AI Megathread
-
More news possibly of interest:
Also an interesting debate on fair use by a judge and copyright lawyer/expert. Notably, they point out:
The Supreme Court [in its 1985 decision in Harper & Row v The Nation] explained that harm to the rightsholder’s legitimate expectation of copyright revenues was the most significant factor in the fair use evaluation.
In a different Supreme Court case, the court decided based on copyright’s two fundamental objectives:
the enrichment of public knowledge and financial incentivisation to authors to create. Campbell essentially explains that the fair use zone lies in the circumstance where those two objectives are not at cross-purposes; the enrichment of public knowledge should not justify the fair use defense if it is accomplished by significant impairment of the rightsholder’s legitimate entitlement to profit from the distribution of the work.
-
@Faraday, firstly, this is in no way an attempt to say you are in any way incorrect. I’m responding to you simply to keep this as a linked thread.
The last sentence of the first paragraphed you liked is interesting to me;
An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” [the copyright office] said.
Now ignoring for the moment what ‘selected or arranged’ and ‘sufficiently creative way’ means, it sounds like a very valid concern for people like screen writers isn’t the complete replacement of their job by AI but the use of AI to reduce the number of writers required to make a show. I think most of us agree that the technology is still miles away from being able to spit out a script by itself, but what about AI carrying enough of the initial load that the production companies are able to reduce their writers room from 15 people to 10? Likewise, it seems like reporters are at risk of having their job numbers reduced and their jobs transformed as they spend more of their time editing copy initially produced by AI.
Of course the counterpoint to that argument is that this always happens with technological advancement. Farriers were far more in demand 150 years ago than mechanics were.
As for the second article, this is more or less part of the issue I’ve been trying to consider. Assuming that they can get LLMs to stop copying large blocks of text, what is the harm to the rightholder’s expectation of copyright revenue?
I think at the end of the day what is really going to be required will be new laws that codify more precisely all expectations and limitations on how generative AIs are allowed to harvest and use information because they earlier existing laws will require too much work to make them fit well into the new framework.
-
@Sage said in AI Megathread:
Now ignoring for the moment what ‘selected or arranged’ and ‘sufficiently creative way’ means, it sounds like a very valid concern for people like screen writers isn’t the complete replacement of their job by AI but the use of AI to reduce the number of writers required to make a show. I think most of us agree that the technology is still miles away from being able to spit out a script by itself, but what about AI carrying enough of the initial load that the production companies are able to reduce their writers room from 15 people to 10?
The reduction of writing staff in the writing room is still a bad thing. AI isn’t easing any burdens there - it’s just taking away jobs in an industry that’s already gutting and trimming down writing rooms to the point that it’s causing real problems for the industry with regards to getting new talent in and trained up. Production companies shouldn’t be seeking to reduce their writing rooms.
-
@NotSanni Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound as if I was in favor of it. I was simply noting it as what I believe is a valid concern.
I brought up the counterpoint of how technological growth affects the job market simply because I try my best to view all sides of an issue.
-
@Sage said in AI Megathread:
@NotSanni Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound as if I was in favor of it. I was simply noting it as what I believe is a valid concern.
I brought up the counterpoint of how technological growth affects the job market simply because I try my best to view all sides of an issue.
Seen - apologies for misinterpreting! But I do agree that we just need actual, new legislation/regulation around generative AI/LLM usage. Corporations have been cutting labor hours across the board for a few industries going on a decade now, even [b]before[/b] the latest developments in LLM/generative AI stuff - there probably needs to be strict oversight in how it can be used with regards to labor.
-
@Sage said in AI Megathread:
but what about AI carrying enough of the initial load that the production companies are able to reduce their writers room from 15 people to 10?
That exact scenario has been quoted by various WGA members in discussions about the current strike. Their concern is being given a pile of AI-generated garbage and being told: “Clean this up” and then getting an editing credit instead of a writing credit, even though they’re still doing all of the actual work.
@Sage said in AI Megathread:
Of course the counterpoint to that argument is that this always happens with technological advancement. Farriers were far more in demand 150 years ago than mechanics were.
The main difference is that the farriers weren’t replaced by a machine that was built using the output of their farrier work.
-
Finally caught up with this. I have enjoyed giving ChatGPT enough information about a setting to roleplay a quick scene with an NPC that I wanted to get out of my head or have as background. I currently have a thread of ‘therapy’ for one of my characters where my PC visits and discusses things happening in his life. It’s grounding for me and I can dash that off when I don’t have time to RP to keep my head ‘in the game’ so to speak. It’s been a lifesaver as I have been eaten by work.
But really I’m here to share this gem from Elle Cordova.
-
We will have reached the top of Mount ChatGPT when it’s used to write TS scenes.
Maybe it already has. I bet it has.
