|
|
Post by Caulder Melhaire on Mar 18, 2023 11:29:36 GMT -6
... This all makes me so uncomfortable. First I pride myself on writing weird stories. I don't want that to be devalued in the long run if people assume my unconventional ideas came from AI and not from my own very individual experiences, psychology, and creativity. People come up with the stories they do for very human reasons, even when they seem arbitrary. And then, a bunch of algorithms trained to respond to what you say based on patterns isn't your 'friend.' ... Also from what I understand of the thread, I don't think anyone's saying technology is unquestionably good or that it's anywhere near a good thing that writing machines are replacing human writers. People are just disagreeing over whether writers should put up a stand or make the best of it. I just don't like seeing you guys get heated when you predominantly have the same values! That's also part of what irks me, is like... the stories we pride ourselves on writing can potentially get snagged by these programmers and used as training pieces. Every magazine I submit to has previews if not full-length samples of the writing they publish. I can think of at least two ways to quickly and invisibly rip that data right off the top of my head. In fact, I demonstrated one of them in my seminar capstone. So I feel you there, it sucks to think that a style born from your own experiences and individualism could possibly be easily replicated and made commonplace. Fascinating article, by the way! Some good points in there to make me revalue my argument, though I think I'm still falling on largely the same side. Also sums up some of the concerns I have regarding this topic, especially the frameworks part, given how prominent similar tools are becoming these days and how little heed we tend to pay to those impacts when it comes to automated technology. I just really hate that we have to consider taking a stand in the first place. Like if society were set up to keep people taken care of and make sure they get the basics, I probably wouldn't hate this so much. Because I'd say "who cares if a chatbot can do/simplify what we do, it's not people's source of income, their livelihood." We'd be doing it to share the human experience, not put food on the table. But alas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 12:21:11 GMT -6
... This all makes me so uncomfortable. First I pride myself on writing weird stories. I don't want that to be devalued in the long run if people assume my unconventional ideas came from AI and not from my own very individual experiences, psychology, and creativity. People come up with the stories they do for very human reasons, even when they seem arbitrary. And then, a bunch of algorithms trained to respond to what you say based on patterns isn't your 'friend.' ... Also from what I understand of the thread, I don't think anyone's saying technology is unquestionably good or that it's anywhere near a good thing that writing machines are replacing human writers. People are just disagreeing over whether writers should put up a stand or make the best of it. I just don't like seeing you guys get heated when you predominantly have the same values! That's also part of what irks me, is like... the stories we pride ourselves on writing can potentially get snagged by these programmers and used as training pieces. Every magazine I submit to has previews if not full-length samples of the writing they publish. I can think of at least two ways to quickly and invisibly rip that data right off the top of my head. In fact, I demonstrated one of them in my seminar capstone. So I feel you there, it sucks to think that a style born from your own experiences and individualism could possibly be easily replicated and made commonplace. Fascinating article, by the way! Some good points in there to make me revalue my argument, though I think I'm still falling on largely the same side. Also sums up some of the concerns I have regarding this topic, especially the frameworks part, given how prominent similar tools are becoming these days and how little heed we tend to pay to those impacts when it comes to automated technology. I just really hate that we have to consider taking a stand in the first place. Like if society were set up to keep people taken care of and make sure they get the basics, I probably wouldn't hate this so much. Because I'd say "who cares if a chatbot can do/simplify what we do, it's not people's source of income, their livelihood." We'd be doing it to share the human experience, not put food on the table. But alas. Our society isn’t set up for automation. And that’s what this is. But you can’t just put the genie back in the bottle. It’s already out there. People are already using it. Society is going to have to change. “Working for money” isn’t going to cut it anymore, because the jobs will get fewer and farther between. I don’t know if that means Universal Basic Income or what, but something is going to have to change. |
|
|
|
Post by Caulder Melhaire on Mar 18, 2023 13:08:14 GMT -6
In sincerely the nicest way...obviously? I feel like that's what I've been saying this whole time, and several others? We're not just using ethics as a catch-all here, but trying to point out how we're not set up to handle the implications of this stuff rushing its way into market after market, enticing group after gullible group, and causing severe difficulties for the people it's going to replace, and make obsolete, and generate crappy articles about? And how looking at the historical decisions of those in power, It's highly likely that if this train keeps up without any opposition we're gonna sculpt that change into a statue that's shitting on the people we already treat like garbage anyway instead of taking care of them so their loss isn't critical? I'm not just upset because "boohoo, chatbot outwrite me," but because this trend can cause severe issues down the line for waaaaay more people than just our little community.
We know the genie is out of the bottle, we've heard it 500 times already. I'm not disputing that. But I don't believe that the beneficial change we need is going to happen by us just making the best of it because it's inevitable and we can't box it back up. I can guarantee that companies are gonna find it vastly easier and cheaper to replace as many positions as possible with bots and AI and give even less of a shit about us than they already do. It's happening at my job right now. And it's gonna be even less of a moral weight on their brains if we just shut up and let them get away with it in silence. UBI would be fantastic, not just for this issue, but for a lot of people who desperately need it. I do/don't know why it's not even a thing already in this country for as much as we pride ourselves on. I don't see that ever being a plausible option if we don't raise hell at every turn which threatens it. If we don't check this now, if we don't tweak those frameworks to mitigate as much as we can, we'll lose so much ground.
