works when they really want magic to be real.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      To be fair, windows and macos are the 2 biggest computer operating systems in the world. It makes a lot more sense to focus on building tools for people using the biggest platforms rather than focus on people using something with a user base fragmented across multiple versions of the same OS.

      Though I do agree a version for Linux would be nice. Even if we have the mac equivalent of wine, darling, I don’t know enough about it to say whether it’s up to the task or not.

          • @Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Meme aside, that’s a good question… I wonder how much GNU made it into Google’s implementation. Someone here probably knows.

            • @sir_reginald@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              101 year ago

              none. Android uses just the Linux kernel, not the GNU user space tools.

              That’s why Android is normally not counted as Linux, it’s basically a different OS using the Linux kernel.

          • @Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -131 year ago

            If I can patch a ROM on my phone, you can patch your picture just fine. You don’t have to make it with your phone.

            Also, you’d be surprised at how excellent some drawing apps are on Android. Particularly Ibis.

    • ElleChaise
      link
      fedilink
      -321 year ago

      Aren’t Linux people usually programmers anyway? Why develop for developers?

      • @Daxtron2@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        what does being a developer have anything to do with it? Do you really think we only use things we develop ourselves?

      • @zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        Why develop for developers?

        Why wouldn’t you?

        It’s not like developers get off on reinventing the wheel or something. If somebody has a working solution, I’d rather use that than spend time coming up with code on my own. I’m busy enough as it is.

      • @Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -71 year ago

        Omg, I can’t believe you actually just said that. 🤣🤣🤣

        Do you know what a library is? How about a language?

        • @orgrinrt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Buddy, you’re being cringe on the internet. This is a friendly reminder and a notice about that.

          You don’t need to be so toxic like in this comment, or as pedantic and pretentious as in your others in adjacent branches on this thread.

          I hate that there’s no way to tell you this without sounding at least partially condescending and/or aggressive or whatever myself, but I promise I’m just trying to provide perspective and a view from a third person experiencing your behavior. I truly wish you the best, friend. You can do better.

          • @Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            Imagine someone was like, “why make alcohol for brewers?” and not laughing at them.

  • @webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    I bet that before the end of this year this tool will be one of the things that helped improve the performance and quality of AI.

  • HexesofVexes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    171 year ago

    Ah, another arms race has begun. Just be wary, what one person creates another will circumvent.

  • @vsis@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 year ago

    It’s not FOSS and I don’t see a way to review if what they claim is actually true.

    It may be a way to just help to diferentiate legitimate human made work vs machine-generated ones, thus helping AI training models.

    Can’t demostrate that fact neither, because of its license that expressly forbids sofware adaptions to other uses.

    Edit, alter, modify, adapt, translate or otherwise change the whole or any part of the Software nor permit the whole or any part of the Software to be combined with or become incorporated in any other software, nor decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer the Software or attempt to do any such things

    sauce: https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/downloads.html

    • JATth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      I read the article enough to find that the Nightshade tool is under EULA… :(

      Because it definitely is not FOSS, use it with caution, preferably on a system not connected to internet.

    • @nybble41@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      The EULA also prohibits using Nightshade “for any commercial purpose”, so arguably if you make money from your art—in any way—you’re not allowed to use Nightshade to “poison” it.

  • @iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    so it is a bit like playing a sound at 30k Hz to annoy a dog, we cant detect it but the dog can and gets confused

  • @ScaredDuck@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    Won’t this thing actually help the AI models in the long run? The biggest issue I’ve heard is the possibility of AI generated images getting into the training dataset, but “poisoned” artworks are basically guaranteed to be of human origin.

  • @Zealousideal_Fox900@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    As an artist, nightshade is not something I will ever use. All my art is public domain, including AI. Let people generate as many pigeon pictures as they want I say!

        • @Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Yeah same. Empowering people to be more creative has never stuck me as something that needs to be gatekept. Tools have constantly improved allowing more people to become artists. If it’s the copying of styles you’re worried about, I’d take it up with every artist that’s learned from Picasso or Da Vinci.

