AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Ryujin]

Ideally, there are proactive protections for this among violations of (a great many) rights, but I don't think there's an easy solution. What would such a solution look like?

Restrictions on what material can be used (non-copyrighted, public use permitted, or contracted access) to train AI, with real penalties for not doing so?

 

[Umbran]

Restrictions on what material can be used (non-copyrighted, public use permitted, or contracted access) to train AI, with real penalties for not doing so?

Yep. Require the training sets be auditable.

 

[lynnfredricks]

Restrictions on what material can be used (non-copyrighted, public use permitted, or contracted access) to train AI, with real penalties for not doing so?

That's not proactive though, but still an after the fact penalty if you can (reasonably) prove it. New laws that recognize the specific issues would certainly help extend protections that currently exist. But even that's going to be tough going.

 

[CapnZapp]

However, AI has some deeply troubling applications and vulnerabilities and both federal law and government run systems struggle with technology that originated in the 90s. AI is an order of magnitude far, far beyond predecessor technologies we've used for various types of automation since its evaluation methodology grows and changes behind a curtain. That's not the same thing as Photoshop evaluating one or more pixels against a profile.

Correct.

This is a sea change. This is the printing press. This is electric lighting. This is the steam engine.

AI is huge, and if anyone thinks it appropriate and proportional to boil it down to "some people are going to be out of a job" then they're hopelessly missing the point.

Yes, there are legal issues revolving around the use of AI.

But framing it in terms of "they're stealing our jobs" is half glass empty-ing it to monstrous proportions. Will some people lose their jobs? Yes. But will this be GREAT for humanity as a whole. Abso-frikkin-lutely!

We are up for a momentous paradigm shift and we should all be excited to be alive!

 

[The Soloist]

Based on a study to be revealed at Davos, the managing director of the IMF (the other one) Kristalina Georgieva, just said that 60% of jobs will be affected in technologically advanced societies, 40% around the world.

That is a major societal change.

Source:

AI to hit 40% of jobs and worsen inequality, IMF says

Policymakers should address the "troubling trend", says the organisation's managing director Kristalina Georgieva.

www.bbc.com

 

[Ryujin]

That's not proactive though, but still an after the fact penalty if you can (reasonably) prove it. New laws that recognize the specific issues would certainly help extend protections that currently exist. But even that's going to be tough going.

All penalties are effectively "after the fact."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Correct.

This is a sea change. This is the printing press. This is electric lighting. This is the steam engine.

AI is huge, and if anyone thinks it appropriate and proportional to boil it down to "some people are going to be out of a job" then they're hopelessly missing the point.

Yes, there are legal issues revolving around the use of AI.

But framing it in terms of "they're stealing our jobs" is half glass empty-ing it to monstrous proportions. Will some people lose their jobs? Yes. But will this be GREAT for humanity as a whole. Abso-frikkin-lutely!

We are up for a momentous paradigm shift and we should all be excited to be alive!

I am not taking a position that AI is a net good or bad. But all progress isn't automatically good. Heck I am not even sure how I feel about the internet (and I get that I am using it now to type this message).

One thing to consider is big advances often produce massive upheavals. And that upheaval can be extremely unpleasant even if in the long span of things, we now consider it worth it. You can argue for example that each major advance in communication technology caused upheaval on a grand scale (the printing press and regions wars and political revolution for example). I don't think AI would have that kind of effect, unless there is something I am missing (though I think the internet has had an effect like that). Job loss isn't something to dismiss though. The number of people who stand to lose their jobs doesn't just cause those people to suffer and struggle to survive, it also creates enormous instability

Living through a paradigm shift is also not always pleasant because if you were born on the previous side, you aren't necessarily going to fit in on the other side.

Again not arguing against progress or paradigm shifts, just saying living through historically momentous periods isn't all it's cracked up to be. Here you have the twin specters of massive job loss and a completely new way of approaching not just art but work, communication, etc. Anyone born when a song was written by a human, is probably gong to have a hard time adjusting to a period when every kid can make a song that sounds like a number one hit using AI (even if they have no musical talent whatsoever). It will change what it means to be talented musically

 

[Ryujin]

Correct.

This is a sea change. This is the printing press. This is electric lighting. This is the steam engine.

AI is huge, and if anyone thinks it appropriate and proportional to boil it down to "some people are going to be out of a job" then they're hopelessly missing the point.

Yes, there are legal issues revolving around the use of AI.

But framing it in terms of "they're stealing our jobs" is half glass empty-ing it to monstrous proportions. Will some people lose their jobs? Yes. But will this be GREAT for humanity as a whole. Abso-frikkin-lutely!

We are up for a momentous paradigm shift and we should all be excited to be alive!

Indeed. It's more complex than that. Yes, some people are going to be out of jobs, but work product is also retroactively being stolen, in order to do that. Take a look at the poll in the other thread to see how many people would be OK with AI, if that were not the case.

 

[Umbran]

That's not proactive though, but still an after the fact penalty if you can (reasonably) prove it.

Broadly speaking, laws and regulations are reactive.

And anyone who has seen Minority Report understands the issues of "pre-crime".

 

[Ryujin]

Broadly speaking, laws and regulations are reactive.

And anyone who has seen Minority Report understands the issues of "pre-crime".

Indeed. Having regulations is about as "proactive" as we can be.