Indeed. And I would be remiss if I didn't say push back against it.
Exactly. AIs rights are not being put out as equal to humanity because the end product now justifies the means.
Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?
- Thread starter Sgt_G
- Start date
You don't really demonstrate a good understanding of copyright law, biology, or computer programming.
Copyright does cover AI training. (EU law for specifics)
I've already explained how humans and AI differ in this regard multiple times. It's not my fault you won't acknowledge it.
And cloud be hit with a Cease and desist, if Paramount wanted to press it.
We have been watching X files over again. We reached the episode Chinga (1998) which never would have been possible without rod serling's episode You'll Be Sorry (1963)
I have to refer to TOS in these cases.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1ea6a8d9-6f3a-49b2-b7b6-4c8b493a0e63
But those authors aren't, to the best of my knowledge, making a profit from their work either, nor do I suspect that the stories they're writing are significantly impacting sales of licensed material.
Plus, we already know the primary material they're incorporating into their stories, whereas if someone posts a random AI-generated piece of art, I doubt anyone's revealing what sources the AI tool used.
I assure you. I've been involved in over 50 Trek fan films, a handful of audio drama, ramdon voice over and play over NPR and not a single check, for a single penny ever showed up in the mail.
How to say "I'm not Alec Peters" without saying "I'm not Alec Peters".
Re: timelines,
Good story Garth!
I acknowledge what you're saying, it just doesn't actually make any sense. I also have provided examples where you're incorrect.
You have stated that anything that comes out of an AI is plagiarized because it was trained on existing works. I demonstrated that's false by generating an AI response that passed a plagiarism check.
There is no functional different between an AI being trained on existing works, or a human reading those works, thus being trained on them.
I can respect that. I am coming from a US perspective, but that is also why I chose my words to say "local legislation" and the like.
I did a quick search to find it doesn't appear quite as cut and dry.
https://keanet.eu/eu-ai-act-shaping...plicitly links,exception to AI model training.
This article would make it seem that the output of an AI is not necessarily considered to be in violation of any copyright laws by simple virtue of it being AI generated. The EU law appears to be largely focused around what can and can not be used to train AI models.
Overall I don't find the EU legislation to be at all unreasonable, from the little bit I have read about it. I do want to reiterate i'm not against regulations. I'm a big fan of regulations for damn near anything. This world needs MORE regulations writ large.
I just take issue with the anti-AI zealots, who honestly feel like they aren't really adding anything constructive. I understand and sympathize if one feels that this technology may negatively affect their livelihood, but I ALSO understand that... as technology advances, that happens. It's happened many times before and will happen many more times in the future.
Any technical check can be fooled or imprecise. Allow me to introduce you to my friend's college essay about Circe "unleashing her furry"...
The fact is, since AI is incapable of improvising beyond what it has been programmed with, and it's incapable of what is defined as "creativity", anything it produces is by plagiarism by virtue of how the technology works.
Of course there is. It's the difference between biological innovation and rote copy-paste.
I'm fairly confident US legislation will catch up to the EU once the current court cases are settled.
Like I said, use all the AI you want. Just don't train it on MY works.
In terms of using it for commercial purposes, I'm more in the "reap what you sow" camp.
I would resort to "text to speech" programs for writing audio dramas because the audience is basically blind and it's up to the author to direct all the board pieces of the story in a manor that maintains a logical pattern to the story.
When the program plays it back to you (4 or 5 times), you become the blind audience and could edit the story as needed.
I assume you could use AI in the same manor. If you dump your story into it and see what it returns, the author still has the ability to reshape the story as they desire, put their edits into before releasing it. I'd guess the story still belongs to the author.
Another way AI could be useful is story boarding. I write but a horrible artist and many times when the film is created thousands of miles away the connection between Author and Director gets lost. I've seen examples where AI can grab video cuts and play them right along with the story. (however it works)
So I feel if the author is in charge of the creation, AI could only help their creativity and there is no problem but the author's input has to be a lot more than typing in. "Create Space Adventure"
When the program plays it back to you (4 or 5 times), you become the blind audience and could edit the story as needed.
I assume you could use AI in the same manor. If you dump your story into it and see what it returns, the author still has the ability to reshape the story as they desire, put their edits into before releasing it. I'd guess the story still belongs to the author.
Another way AI could be useful is story boarding. I write but a horrible artist and many times when the film is created thousands of miles away the connection between Author and Director gets lost. I've seen examples where AI can grab video cuts and play them right along with the story. (however it works)
So I feel if the author is in charge of the creation, AI could only help their creativity and there is no problem but the author's input has to be a lot more than typing in. "Create Space Adventure"
Like anything else in life, you’ll likely get out of AI generated material what you put into it.
Thank you for proving my point
Okay…
Yeah, it'd probably have to be something elaborate like 'Create Space Adventure With Hot Babes And Handsome Men' in order to get the really high quality stuff.
In this day and age anything is possible and then fail...lol
There's a reason that you can't sell a book to a publisher as an idea without actually writing it, and that authors say not to tell them ideas for their books. An idea is not the same thing as a finished piece.
This is a common misconception. There are common chains of events throughout literature, but no one is copying another plot when they write a book.
Similar threads