Robots in your area are getting it on right now.
I woke up feeling so good, I think I’d better call in sick/ I need a personal trainer to help me hold my drink
I plan to be spontaneous next time we meet/I’m putting off procrastinating until next week
I’ll get onto it when I give a shit -
@SpaceKhomeini ChatGPT is actually really bad at smut.
she/they
-
So are a lot of people in this hobby, but not for lack of practice, ohohoho.
-
@SpaceKhomeini said in AI Megathread:
We will have reached the top of Mount ChatGPT when it’s used to write TS scenes.
Maybe it already has. I bet it has.
Robots in your area are getting it on right now.
Obligatory Sex Robot video here
-
The Wicker Man
In The Wicker Man (1973) Edward Woodward stars as a xenophobic Christian policeman who, during the course of an investigation, visits an island populated by people of a different religion than his own. There he behaves very rudely, with unpleasant results. The best part of this film is the fact that Christopher Lee is so young as to be nigh unrecognizable until he is seen swanning about in a gown and a long wig, which makes him look just like himself in the role of Saruman from the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movies. The Wicker Man is regarded as a horror classic, but is more properly classified as a musical comedy.
I wrote the above in 2015. Recently a couple of people insist that it’s AI generated. They cannot/will not say why, except “…there is a very strange anomaly that runs through the paragraph, like it reads very strangely…” Perhaps someone can explain.
-
Yeah, I think I kind of see it. In trying to be coy about the narrative in your attempt to courteously avoid spoilers, it resembles what some AI do in presenting a surface-level response to a prompt, a fun fact, and summarizing what you’ve just said in the final sentence.
It’s not like that’s a criticism of the review - it’s just (unfortunately) similar to the sort of thing that ChatGPT burps up, because … that’s the point, right? It recognizes what to look for in something classified as a movie review and pattern matches for it.
-
@Solstice Thanks. That was my guess – I did a bunch of these at the time, the point was to do not-really-fake-but-waggish movie-reviews of films I happened to have seen for free. It’s meant to read like a movie review but wrong.
I’ve never really goofed around with ChatGPT and wondered if there might be some tells beyond that. (And I’m sort of alarmed at the idea that ChatGPT might know that Christopher Lee wore a gown and a long-hair wig in movies thirty years apart, or that people keep bursting into song in The Wicker Man.)
-
@Gashlycrumb said in AI Megathread:
And I’m sort of alarmed at the idea that ChatGPT might know that Christopher Lee wore a gown and a long-hair wig in movies thirty years apart, or that people keep bursting into song in The Wicker Man.
ChatGPT doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a souped-up autocorrect that guesses text based on text it’s already seen. So yes, it might make connections between two separate articles about two separate movies both mentioning Lee in a gown; it might regurgitate something that somebody else wrote about songs in Wicker Man.
Unfortunately, the “AI Detector” apps/algorithms/hunches don’t work any more reliably than ChatGPT itself - which is to say you can never be sure when it’s just hallucinating crap out of whole cloth.
-
@Faraday Well, yeah, I didn’t mean ‘know’ literally. But Lee in gown in two movies plus thirty year gap between those movies giving a person a younger vs older Lee in similar costume brain-spark seems like a pretty non-linear thing for it to come up with. Then again, some other human has probably also commented on it.
-
@Faraday said in AI Megathread:
Unfortunately, the “AI Detector” apps/algorithms/hunches don’t work any more reliably than ChatGPT itself - which is to say you can never be sure when it’s just hallucinating crap out of whole cloth.
Which has me alarmed when the adoption of such services, or the inclusion of them in already extant anti-plagiarism services, is swiftly progressing through educational academia.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
Yeah. I think I am soon to be asked to use such a service, and I am tempted to see what it takes to make it mistake my original writing for AI.
I should probably mention that there are confounding variables in people thinking this is AI-generated, since I did lob it into a social-media group that’s been overrun by MAGA twerps, just to see the predictable reaction. (They won’t actually engage with the question of whether or not Woodward’s character would have ended up in the wicker man if he hadn’t been so very willing to believe that rejecting Christianity, dancing naked, encouraging extramarital sex, and teaching little girls words like ‘phallus’ makes a person likely to practice child sacrifice. But they’re super offended at the word ‘xenophobic.’ And at the point of The Wicker Man.)
-
@Pavel said in AI Megathread:
Which has me alarmed when the adoption of such services, or the inclusion of them in already extant anti-plagiarism services, is swiftly progressing through educational academia.
Especially when these services tend to unfairly target neurodivergent students, ESL students, and anyone else who writes differently than whatever these stupid tools deem “normal”.
-
@Faraday Agreed. Doubly so when we’re all writing in a dry, formal, academic style trying to meet those word counts.
