The tool, called Nightshade, messes up training data in ways that could cause serious damage to image-generating AI models.

A new tool lets artists add invisible changes to the pixels in their art before they upload it online so that if it’s scraped into an AI training set, it can cause the resulting model to break in chaotic and unpredictable ways.

The tool, called Nightshade, is intended as a way to fight back against AI companies that use artists’ work to train their models without the creator’s permission.
[…]
Zhao’s team also developed Glaze, a tool that allows artists to “mask” their own personal style to prevent it from being scraped by AI companies. It works in a similar way to Nightshade: by changing the pixels of images in subtle ways that are invisible to the human eye but manipulate machine-learning models to interpret the image as something different from what it actually shows.

  • V H@lemmy.stad.socialEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    You can see the difference in the process in the results, for example in how some generated pictures will contain something like a signature in the corner

    If you were to train human children on an endless series of pictures with signatures in the corner, do you seriously think they’d not emulate signatures in the corner?

    If you think that, you haven’t seen many children’s drawings, because children also often pick up that it’s normal to put something in the corner, despite the fact that to children pictures with signatures is a tiny proportion of visual input.

    Or how it is at least possible to get the model to output something extremely close to the training data

    People also mimic. We often explicitly learn to mimic - e.g. I have my sons art folder right here, full of examples of him being explicitly taught to make direct copies as a means to learn technique.

    We just don’t have very good memory. This is an argument for a difference in ability to retain and reproduce inputs, not an argument for a difference in methods.

    And again, this is a strawman. It doesn’t even begin to try to answer the questions I asked, or the one raised by the person you first responded to.

    That at least proves that the process is quite different to the process of human learning.

    Neither of those really suggests that all (that diffusion is different to humans learn to generalize images is likely true, what you’ve described does not provide even the start of any evidence of that), but again that is a strawman.

    There was no claim they work the same. The question raised was how the way they’re trained is different from how a human learns styles.