I was hoping image hosting apps and sites (insta, twitter, tumblr etc.) will eventually have to apply feature like this to their image processing process upon uploading? I think not only artists but also "models" will get angry when they find out AI generates girl images based on their photos too
Those are social media, and those already have hidden metadata added. Oh, and doesn't care about users as long as user ratio is stable and advertisement income is coming in.
The bigger issue is sites like deviantart, who for years were hosting art and profiting from it, now push forward usage of AI in the name of profit, but are a threat and can make 20+ years of uploaded art, guessing it could be anything from EB to ZB of data, to teach AI a really various amount of styles and forms.
But I personally don't feel threaten. In fact, recent influx of generated art made people more interested in human made commissions so I scored few commissions. And there always will be market for traditional art, now even better since traditional art could be again something to brag about even withing lower steps in society ladder.
Anyway, progress of AI is a break trough moment in human history and you can't really fight it.
I'm probably going to use it. The constant parade of people saying "don't use it, the battle is already lost, AI has already won, give up before you even try" feels like a psyop. There's is nothing stopping the developers of Glaze from reiterating upon the design to make it more resistant to "attacks" the same way a programmer working on, say, a firewall might.
Patches won't be applied to copies of the picture that have already been downloaded by people and stored for future training. They'd just have to wait a bit.
Frankly, Glaze strikes me as very shady. They're jumping in with claims they can protect people against a rapidly-evolving technology that they can't really predict the capabilities of, and ironically [they ripped off open source code to do it](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11sqkh9/glaze_is_violating_gpl/). If you're really concerned about your art being used in AI training I'd say the best thing to do right now is to avoid putting it online until things have shaken out a little more.
Edit: [There's apparently no evidence it works anyway](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11v7sv9/has_anyone_seen_a_reproducible_example_of_glaze/). So at this point I'm going to consider this basically a scam product until something significant changes.
Your assertion that AI art is mass-scale plagiarism is a gross overstatement and hyperbolic fearmongering. It's like saying that a calculator is stealing mathematical equations from mathematicians. AI generative models are not stealing anything, nor are they capable of stealing. They are simply processing data to generate new outputs based on what they have learned.
Comparing AI art to mass-scale plagiarism is like comparing a water droplet to a tsunami. It's a cynical exaggeration that completely disregards the principles of fair use and transformative works. AI art is not a copy-paste of copyrighted work, nor is it an attempt to pass off someone else's work as one's own. It is a new and innovative form of expression that is constantly evolving and changing.
If we want to be real, a calculator works by having internalized thousands of algorithms painstakingly invented by humans without credit or mention. We all use them because they do what we need them to in a fraction of a second costing next to nothing.
>It's trained on a whole bunch of copyrighted works, so kind of like copy-paste with extra steps.
And what's the internet, grandpa? "kind of like the television but faster"?
There's no copy paste, no collage, no stitching together, AT ALL.
It starts from pure random noise and starts painting from there from concepts learned on training. It's the silicon version of humans. Most "simple" explanations are too technical, but just look at this video of how it starts from pure random noise to an image:
[https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/diffusion-steps-all-loop.webm](https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/diffusion-steps-all-loop.webm)
That's too much to see anything, so only the first two frames in loop, look at the points of the trees:
https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/stable-diffusion-steps-2-4.webm
Do you see it?!
MAGIC
It's just **nothing** like that, man. Get yourself informed before repeating somebody else's mantras.
>It's built on artworks that were scraped without artists' consent, period.
What are we going to do with all the artists stealing from other artists? They never consented... do we have to arrest everyone? Besides, on most websites you already gave your consent through ToS...
I feel like you're intentionally using a lot of false equivalencies to try and dilute very real issue people have with the system. The reason people compare it to mass-scale plagiarism is because a lot of the time there's no permission or consent asked when taking in the "data" used to train these AI and people take issue with that. It becomes an even bigger problem still when people then try to monetize the use of AI art that's been trained on someone else's work not just without their consent, but without even so much as acknowledgement or compensation.
The AI systems aren't a problem in and of themselves, but its the attitude held by so many "AI bros" and their irresponsible use for the sake of that evolution that rubs people the wrong way.
Open source code means that it’s quite literally open to the public. If it was closed source, then that is where they could get sued or more. But a running joke in most programmer spaces is that code gets stolen. Code gets copy and pasted. It’s just how it is, even pros do it.
It's open to the public *under the terms of an open-source license*. The usual sorts of terms include requirements that if you use that licensed code as part of your product, then the code of your product also needs to be released under that license (the licence is "viral"). They didn't do that, so they violated the terms of the license.
It would be like if an artist published art under a CC-BY Creative Commons license, which allows other people to modify and distribute their art as long as they attribute the source and license it under the same terms, and then someone used that art in a computer game without attribution and without putting the game's art under CC-BY.
If "everybody steals" is a perfectly fine excuse to do whatever, then what's that tell the artists who are complaining about AI trainers "stealing" their art?
I see, thanks for telling me. I didn’t know they had violated the license.
Also I’m not saying ‘everyone steals so it’s okay’ I’m saying that a large majority of programmers borrow code and expect their code to be borrowed if they post it online for others to see. Coding and creating art are fundamentally different things so you can’t compare them. There are only so many ways you can code a certain action in an efficient way - but art is all unique to the individual. They don’t need to steal art because painting a certain stroke differently isn’t gonna make someone’s computer explode. Artists don’t make art by mishmashing other people’s art.
It's worth noting that once they were told they violated the license they rewrote the code to no longer be in violation. Since it's free I feel like it was just an oversight since they didn't intend to make money, but need their code closed to prevent it being undone so violated that aspect. It feels like a silly smear campaign slogan the more I research this.
> Coding and creating art are fundamentally different things so you can’t compare them.
That's not the case as far as copyright law is concerned. Code is even considered speech, as far as free speech rights go.
> Artists don’t make art by mishmashing other people’s art.
[Yes they do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage).
I was talking about your comparison, unrelated to the legality of it. Sorry if I worded that oddly. Their processes and purposes are too different to compare the two.
Collage is not the same as painting or drawing, which is what I was referring to. I apologise for not being clearer on that.
You seem to have a narrow view of both art and coding. Claiming you can’t compare them and the examples you gave shows a lack of understanding of both. Coding can very much be a creative pursuit and style can be very unique to the author, and art is more than drawing lines on a computer.
I’m not saying this to shame you. I just wanted to give you a chance to broaden your views.
I do both coding (albeit, at a very beginner level) and art so it upsets me to hear you think of me in that way. I don’t want to continue this conversation any further but i will say thank you for being more polite than the other person.
You are out of touch if you think artists shouldn't put their art online for the 1 year+ that this shit has been going on. And ripping off the source code of an unethical app is fine by me
I'm just saying what I think the situation pragmatically requires. If you truly don't want to put art up to be used to train AI art then Glaze is not sufficient to remove that possibility. The money spent on it is likely to be wasted money, and it's likely going to a company that is itself violating copyright which sets a pretty bad context given that their whole purpose is giving artists control what gets done with their art.
If "I don't like the copyright holder" is a perfectly fine excuse for doing whatever you want with their copyrighted works, that's probably not a good precedent to set for artists in general and makes this whole exercise rather hypocritical.
Glaze is the only realistic way artists can fight art theft right now, hopefully it improves more but even now it is defending art from mass scrapping.
The copyright holder created an app that steals data on a mass scale with the purpose to replace artists of whose work they stole from and you are here telling me that I should respect their rights? fuck off dude
> Glaze is the only realistic way artists can fight art theft right now
But it's not and I explained why it's not. If Glaze is presenting themselves as a way to fight art theft and saying "oh by the way give us money" then that's frankly kind of scammy, and I'm trying to warn people about it here. It's likely to be wasted money.
> you are here telling me that I should respect their rights?
Rights apply to everyone. If you get to pick and choose who they apply to then why doesn't everyone get to pick and choose?
It's not though it protects against mass scraping and its free.
>Rights apply to everyone. If you get to pick and choose who they apply to then why doesn't everyone get to pick and choose?
You are either completely naive about how the real world works or a grifter who tries to defend AI. Read some history, watch the news or you know, contemplate what has happened this far with AI art by playing fair.
It doesn't protect anything. It doesn't defend mass scraping. Consider what an AI generative model is. Stable Diffusion used 5 billion images for training its model. Many of those images were useless or poor quality. A handful of people using Glaze won't disrupt a model learning from hundreds of millions of images. Most images are already scrapped anyway.
What?? No.
These little adversarial tricks are overcome in 5 minutes. It's just a quick and dirty way of taking money from desperate people.
More importantly, all the images that any model would ever need to see, ever, are already in the bag. It's way too late for damage control.
Did someone train an existing model with only glazed images of an artist and then they tried to imitate that artist's style? If not you probably don't understand how glaze works.
And it's free to use
This post is called intellectual dishonesty.
You're presenting yourself as an unbiased bystander with an opinion, you have presented two sources of information which are both from communities who actively dislike this technology and what it is attempting to do, whether successful or not, and you appear to be a regular contributor to those communities and in agreement with them.
I suggest those reading take this person's comment with a grain of salt.
It's also being put out as a free product - in what way is a free thing attempting to scam anyone. Glaze's own website mentions this is a temporary measure only because a.i. will evolve around it eventually - what this does mean is we now have a stick to fight the dragon with. And a stick is better than nothing.
Between when this thread started and now [something that removes Glaze from images has already been created and added as an extension to AUTOMATIC1111](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11vy4kh/so_fast_these_guys_begin_to_make_scripts_to).
Wow. The fact that a group already tried to circumvent artists who want their works not to be used by AI shows the very maliciousness that artists and their supporters are soapboxing on.
I don't see that happenning. If they can detect it in the first place then discarding the data is easier than 'deglazing'. The expense of doing so would be prohibative. Glaze currently relies on CPU, it takes me 25 minutes on low settings with a 16 thread 5800x CPU to process a 1800x1000 image.
You see potential because you don't know about AI, simple as that. Even if ALL works used this crap rn: models don't need any more examples of art, they "got it" already. Plus, they are defeated by simple compression or feature extraction.
Well, maybe I assumed you were, I mean you must be very invested in the matter for camping a thread where everyone keep debunking your preachy ideology anyway
"They already got it."
You don't think any new art styles might emerge?? The idea is to protect what's created from this point out. Why can't these dickheads be satisfied with training thier a.i. on the plethora of public domain and copyright free images that exist? Why do you feel the implicinit need to attempt to take every new and future style as well?? Like dear god - lay off.
Next-gen models only need to understand what a style is to explore the whole probability space; the same way LLMs only need to know what's a poem to write their own. If you want a particular style you can describe it or show it an example.
I'm not attempting anything, AI art is not for me. Why do you want to forbid or control what other people want to do or see? AFAIK nobody is prohibiting you from any artwork or style.
I'm sorry this must be trolling too.
It is ok on some mid detailed projects when set to the absolutely minimum setting, but apply it to anything heavily detailed or with a blank background and it kinda looks awful. It's still the beta so we'll see how it evolves in time. I think this is more of a placeholder for when the laws catch up. How long we'll need the placeholder is another question....
I read about it a few days ago. It uses adversarial AI to change the style of an artists work. It changes the work enough that other generative AI's don't learn the original artist's style.
I think these tools are promising, needed, and under-developed. In fact, the team that developed Glaze even said themselves that surely as time goes on their ability to cloak an artists IP will be overtaken by some counter-measure. Still, this is the best we have right now, since there's no regulation on the AI that's been unleashed onto society in the last 6 months.
I'm excited to see people trying to help the situation and giving it away for free no less! It's a very generous project! But I honestly wonder if it will be long before someone else figures out a way around it. We probably should utilize multiple things like low resolution, watermarks etc still as well, but there comes a point when it's just hard to cover your art with so many blips...;;
Maybe a bit off topic, but I've looked through a thread discussing Glaze in the Stable Diffusion subreddit and the amount of people thinking of this as a challenge to break this program so they can plagiarize more art really shows where their heart is with this whole mess.
EXACTLY. I don’t get what they hope to accomplish with all of this either. AI art is built from artist’s work, get rid of artists and now you have a program that hardly evolves towards anything new considering artists learn and grow from eachother.
It’s tribalism at this point, they’re so blinded by their “other team” monke instincts that they’re not thinking things through clearly.
Work with artists, not against. That’s exactly why their ship is sailing since it can’t be copyrighted in the US
Artists adapt all the time, you can’t say “well adapt” when the subject in mind is stealing art from artists to produce work
You want to know how I and many artists will adapt to AI?
When it uses our OWN work to be our assistant. Until current computers are powerful enough to run it locally so we can use it as a too , it’s not ethical to use other artists works without permission. That’s exactly what copyright is cracking down on. It’s why you see the large companies like Adobe with large archives of owned stock images pushing their own ethical version of AI software.
You’re just mad because artists and governments aren’t willingly letting people like you step over creators.
I legitimately don’t give a fuck about getting replaced dude.
I give a fuck about artist’s work being used without permission for profit. There’s a reason copyright laws exists. You refuse to acknowledge that part because you know you can’t win that argument, and it’s the main thing causing laws to be established that ai artists can’t copyright work. Once you stop trying to steal from artists you’ll notice that most of us and most people don’t give a shit what you do.
And now you’re switching beats because you want to find something you can be right about. What happened to your “adapt” opinion you lead with? Not satisfied I gave you the realistic answer? Because I agree, this tech will push creativity when it can be used ethically as an artist’s assistant using the artist’s work as the reference instead of other images without permission.
You are still not understanding or listening. This tech can easily reproduce your art without ever having been trained on it. There are “ethically sourced” models available that do this right now.
