Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?

[Charles Phipps]

Now the thing is, putting a blanket "sue anyone using AI trained on works" I feel is wrong because again, it's doing the same exact thing a human mind does. Are you telling me that your writing is 100% your own thoughts and has not been trained, in any way, from writings you have read. In other words, your brain has not been trained by existing works...

The answer is... no... no it hasn't. Your brain has been trained with existing works from authors, just as an AI "brain" is trained.

The only thing that is relevant is the final product. 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? But the AI spit out the ship is the CSS Explorer, with it's Captain George L. Rooker, representing the Galactic Confederation of Worlds.

Is in inspired by Star Trek? Yup. Is it Star Trek? Nope. I lied... that wasn't AI generated. It was generated by my human mind.

Why would the fact that it was generated by AI be relevant in any way? It's either plagiarism, or it's not. The tool used doesn't matter.

This is where we disagree, though, because calling it AI is grossly misleading. It's artificial but it's not intelligent. No, it doesn't work like a human brain because it's not sentient. It's just a version of Microsoft Word generating a bunch of randomly cobbled together words that it has been programmed to think fit together in X-fashion because it has been programmed with the works of JRR Tolkien, George R.R. Martin, or Gene Roddenberry. It is incapable of creativity because it is not alive.

Therefore it can only BE plagiarist.

At least in my view.

 

[evilchumlee]

Therefore it can only BE plagiarist.

At least in my view.

So it's plagiarism if a computer-generated tool analyzes existing works and produces a string of words derived from them.

It is... not plagiarism if I, as a human, read those same existing works and produce a string of words derived from them?

 

[Jedi Marso]

"Should we allow" is a strange way of putting it, because at this point you can't really stop it from happening.

I'm sort of ambivalent on the whole thing. If someone uses AI to generate a story and its a good story, well, you have another good story to read.

If someone uses AI to generate a story 'in the voice' of, say, Robert A. Heinlein, and it's a good story in that voice, then you have another good story to read, and although it reminds you of Heinlein, it is not Heinlein and nobody should say that it is.

If someone uses AI to generate a story 'in the voice' of, say, Robert A. Heinlein, and tries to sell it as a 'Heinlein story', that is a problem, and probably a criminal offense of some kind.

AI is a tool, just like a photocopier or a kitchen knife. What matters is how it is used. I've seen some good AI art, and I don't feel it 'rips off' an artist if it emulates their style- as long as the person who generates it acknowledges that it is created by AI, and not the artist whose style it emulates. Because if I want to read Heinlein (or a living author), I'll buy their book. If I want to read an AI imitation of them, I can buy that book too. What I don't want to do is read an AI creation that is passed off as the work of a human being. That is something else.

 

[Charles Phipps]

So it's plagiarism if a computer-generated tool analyzes existing works and produces a string of words derived from them.

It is... not plagiarism if I, as a human, read those same existing works and produce a string of words derived from them?

Yes, because one is alive and one is a corporate tool. One has creativity, one is a copy machine.

 

[evilchumlee]

Yes, because one is alive and one is a corporate tool. One has creativity, one is a copy machine.

So plagiarism is ok if it's done by the living?

That's an odd stance.

 

[Charles Phipps]

So plagiarism is ok if it's done by the living?

That's an odd stance.

I mean it's a pretty basic difference. A human brain is capable of creativity, a machine is not.

 

[evilchumlee]

I mean it's a pretty basic difference. A human brain is capable of creativity, a machine is not.

How is that in any way relevant to plagiarism?

A creative human mind is allowed to plagiarize, but it's wrong for a machine? I truly don't understand the relevance there, Dr. Pulaski.

 

[Charles Phipps]

How is that in any way relevant to plagiarism?

A creative human mind is allowed to plagiarize, but it's wrong for a machine? I truly don't understand the relevance there, Dr. Pulaski.

I mean, a machine can't do anything BUT plagarize. Which you know because that's the premise.

A human mind can create.

Hence, all AI created writing is plagarized.

*mike drop*

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

I mean, a machine can't do anything BUT plagarize. Which you know because that's the premise.

A human mind can create.

Hence, all AI created writing is plagarized.

*mike drop*

Um... Okay... Picard's testimony at Data's trial notwithstanding...

 

[Annie McCoy]

How is that in any way relevant to plagiarism?

As in a sentient (personally i think once sentience is achieved then plagiarism is a separate debate) mind can take inspiration and create separately from the work itself, whereas a programme can only work within its parameters. Yes it learns but it’s not creating its own ideas, it’s learning and reusing from already existing ideas.

(To be fair, i’m quite biased because I am heavily against AI in creative industries anyway)

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

Yes it learns but it’s not creating its own ideas, it’s learning and reusing from already existing ideas.

(To be fair, i’m quite biased because I am heavily against AI in creative industries anyway)

Evidently the local biological machines are under the impression they are capable of original thought beyond the reach of AI.
As I said far above - go ahead and ban AI. And let me know how that works out for you...

