I think this AI poem sucksAs you can see, with the bad (very general and not leading to specific forms/themes) prompts I gave it ^^
and this is nothing more than trash
Obnoxious tech bros fleece the bucks
while VC pinheads throw their cash
I think this AI poem sucksAs you can see, with the bad (very general and not leading to specific forms/themes) prompts I gave it ^^
I do not see it. As said above, AI is a tool. The best output is likely to be from the talented and skillful who use the best tools for them. For some that is likely to be AI.AI is for the untalented and the unskilled.
You know how in some stories the protagonist in a way is not a character but the world itself, which sets a trap or presents other danger? (eg a famous one on the web is Enigma of Amigara Fault). Imagine being in a world with traps but lacking awareness not only of the traps existing, but the very notion of trap. And then there are the bad limitations of ai.I do not see it. As said above, AI is a tool. The best output is likely to be from the talented and skillful who use the best tools for them. For some that is likely to be AI.
Was there? I cannot really remember a kerfuffle, but that does not mean much.There was quite a lot of kerfuffle when it first became possible to draw pictures on your computer, wasn't there?
In general, yes, but when it comes to writing books, AI replacing humans requires new skills. The skill will be in writing the best prompts not stories, characters or coherent text. Creative "programmers" will get the best results. The question remains whether or not those with the "talent of Stephen King" can coax their brains to write good enough prompts to replace the hard work of writing from scratch.I do not see it. As said above, AI is a tool. The best output is likely to be from the talented and skillful who use the best tools for them. For some that is likely to be AI.
I disagree. In my opinion, the AI is a tool, not an author. So if someone used an AI to write a book, I would still consider them the author.
Ripping plagiarism-relevant chunks out of other peoples work is a problem, of course. But if it can be ensured that this does not happen, I do not see a problem in principle. If someone manages to get an AI to produce a magnificent story, I am all for it.
The real problem is that AI enables creating a heap of low-quality work that no-one really wants. The question is, how to we make efficient quality control (for all books, not just AI written books)?
Yes, if you are a decent writer. But there are certainly people who cannot write as well as an AI.
Unless one uses very refined prompts, and also provides cgpt with an elaborate idea, it is next to impossible to get it to produce anything other than utter garbage.
As you can see, with the bad (very general and not leading to specific forms/themes) prompts I gave it ^^
View attachment 670165
Or, you know, maybe the typo killed it. Typos aren't as anodyne as one might think.
If anyone's wondering, yes, I have gotten cgpt to write a half-decent story. But it took time and thought on my part, and the story still isn't good.
If I ever try again, I'd first create a table of analogies and feed those to the program, before asking it to use masks for the analogies and their prompted relations and depth of relations. That might work. But obviously it would work for the same reason you can program a sprite to move differently if you wish to assign it different speed stats.
There is spectrum, but the important point about plagiarism is the dishonesty between the author and the reader. If this is presented as an authoritative treatise by someone who has earned a doctorate in something, but is actually just the result of a statistical algorithm for "what are the most likely words to make a book about the Maui fire" then there is some dishonesty going on, and so "a bit like plagiarism".
What is a "plagiarism-relevant chunk"? We probably will over the next year or two know a lot more about what makes up enough to be a count as a derivative work, and what is fair use in this area, but unless microsoft completely losses with the Github Copilot case then I think the creative output is definitely not going to be a copyright breach of its source. Unless a plagiarism-relevant chunk is the same as that, in which case is it different from copyright breach, then that does not help us anyway.
As far as the general question of how much we should allow AI to intrude into the market for creative work, I think it is likely to be unstoppable and we should benefit in aggregate, but I definitely see problems and I expect there will be many more that I do not see.
The way it has always worked before is you have trusted reviewers. It seems it must be possible, between hard encryption ensuring text is produced by who it says it is produced by and the general tend for people to talk about cultural works online should allow the better works to float to the top of the pile.
Mediocre and would-be writers who cannot sell their own work will be the ones who use AI in an effort up their game and try to earn a living through AI books. Good writers don't need AI. Bad ones will try to get the AI to "write like Stephen King". Seems to me that AI writing will flow into fanfiction easily since there are no copyright issues. And what about NaNoWriMo? A couple of thousand words a day might pretty easy for AI. Planning an AI written book is not writing it; it just producing it. Editing after the fact is editing (a different job) and not writing it. AI is for the untalented and the unskilled. That doesn't mean it won't have it place though.
You know how in some stories the protagonist in a way is not a character but the world itself, which sets a trap or presents other danger? (eg a famous one on the web is Enigma of Amigara Fault). Imagine being in a world with traps but lacking awareness not only of the traps existing, but the very notion of trap. And then there are the bad limitations of ai.
In general, yes, but when it comes to writing books, AI replacing humans requires new skills. The skill will be in writing the best prompts not stories, characters or coherent text. Creative "programmers" will get the best results. The question remains whether or not those with the "talent of Stephen King" can coax their brains to write good enough prompts to replace the hard work of writing from scratch.
AI certainly can DM for DnD
Late to the thread but, yes. All "AI" (as per the meaning understood generally by the thread, which kinda skips a few decades of academic work in a non-exploitative space) content is inherently plaguarised.Re read the article. No where does it say that you should copy or plagiarize anything. Are you assuming that all AI content plagiarized?
Need a sarcasm check to work out what the actual opinion here is, given your earlier post read as very sarcastic (in a good way).There was quite a lot of kerfuffle when it first became possible to draw pictures on your computer, wasn't there?
Blink twice if you’re in dangerI think that AI writing is logically very good because AI can write faster and with fewer spelling errors and grammatical issues than the average human writer. If you think about it like a business, writing is about producing as much coherent output as possible as quickly as possible. You want to saturate the space, and certain complexity is better off omitted. This will be very good for humanity as improved economic output is always good.
Genuinely meant question. Statistical algorithms do sample libraries of existing art and “collage” it together. But as long as people work out who owns what and property owners enforce the rights to content libraries against each other I don’t see the issue with plagiarism. YouTube is already built to tell if you uploaded a picosecond of Pink Floyd and will appropriately nuke your video from orbit, sparing the record labels the indignation of a picosecond of lost revenue.Need a sarcasm check to work out what the actual opinion here is, given your earlier post read as very sarcastic (in a good way).
So 12 years of academic papers for college and university students, plus my own experiences as a student, not to mention years of work on my own writing projects, leaves me appalled that there are people who think nothing of cheating like the article mentions.