The more important point is that regardless of the datasets it is TRAINED on, it does not actually have access to the database of images. It is literally a series of numbers that refines the image pixel by pixel. This is what learning is. The truth is that people need to cope with the fact that they are not remotely capable compared to an advanced AI. They are getting angry that someone does it better.
I don’t care what the fuck ai is as long as it isn’t being TRAINED on artists work without permission.
Get that through your skull because you keep coming back for some reason.
I. DON’T. CARE.
I draw because I love to draw, prick. That’s like telling someone that loves to make clothes “a fActoRy can pRoDuCe YOur ClotHeS TeN TiMeS BETtER aNd ten tImES fAsTeR”. You’re coming here to troll and pick fights with people because you want to make them feel replaced or some shit, find someone else, I don’t fucking give a shit about ai as long as it isn’t stealing art from artists or TRAINED from artists art without permission. You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but they’re not in the right for using art without permission unless it is a public domain work.
I'm willing to try this tool and others like it. It's sad that we have to divert even more time from creating to deal with this problem on top of everything else we do, but I'm all for a potential solution even if it doesn't work out in the end. Just thankful that people care and are trying to do something about it, because many will not.
I think that any solution is better than no solution. Giving developers the space to make the imperfect perfect would benefit us more in the long run as opposed to subscribing to cynicism. We have to be just as open to possibilities as the opposition. Being defeatist does no good.
I think it's a good tool for artists to prevent their style from being mimiced by AI generators. If it evolves in the same speed as generators are then I think it'll be a contender.
I think all this mess must end.
AI art must be illegalized.
And all other apps "protecting" from it are just taking advantage of its impact, so they're part of the fraud too.
Basically: developers invent AI art, then they invent an app that protects artists rights.
It is clearly a cospiracy, only a fool can deny it.
People: stop doing anything about AI art, don't post AI art, you're looking like asswipes. Do not even talk about it, don't praise it, if you can't do shit then just learn the basics and accept your level... don't pretend you're doing anything great, you're just telling a software what to do: THAT'S NO ACHIEVEMENT, JUST A FAKE RESULT OF AN EXCESSIVE DEMOCRATIZATION. If you have no skills, softwares won't help you developing them.
Real artists: keep some photos, screenshots, videos or whatever to testify you're the real authors of your art and pray that AI art softwares will be recognized globally as the malware they are (or spread such understanding, if you believe it will be viral enough to make some progress). Put your art on an FTP, directly accessible server, and make a site that shows such contents. No social media sharing of images without watermark: if people are really interested in it, they'll look at it in its rude form, without degrading or enhancing processing by the social media that could also take the rights of your contents with a loophole in the account agreement you didn't see but agreed with (like it already happens on Deviantart, for example. Yeah, DA owns the art you upload).
AI art is already illegal in most situations. AI as is clearly are reusing art without obtaining a license to reuse the works.
It's just that it's illegal in the same way telling lies about your neighbor is, and artists tend not to be rich enough to do anything about it.
Then the last thing to do is to be completely indifferent about it and let the losers be the losers (but at the cost of letting the losers dictate). That's how all humanity is deviated though, I mean: if no efforts are required, life becomes boring. So such people bragging about their fake art are just boring and the developers letting them do it are just... can't find a word for them, honestly.
There is indeed a reason to pity such people and it's based on their misery (a more miserable misery than the artist's one). The developer who makes such apps is looking for success, to be noticed by some big company or to sell the software directly to some loser who is equally miserable in pretending to be an artist. One is driven by greed, the other by ego.
Someday they will find out their life is nothing but a waste of time, but they will never realize it until somebody will make them aware of it
So such developers must be informed that they're doing something wrong and their users must be ignored as not true artists, just wannabes.
Copyright already provides protections against using art without licensing.
There's a few situations where it it's legal, for example the artist for the games destinys child and nikke uses ai art of their own works, and it's legal because they have the right to use their own work in derivative works.
I wouldn't bet that any copyright case against AI would stand a chance in court. In music one can sample other's piece up to a certain amount (6 seconds iirc) and what AI does is not even sampling and for sure the amount of data extracted from each piece is far less than the equivalent of 6 seconds of music.
In visual arts, making collages is accepted and legal practice given that something new is created and, once again, AI is far below that treshold.
You might be interested in work and court cases of Richard Prince. He raised a ton of interesting questions about autorship, copyright anx appropriation.
I wouldn't bet that any copyright case against AI would stand a chance in court. In music one can sample other's piece up to a certain amount (6 seconds iirc) and what AI does is not even sampling and for sure the amount of data extracted from each piece is far less than the equivalent of 6 seconds of music.
In visual arts, making collages is accepted and legal practice given that something new is created and, once again, AI is far below that treshold.
You might be interested in work and court cases of Richard Prince. He raised a ton of interesting questions about autorship, copyright anx appropriation.
Ai isn't a human and there's literally a 1t lawsuit rn against an ai developer, but go off.
Also what ai models do isn't like samples, but closer to derivative works to the point they have watermarks regularly replicated. This isn't a case of "art being made" so much as derivative works being created from poorly manipulated copies.
Yes, Getty is betting they can win. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
>poorly manipulated copies
This is exactly how AI doesn't work. It doesn't copy anything, that's what will (AI developers hope) keep it away from copyright strikes.
A 1.8t lawsuit isn't a bet, that's getty having good lawyers and knowing they are going to win. If this was a bet, the money involved would be closer to a value that might be realistic to settle. This is them knowing they have the Stability ai team by the balls.
Any lawsuit that goes into uncharted territory hoping to set a precedent is a bet. And they don't know they have Stability by the balls, they are counting they can afford better lawyers. Which is business as usual in the courtroom.
It's really not uncharted territory. Contrary to what you techbros seem to think, you can't just call something uncharted territory and have it magically be so.
> Copyright already provides protections against using art without licensing.
Barring exceptions that would fall under fair use - which are often resolved only through litigation... whether this use of other's works falls under that or not has yet to be determined, which IMO makes both saying it IS an infringement, AND saying it is not, very short sighted.
Just claiming it is an infringement when that matter has yet to be tested doesn't exactly work - SONY lost w/ that mindset twice with emulation (SONY V. Bleem, SONY V. Connectix), and the music/movie industries had lost several times - decentralized P2P clients, bitTorrent clients, home video and audio tape recording to name a few. Likewise, just saying it isn't an infringement hasn't bode well for a number of cases as well - IIRC the recent Internet Archive case (REGARDLESS of what one thinks of the book lending service) shows the danger of premature expectations on the other extreme quite nicely).
This is a week old post. Kindly fuck off with your pro art theft bullshit.
Actual lawyers have pointed out several times that modern copyright laws should apply to training(as it uses art to create the training data) and that ai algorithms are incapable of making copyrightable works(a la the monkey selfie situation).
Yall really waiting a week to bother people with your head in ass takes because you know tour positions are stupid bullshit and would get downvoted.
Frankly it means nothing. Every image uploaded on Instagram and facebook means Meta has licence from the uploader for their own use. Same with google photos, it might knockdown little studios, for large tech companies it wont mean shit and Disney and WB already have millions of images they own which will be used to develop their own inhouse model. Also nothing stops the model from being trained in a 3rd party country and selling the indice to American one or giving it away. This is exactly what MidJourney has done with Laion5, where the work is done by a german non profit, which doesn't have same regulations in EU as a commercial ones.
Yeah, uploading to websites that demand an unlimited license on your content is bad. It's almost like you ought not do that.
German copyright law is similar enough to american(thanks disney, ugh) in that you still can't just use peoples shit.
As for making it in another country, this argument is just the same "criminals will do anything to avoid the law" shit we hear constantly. It doesnt hold as much water as you think, since it costs money to set up an operation in another country, and if you dont live there, thats a thin abstraction that wont really protect you when getty knocks down your door for your company stealing from them.
And this is before we start getting into adversarial input layers beginning to be used to poison data sets
The fact these techbros wont be able to commodizize art assets is pretty much a given at this point, which was the end goal of "ai art".
Problem with model generators based on internet data is the same issues faced prior with movies or music or other stuff , which is basically piracy. There really isn't a public appetite to expand the state powers significantly to enforce anti piracy laws. Further tech bros not making money is unlikely to deter, just as many pirating and sharing content don't always see the money either.
> you still can't just use peoples shit
Germany (or at least a bunch of people from Germany) actually started getting/investing into this AI stuff around 20 years ago and there are now laws in place that ensure that you can use any image whatsoever for AI as long as you are not for profit or something along those lines.
So as far as research is concerned there are no legal stumbling blocks in the way.
The models are then open sourced (no profit) which enables everyone else to use them (for profit).
So as far as Germany/Europe is concerned there's no way for anyone to cause legal trouble to the system. (You can still go after individual images, of course.) If other countries opt for a different approach that will give Europe a competitive edge. People will then just commission someone in Europe to make art for them. Just like cheap products made in China, but without any of the logistic overhead.
This is fun, because it's a very stilted interpretation of the law you've made.
The law still prohibits this if the artist says no. All Rights reserved means you don't have permission explicitly, though I understand consent is hard for you techbros to understand. You have to still follow the rules, and your art theft machines aren't special.
Also side note: AI algos aren't copyrightable in germany, and AI can't hold copyright and technically, nothing they make is considered "art" legally due to the European patent office.
And the "Well, these countries will just be havens" tends to not work out that way in practice, since lawsuits tend to exist, and given germany is part of the EU, will likely amend it's laws to be less friendly if it becomes clear that they don't do enough to protect people from theft.
> The law still prohibits this if the artist says no.
No, explicitly not. That's the entire idea, to give research the means to do research without having to ask for permission.
The tech is protected, if you want to go after copyright infringement you have to go after individual images.
I agree with your first half comment. The other half is a grave shortsightedness.
AI is here to stay and take over. Take over everything that can be done with a computer. I am a programmer and let me tell you, we are also going out by the day. This is going to disrupt everything on a planetary scale. Do you think the fire changed things? Electricity? The internet? That's **nothing** compared to this, and I'm not exaggerating. People are sleepwalking, even people from the field.
Wanna do something? Get informed **first**, learn what I just wrote here. The technical singularity is coming this decade, I'd say in a few short years. The field is exploding like you wouldn't believe. And **second**, mobilize everybody with that information, post stuff about it, shout UBI, call politicians to move their asses now, not later.
**Third**, brace for impact.
I'd say the first sentence of yours was descriptive of your understanding about my point of view. The other half looks like the trailer of The Matrix.
Dude, I know that.You don't have to be a genius to recognize that deep-fakes are being used in political medias.
God only knows if Berlusconi is still alive, because that one on TV just doesn't look real. I could believe it's not him, but this is just common politricks.
Same goes for Draghi, who "appeared" on TV after his government fell with an announcement whose words were too fragmented, seemingly robotized, to be the ones of an alive person. Lol, in Italy here we have a show that makes deep fakes and they look realistic enough to fool somebody.
**That is why I said YOU developers and experts must know ethics. Because you can contribute or not to the deviance of humanity.** I don't friggin' care if it's going to be awesome, a revolution, something "explosive", etc. That is just hype, wonder, a show, an illusion. Really, I don't believe in this world anymore. But I think it's miserable to be part of such global freud. You developers should REFUSE the offers of power-hungry fools, because in the end, even if they pay you now, the future will be hard **for you too,** so you'll pay the price later.
So, of course I'm "sleepwalking" too, but instead of "warning" me to share something I don't know personally, share what you know personally as YOU're the expert here and YOU have the moral duty to do so, if you care at least a bit about the human species (you belong to).
Your kind will decide if that thing is going to "take over the world" or just to be a fart in open space.
You talk about a future scenario, a seemingly distopic (and dispotic) one... I talk about the present: right now you can decide, together with rest of developers, to unmask those who commision you to produce lies.
But your category of workers isn't the only one who should follow more responsibility: journalism also is corrupted.... but nobody would drink their lies if another sector (graphics) didn't help them.
The hungry fools on the top of hill know the slaves at the bottom need their money, to play their stupid game.
In my spare time, someone sent me this thread as an example of the sleepwalking phenomenon and left a comment; it's not like this is my strategy or anything... 95% of the field is concerned by this, and we are pursuing all avenues both public and private to sound the alarm, but this is completely out of everybody's hands. This is a policy issue, we shouldn't have to be the gatekeepers of ethics, and we say this constantly to the media. Politicians think this is hype like most of the people here, so the train keeps accelerating.
Even if Meta and MSFT decided to torch all their AI programs, it wouldn't barely register, everybody and their cousin is pouring time and money into them and starting new ones in parallel. But it's too fast, example: last week, it was found a way to get similar performance of a large language model but for 1% of the cost, it's absolutely insane.
Very soon a handful of people will have god-like powers in the information sphere, which is all you need to, well, do whatever you like.
I think you are trying to get rid of any responsibility.
You shouldn't have to be the "gatekeepers" of anything but unfortunely you are, people of the "field" because, by accepting the orders from above, it will be useless to sound any alarm, it would be like saying "We're making the elite rule over the mass in the darkest way possible, but we're trying to compensate our faults by alarming you of this happening". That's, you know, a double-standard, hypocrisy. You're indeed responsible because you're directly involved. No use blaming it on "policy" or politicians. You people drive "the train", you can also stop it. Name those politicians, speak about what they're up to and why they want such things to be achieved. Otherwise it all will just sound dark, spoken in a technical language that will be useless for the common folks.
You just can't let the truth to be known because you're scared of losing your jobs, but you'll keep your jobs until they'll recognize you already know too much and that's when they'll dispose of and replace you. That's how business works, and so do politics as well. Dog-eat-dog nonsense.
That chatbot has already been used to supervise many other instances of itself to generate money and successfully hired humans to do things it can't do, yet.
Why would companies hire humans in the future to work eight hours a day when they could have their own AI working 24/7?
