• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Explanation of how this works.

    These “AI models” (meaning the free and open Stable Diffusion in particular) consist of different parts. The important parts here are the VAE and the actual “image maker” (U-Net).

    A VAE (Variational AutoEncoder) is a kind of AI that can be used to compress data. In image generators, a VAE is used to compress the images. The actual image AI only works on the smaller, compressed image (the latent representation), which means it takes a less powerful computer (and uses less energy). It’s that which makes it possible to run Stable Diffusion at home.

    This attack targets the VAE. The image is altered so that the latent representation is that of a very different image, but still roughly the same to humans. Say, you take images of a cat and of a dog. You put both of them through the VAE to get the latent representation. Now you alter the image of the cat until its latent representation is similar to that of the dog. You alter it only in small ways and use methods to check that it still looks similar for humans. So, what the actual image maker AI “sees” is very different from the image the human sees.

    Obviously, this only works if you have access to the VAE used by the image generator. So, it only works against open source AI; basically only Stable Diffusion at this point. Companies that use a closed source VAE cannot be attacked in this way.


    I guess it makes sense if your ideology is that information must be owned and everything should make money for someone. I guess some people see cyberpunk dystopia as a desirable future. I wonder if it bothers them that all the tools they used are free (EG the method to check if images are similar to humans).

    It doesn’t seem to be a very effective attack but it may have some long-term PR effect. Training an AI costs a fair amount of money. People who give that away for free probably still have some ulterior motive, such as being liked. If instead you get the full hate of a few anarcho-capitalists that threaten digital vandalism, you may be deterred. Well, my two cents.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      So, it only works against open source AI; basically only Stable Diffusion at this point.

      I very much doubt it even works against the multitude of VAEs out there. There’s not just the ones derived from StabilitiyAI’s models but ones right now simply intended to be faster (at a loss of quality): TAESD can also encode and has a completely different architecture thus is completely unlikely to be fooled by the same attack vector. That failing, you can use a simple affine transformation to convert between latent and rgb space (that’s what “latent2rgb” is) and compare outputs to know whether the big VAE model got fooled into generating something unrelated. That thing just doesn’t have any attack surface, there’s several magnitudes too few weights in there.

      Which means that there’s an undefeatable way to detect that the VAE was defeated. Which means it’s only a matter of processing power until Nightshade is defeated, no human input needed. They’ll of course again train and try to fool the now hardened VAE, starting another round, ultimately achieving nothing but making the VAE harder and harder to defeat.

      It’s like with Russia: They’ve already lost the war but they haven’t noticed, yet – though I wouldn’t be too sure that Nightshade devs themselves aren’t aware of that: What they’re doing is a powerful way to grift a lot of money from artists without a technical bone in their body.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Those companies don’t make the technical details public and I don’t follow the leaks and rumors. They almost certainly use, broadly, the same approach (latent diffusion). That is, their AIs work with a compressed version of the image to save on computing power.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah. Not that it’s the fault of artists that capitalism exists in its current form. Their art is the fruit of their labor, and therefore, means should be taken to ensure that their labor is properly compensated. And I’m a marxist anarchist, no part of me agrees with any part of the capitalist system. But artists are effectively workers, and we enjoy the fruits of their labor. They are rarely fairly compensated for their work. In this particular instance, under the system we live in, artists rights should be prioritized over

      I’m all for janky (getting less janky as time goes on) AI images, but I don’t understand why it’s so hard to ask artists permission first to use their data. We already maintain public domain image databases, and loads of artists have in the past allowed their art to be used freely for any purpose. How hard is it to gather a database of art who’s creators have agreed to let it be used for AI? All the time we’ve (the collective we) been arguing over thise could’ve been spent implementing a system to create such a database.

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Fair enough, and I can’t claim to be a fan of copyright law or how it’s used. Maybe what I’m moreso talking about is a standard of ethics? Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law. Like just straight up a law making it mandatory for AI to provide a list of all the data it used, as well as proof of the source of that data having consented to it’s use in training the AI.

          • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            There’s nothing wrong with being able to use others’ copyrighted material without permission though. For analysis, criticism, research, satire, parody and artistic expression like literature, art, and music. In the US, fair use balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s right to access and use information. There are rights people can maintain over their work, and the rights they do not maintain have always been to the benefit of self-expression and discussion.

            It would be awful for everyone if IP holders could take down any review, finding, reverse engineering, or indexes they didn’t like. That would be the dream of every corporation, bully, troll, or wannabe autocrat. It really shouldn’t be legislated.

            • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not talking about IP holders, and I do not agree with copyright law. I’m not having a broad discussion on copyright here. I’m only saying, and not saying anything more, that people who sit down and make a painting and share it with their friends and communities online should be asked before it is scanned to train a model. That’s it.

              • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                How’re we supposed to have things like reviews, research findings, reverse engineering, or indexes if you have to ask first? The scams you could pull if you could attack anyone caught reviewing you. These rights exist to protect us from the monopolies on expression that would increase disparities and divisions, manipulate discourse, and in the end, fundamentally alter how we interact online with each other for the worse.

                • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I’m just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I’m suggesting is:

                  “Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist.”

                  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I read that. That’s what I’ve been responding to the whole time. This is a way to analyze and reverse engineer images so you can make your own original works. In the US, the first major case that established reverse engineering as fair use was Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc in 1992, and then affirmed in Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation in 2000. Do you think SONY or SEGA would have allowed anyone to reverse engineer their stuff if they asked nice? Artists have already said they would deny anyone.

                    It’s not about the data, people having a way to make quality art themselves is an attack on their status, and when asked about generators that didn’t use their art, they came out overwhelmingly against with the same condescending and reductive takes they’ve been using this whole time.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law.

            What you are talking about is an expansion of copyright law. Copyright includes more than just the right to make copies. It also includes the right to authorize derivatives, such as translations of texts, movies based on comics, or games based on movies. Fan art is also a derivative and relies on fair use for its legality (assuming it is legal).

            If one were to create an “AI training right”, then the natural place to put it, would be with the other rights covered by copyright. Of course, one could lay down such a right outside the copyright statute, and write that it is not part of copyright law.

            In any case, it would be intellectual property. The person, who can allow or deny AI training on some work, would own that right as intellectual property.

            • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, I’m not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone’s art. Sucks for them I guess.

              I don’t agree with copyright. I’m an anarchist. I’m openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don’t agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that’s all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

              That’s my only statement. You can assume I effectively don’t agree with any other thing. I’m not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don’t agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I’m pointing at pixiv the website and saying “hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people’s shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs”

              Unless you’re going to somehow explain why artists aren’t worth existing or something then don’t even bother answering. I’m genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

              • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                I just thought you should know where you stand on the issue. It will make it easier to communicate. Just say that you want to expand copyright to cover AI training and boom. Clear statement. No long winded, nuanced debate needed.

                Don’t actually know where the hostility comes from. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

                • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I’ve described what I think is right pretty fully. I don’t need you to tell me where I stand.

                  You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I’m not mistaking you for someone else. I’m just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I’m fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That’s it fam I’m out

                  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’m not mistaking you for someone else.

                    It’s just that this was only the second reply to me, and the first about copyright. I had read your posts here and have ended up confused. I’m sorry that I have jumped to the wrong conclusion about where you stand. The regulation you propose would create, as far as I can tell, a new form of intellectual property. That just leaves me baffled WRT you not wanting laws on IP, but I guess I will have to live with that.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s not quite right. A traditional worker is someone who operates machines, they don’t own, to make products, they don’t own. Artists, who are employed, do not own the copyrights to what they make. These employed artists are like workers, in that sense.

        Copyrights are “intellectual property”. If one needed permission (mostly meaning, pay for it), then the money would go to the property owners. These worker-artists would not receive anything. Note that, on the whole, the owners already made what profit they could expect. Say, if it’s stills from a movie, then that movie already made a profit (or not).

        People who use their own tools and own their own product (EG artisans in Marx’s time) are members of the Petite Bourgeoisie. I think a Marxist analysis of the class dynamics would be fruitful here, but it’s beyond me.

        The spoilered bit is something I have written about the NYT lawsuit. I think it’s illuminating here, too.

        spoiler

        The NYT wants money for the use of its “intellectual property”. This is about money for property owners. When building rents go up, you wouldn’t expect construction workers to benefit, right?

        In fact, more money for property owners means that workers lose out, because where else is the money going to come from? (well, “money”)

        AI, like all previous forms of automation, allows us to produce more and better goods and services with the same amount of labor. On average, society becomes richer. Whether these gains go to the rich, or are more evenly distributed, is a choice that we, as a society, make. It’s a matter of law, not technology.

        The NYT lawsuit is about sending these gains to the rich. The NYT has already made its money from its articles. The authors were paid, in full, and will not get any more money. Giving money to these property owners will not make society any richer. It just moves wealth to property owners for being property owners. It’s about more money for the rich.

        If OpenAI has to pay these property owners for no additional labor, then it will eventually have to increase subscription fees to balance the cash flow. People, who pay a subscription, probably feel that it benefits them, whether they use it for creative writing, programming, or entertainment. They must feel that the benefit is worth, at least, that much in terms of money.

        So, the subscription fees represent a part of the gains to society. If a part of these subscription fees is paid to property owners, who did not contribute anything, then that means that this part of the social gains is funneled to property owners, IE mainly the ultra-rich, simply for being owners/ultra-rich.


        why it’s so hard to ask artists permission first to use their data.

        SD was trained on images from the internet. Anything. There are screenshots, charts and pure text jpgs in there. There’s product images from shopping sites and also just ordinary snapshots that someone posted. The people with the biggest individual contribution are almost certainly professional photographers. SD is not built on what one usually calls art (with apologies to photographers). An influencer who has a lot of good, well tagged images on the net has made a more positive contribution than someone who makes abstract art or stick figure comics. And let’s not forget the labor of those who tagged those images.

        You could not practically get permission from these tens or hundreds of millions of people. It would really be a shame, because the original SD reveals a lot about the stereotypes and biases on the net.

        Using permissively licensed images wouldn’t have helped a lot. I have seen enough outrage over datasets with exactly such material. People say, that’s not what they had in mind when they gave these wide permissions.

        Practically, look at wikimedia. There are so many images there which are “pirated”. Wikimedia can just take them down in response to a DMCA notice. Well, you can’t remove an image from a trained AI model. It’s not in there (if everything has worked). So what now? If that means that the model becomes illegal, then you just can’t have a model trained on such a database.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          People who use their own tools and own their own product (EG artisans in Marx’s time) are members of the Petite Bourgeoisie. I think a Marxist analysis of the class dynamics would be fruitful here, but it’s beyond me.

          Please don’t. Marxists, at least Marxist-Leninists, tend to start talking increasing amounts of nonsense once the Petite Bourgeoisie and Lumpen get involved.

          In any case the whole thing is (as Marx would tell you, but Marxist ignore) a function of one’s societal relations, not of the individual person, or job. That relation might change from hour to hour (e.g. if you have a dayjob), and “does not have an employment contract” doesn’t imply “does not depend on capital for survival” – it’s perfectly possible as an artist, or pipe fitter, to own your own means of production (computer, metal tongs) and be, as a contractor, in a very similar relationship to capital as the Lumpen day-labourer: To have no say in the greater work that gets created, to be told “do this, or starve”, to be treated as an easily replaceable cog. That may even be the case if you have employees of your own. The question is, and that’s why Anarchist analysis >>> Marxist analysis, is whether you’re beholden to an unjust hierarchy, in this case, that created by capital ownership, not whether you happen to own a screw driver. As e.g. a farmer you might own millions upon millions in means of production, doesn’t mean that supermarket chains aren’t squeezing your bones dry and you can barely afford your utility bills. Capitalism is unjust hierarchy all the way up and down.

          Well, you can’t remove an image from a trained AI model. It’s not in there (if everything has worked). So what now? If that means that the model becomes illegal, then you just can’t have a model trained on such a database.

          I also can’t possibly unhear this, doesn’t mean that my mind or any music I might compose is illegal. If it is overfitted in my mind and I want to compose music and publish that then I’ll have to pay attention that my stuff is sufficiently different, have to run an adversarial model against myself, so to speak, if I don’t want to end up having to pay royalties. If I just want to have it bouncing around my head and sing it in the shower then I might be singing copyrighted material, but there’s no obligation for me to pay royalties either as many aspects of copyright necessitate things such as publishing or ability to damage the original author’s income.

          • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

            this

            Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

            I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well, Marx believed that the Petite Bourgeoisie would disappear. Their members, unable to economically compete, would become employed workers. Hasn’t happened, though. He also observed that this class emulated the outlook of the Haute Bourgeoisie, the rich. IDK more about that. I find it interesting how vocally in favor of right-wing economic policies some artists are, even though these policies massively favor the rich. The phrase temporarily embarrassed millionaire comes to mind. I’m curious about that, is all.

            I like how empathic your anarchist take is but I’m not really sure what to do with it.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I like how empathic your anarchist take is but I’m not really sure what to do with it.

              That might be because I didn’t give a single bit of advise regarding praxis :)

              I’ll just leave a link to one of Anark’s videos here, though the overall tl;dr of everything is “build the new in the shell of the old without fucking up”.

              • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                The economics are an unworkable mess but I don’t mind having sent him some ad money. Do have anything on how an advanced economy with a high degree of specialization could coordinate production and logistics?

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  There’s different ideas, roughly distinguished between market and council-based, with less and more central planning. The CNT in Spain had a quite market-based approach, for example, but OTOH you see council-type structures even in today’s capitalism: The development of lithography technology and machines for that, for example, quickly hit a brick wall, none of the (gigantic) companies working on it were actually large enough to do it so they started cooperating. The label on the machine might say “ASML” but really they’re only a systems integrator: They’ve worked with a multitude of other companies to develop and build exactly the stuff that will be necessary, there’s no competition between say Corning and Zeiss who’s going to make a particular lens or such: They’ve agreed, together, to build a certain technology, divided up the work according to their specialities – including “make money with the machine”, that’s TSMC’s area of expertise. Roughly speaking: The less commodified a particular erm commodity is the more likely it’s not actually directly bound by market forces, even in our current economy you get these islands of horizontal cooperation within the larger shark tank. You’ll pay money for those machines but money alone might not buy you one, you might need to be part of a syndicate.

                  But I agree with you (or I think that’s your implication) that pure mutualism will not work for these kinds of “put a man on the moon” projects, it’s not structured enough and without structure no planning (centralised or decentralised). And frankly speaking the theory around this topic is kinda lacking, first off because much of the theory about it is old, where “big industry” meant “a steel mill”, secondly because Anarchism has ceased to plan ahead details: We don’t have the necessary knowledge and information to pre-empt the decisions of people down the line, and we shouldn’t attempt to, either. They will organise those projects as they see fit in some democratic manner, what’s up to us is to grow democracy within the economy to a degree where more and more economic actors jump on the ship, as well as develop abstract frameworks, a body of ideas and approaches in line with Anarchist principles, that they can pick and choose from as they like and circumstances dictate, and develop further. And most of all we need to kill off hierarchical realism, that is, the idea that nothing ever works without an imposed hierarchy even though everyone sees it working all the time when friends get together to have a grill party. Are there scaling issues, sure… but hierarchies have scaling issues, too, even insurmountable ones (mostly around information processing complexity and perverse incentives) and we don’t discount them on that basis. There’s a strong cultural bias and blind-spot, there.

                  In a nutshell, it’s the old leftist problem: We know exactly what’s wrong and also know how things ought to look like to be better, but details, man, details. In the end, in practice, there’s no perfect, there’s only less bad.

                  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Thanks for the long reply. I also took the time to read the wp on mutualism. Proudhon has been on my reading list forever because of his great quotes, but other things were always more relevant.

                    What you’re describing about industry sounds perhasp like joint-ventures? It also sounds a lot like a cartel. Zeiss, along with other lens makers, was fined in 2010 by german antitrust enforcement because they had conspired to overcharge consumers.

                    But I agree with you (or I think that’s your implication) that pure mutualism will not work for these kinds of “put a man on the moon” projects,

                    I would never judge a school of ideas based on a few minutes of youtube. But I admit, I was thinking it and I would not have been motivated to spend more time on it without your reply.

                    I’m not concerned about stuff like putting a man on the moon. I’m thinking about feeding 8 billion (and rising) people, most of them living in cities. This takes an uninterrupted stream of food and water from strangers to strangers. As it goes today, you need fuel and spare parts, replacement machines. To grow the food you probably need fertilizer, maybe pesticides and so on (I’m not knowledgeable on agriculture).

                    We do this through markets. This decentralized method seems superior to central planning. Obviously, we can do very well without overt hierarchies. As we know, behind most markets is a government enforcing laws and possible intervening to impose fixes for perceived problems.

                    You may lose your farm if you don’t make enough money to pay the bills. This can be framed as simply circumstance; predefined rules operate without any individual decision and thus without hierarchy. Or one may point to the individuals involved who still make the choices to enforce contracts or laws in the specific case.

                    If the farm passes to someone who makes more money with it, then that hopefully means that it is better at meeting the needs of other people. We don’t need to discuss the flaws in the market system, but a system should have a way of ensuring that the meets of other people elsewhere - of strangers - are met. Scarce resources need to be put to a use that meets the needs of the many.

                    I have to think of crowd crush disasters. No one in such a crowd does anything very bad. They may even try to help other people if they can. They do the best they can with the information they have. But when 100s or 1000s of people are all pushing just a little, then the guys at the front get squished by the collective force.