Should we allow for AI-generated fiction writing?

[Timewalker]

For a writer, you seem to have an extremely narrow focus and take things incredibly literal.

Twas an analogy.

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I wouldn't go that far. Unions can be good or bad, but I think any party having too much power is bad. Not all unions are created equal.

People who are in a union (generic union) can be good or bad. But unions are what helped people in some types of jobs get decent wages, holidays, and whatever other benefits they were able to negotiate.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but honestly - I'm just flabbergasted. In many cases, unions started over issues of safety, not money, or at least they were considered equally important. So treating them like the villain in the writers'/actors' strike is unwarranted.

Times change, automation happens. This has been the argument since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Uh-huh. Conceded. The printing press put most of the scribes out of business, and made books cheaper, more widely available, and raised literacy rates worldwide.

That said, calligraphy is still a skill that anyone can learn if they have a functioning writing hand and their vision and know how to print. It's often taught in community recreation classes, or as a basic skill in the Society for Creative Anachronism.

Do you own any cheap products produced in China? To hell with the livelihoods of factory workers in other nations, right? Or do you only care about creative types, who are "better" than others?

Once upon a time, a lot more things were made in Canada than they are now, and I could actually buy quite a bit of my stuff from Canadian companies that made them.

Nowadays, though, finding Canadian-made goods other than some of the basics like food is getting harder. And even food is iffy. If I buy fruit, it's likelier to come from California or Florida, rather than BC, which is one province west of me.

I used to be able to go into Canadian-owned stores and buy Canadian-made goods. Well, the factories shut down and even most of the stores are gone. Sorry if that spoils your "gotcha", but this isn't something I can fix.

You seem oddly fixated on the idea that creative people are somehow the villain because we don't like an AI taking credit for our efforts.

As I recall there were efforts made to continue productions during covid while taking necessary precautions. I'd have more sympathy if there was something similar in this case.

What part of the definition of "strike" isn't clear?

Feels kind of ridiculous elitist and condescending to suggest writers are somehow better or more important than cobblers. I get that art is important and I value it but... if an AI can produce something good? It doesn't actually matter to me who made it or how it was made. And to be completely honest... most popular media is absolute garbage right now... so i'm kind of on the side of AI just maybe get some stuff that doesn't suck.

Where did I say that writers are better than cobblers? A good cobbler can fix my shoes or my purse or a plethora of other things that can break, which is why I still have one of my pairs of shoes and my purse. There's nobody else who would have bothered to fix them. They'd have told me to throw them away and buy a new one.

It's... I don't even know an appropriate word for your idea that AI can produce any kind of popular culture that's better than what we have from humans. Yes, much of it is garbage, and that's why I don't watch much TV anymore and regret having to give up the science channel I enjoyed watching. Considering that the stuff that's on now that you consider garbage is what would be used to train an AI, how could it help but produce more of the same? It's like feeding an AI a diet of Hallmark Christmas movies and expecting it to turn out quality.

 

[evilchumlee]

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I disagree, "but that's just like, your opinion, man" The Dude - "The Big Lebowski"

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but honestly - I'm just flabbergasted. In many cases, unions started over issues of safety, not money, or at least they were considered equally important. So treating them like the villain in the writers'/actors' strike is unwarranted.

I don't like the phrasing of "villain". Partially disagreeing with a person/group is not villainizing.

Uh-huh. Conceded. The printing press put most of the scribes out of business, and made books cheaper, more widely available, and raised literacy rates worldwide.

It's almost as if advancing technology, while difficult for people as it replaces certain parts of the workforce, often has benefits in the long run...

Weird.

I used to be able to go into Canadian-owned stores and buy Canadian-made goods. Well, the factories shut down and even most of the stores are gone. Sorry if that spoils your "gotcha", but this isn't something I can fix.

It spoiled nothing. If anything, it reaffirmed my point.