The only plagiarism issue I've witnessed here was, I'm reasonably certain, entirely human. I don't bother with AI because coming up with my own ideas is more fun. But I'm using all sorts of things for prompts. The line between plagiarism and inspiration is probably much thinner than we might want to imagine. And AI would definitely blur that line.

 

[Annie McCoy]

Evidently the local biological machines are under the impression they are capable of original thought beyond the reach of AI.
As I said far above - go ahead and ban AI. And let me know how that works out for you...

The only plagiarism issue I've witnessed here was, I'm reasonably certain, entirely human. I don't bother with AI because coming up with my own ideas is more fun. But I'm using all sorts of things for prompts. The line between plagiarism and inspiration is probably much thinner than we might want to imagine. And AI would definitely blur that line.

I personally am not against AI, I just would want it to be heavily regulated for creative use.

Not necessarily because of immorality (and i agree with you that the line between plagiarism and inspiration is a thin one), but purely because in a world where art is so intrinsically connected with experiencing life why would you want art from something that’s just… reusing?

I think AI can be an incredible instrument (when utilised appropriately), but not the composer.

 

[evilchumlee]

A human mind can create.

Hence, all AI created writing is plagarized.

That's really not as much a mic drop as you think.

Here's an exercise. I'm going to make a random phrase here, "the monster walked through the red door". Now, i'm going to plagiarize it two ways... i'm going to use my human mind to do it, and i'm going to have AI do it. I won't tell you which is which.

"The creature strolled into the crimson doorway."

"The beast passed through the scarlet entrance."

Which one did the creative, non-plagiarized human mind come up with, and which one is AI. And also... why is it relevant.

Once again, an AI is trained through existing works. Your fleshy brain is trained through existing works. Yes, the fleshy brain has a greater capacity to create something new but they're both coming from a similar starting point, you're drawing from the same body of work.

I'm not sure why any of this invalidates AI as a tool, and why it's 100% perfectly ok to just totally rip something off, as long it's a human doing it?

 

[somebuddyX]

I don't really have any strong opinions on it. Personally, I enjoy using inferkit but that's because it comes up with the most nonsensical, stupid, and hilarious stories that are perfect for my sense of humour but probably nobody elses. I have used chatgpt for when i need to put some background text in a picture, but I find it kind of boring and hate the way it reads like an essay and wraps everything up in a neat little bow with a conclusion. Inferkit will get every detail wrong, change people's point of view so there's barely continuity in the next sentence, but then it tells me a story about Gene Roddenberry gifted a model of the nebula class ship, putting it on a cart, and then smashing it into pieces when it went off the curb.

 

[Will The Serious]

AI can't plagiarize any more than an old xerox machine could.

It's the human that plagiarizes by the nature of whatever claim that human is making. AI products are just products, original to the machine or copies of something else. It is the human behind that production that is plagiarizing or not. AI isn't out there posting, it does what a human wants it to do. Its work goes to an outlet that a human directs it to go. It claims nothing. It's the human user that makes whatever claim is moral or not.

-Will

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

Okay... we've been dancing around plagiarism... Here is a passage from STH that I lifted from Douglas Adams:

Kenny Dolphin tried to put on a brave face, but he was fresh out of brave faces and the best he could manage at the moment was an overly protective, worried-father face.

That's not exactly how Douglas Adams wrote it and I don't recall which character was fresh out of brave faces or what kind of face he was able to manage. But you'll find a lot of turns of phrase I borrowed from other writers in my fanfic. Has nothing to do with the plot or general storyline. Some are deliberate nods to favorite movie moments, for instance when I have a number of characters saying in unison, "They're digging in the wrong place!" or the Hunter's 2nd Officer leading a retreat from a line of borg with the memorable phrase: "Run Away!! RUN AWAY!!!"

All of those examples kind of blur the line between referencing and plagiarizing. And that's very likely how AI will borrow things from human writers. Not lifting entire plotlines or word-for-word copying with only a few details (such as character names) changed (as we experienced here recently.) Those are things humans do.

The primary difference between the way i write and an AI is that an AI doesn't have the acculturation to recognize which lines are clever enough or popular enough to be worth lifting.

Thanks!! rbs

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

Or some could simply be people who struggle with writing but want to be creative...

Creativity and writing are something that can be cultured and improved in a human, but that AI is fundamentally incapable of. No one is innately any more creative than anyone else. Having AI be "creative" for you is just lazy.

 

[BillJ]

Creativity and writing are something that can be cultured and improved in a human, but that AI is fundamentally incapable of. No one is innately any more creative than anyone else. Having AI be "creative" for you is just lazy.

I said struggle with writing, not creativity.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

I said struggle with writing, not creativity.

What I said still stands. Writing is a skill not a talent.

 

[BillJ]

What I said still stands. Writing is a skill not a talent.

If it is a tool that helps folks, I have no interest in standing in its way. Regardless of how one wants to phrase it.