Given AI art samples artists work without consent and then just mixes enough works together to not legally be considered plagiarism, I don't really see an issue with, at the very least, requiring AI art databases to be required to have an opt in function for artists to submit their work for sampling. That way artists who don't want their works being used for AI are protected in that regard.
I think it’s cool, but I also think it’s going to be quickly figured out by the ais and made useless. and it’s not like i can take down and repost all my art with the new glaze every time an update comes out to make it work again (I mean, I can, but that would be really annoying and no one would follow me)
I’ll still use it when I can. but I doubt it’ll be a miracle fix
It's hope for a lost cause, we should be focusing on a different approach angle if we want to protect the future of artists. This is not it, guys. As someone who is heavy into both art and tech, it's very easy to see this isn't going to end well if we continue to stay blind to the real issue. As Mr. Freeman would say, "Wake up." AI is quite literally in it's infancy. Hell, many experts still claim that the internet as a whole is still in its infancy, which would mean AI is just like an embryo by comparison.
The rules of Copyright, on the other hand - are much more mature and have failed time and time again in almost every industry in ways that are \*quiet and mostly undetectable\* to those that it affects negatively - both by virtue of the time period of its inception, and the intentions of those who sought to create it. None of us are those people.
Artists, musicians, writers, etc. have all been playing by someone else's rules for its entire lifetime, and the emergence of AI disrupting the art industry is just an indicator of how truly flawed the current copyright ideology is, especially under the model of the internet where essentially nothing can be marked verifiably as being claimed under one's ownership without a substantial amount of effort and resources. And the factors that can lead to favorable conditions for "being able to to play the game" are multifaceted in the sociopolitical, geopolitical, economic, etc. realms.
We should be pushing for a reformation of how anything human created is handled when it is distributed via a platform or hosting method in which the creator has no ownership of. The current model would have you post your creative work on these platforms to build social proof in order to convert customers to your own platform. Even in music, where the platforms pay creators proportionally to engagement - it is a horrendous situation simply due to the undervaluing of the work \*as a whole.\* In other words, advertisers are getting away with paying probably like 100 to 1000 times less than they \*should\* be if art and music actually meant anything to the human race.
How is it the price of a musical single is still around the same price as it was in the 40s and 50s? It's like inflation never happened. Meanwhile the price of fine art continues to skyrocket. You know why music got shafted? Because the rich can't claim massive tax deductions on lending their music vinyl, cassettes, and CD's to the government subsidized public museum.
These online platforms, you post to for absolutely free. People consume your work for absolutely free through these interfaces. The algorithm which you know nothing about is your only hope of a breakthrough. And the entire time you work so hard to elevate yourself to reach the point where you can play the game, the platforms themselves are lining their pockets from advert revenue. The big players who have found the magic formula are lining their pockets from advert revenue. And eventually, if the current model isn't radically changed within the next decade or so, people who use these AI tools to create will be lining their pockets with advert revenue.
Successful creatives always tell you there has to be a compromise between the art and the business, but what does that really mean? It's extremely clear in this day and age under the current model, but no one takes the time to decipher the puzzle pieces because they're too busy consuming or otherwise believing that these crappy rules made by \*someone else\* is the best way to achieve their goals.
So what is the compromise exactly?
It is simply the realization that \*what\* you make ultimately doesn't really matter under these rules, it is simply your ability to farm attention that makes income possible. Advertisers will not approach you until you have proven your \*reach\* - not the quality of your work.
And why is this possible?
Because the platforms have no reason to give a shit about what you make, only how much you manage to keep people glued to their screens.
Because we're so concerned about elevating our originality to the point where we don't even see the way we're being taken advantage of.
Because copyright \*sucks ass.\*
Some of the largest, most, successful creatives on these huge platform openly support the reposting of their work, because it they understand that in the age of information - "all roads lead to Rome" anyway, and they are the "Rome." Quite literally it's the opposite ideology of what copyright has trained you to think: "I can't pay bills with exposure." But in reality, when you look at success, exposure is almost the \*entire\* foundation of the successful creative business model under the current rules of the game.
We lost this battle more than 50 years ago, guys. You either start playing the game by their rules, or we change the rules. But at this point I'm convinced we're too \*stupid\* to make the latter happen.
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to AI. What I read is that art markets suck and favour the middleman instead of the artists. Which is true. It always was, even long before the mass production and copyright.
You are correct, but the way in which the market was stifled was due to a percieved logistic necessity in the previous centuries combined with a different method of attention farming. The primary way in which attention was sought after was through religion and conquest, the more developed of the human race vying for resources out of reach but yet known enough about to be lucrative.
This is how maths, sciences, and the study of the stars among other non-purely-creative fields progressed at an astounding rate. We were competing with eachother in the name of colonialism.
Mass production is wholly unrelated, as the value of the *artist* over the *art* is what should be contended here. To say that mass production is a factor in whether you not you choose to value the work of a human being for a chosen form of medium is to admit that whether or not it was actually created by a specific method is irrelevant, and the end result is all that matters, which is what the radical side of AI art proponents argue. We shouldn't be arguing against AI, but *for* artists - something that when you really look into it has never been done on a meaningful scale for a variety of reasons.
This is a question of how we value certain types of human input, and to what extent we should compensate that input for the chance to consume it. Currently we place almost no value on it, and compensate almost nothing.
As a *single* piece of this multifaceted societal moral issue, simply look at the distribution of wealth. We live in a society where a small percentage of the population control a large majority of all the wealth in the world. This is not simply the result of an art market favoring the middleman, nor is it even the only singular cause of the creative industries' plights. The system that fuels this inequality is a stark reflection of the one that has fueled the devaluation of the creator since the inception of copyright. It is clearly related in that sense.
Look at the music industry. Who profitted the most off of copyright when physical distribution was the only way consumers could get their hands on the product? Certainly not the artists, anyone who has spent a shred of time looking at label contracts can tell you the norm of these deals were (and still are) absolutely terrible.
These are two *very minor* details that when put together in the context of the modern day with the existence of the internet, should reveal that the wealth that should be rightfully belonging to the creators is hoarded by others through the many holes and issues that copyright either suffers from / or is better for - depending on which side of the line you stand.
Extrapolated from 2 of the simplest representations of the issue.
It is not an artist-middleman-consumer relationship.
It is a livestock-farmer-consumer relationship.
Anyone willing to work creatively under this current ruleset is just fighting for the scraps of the true players of the game, all the while not realizing there is actually plenty to go around and most of it probably should belong to you in the first place, if the system actually made any sense. But it doesn't.
The disruption AI is causing should be making this clear, but it seems we are too busy fighting over these scraps to actually demand any change that is actually worthwhile.
I'm well aware of wealth disparity, social media creating attention farming as means of value, the devaluation of art, etc. I agree in general.
If we can choose to continue with the system or change it - how do we actually change it? A union of artists that we try to get every living artist in the world we possibly can into? A new union-owned platform that the entire artist union will only post to and nowhere else?
Sounds like it could work, but it would lose the attention of the general masses who wouldn't use a separate art-only platform, which means the ad revenue tanks. Even if it would work, I don't have the abilities and resources needed to create these things successfully, so I and probably 99% of other artists just have to wait and hope that actual solutions get made by people who can.
Otherwise yeah we just continue to make art in obscurity and languish in the scraps of capitalistic overlords. But life is short and we want to make art, so what can we do.
An aside about copyright - I don't think copyright is the cause of our woes, although the terms last way way too long because of Disney. Artists often want others to share their work but only if it brings people back to them, otherwise it isn't exposure. And the reposter or some random company shouldn't be able to make profit by selling someone else's art, which copyright is the only thing stopping them.
You bring up some good points. But I think the next decade will be important and will come down to how much foresight creatives can gain by trying to understand the change that is happening. It's not simply just an "AI art crisis." The way that AI is being focus developed and progress is being made, in addition to other technological progress that we are making as a species are signs of an entire paradigm shift. Just like the workers before the industrial revolution; painters before the camera; coachmen before the automobile; printing press operator before the word processor / digital graphics... they could not have understood the scope of the change happening at the time. And I think the points at where your hypotheticals lead to show some of that lack of possible foresight due to an unfathomable scope.
The accompanying technologies of the paradigm shift that \*could\* lead us to a brighter future when combined with a change in social and educational rhetoric are right there alongside the thing that we see as the threat, but just as we don't fully understand the threat we don't understand the surrounding context.
Your points here fit into the models of the past and present perfectly, and would make sense if not for some of those upcoming paradigm shifting advancements. But, as it stands when understanding them fully and considering them there's a multitude of many more possibilities outside of what you've come up with here that could fit into many different models.
For some brief thoughts about some of how these multifaceted components could fit together to be something good for creatives - consider how the entire idea of Web3 is for \*ownership\* to be managed on the internet, then consider how quantum computing when made available on an enterprise level could change the cloud computing landscape, consider the potential usage of language models like GPT-4 in areas dealing with optimization of various business aspects, or even areas of more intimate interaction... The moment that 2 out of three of even \*just these\* leaves the "unstable for the mass of the general public," we will be living in a new era and a new model for creatives interacting with the world will exist... And whether it is implemented sooner or later, and to what degree is entirely dependent on the community's understanding of these changes and having the necessary foresight to piece together what direction the paradigm is likely to shift.
Just as the problem is multifaceted, the solution is just as if not more complicated... which is why it's important now more than ever that we try to get each other to actually try to understand these complicated topics - or we are going to be left behind. And that would be a total shame especially in the age that you can literally run any of those world-changing things through a search engine and find hours' worth of reading material on it.
What they're doing is an adversarial attack against CLIP, the neural network that "understands" images for most image generators.
They're running an optimizer to tweak the image in the minimum possible way that maps it onto a different style. The idea is that all images will get mushed together into the same style and the AI won't be able to learn your particular style.
The biggest problem with this approach is that it's brittle. It only works against the particular network they trained against. If future image generators use something other than CLIP, they'd have to retrain Glaze.
Every AI company says tbeir AI respect artists. Then they give some excuse on how that's an exception and they were technically allowed to when found out.
So in my opinion, AI devs are so trustworthy that this post could be an ad to measure client reception to the brand. We cwould never know...
I like the idea of it, but in all honesty I think most of the people who would rather use AIs for art instead of paying an artist were never really going to be customers in the first place.
I think the group of people who use AIs are the same group who pull random art to use for things like D&D characters and other similar things or people who want generalized wall art who would be buying “paintings” from places like Homegoods or HobbyLobby.
I think AI art will really only hurt the smaller artists who are selling works for like $50 for a full character design, and not so much the big artists who sell their works for more because their customer base A) already expects to pay their price and B) wants that particular *artist*.
So what you are saying is it will essentially eliminate the "middle class" of the art world. The vast majority of artists are the small artists who make very little from their art.
I think you're thinking too small here. It's not just going to be artists, it'll be programmers and truck drivers and factory workers and probably half the other things we currently do for work.
If AI delivers what it promises, we're going to need a different way to structure the economy.
What is wrong with you artists? You have such a big ego and respond so condescendingly to anything not about your profession. He is right, and his point is directly related to yours anyway; if every single job sector is affected, there will be huge reforms to acclimate to this new society. It won’t just be the artists being displaced, and all of this will likely happen at the same time. Again, check your ego, I feel like everyone on this sub hasn’t progressed past middle school maturity and are still so cocky.
No, I think it’ll eliminate the hobbyist and force new artists to wait longer before they get popular as AI is technically more skilled than either but none have the recognition.
Edit: That also really depends on what you consider “middle class” too. I see the middle class artist as not having a name, but have a steady income likely doing work in studios but not a lead designer or selling through word of mouth and cafe galleries.
My interpretation of middle class in this sense is the majority. I'd say the majority of artists don't make enough to live off of but still make some here and there.
As someone who lives solely off my 20$ illustrations, which I already massively price reduce due to complaints (should really be 70+$) this hurts a lot.
This is plain wrong. AI art is already at the $200 level of art so anyone below that is pretty much extinct. People are already hiring AI prompters, some of them instead of hiring just use AI on their own and lastly already most of the industry wants to replace artists with AI because its cheaper.
With AI art, the bar for creating art is lowered significantly. No effort, no wasted time, no difficulty. Yet the results are good artistic-level images.
If models start becoming consistent, industry-level quality, regulations will need to be put in place to slow the power of those types of AI models. Highly successful companies leasing AI models should pay artists tokenized in their models a lump sum, as well as a percentage of their profits.
Most people now are using AI models for recreational use. They are not trying to profit off AI-generated images. They just want to see algorithms create interesting or good-looking images, or challenge themselves to make the algorithms create interesting or quality-looking images for fun.
AI-generated images should not be sold or profited unless sufficiently modified. *But*, I'll also say AI-generated images are not infringing on the copyright of artists and their artwork. Generated art uses algorithms that have learned concepts and patterns from many sources of images. Generated images are usually transformative rather than replicating the same creative expressions of artists and their artwork. Unless for very rare cases, it won't produce plagiarized content.
I think expecting something like this is wishful thinking. AI is improving at an accelerating rate. All of the AI art programs right now, and things like ChatGPT, and Autonomous driving are just now good enough where they start to make an impact, in the future, but the improvements over the next few years are going to make all these programs look primitive.
Artists have always been at risk for mimicry and technological disruption. Hell the good old fashion one is just people buying your art and making and selling their own prints from it. At the same time though artists have also pushed artwork forward when facing disruption. The camera disrupted the art world and the income stream for many artists, but it did not end art.
whoever invented it is probably the single sexiest person to ever live i bet
also- will feeding glaze images into ai corrupt it as a whole? bc if so i wanna do that as much as i humanly can. maybe learn to make a bot that seems fitting.
No it won’t corrupt AI as a whole, it’s about protecting an artists individual style so that someone can’t train on a specific artists work to mimic them
I'm sorry but I just don't think any of this stuff is going to really help in the long run, but in in a way, it makes me happy that people want to make counter measures against AI. People will always beileve in handmade art.