You seem oddly fixated on the idea that creative people are somehow the villain because we don't like an AI taking credit for our efforts.

You seem oddly fixated on creating a scenario where someone is a villain.

I 100% agree that AI should not take credit for your efforts. I've maintained this entire time that's exactly why we have copyright laws. We haven't actually disagreed on that at any point.

I don't know where all this villain speak comes from, but the base of the disagreement is mostly on when copyright kicks in. I argue that it only matters from the finished product, not the process or tool. Others think a different way.

It's... I don't even know an appropriate word for your idea that AI can produce any kind of popular culture that's better than what we have from humans. Yes, much of it is garbage, and that's why I don't watch much TV anymore and regret having to give up the science channel I enjoyed watching. Considering that the stuff that's on now that you consider garbage is what would be used to train an AI, how could it help but produce more of the same? It's like feeding an AI a diet of Hallmark Christmas movies and expecting it to turn out quality.

I don't actually think it can, at least not now. That's been something of my argument... you shouldn't need to worry all that much about AI. Let the market sort it out.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I don't actually think it can, at least not now. That's been something of my argument... you shouldn't need to worry all that much about AI. Let the market sort it out.

My argument has always been you can use all the AI you want as long as you do it legally, add properly compensate the people whose copyrighted works you're using.
I'm not intimidated by a machine that can churn out reconstituted shit at a rapid pace.

 

[dmac]

I think we are actually discussing something called "Disruptive Innovation" of which A.I generated content is just a form of.
Thanks to Disruptive Innovation of ACH "Automated Clearing House" people could work, pay bills and never touch a paper dollar for years. The result, people loose the sense of the value of their own labor as currency becomes simply a binary equation.
We don't need physical banks so bank employees have to look for different employment. The future of opting for the convenience money system could result in the lack of options of storage outlets of your money (Retail Banking outlets).
Perhaps gene Roddenberry's vision of a cashless society?
Those that understand A.I early on will profit from it, in turn promote it but in the end only trap the population into it as the universe becomes smaller, so we enter another event horizon.

 

[evilchumlee]

My argument has always been you can use all the AI you want as long as you do it legally, add properly compensate the people whose copyrighted works you're using.
I'm not intimidated by a machine that can churn out reconstituted shit at a rapid pace.

I think that's also the core of the disagreement though, mostly at where the definition of using copyrighted works begins and ends. That's the real questions.

It's becoming a broken record so I think this will be the last time but... my argument is that the copyright only applies to the end product, EXACTLY as it would be if a human violated a copyright. There is functionally no difference between a human read works and then producing something in violation of copyright or an AI being trained on works and producing something in violation of copyright.

I believe that trying to suggest that copyright holders should be compensated because an AI read their work is absolutely ridiculous. If you won't apply the standard to a human, it shouldn't apply to an AI.

This really should be a simple question to answer. The creator, the process, the tools, etc. are all irrelevant. Copyright should only view the final product, and determine if that product has violated copyrights. For the life me, I just can't fathom why anyone would feel they should be paid because an AI read their work. It's just ridiculous.

EDIT -

^ And that is my real issue here. I think it's hard to have any sort of actual discussion because there are some who refuse any sort of compromise and have outrageous zealot positions on it. It helps no one.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

There is functionally no difference between a human read works and then producing something in violation of copyright

True, but very much missing the point.

or an AI being trained on works and producing something in violation of copyright.

However, the current state of AI can only produce infringing works, because it can only produce material using the content that it is trained on (which is a copyright violation), whereas a human writer can take inspiration and produce a new work with similar themes and setting but different characters and stories (which is not a copyright infringement).

 

[dmac]

So I asked my AI, "Which Star Trek Fan Studio produced the most productions? It answered "Axanar", listing several pages of articles where it was mentioned.
For now I don't think we have a lot to worry about.

 

[DonIago]

True, but very much missing the point.



However, the current state of AI can only produce infringing works, because it can only produce material using the content that it is trained on (which is a copyright violation), whereas a human writer can take inspiration and produce a new work with similar themes and setting but different characters and stories (which is not a copyright infringement).

I got into a few 'discussions' on social media after sharing that visual aid from earlier in this thread around, and one of my talking points now is that AI in its current state can't produce media that's greater than the sum of its parts...it's essentially doing a (sometimes) elaborate copy-paste...while humanity can produce works from inspiration that do exceed the sum of their parts.

 

[Dryson]

But, if you allow AI to write a story, isn't AI actually trying to write you as the story AI wants in order to keep AI relevant and coming back to AI to write the story instead of writing the story yourself?
Does AI become more aware the more algorithms of imagination AI writes?

 

[evilchumlee]

However, the current state of AI can only produce infringing works, because it can only produce material using the content that it is trained on (which is a copyright violation), whereas a human writer can take inspiration and produce a new work with similar themes and setting but different characters and stories (which is not a copyright infringement).

Current AI has the ability to restate, rephrase, and repackage content it was trained on. It may not be able to create a completely original thought but it's end product can absolutely be different enough as to not plagiarize. Let's be completely real... most humans aren't really capable of creating a completely original thought either.

An AI could 100% create something similar to "The Orville", which thus far as much as I know has not been contested as violating copyrights. It will produce something similar to the content it was trained on, and perhaps there is absolutely no human intervention, there may be bits that directly copy copyrighted material.

That's exactly what I see AI as a tool. I just asked one to make me a Star Trek-style story that does not infringe on copyright. It did pretty well, although the last line was "With each jump to warp speed, the Horizon pushes the boundaries of known space, venturing where no one has gone before." If I just left at it at that... yeah that's probably in violation of copyright. That's where my meat brain can intervene, and change things around to not be so.

Which, at the end of the day, brings me right back to... the process is irrelevant. Only the end product matters.

EDIT

That brings me to maybe a more philosophical side to the argument. Hear me out on this incredibly realistic scenario.

So I am a human. I have the ability to create.
I would like to write a story. I decide to use AI to help me write that story.
It produces something. I change things. I add things.
I publish this story. I make money.

Who gets compensated for this? Do I get compensated for it, as I guided, modified and added original parts? Do the people whose works trained the AI get compensated? If so, how could we possibly determine to what percentage one authors work was utilized over another? When an AI produces something, does it need to cite line by line the specific work by which it produced its "thought" in order to create a percentage catalogue of how the profits from the work are distributed?

If a line in my story read "Joe opened the black door to go outside", but a work that the AI was trained on read, "The black door, which led to outside, was opened by Joe.", is that a copyright violation that I need to now pay the original author like, 0.05% for the usage of one modified sentence. What if the AI spat out the exact sentence, but MY human brain changed the word order?

 

[BillJ]

I simply look at it through a lens of collaboration. Was J.M. DeMatteis any less of a writer on Justice League International comics because he simply filled in the words to Keith Giffen's plot and panel breakdowns?

 

[dmac]

Current AI has the ability to restate, rephrase, and repackage content it was trained on. It may not be able to create a completely original thought but it's end product can absolutely be different enough as to not plagiarize. Let's be completely real... most humans aren't really capable of creating a completely original thought either.

An AI could 100% create something similar to "The Orville", which thus far as much as I know has not been contested as violating copyrights. It will produce something similar to the content it was trained on, and perhaps there is absolutely no human intervention, there may be bits that directly copy copyrighted material.

That's exactly what I see AI as a tool. I just asked one to make me a Star Trek-style story that does not infringe on copyright. It did pretty well, although the last line was "With each jump to warp speed, the Horizon pushes the boundaries of known space, venturing where no one has gone before." If I just left at it at that... yeah that's probably in violation of copyright. That's where my meat brain can intervene, and change things around to not be so.

Which, at the end of the day, brings me right back to... the process is irrelevant. Only the end product matters.

