AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Andvari]

So if AI can learn tasks in a new, and more efficient way than the current one, and scramble the output better (perhaps through a simulated, faulty memory), does it then become OK that it takes artists' and writers' jobs?

 

[GreyLord]

So if AI can learn tasks in a new, and more efficient way than the current one, and scramble the output better (perhaps through a simulated, faulty memory), does it then become OK that it takes artists' and writers' jobs?

I don't know. I would imagine it depends. Perhaps not "scramble" the output, as that still is too similar to what already is happening. Perhaps I would lean more towards...LEARN more like a Human learns. Instead of regurgitation, learn and adapt to develop it's OWN style.

Of course, if we get to that point, we may also be near the point of sentience...and at that point it may be all Hail our AI overlords, or a new form of slavery is born.

 

[CapnZapp]

So if AI can learn tasks in a new, and more efficient way than the current one, and scramble the output better (perhaps through a simulated, faulty memory), does it then become OK that it takes artists' and writers' jobs?

Machines like those in woolen mills only "steal" our jobs if we choose to phrase it like that. So let's not.

After all, computers and robots and AI should ideally steal ALL jobs so we don't have to work anymore just to make a living.

 

[lynnfredricks]

I'm talking about training on other authors' writing styles. Not plagiarizing.

That's where its going to get especially interesting if courts begin to consider the intent of the training on one hand, and separately on how it is used. We could see a huge explosion of 'trade dress' related lawsuits.

 

[GreyLord]

Of interest, after participating in this thread earlier today I stumbled across this article today.

OpenAI warns copyright crackdown could doom ChatGPT

There's a paywall though.

It looks like it may also be on Yahoo.

Yahoo Link, haven't checked to verify it's actually the same article though.

 

[TheSword]

Of interest, after participating in this thread earlier today I stumbled across this article today.

OpenAI warns copyright crackdown could doom ChatGPT

There's a paywall though.

It looks like it may also be on Yahoo.

Yahoo Link, haven't checked to verify it's actually the same article though.

I think expecting the courts to resolve this in a satisfying way is wishful thinking. As the article suggests, legislation will be needed to create certainty and a framework for the courts to interpret as this sector explodes.

 

[overgeeked]

Of interest, after participating in this thread earlier today I stumbled across this article today.

OpenAI warns copyright crackdown could doom ChatGPT

There's a paywall though.

It looks like it may also be on Yahoo.

Yahoo Link, haven't checked to verify it's actually the same article though.

Yeah, it’s the same article.

It’s hilariously telling on themselves. It’s a lot of repeated “everything is protected by copyright, if we can’t violate copyright we’re doomed.”

Such as:

“The maker of ChatGPT has warned that a ban on using news and books to train chatbots would doom the development of artificial intelligence.

OpenAI has told peers that it would be “impossible” to create services such as ChatGPT if it were prevented from relying on copyrighted works, as it seeks to influence potential laws on the topic.”

and:

“In evidence submitted to the House of Lords communications and digital committee, OpenAI said: “Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”

Even the people making the damned “AI” admit they violate copyright to train their programs.

 

[Argyle King]

Where do you feel the line is drawn between "using AI to help create art is bad" versus "I use a computer and digital tools to help create my art"?

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, it’s the same article.

It’s hilariously telling on themselves. It’s a lot of repeated “everything is protected by copyright, if we can’t violate copyright we’re doomed.”

Such as:

“The maker of ChatGPT has warned that a ban on using news and books to train chatbots would doom the development of artificial intelligence.

OpenAI has told peers that it would be “impossible” to create services such as ChatGPT if it were prevented from relying on copyrighted works, as it seeks to influence potential laws on the topic.”

and:

“In evidence submitted to the House of Lords communications and digital committee, OpenAI said: “Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”

Even the people making the damned “AI” admit they violate copyright to train their programs.

I believe we are yet to have a definitive answer as to whether training is a breach of copyright.

That’s what the various civil cases will resolve or not.

 

[overgeeked]

I believe we are yet to have a definitive answer as to whether training is a breach of copyright.

That’s what the various civil cases will resolve or not.

When a thief admits to being a thief you don't need to wait for the courts to decide. They literally admit to being thieves.