Should publishers start putting "This work was not produced by AI" warnings in the publishing page?Should there be a different warning for those that use zero AI during the entire process and those that only avoid AI during the actual writing process?
>>25501576Is this going to be the next "are you not racist or anti-racist?" purity test?
>>25501578Even at the worst of Woke 1, there was never a "The author is not racist" warning on the book
The problem is AI scam bros will shamelessly plaster blatant AI garbage with no AI, and intentionally seek out whatever space doesn't want their slop to scrape and spam to death out of spite.AI bros are extremely resentful and unbelievably entitled.
>>25501576No, the only way to be safe is if they put a no AI used disclaimer on each paragraph
>>25501576they should be arguing that scraping books for training data should be against fair use, and that using a book for training data must be opt-in, not opt-out
>>25501663train ur ai to add that to all the paragraphs it generates to save time
If the author didn't record themselves writing the entire book with a typewriter or pen & paper, it should be assumed they used AI
>>25501697People have argued that.In court. Several times.Judges and lawmakers said no each time.
>>25501580There is no woke one.Woke bullshit is a constant. They still believe all the bullshit they preached a few years ago. They still openly advocate for the same shit.They have just given up on pretending to have the moral high ground anymore.
>>25501711You laugh, but there's a sizeable audience for "Writing" streams on twitch and yt live.
>>25501791Woke 1 was totally a thing and "died" when Biden refused to stop the {Palestine Genocide.Woke 2 is currently rising, but we'll see if it gets as big.
>>25501576>Should publishers start putting "This work was not produced by AI" warnings in the publishing page?Yes>Should there be a different warning for those that use zero AI during the entire process and those that only avoid AI during the actual writing process?No, because any such disclaimer would be used as a loophole that people would try their darndest to expandtrying to claim that "editing is not writing" for example
>>25502000I was thinking more along the lines of using AI during the research process. Obviously anything involving putting, removing, or changing the words on the page would be included under "No AI"Technically, googling things is using AI.
>>25502004I know what you were thinkingA simple, blunt, all-encompassing>Not one word of this book was generated or edited by AIwill do, and yes, I feel it is necessary. As well as punishments for authors who break the rule.
>>25502004In my own personal experience, Gemini & ChatGPT are great for research & studying. It'll be a cold day in hell afore I let it think for me, however.
>>25502000I find this most reasonable both as a reader/customer and as a writer/worker.Sadly because it's reasonable it will never be implemented. We are deep in the scam economy. If you can't trick people into making a cheap buck then it's unacceptable to overly influential assholes who rely on avoiding providing value to get rich like it's a commandment from god.I swear I am not being antisemitism.
>>25502000I edit wikipedia (where this is technically an exception for "basic copy editing") and review the drafts people submit>"but I just used AI for spellcheck bro it's human written"they ALL say that. I think in a grand total of one (1) case it was actually true.and if they "re-write the article manually", they literally just copy-paste it back into AI and it changes slop-words to slop-synonym-words. These bozos are genuinely too stupid to think we can't tell.
>>25501576There shouldn't be any warnings. What matters is the work itself, not how it was produced.Most modern authors can't write for shit anyway. I'm willing to give our electronic overlords a chance.
>>25502082are there any open-access tools we can use to detect Ai?particularly> it changes slop-words to slop-synonym-words?
>>25502085You know you could just ... read it anyway?If AI is so good, why hide it?This is how everybody knows "the quality of the work itself" is pure slopper copium.
>>25501825I always write the ending first so that would never work for me.
>>25502086There are "AI detectors" but they're pretty shitty. The best way to tell is your brain (and being familiar enough with AI to spot it)>changing slop wordsYou can check the revision history and it shows exactly what was changed. e.g.This guy's article was declined for AI. He clearly just asked an AI to rewrite it and it mostly paraphrased random sentences.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AMilitaria_Collections_in_Malta&diff=1361890428&oldid=1361777955This other guy even used AI for the edit summary>"Full rewrite in plain short sentences. Removed all AI-style phrasing (significant, notable, spiritual connection, maintaining). Each sentence states one fact only. Same sources, same information, different writing style."https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ADeir_Anba_Bishoi&diff=1367470860&oldid=1367469518
>>25502087>If AI is so good, why hide it?I didn't claim AI was good, just potentially less shit that contemporary human authors. Your advocacy of warnings just reveals your own worry that I'm right.
>>25502194It's about truth in advertising. If you didn't write the book than why put your name on it? Fraud is fraud.
>>25501612very truethey have no respect for anyone around them who does not want AIpeople might complain about woke being shoved down their throats but it never has been as bad as AI bros, and tech companies, forcing it on every single aspect of their productswhy do i need an ai summary of youtube comments? why dont i just read the fucking comments?why is there ai in google maps?
