I'm very skeptical about such systems, although they note that:
> You can crop it, resample it, compress it, smooth out pixels, or add noise, and the effects of the poison will remain. You can take screenshots, or even photos of an image displayed on a monitor, and the shade effects remain
if this becomes prevalent enough, you can create a lightweight classifier to remove "poisonous" images, then use some kind of neural-network(probably an autoencoder) to "fix" them. Training such networks won't be too difficult as you can create as many positive-negative samples as you want by using this tool.
I dunno about this one, but I remember the previous versions suffered from visible artifacts to the point most artists elected not to use them as they made the output look bad.
It's also not obvious to me what happens with cartoon style art. Something that looks like white noise might be acceptable on an oil painting but not something with flat colors and clean lines.
As with most things like this, it is a cat and mouse game. On the one hand, I am annoyed, because I am personally rather firmly on the side of 'why are we spending time trying to prevent people doing this somewhat cool thing?', but at the same time, just like with drms, copy restrictions and all that idiocy, it raises a new line of kids with something to rebel against. So I guess it serves a purpose. On a third hand, can you imagine those minds being able to focus on something else?
> You can crop it, resample it, compress it, smooth out pixels, or add noise, and the effects of the poison will remain. You can take screenshots, or even photos of an image displayed on a monitor, and the shade effects remain
if this becomes prevalent enough, you can create a lightweight classifier to remove "poisonous" images, then use some kind of neural-network(probably an autoencoder) to "fix" them. Training such networks won't be too difficult as you can create as many positive-negative samples as you want by using this tool.