Artist Jingna Zhang built Cara, a platform explicitly intended to protect artists from having their art stolen by AI…and yet these people just won’t leave them well enough alone.
Anyone know the ways one might remove Glaze and Nightshade? It’d be good to figure out how to make them permanent or show that it’s been tampered with, maybe?
-
Antagonises people who want to stay away from AI
-
Cries when people hate AI
Such a cognitive dissonance
There has to be a word for people, who when they hear someone hates X, but they personally like the X, so they decide to do the X even harder out of spite or as a defiance.
Toddlers, Republicans, Mentally Challenged, Idiots… Lots of words take your pick
-
These are the most deeply insecure people
Gross
deleted by creator
Recently I’ve been embedding metadata into pictures I upload which include the cost to license out the image for AI training: 1 million dollars. Then, if an AI company scrapes my picture, I can take that company to court and have a concrete dollar amount for how much that company owes me for damages.
I think you should also include the text somewhere reachable so no-one can claim that license wasn’t obscured. Its totally fair to strike back with your own type of EULA!
How will you poof that there was this high of a damage?
Its art, the artist is saying if you want it you have to pay x amount and they are taking it so the presumption is that they both know the value put on it by the artist and decided to use it.
It’s not for damage, it’s the cost to use the art. If they don’t want to pay for it then they’re free to simply not use it.
Its a bit delusional to think you can sue them. For a number of reasons, not least of which is that you don’t have the funds for a protracted legal battle and that the burden of proof that your work was used is pretty much impossible to prove.
I don’t think so. First of all, if a lawyer thinks that I have a strong case, they could agree to be paid after I win, so I don’t need to pay out of pocket up front. Second, it is easy to prove that an AI company used my pictures, since they would need to download the pictures to train on them. Alternatively, if a platform sells it to the AI company, there is a record that it was sold for the purposes of AI training.(In that case, we don’t have to prove that the image was used for training, since the crime is the sale.) Lastly, since the license and purchase info is contained within the metadata of the picture, they can’t argue that the license was unavailable or something. They have it right there in their servers!
I’m not a lawyer, but as an artist, bravo. You’ve changed how I look at this. No sarcasm here. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Second, it is easy to prove that an AI company used my pictures, since they would need to download the pictures to train on them.
The problem is the AI isn’t going to use exactly the original image it will take parts of it and use it to create a new image that does not include the metadata. Just proving they downloaded it wouldn’t be actionable since they would need to download the image to get your metadata which contains the terms. You would need to prove that they applied the transferred the data to the training algorithm which would be an internal process.
Also there’s the concept of consideration to… uh… consider. Is a million dollars reasonable consideration?
But that being said, it’s worth a shot. Worst case is you get nothing, but you’d get nothing if you didn’t put licensing terms in the metadata anyway. Just seems very unlikely you’ll get a million dollars by doing this.
If this were to go to trial, the AI company would have to turn over all the information that could potentially incriminate them, the most important part is the manifest for their training data, which would include my images. If they refuse to turn over this evidence which 1) would immediately prove themselves guilty and 2) they must have, hey could be held in contempt of court.
Also, regarding the licensing price: I would argue it’s completely reasonable if you look at it from the perspective of how much the AI company makes, how much I could make if the art was not used for AI, and the cost of creating the art in the first place.
If I was a fully employed artist, who painted 1000$ dollar portraits, then, over the course of my life, I could create maybe 1,000,000$ worth of portraits. This would only be possible if my unique style is not replicated, however. If an AI company perfectly duplicated my style, and sold the results with a 30$ a month subscription I er the course of 50 years, (and we assume 1000 people have that subscription) then the company could make 125030*1000=18 million dollars. Furthermore, there is also a cost to the development of an art style. At the age of 25, assuming the cost of living is 40k a year, the amount of money used to raise me and develop me into an adult that developed that art style would be 1 million dollars.
So, from the perspective of lost revenue, I would be owed 1 million dollars. From the perspective of the AI company’s addition revenue as a result of the crime, I would be owed 18 mil, and from the perspective of the cost to develop my art, I’d be owed 1 mil as well. In total, that would mean I lost 20 million dollars as a result of the AI company’s crime. A 1 million dollar licensing fee is a 95% discount.
Eagerly awaiting updates on your progress.
I hope shitty things like this motivate people to organize into alternative networks, like local meshnets and more in-person community interactions. The internet may be hopelessly broken at this point.
I’ll plug meshtastic and ham radio, then. Meshtastic (at least in the US, no idea about other places) is legal to do without any sort of license. It’s a peer to peer messaging service basically. So imagine like a walkie talkie that sends texts. Ham Radio needs a license but blows the doors open on the types of stuff you can do.
