Posted under General
https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/ - Glaze is probably my favorite. Depending on how useful it is, it could even be implemented site-wide to glaze thumbnails or images as a whole without affecting the visual quality of the art. Yes I get it, it's probably not something suitable to the site as a whole!
Updated
I really dislike images that are ran through these. My brain seems particularly adept at finding visual patterns within noise, and no matter how subtle the noise is, I can often see it, which ruins the experience for me. I don't begrudge artists for using it, but it hurts enough that I unfollow artists who use it and blacklist adversarial noise.
Related: topic #43284
kyureki said:
I really dislike images that are ran through these. My brain seems particularly adept at finding visual patterns within noise, and no matter how subtle the noise is, I can often see it, which ruins the experience for me. I don't begrudge artists for using it, but it hurts enough that I unfollow artists who use it and blacklist adversarial noise.
Me too, but they wouldn't be necessary if AI image generators didn't constantly appropriate artists' work without attribution or payment.
nullfoxie said:
it could even be implemented site-wide to glaze thumbnails or images as a whole without affecting the visual quality of the art.
No. We are an archive, we are not in the game of modifying images. Regardless of how "visible" it is or not adding a layer of distortion on an image is destroying the original and objectively making it worse.
It's also not really effective
And others like nightshade I've heard can be defeated by as little as a 1% gaussian blur
Updated
donovan_dmc said:
No. We are an archive, we are not in the game of modifying images. Regardless of how "visible" it is or not adding a layer of distortion on an image is destroying the original and objectively making it worse.It's also not really effective
And others like nightshade I've heard can be defeated by as little as a 1% gaussian blur
The sources say the opposite, and a large chunk of security platforms is just raising the bar for determined attackers to make it not really worthwhile. No system is foolproof, and as many of the sources go on to say ("Glaze likely provides some form of protection, in the sense that by using it artists are probably not worse-off than by not using it (as long as they are fine with the small noise artifacts that Glaze adds to their art). Glaze might also protect against “lazy” or “unskilled” attempts at bypassing it, that use exactly the same attacks and implementations it was made robust against." and "You can use it and hope it works or not use it and know someone IS going scrape your work…never hurts to add protection. Also people saying it doesn’t work never have actual evidence to disapprove the peer reviewed studies and evidence." and the 'bypass' in the third link leads to a 404) something is better than nothing. However, acting as an archive rather than a haven makes sense and, indeed, noising images adds artifacts one may not want in their artwork. I was more referring to a filter for images pulled via crawlers, but I didn't specify that.
nullfoxie said:
https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/ - Glaze is probably my favorite. Depending on how useful it is, it could even be implemented site-wide to glaze thumbnails or images as a whole without affecting the visual quality of the art.
Not just no but Hell no?
It's like asking someone to burn down a home to stop burglars.
nullfoxie said:
artists are probably not worse-off than by not using it
Their audience would likely beg to differ
alphamule said:
Not just no but Hell no?
It's like asking someone to burn down a home to stop burglars.
Burning a home down destroys the home. Shredding the art destroys the art. The pieces are still there, the concept is not. Comparatively, the difference is between window-locks - garish, inconvenient, effective against most attackers - and none when you've got a painted glass piece depicting the Sistine Chapel, not between there being and not being X.
donovan_dmc said:
Their audience would likely beg to differ
Possibly, and I defer to the artists. I just do not like AI art, or theft.
Updated
An art archive that wants to have the best possible version of any art would not be interested in modifying the image content like this, we have several examples that plainly demonstrate that glazing does affect visual quality, and adversarial noise isn't particularly effective anyway.
It'd be more effective for the site to implement a tar pit [like Nepenthes] rather than intentionally destroying artwork for the sake of a chance to deter AI scrapers. Glazing doesn't work forever and it permanently destroys the image. Tar pits won't work forever, but at least they don't have permanent effects on the site.
Ensuring that notable data scrapers are disallowed in robots.txt means that any self-respecting data crawler won't get trapped in the tar pit, but anyone who ignores it gets sent down an endless maze of garbage data. That's the intended purpose at least.
Updated
moonlit-comet said:
Ensuring that notable data scrapers are disallowed in robots.txt means that any self-respecting data crawler won't get trapped in the tar pit, but anyone who ignores it gets sent down an endless maze of garbage data. That's the intended purpose at least.
It wouldn't help anything when there's a daily database export and the API to easily download the images.
ferumbras said:
It wouldn't help anything when there's a daily database export and the API to easily download the images.
Yeah, of course, but it'd certainly cause less damage to the art than adversarial noise does.
The only really effective solution is to disassemble LLM scraping altogether, but that'll take time and a lot of angry people.
ferumbras said:
It wouldn't help anything when there's a daily database export and the API to easily download the images.
LOL as if. These are real fire and forget it types, usually. Anyone capable of using the DB wouldn't need to go scraping random search results. Hell, if they're like me, hypothetical person already has most images. People are instead using tools designed to 'make it so'.
ferumbras said:
It wouldn't help anything when there's a daily database export and the API to easily download the images.
The huge models are not the ones using that export, they can't be bothered to actually learn how a site works
Also consider that this site is not that big, you could scrape the entirety of posts manually in ~5 hours with 1 request per second, and the api allows 2 requests per second so you could likely get it down to 3 hours or less
donovan_dmc said:
The huge models are not the ones using that export, they can't be bothered to actually learn how a site works
Also consider that this site is not that big, you could scrape the entirety of posts manually in ~5 hours with 1 request per second, and the api allows 2 requests per second so you could likely get it down to 3 hours or less
How many posts can you get per request?
snpthecat said:
How many posts can you get per request?
320
nullfoxie said:
https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/ - Glaze is probably my favorite.Depending on how useful it is, it could even be implemented site-wide to glaze thumbnails or images as a whole without affecting the visual quality of the art. Yes I get it, it's probably not something suitable to the site as a whole!
These types of tools only work against a very early version of Stable Diffusion which is no longer in common use. Kicking AI image generators in the shins is always nice but I'm afraid this doesn't further that end anymore.
mklxiv said:
These types of tools only work against a very early version of Stable Diffusion which is no longer in common use. Kicking AI image generators in the shins is always nice but I'm afraid this doesn't further that end anymore.
Remember when it was called unStable diffusion? 6-fingers-Wilson remembers. As does Uncanny Sally. Now we're fancy and have Thomason Jefferson and people can live in the state of Colorada. :P
Glaze looks really weird on images with flat colors or smooth shading. Like dipped in oil and slugs crawled over it. I the tag for it to my blacklist because it just ruins images with it.
deadoon said:
Glaze looks really weird on images with flat colors or smooth shading. Like dipped in oil and slugs crawled over it. I the tag for it to my blacklist because it just ruins images with it.
To me it looks like they layered on bump-mapping with another image (because that's largely what some of them do). Almost like applying the Rock filter in IrfanView 2-3 times at a setting of 6.
https://temp-image.com/GIIN3O3xIb85veE I applied this to post #1266988, for an example. This disappears in a day, and is easy enough to do on any image.
