Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
11
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on June 20, 2024, 03:40:37 AM »
If I take a partial line from one book, a partial line from another, a bit from a third, a phrase from a fourth, a partial line from yet another book, and so on, and I combine those together and package them into a new book and call it my own, am I an author or a sophisticated plagiarist?

If I use a software program to do the same for me and I just edit and polish it up a bit, does that change things  because I am not personally cutting and pasting from the books?
12
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on June 20, 2024, 03:27:17 AM »
Not compensating people for their work is pretty harsh.

Not compensating people for their work and using their work to help create additional works for financial gain is even harsher.

Not compensating people for their work and using their work to help create additional works for financial gain and that compete with and reduce the market value of their work is really harsh.

If using someone's labor without their permission and without compensating them for their work is not a form of slavery, then can it be described as theft?
13
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Bill Hiatt on June 20, 2024, 02:52:22 AM »
I think the slavery analogy is a little harsh, though I certainly agree that any AI training should be based on the principles of compensation and consent.

In any case, working with AI-generated images reminds me exactly how much AI doesn't know. As I've said, elsewhere, it can produce a beautiful image, but it may take grinding out fifty or more to get that one beautiful image. Sometimes, I just give up and try something else.

Even when the image looks generally good, I can sometimes spot imperfections, like an incorrect number of toes, for example.

I haven't worked with AI text, but we've all seen documentation on the potential flaws that can be present.
14
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on June 20, 2024, 02:14:32 AM »
In my opinion, if the "AI" was trained using works by authors who did not give permission for their works to do so and were not in any way compensated for the use of those works, and you are okay with that and use content generated by an "AI" trained in such a manner, you are basically supporting slavery.

You are saying that you are okay with the work of others being owned by someone who did not compensate the persons who did the work.

If you say you have to manipulate what the "AI" generates to make it usable and you should thus own the work because of that, you are saying you are okay with a slave owner owning the slave's output because the slave owner wielded the whip that helped assure the slave's compliance.

Or maybe utilizing slave labor is a-okay so long as you don't have to look into the eyes of the people whose labors you have been complicit in the theft of just so you can get a few books out the door faster to fatten your bank account.
15
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Lorri Moulton on June 20, 2024, 01:33:15 AM »
Not touching the AI controversy with a 10-foot pole, but I've talked to several reps at Amazon...and some of them are real people.  I can tell.  They have a sense of humor.  :)
16
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by TimothyEllis on June 20, 2024, 01:29:47 AM »
(2) Copyright laws (e.g. in the US) change so that AI-generated works can be copyrighted.

There are people on Quora who simply refuse to believe that Bot stuff has no copyright outside the UK.

The last one who told me that demanded I link to a source for me claiming it, and then told me without one, it was just my opinion.

Those are the people flooding KDP with drek.
17
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Matthew on June 20, 2024, 01:24:35 AM »
And I wish that AI-haters would stop spreading that lie that Chat or any other AI can generate an entire book on its own. Not a readable one! Yeah, it can generate crap but it still takes input and work for the writer to make the work shine and into something good.
The problem is, it doesn't stop the get-rich-quick schemers from trying. So much so that Amazon had to implement a very strict uploads per day policy. You're generally right, that no I don't think many people will be necessarily fooled into buying them--however they are developing new tricks like having a good or stolen first chapter, with the rest AI generated so the Look Inside is presentable. But yeah it can clog up search results and categories for other new releases until or unless Amazon removes the crud.

I agree with Bill. In many cases, especially for writing, there's an ethical quandary about it.

In my personal opinion, I can see AI use exploding for creative use under two conditions: 1) It is produced ethically, which is to say, the training data sets are from authors paid for the works to be used in a model, (2) Copyright laws (e.g. in the US) change so that AI-generated works can be copyrighted.

Let's say in a world where that happens, I would still not use AI. Why? Because I enjoy the process, if nothing else. Also, it is impossible to predict how much AI will improve.

There's so much to say for now, but current AI is just an averaging engine which pairs likely words together. It's not smart. It doesn't have much of a memory so nothing is consistent. It has no real creativity. Using an AI to write for me would not feel like my work.

I think it will have a hard time coming up with unique ideas.

