The tool, called Nightshade, messes up training data in ways that could cause serious damage to image-generating AI models. Is intended as a way to fight back against AI companies that use artists’ work to train their models without the creator’s permission.

ARTICLE - Technology Review

ARTICLE - Mashable

ARTICLE - Gizmodo

The researchers tested the attack on Stable Diffusion’s latest models and on an AI model they trained themselves from scratch. When they fed Stable Diffusion just 50 poisoned images of dogs and then prompted it to create images of dogs itself, the output started looking weird—creatures with too many limbs and cartoonish faces. With 300 poisoned samples, an attacker can manipulate Stable Diffusion to generate images of dogs to look like cats.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m interested to know how they fool the AI while keeping it invisible to the human eye. Do they make additional layers? Do they change every nth pixel? Is every poisoning associated with another poisoned object? (Will a dog always be poisoned towards a cat?, etc…)

    Interesting, but a bit hard to understand.

    • bort@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      how they fool the AI while keeping it invisible to the human eye

      My guess is that AI companies will try to scrape as much as possible without a human ever looking at the data.

      When poisoned data start to become enough of a problem, that humans have to look over very sample, then this would increase training cost to to a point where it’s no longer worth to bother with it in the first place.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        But that has absolutely nothing to do with how the mechanism works lol. Of course they are trying to eliminate data scraping, that is the whole controversy

    • itsralC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disappointingly, the article only says that it “changes pixels in ways imperceptible to the human eye”