49
Grisham, Martin join authors suing OpenAI: "There is nothing fair about this" (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/books@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't understand why they are scared. Even though the writing style can be copied easily the content, creativity and structure of the story is a whole other thing. It will never match 1:1.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They are scared for the future, not the present. And considering the growth speed, it’s a warranted fear

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't see anything hurting individual human creativity long-term. 'Good' stuff will sell, no matter if you use AI or not. And it's a choice, not an obligation, to use it.

    If people feel like they are forced to use it because of its higher output, it's not a problem of AI, but of capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    It is likely that we will reach a point where these ML things will recognise patterns across creative works, see what sell and use them to make similar stories using those same patterns.

    Which is clear they will sell more since they will be cheaper, faster to make thus flooding the market with engaging-but-unoriginal stories.

    Imagine: a GOT in space, a GOT in fantasy, a mix between Star Wars and GOT, and so on. And they will always sell cause GoT is engaging, but none will be original but a soulless copy of the original GoT (for which Martin won’t see a buck).

    Tbf, i think it would be better to ban this kind of “AI” - like ChatGPT, or the ones for the art et similia - from “producing” creative work - at least creative work to be sold - but capitalism gotta capitalise I guess.

    EDIT: to be fair right now the main concern is about copyrighted creative work, but probably it’s the easier to ascertain if it’s been copied or not: take for example programming code, there are very few ways to know if a copyrighted code has been used and it will probably show how copyright is SO dumb and fallacious for technical and whatnot fields

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    It is likely that we will reach a point where these ML things will recognise patterns across creative works, see what sell and use them to make similar stories using those same patterns.

    Which is clear they will sell more since they will be cheaper, faster to make thus flooding the market with engaging-but-unoriginal stories.

    Before, humans used to do the exact same. Why is it be different now with AI? It's just more and faster imo.

    Why would anyone read GOT in space when they can just read GOT? The people opting for GOT in space will most likely already have read GOT anyhow. And that already takes long af. So it's a smaller fan base closer to fanfiction, which btw already existed before AI became a thing. It will never surpass the original. Also copyright should never forbid someone to write in the style of someone else. How would you even proove it?

    Why should we ban AI, a really useful technology, also for co-collaboration within the Arts, just because some people will make money with it? Art has been constant copypaste remixing anyhow.

    I'd rather have us get rid of capitalism instead lol, which is the actual reason why commercial artists are scared. Hobby artists don't give a damn lol.

    Edit: There's technique in art too, which some would define as style. Copyrighting a style should therefore not be an option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why should we ban AI, a really useful technology, also for co-collaboration within the Arts, just because some people will make money with it? Art has been constant copypaste remixing anyhow.

    I said ban for creative works, at least for commercial use, which is a very little part of what can be done with AI; and maybe personal informations processing though, cause you know... privacy

    Why would anyone read GOT in space when they can just read GOT? The people opting for GOT in space will most likely already have read GOT anyhow

    Because it won't be called GoT: space edition, it will be a rip-off of GoT with the same overarching story and characters but in a scifi/whatever setting. And yes, it already happens: many TV series on Netflix are a rip off of other successful series (most of the time produced by Netflix), which flood the platform; it happens with every single successful serie. You can find dozens if not more of the same, fucking, TV serie with a different name but with the same old jokes, characters, plot point and sometime style.

    Why do people watch them anyway? For the same reason cable TV is so trash: cheap entertainment works, no matter how shitty it is; it happens with anime/manga/light novels too.

    And yes, it is shitty. But at least it takes time to write and produce that crap, while with AI it will be immediate and cheap. Cheap and immediate means they will produce so much crap, finding quality stuff will be nigh impossible since it will cost much much more to produce with less earnings than garbage.

    It will never surpass the original

    I think you don't watch, play games et similia... originality is a luxury nowadays. Why do you think Netflix cancels every single serie that isn't a hit in the first few months? Cause they can. It is cheaper and lucrative to cancel what doesn't work and re-iterate on the same shitty formula until the crap sticks on the wall. And it works, they do it, and they do it now.

