Check it out if you do art: https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/
They mention that the image cloak is supposed to be resilient to edits of the image, but I'd be really surprised if it could survive having a photo of a screen taken like a boomer who doesn't know how to screenshot.
I peeked on the stable diffusion subreddit to see reactions and people don't really seem to care. Apparently they also took some code from an AI project in violation of GPL so uhhhh . There's also lots of people saying it doesn't really work and/or destroys image quality but I'm not invested enough to verify any of that
Oh I'm sure. Given the mission of Glaze, though, it's an especially bad look to use code without proper credit and disclosure. You would think they'd be extra invested in making sure they're not swiping anyone else's work.
Also find it funny they say they "reused" code in that tweet while referring to use of AI in training models as "stealing" and "plagiarizing" in their white paper
Denuvo for artists?
Sorry folx, I don't respect any copyrights.
actually, running away with it is theft, because you're removing the original. training an AI with it makes a copy. gj calling something braindead, and then the only defense you offer for your take is an example that emotionally conflates AI with violence and theft.
you as a person can still do anything you want with it
except use ai tools apparently...
This is most likely a short lived "solution".
AI isn't so much the problem as the context within capitalism, which the authors of Glaze probably understand to a large extent. They offer it as something likely to be defeated, probably just to get some cred by looking useful more than anything, as a stopgap before "regulation".
Maybe they are just a bit dumb and think that's forthcoming, but the reality of AI should be used to advance the idea that it should just be collectively owned and used, I don't see the problem with it. We do have to abolish private and intellectual property to make it anything other than an entertaining force for evil.
Sorry my intent with that sentence was with using the reality of AI's capabilities to radicalize people, to make that "should" reality.
Because it should be easy for even theoryless people to understand the ultimate conclusion of AI under capitalism.
Th authors of the program seem to be aware of this. On their website they raise the point that in some time there will be an update to the ai that renders Glaze obsolete. They claim that it's only a temporary protection to artists while "true protection"(legislation, they claim) is created.
I don’t see anything wrong with preserving things that you create. If you want it to be exclusively enjoyed, why not? If it’s not vital to human survival or society to function, no one should be entitled to it if you don’t feel like it
Plus this doesn’t exactly ruin any artwork that is publicly viewable. All it does is make it non replicable by a machine. You can still right click and save image and spread it with others so that ability is not removed
If we're talking about a hypothetical society without private & intellectual property, I'm not trying to be prescriptive by the way, then I think there won't really be too many people sharing that concern. Human brains are remixing machines among other things. Machine learning generative models are trying to replicate as much of that capability as they can using computers, because then there's more net remixes happening. If it's collectively owned then I'd imagine the corpus of human output is as well.
Techbros are doing the equivalent of observing bus driver routes to make self-driving Ubers more profitable and theoryless ultras on this website are saying it's DRM/property to counter this. Fucking stupid.
I don't think anyone here would fall into this trap, I just don't want people to think there's a technological silver bullet. I think it's healthier to expect that once an idea leaves your brain, or a work is published, that it's no longer truly "yours". It's out there, even obscured or bearing DRM, it can always be put into someone's training data or cracked if any one person is motivated enough to see it through. Or in the case of Glaze, if a lot of works are published using it then it's a bigger target. The tools to make works back into usable training data are also machine trainable unfortunately.
If works as intended, this shit is data poisoning. I don't get why can't they just put a sort of digital watermark on glaze artwork as a warning, no no, they want to destroy the data trained and waste hardware power, time and funds.
CRY MORE MAGGOT
HonestyI'd be flattered if someone wanted to AI imitate my art but that's just my case and I'm barely a commercial artist. I sell a piece every few years and sometimes do stuff for bands and that's usually for like $100 for a record an negotiable for a shirt since I can handle the screenprinting etc as well but generally it's a quicker drawing. Mostly I'm curious what an ai fed my art would make cause it's like collage mixed with hyper tiny detailed abstract stuff along the lines of Nick Blinko. I use melted Polaroids, cigarette ashes for shading sometimes and all kinds of weird mixed media shit, I wouldn't mind seeing how close a computer can get.
For artists that get paid, good. Protect your shit, it's hard enough out here without Ai
The thing is they never ask. If your artwork is in a database that they have access to, they feed it to the machine learning model along with everything else regardless of how you feel about it.
There is an irony that this does require you to copy another's artwork to work.
Honestly, just putting a watermark on your art does a lot to poison the training set. I know there are ways to fix it, but it's an easy thing that takes a lot of work to fix.
But ai can be trained to look for an obvious watermark. This seems less easy to identify, or at least for a person to tell the computer which artwork hasn't been glazed.
they can be, but that didn't stop stablediffusion from fucking it up apparently
A deep learning model can look for a watermark, but is it worth it to remove the water mark or just leave it out of the training set? It's not a perfect solution, and if someone was really determined they could get around it, but it will be more trouble than it's worth a lot of the time.
Free until the first iteration is defeated, from then on a subscription service and rent on your socially necessary labor. A good thing capital finally figured out a way to extract value from independent laborers though, and it provides yet another war for the destruction of surplus goods (in this case, coder and artist IP).
:wojak-nooo: NOOOO YOU CANT JUST EDIT YOUR ARTWORK!!! YOU HAVE TO LET ME USE IT FOR FREE!!! FUCKING COMMUNISTS RUIN EVERYTHING
Perhaps the only cool thing to come out of that wretched institution parading as a school.
