Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?

[evilchumlee]

You're missing the point Every. Single. Time.

You just can't wrap your mind around the fact that AI-generated stuff that blatantly copies already-published material created by humans is harmful both in terms of finances and in what it's doing to our very society.

And you're ignoring all the benefits of AI to voraciously protect either your own money or ideology...

You're in favor of handing over millennia of human creativity to a machine that's been programmed to mimic human creativity while having no creativity of its own.

Once again, how does AI existing prevent you, a human, from continuing to create things? Will AI ban humans?

AI making things should be entirely irrelevant to you making things.

Honestly, you will never have to worry about any human stealing it. It's awful.

Again, you missed the point.

It wasn't intended to be good. It was intended to illustrate a point. Since apparently I have to be incredibly literal and precise in this, i'll use something else.

Here is a short poem by John Keats

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.

– John Keats

As a whole, this is copyrighted to John Keats. It may or may not currently be public domain, but for jesus tapdancing christs sake, let's just assume it is is not and is copyrighted.

The exercise here is how much do you need to copy before it is breaking copyright?

If I say "A thing of beauty", am I stealing from Keats? What if I used the first line in something? What if I used the words assembled in a different way?

The loveliness of a thing of beauty will never pass into nothingness as it is a joy for ever, but being full of a sleep of sweet dreams, health and quiet breathing it will keep a bower quiet for us.

That was not AI, that my human brain looking at the work of Keats and then spewing something else out. The thought is the same, the words are the same, but I arranged them differently.

*OR*

Example 2... let's create something with the same thought in a different words

A beautiful creation brings eternal delight,
Its charm grows with time, never to fade from sight.
It won't vanish into emptiness, but rather retain
A serene shelter for us, where we can rest without strain
Filled with pleasant visions, vitality, and peaceful repose

Is that a copyright violation?

The point is that it's misinformation that somebody with zero scruples has decided to peddle for whatever reason (usually to make a profit) and to hell with the possible consequences.

Right.

MY point was what different does it make if it came directly from a human, or a human used AI to do it... it's not the AI that's the problem, it's the human...

 

[Timewalker]

And you're ignoring all the benefits of AI to voraciously protect either your own money or ideology...

I'm pretty sure that I stated that I don't make any money from my writing. I write fanfiction, which cannot legally be profited from, not even by a penny. I do it because I enjoy it.

As for my "ideology"... "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind". Frank Herbert, Dune.

That quote comes from an in-universe religious book called the Orange Catholic Bible. My RL self is atheist, but in this case the OCB has a point.

Do you watch TV or go to movies? If so, how did you enjoy the strike last year? These people are legitimately worried for their livelihoods, and you don't seem to give a damn about it. Yes, there are a fair number of wealthy actors who wouldn't need to work another day in their lives and would still have more money than the average person would ever have in ten lifetimes. But there are so many more actors and writers who aren't in that situation. They have the right to be concerned about their jobs.

Ditto any artist who is being pushed out by AI.

I'm not going to address the rest of that, other than to say I didn't miss your point about the batch of words you typed out in an attempt at a "gotcha" over copyright. I got your point. I just don't care to address it.

Now I've got NaNoWriMo to do today. No AI is going to do it for me.

 

[evilchumlee]

I'm pretty sure that I stated that I don't make any money from my writing. I write fanfiction, which cannot legally be profited from, not even by a penny. I do it because I enjoy it.

Which then makes me to circle back to the question of how does AI in any way impact your enjoyment of writing?

It's quite literally like saying "I don't like Ice Cream, therefore nobody should eat Ice Cream."

Do you watch TV or go to movies? If so, how did you enjoy the strike last year? These people are legitimately worried for their livelihoods, and you don't seem to give a damn about it. Yes, there are a fair number of wealthy actors who wouldn't need to work another day in their lives and would still have more money than the average person would ever have in ten lifetimes. But there are so many more actors and writers who aren't in that situation. They have the right to be concerned about their jobs.

I didn't enjoy the strike, no, although it seemed to me to only show how imperative the development of AI is to avoid future disruptions like that. With a strong AI infrastructure, the unions would be unable to hold media hostage and derail projects.

I'm somewhere middle of the road in what was actually going down. On one hand, I do sympathize with the idea of hammering out regulations and think that is an absolutely necessary step. Some of the demands were absolutely outlandish... I heard one writer suggest "Fine, use AI, but still pay me the same for a month of work that I do in a day.".... that's now how jobs work. That was one of the most out-of-touch statements I have ever heard. BUT, people are absolutely justified in wanting to establish clear rules on the usage of AI. No issue there at all.

