Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?

[fireproof78]

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.

I'm not fighting against it. I'm demanding regulation and openness in the process, which includes what are the sources that the AI is pulling from to learn. Why? Because it is limited in its transformative capabilities, because it just sequences words. It doesn't draw from experience, it doesn't share insight on humanity, and it's not the same process.

I'm not against it. I'm demanding rules around it and openness and transparency in a way that makes it clear this is a distinct product from human creation.

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.

I'm hardly frightened or saying ban all AI. I am asking for rules and regulations that product human interests in the creative endeavors, something uniquely human. Right now, the presentation is, "Accept it."

And I won't without significant caveats and a demand for people to actually think about the consequences.

 

[BillJ]

I'm hardly frightened or saying ban all AI. I am asking for rules and regulations that product human interests in the creative endeavors, something uniquely human.

That's just it, it won't continue to be a "uniquely human" process as AI advances.

 

[evilchumlee]

I'm not fighting against it. I'm demanding regulation and openness in the process, which includes what are the sources that the AI is pulling from to learn. Why? Because it is limited in its transformative capabilities, because it just sequences words. It doesn't draw from experience, it doesn't share insight on humanity, and it's not the same process.

We have regulation. It's called "copyright laws". They apply to AI works.

What doesn't actually help the situation is making some eye-roll argument that "everything an AI make is copyrighted because it's not human". It's just not constructive. We have processes to determine if something is violating a copyright. They exist. They have for quite some time.

I'm not against it. I'm demanding rules around it and openness and transparency in a way that makes it clear this is a distinct product from human creation.

Perhaps this is where some of the breakdown in understand occurs.

Why?

Why does it need to be made clear it's a distinct product from human creation? And to what extent? If I asked an AI for a writing prompt and then from there used my human-meat-brain to write a novel, do I now have to label that as an AI creation? That seems unfair.

I just don't see any practical reason why we would need to make that distinction. The quality of the product should speak for itself. You have been adamant that a human will always produce better work than an AI. So... then let the market sort itself out. If people want higher-quality human created work, that's what they will go for. If they want low quality, AI generated work, that's what they will go for.

While I appreciate art, I *ALSO* appreciate freedom of choice. Let people decide what they want.

I'm hardly frightened or saying ban all AI. I am asking for rules and regulations that product human interests in the creative endeavors, something uniquely human. Right now, the presentation is, "Accept it."

From my perspective, the prevailing presentation seems to be "THIS IS THE LITERAL END OF THE WORLD DO NOT ACCEPT IT AND FIGHT THIS WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE."

 

[Cr0sis21]

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.



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.

Wow. I think I touched a nerve.
Yes. I'm sure your interest in this is motivated strictly by altruistic.
Like I've said, and which everyone (including you) ignores: Go ahead and use AI. I'm not intimidated by it. But you have to use it with only public domain works, and/or works you properly pay to license for that purpose.
Let me know how that goes for you.

 

[BillJ]

Yes. I'm sure your interest in this is motivated strictly by altruistic.

I'm not a writer, I'm not an artist, I don't own stakes in anything that is related either to AI or entertainment companies.

Yes, my interest is in how can it make the world better. Sorry.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I'm not a writer, I'm not an artist, I don't own stakes in anything that is related either to AI or entertainment companies.

Yes, my interest is in how can it make the world better. Sorry.

I'm sure it is. It's too bad, then, that they can't make it work without violating copyright laws.

 

[Cr0sis21]

We have regulation. It's called "copyright laws". They apply to AI works

Yes they do. Which is why AI models can't use copyrighted materials without licensing them.

Like I said, let's see how we'll they work when they actually comply with the law.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sure it is. It's too bad, then, that they can't make it work without violating copyright laws.

I'm betting that they will. Then you will go on a tangent about how it isn't fair that AI can create things faster than you can.

To steal from an above post. You are a cobbler, better be ready for the shoe making machines coming down the road.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I'm betting that they will. Then you will go on a tangent about how it isn't fair that AI can create things faster than you can.

To steal from an above post. You are a cobbler, better be ready for the shoe making machines coming down the road.

Your attempts to insult my profession nonwithstanding, I'm sorry that you see so little value in the creative process.
As I said, I'm not scared of something thrusting out junk at a rapid pace. I just oppose it using my and other's work to do so.

 

[BillJ]

Your attempts to insult my profession nonwithstanding

Telling the truth isn't an insult. The cobbler had to eventually realize that job market was going to be tighter once industrialization took over the industry.

I'm sorry that you see so little value in the creative process.

I have no issues with the creative process. We are seeing the dawn of a new creative process. AI doesn't interfere with your creative process. You can keep on writing just like you always have.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I have no issues with the creative process. We are seeing the dawn of a new creative process. AI doesn't interfere with your creative process. You can keep on writing just like you always have.

Mmm, no. AI is not a creative process. It isn't alive.
I've never said I can't keep writing. But I won't allow AI to violate copyright whether I'm writing or not.
And still no one can really refute that. I'll accept the concession in that point.