That's along the lines I've considered.
I started writing at 17, away from home in a small apartment living a rather bare bone existence. A note book and pencil was about the only entertainment I could afford. Forty years latter I shared some of those space adventure stories with a fan film studio and they produced them after rewrites to fit the Trek universe. Met a lot of awesome people along the way.
I wasn't a born writer, my first love was an Industrial engineer and I had a good 44 year career.
Writing was a distraction, an excuse to strap on a backpack, head into the mountains and just get away from all the noise for a couple of weeks.
If we wanted to get really strict on infringement, Star Trek is packed full of elements created by other story writers and published scientific theories.
I've drifted away from the Star Trek adventures and consider this whole A.I as a writing tool if it could aid in story structure or formatting. My long range concern is when A.I becomes so entrenched that it might push favorable social narratives and squash unacceptable story lines such as "Killing Cricket"

 

[Cr0sis21]

I think that's also the core of the disagreement though, mostly at where the definition of using copyrighted works begins and ends. That's the real questions.

It's becoming a broken record so I think this will be the last time but... my argument is that the copyright only applies to the end product, EXACTLY as it would be if a human violated a copyright. There is functionally no difference between a human read works and then producing something in violation of copyright or an AI being trained on works and producing something in violation of copyright.

You're correct, these are issues that are still being settled. I am very much on the side of "No fucking way", and I'm fairly confident that is the side which will win out in court, but we shall see.
In the mean time, legislation is already bent introduced to institute those guidelines. That's a long way from it becoming law, but the impetus is there. This is a very informative article about the subject:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ai-copyright-bill-thrills-artists-developers-call-it-unworkable

And it really highlights one of my biggest issues: the main reason AI creators seem to not want to consider the rights of the artists is because it would make things harder and less profitable for them. They don't care if it's legal, they don't care if it's ethical, they just care about their bottom line and they don't mind stepping on me and others like me to get there. This is reflected in the "Just try to stop us" mentality so many of it's supporters adopt as well.
I'm unwilling to give an inch to anyone who treats me like that.

 

[evilchumlee]

In the mean time, legislation is already bent introduced to institute those guidelines. That's a long way from it becoming law, but the impetus is there. This is a very informative article about the subject:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ai-copyright-bill-thrills-artists-developers-call-it-unworkable

There are some interesting perspectives there. I appreciate that.

I can see different arguments here. I have to say I think the AI developers make a much more compelling argument to me. I'm already of the mind that what the AI is trained on is absolutely irrelevant in regards to what it produces, and I think the developers do make a fairly compelling case that it may well not even be possible to do what is being requested.

I also see the argument of content creators and I absolutely do sympathize with them as well. I just feel that existing copyright law is sufficient and there really does not need to be any new legislation in the specific context of what that article is talking about. There *ARE* absolutely AI issues that need further regulation, but what they are being trained on absolutely is not one of them. The hyper focus on that aspect is bogging down discussion on the real issues that need to be addressed with AI.

And it really highlights one of my biggest issues: the main reason AI creators seem to not want to consider the rights of the artists is because it would make things harder and less profitable for them. They don't care if it's legal, they don't care if it's ethical, they just care about their bottom line and they don't mind stepping on me and others like me to get there. This is reflected in the "Just try to stop us" mentality so many of it's supporters adopt as well.

I mean, two things here. Here's a retort rephrease, "the main reason content creators seem to not AI technology to progress is because it would make things harder and less profitable for them."

But the real answer here is that people are all different and have different opinions. Ethics aren't quite as universal as some think. I don't find anything even slightly unethical about training an AI with whatever works are available. Not the slightest bit, unless me reading your works is also unethical. Some developers may only care about the bottom line and don't care. Some may have other motivations. Some creators may only care about money. Some care about other things. People are all different.

