Special Interest Topics that affect authors > Bot Discussion Public

SFWA’s Comments

(1/5) > >>

APP:
Nicely stated.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: SFWA’s Comments to the US Copyright Office
https://writerbeware.blog/2023/11/10/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-sfwas-comments-to-the-us-copyright-office/

Bill Hiatt:
I couldn't agree more.

littleauthor:
From the article:

"These systems would not exist without the work of creative people, and certainly would not be capable of some of their more startling successes. However, the researchers who have developed them have not paid due attention to this debt. Everyone else involved in the creation of these systems has been compensated for their contributions—the manufacturers of the hardware on which it runs, the utility companies that generate their electrical power, the owners of their data centers and offices, and of course the researchers themselves. Even where free and open source software is used, it is used according to the licenses under which the software is distributed as a reflection of the legal rights of the programmers. Creative workers alone are expected to provide the fruits of their labor for free, without even the courtesy of being asked for permission. Our rights are treated as a mere externality."

THIS. When I saw a ChatGPT rep in KBoards actively encouraging authors to try out the program - giving them step-by-step instructions in how to train the program - I lost it. Many, many writers are still clueless when it comes to this level of creative theft. Tech bros can't create but they are making money hand over fist off the backs of those of us who can.

PJ Post:
AI still doesn't copy IPs. There is no theft. That's not how it works.

The SFWA has always staunchly supported traditional publishing, especially the old corduroy-sport-coat-with-leather-elbows-and-fruity-pipe-tobacco ways and only accepted Indies once they absolutely had no other choice. They have a bit of a country club mentality, and a rather pretentious one at that. So, of course they're going to rail against AI, they're grasping at straws to remain relevant. I'm sure they'd ban self-publishing altogether if they could.

And AI disclosures don't protect consumers, they protect the self-image of overly-insecure traditional writers. People don't care how stuff is made, where or by whom. And once AI turns the corner on narrative quality, that's it, game over.

As I've said, writers who have something to say with their stories will be fine, they'll be fine way out on the fringes of the market, but fine just the same. For example, Indie musicians still produce albums because that's how their idols used to do it back in the day even though the current market has overwhelmingly shifted back to singles - but those albums are still being sold. The fringes have always provided opportunity.

Human writers and musicians and artists and photographers and sculptors and painters and illustrators and filmographers and crafters will always have a market because other humans recognize their talent. We don't need protection from AI to do what we do, nor to share it with our audiences. It's similar to the precision cobbler, they're still out there, making shoes and serving their market, but the vast majority of shoes are mass-produced under fairly questionable conditions, and yet - no warnings. And it's not a secret. Everyone knows. Nobody cares.

They won't care about AI either.

Post-Crisis D:

--- Quote from: PJ Post on November 17, 2023, 03:06:02 AM ---AI still doesn't copy IPs. There is no theft. That's not how it works.
--- End quote ---

And every single freaking time anyone shows an example of AI spitting out matches to copyrighted text or images, we get excuses on how that's not "copying" or whatever.

:icon_rolleyes:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page