On the other hand... AI is here, and it's not going away, and in damn near any application technological development is a good thing and this is no different. The luddite screeching against AI is just that. It happens with any new technology that challenges the status quo. Automation has been adjusting the workplace for centuries... now it's the creative types that need to deal with it.

Rather than fight tooth and nail against it wholesale, I would be much more sympathetic to trying to find the right way to utilize this amazing technology.

Ditto any artist who is being pushed out by AI.

Do you feel so ardently about this in the case of say, fast food workers? Factory workers? Office workers?

Many jobs have been eliminated, and new jobs created, through automation. This is no different.

I'm not going to address the rest of that, other than to say I didn't miss your point about the batch of words you typed out in an attempt at a "gotcha" over copyright. I got your point. I just don't care to address it.

Fair enough I suppose, although I take that as something of a "concession accepted". How else do I take trying to find an answer to a question and met with "don't wanna answer"? I'm alittle sad because I was truly interested in the answer.

(the rephrased poem was AI generated, btw. I did some diligence in trying to see if it was plagiarized from something but couldn't find anything.)

Now I've got NaNoWriMo to do today. No AI is going to do it for me.

And that's great. I feel like that last line was supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" as well but like, why? All that did was drive home my original point... AI is absolutely irrelevant to what you do. There is literally not one single person in this entire world that is saying that humans should no longer be allowed to create, ONLY AI.

Literally my entire point this entire time has been both things can exist. Enjoy your writing!

 

[Cr0sis21]

The exercise here is how much do you need to copy before it is breaking copyright?

That's a specious exercise.
It doesn't matter because any material an AI puts out that was trained on copyrighted works is a copyright violation. One word or a thousand makes no difference.
The reason for that is that AI doesn't think. It can't analyze, it can't interpret, it can't add its own experiences to anything. It can not create satire because it can not comprehend the text it is drawing from. Therefore, AI as a commercially viable tool is a nonstarter.

On the moral aspect of it, like I said before, no self-respecting writer would want to use AI. And no writer will gladly allow his own work to be used to put him out of a job.
I'm sorry you can't see the problem there, but fortunately we have unions that are impeding corporations attempts to do just that.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Rather than fight tooth and nail against it wholesale, I would be much more sympathetic to trying to find the right way to utilize this amazing technology.

There is no right way to utilize it. AI is an oven. It can't make a casserole until you put it in there. The problem is all the ingredients you're using are stolen out of my refrigerator.

 

[evilchumlee]

That's a specious exercise.
One word or a thousand makes no difference.

That is objectively incorrect.

There is no right way to utilize it. AI is an oven. It can't make a casserole until you put it in there. The problem is all the ingredients you're using are stolen out of my refrigerator.

Somewhat accurate for sure. The oven is a tool, just like AI.

Where the analogy falls apart is that AI is just me using a recipe you wrote to bake that casserole in the oven.

 

[Cr0sis21]

That is objectively incorrect.

Cutting out the majority of my quote didn't strengthen your argument. The fact remains that it's the act of training the AI with copyrighted works that is the violation. How much it uses per output is irrelevant.

Somewhat accurate for sure. The oven is a tool, just like AI.

Where the analogy falls apart is that AI is just me using a recipe you wrote to bake that casserole in the oven.

No, the analogy is apt. You can make anything you want with your oven. Just don't steal my ingredients to do it. The recipe, if you want to expand the analogy, is the human interpretive element that AI is incapable of.

 

[fireproof78]

And that's great. I feel like that last line was supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" as well but like, why? All that did was drive home my original point... AI is absolutely irrelevant to what you do. There is literally not one single person in this entire world that is saying that humans should no longer be allowed to create, ONLY AI.

The problem isn't the creative aspect, but the unwillingness to create any guardrails that safeguard the humans. In other words, the use of AI is drawing from a pool of material without constraint and then being published without limits. That's the concern. That AI will be used to draw from creative people's works, irregardless of copyright, and reproduce it for sale and the people who do actually write it receive no credit or lose out on opportunities because of a flood on the market of inferior goods.

Until there are rules in place the use of AI sourcing from copyrighted works is suspect.

 

[evilchumlee]

The problem isn't the creative aspect, but the unwillingness to create any guardrails that safeguard the humans.

Until there are rules in place the use of AI sourcing from copyrighted works is suspect.

This is reasonable and i'm not against this by any means, but I also think that we ALREADY have the guardrails for this in existing copyright laws.

