The Great AI Art Heist
I t began with a proverbial pebble at the peak of a proverbial mountain.
它始于一座众所周知的山峰上的一颗众所周知的鹅卵石。
And it’s why, in the darkness of a Chicago winter’s night, I am transfixed by a virtual menagerie of fantastical creatures.
这就是为什么在芝加哥冬夜的黑暗中，我被虚拟的奇幻生物动物园惊呆了。
A winged, three-headed beast breathes blue fire across an arctic tundra.
一头有翅膀的三头野兽在北极苔原上喷出蓝色的火焰。
A man-spider, with a bulbous red body, eight hairy legs, and an armor-clad human torso, hovers above an altar stacked high with human skulls and burning candles.
一只人蜘蛛，有着球状的红色身体、八条毛茸茸的腿和穿着盔甲的人类躯干，盘旋在祭坛上方，祭坛上堆满了人类头骨和燃烧的蜡烛。
A headless mer-creature is swallowed up by a wall, its hands clawing at the wallpaper while a silvery finned tail glistens under a pendant lamp.
一只无头的人鱼被墙吞没了，它的手抓着壁纸，而一条银色的鳍尾巴在吊灯下闪闪发光。
A landscape blooms across the page in blues and purples, castles overturned and covered by the mist of magic.
一幅蓝色和紫色的风景在页面上绽放，城堡被魔法的迷雾推翻并覆盖。
I am firmly in the world of Kim Van Deun, a Belgian artist who, after getting her master’s in biology and PhD in veterinary sciences, left academia to dedicate herself to illustration.
我坚定地沉浸在比利时艺术家 Kim Van Deun 的世界里，她在获得生物学硕士学位和兽医科学博士学位后，离开了学术界，致力于插画事业。
It’s easy to surmise that her specialty is fantasy, something she confirms once we begin to email back and forth.
很容易猜测她的专长是幻想，当我们开始来回发送电子邮件时，她证实了这一点。
When she was a kid, she says, her brother came home with The Dark Eye , a role-playing video game similar to Dungeons & Dragons .
她说，当她还是个孩子的时候，她哥哥带着《黑眼》回家，这是一款类似于《龙与地下城》的角色扮演视频游戏。
She found the illustrations of goblins and kobolds intoxicating: “I only wanted to know how you could draw things like that and spend your life dreaming up such monsters.”
她发现妖精和狗头人的插图令人陶醉：“我只是想知道你是如何画出这样的东西，并用一生的时间来梦想这样的怪物的。”
Van Deun was able to push that childhood idea aside for years, she says, until it was “beginning to yell and throwing a ruckus in my head.” So she walked away from the promise of a steady paycheck and a pension to pursue the thing that she felt she was meant to do.
她说，范登多年来一直把这个童年的想法抛在一边，直到它“开始大喊大叫，在我的脑海里发出骚动”。因此，她放弃了稳定薪水和养老金的承诺，去追求她认为自己应该做的事情。
It didn’t take long for her to realize that generative artificial intelligence was going to be trouble — or that it would, at the very least, change everything — for independent artists.
没过多久，她就意识到生成人工智能会给独立艺术家带来麻烦，或者至少会改变一切。
It was 2022, and generative AI models like ChatGPT were beginning to pique mainstream interest.
那是 2022 年，像 ChatGPT 这样的生成式人工智能模型开始引起主流的兴趣。
The app Lensa AI had dazzled social media with the allure of summoning up instantaneous portraits of whomever you wanted, in any style you wanted.
Lensa AI 应用程序以任何你想要的风格即时调出任何你想要的人的肖像，让社交媒体眼花缭乱。
No one seemed to be thinking about how it manufactured such creations.
似乎没有人思考它是如何制造出这样的作品的。
A couple of years earlier, Van Deun had found Fawkes, an image-cloaking software that protects personal privacy against unregulated facial recognition technology.
几年前，Van Deun 发现了 Fawkes，这是一款图像隐藏软件，可以保护个人隐私免受不受监管的面部识别技术的影响。
Van Deun, who says she is “very shy,” was looking for ways to shelter the photos of herself that she uploaded to her website.
范德恩说她“非常害羞”，她正在寻找方法来隐藏她上传到网站上的自己的照片。
It got her wondering if Fawkes might be able to do for her art what it did for a photograph of her face: give it some level of protection.
这让她想知道福克斯是否能够为她的艺术做出像为她的脸部照片所做的那样：给予它一定程度的保护。
She decided to cold-email its creators at the University of Chicago’s Security, Algorithms, Networking and Data Lab and ask.
她决定给芝加哥大学安全、算法、网络和数据实验室的创建者发送冷电子邮件并询问。
And with that, the proverbial pebble — tottering and tenacious — tipped over the mountaintop and started to pick up speed.
就这样，众所周知的鹅卵石——摇摇晃晃而又顽强——从山顶上翻倒并开始加速。
I t’s 9:30 a.m.
现在是上午 9 点 30 分。
on a Monday in October, and with the exception of Professor Ben Zhao, SAND Lab is empty.
十月的一个星期一，除了赵本教授之外，SAND 实验室空无一人。
Housed in the John Crerar Library, a decidedly modern building among the neo-Gothic ones typical on the U.
位于约翰·克雷拉尔图书馆 (John Crerar Library) 内，这是美国典型的新哥特式建筑中的一座绝对现代的建筑。
of C.
的 C.
campus, the lab is austere, almost monastic, with rows of white desks that will soon be occupied by students — no more than a dozen PhDs, and perhaps a handful of undergraduates and high school researchers — working on laptops.
在校园里，实验室很简朴，几乎像修道院一样，有一排排白色桌子，很快就会被学生占据——不超过十几名博士，也许还有少数本科生和高中研究人员——在笔记本电脑上工作。
Large windows fill the room with sunlight.
大窗户使房间充满阳光。
It’s what you’d expect from any academic space, save for the plentiful art on the walls.
除了墙上挂满的艺术品外，这就是您对任何学术空间的期望。
On one of the desks sits a small but hefty trophy.
其中一张桌子上放着一个虽小但很重的奖杯。
“You’re the first to see it,” Zhao, 49, tells me with a smile.
“你是第一个看到它的，”49 岁的赵笑着告诉我。
He’s just come back from Pasadena, California, where he accepted the Concept Art Association’s Community Impact Award on behalf of the lab for its work in developing two tools that have made it famous among artists and their advocates: Glaze and Nightshade, software programs that give artists a fighting chance against a growing adversary.
他刚刚从加利福尼亚州帕萨迪纳回来，在那里他代表实验室接受了概念艺术协会的社区影响奖，以表彰该实验室在开发两种工具方面所做的工作，这两种工具使其在艺术家及其拥护者中享有盛誉：Glaze 和 Nightshade，这两种软件程序为艺术家提供了对抗日益强大的对手的机会。
I can tell Zhao is proud.
看得出来赵很自豪。
It’s been two years since the CAA hosted a town hall in response to its members’ growing concerns over the impact of generative AI — which means it’s been two years since Zhao raised his hand and offered up the lab’s expertise.
两年前，CAA 举办了一次全体会议，以回应其成员对生成式人工智能影响日益增长的担忧，这意味着自赵举手并提供实验室的专业知识以来，已经过去两年了。
Back in 2022, when Van Deun emailed the lab and found out that Fawkes, in fact, could not work for her art the way she’d hoped, she told the team there about the upcoming meeting.
早在 2022 年，当范德恩向实验室发送电子邮件并发现福克斯实际上无法按照她希望的方式为她的艺术工作时，她告诉了那里的团队即将举行的会议。
Maybe they could join?
也许他们可以加入？
As a former academic herself, Van Deun was working off a hunch that if she dangled a problem in front of a group of researchers, they’d be curious enough to stick around and learn more.
作为一名前学者，范登恩有一种预感，如果她将一个问题摆在一群研究人员面前，他们就会好奇地留下来了解更多。
Zhao happened to be free that day, so he joined the virtual town hall, hosted by artist Karla Ortiz.
