On YouTube, I have seen this title “Making poison art to punish AI” (to fight back AI Art), isn’t this a good idea ? Here is the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTqlSunIolI
1 Like
There is more detailed information here : This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI | MIT Technology Review
The idea of “poisoning” art to fight against AI art raises an interesting but ultimately flawed argument. While it’s tempting to think that sabotaging AI’s ability to generate art could somehow push back against this new form of creativity, it misses the broader picture. AI is a tool, like a brush or a camera, it doesn’t have intentions or malice. It’s designed to process and generate based on patterns it has learned, but it’s not inherently evil or creative in the human sense. To “poison” the very art that AI is trained on feels a bit like trying to limit creativity itself. After all, humans have used technology throughout history to expand their creative possibilities, not to shrink them. This reactionary approach could restrict more than just AI it could stunt the growth of creativity, both human and machine.
There’s something inherently limiting about treating AI as the enemy in the art world. Yes, there are legitimate concerns about how AI art is generated, especially when it comes to crediting, ownership, and the way it can infringe on the work of living artists. But focusing solely on ways to damage or confuse AI misses the opportunity to shape its role in the creative ecosystem. Rather than creating barriers, why not focus on how AI can coexist with traditional artists? We could advocate for better transparency about how AI art is trained, push for clearer ethical guidelines, and ensure that artists are compensated and credited fairly. “Poisoning” the art just feels like a knee-jerk reaction that might make us feel better for a moment but doesn’t address the root issues.
Art is a deeply human endeavour. The soul, intention, and emotion behind a piece of art can never be replicated by an algorithm. AI can mimic techniques, styles, and compositions, but it lacks the human experience that shapes the way we create. When you look at the way artists use technology whether it’s photography, digital painting, or generative art they’re not rejecting the tools; they’re embracing them, pushing boundaries, and creating new forms of expression. In this sense, AI can be seen as just another tool in the artist’s arsenal. Instead of fearing it, artists should explore how it can enhance their work, whether through new techniques, faster processes, or even just as a creative companion.
What we need isn’t more poisoning of art it’s more thoughtful engagement with AI and how it fits into the broader landscape of creativity. Fighting technology with technology, or worse, actively attempting to hinder its growth, doesn’t solve anything. AI will simply adapt and continue to evolve. The key lies in guiding its development and ensuring that its use respects the rights and intentions of human creators. It’s about creating a space where AI and human creativity can coexist, where both can thrive, and where artists can use AI as a tool for innovation rather than something to fear.
The concept could be seen as a sort of Trojan horse idea. On the surface, it appears to be a creative or rebellious act aimed at resisting AI’s encroachment into the art world. It might seem like a clever way to subvert or outsmart the system by feeding it flawed or “poisoned” material. But, much like the Trojan Horse in Greek mythology, it’s a deceptive tactic that doesn’t ultimately solve the problem or address the core issue.
In the case of the Trojan Horse, the Greeks used it to sneak into Troy under the guise of a gift, only to open the gates to their army once inside. Similarly, the idea of “poisoning” art might look like a method to keep AI from successfully generating art, but in reality, it could lead to unintended consequences. Instead of stopping AI, it might just teach it to work around the “poisoned” art, or worse, leave humans stuck in a reactionary position where we’re always trying to outwit a machine that continuously evolves.
The real challenge with AI art isn’t necessarily stopping AI from learning or creating it’s figuring out how we coexist with this new tool. Just like the Greeks in the Trojan Horse story, using deception as a primary strategy could make us miss the bigger picture. We might end up distracted by the need to “fight back” against AI instead of working towards more balanced, thoughtful solutions that address the ethics, rights, and responsibilities surrounding its use in the art world. The Trojan Horse idea is tempting, but ultimately, it’s not a sustainable or forward-thinking solution.
3 Likes
Yes, me too I do have the same feeling but what about those ai programs stealing and not stopping to do it and also cloning your art and make something “looks like” yours and not stopping doing it. I mean, there are AIs doing the same thing and Arts owners sending lawsuit against these companies who do not listen them. Is any way to stop this bad behaviour?
I completely get where you are coming from. It is incredibly frustrating to see companies scraping, cloning and mimicking real artists’ work without permission and then brushing off the complaints like they do not matter. It feels like theft because, in many ways, it is theft. When someone pours hours, years even, into developing a style, a voice, a feeling in their art, and then some AI comes along and mass-produces knock-offs, it is a real punch in the gut.
The lawsuits you mention are absolutely necessary and honestly, that is the real battleground. Legal frameworks and intellectual property laws need to catch up fast because the current situation is wide open for abuse. Poisoning art might feel satisfying, almost like getting your own back, but it is like trying to patch a sinking boat with chewing gum. It is a short-term thrill, not a long-term solution.
Stopping this bad behaviour will take a mix of stronger copyright protection, tighter regulation on what datasets companies are allowed to use and public pressure that forces companies to take responsibility. Governments and courts have to get involved because otherwise these tech companies will just keep doing what they are doing, pretending it is all a grey area.
I would say artists should also keep pushing for clear labelling of AI art, so at least consumers know when they are looking at something that is machine-generated. It is about transparency and respect, not killing off the tool altogether.
It will not be easy, but history shows that whenever a new technology threatens creators whether it was photography, film, or even digital music there was a period of chaos, then balance came when proper rules and respect were established. Same will happen here if we fight smart.
Yes, sure, but may be is time to “battle the fire with the same fire” ?. But I totally agree with you, this is just a “Hype” and when the storm stops there will be calm times!