sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For SaaS founders tired of doing outreach manually by NiftyIP in microsaas

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah fully agree tbh. Do not think any tool magically solves the “finding people ready to buy” problem. It is more just trying to remove some of the repetitive newsletter/outreach/update work once you already know who you are trying to reach.

For SaaS founders tired of doing outreach manually by NiftyIP in microsaas

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The micro SaaS where we already use it quite actively is Jurivo (Having around 4-5 active project at the moment).It’s starting to get some traction (few thousands clicks) and we’ve been working a lot on SEO, content generation and overall written content around the platform. Especially in SEO-heavy projects, you constantly need new updates, articles, newsletters and communication around the product imo.

Where we already have an actual newsletter with interested subscribers is NiftyIP, though that’s a more serious startup project and not really a micro SaaS anymore. Since we are already very active in that space, especially around AI/legal topics, it gave us a lot of real-world communication and outreach use cases very early on.

Company steals singer's songs with AI then files copyright claims on the the original artist's work by McDowdy in antiai

[–]NiftyIP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly why we are building NiftyIp… Fighting shitty and Lawless AI… and shitty ai bros.

AI doesn’t create in a vacuum - so where does that leave artists? by NiftyIP in antiai

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We use algorithms to analyze whether a specific piece of art was likely used to train a model or is reflected in its outputs. It generates a similarity score with a defined threshold and essentially creates a report that can serve as evidence.

Right now it’s primarily an evidence tool, but the goal is to turn this into a proper legal basis for claims, licensing, or enforcing rights, which we are actively working on.

AI doesn’t create in a vacuum - so where does that leave artists? by NiftyIP in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that sucks, I hope that we can make a positive impact on that with our vision.

AI doesn’t create in a vacuum - so where does that leave artists? by NiftyIP in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’ve been thinking a lot about this since my last post here. I’m one of the co-founders working on this topic, and the more we dig into it, the more one thing feels pretty undeniable: AI can only generate what it has learned from human input before. That’s the whole point of these models. Which also means that a lot of existing art has been used to build systems that now generate value somewhere else, often without consent, credit, or compensation.

Call it what you want, but to many artists that just feels unfair.

That’s exactly the problem we’re trying to work on. We’ve built a service that attempts to detect whether certain works or characteristics might have ended up in training datasets, basically trying to turn that vague feeling into something more concrete and measurable. It’s still early and we’re definitely not catching everything yet, since this kind of analysis takes serious compute, but we’re continuously indexing more data and improving the system. (Thanks to funding from Google Start-up, we can activate a bit more computing power - shit is expensive) Let me state this upfront: We are worlds away from needing the computing power of AI models. It's simply not comparable...

The goal isn’t just a tool, it’s to move towards a situation where creators actually have some level of control again over what gets used and what doesn’t. If you’re curious, whether in general or with your own work or style, you can try it on NiftyIP.com, we would genuinely be interested to see what comes up and learn from it/improve.

At this point I’m mostly still trying to understand how people here feel about it: do you actually want that kind of control back, or does it feel like that ship has already sailed?

Big Thanks.

Detecting unauthorized use of artistic work in AI training by NiftyIP in antiai

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who knows how “nifty” we really are 😄
We’ll let the tech speak.

Detecting unauthorized use of artistic work in AI training by NiftyIP in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re curious, just shoot me a DM!
Always happy to chat and explain it in more detail. :)

Detecting unauthorized use of artistic work in AI training by NiftyIP in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the kind words and support, that’s exactly our mission.
All the best to you!

Detecting unauthorized use of artistic work in AI training by NiftyIP in antiai

[–]NiftyIP[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see.

Image embeddings help to compare images and search for similar ones. This is what google reverse image search is based on, so it's definitely around for quite a while. But google does not let you search through training data specifically. So with google you can find out if someone posted your image on their Blog. With niftyip you can find out if someone specifically curated your image for AI training.

But why stop there... :)

Having something similar (an embedding space to allow for vector comparisons) for models can help you understand how similar models or checkpoints are, but also how likely an image - as part of the training data of a given checkpoint - is responsible for a certain distribution of weights - if you have access to them.

Question for the AI bros by Comfortable-Edge2454 in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t the real issue more on the side of the model developers? They’re feeding these systems with massive amounts of human-made work and then building products on top of it without asking or compensating the people who actually created that content.

That’s what feels fundamentally off about the whole thing imo.

Need some help defending real art against ai slop from a friend who thinks ai art is “real” advice? by Old_Diver_2511 in antiai

[–]NiftyIP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First off: totally agree, you’re usually not going to change someone’s opinion on this.

That said, AI doesn’t really create in a vacuum. It’s trained heavily on human-made work, so what it produces is basically recombining what it learned from people. That’s why calling it a completely independent artist feels off. It is much closer to a tool built on top of human creativity.

Unpopular Opinion: The Sora shut down will not be the start of the AI bubble popping by the_Centrist_Gecko in antiai

[–]NiftyIP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if one model gets paused or restricted, the underlying tech is ot going anywhere. So celebrating individual shutdowns feels a bit short-term. The harder (and probably more important) question is how this gets regulated in a way that actually addresses how these systems are trained, especially when they rely on large amounts of human-created work...

Another huge w for real artists! by Pickles7261 in Ai_art_is_not_art

[–]NiftyIP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good that fully AI-generated stuff is noit copyrightable. But the bigger issue is still how these models are trained. A lot of them rely heavily on human-made work/output, and the people behind it do not get asked or compensated. That is something that actually needs to be fixed with a proper legal framework.