那天赵正好有空，所以他参加了由艺术家卡拉·奥尔蒂斯主持的虚拟市政厅。
A recording of it is still on YouTube and serves as a reminder of both the nascent state of generative AI, already slippery and rapidly evolving, and a crucial moment of reckoning.
YouTube 上至今仍保留着该视频的录音，它提醒人们，生成式人工智能的新生状态已经很不稳定且正在迅速发展，同时也提醒人们，这是一个清算的关键时刻。
Watching the video, I get the sense that Ortiz and the other artists were simply trying to disseminate as much information as possible to their peers, in hope of determining some kind of path forward.
观看视频，我感觉到奥尔蒂斯和其他艺术家只是试图向同行传播尽可能多的信息，希望确定某种前进的道路。
At one point, Ortiz showed a chart of the main players in generative AI, all of which use large data sets to train their models.
有一次，奥尔蒂斯展示了生成人工智能主要参与者的图表，所有这些参与者都使用大数据集来训练他们的模型。
Stability AI, the chart noted, relied on an open-source set named LAION-5B.
图表指出，Stability AI 依赖于名为 LAION-5B 的开源集。
At the time, LAION-5B had already scraped over 5.8 billion images from the internet.
当时，LAION-5B 已经从互联网上抓取了超过 58 亿张图像。
(LAION has said it is simply indexing links, not storing the images.) And because Stability AI had used the images for commercial purposes, it was participating in what Ortiz called data laundering: employing copyrighted data and private artworks to feed the machine in an ostensibly lawful way, leaving the original owners little legal recourse.
（LAION 表示，它只是索引链接，而不是存储图像。）而且由于 Stability AI 将这些图像用于商业目的，它参与了 Ortiz 所谓的数据清洗：使用受版权保护的数据和私人艺术品以表面上合法的方式为机器提供数据，使原始所有者几乎没有法律追索权。
Halfway through the meeting, Ortiz introduced Greg Rutkowski, an artist whose work has been commissioned for iconic games like Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons .
会议进行到一半时，奥尔蒂斯介绍了格雷格·鲁特科斯基（Greg Rutkowski），他是一位艺术家，曾受委托创作《万智牌》和《龙与地下城》等标志性游戏。
About three months before, his fans had started reaching out to him.
大约三个月前，他的粉丝开始联系他。
Did he know that his name was being used as a generative AI prompt?
他知道他的名字被用作生成人工智能提示吗？
He didn’t.
他没有。
But when he Googled his name, the images populating the page weren’t ones he had created, but rather copycats generated by AI.
但当他在谷歌上搜索自己的名字时，页面上的图像并不是他创建的，而是人工智能生成的模仿品。
“Fake works, signed by my name,” he told those gathered.
“假作品，署名我的名字，”他告诉聚集的人们。
When artist Greg Rutkowski Googled his name, the images populating the page weren’t ones he had created, but rather copycats generated by AI.
当艺术家 Greg Rutkowski 在 Google 上搜索他的名字时，页面上的图像不是他创作的，而是人工智能生成的模仿品。
“Fake works, signed by my name,” he told an artists’ town hall.
“假作品，署名我的名字，”他告诉艺术家市政厅。
The experiences other artists at the town hall shared varied in scope, but the stark reality was the same: AI was stealing their work.
市政厅的其他艺术家分享的经历范围各不相同，但严峻的现实是一样的：人工智能正在窃取他们的作品。
It was taking away jobs.
它正在夺走就业机会。
It was eroding their livelihoods.
这正在侵蚀他们的生计。
By the time the discussion was opened for questions, Zhao was first in line.
当讨论开始提问时，赵已经排在了第一位。
He wanted to help, he said.
他说他想帮忙。
He brought up the lab, the work it had done with Fawkes, and suggested a few ideas, including a tool that would turn art into digital junk when it was scraped into a data set.
他提到了实验室、实验室与福克斯所做的工作，并提出了一些想法，包括一种工具，当艺术被刮进数据集时，它可以将艺术变成数字垃圾。
“Perhaps you guys would like a more cooperative role with the model — for example, you could track how much of your art was trained into the model and therefore you know how much profit could be headed back to you,” he offered.
“也许你们希望与模型更加合作——例如，您可以跟踪您的艺术作品有多少被训练到模型中，因此您知道可以给您带来多少利润，”他提出。
Ortiz smiled.
奥尔蒂斯笑了。
A few months later, in January 2023, she would file a class-action lawsuit (still pending) with two other artists against Midjourney, Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Runway AI.
几个月后，即 2023 年 1 月，她与另外两位艺术家对 Midjourney、Stability AI、DeviantArt 和 Runway AI 提起集体诉讼（仍在审理中）。
But first, Ortiz suggested another idea.
但首先，奥尔蒂斯提出了另一个想法。
One that was a little more proactive.
一个更主动一点的。
Fun, even.
甚至很有趣。
“I would love a tool that if someone wrote my name and made it into a prompt, bananas would come out.”
“我想要一个工具，如果有人写下我的名字并将其制成提示，香蕉就会出来。”
I t wasn’t all bad.
我也不全是坏事。
At least not at first.
至少一开始不是。
Before 2022, in Zhao’s view, AI was mostly a good thing.
在赵看来，2022年之前，人工智能基本上是个好东西。
The professor seems like the kind of person who believes in good things.
这位教授看起来是那种相信美好事物的人。
But when the good things sour, he’s not the kind of person who sits idly by.
但当好事变坏时，他并不是那种袖手旁观的人。
His X feed is filled with posts and reposts about generative AI that attempt to expose and debunk the mainstream hype surrounding the technology.
他的 X feed 充满了有关生成人工智能的帖子和转发，试图揭露和揭穿围绕该技术的主流炒作。
Or at least it was.
或者至少是这样。
In November, Zhao departed the platform formerly known as Twitter (“Left this dumpster fire,” his inactive profile reads).
11 月，赵离开了这个以前被称为 Twitter 的平台（“离开了这个垃圾箱火灾”，他的非活跃个人资料中写道）。
This is also to say that Zhao doesn’t spend time in the murky middle.
这也说明赵并没有把时间花在阴暗的中间。
He picks sides.
他选边站队。
Zhao is a professor of computer science at the U.
赵是美国大学计算机科学教授。
of C., a post he’s held since 2017.
C. 的职务，他自 2017 年起担任该职务。
He came to Chicago by way of the University of California, Santa Barbara, along with his wife, Professor Heather Zheng, with whom he leads SAND Lab.
他与妻子希瑟·郑教授一起从加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校来到芝加哥，并与她共同领导 SAND 实验室。
But before all that, Zhao was an undergraduate student at Yale who liked to wake up early and walk across campus in the quiet morning hours to the university’s art museum.
但在此之前，赵是耶鲁大学的一名本科生，他喜欢早起，在安静的早晨穿过校园前往大学的艺术博物馆。
Usually it would be only him and the security guards, and he’d soak in the majesty of the masterpieces.
通常只有他和保安，他会沉浸在杰作的威严之中。
Years later, in 2017, when he announced that he and Zheng were relocating from Santa Barbara to Chicago, he wrote in a post on the knowledge-sharing platform Quora that among the reasons they were making the move was the access to art and culture here: “For me personally, I can practically LIVE in the Art Institute with [our two daughters].
多年后的 2017 年，当他宣布和郑要从圣巴巴拉搬到芝加哥时，他在知识共享平台 Quora 上发表的一篇文章中写道，他们搬家的原因之一是能够接触这里的艺术和文化：“对我个人来说，我几乎可以和[我们的两个女儿]住在艺术学院。
Heather could bring us food to keep us alive.” A computer scientist first and foremost, but a computer scientist who genuinely loves art.
希瑟可以给我们带来食物来维持我们的生命。”首先是一名计算机科学家，而且是一名真正热爱艺术的计算机科学家。
This was back when one could safely assume that art was being made by humans, and when AI was not just mostly good but ethical, even.
