Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?

[Cr0sis21]

Right.

Now demonstrate how you own a copyright to "goes to a planet".



Copyright laws, like most laws, are not incredibly simplistic but realistically in this case... it is fairly straightforward and it only went on for so long due to lawyers keeping it going.

The World Wildlife Foundation had a copyright on the abbreviation "WWF". The World Wrestling Federation used the abbreviation as well. They meant different things, but the World Wildlife Foundation was able to demonstrate it had created first and owned the intellectual property.

In the same world, the World Wrestling Federation violated Marvel Comics copyright by calling Hulk Hogan "The Incredible Hulk Hogan" (which they settled out of court).

Now prove to me how x writer has a copyright on "goes to a planet", that they created that unique phrase and concept before anyone else did and they own the rights to the concept of "going to a planet", or more specifically, the usage of "goes to a planet".

I don't have a copyright on the phrase.
I have a copyright on what I wrote.
And AI works by literally copying what I wrote and putting it elsewhere.
If the programmer writes "going to a planet" and puts it in the AI to draw from, that's ok. If the programmer puts my book, which has the phrase "going to a planet" in it, and the AI copies that phrase out of my book, then it's not okay. That's the core of intellectual property.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't have a copyright on the phrase.
I have a copyright on what I wrote.
And AI works by literally copying what I wrote and putting it elsewhere.
If the programmer writes "going to a planet" and puts it in the AI to draw from, that's ok. If the programmer puts my book, which has the phrase "going to a planet" in it, and the AI copies that phrase out of my book, then it's not okay. That's the core of intellectual property.

Surprisingly simple, given the complexity of copyright law.

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to: AI created works do not own anything and should be borrowing from copyrighted works. Their source materials should be open because it's a tool, and how a tool works should be known and, most importantly, to protect human interests.

I wasn't aware "humanity first" was a controversial take in the creative sphere, but I guess so.

 

[evilchumlee]

If the programmer writes "going to a planet" and puts it in the AI to draw from, that's ok. If the programmer puts my book, which has the phrase "going to a planet" in it, and the AI copies that phrase out of my book, then it's not okay. That's the core of intellectual property.

That's not even remotely accurate.

You don't own words. You own concepts.

You don't own "goes to space".

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to: AI created works do not own anything and should be borrowing from copyrighted works. Their source materials should be open because it's a tool, and how a tool works should be known and, most importantly, to protect human interests.

The problem is all of this could be a thing if people weren't trying to collect $10,000 dollars because "goes to space" was used from their work...

 

[Cr0sis21]

That's not even remotely accurate.

You don't own words. You own concepts.

You don't own "goes to space".

But I own the book it's in.

Edit: Also, let's try not to use terms like "accurate" here. This is hardly settled law, in the USA at least. You can disagree with me, but the accuracy of my statements is going to be determined by the judiciary.

 

[fireproof78]

But I own the book it's in.

Edit: Also, let's try not to use terms like "accurate" here. This is hardly settled law, in the USA at least. You can disagree with me, but the accuracy of my statements is going to be determined by the judiciary.

Can't wait for the movie to come out on that one.

 

[DonIago]

Can't wait for the movie to come out on that one.

Ironically "written" by an AI...

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

We're fanfic writers. We really don't have much ground for copyrights around here.

We rely on the community to deal with plagiarism among our number.

To my knowledge, AI has NEVER plagiarized any of us. A living human recently did.

I may sound a bit of a grouch after saying this, but I think the vast bulk of argument in this thread amounts to nothing more than counting angels on the head of a pin.

CountZero is correct. I don't have to read this thread. But it does seem emblematic of the kind of writing about writing instead of actually writing that I have occasionally suggested beginning (and even veteran) writers beware of and avoid. It's a black hole that will happily suck up all of your creativity and give nothing back.

Having said that, I'm off to do some actual fanfic writing. Toodles! rbs

 

[Cr0sis21]

We're fanfic writers. We really don't have much ground for copyrights around here.

We rely on the community to deal with plagiarism among our number.

To my knowledge, AI has NEVER plagiarized any of us. A living human recently did.

I may sound a bit of a grouch after saying this, but I think the vast bulk of argument in this thread amounts to nothing more than counting angels on the head of a pin.

CountZero is correct. I don't have to read this thread. But it does seem emblematic of the kind of writing about writing instead of actually writing that I have occasionally suggested beginning (and even veteran) writers beware of and avoid. It's a black hole that will happily suck up all of your creativity and give nothing back.

Having said that, I'm off to do some actual fanfic writing. Toodles! rbs

Well, I don't write fanfic. I'm a professional author, and some of the opinions in here I found extremely disappointing.
But I do feel like allowing AI submissions in here would really undercut the spirit if what fanfic is about.
Metallica, when they put out Garage Inc, said "Everyone starts out doing covers." That's essentially what fanfic is. Everyone's cutt8ng their teeth on this stuff. I did too. The first thing I ever read to anyone, publicly, was a sequel to Jurassic Park I wrote in the 4th grade.
And I know plenty of people will disagree with me. And yes, there's no ethical quandary here really. BUT, I do think it would take something away from the group as a whole to just openly allow it.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

But I do feel like allowing AI submissions in here would really undercut the spirit if what fanfic is about.

Yeah, I basically agree as far as fanfiction or many areas that don't intersect with the creative industries, it's mainly the use of AI in commercial creative industries that bother me.

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

Everyone's cutt8ng their teeth on this stuff. I did too. The first thing I ever read to anyone, publicly, was a sequel to Jurassic Park I wrote in the 4th grade.

Well, in my case, I'm just having fun. These stories are rolling about in my head and I kind of have to do something with them.