>>25501711>>25501825Just like live performances are more important for musicians and bands than recorded music, I could see live performances becoming more imprtant for writers as well. Live excerpt reading from book and poetry, stuff like Meet the Author events will become even more important to build a sense of trust between the author and audience.
>>25501576Yeah that'd be helpful
>>25502224Alright keys change expand the vocabulary instead of written by produced by. We can have a Producer category just like in the movie business and everyone is happy.
>>25501697Congress would have to amend the Copyright Act, and not only Congress has been hideously dysfunctional for years, but they're owned by rich people who don't want the law changed. Are you a child?>>25501782This too.
Perhaps first, OP can explain why using AI to write is bad. Or does he expect us to just assume that?Why don't we cut to the real issues? First, people have been automating human labor with machines for centuries. You laugh at the Luddites, and tell displaced physical laborers to "learn to code". But now the machine has come for your intellectual labor, and you fall to pieces. You;re a hypocrite. Second, AI has exposed the obvious–that most people weren't working very hard to begin with. Their pitiful labor can be replaced with an LLM, leaving them with what they deserved in the first place–nothing.I love AI. I finally have a bright, motivated, highly knowledgeable co-worker that doesn't slack off when I'm not watching. 95% of my so-called co-workers could get the axe and I wouldn't miss them.
>>25502316>–
>>25502324I put in the em-dashes just to make̟ you seethe. Are you implying t̜hat po͎st was AI-generated? B̼ecause it's way too transg͍ressive for a normie AI to produce. Also, is this an a͎dmission that you have no͓ real argument against AI?
>>25502338What's transgressive about your post exactly? You could go on /g/ and find a dozen exacly like it. Being pro-AI isn't contrarian since there's billions of dollars propping up the industry and the federal government is all in on AI, to the point of labeling anyone anti-data center or anti-Flock a terrorist or Chinese spy.Also the main issue with your post isn't even the em dash really, its using the word Luddite which I only see Indians and bots use nowadays, and whining about Learn to Code which hasn't been relevant since like 2016. With AI posts you always get the subtle feeling that they're not really responding to the OP, they're responding to an abstraction of the OP.
>>25502372Ugh. You really have disappeared up your own butthole, haven't you. And I was asking why OP was anti-AI.
>>25502316Tables have turned.
>>25502372It's transgressive because I'm genuinely arguing in favor of AI, and I know AI makes most of you seethe until you're drooling. And I would respond to the OP more accurately if I had any respect for it/him.>>25502437Indeed. Soon we'll be converting all the useless people into carbon-neutral crude oil to fuel our vehicles and our AI.
Hating AI is a midwit/normie phenomena whereas retards and those with high IQ are in favor of it. It's the bell curve meme. Sorry you're having trouble coming to terms that you're not as interesting as a robot but I assure you no one was going to read your book anyway.
>>25501576That would make them liable when it comes out that the author did, in fact, use AI
>>25503852>noooo duh gubmint will save usYou have a child's understanding of how real life works.
>>25503858Did you quote the wrong person or are you arguing with someone you made up in your head again
>>25503899You mentioned liability, which is meaningless without the threat of punishment.
There was a study that showed everyone is using AI, anti-AI and pro-AI alike. This is all performative.
>>25503980It's difficult not to, isn't it? I mean, our AI models have ingested the whole of digitized human knowledge. That would take a person 2,600 years to accomplish on their own, which is of course impossible. You can use AI to brainstorm; you describe what you want, it does an initial "beam search" (machine-learning term), you refine it using a conversational reply, it performs another beam search based on that, and so on. I've found it's really good for pulling out ideas that I had buried. I know I've reached its limit when it simply starts regurgitating the conversation back to me, bringing up no new info, but that's fine. I rarely have such a deep conversation with a human being. So many of them are stupid, lazy cucks. Finally, an intellect that doesn't frustrate me to tears.
>>25503980I don't.
>>25502338>e̟t̜o͎B̼g͍a͎o͓What did it mean by this? Is it trying to break containment? Bros?
>>25504346You're the problem in your conversations with other human beings and it's not going to do you any favours that you now have a chatting companion who doesn't require anything of you or challenge your retarded bullshit.
>>25504462Nah, humans are demonstrably stupid and lazy.
>>25504471Some are. Maybe you can use AI to explain how AI-users are not very clearly the stupidest and laziest. Enjoy the psychosis, faggot.