那时人们可以放心地假设艺术是由人类创造的，而且人工智能不仅大多是好的，而且甚至是道德的。
When AI largely meant machine learning and deep neural network models (the kind of technology that trained self-driving cars).
当时人工智能主要意味着机器学习和深度神经网络模型（训练自动驾驶汽车的技术）。
But once generative AI went mainstream in 2022, the balance shifted.
但一旦生成式人工智能在 2022 年成为主流，这种平衡就发生了变化。
Suddenly it was possible, with a few keyboard strokes, to create pictures of anything, in any style, including crisp, detailed, photo-like images.
突然之间，只需敲击几下键盘，就可以创建任何风格的任何图片，包括清晰、详细、类似照片的图像。
That the technology seemed to be getting smarter by the minute only added to the hype — and the money followed.
这项技术似乎正在变得越来越智能，这只会加剧炒作——资金也随之而来。
Billions of dollars have been poured into technology that’s steamrolling independent visual artists, voice actors, photographers, writers, and others.
数十亿美元已投入到技术中，这些技术正在推动独立视觉艺术家、配音演员、摄影师、作家和其他人的发展。
All this masks a simple truth: Generative AI isn’t actually all that smart.
所有这些都掩盖了一个简单的事实：生成式人工智能实际上并不那么聪明。
“It’s truly the most useless of AI things,” Zhao tells me, leaning back in his chair.
“这确实是人工智能中最无用的东西，”赵靠在椅子上告诉我。
“It just really is.” There’s a frustrated resignation in his voice.
“确实如此。”他的声音里带着沮丧的无奈。
The kind of resignation that comes when you’ve screamed yourself hoarse and no one’s listening.
当你把自己喊得声嘶力竭而没有人在听时，就会出现这种辞职。
It’s important, then, to understand how we got here.
那么，了解我们是如何走到这一步就很重要了。
Generative AI first took off with the advent of large language models, or LLMs, which allow a user to type a prompt or question into a chatbot and receive a written response.
生成式人工智能首先随着大型语言模型（LLM）的出现而兴起，它允许用户在聊天机器人中输入提示或问题并收到书面答复。
Ask ChatGPT for an itinerary for your trip to Italy, and it will generate a schedule based exclusively on probability.
向 ChatGPT 询问您前往意大利的行程，它会完全根据概率生成一个时间表。
Zhao is quick to remind me — in a way that makes me think he’s had to remind a lot of people — that apps like ChatGPT are far from sentient.
赵很快提醒我——以一种让我觉得他必须提醒很多人的方式——像 ChatGPT 这样的应用程序远没有感知能力。
When you feed one all the answers to all the questions that exist on the internet, it’s easy to get compelling, if not particularly groundbreaking, answers.
当你为互联网上存在的所有问题提供所有答案时，很容易得到令人信服的答案，即使不是特别具有开创性的答案。
Even where to get the perfect cappuccino in Rome.
甚至在罗马哪里可以买到完美的卡布奇诺。
But, Zhao points out, “it literally does not know anything.”
但是，赵指出，“它实际上什么都不知道。”
To understand how generative AI evolved to produce images from text prompts, you have to go back to 2017, when machine learning was the main focus of AI research, which manifested as image classification: This is a statue.
要了解生成式人工智能是如何进化到根据文本提示生成图像的，你必须回到 2017 年，当时机器学习是人工智能研究的主要焦点，具体表现为图像分类：这是一座雕像。
This is a cat.
这是一只猫。
That kind of thing.
那种事。
Then, after LLMs were popularized, something called text-to-image diffusion models entered the mainstream.
然后，在法学硕士普及后，一种称为文本到图像扩散模型的东西进入了主流。
Zhao makes his hands into fists and holds them in front of him.
赵氏双手握成拳头，举在身前。
“Imagine two balls connected by a skinny connector,” he begins.
“想象一下两个球通过一个细长的连接器连接起来，”他开始说道。
“One ball represents everything we understand about how words relate to each other.
“一个球代表了我们所理解的关于单词之间如何相互关联的一切。
The other ball represents visual features like color, shape, and texture.”
另一个球代表颜色、形状和纹理等视觉特征。”
These diffusion models learn how to put the pieces together, using large data sets filled with images scraped from the internet.
这些扩散模型学习如何使用包含从互联网上抓取的图像的大型数据集将各个部分组合在一起。
So when you ask a program like Midjourney to give you a picture of a cat, it has been trained to make sense of an anticipated pattern: whiskers, ears, fur.
因此，当你要求像 Midjourney 这样的程序给你一张猫的图片时，它已经被训练来理解预期的模式：胡须、耳朵、毛皮。
Maybe even a collar with a bell.
甚至可能是带铃铛的项圈。
Like LLMs, these diffusion models aren’t particularly smart — they’re just really good at understanding how data is arranged.
与法学硕士一样，这些扩散模型并不是特别聪明——它们只是非常擅长理解数据的排列方式。
And that’s because they’ve been trained on billions of images from all corners of the web.
这是因为他们接受了来自网络各个角落的数十亿张图像的训练。
This is what generative AI is: an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the rules that inform data and patterns.
这就是生成人工智能：对数据和模式的规则的日益复杂的理解。
It’s also the aggregate of decades of research, which means it’s not just one thing, but a series of things that, combined, create a technology that’s perceived as magic.
它也是数十年研究的总和，这意味着它不仅仅是一件事，而是一系列事情的结合，创造了一种被视为魔法的技术。
That there are so many components is also what makes it easy to mess with.
组件太多也很容易搞乱。
Take the self-driving car, for example.
以自动驾驶汽车为例。
A lot goes into making sure the car drives accurately, that it stays on the road and doesn’t hit people.
确保汽车准确行驶、保持在路上并且不会撞到人需要做很多工作。
There’s complex technology (like deep neural networks), but there’s also the more straightforward tech, such as the camera that relays critical information to the car’s computer.
有复杂的技术（如深度神经网络），但也有更简单的技术，如将关键信息转发到汽车计算机的摄像头。
If you mess with the camera by, say, covering up a stop sign at an intersection, it doesn’t matter how sophisticated the computer is.
如果你通过遮盖十字路口的停车标志等方式干扰了摄像头，那么无论计算机多么复杂都没有关系。
If it’s getting bad information, things will go wrong.
如果得到错误的信息，事情就会出错。
Glaze is one of two programs SAND Lab created to hinder AI models from using artists’ work without permission or compensation.
Glaze 是 SAND Lab 创建的两个程序之一，旨在阻止人工智能模型在未经许可或无偿的情况下使用艺术家的作品。
The Glaze software prevents style mimicry.
Glaze 软件可防止风格模仿。
Take the example below, in which Glaze is applied to Claude Monet’s Stormy Sea at Étretat before it’s uploaded to the internet.
以下面的例子为例，克劳德·莫奈 (Claude Monet) 在埃特尔塔 (Étretat) 的《暴风雨海》(Stormy Sea) 在上传到互联网之前先应用了 Glaze。
To the human eye, the painting still looks like the original (left), in the French artist’s impressionist style, but AI models perceive an entirely different style — cubism (right).
在人眼看来，这幅画仍然像原作（左），具有法国艺术家的印象派风格，但人工智能模型感知到一种完全不同的风格——立体主义（右）。
A fter a string of unanswered emails, I’m finally on the phone with Shawn Shan, a PhD student at the U.
在一系列未回复的电子邮件之后，我终于与美国大学博士生 Shawn Shan 通了电话。
of C.
的 C.
I’ve called him to talk about the work he’s doing on generative AI (or “ exploitive generative AI,” as he gently corrects me) at SAND Lab, and I quickly realize that Shan wasn’t ignoring my interview requests.
我打电话给他，谈论他在 SAND Lab 的生成式人工智能（或者“利用式生成式人工智能”，他温和地纠正我）方面所做的工作，我很快意识到单并没有忽视我的采访请求。
He just gets a lot of them.