Our community got trolled by a plagiarist recently. I have no idea why he did it and don't much care. Just glad that it got sorted. Statistically speaking, when it comes to plagiarism around here, it's Humanity-1 : AI-0

All these worries about AI seem quite premature. At this point no one is likely to enjoy what it produces. Sooner or later it will become sophisticated enough that no one will recognize whether or not AI was employed - even exclusively.

So just ban it already. And good luck with that. Either it won't matter because all AI can produce is unreadable word salad, or the ban will become unenforceable as AI becomes indistinguishable from a human writer.

 

[Mudd]

That's not even remotely accurate.

You don't own words. You own concepts.

You don't own "goes to space".

But I own the book it's in.

As a practical matter, this is ridiculous.

You're talking about a common English phrase. "Took a walk." "Went to space."

You absolutely can't copyright that. You can not claim that your use of the phrase in a book entitles you to copyright on that phrase.

It's not plagiarism, either. You couldn't build a credible plagiarism case on such a brief and incidental reuse of that kind of thing if you could prove in court that a human writer cut-and-pasted it from your manuscript into theirs.

Which, of course, you could never prove.

Nor is it likely that in the vast, vast majority of cases this sort of thing will be provable where AI writing is concerned. The most that might be demonstrated through some sort of discovery process that your book was specifically used as training material for a program which is in fact trained on such enormous amounts of data from so many sources that the influence of any one is negligible.

I'm sure that somewhere there's a verifiable case of an AI chatbot kicking out five paragraphs of "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" in response to an innocuous question about big game hunting in Africa. Has to be, right? I'd like to see links to that sort of thing, though.

Personally, I've never seen an instance of AI fiction writing that was worth a spit, other than maybe as a study of grammar. If you start promoting AI-written fanfic you'll drown in a sea of worthless mush.

Things like ChatGPT are useful for saving time on the kind of research you might do for a Trek-type story, which almost never has to do with accuracy but does depend on plausible-sounding gibberish far too often. If you rely upon its explanation of how an Alcubierre drive might work, for example, you can be more believable and accurate than 99.9% of the "science" in Trek without getting a single statement right.

 

[Mudd]

If my AI-generated story is about a Captain on a starship that flies around exploring worlds and meeting new aliens, does Paramount have grounds to sue me, because it's plagiarizing Star Trek?

No. Trek lifted every bit of that from other stories. It's not a secret; it's not even obscure.

 

[DonIago]

All these worries about AI seem quite premature. At this point no one is likely to enjoy what it produces.

I might have agreed with you, though I would have also said it doesn't hurt to try to future-proof these things, but last month I had someone show me AI-generated art of a character of theirs, and when I asked why they didn't commission an artist to make the art, they said the AI-generated art was "good enough".

Now, it wasn't very high quality art or anything exceptional, so let's say that they could have commissioned someone for $20 (whether someone should make art for $20 is left as an exercise for the reader). Fine, $20, is peanuts. But if a hundred or a thousand or more people are doing this, it does start to impact peoples' incomes, and it will probably affect the people who are trying to get into art as a profession disproportionately because it will be harder for them to compete because their own art isn't at the level it could eventually get to.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Now, it wasn't very high quality art or anything exceptional, so let's say that they could have commissioned someone for $20 (whether someone should make art for $20 is left as an exercise for the reader).

You probably wouldn't get a background for that sort of money unless it was copy-pasted into a provided one, but some fan-art creators who draw in "animated styles" I know will do at least a headshot/bust and some will do up to a full body.

 

[Mudd]

The important concerns about AI illustration, IMO, are economic concerns and matters of pride.

As far as "is AI really art?" Is concerned, the question is simplistic and overly broad. If you formulate it as "Can human beings create art with AI??" the answer is obvious and not dependent on a "wait and see" qualification. Of course we can. Human beings can create art with a used band-aid and a bent stick.

 

[DonIago]

You probably wouldn't get a background for that sort of money unless it was copy-pasted into a provided one, but some fan-art creators who draw in "animated styles" I know will do at least a headshot/bust and some will do up to a full body.

I've been in the furry fandom for almost 30 years; I have a pretty good idea of what $20 will generally get you when commissioning art.

 

[DonIago]

The important concerns about AI illustration, IMO, are economic concerns and matters of pride.

As far as "is AI really art?" Is concerned, the question is simplistic and overly broad. If you formulate it as "Can human beings create art with AI??" the answer is obvious and not dependent on a "wait and see" qualification. Of course we can Human beings can create art with a used band-aid and a bent stick.

I think that depends on whether one considers an elaborate copy-paste to be equivalent to 'creating' art, or whether it's more simply a manipulation of existing art that doesn't equate to 'creation'.

 

[Mudd]

I think that depends on whether one considers an elaborate copy-paste to be equivalent to 'creating' art, or whether it's more simply a manipulation of existing art that doesn't equate to 'creation'.

Neither the main question posed there nor the answer to it are dependent how you "consider" anything, TBH. Unless someone still wanted to argue stuff like "Was Warhol a real artist?" in which case...well, they may as well take a number and get lost.

You know there's a theory that some of the earliest cave paintings known were created with the camera obscura technique? One could therefore claim that "all they were doing was tracing." Which misses the point.

 

[DonIago]

In my experience people who are unwilling to show some flexibility in and willingness to examine their views frequently are inflexible because they don't have much backing up their views.

 

[Mudd]

In my experience people who are unwilling to show some flexibility in and willingness to examine their views frequently are inflexible because they don't have much backing up their views.

True enough. So then, folks who've decided that AI illustration tools cannot be used to produce "real art" need to give the matter some more thought in the context of what art means in larger terms than the commercial space.

"It's not art" has just about always turned out to be a poor reflex.