This is a great invention and very fitting. What non-creatives fail to understand is: An artist's creation is like his child. These scraping/diffusion models are like a molester who steals your child and melds them with their many other victims, then hands the results to lowly users who post the afterbirth with pride and arrogance, and call it their "Creation". My deep hope is that counter tech like NightShade can be used retroactively as well--- to poison this affront to it's origin. This is more than just an art issue, as there will be many people cheering on the destruction of all forms of insidious ai and it's repugnant grifters.
Very interesting comment. I’ve been thinking these days, the “quality” of “art” produced by AI is very questionable, and it doesn’t matter what they produce, as long as the productions are clearly staged as AI productions. Most of the time you can tell anyway. But most people don’t. Art is becoming then something more and more selective and exclusive, which is not a bad thing. Interesting idea about NightShade being able to be used retroactively. It’s just for me unacceptable and unfair the arrogance and the power the scrappers have to get whatever they want.
I wonder though if the people behind Nightshade are betting on people working on these models not curating the data that is used - IMO that could result in it operating off of a faulty assumption when it comes to the bigger fish, just catching off guard those who don't curate beforehand.
That’s very interesting. There has to be some sort of curation for sure , what I am not so sure is, if there is some filtering regarding copyright. And I am pretty sure there isn’t. Mid journey images don’t just come out of thin air, they have been learning from hundreds of artists and I don’t think it has asked any of them.
I stopped using digital tools an being a digital artist ...even when it was fun. I started to cut trees with chainsaws. There is more appreciation in cutting down trees. 😇😉 May in future I will have my own atelier again, but I will not do digital arts even when I was a professional graphic designer 20 years ago. Artists of any kind that upload should get paid, because these uploads are used for deep big data analysis....
Post another video where you treat it for yourself. Don't just believe the abstract released by the research team. Even if you try to do it on a budget, it takes a $600 graphics card to run it any faster than half an hour per image, and you can't use your computer for anything else while it's doing that. In certain cases it makes no changes to the images that the human eye can't detect, but that's not the general case - especially not for images that feature sharp contrasts or delicate detail. The tool is mainly a placebo. And the other commenter is right, that's now how generative AI works. You have some homework to do.
Thank you for the comment. I guess the question is what means “own”. The artist will always have the copyright in many countries. But in my opinion is not about being entitled but about being compensated if someone uses the result of your hard work (to get money) I know there is a lot of preconceptions about artists doing what they do for the sake of art and not thinking about money, but many need to survive as well if that’s their only occupation
"Ownership is the legal right to use, possess, and give away a thing. Ownership can be tangible such as personal property and land, or it can be of intangible things such as intellectual property rights." -LII Owning and using are two different things. Using an IP for a dataset is not the same as owning an IP for a dataset. It's part of why AI image generations cannot be copyrighted. I hope that cleared it up for you.
Let me get this straight... you're calling Artists ENTITLED for wanting to own something THEY MADE? You must be trolling. But wanting to train your AI on billions of other peoples' artwork without permission isn't entitled at all?
@@thecreativethrive I can respect the need to get paid. And I dont think its greedy. I just have a hard time squaring the traditional artist mindset of 'borrowing' from influences, but when it happens to them its an issue. Is the scale of it the problem? I dont see artists including shoutouts to influences in most online posts... And just for fun: is the holodeck a big techno thief? I mean, it literally copies people, places and things. Did Data have a license to portray Sherlock Holmes? Obv less serious of a question, but i guess im trying to understand where Artists feel the 'line' reasonably is.
This is so interesting. It's crucial for artists that these tools exist
Thanks! Yes I also believe it’s crucial because otherwise we have no control
This is a great invention and very fitting. What non-creatives fail to understand is: An artist's creation is like his child. These scraping/diffusion models are like a molester who steals your child and melds them with their many other victims, then hands the results to lowly users who post the afterbirth with pride and arrogance, and call it their "Creation".