他只是得到了很多。
Both Shan and Zhao have been exceptionally busy this past year, presenting at conferences and giving talks.
单山和赵在过去的一年里都异常忙碌，出席会议并发表演讲。
Zhao recorded a TED Talk in San Francisco in October.
十月份，赵在旧金山录制了一场 TED 演讲。
Around the same time, Shan was in Germany, delivering a keynote address about their work at the media conference Medientage München.
大约在同一时间，Shan 在德国的 Medientage München 媒体会议上就他们的工作发表了主题演讲。
Shortly before that, he was named MIT Technology Review ’s Innovator of the Year for his work on Glaze and Nightshade.
不久之前，他因其在 Glaze 和 Nightshade 方面的工作而被《麻省理工科技评论》评为年度创新者。
Shan, 27, has been with SAND Lab since he was an undergraduate.
单，27 岁，从本科生起就在 SAND Lab 工作。
In 2017, after hearing Zhao give a lecture about drones, 3D, and AI, Shan sent him an email asking if they could work together.
2017 年，在听完赵老师关于无人机、3D 和人工智能的讲座后，单向他发送了一封电子邮件，询问他们是否可以合作。
Usually it’s difficult for an undergraduate to get a research position in a lab like Zhao’s, but Zhao was new to the university and hadn’t built up his bench yet.
通常本科生很难在赵这样的实验室获得研究职位，但赵是大学新人，还没有建立自己的板凳。
Shan was in the right place at the right time, and he was immediately hooked: “I all but stopped going to classes and just stayed in the lab doing research.”
单在正确的时间出现在正确的地点，他立刻就被迷住了：“我几乎不再去上课，只是留在实验室做研究。”
At the time, Zhao and Shan’s research was focused on security and AI.
当时，赵和单的研究重点是安全和人工智能。
Soon enough, they were developing the image-cloaking technology that would eventually become Fawkes.
很快，他们就开发出了图像隐形技术，最终成为福克斯。
In June 2022, after Van Deun emailed the lab, it was Shan who put the CAA town hall on Zhao’s calendar.
2022 年 6 月，在 Van Deun 向实验室发送电子邮件后，单将 CAA 市政厅列入了赵的日历上。
And after the two decided to jump into the fight against generative AI, it was Shan who coded the algorithm behind their first software program meant to fool it.
在两人决定加入对抗生成人工智能的斗争后，单在他们的第一个软件程序背后编写了算法，旨在愚弄它。
Zhao and Shan had studied the technology that went into generative AI images and realized that if they could mess with the model training process, they could break the whole system.
赵和单研究了生成人工智能图像的技术，并意识到如果他们能够扰乱模型训练过程，他们就可以破坏整个系统。
Put another way: AI machines and the human eye see things differently, so pixel-level changes to images, while largely imperceptible to humans, could drastically alter what the generative AI models interpret and classify.
换句话说：人工智能机器和人眼看待事物的方式不同，因此图像的像素级变化虽然人类基本上无法察觉，但可能会极大地改变生成人工智能模型的解释和分类内容。
That became the basis for Glaze, the first such tool that SAND Lab released ( it can be downloaded free from the lab’s website ).
这成为 Glaze 的基础，Glaze 是 SAND 实验室发布的第一个此类工具（可以从实验室网站免费下载）。
This was in March 2023, just four months after the town hall.
那是 2023 年 3 月，距离市政厅召开仅四个月。
Artists can run Glaze on their images before uploading them to the internet.
艺术家可以在将图像上传到互联网之前对其运行 Glaze。
The software makes changes to each pixel, shifting what the generative AI models perceive.
该软件会对每个像素进行更改，从而改变生成式人工智能模型的感知。
For example, an image that has been Glazed could be seen by human eyes as impressionism but as cubism by the generative AI models.
例如，经过釉面处理的图像在人眼看来是印象派，但在生成人工智能模型中却是立体派。
If someone then attempts to use an artist’s name as a prompt, Glaze ensures the output looks completely different from the artist’s style.
如果有人尝试使用艺术家的名字作为提示，Glaze 会确保输出看起来与艺术家的风格完全不同。
If generative AI models were going to continue to train on images without consent, Nightshade would make sure those images would teach the machines unexpected and unpredictable behavior.
如果生成式人工智能模型要在未经同意的情况下继续对图像进行训练，那么茄属植物将确保这些图像能够教会机器意想不到和不可预测的行为。
If Glaze was built to be a defensive tool, Nightshade was designed to go on the attack.
如果说 Glaze 是一种防御工具，那么 Nightshade 就是为了进攻而设计的。
When Zhao announced Glaze’s arrival, the response from artists was immediate and enthusiastic.
当赵宣布釉的到来时，艺术家们立即做出了热烈的反应。
Ortiz, who had given the team her entire catalog to test out the software, soon tweeted an image of one of her paintings , the first ever to have been Glazed.
奥尔蒂斯向团队提供了整个目录来测试该软件，她很快在推特上发布了她的一幅作品的图像，这是有史以来第一幅上釉的作品。
Fittingly, she called it Musa Victoriosa (Victorious Muse), and today it hangs at SAND Lab.
她恰如其分地将其称为 Musa Victoriosa（胜利缪斯），如今它挂在 SAND Lab 中。
Since then, Glaze has been downloaded more than 5 million times.
自那时起，Glaze 的下载量已超过 500 万次。
The success felt good.
成功的感觉很好。
But it was soon evident that protecting artists at an individual level wouldn’t solve the greater problem of the nonconsensual scraping of images.
但很快人们就发现，在个人层面上保护艺术家并不能解决未经同意的图像抓取这一更大的问题。
While SAND Lab researchers had figured out how to confuse generative AI machines, they came to realize there was an opportunity to aim even higher by damaging the data sets used to train the models.
虽然 SAND 实验室的研究人员已经弄清楚了如何迷惑生成型人工智能机器，但他们开始意识到，有机会通过破坏用于训练模型的数据集来实现更高的目标。
Nightshade, released in early 2024, took a more collective approach.
2024 年初发布的 Nightshade 采用了更加集体的方法。
If generative AI models were going to continue to train on images without consent, Nightshade would make sure those images would teach the machines unexpected and unpredictable behavior.
如果生成式人工智能模型要在未经同意的情况下继续对图像进行训练，那么茄属植物将确保这些图像能够教会机器意想不到和不可预测的行为。
If Glaze was built to be a defensive bulwark, Nightshade was designed to go on the attack.
如果说 Glaze 是为了防御堡垒，那么 Nightshade 就是为了进攻而设计的。
Take an image of a cat.
拍摄一张猫的照片。
Apply Nightshade to the image, and the AI model will see not a cat but something entirely different — perhaps a chair.
将 Nightshade 应用于图像，人工智能模型将看到的不是猫，而是完全不同的东西——也许是一把椅子。
Do this to enough images of cats, and gradually the model stops seeing cats and sees only chairs.
对足够多的猫图像进行此操作，模型逐渐不再看到猫，而只看到椅子。
Ask the same model to generate a picture of a cat, and you get an overstuffed high-back chair instead, maybe even with scrolled wooden feet.
如果让同一个模型生成一张猫的图片，你会得到一把软垫高背椅，甚至可能带有卷轴木脚。
While Glaze provides immediate protection on individual images, Nightshade, which has been downloaded more than 2 million times , plays the long game.
Glaze 可以对单个图像提供即时保护，而下载量超过 200 万次的 Nightshade 则需要长期努力。
It poisons the well one image at a time.
它一次毒害一张图像。
Nightshade disrupts AI models by attacking their basic functionality.
Nightshade 通过攻击 AI 模型的基本功能来破坏它们。
An AI model is trained using images scraped from data sets, so by manipulating those images, Nightshade can trick it into thinking that one object is actually another — for instance, that a car is a cow.