    Also copyright should never forbid someone to write in the style of someone else. How would you even proove it?

    It's already happening. Before, humans used to do the exact same. Why is it be different now with AI? It's just more and faster imo.

    This is quite easy actually, while it's hard for technical things. Taking inspiration doesn't mean copying. Modern "AI" doesn't think, which means anything it does is a copy.

    We are already reaching, if we aren't already, a Fahrenheit 451 level of entertainment, "AI" will surely put the final nail on the coffin.

    "AI" are a beautiful thing, but in our current society, where profits is everything and people are nothing but a number, they are the scariest shit ever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I said ban for creative works, at least for commercial use, which is a very little part of what can be done with AI; and maybe personal informations processing though, cause you know... privacy

    Yeah that's what I meant tho. It's a useful tool for creating art in human-ai collaboration. Why should it be banned for that? The real problem is that people who give the data don't see a dime. But if you could fix that (see Jaron Laniers work on micro-payments) it should be available for everything. The downside of this 'fair' system would be a total surveillance society tho.

    And yes, it already happens: many TV series on Netflix are a rip off of other successful series (most of the time produced by Netflix), which flood the platform; it happens with every single successful serie. You can find dozens if not more of the same, fucking, TV serie with a different name but with the same old jokes, characters, plot point and sometime style.

    It is cheaper and lucrative to cancel what doesn't work and re-iterate on the same shitty formula until the crap sticks on the wall. And it works, they do it, and they do it now.

    But what's the unique role of AI here? People have been doing this since forever. It's just a matter of personal taste if you consume it or not. And if your Art is outstanding enough you will still be able to live from it. I'm assuming that if everyone copies your work, you will have been successful before already.

    This is quite easy actually, while it's hard for technical things. Taking inspiration doesn't mean copying. Modern "AI" doesn't think, which means anything it does is a copy.

    You're making it too easy for yourself. Is an AI work a copy if it doesn't resemble the original anymore? What if the human work resembles the copy more than the AI work? Is it still just an inspiration? What about human-ai collaborative pieces? What is thinking, what is inspiration, what is a copy?

    There's a reason why these questions have such an elaborate philosophical backbone.

    "AI" are a beautiful thing, but in our current society, where profits is everything and people are nothing but a number, they are the scariest shit ever

    Oh yeah true that haha.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    The problem on why so in its current state won't match the human creativity is that the generative models aren't really generative, more like compilational. They can't generate anything special, they can't create new genre, artstyle, etc. It would require a GAI to do that, and we are one of even a few revolutions apart from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not really about being scared. It's about having their works used commercially without a license to do so. OpenAI is selling a tool that can "write in the style of George RR Martin", trained on his works, and yet he wasn't asked or paid for that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    They're obviously scared they're not gonna get payed for nothing anymore. And they are scared they will be 100% replaceable. I don't think the last part is reasonable.

    Imo they should pay authors who contribute in the datasets. But besides that there shouldn't be any copyright on writing/drawing styles whatsoever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Agreed, the output of the model isn't really the issue (other than providing evidence that those works are in the dataset), the inputs are. I would also like to see groups like wikipedia get something back from this too, OpenAI abused a ton of community funded resources and expects to sell that shit back to us as GPT subs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I see your point. If you're interested in the topic, Jaron Lanier published a book about micro-payments for datasets in 2013. It's an interesting read.

    If you're too lazy you can also ask ChatGPT for a summary of the main points tho ;)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    OpenAI sucks at writing fiction, it's actually kind of hilarious I recommend trying it. There are other AI tools that are better for it but i forgot the name of it though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    its actually kind of funny, for a laugh. can it write a whole novel with structure, well developed characters and create a world from scratch like GRRM can? fuck no. George is being a bit silly here tbh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent