Which then makes me to circle back to the question of how does AI in any way impact your enjoyment of writing?
It's quite literally like saying "I don't like Ice Cream, therefore nobody should eat Ice Cream."
That's ridiculous. AI vs human-created art is nothing like whether or not someone likes a particular type of food.
I didn't enjoy the strike, no, although it seemed to me to only show how imperative the development of AI is to avoid future disruptions like that. With a strong AI infrastructure, the unions would be unable to hold media hostage and derail projects.
Ah, so you have an issue with TEH EBIL UNIONZ!!!
And to hell with the livelihoods of the scriptwriters, actors, and the hundreds and thousands of tech and support people whose jobs depend on those TV shows and movies getting created, right? Do you have any idea how many people it takes to pull off even a small-scale production? Back in 1981, I worked on a production of Jesus Christ Superstar. The number of people it took to do that show, adding up cast, regular backstage crew, tech crew, and production people were in the neighborhood of at least 100. Oh, and oops, I forgot about the orchestra. Those were real people, too. And that's a small-scale production.
Nice to know (no, not really nice) that you don't give a crap about putting so many people out of work. And yes, I'm aware that the tech people couldn't work during the strikes. But it wasn't because the script was spat out of a chat AI and the actors were digitized images of real people that were being manipulated on a computer instead of real people being filmed.
Nope, you just care that people tried to save their jobs instead of catering to your desire for 24/7 entertainment. Were you this annoyed as well when covid shut down so many shows and movie sets?
Do you feel so ardently about this in the case of say, fast food workers? Factory workers? Office workers?
I used to have a home-based typing business, with most of my clients being college and university students who needed someone to type their essays and term papers for them. When I started out, I used an electric typewriter. When I stopped (due to chronic illness and an accident), I was using an Amiga 500 and laser printer, and the computer wasn't connected to the internet.
The advance of technology made that job obsolete, for the most part, since most people can do it themselves now. And yeah, there were concerns about plagiarism around campus. Some people just didn't get that these things were wrong. One client phoned me and said, "I think I forgot to include a thesis statement. Could you write one for me?" I told her no. My job was to type what she had handed me (on handwritten looseleaf pages), and I'd make sure that it was as grammatically perfect as I could make it, ditto with the spelling. But I would not add new text because it wouldn't be
her work, it would be mine - uncredited, and what if I got it wrong? Just because I've typed a couple of philosophy papers and dozens of nursing papers, it doesn't mean I know anything about philosophy or nursing. It would be so many kinds of inappropriate for me to start adding content or shifting paragraphs around.
Fair enough I suppose, although I take that as something of a "concession accepted". How else do I take trying to find an answer to a question and met with "don't wanna answer"? I'm alittle sad because I was truly interested in the answer.
April is a bad month to try to engage me in arguments about writing. It's a NaNoWriMo month, and I had my own writing to do and didn't have time to engage with you. I've met and exceeded the goal I set, though, so I'm back.
You will grant that I have the choice of what I want to respond to, right? I don't respond to all points that everyone makes.
Should we allow AI generated stories here? Go ahead and ban them.
I'd like to see you try.
Interesting. I checked out your YT stuff, and found your version of "Inama Nushif" played on a harp, and presumably you're the one singing it?
Would you be okay with it if an AI version used yours to churn out some version that sounds enough like yours that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell, and the AI controller would get the credit, even though they "trained" their machine on the work you did in adapting that music to play on a harp?
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.
And maybe we'll be so numbed by the fake stuff and incapable of original thought that we'll just let it happen due to sheer apathy.
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.
Oh, please. Physically-challenged people, if they have any integrity, wouldn't have an AI bot spit out a fake story and then be all proud because they "created" it. If they had the initial idea, great. That's something that merits pride.
There have been times when it would have been nice to have a way to get the images and dialogue in my mind down on paper without having to go through the very physically painful process of trying to hold a pen and write on paper or type on a keyboard when every keystroke hurts so damn much. But I kept going anyway, because it's my story, my interpretation, and no AI gets to stick its grubby virtual fingers into it.
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.
Not labeling it as an AI product is like not labeling food packages to inform consumers about where it came from and if any of the ingredients are synthetic. Dunno about where you live, but where I live, there are laws governing what has to be on food labels.
If you write a story that comes from an AI-generated prompt, the honest thing to do would be to say so. The initial idea would be the AI's. But you would have done the bulk of the work.
To steal from an above post. You are a cobbler, better be ready for the shoe making machines coming down the road.
There seems to be quite an obsession about cobblers in this thread. They still exist, by the way, for specialty items people need for either medical reasons or if they're creating items to use in theatre or other dramatic venues. Or they're repairing older things. I've taken shoes to a local cobbler, and had a purse repaired there as well.
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.
Writing isn't like being a cobbler.
If AI is violating copyright, then so is every author that has ever read one of your books.
While authors who write in a certain genre or field should be familiar with other writing in that genre or field, they don't usually limit themselves to that and never read anything else.
Just because I've read a lot of Archie comics, am I plagiarizing them when I write a story based on F.M. Busby's Hulzein Saga novels? Nope, because the settings, characters, and situations are completely different.
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.
AI can be programmed to spit that out, as well, but it can't really relate it to anything
personal.
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.
It tried to mimic "feeling" something. But it's obvious that it doesn't.
Here's the difference. I won a reviewer's copy of a book from LibraryThing a couple of days ago. The author sent me a copy, and I'm going to read and review it and post my review on a couple of sites (LibraryThing and I'll have to see if it's possible to post on the site he requested (not sure if Canadians can post there). I haven't gotten very far in reading yet, but already I can tell I'm going to really enjoy it and you can be sure that my review is going to reflect that. Personal observations, personal feelings about the setting, the events... can't really say characters since it's autobiographical, but still. I suppose that some of the reviews posted on LibraryThing might have been spat out by an AI rather than the people making an honest effort.
That author is going to get my honest effort, and I think he's going to like that no AI could possibly come up with what I'll write about it.
I do find it funny that we're arguing copyright in a fan fiction forum. Where the authors lift all kinds of elements from other authors to tell stories...
All the fanfic authors here are absolutely aware that we're writing stories based on someone else's work, and we're honest enough to make that clear. The fanfiction sites require this in a disclaimer that you're playing in someone else's copyrighted sandbox.
An AI has no such sense of honesty or integrity, nor does its manipulator.
Do we have someone creating AI material in mass to make a quick buck? If that's the case it reminds me of cardboard bread, sponge steak and sex with a balloon. AI alone at this point is no match for human creativity.
Of course there are lots of videos on YT that are obviously AI/bot-created. Some of them are ridiculously easy to spot, as well. What annoys me is when somebody writes into the comments, praising the uploader for such a terrific video, when the fact is that there is often a lot of erroneous information, mispronounced words, and the narrator doesn't speak as a real human would speak.