AI & Humanoids

Sneaky AI model deliberately corrupts training images to sidestep copyright

View 2 Images
Ambient Diffusion is a text-to-image AI model that protects an artist's copyright by using heavily corrupted images
Daras et al.
Ambient Diffusion is a text-to-image AI model that protects an artist's copyright by using heavily corrupted images
Daras et al.
Ambient Diffusion's output generated from 'clean' (left) and corrupted (right) training images
Daras et al.

Text-to-image AI models trained on original images can memorize them, generating replicas that raise an issue of copyright infringement. A new AI model has been developed that’s trained on only corrupted images, removing that particular legal headache.

A big problem with text-to-image generators is their ability to replicate the original works used to train them, thereby infringing an artist’s copyright. Under US law, if you create an original work and ‘fix’ it in a tangible form, you own its copyright – literally, the right to copy it. A copyrighted image can’t, in most cases, be used without the creator’s authorization.

In May, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was hit with a class action copyright lawsuit by a group of artists claiming it had used their work without permission to train its AI-powered image generator, Imagen. Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt – all of them use Stability’s Stable Diffusion tool – are facing similar suits.

To avoid this problem, researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin and the University of California (UC), Berkeley, have developed a diffusion-based generative AI framework that is only trained on images that have been corrupted beyond recognition, removing the likelihood that the AI will memorize and replicate an original work.

Diffusion models are advanced machine-learning algorithms that generate high-quality data by progressively adding noise to a dataset and then learning to reverse this process. Recent studies have shown that these models can memorize examples from their training set. This has obvious implications for privacy, security, and copyright. Here’s an example not related to artwork: an AI that needs to be trained on X-ray scans but not memorize images of specific patients, which would breach the patient’s privacy. To avoid this, model makers can introduce image corruption.

The researchers demonstrated with their Ambient Diffusion framework that a diffusion model can be trained to generate high-quality images only using highly corrupted samples.

Ambient Diffusion's output generated from 'clean' (left) and corrupted (right) training images
Daras et al.

The above image shows the difference in image output when corruption is used. The researchers first trained their model with 3,000 ‘clean’ images from CelebA-HQ, a database of high-quality images of celebrities. It generated images nearly identical to the originals (the left panel) when prompted. Then, they retrained the model using 3,000 highly corrupted images, where up to 90% of individual pixels were randomly masked. While the model generated lifelike human faces, the results were far less similar (right panel).

“The framework could prove useful for scientific and medical applications, too,” said Adam Klivans, a computer science professor at UT Austin and study co-author. “That would be true for basically any research where it is expensive or impossible to have a full set of uncorrupted data, from black hole imaging to certain types of MRI scans.”

As with existing text-to-image generators, the results aren’t perfect every time. The point is that artists can rest a little easier knowing that a model like Ambient Diffusion won’t memorize and replicate their original works. Will it stop other AI models from memorizing their original images and replicating them? No, but that’s what the courts are for.

The researchers have made their code and Ambient Diffusion model open-source to encourage further research. It’s available on GitHub.

The study was published on the pre-print website arXiv.

Source: UT at Austin

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
3 comments
Jinpa
But they still have to start with someone else's images upon which to do the corrupting, so good luck with that approach.
veryken
We are doomed, I tell ya. We are doomed.
fen
Its still copyright, like if there is a faint echo of a song playing in the background of my youtube video, the quality doesnt matter its still copyright. They are basically saying they dont care about copyright law, and they will make it impossible for the copyright holders to even tell if they used their data or not.