Because there is no answer that will satisfy you. AI is coming, prepare for it… or don’t, that is on you.
My wife is a technical writer for a major bank, you better bet we are preparing for it.
Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?
- Thread starter Sgt_G
- Start date
Because there is no answer that will satisfy you. AI is coming, prepare for it… or don’t, that is on you.
My wife is a technical writer for a major bank, you better bet we are preparing for it.
These posts have serious "Fuck the artist" energy. I've never seen somebody advocate for the elimination of the SWGA with such energy until this thread.
And as I've said before, AI does not exist without stealing the work of every writer or there. That goes way, way beyond "same general story".
You're right. No answer will satisfactorily convince me to allow my IP to be used without compensation. But it is illuminating that you can't even begin to defend it beyond vague proclamations of "it's coming!"
I am preparing. By paying my AGA dues and supporting their lawsuit against AI.
You do whatever you want to do. Just keep your hands off my property.
Prove it is being stolen.
There's a reason those AI companies are so cagey about revealing what is pulled from where for AI output. That's a large part of the lawsuit, is forcing AI programmers to demonstrate the sources the AI is using.
At the end of the day, AI doesn't exist without unauthorized use of IPs. Therefore it is not commercially viable until it advances to actual AI and not rote copy-paste. Period. End of argument.
Beyond that, the obsession people have with forcing writers and artists to "accept" AI replacement smacks of bitterness and jealousy from an inability to do it themselves. It has nothing to do with "leveling the creative playing field". It's the modern-day equivalent of the purge of the educated classes by the USSR and China.
Okay then…
The entirety of the American Hollywood industry vs. a bunch of plagiarist tech bros.
Yeah, I'm going to go with the former.
The technology is coming, regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
I mean, the entire argument is, "We can program a machine to do your job better. Isn't that awesome?"
It's weird so many people seem offended artists find this insulting?
Better? To be determined. Differently? Yes.
And if you were told (and it could be backed up) that it actually doesn't work? That it's like cold fusion? That it's all a hoax and flim flam?
Well, it is. AI artistry doesn't work without just copying other artists. It doesn't create and will never actually work as a technology.
So, it's not coming because the con is already here and once you reveal it's a con....there's nothing.
And by differently, no, because it can only copy. Which is the big thing here.
It does not do what its proponents say it does. It never can either. Because AI is not sentient and cannot innovate and everything its based on is just mixing and matching stolen text.
It's like saying, "faster than light speed is inevitable. Because."
It's a con. A hoax. It's not any more real than Musk's Mars bases or hyperloop. Except you could theoretically do those.
Neither do we, whether we do it consciously or subconsciously, we are putting ideas we are exposed to in the brain blender then passing it off as our own.
To be fair, there IS progress being made on "cold fusion", but there's still a long, long way to go.
Yes but the brain is a wet organic quantum computer and the AI are based on microchips. Which is to say that one works and the other doesn't. The differences are so fundamentally vast and based on different assumptions that it's silly comparing them like a functional jet plane and a drawing of one.
The only people making the argument they're the same are the ones invested in believing AI writing should exist and they want it to exist because of reasons other than that it's a good idea, viable, or better.
This response demonstrates such a misunderstanding of the creative process that its almost laughable.
It's like watching a race car driver and saying "How hard can it be? You're just turning left for four hours."
To distill it into laymen's terms, I think the easiest thing is noting there's actually no point where the human element is genuinely eliminated.
You program an AI writer to write a Stephen king story and then it generates by scanning all of Stephen king's writing:
"Carrie goes to the Overlook Hotel and encounters Pennywise who is then gunned down by Roland."
Then you program someone to substitute original names for everything. And then you have someone read it and say, "This is good enough."
It's throwing a lot at a wall based on programming parameters and then having someone try to see if it qualifies as art.
If that is all you got out of it, then hey it is what it is. Very few of us come out of the womb ready to write War and Peace with no experiences. No exposure to other written works.
I mean isn't that just doing, "Humans are just organic machines so there's no difference between me and a toaster." It's a philosophical point but it doesn't really even pass cogito, ergo sum.
Here's something to one about AI:
If it has a choice, if it dies things on it's own, then I will accept it isn't simply copying other works programmed into it.
BUT: AI doesn't choose what it "reads". It doesn't have opinions on what is or is not entertaining. It can't decide what it wants to "write". All it can do is be forcefed input and scramble it into a different output based on exterior commands.
It's like if you put meat, carrots, potatoes, onions and broth in a pot, add in your own blend of seasonings, set the oven to cook it for a certain time at a certain temp, then take it out and say "The oven made a pot roast!"
If it has a choice, if it dies things on it's own, then I will accept it isn't simply copying other works programmed into it.
BUT: AI doesn't choose what it "reads". It doesn't have opinions on what is or is not entertaining. It can't decide what it wants to "write". All it can do is be forcefed input and scramble it into a different output based on exterior commands.
It's like if you put meat, carrots, potatoes, onions and broth in a pot, add in your own blend of seasonings, set the oven to cook it for a certain time at a certain temp, then take it out and say "The oven made a pot roast!"
Similar threads