We used to have those in Eastern Europe. I miss those days.
The video redistribution scene was amazing
Tell us more about it !
Does anyone have a self hosted social media, where all of the media on my profile would be on my server (even a phone) and somebody viewing my profile would literally have to pull thumbnails and data straight from my device in a peer to peer kind of fashion?
I’ve been keeping an eye on Diaspora, but no clue how good it really is.
Actually. I have a hot take.
Forgive me… But the solution is not to replicate Instagram. Which is what Cara does.
Nor DeviantArt, either.
That’s never going to work, for precisely the above reason, and many others.
This is something that’s bothered me immensely about photography (which I’m getting back into as a hobby). Because, for all the “taking a stand” the community does, what do they do en masse?
-
Subscribe to Adobe
-
Live on Instagram
-
Worship corporate influencers.
-
Upload stuff to clouds that the privacy policy says will be used to train.
Just to start.
It infuriates me.
I’m all for the anti-slop stands, but the bulk of the community has precisely zero leg to stand on, if they’re just going to fork over cash hand-and-fist to feed the beasts, and spend all their time on those platforms.
So what do we do?
Make prints. Display them! It can be in museums, festivals, meet ups, in your place, on the street, literally anywhere you want. Even if its on digital screens; as long as its in person, and the digital copy is squirreled away.
And that’s if you feel strongly about the training thing. Personally, I’m more inclined to just post stuff under a permissive license places like Wikipedia could use (albeit not on Instagram).
To be clear, I don’t mean to lump everyone into that. There’s tons of photographers outside that bubble.
…But there are a ton in it, and they happen to be the loudest complainers.
The mass amount of morons wearing pervert glasses will probably just end up copying those prints
Real people are actually wearing those out in the world?
Morons? Yeah
Not putting the work online slashes accessibility and discoverability though
How about Low res and watermarked images?
Yep.
Pick one:
-
Permissive, open visibility.
-
More intimate viewing, restricted usability.
Can’t have one’s cake and eat it.
People thought they could, posting on Instagram or Reddit or wherever, but that was a lie from day one.
You either post online, where people can and will do stuff you don’t like with your content, or you keep it private. This applies to code, writing, communication, everything, not just visual art.
Can’t have one’s cake and eat it.
Sure we can. You don’t need to either use Instagram or never use the net. That’s precisely what Cara is for. Promote open source tooling and use friendly communities that don’t promise to scrape your life’s work.
Now how we deal with mass scrapers downloading images; that’s a legal issue. One that even physical venues isn’t immune to (it just adds a lot of friction).
You either post online, where people can and will do stuff you don’t like with your content, or you keep it private.
I think there’s a difference between “this person took a few images and edited them” and “I scraped an entire website to use for training AI slop”.
Now how we deal with mass scrapers downloading images; that’s a legal issue. One that even physical venues isn’t immune to (it just adds a lot of friction).
That’s the point!
The friction is the key.
If you post images on the internet, how accessible they are directly correlates to how “downloadable” they are. Trying to imitate social media while fighting all scraping is a infinite, costly battle; that’s a service trying to make posts viral and inaccessible. Such a fight takes Facebook money to sustain.
And it’s not necessarily some script kiddie troll that’s boasting about it on Reddit who will eventually get access.
…But add fundamental friction? That raises the bar.
I think the fallacy is artists believe they need an gigantic amalgamation of online people exposed to their art, a large fraciton of the internet. That’s not true. And its a deception, anyway. Smaller niches or smaller communities are fine, and they won’t be such high profile targets.
you really can’t. If it is online it will be scrapped. You can’t prove it was scrapped, and you can’t stop it. If it is offline it WILL still be scrapped it it just significantly harder to do so.
-
Or self-host a website, there’s bunch of public FOSS CMS, blog software that can be deployed in a single line of code.
-
Mildly hot take:
It really points to these people just having really bad moral compasses.
In other words, these people are actually just bad people, as weird as that is to realize.
Like if you don’t understand that what you’re doing is wrong, that does not entirely excuse you from moral judgement of the rest of society; if you fundamentally disagree with the premise of something being good or bad with another person, it does follow that they’re a bad person. Which then does mean that people doing shit like this are objectively bad people, doing objectively bad things.
Which brings back to question of how bad something needs to be for it to constitute being “evil”. I’m not religious, but there’s a certain level of how something bad impacts others, intent, and context, that I believe most people would classify as evil. Not demons and hell and that nonsense, but effectively something worth crusading against and being extremely hostile towards. Something that threatens life and peace, and of a certain scale, I would call “evil”.
