Because people do not believe plagiarism is as big of a deal any more. I recall the big push when I was in grad school to avoid these things, and then you have all these people doing workarounds to avoid doing the work. I feel like, while not a new problem, it highlights just how much plagerism is just considered "Meh."
a friend of mine teaches high school and she says they have tools to try and figure out if something has been generated by AI. Not sure how it works.
In my grad school program you had to submit your paper to a "comparison checker" (can't recall the name right off). It basically would look for common phrases or exact sentences. Annoying because it would flag referenced articles too, so I would have to modify my paper so it didn't flag as much from quoting articles.
If those shows were just "crime is committed, crime is investigated, crime is solved and arrest is made" than, maybe, yeah. But there's more to the shows than that, particularly the character interactions and the character-based subplots each week which liven the episodes up and is not something AI can just churn out like butter, probably not even in five years. You don't come here when you're on the job? Because I certainly don't.
I've always considered it more akin to an on-line convention. Whether we're talking an actual panel or just shooting the breeze in the hotel bar is a judgment call.
AI is going to change our lives so much. Supposedly eventually put 49% of people out of work. It already makes life easier, a friend used ChatGPT to write an appeal that got his parking fine cut down to a third of what it was. I've used it to make custom bedtime stories, combining Star Trek with Goldilocks and the 3 bears (and it even threw in Ewoks without being asked) It will certainly be used to assist with writing going forward. Rough outlines will be quicker. AI can be used to figure out plausible ways to get characters from A to B. Surely someone will make an AI written movie as a gimmick sometime soon, but eliminating writers entirely won't happen any more than anyone else will be affected (which goes back to that 49% we're looking at long-term)
If it actually were AI, maybe. That's just hype. ChatGPT and the like are not actually "artificial intelligence." They're predictive text programs. That's all. People are just embracing exaggerated hype, as they usually do about technological progress. As I've been trying to point out, the problem here is not AI. The problem is rapacious executives who are trying to undo generations of labor rights progress and are using the hype about AI as an excuse to disempower their employees. Dwelling on the tech is doing their job for them, letting them distract us from what's really going on. Hardly. The sample I quoted earlier was dreadfully structured and had no sense of the kind of specifics you're talking about. There wasn't a shred of plausible character motivation or behavior; characters just did things with no setup and for no good reason. To advance characters plausibly through a story, you have to understand their motivations and feelings, and all chatbots can do is predict the probability of the next word in a sentence. Anyway, all these things could do at best is to average out a generic sample of typical story structure, and any competent writer will already know that from experience with reading. Our goal is to try to come up with something that isn't generic, that rises above the mean by doing things differently. Most of the work of "refining" a chatbot outline would probably entail tossing out its generic suggestions and irrelevant verbiage and thinking up something better to replace them, which would make the process take longer. As the quoted sample showed, we are still very far from the point where AI could generate a script that was actually usable as a production document without top-to-bottom rewriting. Scripts are different from prose; they aren't just telling a story to an audience, they're giving the filmmakers instructions on how to tell that story: what specific actions need to be depicted, what physical items need to be designed and built, what special effects and sounds need to be created, etc. This needs to be specified so that the filmmakers can estimate the probable budget and work out the logistical needs of the production in advance. The sample chatbot "script" had nothing of that. It wasn't a usable filming document, it was just something that superficially resembled a script. Also, you're still ignoring the elephant in the room: chatbot writing is intrinsically plagiaristic. It's using many people's copyrighted work without permission. No professional studio should legally be allowed to use its output.
You're assuming a plateau. It's flawed now, but give it a few years. The legalities are another matter, but someone is going to try it as a gimmick soon, I'm sure.
That's assuming that what these programs do is actually the same as what writers do, just less so. My point is that it's fundamentally different, and it only superficially appears like writing to laypeople who don't know what our job actually entails. The only reason it looks like actual writing is because it's plagiarizing actual writing and rearranging the bits in a way that looks superficially coherent. There's not a shred of actual creativity in it, except for the creativity of the human beings whose work it's reshuffling. Since I'm lazy by nature, I admit I've wondered whether I could use this tech to handle some of the drudge work of writing, to make it easier and faster, though of course I'd rephrase anything it produced rather than quote plagiarized text. But I just don't see how it could work for me as a science fiction writer, because I'm not writing about average or ordinary situations, but creating new worlds and species and putting characters in exceptional situations. Anything a chatbot put out would probably be too generic to be useful for me. I'm not just producing text, I'm exploring ideas and characters. And again: The real issue here isn't technology; that's a distraction from the attack on worker rights. Even if the tech were as revolutionary as claimed, then business could either find a way to incorporate it while protecting worker rights, or use it as an excuse to strip away worker rights so the execs could buy bigger yachts when their old ones get wet. The issue here is that they're doing the latter. That's what we need to focus on and talk about. The question of what the technology can and can't do is a smokescreen. It's not what's actually at stake here. And hopefully they'll be sued massively for it and it will be a deterrent for future such abuses. It will also probably be awful.
I'm cheering for these strikes to go on for a long while. It may mean interesting things for what is in development for Trek. Hopefully Directors and Actors are next.
Please don't. The strikes mean hardship for a great many people. The writers are striking because changes in studio policies have deprived them of income, so they're already struggling, but striking means they won't be able to earn money and make a living. This is a terrible situation for them to be in, and they're fighting for their livelihood. The best thing that can happen is for the AMPTP executives to cave as soon as possible. If they are, then the strike will probably be resolved far more quickly, since that will shut things down completely.
Studios are preparing for such a shutdown. Content slates are being revised as we speak so completed projects are delayed and can be staggered in their release. Issues like the AI situation (for example) are not going to make this strike an easy one to resolve. It doesn't sound like Hollywood wants to play ball right now. Especially when you have guys like Zaslav showing complete apathy to the striking writers.
Good. Hopefully it's a long fight and writers get a fair wage out of it. Trek can stop for all I care. These are people's livelihood and ability to profit from their creative work.
Which is insane. They've already lost far more money than they'd need to spend on fuflilling every one of the writers' demands. They're only hurting themselves financially for the sake of being stubborn.
One rumor going around is that the strike will last long enough for the studios to invoke force majeure and walk away from bad deals.
So AI can construct a poor story. This sounds like the writers of "The Flash" which is one of the worst examples of human creativity. The show is so bad I feel like I blacked out and missed something, but it really just has people doing things in the next scene as if days worth of other things happened to get them to that point. But hey, what should anyone expect from a show that acts like having several Ph.D.s is a sign of success instead of a sign of being unwilling to lead any real work yourself.
No. The point is not that it's a bad story, the point is that it's not even a story, just a machine-generated text that mimics the superficial appearance of a story. People have been snowed by the use of "artificial intelligence" to describe these programs. That is an erroneous use of the term, or at least a misleading one. They are nothing more than predictive text algorithms trained by humans to produce a plausible mimicry of actual writing. They're not artists, they're parrots. Hell, they're less than parrots, because parrots are actually highly intelligent. Also, again, please remember that every single text produced by these programs is a work of plagiarism. That alone outweighs any opinions about the quality of the work. Stealing should be off the table, full stop. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...gpt-are-built-on-mass-copyright-infringement/