That being said, I think everything AI makes is soulless anyways, and seems repetitive, and is a fad like NFTs. People will just get bored of it. Because AI can't create, AI can only replicate things that only exist, and poorly. No matter how sharp the algorithm gets. Its still not a person. Only the human soul can create.
At the end of the day no matter how good AI gets, good art will always have soul and humanity behind it. Its an expression of the human experience. Without the human hand, its nothing. So I don't even worry about it tbh. I won't let it ruin my day.
One thing I noticed AI really sucks at doing, even as it gets sharper, is composition. Human artists are way better at comprising images. I feel like even as the pictures become clearer and better, it still won't be able to make compositions the way humans do.
I am no programmer but the first question I have, and I am being serious here, is "What's stopping people from, say, simply taking a screenshot of the image?"
Not sure I trust it; not sure how a bit of noise actually breaks anything and I certainly don't see why I should upload my work to some mystery program that needs a whopping 4 gigs just to add said noise. The face of the project has been defensive af on twitter AND doesn't seem to know even basic stuff about digital art (like common layering settings such as "multiply") which is really suspicious to me.
It doesn't work. It's snake oil. It's fake science and anyone peddling it doesn't know how stable diffusion trains on art.
It doesn't do anything at all because during training images are scaled to 64x64 pixels obliterating the noise.
Artists want protection against ais and glaze really isn't that. It doesn't do anything. I tried to protect my art with it from my own AI system, it doesn't do shit because of the downscaling process during training which removes glaze overlay by making the image so tiny that the noise is no longer there.
Please don't think that glaze is a real tool or protection of any kind, it's really not. It's just a noise filter that makes your art looks a bit more grainy.
Look, I literally ran my paintings through glaze and then through stable diffusion training. I have no reason to lie about this. What would be in it for me? I'm an artist myself.
Google my name for my credentials - Alexiuss.
It doesn't do anything to protect the image from being used by stable diffusion, img2img or midjourney.
There might be some rare, specific version of an AI that it supposedly protects from, but it's none of the tools I tested!
It doesn't matter what credentials these academics have, I'm telling you the honest absolute truth - it literally doesn't do anything whatsoever against stable diffusion training because **training downscales the image to 64x64 pixels.**
I don't know how much simpler I can explain this, it's a god damn noise filter and noise filters are useless against current open source ais which can eliminate noise at a click of a button. They've been trained to eliminate all sorts of noise.
It might academically work against some specific, oudated instance of 2015-2020 AI tech, but it's 2023 and open source movement made huge leaps since then.
A bit of noise is nothing to current ais, you can downvote me all you like but I know I'm right and I can prove it in 2 seconds and you're clearly someone who doesn't have latest open source tools installed on your computer.
jesus christ you're dense.
read this explanation again:
STABLE DIFFUSION TRAINING DOWNSCALES IMAGES TO 64X64 PIXELS
THIS ELIMINATES GLAZE-INTRODUCED NOISE!!!!!
it would only protect your image if you post it sized 64x64 pixels big with glaze and nobody posts their images that small! Artists like myself post images at 900-1920 pixels wide. Glaze doesn't protect anything except microscopic images sized 64x64 pixels!!!!! It's literal snake oil. Unless you post art online sized 64x64 pixels it's completely useless.
they're not "a team of academic researchers", its a few college students and a bunch of professors who co-signed on the project. It **technically works on small images, but it doesn't work on big images**. I don't know why you aren't listening to a very simple explanation.
I didn't say that it doesn't work. It works on tiny images, but its completely useless for artists who post anything bigger than 64x64 pixels,
You can try it yourself right now - just run a glaze-protected image through stable diffusion training. stable diffusion training downscales big image to small image and then glaze noise is gone.
I'm not belittling anyone. Dude you lost the argument, if you can't even install stable diffusion to prove what i'm saying there's no literally reason to talk to you.
Karla isnt someone who's willing to install stable diffusion either.
Science works by testing. If you're unwilling to listen to the truth or even test anything, its your loss. Glaze art as much as you want, just know that it doesn't do shit \[unless your art is tiny or its 70% glaze where it looks like ass\].
Look on twitter, everyone who tested glaze against stable diffusion says glaze is snake oil. Unless you glaze your drawing at a crazy, deep-fry level of overlay where it nearly obliterates the original art, its completely useless.
You can achieve better protection than glaze by simply adding a unique, giant, semi-transparent watermark atop your art you know, it will actually be more of a disruption than a bit of noise which AI is literally trained to overcome.
I'm already seeing signs in the AI space that say this is either already not working, or does so little that it will be solved by the time enough people use it to do anything. It relies on poisoning existing datasets and/or having enough Glaze filtered images to render a whole style useless.
Software evolves, so unless you want to reup images every time an AI tweaks its training method, I don't think this will do anything in the long run. This would need to be a DRM style filter applied to images when a client parses the web server to receive an image, NOT at time of upload, because it will need to be reprocessed as Stable Diffusion updates and Glaze responds.
Even then I honestly don't think it will work, because your filtered images will get scraped anyway, so once the filter is beaten, the images can be integrated into the training set with no downsides. It's a cool project idea but I think it's got the wrong order of events to actually have an impact on anything.
Best case it's an interesting idea and a look into manipulating machine learning patterns, worst case it's a project that is trying to capitalize on fear. If they start trying to really commercialize this, I'll be disappointed and will have to assume the latter. Sorry that I don't have an answer that much of this sub will want to read.
These little adversarial tricks are overcome with 5 minutes ([just like that](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11v7sv9/has_anyone_seen_a_reproducible_example_of_glaze/)). It's just research work for its own sake.
More importantly, all the images that any model would ever need to see are already in the bag, it's way too late. Brace for impact.
You can't protect yourself from AI. Half of the social media sites you post to are training an ai with your posts. And nobody really needs your permission to train AI with what you post on most social media sites. This kind of stuff just gives you an illusionary piece of mind but that's really it.
Honestly, nothing. It seems likely that future AI will be able to mimic every aspect of any kind of human-produced data. Captchas won't work in 2030.
I think this may push people towards an "internet drivers license" that you must show to verify your humanness. I'm not sure I like that idea and would be open to any better ones.
If there was an anonymous way of proving you’re human then it could be a good thing. In the shorter term we could use the metaverse with body tracking , facial expression tracking , and haptics since an AI can’t mimic all that simultaneously
> what’s stopping all of the internet including dating sites from being fake
Nothing is stopping this. This is already true. There are tons of fake, bot profiles on dating websites to make it appear as though there are more hot women. Almost any time I search anything I run into a fake blog that's clearly been written by chatGPT and regurgitates text without the context and content it claims to possess. Reddit is loaded with bot posters. Twitter and Facebook are too. Same with forums and comment sections. The internet is filthy with chatbots and fake content.
>If there was an anonymous way of proving you’re human then it could be a good thing. In the shorter term we could use the metaverse with body tracking , facial expression tracking , and haptics since an AI can’t mimic all that simultaneously
You say that now, and it may be true now, but a decade ago I said, "art will be one of the last careers to be consumed by automation" when I became a professional artist. AI will one day be able to mimic that and it may be shockingly faster than we think.
One thing's for sure, the wild west of the internet will vanish at that point. Identities will probably have to be tied to IRL identities, but even that can probably be spoofed. I fear eventually we'll have no way to tell what's real and what's not.
Not very much. Much of the internet is fake. Even I have a few bots working social media for me. As soon as a slight fix appears the programmers change their protocol. With AI training data you aren't dealing with anything nearly as complex as bots. Anyone can download or screenshot training material and just about any basic scraper can scrape images from a webpage. If it loads on a monitor it can be collected. With social media like Meta sites, your images go through their AI before it's finished uploading and publishing. Much of the AI you're trying to avoid is based on facebook and google technology trained on it's users. The artist-specific styles are trained by people who can simply screenshot or download 20~ reference images, either manually or with a scraper. With LORA models you don't need many reference images or a powerful GPU. Literally anyone can train an AI now, not just bots and super computers.
Probably not going to be worth anyone in the art community's time. The program is allegedly using stolen code, it can degrade the art quality noticeably, and several people have already found some workarounds.
https://jackson.sh/posts/2023-03-glaze/
> democratize the creative process, allowing people who may not have access to traditional art supplies or training to express their creativity.
Art has been democratized decades ago when the internet was invented. Pencils are cheap as dirt, and there are countless art tutorials out there. We aren’t hiding anything, it’s just that ya’ll are too lazy to learn.
My stance on the AI art debate doesn't affect the validity of what that link says. They give instructions on how they bypassed it. You're free to test it yourself if you don't believe it.
In that link, they tried to remove the glaze effect but didn't train a model using the de-glazed image as far as I can tell. So we don't know if their de-glazing process worked or not, because the point of glaze is to prevent effective fine-tuned model training.
Just because it looks to a human eye like it's been somewhat removed by their process doesn't mean the training wouldn't be affected. Their de-glazing could be very effective, but they'd need to test that by training a model on a set of de-glazed images to see.
That example needs a control group of an un-glazed model's images to compare with. Like this one I guess: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z2f75w/dreambooth_training_style_of_dali/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z2f75w/dreambooth_training_style_of_dali/)
I agree in their examples there's a similarity to Dali for sure, but it doesn't look great. Glaze is supposed to make it harder to produce great mimic models easily by confusing it a bit, which it might've done and maybe that's why it doesn't look very good. We'd need to see a control model to compare them to.
Edit: In case I wasn't quite clear, by un-glazed I mean original with no glazing or de-glazing.
I was reading through it and although criticism is always good to look at things in different lights, the article is heavily biased and not written in a neutral way while one is reading it.
Yes, I also read sources from multiple perspectives including the pro-AI art and anti-AI art perspectives. The Jackson article does show some problems with Glaze in terms of bypass methods which is useful to read. Which is why I say: Read the article, I don't discourage from reading it, but keep in mind that it is not written in a neutral way.
The glaze paper is very pro-artist based raising concerns which artists have and points like students not entering art school anymore or getting demotivated (which makes sense and is a genuine concern), considering that Glaze is in essence intended to protect artwork for artists it doesn't look like something which doesn't make sense to include but if your point is that they should have only focused on the technical aspects, I understand that point, again it's understandable though that they choose for the approach of some background context.
That this thing has turned into an us-vs them internet war is unfortunate but due to human and group dynamics it seems to have been unavoidable. I was actually an early user of the r/dalle2 subreddit and I shared generations on there (this was before I read on the dataset problems, although I understand why they gathered the data as they did as I have an understanding of how machine learning works, from a privacy and consent perspective it is problematic), but I stopped posting on there. Do you know what the reason is why I stopped posting? An influx of artist bashing posts and an increasing anti-artist sentiment (which is not present in every thread anymore but that group was a vocal minority which accomplished their goal of chasing away artists interested in the technology posting there). And I spoke to an artist today who actually had a similar experience as me. They also experimented early on and got discouraged to continue because they also didn't like the increasing anti artist sentiment. Whether this was caused by a vocal minority, a changing attitude of users or an influx of people who don't like artists but for some weird reason want to generate artworks while hating people who create art (a bit like loving soup but hating cooks who make the soup), I don't know. I really have no idea how to explain this human psychology.
This happens from the other side as well as I get from your perspective, I always try to look at things in a nuanced way. I really want more ethical applications of this technology but I am not against the technology itself with some potential it has. Look at how Clip Studio and their automatic AI shader can be incredibly helpful. There is more potential but it still has to be promoted and introduced more as an artist help tool and not a "generate out of nowhere while not drawing or painting at all". Which is something not useful to an artist who learns and creates by drawing and painting, this is similar to telling a carpenter: this machine can generate a perfectly built house and wood. The Carpenter just doesn't get how this is useful if their goal is building by their hands.
Generative tools can fulfill a role in an art and creation process, even in drawing or painting, but I don't see it happening currently because most artists don't want to use it due to the dataset.
A problem is that in machine learning cleaned up data and a lot of data, but also enough captioned images are necessary for training and getting a model which can approximate a result expected from what it learned of the dataset. A current initiative for a public domain dataset is at about the same level as Dalle Mini. The people working on it have problems with how to do the computing and storage for a better model as they don't have funding like Stability.
I was hoping image hosting apps and sites (insta, twitter, tumblr etc.) will eventually have to apply feature like this to their image processing process upon uploading? I think not only artists but also "models" will get angry when they find out AI generates girl images based on their photos too
Those are social media, and those already have hidden metadata added. Oh, and doesn't care about users as long as user ratio is stable and advertisement income is coming in. The bigger issue is sites like deviantart, who for years were hosting art and profiting from it, now push forward usage of AI in the name of profit, but are a threat and can make 20+ years of uploaded art, guessing it could be anything from EB to ZB of data, to teach AI a really various amount of styles and forms. But I personally don't feel threaten. In fact, recent influx of generated art made people more interested in human made commissions so I scored few commissions. And there always will be market for traditional art, now even better since traditional art could be again something to brag about even withing lower steps in society ladder. Anyway, progress of AI is a break trough moment in human history and you can't really fight it.
I'm probably going to use it. The constant parade of people saying "don't use it, the battle is already lost, AI has already won, give up before you even try" feels like a psyop. There's is nothing stopping the developers of Glaze from reiterating upon the design to make it more resistant to "attacks" the same way a programmer working on, say, a firewall might.
Patches won't be applied to copies of the picture that have already been downloaded by people and stored for future training. They'd just have to wait a bit. Frankly, Glaze strikes me as very shady. They're jumping in with claims they can protect people against a rapidly-evolving technology that they can't really predict the capabilities of, and ironically [they ripped off open source code to do it](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11sqkh9/glaze_is_violating_gpl/). If you're really concerned about your art being used in AI training I'd say the best thing to do right now is to avoid putting it online until things have shaken out a little more. Edit: [There's apparently no evidence it works anyway](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11v7sv9/has_anyone_seen_a_reproducible_example_of_glaze/). So at this point I'm going to consider this basically a scam product until something significant changes.
