AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[CapnZapp]

If working a till is replaced, what of the people who cannot realistically do more?

In the current intermediate situation (talking the last 50 years give or take) strength or perseverance has been greatly devalued - only smarts and creativity have reliably offered a secure job.

This has meant the current economic model has been able to hobble along, since the number of people it discards have been manageable.

The hope is that now, when even educated creatives lose their jobs to the machines, this finally breaks the economic model for good, and that the powers that be are forced into a new model where we finally end the "you need to work to eat" truism.

Provide basic universal income, make "working" a voluntary hobby, and let the machines slave away, I say.

Of course, this vision is not equally likely everywhere. For instance, I think such a joyous future is much more likely in collectivist China and humanistic EU than in insane and revanchist states such as Russia and the US.

 

[Scribe]

The hope is that now, when even educated creatives lose their jobs to the machines, this finally breaks the economic model for good, and that the powers that be are forced into a new model where we finally end the "you need to work to eat" truism.

Provide basic universal income, make "working" a voluntary hobby, and let the machines slave away, I say.

Of course, this vision is not equally likely everywhere. For instance, I think such a joyous future is much more likely in collectivist China and humanistic EU than in insane and revanchist states such as Russia and the US.

Ah, so what you are planning on is essentially.

For NA.

Good good.

 

[Andvari]

I can’t wait for overgeeked to discover he’s the only hooman posting on these boards.

 

[overgeeked]

I can’t wait for overgeeked to discover he’s the only hooman posting on these boards.

Nah. I've been a manimal since the mid '80s.

Though the incessant lack of empathy on display makes me wonder.

 

[dragoner]

Evolution is a process too slow
To save my soul
But I've got this creature on my back
And it just won't let go

If I am only an animal
Then I can do no wrong
But they say something better
So I've gotta hold on
-Pat Smear, Darby Crash

 

[GreyLord]

The problem I see, currently, is that in order for AI to work, it has to be trained.

If an AI is taking over a writer's work...who or what trained that AI?

IF it is MY writing style...and it can be proven...I feel one should be able to sue the company for stealing and put down something to either destroy the AI (which would be a warning to other companies who try such things) OR force them to pay whatever rate I CHOOSE (not them) for being able to use my voice without my consent.

In all these AI activities...who is doing the training?

If we get AI to practice and diagnose medicine...who is it trained off of? What is their compensation?

In order for advances in medicine to be learned...who is the example and who is the one giving the AI that information? What is their compensation?

AI seems so attractive right now I think because no one is actually dealing with the fact that AI is probably stealing a LOT of rights and talent from others (that's right...it's called stealing..if we can pirate a movie...than using someone else's voice and talents to train an AI is absolutely stealing). When we can get to the hurdle where lawyers can boil down how to identify exactly what it is the AI has stolen, I expect a LOT of lawsuits to start up much more rabidly then we are even seeing already.

 

[Andvari]

Can we then also sue when humans train on other authors' writing styles?

 

[GreyLord]

Can we then also sue when humans train on other authors' writing styles?

It depends.

If they plagiarize...we already do. If you trace over artwork and then try to call it your own...we already do.

Writing in the style of an author doesn't write with their voice. A good example is that when Brandon Sanderson finished the Wheel of Time he wrote it differently then he did in other books, which sort of replicated Jordan...but it was also definitely his own style and voice as well.

An individual writing generally has a harder time making an exact copy of a voice of another in their writing unless they are actually plagiarizing.

On the otherhand, AI seems to be better able to copy the way someone draws or writes (to the point at times one could probably call it plagiarism as well, as at times it's the exact phraseology and stylistic sentences put in a different placement) than us mere humans. The same could be said for some of the artwork it's starting to turn out as well. IT's why at times people have been able to identify the exact artwork that the AI stole from, because it's easily identifiable what the artwork was and how it was used by the AI.

 

[Andvari]

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

 

[GreyLord]

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

So am I, however, when AI trains...currently there is a BIG part of plagiarizing that goes on with that. One complaint that went into the Hollywood Screenwriter's strike that occurred recently dealt directly with this. Training AI in essence is stealing people's voices and plagiarizing.

Plagiarism machines

A Human author normally has a VERY hard time writing in someone else's voice, no matter how much they were trained in their writing style. An educated literary reader can see who wrote what, even if an author is trying to replicate another' voice (and there have been several that have tried to replicate Jane Austin and others and failed).

AI is on a completely different level in copying this voice, or stealing it...much in part because it plagiarizes like I talked about above. When it trains, it steals.

A similar thing can be said of the artwork which it is doing as well. Those lines come from somewhere. The question is WHERE that artwork is coming from and who are it's origins.

AI is self learning to a degree currently, but it is also still programming. The way a computer works and the way a human works are different, and it shows in how they copy or replicate something. This is why a human can figure out how to draw hands from a teacher within a hour or two (or, perhaps a slower individual it could take a day or more) whilst an AI it may take millions or billions of man hours to learn how to do the same thing. At the same time, the basic forms and shapes along with shading which may take a person longer to learn may only take the AI a shortwhile to do so.

They are learning and approaching that training in different ways. It's why it makes it so problematic currently. Due to the way the AI is trained, it's more than just training like a human would train, it's training like you would a program. A program regurgitates what is put into it. In that same way, the same artwork and same words and forms that are input into it are eventually regurgitated out in whatever form of art it puts out (currently).

The advances are jumping by leaps and bounds right now, but unless everything being used is public domain, I can see an eventuality where things will come to a head between the artists and the studios using AI where certain choices will have to be made in regards to legalities and money (because, at the end of the day for big business, that's what it's going to probably really revolve around).