人工智能模型是使用从数据集中抓取的图像进行训练的，因此通过操纵这些图像，Nightshade 可以欺骗它认为一个物体实际上是另一个物体 - 例如，一辆车是一头牛。
As Nightshade is applied to more and more images of cars, the model will start incorporating them when prompted to generate an image of a car.
随着 Nightshade 应用于越来越多的汽车图像，当提示生成汽车图像时，模型将开始合并它们。
Over time, the more such images there are in the data sets, the more distorted — and more cow-like — the model’s creations will get.
随着时间的推移，数据集中此类图像越多，模型的创作就越扭曲，也就越像牛。
I have this memory from my childhood.
我从小就有这样的记忆。
I’m 7, maybe 8, and I’m erasing pencil drawings out of a small, clothbound notebook that I’ve had since kindergarten.
我今年 7 岁，也许 8 岁，正在从我从幼儿园起就有的一本小型布面笔记本上擦掉铅笔画。
I’m filled with frustration, even shame, as I press my eraser down as hard as I can, determined to redo what I had drawn earlier: ugly, misshapen figures — bulbous heads, uneven arms.
当我用尽全力按下橡皮擦时，我充满了挫败感，甚至是羞愧，决心重做我之前画的东西：丑陋、畸形的人物——球状的头，参差不齐的手臂。
As a 5-year-old, I’d had no awareness, but at least two years older, I now know better.
当我五岁的时候，我还没有意识到，但至少大了两岁，我现在知道得更多了。
I’ve learned scale and proportion and need to make things right.
我学会了规模和比例，并且需要把事情做好。
This is my first memory of perfectionism — or more accurately, of what Ira Glass has called “the gap,” that space between what you want to create and your ability to create it.
这是我对完美主义的第一次记忆——或者更准确地说，是艾拉·格拉斯所说的“差距”，即你想要创造的东西和你创造它的能力之间的差距。
Even then, I knew that had there been something to close that gap, I would have lunged for it.
即使在那时，我也知道，如果有什么东西可以缩小这一差距，我就会奋力争取。
In so many ways, this is the promise of generative AI.
从很多方面来说，这都是生成式人工智能的承诺。
Concerns about what technology does to creativity are hardly new.
对技术对创造力影响的担忧并不新鲜。
When photography arrived on the scene two centuries ago, the panic was similar.
两个世纪前，当摄影术出现时，也出现过类似的恐慌。
What would happen to the painted portrait now that someone could sit for a photograph?
既然有人可以坐下来拍照，那幅画像会怎样呢？
Today we know that those fears were unfounded, that photography only enhanced the ways in which artists experimented and pushed creativity.
今天我们知道这些担心是没有根据的，摄影只会增强艺术家实验和推动创造力的方式。
But there’s this thing about generative AI that makes it different from photography — and really from any technology that’s touched the creative process to date.
但生成式人工智能有一个特点，使其不同于摄影，也不同于迄今为止触及创意过程的任何技术。
It eliminates the blank page.
它消除了空白页。
I’ll admit, I hate the lone blinking cursor just like I hated the struggle of not being able to draw what I really wanted to draw as a kid.
我承认，我讨厌孤独闪烁的光标，就像我讨厌小时候无法画出我真正想画的东西一样。
But it’s worth wondering what happens when we remove the friction from generating those first, oftentimes terrible, ideas.
但值得思考的是，当我们消除产生那些最初的、通常是可怕的想法的阻力时，会发生什么。
My friend Jordan Hetzer is a graphic designer in New York City.
我的朋友 Jordan Hetzer 是纽约市的一名平面设计师。
He regularly uses Midjourney — and he also happens to be one of the most creative people I know.
他经常使用 Midjourney，而且他也恰好是我认识的最有创造力的人之一。
When I ask him if he feels any tension over using generative AI, he shakes his head.
当我问他是否对使用生成人工智能感到紧张时，他摇了摇头。
“These are aesthetics that aren’t anybody’s.
“这些美学不属于任何人。
You can easily rip off someone, or you can build off of their aesthetic, massaging it until it feels like something entirely new.” As Mark Twain supposedly put it, there is no such thing as a new idea.
你可以很容易地抄袭某人，或者你可以建立他们的审美观，对其进行按摩，直到感觉像是全新的东西。”正如马克·吐温所说，不存在新的想法。
I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment.
我倾向于同意这种观点。
It doesn’t deny the existence of creative evolution but acknowledges that our creativity is the aggregate of all that’s around us and everything that has come before us.
它并不否认创造性进化的存在，而是承认我们的创造力是我们周围所有事物以及我们之前发生的一切的总和。
Famously, Picasso copied the styles of other painters as a young artist in Paris; the 1907 retrospective of Paul Cezanne at the Salon d’Automne radically influenced how he thought about form.
毕加索在巴黎年轻时模仿其他画家的风格而闻名。 1907 年在秋季沙龙举办的保罗·塞尚回顾展从根本上影响了他对形式的看法。
But I can’t shake the idea that even as Picasso mimicked and copied, first he had to physically pick up a paintbrush.
但我无法动摇这样的想法：即使毕加索模仿和临摹，他也必须首先拿起画笔。
Practically, removing this starting point — or rather, moving it past the messy scratched-out-and-erased beginning — is already having an impact on creative jobs.
实际上，消除这个起点——或者更确切地说，将其移过混乱的、被划掉和擦除的开始——已经对创意工作产生了影响。
Hetzer, an art director, uses generative AI to give him what, as recently as five years ago, a junior designer would have.
Hetzer 是一名艺术总监，他使用生成式人工智能为他提供了五年前初级设计师所拥有的东西。
Why wait for your subordinate to draft 30 ideas for logos when you can get those in minutes from a machine?
当您可以在几分钟内从机器中获得这些徽标时，为什么要等待您的下属起草 30 个徽标创意呢？
By saving him time, generative AI helps him get to the good stuff faster.
通过节省他的时间，生成式人工智能可以帮助他更快地获得好东西。
But this makes the state of careers in the arts tenuous, as entry-level positions are gradually eliminated.
但这使得艺术职业的状况变得脆弱，因为入门级职位逐渐被淘汰。
Art schools are closing.
艺术学校正在关闭。
Young artists are changing careers.
年轻艺术家正在改变职业。
A whole generation of the creative class is slowly being erased.
整整一代创意阶层正在慢慢被抹去。
After the shortcut becomes the only route, what will feed the machine?
当捷径成为唯一路线后，机器将吃什么？
It’s something Zhao has been thinking about a lot lately.
这是赵先生最近思考的一个问题。
“There’s an interdependence with AI,” Zhao tells me as students start to trickle into the lab.
“人工智能是相互依赖的，”当学生们开始陆续进入实验室时，赵告诉我。
“AI really depends on the future of human artists.
“人工智能确实取决于人类艺术家的未来。
And it’s destroying its own future because it’s destroying the pipeline.”
它正在摧毁自己的未来，因为它正在摧毁管道。”
A few days earlier, during a Zoom call with me, Zheng held up a homemade poster.
几天前，在与我进行 Zoom 通话时，郑举起了一张自制的海报。
In the middle was a white square with a small human figure curled up in a ball.
中间是一个白色的正方形，上面有一个蜷缩成一团的小人影。
The background was black with “AI” in large, bright red letters.
背景是黑色的，上面有大而亮红色的“AI”字母。
On top of the letters, in kelly green: “Don’t Generate My Life.” Zheng smiled.
在字母顶部，用凯莉绿色写着：“不要创造我的生活。”郑笑道。
It’s the work of one of Zhao and Zheng’s daughters, created for a school assignment to draw something meaningful in her life.
这是赵和郑的一个女儿的作品，是为了完成一项学校作业而创作的，目的是在她的生活中画一些有意义的东西。
I could see Zheng is proud.
我看得出来郑很自豪。
The poster was born out of conversations they’ve been having as a family, but these words, this way of thinking of the bigger impact of AI, didn’t come from the parents.