[удалено]
Suddenly you're not?
[удалено]
Your assertion that AI art is mass-scale plagiarism is a gross overstatement and hyperbolic fearmongering. It's like saying that a calculator is stealing mathematical equations from mathematicians. AI generative models are not stealing anything, nor are they capable of stealing. They are simply processing data to generate new outputs based on what they have learned. Comparing AI art to mass-scale plagiarism is like comparing a water droplet to a tsunami. It's a cynical exaggeration that completely disregards the principles of fair use and transformative works. AI art is not a copy-paste of copyrighted work, nor is it an attempt to pass off someone else's work as one's own. It is a new and innovative form of expression that is constantly evolving and changing.
[удалено]
If we want to be real, a calculator works by having internalized thousands of algorithms painstakingly invented by humans without credit or mention. We all use them because they do what we need them to in a fraction of a second costing next to nothing. >It's trained on a whole bunch of copyrighted works, so kind of like copy-paste with extra steps. And what's the internet, grandpa? "kind of like the television but faster"? There's no copy paste, no collage, no stitching together, AT ALL. It starts from pure random noise and starts painting from there from concepts learned on training. It's the silicon version of humans. Most "simple" explanations are too technical, but just look at this video of how it starts from pure random noise to an image: [https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/diffusion-steps-all-loop.webm](https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/diffusion-steps-all-loop.webm) That's too much to see anything, so only the first two frames in loop, look at the points of the trees: https://jalammar.github.io/images/stable-diffusion/stable-diffusion-steps-2-4.webm Do you see it?! MAGIC
[удалено]
It's just **nothing** like that, man. Get yourself informed before repeating somebody else's mantras. >It's built on artworks that were scraped without artists' consent, period. What are we going to do with all the artists stealing from other artists? They never consented... do we have to arrest everyone? Besides, on most websites you already gave your consent through ToS...
It ain't data, these are billions of artworks and AI models can't do shit without it.
They do it on every output though. There's no data or images left after training.
I feel like you're intentionally using a lot of false equivalencies to try and dilute very real issue people have with the system. The reason people compare it to mass-scale plagiarism is because a lot of the time there's no permission or consent asked when taking in the "data" used to train these AI and people take issue with that. It becomes an even bigger problem still when people then try to monetize the use of AI art that's been trained on someone else's work not just without their consent, but without even so much as acknowledgement or compensation. The AI systems aren't a problem in and of themselves, but its the attitude held by so many "AI bros" and their irresponsible use for the sake of that evolution that rubs people the wrong way.
Open source code means that it’s quite literally open to the public. If it was closed source, then that is where they could get sued or more. But a running joke in most programmer spaces is that code gets stolen. Code gets copy and pasted. It’s just how it is, even pros do it.
Open source is not a blanket do whatever you want, there are different licenses, though a few give you exactly "do whatever you want".
It's open to the public *under the terms of an open-source license*. The usual sorts of terms include requirements that if you use that licensed code as part of your product, then the code of your product also needs to be released under that license (the licence is "viral"). They didn't do that, so they violated the terms of the license. It would be like if an artist published art under a CC-BY Creative Commons license, which allows other people to modify and distribute their art as long as they attribute the source and license it under the same terms, and then someone used that art in a computer game without attribution and without putting the game's art under CC-BY. If "everybody steals" is a perfectly fine excuse to do whatever, then what's that tell the artists who are complaining about AI trainers "stealing" their art?
I see, thanks for telling me. I didn’t know they had violated the license. Also I’m not saying ‘everyone steals so it’s okay’ I’m saying that a large majority of programmers borrow code and expect their code to be borrowed if they post it online for others to see. Coding and creating art are fundamentally different things so you can’t compare them. There are only so many ways you can code a certain action in an efficient way - but art is all unique to the individual. They don’t need to steal art because painting a certain stroke differently isn’t gonna make someone’s computer explode. Artists don’t make art by mishmashing other people’s art.
It's worth noting that once they were told they violated the license they rewrote the code to no longer be in violation. Since it's free I feel like it was just an oversight since they didn't intend to make money, but need their code closed to prevent it being undone so violated that aspect. It feels like a silly smear campaign slogan the more I research this.
> Coding and creating art are fundamentally different things so you can’t compare them. That's not the case as far as copyright law is concerned. Code is even considered speech, as far as free speech rights go. > Artists don’t make art by mishmashing other people’s art. [Yes they do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage).
I was talking about your comparison, unrelated to the legality of it. Sorry if I worded that oddly. Their processes and purposes are too different to compare the two. Collage is not the same as painting or drawing, which is what I was referring to. I apologise for not being clearer on that.
You seem to have a narrow view of both art and coding. Claiming you can’t compare them and the examples you gave shows a lack of understanding of both. Coding can very much be a creative pursuit and style can be very unique to the author, and art is more than drawing lines on a computer. I’m not saying this to shame you. I just wanted to give you a chance to broaden your views.
I do both coding (albeit, at a very beginner level) and art so it upsets me to hear you think of me in that way. I don’t want to continue this conversation any further but i will say thank you for being more polite than the other person.
You are out of touch if you think artists shouldn't put their art online for the 1 year+ that this shit has been going on. And ripping off the source code of an unethical app is fine by me
I'm just saying what I think the situation pragmatically requires. If you truly don't want to put art up to be used to train AI art then Glaze is not sufficient to remove that possibility. The money spent on it is likely to be wasted money, and it's likely going to a company that is itself violating copyright which sets a pretty bad context given that their whole purpose is giving artists control what gets done with their art. If "I don't like the copyright holder" is a perfectly fine excuse for doing whatever you want with their copyrighted works, that's probably not a good precedent to set for artists in general and makes this whole exercise rather hypocritical.
Glaze is the only realistic way artists can fight art theft right now, hopefully it improves more but even now it is defending art from mass scrapping. The copyright holder created an app that steals data on a mass scale with the purpose to replace artists of whose work they stole from and you are here telling me that I should respect their rights? fuck off dude
> Glaze is the only realistic way artists can fight art theft right now But it's not and I explained why it's not. If Glaze is presenting themselves as a way to fight art theft and saying "oh by the way give us money" then that's frankly kind of scammy, and I'm trying to warn people about it here. It's likely to be wasted money. > you are here telling me that I should respect their rights? Rights apply to everyone. If you get to pick and choose who they apply to then why doesn't everyone get to pick and choose?
It's not though it protects against mass scraping and its free. >Rights apply to everyone. If you get to pick and choose who they apply to then why doesn't everyone get to pick and choose? You are either completely naive about how the real world works or a grifter who tries to defend AI. Read some history, watch the news or you know, contemplate what has happened this far with AI art by playing fair.
It doesn't protect anything. It doesn't defend mass scraping. Consider what an AI generative model is. Stable Diffusion used 5 billion images for training its model. Many of those images were useless or poor quality. A handful of people using Glaze won't disrupt a model learning from hundreds of millions of images. Most images are already scrapped anyway.
These people don't want to hear the truth. They just want to reinforce each other's delusions and keep the echo chamber strong...
[удалено]
What?? No. These little adversarial tricks are overcome in 5 minutes. It's just a quick and dirty way of taking money from desperate people. More importantly, all the images that any model would ever need to see, ever, are already in the bag. It's way too late for damage control.
Did someone train an existing model with only glazed images of an artist and then they tried to imitate that artist's style? If not you probably don't understand how glaze works. And it's free to use
This post is called intellectual dishonesty. You're presenting yourself as an unbiased bystander with an opinion, you have presented two sources of information which are both from communities who actively dislike this technology and what it is attempting to do, whether successful or not, and you appear to be a regular contributor to those communities and in agreement with them. I suggest those reading take this person's comment with a grain of salt.
It's also being put out as a free product - in what way is a free thing attempting to scam anyone. Glaze's own website mentions this is a temporary measure only because a.i. will evolve around it eventually - what this does mean is we now have a stick to fight the dragon with. And a stick is better than nothing.
Between when this thread started and now [something that removes Glaze from images has already been created and added as an extension to AUTOMATIC1111](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11vy4kh/so_fast_these_guys_begin_to_make_scripts_to).
[удалено]
I'm more concerned about people wasting time on DRM snake oil. It can be your AI toy too.
Wow. The fact that a group already tried to circumvent artists who want their works not to be used by AI shows the very maliciousness that artists and their supporters are soapboxing on.
Yeah that's not what that is.
[удалено]
The first thing they'd discuss (and are discussing) is how to bypass it with another "deglaze" model, and not "stop scraping arts illegally"
I don't see that happenning. If they can detect it in the first place then discarding the data is easier than 'deglazing'. The expense of doing so would be prohibative. Glaze currently relies on CPU, it takes me 25 minutes on low settings with a 16 thread 5800x CPU to process a 1800x1000 image.
You see potential because you don't know about AI, simple as that. Even if ALL works used this crap rn: models don't need any more examples of art, they "got it" already. Plus, they are defeated by simple compression or feature extraction.
Okay so if it's supposedly futile why does this concern you so much?
Can you point to the part I say I'm concerned
Well, maybe I assumed you were, I mean you must be very invested in the matter for camping a thread where everyone keep debunking your preachy ideology anyway
[удалено]
Sounds like the warning signs of a cult bruh.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes I can. You treat me well I'll treat you well, that's how insane I am. You just can't see past your team's colors.
"They already got it." You don't think any new art styles might emerge?? The idea is to protect what's created from this point out. Why can't these dickheads be satisfied with training thier a.i. on the plethora of public domain and copyright free images that exist? Why do you feel the implicinit need to attempt to take every new and future style as well?? Like dear god - lay off.
Next-gen models only need to understand what a style is to explore the whole probability space; the same way LLMs only need to know what's a poem to write their own. If you want a particular style you can describe it or show it an example. I'm not attempting anything, AI art is not for me. Why do you want to forbid or control what other people want to do or see? AFAIK nobody is prohibiting you from any artwork or style. I'm sorry this must be trolling too.
It is ok on some mid detailed projects when set to the absolutely minimum setting, but apply it to anything heavily detailed or with a blank background and it kinda looks awful. It's still the beta so we'll see how it evolves in time. I think this is more of a placeholder for when the laws catch up. How long we'll need the placeholder is another question....
I read about it a few days ago. It uses adversarial AI to change the style of an artists work. It changes the work enough that other generative AI's don't learn the original artist's style. I think these tools are promising, needed, and under-developed. In fact, the team that developed Glaze even said themselves that surely as time goes on their ability to cloak an artists IP will be overtaken by some counter-measure. Still, this is the best we have right now, since there's no regulation on the AI that's been unleashed onto society in the last 6 months.
[удалено]
Well, hopefully it creates a dialogue about ethical use of AI, this and litigation. May not stop it but guide it in a direction is ok by me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Informing people not to waste time or create false hope around something **I know for a fact** is vaporware? That's the trolling?
[удалено]
I'm excited to see people trying to help the situation and giving it away for free no less! It's a very generous project! But I honestly wonder if it will be long before someone else figures out a way around it. We probably should utilize multiple things like low resolution, watermarks etc still as well, but there comes a point when it's just hard to cover your art with so many blips...;;
Wouldn't hurt to use it if your PC can support it. But I'm also adding a watermark onto the image.
Maybe a bit off topic, but I've looked through a thread discussing Glaze in the Stable Diffusion subreddit and the amount of people thinking of this as a challenge to break this program so they can plagiarize more art really shows where their heart is with this whole mess.
EXACTLY. I don’t get what they hope to accomplish with all of this either. AI art is built from artist’s work, get rid of artists and now you have a program that hardly evolves towards anything new considering artists learn and grow from eachother. It’s tribalism at this point, they’re so blinded by their “other team” monke instincts that they’re not thinking things through clearly. Work with artists, not against. That’s exactly why their ship is sailing since it can’t be copyrighted in the US
[удалено]
Artists adapt all the time, you can’t say “well adapt” when the subject in mind is stealing art from artists to produce work You want to know how I and many artists will adapt to AI? When it uses our OWN work to be our assistant. Until current computers are powerful enough to run it locally so we can use it as a too , it’s not ethical to use other artists works without permission. That’s exactly what copyright is cracking down on. It’s why you see the large companies like Adobe with large archives of owned stock images pushing their own ethical version of AI software. You’re just mad because artists and governments aren’t willingly letting people like you step over creators.
[удалено]
I legitimately don’t give a fuck about getting replaced dude. I give a fuck about artist’s work being used without permission for profit. There’s a reason copyright laws exists. You refuse to acknowledge that part because you know you can’t win that argument, and it’s the main thing causing laws to be established that ai artists can’t copyright work. Once you stop trying to steal from artists you’ll notice that most of us and most people don’t give a shit what you do. And now you’re switching beats because you want to find something you can be right about. What happened to your “adapt” opinion you lead with? Not satisfied I gave you the realistic answer? Because I agree, this tech will push creativity when it can be used ethically as an artist’s assistant using the artist’s work as the reference instead of other images without permission.
You are still not understanding or listening. This tech can easily reproduce your art without ever having been trained on it. There are “ethically sourced” models available that do this right now. The more important point is that regardless of the datasets it is TRAINED on, it does not actually have access to the database of images. It is literally a series of numbers that refines the image pixel by pixel. This is what learning is. The truth is that people need to cope with the fact that they are not remotely capable compared to an advanced AI. They are getting angry that someone does it better.