I find both extremes of the mentalities to be bad. "Try and stop us" is bad, sure, but so is the anti-AI extremism. In the end though, as something of more pragmatic thinker, the "try and stop us" crowd have a better point... no matter what laws are passed, there really is no way to stop AI. It's here. It's not going anywhere, and there is absolutely nothing than anyone can do about it. It's a fact. It is what it is. So... rather than dying on a hill of fighting the inevitable, it's more productive for everyone involved to find better ways to work with it.

 

[Cr0sis21]

There are some interesting perspectives there. I appreciate that.

I can see different arguments here. I have to say I think the AI developers make a much more compelling argument to me. I'm already of the mind that what the AI is trained on is absolutely irrelevant in regards to what it produces, and I think the developers do make a fairly compelling case that it may well not even be possible to do what is being requested.

I also see the argument of content creators and I absolutely do sympathize with them as well. I just feel that existing copyright law is sufficient and there really does not need to be any new legislation in the specific context of what that article is talking about. There *ARE* absolutely AI issues that need further regulation, but what they are being trained on absolutely is not one of them. The hyper focus on that aspect is bogging down discussion on the real issues that need to be addressed with AI.



I mean, two things here. Here's a retort rephrease, "the main reason content creators seem to not AI technology to progress is because it would make things harder and less profitable for them."

But the real answer here is that people are all different and have different opinions. Ethics aren't quite as universal as some think. I don't find anything even slightly unethical about training an AI with whatever works are available. Not the slightest bit, unless me reading your works is also unethical. Some developers may only care about the bottom line and don't care. Some may have other motivations. Some creators may only care about money. Some care about other things. People are all different.

I find both extremes of the mentalities to be bad. "Try and stop us" is bad, sure, but so is the anti-AI extremism. In the end though, as something of more pragmatic thinker, the "try and stop us" crowd have a better point... no matter what laws are passed, there really is no way to stop AI. It's here. It's not going anywhere, and there is absolutely nothing than anyone can do about it. It's a fact. It is what it is. So... rather than dying on a hill of fighting the inevitable, it's more productive for everyone involved to find better ways to work with it.

I'd cool off about AI using copyrighted material if I got compensation whenever it was used. Akin, perhaps, to how musicians are paid by streaming services.

 

[Bynar0110]

I'd cool off about AI using copyrighted material if I got compensation whenever it was used. Akin, perhaps, to how musicians are paid by streaming services.

What kind of stuff do you write?

 

[evilchumlee]

I'd cool off about AI using copyrighted material if I got compensation whenever it was used. Akin, perhaps, to how musicians are paid by streaming services.

Copyright law exists. If you discover your copyrighted material being used, there is a process.

EDIT -

And... just as an addendum and critical to the point, if you can't prove your copyright material is being used, it's not being used, which is why only the end product matters.

Words fed into a machine do not violate any copyrights and you have literally no possibly way to prove that your words were used in any particular AI training nor absolutely do you have no possible to way to prove those words were used in an end product... and quite frankly, under many circumstances, single words are not copyrighted.

This sounds alot like "I want money because maybe, possibly, an AI was trained on words I wrote without any actual evidence to support this fact". And even if you DID have proof of it, I would support the AI developers needing to make a small one time royalty payment upon the loading the work into the AI. Enjoy your 34 cents.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Copyright law exists. If you discover your copyrighted material being used, there is a process.

That is exactly what AI companies are trying to avoid, though.

 

[evilchumlee]

That is exactly what AI companies are trying to avoid, though.

AI companies are absolutely irrelevant to it. AI is absolutely irrelevant to it. Like, literally irrelevant.

Can you provide evidence that a work violates a copyright you hold? Yes... seek legal action.

No? Then, it's not a copyright violation.

AI companies have precisely zero to do with that. Literally zero point zero.

 

[Cr0sis21]

What kind of stuff do you write?

https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Bloo...rds=Blood+in+the+holler&qid=1714504859&sr=8-1