My thing here is that I find it to be utterly irrelevant who or what is doing copying. If a human reads a work and then reproduces it, or an AI reads a work and then reproduces it, it's the same thing. What the work drew from is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the end product. If the end product is in copyright violation, as per local legislation, then that's that. If the end product is not in copyright violation, as per local legislation, then it is not. The method by which the work was created is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

Using writing as an "easy" example, a writers thoughts are a collection of words. An AI may use the same words that a writer wrote. A human may also do that. What matters is the end product of the work. I skimmed through a work and only used words from it but arranged those words in a way that made it different enough (per copyright law), then there is no problem. Again, irrelevant if a human or AI did this.

and reproduce it for sale and the people who do actually write it receive no credit or lose out on opportunities because of a flood on the market of inferior goods.

And this is REAL argument, one that I can see many angles on. I understand. I really do.

I also understand... it's kind of a "too bad" situation. Technology moves forward. Adapt, or be left behind.

"Lose out of opportunities because of a flood on the marker on inferior goods."... sounds a whole lot like industrialization vs. hand-made production. The cobbler is no longer lucrative due to the flood of the market of inferior goods.

I see no difference when it comes to creative types. How did other industries adapt? Provide a superior product. It may not be as lucrative as it once was. Times change. But if there is a flood of inferior products, you need to stand out by producing a superior product.

Now don't take this is as I don't think there should be any protections at all. I think... damn near everything should be regulated to do some degree. I do 100% agree with actors wanting to own their likeness... I absolutely don't think it's right to allow companies to scan someone and then just have AI use their image without compensation. That likeness is "yours". You "own" it. I absolutely agree with that.

I agree with things like notifying a writer that a production intends to utilize AI tools, and allow the writer to choose to take part or not. 100% agree.

I agree that in the end, it's the human who gets credit for something. Even if you just plugged a prompt into an AI and it spat out something, the human gets credit for that, assuming as per law it is not in copyright violation. This extends to things like how writers are paid... if a writer uses AI, either by choice or not, the writing is theirs and they are granted the full rights afforded to a writer. It's up to producers and/or consumers to decide if they want to support that product. If AI is producing inferior products... then... don't buy them. If AI is producing superior products... then, well, that's kind of awesome.

I also think we need to somewhat fight fire with fire. A way AI can help is to put it to task in search of copyright violations... have an AI read through works to sniff out plagiarism.

 

[BillJ]

It doesn't matter because any material an AI puts out that was trained on copyrighted works is a copyright violation.

We're all trained on copyrighted material to one degree or another. I mean, we're having this discussion on the TrekBBS.

 

[fireproof78]

My thing here is that I find it to be utterly irrelevant who or what is doing copying. If a human reads a work and then reproduces it, or an AI reads a work and then reproduces it, it's the same thing. What the work drew from is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the end product. If the end product is in copyright violation, as per local legislation, then that's that. If the end product is not in copyright violation, as per local legislation, then it is not. The method by which the work was created is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

It is relevant because there is no way for an AI to make it different. It cannot transform, or be inspired by its own experiences. To say the only thing that matters is the end product is absolutely absurd in the face of a creative work. You're basically saying humans are irrelevant and only matter for the product they can produce. Which, ok, I can understand the mindset, but now you've said and AI and a human creator are equal and that's something I cannot get behind.

also think we need to somewhat fight fire with fire. A way AI can help is to put it to task in search of copyright violations... have an AI read through works to sniff out plagiarism.

That's already done.

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

At this point I feel that I should remind you that the only plagiarism that i've seen on this channel was produced by a human, not a bot.

Unless it was a really fiendishly clever bot that had us all convinced it was human... But if it had been that clever, it probably would have come up with something more original and would never have been caught.

if you think Ai can't (at least eventually) review all the fan fiction published, say, on this site, and come up with original and satisfying stories in the same vein, you need to play chess against one sometime. At this point, in addition to the world chess champion, the world GO champion is also AI. And, as with chess, almost certainly will be from now on.

Should we allow AI generated stories here? Go ahead and ban them.

I'd like to see you try.

Thanks!! rbs

 

[evilchumlee]

It is relevant because there is no way for an AI to make it different. It cannot transform, or be inspired by its own experiences.

A few posts up I posted a poem by John Keats, and then an AI-generated rephrasing of it. The fact that it was different proves that you are objectively incorrect in that regard. Sure, AI can't be inspired by experiences, but it absolutely can transform... or at the very least, make something different.

Regardless of all that, it remains irrelevant. Copyright violation is copyright violation, or it's not. It's actually an incredibly dry subject. The tool used is irrelevant.

To say the only thing that matters is the end product is absolutely absurd in the face of a creative work. You're basically saying humans are irrelevant and only matter for the product they can produce. Which, ok, I can understand the mindset, but now you've said and AI and a human creator are equal and that's something I cannot get behind.

I think my point went so far over your head, it just started playing "Magic Carpet Ride" and caught the attention of Vulcans.