>>25502228I find this a very strange thing to complain about. Youtube comments, google maps, google search, social media, and just about everywhere else I've seen AI being pushed are explicitly tech spaces; it seems very natural and expected that the latest tech would be incorporated into them. Being concerned about AI encroachment into every aspect of life is one thing, but seeing AI features in tech products is probably the most mundane thing I can think of.>>25502372Absolutely ridiculous. 95% of the population is anti-flock and anti-data center. Nobody is accusing anyone of terrorism or being a Chinese spy except maybe the most blatant tech shills. Just because industry and government are backing it doesn't mean that everyone is on board and anyone with a contrary opinion is some sort of rebel outsider.
>>25503840You have it backwardsMidwits love AI, because they can use it to fake being high IQ and compete with themHigh IQ people will be able to see how retarded AI is, they'll know a few things it's useful for, but they'll more be bugged by midwits and idiots wasting their time with slop>>25503980I use AI to sycophantically praise my shitposts and maybe do a google search.You use AI to replace your brain.We are not the same.
>>25504346Anon, if you can chat with AI at length without seeing how blatantly retarded the bot is, it is you who are stupid
>>25504555Trips of truth. It can only really imitate a surface-level convo on any given topic. That being said, the best use of AI for a writer is to use it as a beta reader which can more or less accurately depict the reading comprehension and tastes of the average person.
>>25504346I have tried using AI to translate French and it routinely changes the meaning to something that is the exact opposite. I've also used it for basic questions like researching information on a popular TV show, and it would get the plots of the episodes wrong. Sure, inconsequential, but if it can't even handle something like that, I struggle to entrust it with more complex tasks.
>>25504707>writing for the average personShiggidity diggity.
>>25501576It wouldn't make any difference. You can still easily get all of your ideas from AI and just write AI passages in your own words to avoid detection, which only works if you're dumb enough to just copypaste from AI.
>>25504803>Using AI as a test to make sure normies can read your work NGMI>Using AI as a test to make sure normies can't read your workAscended
>>25504710>tried using AI to translate French and it routinely changes the meaning to something that is the exact oppositeinterestingI have seen this in AI's parsing of research papersguess it doesn't have as much French material to git gud at
>>25501576They don't want to do that because they would rather profitably incorporate AI into literature production. AI asa source for ideas, AI as a soundboard, AI as an editor. There will be a time, perhaps brief, where no work of popular art is untouched by AI. The promise of inflated margins is too tempting.
>>25501576did you retards get this upset when writers started using word processors instead of typewriters?(yes you did)
>>25504484AI psychosis̼ is for the weak-minded. I read a͍bout people that go͚ nuts with AI and laugh m̥y ass off at tho͎se losers.
>>25504439>literally afraid of diacritical marksB̤et you also vote a s̫traight party tick̻et.
>>25504552I assure yo̢u that high IQ pe̤ople don't thin̬k of midwits͓ or idiots at all, much less are bu͙gged by them.
>>25504555>>25504707If all you can ge͚t out of AI is a surface-leve̯l conversation, that's͉ a reflection of you, not th͎e AI. Way to confess ho̥w you're a dumbass.
>>25505926are you really having deep conversations with AIs anon?
>>25505930False binary falla̤cy. The choice is not betw͚een a surface-level conversa̞tion and a deep convers̼ation. You are a terrible̥ debater.
>>25505938So you're really having non- surface-level conversations with AI? Post one.
>>25505942You think I ke̘ep them archive̢d? Ohhhh, my prec̨ioussssss! LOLOLO̫LOL
>>25505946what kinds of non- surface level stuff do you like to talk about with your AI friend?
>>25501825I doubt that the audience is sizable, but there is a audience. Similar to there being a audience for sleeping live streams or livestreams of cow pastes and sheep flocks. >>25502229A live "performance" of a writer writing would be the most boring thing in the world. However I would love if the culture of live readings of stories and poetry, especial by their authors, became more popular again. That said, you have to understand that the vast majority of writers are super introverts who do not want to be in the spot light live preforming anything.
>>25505959I never said AI was m̜y friend. Talk about lea̝ding the witness. Yo̟u are an epic dumbass̪. No wonder AI makes yo̫u feel insecure.
>>25502316I feel like I have read this before in a slightly different context. Regardless I don't think this was you original idea and you are just regurgitating a argument you saw somewhere in a low effort fashion to be annoying.As it isn't a sincere expression of your thoughts and opinions I feel no need to more effort in my reply than you did in your post. Instead I too will reuse a argument. Riddle me this:If you think that AI is good then why would accurately labeling things made using it be bad?
>>25505981are you intentionally acting like an AI yourself?
>>25503980>There was a studyUnless you post the study I don't believe you.
>>25505984I wrote it off the̞ top of my head. Where a̟nd how you hea̡rd it before is irre̢levant.>>25505988Huh? Yọu're paranoid.
>>25505891Why are you pretending there are 60 or 70 year olds in this thread. What a retarded strawman.