 

[fireproof78]

You have been adamant that a human will always produce better work than an AI.

I have? I said that humans can be more creative and infuse their own personal experiences in to a work. "Better" is subjective, of course, but I think that humans are creative by default, while AI is not.

While I appreciate art, I *ALSO* appreciate freedom of choice. Let people decide what they want.

So label it as such. As I said, I look at writers and their process. There are few authors I read without listening to their process. So, knowing the AI process, how its used is a part of it.

From my perspective, the prevailing presentation seems to be "THIS IS THE LITERAL END OF THE WORLD DO NOT ACCEPT IT AND FIGHT THIS WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE."

Not from me. I want rules and clarification and boundaries. The opinions I've seen here is for no transparency and let the end product be the deciding factor, which is a big deal.

Yes they do. Which is why AI models can't use copyrighted materials without licensing them.

Like I said, let's see how we'll they work when they actually comply with the law.

Yes, which is why knowing how the AI is learning is so important.

 

[BillJ]

But I won't allow AI to violate copyright whether I'm writing or not.

If AI is violating copyright, then so is every author that has ever read one of your books.

 

[BillJ]

The opinions I've seen here is for no transparency and let the end product be the deciding factor, which is a big deal.

Welcome to a capitalist society.

 

[Cr0sis21]

If AI is violating copyright, then so is every author that has ever read one of your books.

No.
AI doesn’t interpret. It doesn't create. But we've established that ad nauseum. Ignoring what I say and then repeating your point verbatim isn't actually a rebuttal.
Show me an AI that can tell me how it feels about a book, and then we'll talk.

 

[BillJ]

It doesn't create.

Neither do we. There are twenty basic plots out there that we rearrange the deck chairs on ad nauseum.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Copyright has nothing to do with reading a product, copyright is about reproducing a product in a form that is not sufficiently distinct from the original.

For instance, while Galaxy Quest, The Orville and even the Stargate franchise to a degree are inspired by Star Trek and even adapt some of concepts from it in a fairly transparent way, this doesn't violate copyright because it is still different.

What I certainly don't want is what appears to be Hollywood's endgame where they could for instance... feed material from the first two seasons of SNW into various AI programs and it would spit out s3 without any input from writers, actors et al and so the studios would massively increase their profits at the expensive of creators.

 

[BillJ]

What I certainly don't want is what appears to be Hollywood's endgame where they could for instance...

As we see here, everyone's endgame is to make money, and it doesn't matter what gets trampled in the process.

Peace to everyone.

 

[evilchumlee]

But you have to use it with only public domain works, and/or works you properly pay to license for that purpose.

Objectively incorrect.

And... that would also then apply to human brain writing. If you believe this, then when you write anything, you must only draw inspiration from public domain works, else your brain has been trained on someone elses work and you need to pay a license for that purpose.

Copyright laws tend to be fairly clear.

AI doesn’t interpret. It doesn't create.

This was an AI's defense...

AI-generated writings can be considered distinct from plagiarized content due to their transformation of existing material, ability to synthesize information, incomplete understanding of context, reliance on user input, and adherence to legal and ethical standards. While concerns about intellectual property and originality persist, the nuanced nature of AI-generated content requires careful consideration within a broader framework of copyright law and ethical writing practices.

One of the better arguments i've heard here.

Show me an AI that can tell me how it feels about a book, and then we'll talk.

From ChatGPT, when asked "How do you feel about the novel "The Grapes of Wrath"?

"Steinbeck's vivid descriptions, rich character development, and social commentary make "The Grapes of Wrath" a compelling and thought-provoking read. The novel explores themes of poverty, injustice, resilience, and the human spirit's capacity to endure hardships.

I appreciate the way Steinbeck captures the harsh realities of life during that era while also highlighting the resilience and solidarity that emerge among the disenfranchised. The novel's timeless themes and poignant storytelling continue to resonate with readers, offering insights into the socio-economic challenges that persist in contemporary society.

Overall, "The Grapes of Wrath" is a literary masterpiece that not only entertains but also educates and inspires reflection on important social issues."

I ran that through Grammarly's plagiarism checker and it came back clean.

I mean. It told you. Does it actually "feel" any way? No. But... it did tell you.

I'm still not understanding how the ability to feel has any relevance on copyright. For people who apparently literally create art as a profession, I find the complete and utter lack of even the most basic understanding of copyright laws to be unsettling.

 

[dmac]

AI is an interesting subject. It's also the subject of many stories. Every now and then I pull out a story I started with a futuristic dystopian near earth space adventure and a supply ship transporting supplies to construct stations around the solar system. Of course the company contracted to collect and distribute all these components was known to be driven with AI intelligence. So the AI system was an easy suspect to blame industrial accidents on.
As the story progresses The AI system was developed in the United states was different than the one developed to favor China, Russia, India and El Salvador leaving our poor crew trapped in the middle of an AI created conflict that would determine which country would rise to world dominance, if any.
Question: Should I ask the AI, exactly how AI takes over the world?
Because I need a better ending....