Re:Glaze (Poisoning AI Artists)
by bawolff on Monday March 20, 2023 @03:11AM
(#35228229)
I think it would be hard to argue it isn't. It is the only value that such a system could theoretically provide, so there is no other reason someone would use it. What would be the argument that it is not one?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Glaze (Poisoning AI Artists)
by alwayslikethis on Monday March 20, 2023 @04:25AM
(#35228690)
How are you applying a filter or circumventing anything if you are simply training a brand new model with a bunch of "cloaked" images?
Oh, i was thinking the scenario was more a specialized tool to remove the "glaze".
Hmm. That's a good point and now i am less sure.
I suspect it would come down to intentionality.
Re:Glaze (Poisoning AI Artists)
by none_to_remain on Monday March 20, 2023 @08:44AM
(#35230679)
I looked at the definition in the law and it was unclear to me whether this technique met the definition. Among other things there's no "authorized deGlazing" to recover the original going on during human viewings. But there seemed to be enough leeway that maybe a judge could find a fit