It stands to reason that if you have access to an LLM’s training data, you can influence what’s coming out the other end of the inscrutable AI’s network. The obvious guess is that…
On that note, if you’re an artist, make sure you take Nightshade or Glaze for a spin. Don’t need access to the LLM if they’re wantonly snarfing up poison.
ETA: also, you can prove a negative, it’s just often much harder. Since the person above said it doesn’t work, the positive claim is theirs to justify. Whether it’s hard or not is not my problem.
That’s not how evidence works. If the original person has evidence that the software doesn’t work, then we need to look at both sets of evidence and adjust our view accordingly.
It could very well be that the software works 90% of the time, but there could exist some outlying examples where it doesn’t. And if they have those examples, I want to know about them.
Last time I checked out Glaze, around the time it was announced, they refused to release any of their test data, and wouldn’t let people test images they had glazed. Idk why people wouldn’t find it super sus behavior, but either way it’s made moot by the fact that social media compresses images and ruins the glazing anyway, so it’s not really something people creating models worry about. When an artist shares their work, they’re nice enough to deglaze it for us.
On that note, if you’re an artist, make sure you take Nightshade or Glaze for a spin. Don’t need access to the LLM if they’re wantonly snarfing up poison.
the reason more people haven’t adopted that is because they don’t work.
deleted by creator
I haven’t seen any objective evidence that they don’t work. I’ve seen anecdotal stories, but nothing in the way of actual proof.
You can’t prove a negative, what you should look for is evidence that it works, without such evidence, there is no reason to believe it does.
Okay. I have that. Now what?
ETA: also, you can prove a negative, it’s just often much harder. Since the person above said it doesn’t work, the positive claim is theirs to justify. Whether it’s hard or not is not my problem.
Then you have your evidence, and your previous post is nonsensical.
That’s not how evidence works. If the original person has evidence that the software doesn’t work, then we need to look at both sets of evidence and adjust our view accordingly.
It could very well be that the software works 90% of the time, but there could exist some outlying examples where it doesn’t. And if they have those examples, I want to know about them.
Last time I checked out Glaze, around the time it was announced, they refused to release any of their test data, and wouldn’t let people test images they had glazed. Idk why people wouldn’t find it super sus behavior, but either way it’s made moot by the fact that social media compresses images and ruins the glazing anyway, so it’s not really something people creating models worry about. When an artist shares their work, they’re nice enough to deglaze it for us.
Well I haven’t seen any objective evidence that god doesn’t exist, but that don’t mean I believe in her.
Okay. Same. I’m not asking you to believe Glaze/Nightshade works on my word alone. All I said was that artists should try it.