HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
lllyasviel
adversecleaner
HISTORICAL RECORD2023–2023
lllyasviel / adversecleaner · Not publicly available

adversecleaner

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-03-20 00:00:17 UTC to 2023-08-25 01:19:57 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

0122023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 commentsMar 202023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJun 52023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsAug 21

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Mar 202023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC211
Mar 272023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 32023-04-03 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 102023-04-10 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 172023-04-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 242023-04-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 12023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-08 00:00:00 UTC000
May 82023-05-08 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-15 00:00:00 UTC000
May 152023-05-15 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-22 00:00:00 UTC000
May 222023-05-22 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-29 00:00:00 UTC000
May 292023-05-29 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 52023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 122023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 192023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 262023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 32023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 102023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 172023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 242023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 312023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 72023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 142023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 212023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-28 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
These tools do not work in the real world for several reasons: first, people who train LoRA or models curate their datasets, removing adversarial noise is trivial: https://github.com/lllyasviel/AdverseCleaner ; second, if they are trying to defend themselves against training AI models, then it will probably do almost nothing at all, models trained from scratch will learn the distribution, even one where the samples have adversarial noise (which can only attack a frozen model, like a VAE), SDXL has a new VAE, so the VAE will just be more robust if there is adversarial noise on the images, because it will learn to ignore it, many other models do not have a VAE to begin with. Also, resizing the image (as is almost always done when training the model) will probably destroy most if not all of the adversarial noise.
In An image preprocessing tool to protect artworks from AI-for-Art based mimicry
The author of https://haveibeentrained.com/ made an article about it: https://spawning.substack.com/p/we-tested-glaze-art-cloaking What surprises me most is that the paper does not consider the most obvious case: resizing of images before training; people usually train an SD model on resolutions of 512/768, so the noise is destroyed to a large extent even without realizing it. Why resizing the images is so effective is shown in this article about adversarial attacks: https://towardsdatascience.com/know-your-enemy-7f7c5038bdf3, the model after being trained with adversarial training learns independently to rescale the images as an adversarial defence. They also not consider in the Countermeasures section the fact that people can use diffusion models for what they are trained to do, denoising the images, if you put adversarial noise on it y
Read the rest
ou can use img2img to remove it (maybe even canny controlnet just to guide it even more). Final detail (maybe) is that the paper do not address the fact this only works on models trained with a VAE and not on diffusion-only models like Dalle 2, Karlo, Imagen (maybe MJ, who knows). The software that applies the "protection" do not run on the GPU even though it runs SD and gradient descent, so it could even take 40 mins to apply it on a single image; it also violated the GPL license of DiffusionBee: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11sqkh9/gl... In case it's necessary to remove the adversarial noise, the simplest way: https://github.com/lllyasviel/AdverseCleaner (16 lines of Python)
In Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.