      • @Zeon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, if you can’t beat them, join them! You have to adjust to the pace of what society is moving towards.

        • Ann Archy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          What if it’s adjusting towards segregation and fascism? Should we go for that too?

  • @SPRUNT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1041 year ago

    Is there a similar tool that will “poison” my personal tracked data? Like, I know I’m going to be tracked and have a profile built on me by nearly everywhere online. Is there a tool that I can use to muddy that profile so it doesn’t know if I’m a trans Brazilian pet store owner, a Nigerian bowling alley systems engineer, or a Beverly Hills sanitation worker who moonlights as a practice subject for budding proctologists?

    • Ghostalmedia
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1251 year ago

      The only way to taint your behavioral data so that you don’t get lumped into a targetable cohort is to behave like a manic. As I’ve said in a past comment here, when you fill out forms, pretend your gender, race, and age is fluid. Also, pretend you’re nomadic. Then behave erratic as fuck when shopping online - pay for bibles, butt plugs, taxidermy, and PETA donations.

      Your data will be absolute trash. You’ll also be miserable because you’re going to be visiting the Amazon drop off center with gag balls and porcelain Jesus figurines to return every week.

      • Bonehead
        link
        fedilink
        421 year ago

        Then behave erratic as fuck when shopping online - pay for bibles, butt plugs, taxidermy, and PETA donations.

        …in the same transaction. It all needs to be bought and then shipped together. Not only to fuck with the algorithm, but also to fuck with the delivery guy. Because we usually know what you ordered. Especially when it’s in the soft bag packaging. Might as well make everyone outside your personal circle think you’re a bit psychologically disturbed, just to be safe.

        • Neato
          link
          fedilink
          English
          201 year ago

          How? Aren’t most items in boxes even in the bags? It’s not like they just toss a butt plug into a bag and ship it…right?

          • @Seleni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            You’d be surprised. Also, often the company name very prominently displayed on the return address is anything but subtle.

    • @TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      Is there a similar tool that will “poison” my personal tracked data? Like, I know I’m going to be tracked and have a profile built on me by nearly everywhere online. Is there a tool that I can use to muddy that profile so it doesn’t know if I’m a trans Brazilian pet store owner, a Nigerian bowling alley systems engineer, or a Beverly Hills sanitation worker who moonlights as a practice subject for budding proctologists?

      Have you considered just being utterly incoherent, and not making sense as a person? That could work.

    • Australis13
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

      The browser addon “AdNauseum” can help with that, although it’s not a complete solution.

    • @sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      I guess it depends what your threat model is.

      If you don’t like advertising, then you’re just piling a bunch of extra interests/demographics in there. It’ll remain roughly as valuable as it was before.

      If you’re concerned about privacy and state actors, your activity would just increase. Anything that would trigger state interest would remain, so you’d presumably receive the same level of interest. Worse, if you aren’t currently of interest, there’s a possibility randomly generated traffic would be flagged by your adversary and increase their level of interest in you.

    • sour
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      it never know if am really that bad at english

      [.__.]

    • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      There are programs and plugins you can download that will open a bunch of random websites to throw off tracking programs.

      • Deconceptualist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        or a Beverly Hills sanitation worker who moonlights as a practice subject for budding proctologists?

        Yeah, it’s definitely the last one 😆

    • @cation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Idk if this is what you’re looking for but might be worth taking a look

      https://github.com/eth0izzle/Needl

      “Your ISP is most likely tracking your browsing habits and selling them to marketing agencies (albeit anonymised). Or worse, making your browsing history available to law enforcement at the hint of a Subpoena. Needl will generate random Internet traffic in an attempt to conceal your legitimate traffic, essentially making your data the Needle in the haystack and thus harder to find. The goal is to make it harder for your ISP, government, etc to track your browsing history and habits.”