这张海报是在他们一家人的谈话中诞生的，但这些话，这种对人工智能更大影响的思考方式，并不是来自父母。
These were from the kids.
这些都是孩子们的。
For Zhao and Zheng, it’s all connected — their work in the lab, their family, the problems they seek to solve.
对于赵和郑来说，一切都是相互关联的——他们在实验室的工作、他们的家庭、他们寻求解决的问题。
Zheng tells me that they regularly get inspiration from their everyday lives.
郑告诉我，他们经常从日常生活中获得灵感。
A few years ago, when Zhao considered adding a smart speaker to his shared office with Zheng, she told him no. She had concerns about privacy, specifically that these speakers were, by default, always listening and recording.
几年前，当赵考虑在与郑的共用办公室添加智能音箱时，她拒绝了。她担心隐私问题，特别是这些扬声器默认情况下总是在监听和录音。
But instead of Zheng’s rejection closing the door, it made way for a new problem to solve.
但郑的拒绝并没有关上大门，而是为一个需要解决的新问题让路。
Could they unplug the device when not in use?
他们可以在不使用时拔掉设备插头吗？
No, there’s still a battery.
不，还有电池。
Could they develop some kind of cover?
他们可以开发某种掩护吗？
That wouldn’t work either.
那也行不通。
Instead, Zheng, Zhao, and their SAND Lab, along with U.
相反，郑、赵和他们的 SAND 实验室以及美国。
of C.’s Human Computer Integration Lab, developed the Bracelet of Silence , a wearable piece of technology that disables microphones in the immediate surroundings.
C. 人机集成实验室的人机集成实验室开发了“沉默手镯”，这是一种可穿戴技术，可以禁用周围环境中的麦克风。
If smart speakers could become a worthy opponent, why wouldn’t generative AI serve as a career-defining adversary?
如果智能音箱可以成为一个有价值的对手，那么为什么生成式人工智能不能成为一个定义职业的对手呢？
“We only see generative AI in our very mature age,” Zheng told me, putting away the poster.
“我们只有在非常成熟的年龄才能看到生成式人工智能，”郑告诉我，收起海报。
“But kids, they’re being served all this information — the majority of it fake and generative — and it’s hard for them to see their role in it.
“但是孩子们，他们正在接受所有这些信息——其中大部分是假的和生成的——他们很难看到自己在其中的角色。
Why bother to study art?
为什么要费力去学艺术呢？
If you lose faith in that, how do you continue creativity from a human perspective?”
如果你对此失去信心，你如何从人类的角度继续创造力？”
“AI really depends on the future of human artists,” Zhao says.
“人工智能确实取决于人类艺术家的未来，”赵说。
“And it’s destroying its own future because it’s destroying the pipeline.”
“它正在摧毁自己的未来，因为它正在摧毁管道。”
I think about the already tenuous state of arts funding, especially for schools, and realize that in the naive, perhaps misplaced, excitement for generative AI, we’ve lost this critical piece of the narrative.
我想到了本已脆弱的艺术资助状况，尤其是对学校来说，并意识到，在对生成人工智能的天真、也许是错误的兴奋中，我们已经失去了这一叙事的关键部分。
But as Zheng sees it, kids don’t necessarily need us to recognize the bleak future that’s being created — slowly they’re beginning to understand what’s happening.
但在郑看来，孩子们并不一定需要我们认识到正在创造的黯淡未来——慢慢地，他们开始明白正在发生什么。
At least a few of them are.
至少其中有一些是。
Last year, a group of middle schoolers in Washington, D.C., held a bake sale to raise money for Glaze and Nightshade.
去年，一群中学生在华盛顿特区举办了一次烘焙义卖活动，为 Glaze 和 Nightshade 筹集资金。
For Zhao and Zheng, all support, no matter how small, is important.
对于赵和郑来说，所有的支持，无论多小，都很重要。
In the fight against giants, moments of validation, even by way of cookies and muffins, are the crumbs that keep them moving forward.
在与巨人的战斗中，验证的时刻，即使是通过饼干和松饼，也是让他们继续前进的面包屑。
Almost immediately after Glaze was released, there was pushback.
Glaze 发布后几乎立即就遭到了抵制。
The software was anonymously added to a user-reported list of viruses and was flagged as malware whenever it was downloaded.
该软件被匿名添加到用户报告的病毒列表中，并在下载时被标记为恶意软件。
Zhao pins it on “tech bros,” but no one’s really sure.
赵将其归咎于“科技兄弟”，但没有人真正确定。
There are quite a few people who are not thrilled with the lab’s work.
有相当多的人对实验室的工作并不满意。
Zhao mentions that conversations at research conferences get awkward; funding for various research projects often comes from Google, Meta, and other powerful companies that are investing heavily in generative AI.
赵提到研究会议上的谈话会变得尴尬。各种研究项目的资金通常来自谷歌、Meta 和其他大力投资生成人工智能的强大公司。
But when I ask Zheng about these adversaries — the people who don’t like the way she and Zhao are disrupting things — she shakes her head, smiling.
但当我问郑关于这些对手的情况时——那些不喜欢她和赵破坏事物的方式的人——她微笑着摇摇头。
Ultimately, they don’t matter to her.
归根结底，这些对她来说并不重要。
She points to the poster.
她指着海报。
“I’d rather see Glaze and Nightshade as a way to tell the young generation that they have agency.”
“我宁愿将 Glaze 和 Nightshade 视为告诉年轻一代他们有代理权的一种方式。”
I n 1917, a man using the name Richard Mutt notoriously submitted a porcelain urinal, thrown on its side, to the Society of Independent Artists and called it fine art.
1917 年，一位名叫理查德·穆特 (Richard Mutt) 的男子向独立艺术家协会提交了一个侧翻的陶瓷小便池，并称其为艺术品。
In large, drippy letters, the unknown artist signed the urinal (“R.
这位不知名的艺术家用大而滴水的字母在小便池上签名（“R.
Mutt,” along with the year) and titled it Fountain .
Mutt，”以及年份）并将其命名为“喷泉”。
There was immediate shock and confusion.
立刻引起了震惊和困惑。
That a factory-made object (a vulgar one at that) could be submitted as art in its unaltered state was cause for outrage.
一件工厂制造的物品（这是一种粗俗的物品）可以以其未改变的状态作为艺术品提交，这引起了愤怒。
There was no craftsmanship, no technique.
没有工艺，没有技术。
Just a urinal.
只是一个小便池。
The French artist Marcel Duchamp, grinning, dripping paintbrush in hand, would eventually take credit for the work.
法国艺术家马塞尔·杜尚（Marcel Duchamp）咧着嘴笑，手里的画笔滴着水，最终将这件作品归功于自己。
No one really knew what “R.
没有人真正知道“R.
Mutt” meant.
穆特”的意思。
Duchamp would later say it was a reference to the popular comic strip Mutt and Jeff .
杜尚后来说，这是对流行漫画《穆特和杰夫》的参考。
Or a sly nod to the word “ready-made.” Or J.L.
或者狡猾地点头称是“现成的”。或者 J.L.
Mott Iron Works, the factory that made the urinal.
莫特钢铁厂，制造小便池的工厂。
Or a play on French slang for “moneybags.” In the following decades, Duchamp used that paintbrush to sign “reproductions” of Fountain , which made their way, with great acclaim, to galleries and museums after the original was lost.
或者是法语俚语中“有钱人”的意思。在接下来的几十年里，杜尚用这支画笔在《喷泉》的“复制品”上签名，在原作丢失后，这些复制品在画廊和博物馆中广受好评。
“I thought the idea behind it was so cool,” says Shan, who took an art history class so he would better understand the fundamentals for his research.
“我认为它背后的想法太酷了，”单说，他参加了艺术史课程，以便更好地了解他的研究的基础知识。
The class covered the 20th century — an era characterized by the way it broke apart what was accepted as form and color, redefining what art could be.