So these bad people doing stuff like this, with the intent of stealing on a massive scale, directly against the autonomy and will of artists… Not exactly evil, at first… but if it results in actual harm, and if that harm is intended… that, I would define as an act of evil.
So yeah, just a topic or perspective I think worth discussing. We all know something’s really wrong right now in society, and I think there’s a level of even language and ethics that hasn’t caught up or isn’t in full view. I also realize the dangers of proposing this and it being a slippery slope to what it may even advocate. That being said, again, I think it’s a perspective worth entertaining at least from a philosophical perspective and discussion.
Incredibly cold take, freezing even. Most people learn bad people exist before they even hit puberty. You’d have to be insanely naive and sheltered for this to be your first exposure to evil.
They absolutely understand that it’s evil and immoral, they just simply don’t care. This is becoming really prevalent on the internet, people think of others on the internet as not human so it’s easier for evil to become rampant even if these people aren’t be malicious in real life.
People have become generally corrupt. Voted for a President convicted of like 34 counts of fraud, investigations into fraud have disappears, people convicted of fraud have been pardoned, corporations openly bribing the government. Social media is filled with training courses on how to scam people and most of those courses are themselves a scam.
AI (and crypto before that) are just technological expressions of deep rooted corruption. And laziness… all a part of the get rich quick mentality that considers hard work to be for suckers.
Funny thing is, these things only work well because there aren’t too many people doing it. The more corrupt we get, the less corruption will be worth it. Who will the scammers scam if nobody generates income to scam away? Who’ll reap the benefits of dirt cheap items if everyone who wants to buy it is dead? Once there’s no hardworkers, there’s no fruit of hardwork to steal away…
I hate intentionally malicious people. I mean I understand if a poor family steals fruits to eat, I don’t understand when someone steals to be able to buy a third or fifth luxury car.
There’s no long term plan for corruption, it’s just I’m gonna make mine right now.
The more corrupt we get, the less corruption will be worth it.
Actually it’s the opposite. You have no choice but to engage in corruption when everyone else is corrupt. You need to pay the bills so you do the corrupt thing that your company tells you to do.
Things just start falling apart. That’s already happening. We have terms like “enshittification” for it, but it’s essentially corruption. It’s becoming less common to simply buy a decent product for a reasonable price. It used to be if a product is bad it’s because the people at that company were incompetent. Now it’s more of a problem that the product is designed to be bad so they can collect data and advertise to you. Political discourse isn’t so much about discussing the issues, it’s about figuring out a way to manipulate others so you benefit. We’re all a part of it.
That’s what I mean. The more corruption there is, the less corruption will reward, so you need to do more of it; It will exponentially increase.
I think their goal was to get to autonomous robots and AI and whatnot before global warming starts killing off people in the millions and damages the global economy to the point that all that money is worth a lot less, but I also think they don’t understand that that kind of thing only works in a healthy, continuous society.
“They” generally referring to the ultra wealthy. Maybe they watch too many movies and think once you make an intelligent robot it just does its own maintenance.
Cara uses third-party content moderation services from Hive (an AI company) to prevent AI-generated art from being uploaded onto the site.
Hahahahaha so this friendly™ Chinese platform basically feeds every uploaded image into an AI to determine if it’s AI.
Just self host your own personal blog/art or use a proper website and not that shitshow.
The idea I believe it to prevent your art from being scraped. Self-hosting Isn’t a solution
To keep my art from being scraped by AI, I only display it in a physical gallery. The gallery is equipped with AI-based automated machine gut turrets programmed to paste anyone that tries to take a photo of the art.
I hope you programmed it to also target anyone wearing Meta glasses. If so can we just have these turrets placed everywhere?
It’s amazing how disrespectful these idiots can be. They’ll destroy and steal people’s work, feed it to Big Corpo™ Slopinator 4.7, get shit-tier content in return, just because they chugged the kool-aid that this tech with billions of dubious investments is the future of everything.
And all because they didnt get into art school.
Who would have thought not getting into art school would be such a major cause of issues for humanity.
Let’s start an art school and let everybody in. I think we could get a Nobel peace prize.
Couldn’t they have just wiped out a bunch of Jews like a normal art school dropout?
They can’t they have to do every thing slopily
You can tell just by their tone that they know what they’re doing is immoral and wrong, but they still do it. Hard to not become a misanthrope living in this society.
“defending AI art”… jesus, that’s sad.
Imagine having so little talent that you consider AI generated slop “art”
Edit*
Well that’s not very nice. I’m sure some Australians are talented artists.
I thought they were talking about gold.
I thought they were trying to get the attention of someone across the street.
Well I was gonna go tell them to off themselves in a plethora of colorful ways on reddit, but it seems their account was banned lol.
oh thank god, reddit is now a little better place