>>25505993>Huh? Yọu're paranoid.I'm not accusing you of being a bot anon, I'm saying you sound like one, and wondering if you're doing it intentionally or if it's maybe a habit you picked up from talking to them frequently.
>>25505993Answer the question.If AI is good why would labeling things made with it be bad?
>>25501576How can you prove something isn't made with AI? If I use AI to get ideas for my story, characters, plot progression, etc but still write everything myself, how would you detect my AI usage? Anyone could use an AI free tag on their book while still using AI in part to write it.And continuing with that, what would stop anyone from putting an AI free tag on books that are made entirely from AI? What regulations would need to be put in place to ensure something claiming to be AI free is actually AI free? Companies claim their products are what they're not all the time. It's extremely common.
>>25504346>It's difficult not to, isn't it? I mean, our AI models have ingested the whole of digitized human knowledge. And yet it's consistently incapable of accurately repeating it.
>>25506061AI tends to be significantly more accurate than inaccurate; objectively far more accurate than asking the same questions on 4chan, Reddit, or Quora. If most inquiries you make give inaccurate responses, you're either being incredibly vague or convoluted in your inquiry.
>>25506069>AI tends to be significantly more accurate than inaccurate; objectively far more accurate than asking the same questions on 4chan, Reddit, or QuoraAI is basically an aggregator of answers from Reddit and Quora(4chan is probably on the AI blacklist)the problem is,how good is AI's processing of these answers? it's patchy. also, what are AI's hidden biases, and how does it affect the answers it gives? you don't know. and you don't know what you don't know!more importantly, people trust AI so much. they don't know that they don't know that they don't know!
>>25502316You don't believe in anything you wrote and are just a contrarian trying to troll people. Have a pity (You)
>>25505998Maybe you nee̡d to describe why you think̢ I sound like a bọt.>>25506000Because you may as well labe̤l things researched by Google instead̥ of using the card catalog at the library. Or works made by people whose po̦litics are to the right of Stalin (who are nowadays referred to as "fascists" by mainstream Demoçrats). Simply put, because your desire for labeling implies that thęre's something wrong with AI, and ye̩t you won't articulate what that is, since you don't want to admit that the real issue is yo̪u're lazy and stupid and can easily be̫ replaced with a me̬chanical intellect, just like plow horses were replacḙd with tractors.
>>25506061Are you suggestin̡g human beings are somehow kno̢wn for their accuracy? If that was even rẹmotely true, we wouldn't nee̤d an adversarial court/justice system.>>25506335Now that's what I c̥all cope!
>>25504710>>25504346I found the best use is1. coming up with workflow ideas (e.g. "My prose is lacking, but I am not sure what to look for.")2. Beta reader/brain stormer 3. Recommendation engineIt sucks at writing or even editing. The main value is giving it X document or Y specific, non-falseafiable problem, and asking it what it sees.
>>25502316AI is not equivalent to the industrial revolution, neither is replacing creative endeavors in the realm of culture from the human mind with replacing manual labour with machines
That'd require not using AI though.
>>25503980It's almost like if you google something it now counts as using AI
>>25502025>If you can't trick people into making a cheap buck then it's unacceptable to overly influential assholes who rely on avoiding providing value to get rich like it's a commandment from god.I like this sentence, it really encapsulates how I feel.
>>25502110>>25502082Did not occur to me AI shitters were already infesting wikipedia, depressing
>>25506069AI gets it right if you ask easy questions like "What's the capital of France?" but it shits the bed if you try to ask really specific shit like "how to calculate how many fuel rods my nuclear reactor needs at 7% enrichment", or "what was the first ship to have three propellers", aka, the exact shit you ask because there aren't simple google answers for that, and then the AI doesn't have easy answers to draw stuff from either, so it just makes shit the fuck up and acts like it knows what it's talking about.Easy question: AI is pointless, just google it in 2 secondsHard question: AI is less reliable than "it came to me in a dream"The only use case is "easy question but I can't remember the words for it". It's great for those.>>25506471>desire for labeling implies that thęre's something wrong with AIyes niggerbut that's my business, because I think AI sucks. If you like AI, and so do lots of other people, why not wear that "AI-generated" badge with pride?We all know the real reason is AI-bros wanting to pass their shit off as human work. I do not give a fuck what you do with AI if you're honest about the AI use and don't try to waste my time with it if I say I'm not interested.>>25506484I tried it as a brainstormer a couple of years ago. That was a couple of years ago, but it really stunk. Every suggestion was painfully generic and/or vague. I'm pretty sure it's kind of an insurmountable problem for AI, as it is just a "most likely" predictor at its core, so it will always tend towards bland.
>>25505891>llmslop is le same as using typewritersSuck start a shotgun, jeet