Like I said, IF we had those safety nets in place, I wouldn't be as torn up and emotional about this as I am. But we don't. And I am. And I will be for quite some time. So I'm not gonna pick a fight about this in here anymore, not gonna derail the experiments. I'm gonna go take that energy and put it towards some useful campaigning for those basic needs to become reality. Yell at a senator who probably doesn't even understand how the internet works. Something. Anything but just getting steamrolled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 13:56:17 GMT -6
In sincerely the nicest way...obviously? I feel like that's what I've been saying this whole time, and several others? We're not just using ethics as a catch-all here, but trying to point out how we're not set up to handle the implications of this stuff rushing its way into market after market, enticing group after gullible group, and causing severe difficulties for the people it's going to replace, and make obsolete, and generate crappy articles about? And how looking at the historical decisions of those in power, It's highly likely that if this train keeps up without any opposition we're gonna sculpt that change into a statue that's shitting on the people we already treat like garbage anyway instead of taking care of them so their loss isn't critical? I'm not just upset because "boohoo, chatbot outwrite me," but because this trend can cause severe issues down the line for waaaaay more people than just our little community. We know the genie is out of the bottle, we've heard it 500 times already. I'm not disputing that. But I don't believe that the beneficial change we need is going to happen by us just making the best of it because it's inevitable and we can't box it back up. I can guarantee that companies are gonna find it vastly easier and cheaper to replace as many positions as possible with bots and AI and give even less of a shit about us than they already do. It's happening at my job right now. And it's gonna be even less of a moral weight on their brains if we just shut up and let them get away with it in silence. UBI would be fantastic, not just for this issue, but for a lot of people who desperately need it. I do/don't know why it's not even a thing already in this country for as much as we pride ourselves on. I don't see that ever being a plausible option if we don't raise hell at every turn which threatens it. If we don't check this now, if we don't tweak those frameworks to mitigate as much as we can, we'll lose so much ground. Like I said, IF we had those safety nets in place, I wouldn't be as torn up and emotional about this as I am. But we don't. And I am. And I will be for quite some time. So I'm not gonna pick a fight about this in here anymore, not gonna derail the experiments. I'm gonna go take that energy and put it towards some useful campaigning for those basic needs to become reality. Yell at a senator who probably doesn't even understand how the internet works. Something. Anything but just getting steamrolled. I’m not entirely sure where the vitriol is coming from considering I was agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Mar 18, 2023 14:20:12 GMT -6
Well this topic has took a rather unfortunate turn. My original intention regardin it was to provide a discussion. I had no idea I'd end up creating what could end up turning this discussion into a toxic one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 11:58:54 GMT -6
First off, I want to appologize if I've been beligerent in my communication here. It isn't my intent. I've spent a long time staying away from forums or message boards because I get worked up too easily. So I appologize if I got under anyone's skin. I'm trying to be better.
Secondly, I have had somewhat of a change of heart in the light of the past week's advnces in AI.
I don't think we're ready for this. I don't think it's a good thing. I saw someone teach a voice generator to speak with Steve Job's voice, and then link that to ChatGPT, and start asking it questions about Covid, which was a thing AFTER Steve Jobs died, and it would reply with Monologues in Steve Job's voice, using his inflection style, explaining about Covid and how it affected the economy, etc. It sounded just like an Apple presentation.
Digital Media is going to be no longer admissible in court. Images, Video and Audio recordings can now be faked with relative ease. Misinformation is going to go through the roof in the coming months. People will have video and audio evidence of things that never happened. And how do you tell the difference? What is going to happen come Election time?
When this was just a text based virtual assistant, I was mostly fine with it. Yeah, it would disrupt some White Collar jobs, and potentially some art jobs, though lets be honest the quality of AI fiction is extremely lacking, but that happens with the advent of new technology. Some jobs become obsolete but society benefits as a whole.
But what's been released this last week...this is more than just disruptive. A group of students at a major university (can't remember which one) was able to recreate a predictive AI that was just as good as GPT 3.5 on just $600. With the advent of GPT 4, the program went from failing the Bar exam to passing it with flying colors. There are too many people out there who just want to watch the world burn for this to be a good thing. And there's no regulation for it.
I am a pretty staunch captialist, and I do not like government oversight, but in this case, I don't see that we have a choice. AI's need to be wrung in now, or they will be abused by people who just don't care. And I have no idea what kind of regulations we could put in place that would hold it off. It's too accessible and it's too USEFUL.
I'll be entirely honest, I wasn't all that scared before, but now? We aren't ready for what's coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Mar 24, 2023 20:25:02 GMT -6
I have heard that companies like amazon is cracking down on the amount of published content produced by Chat GPT and is installing tools that detect if a work of fiction is written by an actual person or an AI. Personally, I support this. Having used Chat GPT I'd strongly suggest to not use it as a means to publish a novel. Because the bulk of its writing is in low quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAVENEYE on Mar 26, 2023 17:57:07 GMT -6
I have heard that companies like amazon is cracking down on the amount of published content produced by Chat GPT and is installing tools that detect if a work of fiction is written by an actual person or an AI. Personally, I support this. Having used Chat GPT I'd strongly suggest to not use it as a means to publish a novel. Because the bulk of its writing is in low quality. ^^^ This. 100% ^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by RAVENEYE on Mar 27, 2023 10:37:58 GMT -6
( @tglassy Valhalla Erikson Caulder Melhaire Mazulla havekrillwhaletravel @everyone else who has been toying around with these.)
Ah ha! Here we go. The US Copyright Office is working on measures to outline under what circumstances creatives are entitled to copyright registrations if they use an AI to generate content, written, visual, etc.
The details are discussed in this Ars Technica article: arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/us-issues-guidance-on-copyrighting-ai-assisted-artwork/
Goes for MidJourney art for covers and ChatGPT stories. Looks like authors who use even partial generated content will have to learn how to describe which parts of their work was written by the AI in order to register it for copyright. Artwork that has been manipulated by Photoshop may be a little more easily copyrighted, sounds like. And we must declare that the artwork/story was generated.
So, yay. It's a bit of a relief, I think, that the issue is being taken seriously and addressed -- and being treated like its own independent artform.
It's weird, the idea of actually having to register a story through these official channels. We've gotten so used to not having to do so because of computer timestamps, etc. that provide evidence of a work being original to one person. But using AI generated content will apparently change that. Get ready to fill out some forms, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2023 14:43:55 GMT -6
It's a much needed restriction. Personally, and I might have mentioned this but I'm too lazy to go back and look, I think a good compromise would be that everything that is AI generated should be public domain, at least where creative arts are concerned. It sounds like that's the direction they're going if you have to describe what is and isn't AI generated.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAVENEYE on Mar 27, 2023 16:02:01 GMT -6
It's a much needed restriction. Personally, and I might have mentioned this but I'm too lazy to go back and look, I think a good compromise would be that everything that is AI generated should be public domain, at least where creative arts are concerned. It sounds like that's the direction they're going if you have to describe what is and isn't AI generated. Yes, it does indeed sound like that. Either public domain or ... maybe owned by the AI program's creators? It doesn't mention that aspect, though, so it'll be interesting to see what, if any, rights are given to the AI developers (or at least the company who owns the AI.).  But only public domain accounts for the nonexclusivity of a work. Someone else COULD use the book cover I had the AI generate, in other words, if they get it from MidJourney's image gallery. Which would royally suck. It'll be interesting to see if AI sites amend their policy in favor of individual artists. One of those Terms & Agreements things we have to agree to. "I agree to not use the artwork generated by another subscriber unless they give permission in writing." That would be nice. |
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Mar 27, 2023 19:02:13 GMT -6
It's a much needed restriction. Personally, and I might have mentioned this but I'm too lazy to go back and look, I think a good compromise would be that everything that is AI generated should be public domain, at least where creative arts are concerned. It sounds like that's the direction they're going if you have to describe what is and isn't AI generated. Having tinkered with public domain artwork myself you'd be surprised at how well AI can produce the artwork. My only gripe about AI art is its incapableness of having a character hold a weapon correctly. Which can be really frustrating when you want to do a concept for a fantasy novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Mar 27, 2023 19:04:10 GMT -6
It's a much needed restriction. Personally, and I might have mentioned this but I'm too lazy to go back and look, I think a good compromise would be that everything that is AI generated should be public domain, at least where creative arts are concerned. It sounds like that's the direction they're going if you have to describe what is and isn't AI generated. Yes, it does indeed sound like that. Either public domain or ... maybe owned by the AI program's creators? It doesn't mention that aspect, though, so it'll be interesting to see what, if any, rights are given to the AI developers (or at least the company who owns the AI.). But only public domain accounts for the nonexclusivity of a work. Someone else COULD use the book cover I had the AI generate, in other words, if they get it from MidJourney's image gallery. Which would royally suck. It'll be interesting to see if AI sites amend their policy in favor of individual artists. One of those Terms & Agreements things we have to agree to. "I agree to not use the artwork generated by another subscriber unless they give permission in writing." That would be nice. That is the problem I see. Especially in sites like MidJourney as there isn't a setting where you can have the option to hide your art so that it won't be stolen by someone else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 19:08:43 GMT -6
Personally, I see little difference between using a text AI to write your book for you and using Midjourney to make your cover for you. In both cases, you're using a program to replace the work of a person, be it yourself or someone you would have paid. The entire field of Graphic Design will be gone soon because of AI generated art. If we're going to fight for AI generated text to be regulated, then we need to do the same for AI generated Art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Mar 28, 2023 22:58:15 GMT -6
Art will always exist. It has been for centuries, no matter how much it has changed there will always be a variety of artist that will find a way to promote their work. And that will be the last thing I'm going to say regarding this subject because it has been on a rinse and repeat cycle already.
|
|
You add them to your profile as you do them around the forum.