My deep hope is that counter tech like NightShade can be used retroactively as well--- to poison this affront to it's origin.
This is more than just an art issue, as there will be many people cheering on the destruction of all forms of insidious ai and it's repugnant grifters.
Very interesting comment. I’ve been thinking these days, the “quality” of “art” produced by AI is very questionable, and it doesn’t matter what they produce, as long as the productions are clearly staged as AI productions. Most of the time you can tell anyway. But most people don’t. Art is becoming then something more and more selective and exclusive, which is not a bad thing. Interesting idea about NightShade being able to be used retroactively. It’s just for me unacceptable and unfair the arrogance and the power the scrappers have to get whatever they want.
Never read anything more fitting than this, thank you!
Thanks!
I wonder though if the people behind Nightshade are betting on people working on these models not curating the data that is used - IMO that could result in it operating off of a faulty assumption when it comes to the bigger fish, just catching off guard those who don't curate beforehand.
That’s very interesting. There has to be some sort of curation for sure , what I am not so sure is, if there is some filtering regarding copyright. And I am pretty sure there isn’t. Mid journey images don’t just come out of thin air, they have been learning from hundreds of artists and I don’t think it has asked any of them.
Honest at this point make a pic of a hat and poison it tag hat and just put it everywhere, X, youtube, insta , FB, deviantart, printrist ect
I stopped using digital tools an being a digital artist ...even when it was fun. I started to cut trees with chainsaws. There is more appreciation in cutting down trees. 😇😉 May in future I will have my own atelier again, but I will not do digital arts even when I was a professional graphic designer 20 years ago.
Artists of any kind that upload should get paid, because these uploads are used for deep big data analysis....
Post another video where you treat it for yourself. Don't just believe the abstract released by the research team. Even if you try to do it on a budget, it takes a $600 graphics card to run it any faster than half an hour per image, and you can't use your computer for anything else while it's doing that. In certain cases it makes no changes to the images that the human eye can't detect, but that's not the general case - especially not for images that feature sharp contrasts or delicate detail. The tool is mainly a placebo. And the other commenter is right, that's now how generative AI works. You have some homework to do.
You sound different when a second you are not in the office voice it glitch’s………. It not even real your a Ai
Yes , this video went wrong in terms of audio but I am real, don’t use AI 🤖
That's not how AI works.
Thanks for your comment. I would love to know why, thanks!
I know you don't like this, but once you post your creations, you don't own them anymore. Why are 'artists' so entitled?
Thank you for the comment. I guess the question is what means “own”. The artist will always have the copyright in many countries. But in my opinion is not about being entitled but about being compensated if someone uses the result of your hard work (to get money) I know there is a lot of preconceptions about artists doing what they do for the sake of art and not thinking about money, but many need to survive as well if that’s their only occupation
"Ownership is the legal right to use, possess, and give away a thing. Ownership can be tangible such as personal property and land, or it can be of intangible things such as intellectual property rights." -LII
Owning and using are two different things. Using an IP for a dataset is not the same as owning an IP for a dataset. It's part of why AI image generations cannot be copyrighted. I hope that cleared it up for you.
Let me get this straight... you're calling Artists ENTITLED for wanting to own something THEY MADE? You must be trolling.
But wanting to train your AI on billions of other peoples' artwork without permission isn't entitled at all?
@@thecreativethrive I can respect the need to get paid. And I dont think its greedy. I just have a hard time squaring the traditional artist mindset of 'borrowing' from influences, but when it happens to them its an issue. Is the scale of it the problem? I dont see artists including shoutouts to influences in most online posts...
And just for fun: is the holodeck a big techno thief? I mean, it literally copies people, places and things. Did Data have a license to portray Sherlock Holmes? Obv less serious of a question, but i guess im trying to understand where Artists feel the 'line' reasonably is.
@ai-aniverse it’s a complex topic indeed and my next video is going to be precisely about this ;) there is a lot going on with copyright lately