As an author, you have infinite freedom for creativity that just might not fit with using an AI. You might not care if you're pumping out genre fiction, but some people choose words carefully for tone or pace. Some play around with rhyming by writing entire chapters in verse. Some eschew grammar and write without punctuation.

AI-assisted may be possible. But the amount of work it takes to make something useable or to fix mistakes, at least today, you may as well have just written it yourself.

I believe we'll always need humans to keep things fresh. Others disagree with me.

But you're right, in that both Amazon and consumers will not care, so long as they enjoy the story and continue buying.

We have had quite a few long threads about AI where a lot of this has been discussed back and forth, and that might be worth a read if you want more opinions.


On Topic:
This certification has been mentioned before. While I do think it's funny and wouldn't be opposed to doing something myself, nefarious actors will simply co-opt any slogan or certification themselves if they think it might get them sales.
18
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by Bill Hiatt on June 20, 2024, 12:08:41 AM »
Writeway, I'm not selling particularly well, but I've never blamed AI for that. Nor have I ever actually heard anyone do so.

My concern with AI is the ethical bankruptcy of its training methods and the potential to put people (in general) out of work.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that AI can't write whole books effectively. That hasn't prevented people from doing exactly that. The books are usually dumpster fires, and Amazon takes them down quickly. That may be what gives some people the impression that Amazon cares about AI. It does care about AI when it produces a horrendous mess that gets sold as a book through KDP.

I don't really have a problem with assistive AI. I don't condemn people who use it or want to ruin their careers. But I resist using it for text at the moment because of the way it was trained. Building what will be a multi-trillion-dollar industry using a training process that relies on other people's intellectual property and calling it "fair use" just doesn't sit right with me. Also, text generated by AI can sometimes replicate copyrighted content. The risk is slim that it would do that enough to create a problem, but hypothetically, it could inject enough material with enough resemblance to something else to be a problem, especially if I hadn't read the original source and therefore couldn't identify it. If those traces were good, didn't get rewritten, and ended up in the finished product, I could be accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement (for which "AI did it," doesn't sound like a legally valid excuse).

I don't know that AI will ever be able to generate literary masterpieces on its own, but I'd certainly be in favor of legal safeguards to prevent that. I don't see a problem with using it as a tool so long as the author makes the material his or her own. Since we both agree AI can't produce books on its own, no doubt, the authors you cite are doing that.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I have experimented with Shutterstock AI images, mostly because Shutterstock compensates artists whose work was used in its training process. Even so, I don't use AI images for covers because I don't want to take work away from my cover designer. Nor do I use them in cases where a good, entirely human stock image is available. Unfortunately, businesses may not use the same restraint. That's a long-term concern that needs to be addressed.

Ai will undoubtedly play a role in our future. We just need to be sure that, going forward, it doesn't trample intellectual property rights and put huge numbers of people out of work in the process.
19
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by TimothyEllis on June 19, 2024, 07:23:58 PM »
Quote
Bots and algorithms... AI!

No. Just bad code.

Amazon is just programs.

When a true AI comes along it will tell anyone who wants it to write a book for them to just get lost.

In the meantime, people are just improving the automation of word salad.
20
Bot Discussion Public / Re: Writer out to stop the 'bot' drivel
« Last post by writeway on June 19, 2024, 06:19:25 PM »
And I wish that AI-haters would stop spreading that lie that Chat or any other AI can generate an entire book on its own. Not a readable one! Yeah, it can generate crap but it still takes input and work for the writer to make the work shine and into something good. So this "people are just spitting out whole books with AI" is BS. And those who are doing are not clogging up the store because those books aren't selling. The genuine authors who use AI use it as a TOOL not a replacement for writing the book. They still put just as much effort into writing as always. But no, no genuine author is just prompting Chat or any other AI to do whole books for them without intervention because the books would be crap and the real authors using AI are writing great books with it, where you can't tell. The only way you'd know is if the author told you themselves.

This is a big misconception that all AI looks so obviously like crap. Nope. I bet many of the AI-haters reader AI books every day and don't know it because the books don't look like what they "think" AI would look like. And they probably love these books and give them 5 stars while going on rants about AI. You gotta love it.

And let's not get started on these AI checkers because none of them are accurate.

And uh, big publishers are using AI too now. Yep.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »