Artists poisoning the ai data set

A new trend among artists to poison the ai data set.



The first video is an okay overview of the idea and why pro artists are so frustrated at having their work stolen by ai without permission, that they are using this technique to fight back.  (And why it works)

The sequel is more interesting to me, as it addresses more bluntly some of the objection to ai poison.



It's interesting to see their point of view and how deep they dive into the issues we face as ai use becomes more normalized.

Personally, I can see some moral justification for throwing wooden clogs (sabots) into these particular machines. It will take a lot of wooden clogs though.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:Personally, I can see some moral justification for throwing wooden clogs (sabots) into these particular machines. It will take a lot of wooden clogs though.

The second video mentions reasons why it takes far fewer clogs than we think.


But the part I liked most went something like this (paraphrased)

The benefit of AI is to replace the un-fun tasks in our life so we can spend more time doing the things that fulfill us.  Instead, what we have with AI now, are systems that replace the more enjoyable and human tasks (art, communication, etc) and leave us with more time to do the mundane tasks that are less enjoyable.

It's said from an artists point of view, but I can see some of her view.

Perhaps not specifically artistry, but this picture gives the same vibes.

The arms-race between the various sides is super-cool and will continue to push technology forward.

My personal stance is that like most of the vexing social problems of our day, this one goes away in a world with a strong basic income.

He talks about some of the problematic ways ai is being used in the art community.   In this example, submitting an ai generated image as their own painting to an art contest that doesn't allow it in the rules.  And how the judges didn't care about their own rules.  The video goes into way more detail, but one of the comments is more interesting. From a judge defending the choice with something like - if it's good art, what does it matter?  

Seeing real life artists use ai in their own work is interesting.  

Some use it to help replace the need to hire modles or make miniture settings to get the lighting right.  And then edit the ai image to get the actual lighting right (apparently, "light from the left side" is confusing to ai still).  I think there is potential here when artists participate in the process.  Make sketch, apply ai, fix issues, make new sketch, apply ai, coble together the correct parts from various ai generated images, make new sketch, apply ai to make more cohesive, make new sketch (these are with pencil and paper) to fix the new lighting errors.

This style requires so much knowledge of light and form to get right.  Not to mention some expencive subscriptions to get the high end ai that has fewer errors.  Most painters don't need to know this as much as they can take a photo and paint what they see.  And I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be faster and cheaper to hire a modle and go to the costume store.  

Then there is a way of using ai to generate references, I'm not sure I like.  The first place winner mentioned in the video has a long history of painting amazing imaginative realism that look real.  He used ai generated source for this painting and took no time to correct the obvious mistakes like the hands and reflections.  The instrument looks imaginative, if illogical.   But the hands from an artist of his quality, should have been an easy fix.  Yet, he didn't fix them.  Why make that choice?  Without the addition of humanity to identify and repair ai errors, he becomes a photocopier.  

Timothy Norton wrote:Perhaps not specifically artistry, but this picture gives the same vibes.

Please, please don't feel like we have to start doing this on permies? It would make me very sad...

Reading this thread, really, really makes me want to add more creativity to my life. I think part of the solution is for more people to bravely enter the art realm, even if only on a modest level.

I am feeling quite time pressured these days, so much of my "art" is very basic and practical, but that doesn't mean it isn't "art".
I made this sign post for a farm trail:



Sure - the theme is a steal from the Beatles, but I like their music. But since it was a steal, I made the two parts of the sign round to remind us of the era of vinyl records.

The print is basic and clear, but after all, it's a sign and I don't want people to have to struggle to read it.

Is it "art" at all? Or would people dump it into the category of "crafts" - maybe if we didn't make those arbitrary divisions it would help people like me be more creative in our lives?

Maybe one solution to AI invading "art" is to get more real, live humans doing it!

Thank you for sharing Jay, I love the sign!

Imagine what all the former generations of artists would say: can it hold a paintbrush? Maybe with some work, but it would rather use a printer, or better yet, an entirely digital format. Can it hold a guitar, draw a bow over a violin?

I’m quite partial to painting on or making art with pottery, on the sides of bowls, cooking pots, etc. I haven’t found a good source of suitable clay. But I have read that there was clay extracted from the banks of my home river to make pottery. What I’ve found so far is brittle and unworkable for the most part, even if it fires well. There’s also a devil snowflake unlikely unhappily

Deposit in without specific boundaries unknown to human life without being perceived by non-existent valley next over.

And in the windy non-thinking existences without rhododendron blossoms blossoming finely or coarsely also in heavenly abodes used unceremoniously by those wise beings who in ten thousand joyous songs, joyous weddingly perceived to be beneficial to those who, with their kettles alighted and well boiling, would shape it well, shape it without shaping it in any particular way, in the end insignificantly and disappearingly unsaid.

I do little things to make it harder for ai when sharing my art.

Smaller file sizes (ai prefers large fils with lots of data)

Keystone distortion where I photograph it at a slight angle.  Computers can correct for this, but it causes distortion,  often enough to poison the data set

Mispelled file names and captions, although this damages seo, so I don't do this on permies so much.

Clutter.  Background clutter, especially other paintings or pictires of chicken with eyes visible, makes the ai work harder to figure which is the actual subject.

Bad art.  I post my learning art and ai cannot tell which is good art and which is crap. I'm okay with that.  And besides, this myth that people are instantly talented the first time picking up a brush has got to go.

Switching back to google spellchecker which doesn't.

It's not much, but like the video said, it adds up.

I haven't tried this filter thing the video mentioned. It's supposed to be invisible to humans, but I suspect tech ideas like that would be pretty easy to overcome with more tech with a few months dedication.

Maybe one solution to AI invading "art" is to get more real, live humans doing it!

This!
I love it!

A follow-up



Interesting explanations on how ai data sets differ and how these different filters actually work.