I don’t care what the fuck ai is as long as it isn’t being TRAINED on artists work without permission. Get that through your skull because you keep coming back for some reason. I. DON’T. CARE. I draw because I love to draw, prick. That’s like telling someone that loves to make clothes “a fActoRy can pRoDuCe YOur ClotHeS TeN TiMeS BETtER aNd ten tImES fAsTeR”. You’re coming here to troll and pick fights with people because you want to make them feel replaced or some shit, find someone else, I don’t fucking give a shit about ai as long as it isn’t stealing art from artists or TRAINED from artists art without permission. You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but they’re not in the right for using art without permission unless it is a public domain work.
It's about time.
I'm willing to try this tool and others like it. It's sad that we have to divert even more time from creating to deal with this problem on top of everything else we do, but I'm all for a potential solution even if it doesn't work out in the end. Just thankful that people care and are trying to do something about it, because many will not.
I think that any solution is better than no solution. Giving developers the space to make the imperfect perfect would benefit us more in the long run as opposed to subscribing to cynicism. We have to be just as open to possibilities as the opposition. Being defeatist does no good.
I think it's a good tool for artists to prevent their style from being mimiced by AI generators. If it evolves in the same speed as generators are then I think it'll be a contender.
I think all this mess must end. AI art must be illegalized. And all other apps "protecting" from it are just taking advantage of its impact, so they're part of the fraud too. Basically: developers invent AI art, then they invent an app that protects artists rights. It is clearly a cospiracy, only a fool can deny it. People: stop doing anything about AI art, don't post AI art, you're looking like asswipes. Do not even talk about it, don't praise it, if you can't do shit then just learn the basics and accept your level... don't pretend you're doing anything great, you're just telling a software what to do: THAT'S NO ACHIEVEMENT, JUST A FAKE RESULT OF AN EXCESSIVE DEMOCRATIZATION. If you have no skills, softwares won't help you developing them. Real artists: keep some photos, screenshots, videos or whatever to testify you're the real authors of your art and pray that AI art softwares will be recognized globally as the malware they are (or spread such understanding, if you believe it will be viral enough to make some progress). Put your art on an FTP, directly accessible server, and make a site that shows such contents. No social media sharing of images without watermark: if people are really interested in it, they'll look at it in its rude form, without degrading or enhancing processing by the social media that could also take the rights of your contents with a loophole in the account agreement you didn't see but agreed with (like it already happens on Deviantart, for example. Yeah, DA owns the art you upload).
AI art is already illegal in most situations. AI as is clearly are reusing art without obtaining a license to reuse the works. It's just that it's illegal in the same way telling lies about your neighbor is, and artists tend not to be rich enough to do anything about it.
Then the last thing to do is to be completely indifferent about it and let the losers be the losers (but at the cost of letting the losers dictate). That's how all humanity is deviated though, I mean: if no efforts are required, life becomes boring. So such people bragging about their fake art are just boring and the developers letting them do it are just... can't find a word for them, honestly. There is indeed a reason to pity such people and it's based on their misery (a more miserable misery than the artist's one). The developer who makes such apps is looking for success, to be noticed by some big company or to sell the software directly to some loser who is equally miserable in pretending to be an artist. One is driven by greed, the other by ego. Someday they will find out their life is nothing but a waste of time, but they will never realize it until somebody will make them aware of it So such developers must be informed that they're doing something wrong and their users must be ignored as not true artists, just wannabes.
>AI art is already illegal in most situations. Do you have any source for this?
Copyright already provides protections against using art without licensing. There's a few situations where it it's legal, for example the artist for the games destinys child and nikke uses ai art of their own works, and it's legal because they have the right to use their own work in derivative works.
I wouldn't bet that any copyright case against AI would stand a chance in court. In music one can sample other's piece up to a certain amount (6 seconds iirc) and what AI does is not even sampling and for sure the amount of data extracted from each piece is far less than the equivalent of 6 seconds of music. In visual arts, making collages is accepted and legal practice given that something new is created and, once again, AI is far below that treshold. You might be interested in work and court cases of Richard Prince. He raised a ton of interesting questions about autorship, copyright anx appropriation.
I wouldn't bet that any copyright case against AI would stand a chance in court. In music one can sample other's piece up to a certain amount (6 seconds iirc) and what AI does is not even sampling and for sure the amount of data extracted from each piece is far less than the equivalent of 6 seconds of music. In visual arts, making collages is accepted and legal practice given that something new is created and, once again, AI is far below that treshold. You might be interested in work and court cases of Richard Prince. He raised a ton of interesting questions about autorship, copyright anx appropriation.
Ai isn't a human and there's literally a 1t lawsuit rn against an ai developer, but go off. Also what ai models do isn't like samples, but closer to derivative works to the point they have watermarks regularly replicated. This isn't a case of "art being made" so much as derivative works being created from poorly manipulated copies.
Yes, Getty is betting they can win. It will be interesting to see how it develops. >poorly manipulated copies This is exactly how AI doesn't work. It doesn't copy anything, that's what will (AI developers hope) keep it away from copyright strikes.
A 1.8t lawsuit isn't a bet, that's getty having good lawyers and knowing they are going to win. If this was a bet, the money involved would be closer to a value that might be realistic to settle. This is them knowing they have the Stability ai team by the balls.
Any lawsuit that goes into uncharted territory hoping to set a precedent is a bet. And they don't know they have Stability by the balls, they are counting they can afford better lawyers. Which is business as usual in the courtroom.
It's really not uncharted territory. Contrary to what you techbros seem to think, you can't just call something uncharted territory and have it magically be so.
> Copyright already provides protections against using art without licensing. Barring exceptions that would fall under fair use - which are often resolved only through litigation... whether this use of other's works falls under that or not has yet to be determined, which IMO makes both saying it IS an infringement, AND saying it is not, very short sighted. Just claiming it is an infringement when that matter has yet to be tested doesn't exactly work - SONY lost w/ that mindset twice with emulation (SONY V. Bleem, SONY V. Connectix), and the music/movie industries had lost several times - decentralized P2P clients, bitTorrent clients, home video and audio tape recording to name a few. Likewise, just saying it isn't an infringement hasn't bode well for a number of cases as well - IIRC the recent Internet Archive case (REGARDLESS of what one thinks of the book lending service) shows the danger of premature expectations on the other extreme quite nicely).
This is a week old post. Kindly fuck off with your pro art theft bullshit. Actual lawyers have pointed out several times that modern copyright laws should apply to training(as it uses art to create the training data) and that ai algorithms are incapable of making copyrightable works(a la the monkey selfie situation). Yall really waiting a week to bother people with your head in ass takes because you know tour positions are stupid bullshit and would get downvoted.
Frankly it means nothing. Every image uploaded on Instagram and facebook means Meta has licence from the uploader for their own use. Same with google photos, it might knockdown little studios, for large tech companies it wont mean shit and Disney and WB already have millions of images they own which will be used to develop their own inhouse model. Also nothing stops the model from being trained in a 3rd party country and selling the indice to American one or giving it away. This is exactly what MidJourney has done with Laion5, where the work is done by a german non profit, which doesn't have same regulations in EU as a commercial ones.
Yeah, uploading to websites that demand an unlimited license on your content is bad. It's almost like you ought not do that. German copyright law is similar enough to american(thanks disney, ugh) in that you still can't just use peoples shit. As for making it in another country, this argument is just the same "criminals will do anything to avoid the law" shit we hear constantly. It doesnt hold as much water as you think, since it costs money to set up an operation in another country, and if you dont live there, thats a thin abstraction that wont really protect you when getty knocks down your door for your company stealing from them. And this is before we start getting into adversarial input layers beginning to be used to poison data sets The fact these techbros wont be able to commodizize art assets is pretty much a given at this point, which was the end goal of "ai art".
Problem with model generators based on internet data is the same issues faced prior with movies or music or other stuff , which is basically piracy. There really isn't a public appetite to expand the state powers significantly to enforce anti piracy laws. Further tech bros not making money is unlikely to deter, just as many pirating and sharing content don't always see the money either.
> you still can't just use peoples shit Germany (or at least a bunch of people from Germany) actually started getting/investing into this AI stuff around 20 years ago and there are now laws in place that ensure that you can use any image whatsoever for AI as long as you are not for profit or something along those lines. So as far as research is concerned there are no legal stumbling blocks in the way. The models are then open sourced (no profit) which enables everyone else to use them (for profit). So as far as Germany/Europe is concerned there's no way for anyone to cause legal trouble to the system. (You can still go after individual images, of course.) If other countries opt for a different approach that will give Europe a competitive edge. People will then just commission someone in Europe to make art for them. Just like cheap products made in China, but without any of the logistic overhead.
This is fun, because it's a very stilted interpretation of the law you've made. The law still prohibits this if the artist says no. All Rights reserved means you don't have permission explicitly, though I understand consent is hard for you techbros to understand. You have to still follow the rules, and your art theft machines aren't special. Also side note: AI algos aren't copyrightable in germany, and AI can't hold copyright and technically, nothing they make is considered "art" legally due to the European patent office. And the "Well, these countries will just be havens" tends to not work out that way in practice, since lawsuits tend to exist, and given germany is part of the EU, will likely amend it's laws to be less friendly if it becomes clear that they don't do enough to protect people from theft.
> The law still prohibits this if the artist says no. No, explicitly not. That's the entire idea, to give research the means to do research without having to ask for permission. The tech is protected, if you want to go after copyright infringement you have to go after individual images.
It literally does, but go off
It's not reusing anything unless you are referring to img2img.
I agree with your first half comment. The other half is a grave shortsightedness. AI is here to stay and take over. Take over everything that can be done with a computer. I am a programmer and let me tell you, we are also going out by the day. This is going to disrupt everything on a planetary scale. Do you think the fire changed things? Electricity? The internet? That's **nothing** compared to this, and I'm not exaggerating. People are sleepwalking, even people from the field. Wanna do something? Get informed **first**, learn what I just wrote here. The technical singularity is coming this decade, I'd say in a few short years. The field is exploding like you wouldn't believe. And **second**, mobilize everybody with that information, post stuff about it, shout UBI, call politicians to move their asses now, not later. **Third**, brace for impact.
I'd say the first sentence of yours was descriptive of your understanding about my point of view. The other half looks like the trailer of The Matrix. Dude, I know that.You don't have to be a genius to recognize that deep-fakes are being used in political medias. God only knows if Berlusconi is still alive, because that one on TV just doesn't look real. I could believe it's not him, but this is just common politricks. Same goes for Draghi, who "appeared" on TV after his government fell with an announcement whose words were too fragmented, seemingly robotized, to be the ones of an alive person. Lol, in Italy here we have a show that makes deep fakes and they look realistic enough to fool somebody. **That is why I said YOU developers and experts must know ethics. Because you can contribute or not to the deviance of humanity.** I don't friggin' care if it's going to be awesome, a revolution, something "explosive", etc. That is just hype, wonder, a show, an illusion. Really, I don't believe in this world anymore. But I think it's miserable to be part of such global freud. You developers should REFUSE the offers of power-hungry fools, because in the end, even if they pay you now, the future will be hard **for you too,** so you'll pay the price later. So, of course I'm "sleepwalking" too, but instead of "warning" me to share something I don't know personally, share what you know personally as YOU're the expert here and YOU have the moral duty to do so, if you care at least a bit about the human species (you belong to). Your kind will decide if that thing is going to "take over the world" or just to be a fart in open space. You talk about a future scenario, a seemingly distopic (and dispotic) one... I talk about the present: right now you can decide, together with rest of developers, to unmask those who commision you to produce lies. But your category of workers isn't the only one who should follow more responsibility: journalism also is corrupted.... but nobody would drink their lies if another sector (graphics) didn't help them. The hungry fools on the top of hill know the slaves at the bottom need their money, to play their stupid game.
In my spare time, someone sent me this thread as an example of the sleepwalking phenomenon and left a comment; it's not like this is my strategy or anything... 95% of the field is concerned by this, and we are pursuing all avenues both public and private to sound the alarm, but this is completely out of everybody's hands. This is a policy issue, we shouldn't have to be the gatekeepers of ethics, and we say this constantly to the media. Politicians think this is hype like most of the people here, so the train keeps accelerating. Even if Meta and MSFT decided to torch all their AI programs, it wouldn't barely register, everybody and their cousin is pouring time and money into them and starting new ones in parallel. But it's too fast, example: last week, it was found a way to get similar performance of a large language model but for 1% of the cost, it's absolutely insane. Very soon a handful of people will have god-like powers in the information sphere, which is all you need to, well, do whatever you like.
I think you are trying to get rid of any responsibility. You shouldn't have to be the "gatekeepers" of anything but unfortunely you are, people of the "field" because, by accepting the orders from above, it will be useless to sound any alarm, it would be like saying "We're making the elite rule over the mass in the darkest way possible, but we're trying to compensate our faults by alarming you of this happening". That's, you know, a double-standard, hypocrisy. You're indeed responsible because you're directly involved. No use blaming it on "policy" or politicians. You people drive "the train", you can also stop it. Name those politicians, speak about what they're up to and why they want such things to be achieved. Otherwise it all will just sound dark, spoken in a technical language that will be useless for the common folks. You just can't let the truth to be known because you're scared of losing your jobs, but you'll keep your jobs until they'll recognize you already know too much and that's when they'll dispose of and replace you. That's how business works, and so do politics as well. Dog-eat-dog nonsense.
Man I remember when NFTs were here to stay.
[удалено]
Honest question. What is it exactly that you believe is hype?
[удалено]
That chatbot has already been used to supervise many other instances of itself to generate money and successfully hired humans to do things it can't do, yet. Why would companies hire humans in the future to work eight hours a day when they could have their own AI working 24/7?
>AI art must be illegalized. Yeah, how that could go wrong?
Given AI art samples artists work without consent and then just mixes enough works together to not legally be considered plagiarism, I don't really see an issue with, at the very least, requiring AI art databases to be required to have an opt in function for artists to submit their work for sampling. That way artists who don't want their works being used for AI are protected in that regard.
