Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators::As AI developers indiscriminately suck up online content to train their models, artists are seeking ways to fight back.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Are you actually suggesting that if I post a drawing of a dog, Disney should be allowed to use it in a movie and not compensate me?

    • Delta_V@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Everyone should be assumed to be able to look at it, learn from it, and add your style to their artistic toolbox. That’s an intrinsic property of all art. When you put it on display, don’t be surprised or outraged when people or AIs look at it.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        AI does not learn and transform something like a human does. I have no problem with human artists taking inspiration, I do have a problem with art being reduced to a soulless generation that requires stealing real artists work to create something that isn’t original.

        • Delta_V@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          AI does not learn and transform something like a human does.

          But they do learn. How human-like that learning may be isn’t relevant. A parrot learns to talk differently than a human does too, but African greys can still hold a conversation. Likewise, when an AI learns how to make art by studying what others have made, they may not do it in exactly the same way a human does it, but the products of the process are their own creations just as much as the creations of human artists that parrot other human artists’ styles and techniques.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ofc not, that’s way different, that’s beyond the use of public use.

      If I browse to your Instagram, look at some of your art, record some numbers about it, observe your style and then leave that’s perfectly fine right? If I then took my numbers and observations from your art and everybody else’s that I looked and merged them together to make my own style that would also be fine right? Well that’s AI, that’s all it does on a simple level

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        But they are still profiting off of it. Dall-E doesn’t make images out of the kindness of OpenAI’s heart. They’re a for-profit company. That really doesn’t make it different from Disney, does it?

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sure, Dall-E has a profit motive, but then what about all the open source models that are trained on the same or similar data and artworks?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            You’ve strayed very far from:

            if you post publicly, expect it to be used publicly

            What is the difference between Dall-E scraping the art and an open source model doing it other than Dall-E making money at it? It’s still using it publicly.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I didn’t really stray far, you brought up that Dall-E has a profit motive and I acknowledged that yea that was true, but there also open source models that don’t