So I didn't say anything of the sort. Even remotely. I'll try to me even more specific because it seems like we aren't communicating effectively. Perhaps my fault?

In terms of copyright law the end product is the only relevant piece of information. When it comes to determining if something is in violation of copyright law or not the method by which the work was created, or the tools used to do so, are not relevant. Something either violates copyright law by the definition set forth by law or it does not be it a work that was generated via a human mind or an AI. In terms of determining if a work has violated copyright law, an AI and a human creator are equal, as the method by which the work was created has absolutely no relevance on if it copied copyrighted material or not as defined by copyright laws.

I... at no point suggested that humans are irrelevant and only matter for the product they can produce. I have repeatedly supported both human creators AND AI tools, consistently suggesting that there is plenty of room both. I do not believe a human creator and an AI are equal in terms of creativity.

You have taken my view of the end product, specifically from the perspective of copyright law, and assumed that since a work's creator is irrelevant in that specific instance... it must therefore be irrelevant in every possible instance... which is absurd.

(There is a part of me, just as an aside, that wants to read some of what several posters have created here... just to see if their human brain made something 100% original that is no way derivative of a prior work and absolutely, definitely was not in any way inspired or otherwise created through a "training" of other works...)

 

[fireproof78]

In terms of copyright law the end product is the only relevant piece of information. When it comes to determining if something is in violation of copyright law or not the method by which the work was created, or the tools used to do so, are not relevant. Something either violates copyright law by the definition set forth by law or it does not be it a work that was generated via a human mind or an AI. In terms of determining if a work has violated copyright law, an AI and a human creator are equal, as the method by which the work was created has absolutely no relevance on if it copied copyrighted material or not as defined by copyright laws.

This clarifies things. I thought the end product was a discussion of the art process in general.

I do not believe a human creator and an AI are equal in terms of creativity.

Then why are we giving them equal footing?

 

[BillJ]

Then why are we giving them equal footing?

Because they eventually will be.

Whether people like it or not, AI is coming.

 

[fireproof78]

Because they eventually will be.

Whether people like it or not, AI is coming.

Eventually is not the now.

I get that AI is coming, but we just stand back and act like idiots about it? I don't get this attitude that's like "Whelp, it's inevitable. Might as well just accept it." Instead of actually looking in to safeguards, and protections and questioning this process at all.

Blind acceptance is becoming the watch word of current society and it's ridiculous.

 

[BillJ]

Eventually is not the now.

I get that AI is coming, but we just stand back and act like idiots about it? I don't get this attitude that's like "Whelp, it's inevitable. Might as well just accept it." Instead of actually looking in to safeguards, and protections and questioning this process at all.

Blind acceptance is becoming the watch word of current society and it's ridiculous.

Laws should not be written with just the present in mind, there should be some thought as to the impact further down the road.

And, I gotta be honest, I'm simply not frightened by what AI could mean for humanity. Maybe with a competitor, we'll finally get our collective act together.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Laws should not be written with just the present in mind, there should be some thought as to the impact further down the road.

And, I gotta be honest, I'm simply not frightened by what AI could mean for humanity. Maybe with a competitor, we'll finally get our collective act together.

You don't want a competitor.
You want something that will do the work for you.
You said it yourself: This will allow all people to "make" their "own" stories.

 

[evilchumlee]

This clarifies things. I thought the end product was a discussion of the art process in general.

Then why are we giving them equal footing?

I'm not giving them equal footing. I agree with you that human creators will create a superior work over an AI.

How the work was created is simply irrelevant in terms of copyright. In that specific instance, all works are equal, the creator is irrelevant (sans for establishing ownership).

I get that AI is coming, but we just stand back and act like idiots about it? I don't get this attitude that's like "Whelp, it's inevitable. Might as well just accept it." Instead of actually looking in to safeguards, and protections and questioning this process at all.

To counter, rather than blindly fighting tooth and nail against technological progression, it may be more productive to acknowledge the new technology, embrace it, and work to discover the best ways to utilize it and begin the inevitable transition into a new status quo in terms of the monetization of art.

 

[BillJ]

You don't want a competitor.
You want something that will do the work for you.

Since I'm not a writer, and I haven't used AI, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I'm quite capable of typing gibberish without assistance, as my 23 years here can attest to.

You said it yourself: This will allow all people to "make" their "own" stories.

Yes, for people that want to. You realize there are more people on the planet than just you and not everyone writes with making a living in mind? I would say the vast amount of people who write and draw and take on other artistic endeavors, never see a dime, nor are they expecting to. The ego involved here is amazing. These kinds of advances can open doors to so many people, people that have physical challenges, people that have mental challenges, that it really is selfish that you want to stand in the way of it.

Hey, you do you.