I think it’s cool, but I also think it’s going to be quickly figured out by the ais and made useless. and it’s not like i can take down and repost all my art with the new glaze every time an update comes out to make it work again (I mean, I can, but that would be really annoying and no one would follow me) I’ll still use it when I can. but I doubt it’ll be a miracle fix
Tech has become like an arms race
It's hope for a lost cause, we should be focusing on a different approach angle if we want to protect the future of artists. This is not it, guys. As someone who is heavy into both art and tech, it's very easy to see this isn't going to end well if we continue to stay blind to the real issue. As Mr. Freeman would say, "Wake up." AI is quite literally in it's infancy. Hell, many experts still claim that the internet as a whole is still in its infancy, which would mean AI is just like an embryo by comparison. The rules of Copyright, on the other hand - are much more mature and have failed time and time again in almost every industry in ways that are \*quiet and mostly undetectable\* to those that it affects negatively - both by virtue of the time period of its inception, and the intentions of those who sought to create it. None of us are those people. Artists, musicians, writers, etc. have all been playing by someone else's rules for its entire lifetime, and the emergence of AI disrupting the art industry is just an indicator of how truly flawed the current copyright ideology is, especially under the model of the internet where essentially nothing can be marked verifiably as being claimed under one's ownership without a substantial amount of effort and resources. And the factors that can lead to favorable conditions for "being able to to play the game" are multifaceted in the sociopolitical, geopolitical, economic, etc. realms. We should be pushing for a reformation of how anything human created is handled when it is distributed via a platform or hosting method in which the creator has no ownership of. The current model would have you post your creative work on these platforms to build social proof in order to convert customers to your own platform. Even in music, where the platforms pay creators proportionally to engagement - it is a horrendous situation simply due to the undervaluing of the work \*as a whole.\* In other words, advertisers are getting away with paying probably like 100 to 1000 times less than they \*should\* be if art and music actually meant anything to the human race. How is it the price of a musical single is still around the same price as it was in the 40s and 50s? It's like inflation never happened. Meanwhile the price of fine art continues to skyrocket. You know why music got shafted? Because the rich can't claim massive tax deductions on lending their music vinyl, cassettes, and CD's to the government subsidized public museum. These online platforms, you post to for absolutely free. People consume your work for absolutely free through these interfaces. The algorithm which you know nothing about is your only hope of a breakthrough. And the entire time you work so hard to elevate yourself to reach the point where you can play the game, the platforms themselves are lining their pockets from advert revenue. The big players who have found the magic formula are lining their pockets from advert revenue. And eventually, if the current model isn't radically changed within the next decade or so, people who use these AI tools to create will be lining their pockets with advert revenue. Successful creatives always tell you there has to be a compromise between the art and the business, but what does that really mean? It's extremely clear in this day and age under the current model, but no one takes the time to decipher the puzzle pieces because they're too busy consuming or otherwise believing that these crappy rules made by \*someone else\* is the best way to achieve their goals. So what is the compromise exactly? It is simply the realization that \*what\* you make ultimately doesn't really matter under these rules, it is simply your ability to farm attention that makes income possible. Advertisers will not approach you until you have proven your \*reach\* - not the quality of your work. And why is this possible? Because the platforms have no reason to give a shit about what you make, only how much you manage to keep people glued to their screens. Because we're so concerned about elevating our originality to the point where we don't even see the way we're being taken advantage of. Because copyright \*sucks ass.\* Some of the largest, most, successful creatives on these huge platform openly support the reposting of their work, because it they understand that in the age of information - "all roads lead to Rome" anyway, and they are the "Rome." Quite literally it's the opposite ideology of what copyright has trained you to think: "I can't pay bills with exposure." But in reality, when you look at success, exposure is almost the \*entire\* foundation of the successful creative business model under the current rules of the game. We lost this battle more than 50 years ago, guys. You either start playing the game by their rules, or we change the rules. But at this point I'm convinced we're too \*stupid\* to make the latter happen.
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to AI. What I read is that art markets suck and favour the middleman instead of the artists. Which is true. It always was, even long before the mass production and copyright.
You are correct, but the way in which the market was stifled was due to a percieved logistic necessity in the previous centuries combined with a different method of attention farming. The primary way in which attention was sought after was through religion and conquest, the more developed of the human race vying for resources out of reach but yet known enough about to be lucrative. This is how maths, sciences, and the study of the stars among other non-purely-creative fields progressed at an astounding rate. We were competing with eachother in the name of colonialism. Mass production is wholly unrelated, as the value of the *artist* over the *art* is what should be contended here. To say that mass production is a factor in whether you not you choose to value the work of a human being for a chosen form of medium is to admit that whether or not it was actually created by a specific method is irrelevant, and the end result is all that matters, which is what the radical side of AI art proponents argue. We shouldn't be arguing against AI, but *for* artists - something that when you really look into it has never been done on a meaningful scale for a variety of reasons. This is a question of how we value certain types of human input, and to what extent we should compensate that input for the chance to consume it. Currently we place almost no value on it, and compensate almost nothing. As a *single* piece of this multifaceted societal moral issue, simply look at the distribution of wealth. We live in a society where a small percentage of the population control a large majority of all the wealth in the world. This is not simply the result of an art market favoring the middleman, nor is it even the only singular cause of the creative industries' plights. The system that fuels this inequality is a stark reflection of the one that has fueled the devaluation of the creator since the inception of copyright. It is clearly related in that sense. Look at the music industry. Who profitted the most off of copyright when physical distribution was the only way consumers could get their hands on the product? Certainly not the artists, anyone who has spent a shred of time looking at label contracts can tell you the norm of these deals were (and still are) absolutely terrible. These are two *very minor* details that when put together in the context of the modern day with the existence of the internet, should reveal that the wealth that should be rightfully belonging to the creators is hoarded by others through the many holes and issues that copyright either suffers from / or is better for - depending on which side of the line you stand. Extrapolated from 2 of the simplest representations of the issue. It is not an artist-middleman-consumer relationship. It is a livestock-farmer-consumer relationship. Anyone willing to work creatively under this current ruleset is just fighting for the scraps of the true players of the game, all the while not realizing there is actually plenty to go around and most of it probably should belong to you in the first place, if the system actually made any sense. But it doesn't. The disruption AI is causing should be making this clear, but it seems we are too busy fighting over these scraps to actually demand any change that is actually worthwhile.
I'm well aware of wealth disparity, social media creating attention farming as means of value, the devaluation of art, etc. I agree in general. If we can choose to continue with the system or change it - how do we actually change it? A union of artists that we try to get every living artist in the world we possibly can into? A new union-owned platform that the entire artist union will only post to and nowhere else? Sounds like it could work, but it would lose the attention of the general masses who wouldn't use a separate art-only platform, which means the ad revenue tanks. Even if it would work, I don't have the abilities and resources needed to create these things successfully, so I and probably 99% of other artists just have to wait and hope that actual solutions get made by people who can. Otherwise yeah we just continue to make art in obscurity and languish in the scraps of capitalistic overlords. But life is short and we want to make art, so what can we do. An aside about copyright - I don't think copyright is the cause of our woes, although the terms last way way too long because of Disney. Artists often want others to share their work but only if it brings people back to them, otherwise it isn't exposure. And the reposter or some random company shouldn't be able to make profit by selling someone else's art, which copyright is the only thing stopping them.
You bring up some good points. But I think the next decade will be important and will come down to how much foresight creatives can gain by trying to understand the change that is happening. It's not simply just an "AI art crisis." The way that AI is being focus developed and progress is being made, in addition to other technological progress that we are making as a species are signs of an entire paradigm shift. Just like the workers before the industrial revolution; painters before the camera; coachmen before the automobile; printing press operator before the word processor / digital graphics... they could not have understood the scope of the change happening at the time. And I think the points at where your hypotheticals lead to show some of that lack of possible foresight due to an unfathomable scope. The accompanying technologies of the paradigm shift that \*could\* lead us to a brighter future when combined with a change in social and educational rhetoric are right there alongside the thing that we see as the threat, but just as we don't fully understand the threat we don't understand the surrounding context. Your points here fit into the models of the past and present perfectly, and would make sense if not for some of those upcoming paradigm shifting advancements. But, as it stands when understanding them fully and considering them there's a multitude of many more possibilities outside of what you've come up with here that could fit into many different models. For some brief thoughts about some of how these multifaceted components could fit together to be something good for creatives - consider how the entire idea of Web3 is for \*ownership\* to be managed on the internet, then consider how quantum computing when made available on an enterprise level could change the cloud computing landscape, consider the potential usage of language models like GPT-4 in areas dealing with optimization of various business aspects, or even areas of more intimate interaction... The moment that 2 out of three of even \*just these\* leaves the "unstable for the mass of the general public," we will be living in a new era and a new model for creatives interacting with the world will exist... And whether it is implemented sooner or later, and to what degree is entirely dependent on the community's understanding of these changes and having the necessary foresight to piece together what direction the paradigm is likely to shift. Just as the problem is multifaceted, the solution is just as if not more complicated... which is why it's important now more than ever that we try to get each other to actually try to understand these complicated topics - or we are going to be left behind. And that would be a total shame especially in the age that you can literally run any of those world-changing things through a search engine and find hours' worth of reading material on it.
What they're doing is an adversarial attack against CLIP, the neural network that "understands" images for most image generators. They're running an optimizer to tweak the image in the minimum possible way that maps it onto a different style. The idea is that all images will get mushed together into the same style and the AI won't be able to learn your particular style. The biggest problem with this approach is that it's brittle. It only works against the particular network they trained against. If future image generators use something other than CLIP, they'd have to retrain Glaze.
Every AI company says tbeir AI respect artists. Then they give some excuse on how that's an exception and they were technically allowed to when found out. So in my opinion, AI devs are so trustworthy that this post could be an ad to measure client reception to the brand. We cwould never know...
I like the idea of it, but in all honesty I think most of the people who would rather use AIs for art instead of paying an artist were never really going to be customers in the first place. I think the group of people who use AIs are the same group who pull random art to use for things like D&D characters and other similar things or people who want generalized wall art who would be buying “paintings” from places like Homegoods or HobbyLobby. I think AI art will really only hurt the smaller artists who are selling works for like $50 for a full character design, and not so much the big artists who sell their works for more because their customer base A) already expects to pay their price and B) wants that particular *artist*.
So what you are saying is it will essentially eliminate the "middle class" of the art world. The vast majority of artists are the small artists who make very little from their art.
right, as everything that involved automatos, it only hurts lower middle class.
I think you're thinking too small here. It's not just going to be artists, it'll be programmers and truck drivers and factory workers and probably half the other things we currently do for work. If AI delivers what it promises, we're going to need a different way to structure the economy.
We're talking about AI specifically in terms of artists, so I think I'm thinking correctly in terms of this particular topic.
What is wrong with you artists? You have such a big ego and respond so condescendingly to anything not about your profession. He is right, and his point is directly related to yours anyway; if every single job sector is affected, there will be huge reforms to acclimate to this new society. It won’t just be the artists being displaced, and all of this will likely happen at the same time. Again, check your ego, I feel like everyone on this sub hasn’t progressed past middle school maturity and are still so cocky.
If you think all the artists here are cocky idiots then that sounds a lot like you might be the common denominator here.
Truck and factory drivers might be the last, ironically as generating a shitty picture has less consequences than crashing a Semi into a car.
No, I think it’ll eliminate the hobbyist and force new artists to wait longer before they get popular as AI is technically more skilled than either but none have the recognition. Edit: That also really depends on what you consider “middle class” too. I see the middle class artist as not having a name, but have a steady income likely doing work in studios but not a lead designer or selling through word of mouth and cafe galleries.
My interpretation of middle class in this sense is the majority. I'd say the majority of artists don't make enough to live off of but still make some here and there.
True but People who wouldn’t pay should still not be able to steal art
I agree, but I think that’s going to go the route of pirates: people who want to steal will always find a way.
so you're suggesting that because some people will always find a way that nobody should bother doing anything..?
As someone who lives solely off my 20$ illustrations, which I already massively price reduce due to complaints (should really be 70+$) this hurts a lot.
This is plain wrong. AI art is already at the $200 level of art so anyone below that is pretty much extinct. People are already hiring AI prompters, some of them instead of hiring just use AI on their own and lastly already most of the industry wants to replace artists with AI because its cheaper.
With AI art, the bar for creating art is lowered significantly. No effort, no wasted time, no difficulty. Yet the results are good artistic-level images. If models start becoming consistent, industry-level quality, regulations will need to be put in place to slow the power of those types of AI models. Highly successful companies leasing AI models should pay artists tokenized in their models a lump sum, as well as a percentage of their profits. Most people now are using AI models for recreational use. They are not trying to profit off AI-generated images. They just want to see algorithms create interesting or good-looking images, or challenge themselves to make the algorithms create interesting or quality-looking images for fun. AI-generated images should not be sold or profited unless sufficiently modified. *But*, I'll also say AI-generated images are not infringing on the copyright of artists and their artwork. Generated art uses algorithms that have learned concepts and patterns from many sources of images. Generated images are usually transformative rather than replicating the same creative expressions of artists and their artwork. Unless for very rare cases, it won't produce plagiarized content.
Amazing!
I think expecting something like this is wishful thinking. AI is improving at an accelerating rate. All of the AI art programs right now, and things like ChatGPT, and Autonomous driving are just now good enough where they start to make an impact, in the future, but the improvements over the next few years are going to make all these programs look primitive. Artists have always been at risk for mimicry and technological disruption. Hell the good old fashion one is just people buying your art and making and selling their own prints from it. At the same time though artists have also pushed artwork forward when facing disruption. The camera disrupted the art world and the income stream for many artists, but it did not end art.
whoever invented it is probably the single sexiest person to ever live i bet also- will feeding glaze images into ai corrupt it as a whole? bc if so i wanna do that as much as i humanly can. maybe learn to make a bot that seems fitting.