该课程涵盖了 20 世纪——这个时代的特点是打破了公认的形式和色彩，重新定义了艺术。
There was Kasimir Malevich and his white square on white canvas.
卡西米尔·马列维奇和他在白色画布上的白色方块。
Later Mark Rothko and his planes of color.
后来马克·罗斯科和他的色彩平面。
Art that would elicit whispers of “I could do that” in museums around the world.
这些艺术作品会在世界各地的博物馆中引发“我能做到”的低声议论。
“But it’s not the image that you see,” Shan continues.
“但这不是你看到的图像，”单继续说道。
“It’s the human emotion.
“这是人类的情感。
It’s the feeling evoked in the audience.”
这就是观众的感受。”
When I think about art and its relationship with generative AI, I find myself caught in a loop.
当我思考艺术及其与生成人工智能的关系时，我发现自己陷入了一个循环。
If art is the human idea, then wouldn’t a human, typing a prompt into something like Midjourney, count as the human effort within the art making?
如果艺术是人类的想法，那么人类在《中途》之类的东西中输入提示，难道不可以算作艺术创作中的人类努力吗？
Or maybe the better question is, What is the correct amount of humanness that makes art art?
或者也许更好的问题是，使艺术成为艺术的正确的人性是多少？
In the summer of 2022, game designer Jason Allen won first prize for digital art in the Colorado State Fair’s annual fine arts competition with his entry Théâtre D’opéra Spatial .
2022 年夏天，游戏设计师 Jason Allen 凭借其作品《Théâtre D’opéra Spatial》在科罗拉多州博览会年度美术竞赛中获得了数字艺术一等奖。
Pairing realism with elements of fantasy, it’s art that’s difficult to describe, which is what makes it so absorbing.
将现实主义与幻想元素相结合，这是一种难以描述的艺术，这也是它如此引人入胜的原因。
It’s the kind of piece that you want to lose yourself in, the way all great art allows.
这是一种让你想要迷失自我的作品，就像所有伟大的艺术所允许的那样。
Except it was almost entirely created with generative AI.
但它几乎完全是由生成式人工智能创建的。
When Allen’s entry won the competition, there was the obvious controversy — controversy that was heightened that December when his application to copyright the piece was rejected.
当艾伦的作品赢得比赛时，引起了明显的争议——去年 12 月，当他申请该作品的版权申请被拒绝时，争议进一步加剧。
It was AI art, the U.S. Copyright Office wrote in its decision, and since the government had already ruled that AI art lacks human authorship, it could not be protected.
美国版权局在决定中写道，这是人工智能艺术，由于政府已经裁定人工智能艺术缺乏人类作者，因此无法受到保护。
Even after Allen detailed how he used at least 624 text prompts and input revisions, how he manipulated the raw image in Adobe Photoshop and used Gigapixel AI to increase size and resolution, the office held fast.
即使在 Allen 详细介绍了他如何使用至少 624 个文本提示和输入修订、如何在 Adobe Photoshop 中处理原始图像以及如何使用 Gigapixel AI 来增加尺寸和分辨率之后，办公室仍然坚守。
There was too much machine and not enough human.
机器太多，人却不够。
But if Allen had the idea, does it even matter?
但如果艾伦有这个想法，那还重要吗？
In the months that followed the Fountain ’s controversial submission, the Dadaist publication The Blind Man published an editorial defending it: “Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance.
在喷泉提交引起争议的几个月后，达达主义出版物《盲人》发表社论为其辩护：“穆特先生是否亲手制作了喷泉并不重要。
He CHOSE it.
他选择了它。
He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view — created a new thought for that object.”
他把生活中的一件普通物品放在新的标题和观点下，让它的有用意义消失——为那个物体创造了一种新的想法。”
Perhaps this idea of ideas is only a red herring.
也许这种想法只是转移注意力。
It shifts our thinking away from the very important reality that art is being scraped, often without consent, and fed to the AI machines and models — machines and models that are backed by businesses that are very interested in making money and don’t seem interested in compensating the artists from whom they’re stealing.
它使我们的思维偏离了一个非常重要的现实，即艺术经常在未经同意的情况下被刮走，并被喂给人工智能机器和模型——这些机器和模型是由那些对赚钱非常感兴趣的企业支持的，而且似乎对补偿他们窃取的艺术家不感兴趣。
Perhaps we’re fixed on the idea of ideas because wrestling with what art is and isn’t almost seems easier than confronting the massive power imbalance between artist and Big Tech.
也许我们执着于想法的观念，因为与艺术是什么和不艺术的斗争似乎比面对艺术家和大型科技公司之间巨大的权力不平衡更容易。
A fter interviewing Zhao at the lab, I immediately felt the need to go look at some art.
在实验室采访了赵之后，我立即觉得有必要去看看一些艺术作品。
It was a Monday, so the museums were closed, but as I walked down Woodlawn Avenue, I soon passed the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society, which had a giant sign for its gallery positioned at the entrance.
那天是星期一，所以博物馆都关门了，但当我沿着伍德劳恩大道行走时，很快就经过了纽鲍尔文化与社会学院，该学院的入口处有一个巨大的画廊标志。
It was before noon, the U.
中午之前，U.
of C.
的 C.
campus quiet, and so I walked into a predictably empty building.
校园静悄悄的，于是我走进了一座不出所料的空荡荡的大楼。
I was pointed in the direction of a small, dark room, where I found myself sitting, quietly and alone, as a screen flashed in front of me.
有人指着我一个又小又暗的房间的方向，我发现自己安静而孤独地坐在那里，屏幕在我面前闪烁。
A video installation by the Otolith Group, Mascon: A Massive Concentration of Black Experiential Energy , was projected onto the wall, running in a continuous loop.
Otolith Group 的视频装置《Mascon：黑色体验能量的巨大集中》被投影到墙上，并连续循环播放。
On the screen was a kaleidoscope of images, an almost collage-like mosaic of shapes, along with scenes from the films of Ousmane Sembène and Djibril Diop Mambéty, two prominent Senegalese filmmakers from the ’70s.
屏幕上是万花筒般的图像，几乎是拼贴画般的形状马赛克，还有来自 70 年代塞内加尔两位著名电影制片人 Ousmane Sembène 和 Djibril Diop Mambéty 的电影中的场景。
The stratification of color and sound was brilliant — a layering of ideas and movements and artists and mediums to create something singular and unique.
色彩和声音的分层非常出色——想法、运动、艺术家和媒介的分层，创造出奇异而独特的东西。
I realized I was holding my breath as a parade of blue sliced across the frame.
我意识到当一道蓝色划过画面时我屏住了呼吸。
Multidisciplinary pieces, like the work of the Otolith Group, have obvious differences from the artworks that Glaze and Nightshade currently protect.
多学科作品，例如 Otolith Group 的作品，与 Glaze 和 Nightshade 目前保护的艺术品有明显差异。
But that doesn’t mean that Zhao, Shan, and the rest of the lab aren’t already thinking about how this kind of technology can be used across other media.
但这并不意味着赵、单和实验室的其他成员还没有考虑如何在其他媒体上使用这种技术。
Dancers, composers, voice actors, writers — they’ve all reached out to Zhao to ask if something like Glaze could be created for their disciplines.
舞蹈家、作曲家、配音演员、作家——他们都联系过赵，询问是否可以为他们的学科创造像 Glaze 这样的东西。
Dancers, composers, voice actors, writers — they’ve all reached out to Zhao to ask if something like Glaze could be created for their disciplines.
舞蹈家、作曲家、配音演员、作家——他们都联系过赵，询问是否可以为他们的学科创造像 Glaze 这样的东西。
But it’s not as simple as creating the same kind of software for other industries.
但这并不像为其他行业创建同类软件那么简单。
Each has its own set of specific issues related to generative AI.
每个都有自己的一套与生成人工智能相关的具体问题。
Voice actors, for example, are trying to prevent audio of them from being used without consent (or compensation) to say literally anything in films, commercials, and other media.
