Artists are retaliating against AI corporations for using their artwork without consent through legal and technological means. The ethics of AI are one of the top debates in our contemporary society. Through a variety of machine-operated generative tools, creating something for anyone in an extremely short amount of time has never been easier. But this raises the question of what this would mean for the artists’ whose work was used to train these databases, often without their agreement and any form of compensation. In response, artists are developing lawsuits and tools such as Nightshade and Glaze as a defense of their rights.
For example, Stability AI is an AI generative tool that uses LAION, the Large-scale Artificial Intelligence Network as its database. This database contains artwork that artists never consented to being used in AI nor have been given anything in return which is why some artists are composing a lawsuit against the company. In the article, “Visual Artists fight back against artificial intelligence for repurposing their work,” Ortiz, a concept artist and illustrator interviewed said, “I have never been asked. I have never been credited. I have never been compensated one penny, and that’s for the use of almost the entirety of my work, both personal and commercial, senator.”
Nightshade and Glaze were both developed by the University of Chicago in an attempt to “poison” AI databases. Their effects may differ, but they have the same common goal: to make it harder for AI to steal the intellectual properties of artists.
Even as its nature as an AI tool, Glaze is meant to protect artists from style mimicry rather than being used to generate content itself. Glaze works by changing the pixels of an artwork slightly, making it not very visible to the human eye, but still has an impact to AI generation. This, in turn, makes the art look like a different style to the AI, resulting in a wonky image.
Nightshade is similar to Glaze, albeit with a few key differences. It’s more offensive rather than defensive in terms of how it functions as its primary goal is to “poison” the AI rather than protect a particular style of artwork. The images altered by Nightshade have minimal changes, but more obvious compared to Glaze. AI that’s trained on this information will think a flaw from the poisoned images is how a certain prompt looks, resulting in a higher amount of impact. Even as few as 300 images could result in one thing being mistaken for another and other harmful effects to the AI.
At Woodbridge High, much like the rest of the world, have mixed opinions regarding AI and how it could impact artists in the future. The dilemma of what could truly be original or not, what constitutes as art, what is deemed as ethical use of AI, and other issues are also discussed.
When asked about what is considered art, responses varied.
“As a contemporary question, it’s impossible to answer, right? Because, ‘is art designed’?” said visual arts instructor Jillian Rogers. “It depends, right? It totally depends on the context. So, we can’t have art, I think without context.”
Copyright and the idea of ownership is the basis for being against AI as generating an image doesn’t require experience that would be from creating an image from scratch.
“If you are simply asking the computer to fully make it for you. Do you really own it? You just gave the computer a few words and it spit out an image, but in my opinion, I don’t think you really own it cause you didn’t make it from scratch with any kind of learned skill,” said visual arts instructor Lisa Guiseppe.
The future for AI is uncertain as it’s still a relatively new technology. Some may believe that AI tools could be a way to reduce time in thinking or even the skill aspect for artists and other individuals alike.
However, it’s clear that there’s evidence of significant harm being done through the use of AI. Whether it be financial loss for artists through their careers being at risk, or the infringement on copyright and intellectual property laws, the negatives are still a big concern that should be treated as such to save human creativity and the livelihoods of everyone who relies on it.