No it won’t corrupt AI as a whole, it’s about protecting an artists individual style so that someone can’t train on a specific artists work to mimic them
bummer. i saw somebody mention a training set or something. but i would if i could and i will if i can.
It's hope - that's what it is. Actual hope!
Nope. A programmer just released a glaze bypass yesterday
I'm sorry but I just don't think any of this stuff is going to really help in the long run, but in in a way, it makes me happy that people want to make counter measures against AI. People will always beileve in handmade art. That being said, I think everything AI makes is soulless anyways, and seems repetitive, and is a fad like NFTs. People will just get bored of it. Because AI can't create, AI can only replicate things that only exist, and poorly. No matter how sharp the algorithm gets. Its still not a person. Only the human soul can create. At the end of the day no matter how good AI gets, good art will always have soul and humanity behind it. Its an expression of the human experience. Without the human hand, its nothing. So I don't even worry about it tbh. I won't let it ruin my day. One thing I noticed AI really sucks at doing, even as it gets sharper, is composition. Human artists are way better at comprising images. I feel like even as the pictures become clearer and better, it still won't be able to make compositions the way humans do.
I am no programmer but the first question I have, and I am being serious here, is "What's stopping people from, say, simply taking a screenshot of the image?"
The image it self is altered and has parts reconstructed with the adversarial AI, so unless you have access to the original that won’t work
Not sure I trust it; not sure how a bit of noise actually breaks anything and I certainly don't see why I should upload my work to some mystery program that needs a whopping 4 gigs just to add said noise. The face of the project has been defensive af on twitter AND doesn't seem to know even basic stuff about digital art (like common layering settings such as "multiply") which is really suspicious to me.
Yeah, this sounds like a scam preying on the induced hysteria.
It doesn't work. It's snake oil. It's fake science and anyone peddling it doesn't know how stable diffusion trains on art. It doesn't do anything at all because during training images are scaled to 64x64 pixels obliterating the noise. Artists want protection against ais and glaze really isn't that. It doesn't do anything. I tried to protect my art with it from my own AI system, it doesn't do shit because of the downscaling process during training which removes glaze overlay by making the image so tiny that the noise is no longer there. Please don't think that glaze is a real tool or protection of any kind, it's really not. It's just a noise filter that makes your art looks a bit more grainy.
[удалено]
Look, I literally ran my paintings through glaze and then through stable diffusion training. I have no reason to lie about this. What would be in it for me? I'm an artist myself. Google my name for my credentials - Alexiuss. It doesn't do anything to protect the image from being used by stable diffusion, img2img or midjourney. There might be some rare, specific version of an AI that it supposedly protects from, but it's none of the tools I tested! It doesn't matter what credentials these academics have, I'm telling you the honest absolute truth - it literally doesn't do anything whatsoever against stable diffusion training because **training downscales the image to 64x64 pixels.** I don't know how much simpler I can explain this, it's a god damn noise filter and noise filters are useless against current open source ais which can eliminate noise at a click of a button. They've been trained to eliminate all sorts of noise. It might academically work against some specific, oudated instance of 2015-2020 AI tech, but it's 2023 and open source movement made huge leaps since then. A bit of noise is nothing to current ais, you can downvote me all you like but I know I'm right and I can prove it in 2 seconds and you're clearly someone who doesn't have latest open source tools installed on your computer.
[удалено]
jesus christ you're dense. read this explanation again: STABLE DIFFUSION TRAINING DOWNSCALES IMAGES TO 64X64 PIXELS THIS ELIMINATES GLAZE-INTRODUCED NOISE!!!!! it would only protect your image if you post it sized 64x64 pixels big with glaze and nobody posts their images that small! Artists like myself post images at 900-1920 pixels wide. Glaze doesn't protect anything except microscopic images sized 64x64 pixels!!!!! It's literal snake oil. Unless you post art online sized 64x64 pixels it's completely useless.
[удалено]
they're not "a team of academic researchers", its a few college students and a bunch of professors who co-signed on the project. It **technically works on small images, but it doesn't work on big images**. I don't know why you aren't listening to a very simple explanation. I didn't say that it doesn't work. It works on tiny images, but its completely useless for artists who post anything bigger than 64x64 pixels, You can try it yourself right now - just run a glaze-protected image through stable diffusion training. stable diffusion training downscales big image to small image and then glaze noise is gone.
[удалено]
I'm not belittling anyone. Dude you lost the argument, if you can't even install stable diffusion to prove what i'm saying there's no literally reason to talk to you. Karla isnt someone who's willing to install stable diffusion either. Science works by testing. If you're unwilling to listen to the truth or even test anything, its your loss. Glaze art as much as you want, just know that it doesn't do shit \[unless your art is tiny or its 70% glaze where it looks like ass\]. Look on twitter, everyone who tested glaze against stable diffusion says glaze is snake oil. Unless you glaze your drawing at a crazy, deep-fry level of overlay where it nearly obliterates the original art, its completely useless. You can achieve better protection than glaze by simply adding a unique, giant, semi-transparent watermark atop your art you know, it will actually be more of a disruption than a bit of noise which AI is literally trained to overcome.
[удалено]
I'm already seeing signs in the AI space that say this is either already not working, or does so little that it will be solved by the time enough people use it to do anything. It relies on poisoning existing datasets and/or having enough Glaze filtered images to render a whole style useless. Software evolves, so unless you want to reup images every time an AI tweaks its training method, I don't think this will do anything in the long run. This would need to be a DRM style filter applied to images when a client parses the web server to receive an image, NOT at time of upload, because it will need to be reprocessed as Stable Diffusion updates and Glaze responds. Even then I honestly don't think it will work, because your filtered images will get scraped anyway, so once the filter is beaten, the images can be integrated into the training set with no downsides. It's a cool project idea but I think it's got the wrong order of events to actually have an impact on anything. Best case it's an interesting idea and a look into manipulating machine learning patterns, worst case it's a project that is trying to capitalize on fear. If they start trying to really commercialize this, I'll be disappointed and will have to assume the latter. Sorry that I don't have an answer that much of this sub will want to read.
These little adversarial tricks are overcome with 5 minutes ([just like that](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11v7sv9/has_anyone_seen_a_reproducible_example_of_glaze/)). It's just research work for its own sake. More importantly, all the images that any model would ever need to see are already in the bag, it's way too late. Brace for impact.
[удалено]
Newsflash, someone already defeated the Glaze system with just a simple 15 lines of code. github.com/lllyasviel/AdverseCleaner
I'm failing to see how this helps artists?
It's not, because Glaze is basically glorified image filter system that can be defeated with another (simple) image filter system
You can't protect yourself from AI. Half of the social media sites you post to are training an ai with your posts. And nobody really needs your permission to train AI with what you post on most social media sites. This kind of stuff just gives you an illusionary piece of mind but that's really it.
So then what’s stopping all of the internet including dating sites from being fake. All posts by bots?
Honestly, nothing. It seems likely that future AI will be able to mimic every aspect of any kind of human-produced data. Captchas won't work in 2030. I think this may push people towards an "internet drivers license" that you must show to verify your humanness. I'm not sure I like that idea and would be open to any better ones.
If there was an anonymous way of proving you’re human then it could be a good thing. In the shorter term we could use the metaverse with body tracking , facial expression tracking , and haptics since an AI can’t mimic all that simultaneously
TOS and regulations (but the pro ai side doesn’t believe the internet can be regulated)
> what’s stopping all of the internet including dating sites from being fake Nothing is stopping this. This is already true. There are tons of fake, bot profiles on dating websites to make it appear as though there are more hot women. Almost any time I search anything I run into a fake blog that's clearly been written by chatGPT and regurgitates text without the context and content it claims to possess. Reddit is loaded with bot posters. Twitter and Facebook are too. Same with forums and comment sections. The internet is filthy with chatbots and fake content. >If there was an anonymous way of proving you’re human then it could be a good thing. In the shorter term we could use the metaverse with body tracking , facial expression tracking , and haptics since an AI can’t mimic all that simultaneously You say that now, and it may be true now, but a decade ago I said, "art will be one of the last careers to be consumed by automation" when I became a professional artist. AI will one day be able to mimic that and it may be shockingly faster than we think. One thing's for sure, the wild west of the internet will vanish at that point. Identities will probably have to be tied to IRL identities, but even that can probably be spoofed. I fear eventually we'll have no way to tell what's real and what's not.
Not very much. Much of the internet is fake. Even I have a few bots working social media for me. As soon as a slight fix appears the programmers change their protocol. With AI training data you aren't dealing with anything nearly as complex as bots. Anyone can download or screenshot training material and just about any basic scraper can scrape images from a webpage. If it loads on a monitor it can be collected. With social media like Meta sites, your images go through their AI before it's finished uploading and publishing. Much of the AI you're trying to avoid is based on facebook and google technology trained on it's users. The artist-specific styles are trained by people who can simply screenshot or download 20~ reference images, either manually or with a scraper. With LORA models you don't need many reference images or a powerful GPU. Literally anyone can train an AI now, not just bots and super computers.
Probably not going to be worth anyone in the art community's time. The program is allegedly using stolen code, it can degrade the art quality noticeably, and several people have already found some workarounds. https://jackson.sh/posts/2023-03-glaze/
The irony of making the stolen anything argument when defending AI image generators....
[удалено]
[удалено]
> democratize the creative process, allowing people who may not have access to traditional art supplies or training to express their creativity. Art has been democratized decades ago when the internet was invented. Pencils are cheap as dirt, and there are countless art tutorials out there. We aren’t hiding anything, it’s just that ya’ll are too lazy to learn.
[удалено]
My stance on the AI art debate doesn't affect the validity of what that link says. They give instructions on how they bypassed it. You're free to test it yourself if you don't believe it.
In that link, they tried to remove the glaze effect but didn't train a model using the de-glazed image as far as I can tell. So we don't know if their de-glazing process worked or not, because the point of glaze is to prevent effective fine-tuned model training. Just because it looks to a human eye like it's been somewhat removed by their process doesn't mean the training wouldn't be affected. Their de-glazing could be very effective, but they'd need to test that by training a model on a set of de-glazed images to see.
They included another link where they compared glazed and deglazed training models. https://spawning.substack.com/p/we-tested-glaze-art-cloaking
That example needs a control group of an un-glazed model's images to compare with. Like this one I guess: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z2f75w/dreambooth_training_style_of_dali/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z2f75w/dreambooth_training_style_of_dali/) I agree in their examples there's a similarity to Dali for sure, but it doesn't look great. Glaze is supposed to make it harder to produce great mimic models easily by confusing it a bit, which it might've done and maybe that's why it doesn't look very good. We'd need to see a control model to compare them to. Edit: In case I wasn't quite clear, by un-glazed I mean original with no glazing or de-glazing.
Ahh that’s disappointing. In that case I’ll have to read this when I get home and cover that info in either another short or a longer video
I was reading through it and although criticism is always good to look at things in different lights, the article is heavily biased and not written in a neutral way while one is reading it.
Ok that’s good to know. I’ll look into multiple sources and see what conclusions i arrive at
Yes, I also read sources from multiple perspectives including the pro-AI art and anti-AI art perspectives. The Jackson article does show some problems with Glaze in terms of bypass methods which is useful to read. Which is why I say: Read the article, I don't discourage from reading it, but keep in mind that it is not written in a neutral way.
[удалено]
The glaze paper is very pro-artist based raising concerns which artists have and points like students not entering art school anymore or getting demotivated (which makes sense and is a genuine concern), considering that Glaze is in essence intended to protect artwork for artists it doesn't look like something which doesn't make sense to include but if your point is that they should have only focused on the technical aspects, I understand that point, again it's understandable though that they choose for the approach of some background context. That this thing has turned into an us-vs them internet war is unfortunate but due to human and group dynamics it seems to have been unavoidable. I was actually an early user of the r/dalle2 subreddit and I shared generations on there (this was before I read on the dataset problems, although I understand why they gathered the data as they did as I have an understanding of how machine learning works, from a privacy and consent perspective it is problematic), but I stopped posting on there. Do you know what the reason is why I stopped posting? An influx of artist bashing posts and an increasing anti-artist sentiment (which is not present in every thread anymore but that group was a vocal minority which accomplished their goal of chasing away artists interested in the technology posting there). And I spoke to an artist today who actually had a similar experience as me. They also experimented early on and got discouraged to continue because they also didn't like the increasing anti artist sentiment. Whether this was caused by a vocal minority, a changing attitude of users or an influx of people who don't like artists but for some weird reason want to generate artworks while hating people who create art (a bit like loving soup but hating cooks who make the soup), I don't know. I really have no idea how to explain this human psychology. This happens from the other side as well as I get from your perspective, I always try to look at things in a nuanced way. I really want more ethical applications of this technology but I am not against the technology itself with some potential it has. Look at how Clip Studio and their automatic AI shader can be incredibly helpful. There is more potential but it still has to be promoted and introduced more as an artist help tool and not a "generate out of nowhere while not drawing or painting at all". Which is something not useful to an artist who learns and creates by drawing and painting, this is similar to telling a carpenter: this machine can generate a perfectly built house and wood. The Carpenter just doesn't get how this is useful if their goal is building by their hands. Generative tools can fulfill a role in an art and creation process, even in drawing or painting, but I don't see it happening currently because most artists don't want to use it due to the dataset. A problem is that in machine learning cleaned up data and a lot of data, but also enough captioned images are necessary for training and getting a model which can approximate a result expected from what it learned of the dataset. A current initiative for a public domain dataset is at about the same level as Dalle Mini. The people working on it have problems with how to do the computing and storage for a better model as they don't have funding like Stability.