例如，配音演员正试图阻止他们的音频在未经同意（或补偿）的情况下被用于在电影、广告和其他媒体中说出任何字面意思。
And I’m all too aware of the surge in AI-generated writing that has flooded the market.
我非常清楚人工智能生成的写作激增已经涌入市场。
In each case, SAND Lab’s researchers know they need to start from the beginning, asking, like they did at the CAA town hall, what each group needs.
在每种情况下，SAND 实验室的研究人员都知道他们需要从头开始，就像他们在 CAA 市政厅所做的那样，询问每个小组的需求。
Then the lab can look at the AI technology being used and see what opportunities present themselves.
然后实验室可以查看正在使用的人工智能技术，看看会出现哪些机会。
Sometimes the answer is relatively straightforward.
有时答案相对简单。
Right now Stanley Wu, another PhD student at the lab, is looking at how the team could manipulate the vision-language model, the technology that generates descriptive text captions for images, to further confuse AI programs as they classify things.
目前，该实验室的另一位博士生 Stanley Wu 正在研究该团队如何操纵视觉语言模型（为图像生成描述性文本标题的技术），以在人工智能程序对事物进行分类时进一步混淆它们。
He’s excited — maybe this could be a nice complement to Nightshade.
他很兴奋——也许这可能是对 Nightshade 的一个很好的补充。
(Also in the works: A combined version of Glaze and Nightshade.)
（也在制作中：Glaze 和 Nightshade 的组合版本。）
Call it vigilante justice or guerrilla tactics, but there’s a sense of stalwart duty as the lab attempts to dismantle generative AI.
称其为私刑正义或游击战术，但当实验室试图拆除生成人工智能时，有一种坚定的责任感。
Or at the very least, chip away at it.
或者至少，逐渐消除它。
And it isn’t just artists taking notice: Entertainment companies eager to protect their intellectual property have reached out.
不仅仅是艺术家注意到了这一点：渴望保护其知识产权的娱乐公司也已经伸出援手。
This spring, Shan will begin applying for faculty positions that will likely take him elsewhere.
今年春天，单恩将开始申请教职职位，这些职位可能会让他去其他地方。
I ask if he’s worried about the career risk associated with working against big technology companies so publicly.
我问他是否担心如此公开地与大型科技公司合作所带来的职业风险。
Without missing a beat, he says no. “There’s so much at stake, my personal risk is less important.” Plus, there are two sides to the issue.
他毫不犹豫地说不。 “事关重大，我个人的风险就不那么重要了。”另外，这个问题有两个方面。
Regulators are now looking for honest feedback about generative AI, independent from places like Meta or Microsoft or Google.
监管机构现在正在寻求有关生成式人工智能的诚实反馈，独立于 Meta、微软或谷歌等机构。
Shan smiles.
珊笑了。
“There are very few technologists who are not associated with these companies.”
“很少有技术人员与这些公司没有联系。”
I also get the sense that there are very few technologists who are thinking about art so intentionally, every single day.
我还感觉到，很少有技术专家每天都如此刻意地思考艺术。
No one at the lab admits to being an artist, but it is clear that all of them deeply appreciate art and understand what’s at stake.
实验室里没有人承认自己是一名艺术家，但很明显，他们所有人都深深欣赏艺术并了解其中的利害关系。
Zheng loves ink wash painting, a traditional Chinese art technique that produces beautiful black-and-white forms.
郑喜欢水墨画，这是一种中国传统艺术技法，可以产生美丽的黑白形式。
She used to paint when she was younger — she was good, she told me — and finds time, whenever she returns to China, to visit a few artists still practicing the form.
她年轻时曾画画——她告诉我，她画得很好——每当她回到中国时，她都会抽出时间去拜访一些仍在练习这种形式的艺术家。
It’s meaningful to spend time with them, to see their work.
花时间和他们在一起，看看他们的工作是很有意义的。
“The years of experience, life experience …” Zheng paused.
“这些年的经历，人生的经历……”郑顿顿了顿。
“It’s putting your emotion, your experience, everything into the painting.
“它将你的情感、你的经历、一切都融入到绘画中。
You see the painting and you can feel that.”
你看到这幅画，就能感受到这一点。”
Zhao had told me that it’s nearly impossible for the average person to discern the difference between human-generated and AI-generated art.
赵告诉我，普通人几乎不可能辨别人类生成的艺术和人工智能生成的艺术之间的区别。
He theorizes that in the future there will be a premium on art made by humans — in part because there will be so few practicing artists.
他的理论是，未来人类创作的艺术将会受到重视——部分原因是实践艺术家将会很少。
It’s a world that Glaze and Nightshade aim to prevent — one where generic, cheap copies are so plentiful and human art so rare that it’s more valuable than diamonds.
Glaze 和 Nightshade 旨在阻止这样一个世界——在这个世界中，廉价仿制品如此泛滥，人类艺术如此稀有，甚至比钻石更有价值。
His team is already working on ways to cryptographically prove that a work of art was created by an actual human.
他的团队已经在研究如何以密码方式证明艺术品是由真人创作的。
Meanwhile, even as generative AI has rapidly affected Kim Van Deun’s livelihood, she says she has never once regretted pursuing art as a career.
与此同时，尽管生成式人工智能迅速影响了 Kim Van Deun 的生计，但她表示，她从未后悔过将艺术作为职业。
This is what art does to us.
这就是艺术对我们的作用。
Whether we make it or become its patron, it gives us a way to envision a different kind of world, a new way of expression.
无论我们创造它还是成为它的赞助人，它都为我们提供了一种想象不同世界的方式，一种新的表达方式。
It gives us hope.
它给了我们希望。
Hope that I see as I correspond with Van Deun.
希望我能看到与范德恩通信时的情况。
She continues to illustrate, to work as an artist.
她继续以艺术家的身份进行插画工作。
She prefers to use Nightshade when she uploads her work to the internet.
当她将作品上传到互联网时，她更喜欢使用 Nightshade。
Of SAND Lab’s two software offerings (so far), that is the one she anticipates will have the most impact.
在 SAND Lab 的两款软件产品中（到目前为止），她预计这一款将产生最大的影响。
If she was the pebble that teetered on the mountaintop, perhaps Nightshade is the stone that will fell the giant.
如果说她是山顶上摇摇欲坠的鹅卵石，也许茄属植物就是压倒巨人的石头。
As I make my way through the university’s interconnecting quads, I notice the breeze.
当我穿过大学相互连接的四方院时，我注意到微风。
How the light dapples the sidewalk.
光线如何照亮人行道。
Call it mindfulness, call it basic awareness, but I find myself eager to listen to the rustle of the leaves.
称之为正念，称之为基本意识，但我发现自己渴望聆听树叶的沙沙声。
At home, I watch my daughter empty her box of crayons.
在家里，我看着女儿倒空蜡笔盒。
She picks up one, already worn down to a stub, and begins to scribble furiously.
她拿起一张已经磨损得只剩残根的纸，开始疯狂地书写。
She pays no attention to the lines, presses down hard enough to tear the paper.
她没有注意线条，用力按压，足以撕破纸。
There’s no awareness of perfection or style, just an unadulterated love for the color pink.
没有完美或风格的意识，只是对粉红色的纯粹热爱。
I know that one day she’ll learn how to draw shapes.
我知道有一天她会学会如何画形状。
And eventually those shapes will begin to mean something.
最终这些形状将开始有意义。
But for now, it’s just messy and chaotic.
但就目前而言，这只是混乱和混乱。
It’s imperfect.
它是不完美的。
It’s so wildly, and wonderfully, human.
这是如此疯狂、奇妙的人类。
Chicago magazine newsletters have you covered.
芝加哥杂志时事通讯为您报道。
Find out where to go, what to eat, where to live, and more.
了解去哪里、吃什么、住哪里等等。
Subscribe for free today!
今天免费订阅！