“You lost” is a pretty confident stance. The game ain’t over until it’s over. Maybe you’re right, but I foresee a tsunami of lawsuits. It’s starting already.
1) A book cover designer recently got sued and lost his job because his AI-generated cover infringed on existing art. He had no idea AI had plagiarized on his behalf until he received the cease-and-desist letter.
2) Bandcamp recently disallowed AI music. Of course, they cited high-minded reasons, but I suspect they fear lawsuits from the famously litigious music industry.
There WILL come a day when writers are able to identify (probably using AI) where their storylines and prose have been infringed via AI, prompting lawsuits against the “authors” just like the cover designer lawsuit.
I think you’re playing with fire, but maybe I’m wrong. Keep pumping out that wonderful AI content and let’s see what happens.
Shawn, forgive me, but this really was wanky of you to go so low as to the "keep pumping out that wonderful AI content" remark. You clearly have no actual grasp of any of the real points the author is making. It's not about 'dropping the slop' as you think. It' sabout breaking down the barriers to creativity for everybody and not you being its self-proclaimed gatekeeper. Please mind your pearls on the exit door.
Yes, my comment wasn’t directed at the author, but I understand it looks that way. I should have phrased it differently. It is rather wanky of you, however, to assume that I view myself as the gatekeeper. I think people who use AI in the creative process are hacks and plagiarists, but as I’ve written elsewhere, I don’t care if that what others want to do. They can knock themselves out. I will be over here trying to improve my craft.
Re #1 can you link to the lawsuit? I’d read that briefing for sure.
Re #2 bandcamp is notoriously terrible for creators. Both Udio and Suno have partnered with major labels. So “labels will go after them” makes no sense. They’ve merged with them because of the popularity and revenue potential, AI songs are on the charts, and many producers are using the tools.
I also cited numerous cases in my post of - yes - the anti-AI crowd taking L after L. “You lost” isn’t objectively in dispute legally or culturally at this point. The “theft” argument has had a legal resolution in multiple cases. The Copyright argument has as well. The “training data” issue has also been settled in court. Precedent has been set.
Lastly, I don’t “pump out” content.
All of this is of course clear if you read my post.
They cite cases that have already been decided, and they cite as evidence legal issues from 2023 which have since been settled.
In addition, this was an out of court settlement to avoid further legal fees.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this. The Getty Images lawsuit (UK) has already been settled. They've already settled and said that training even on pirated data is fair use providing it doesn't store and make an exact duplicate.
Models do not spit out exact replicas of existing works. They can't. It's not how they function on a technical level.
That article is misinformed fear mongering, and it's not up to date with current cases and precedent. It was an out of court settlement to avoid a 75K to 150K legal bill. It sets no standard, and if they had proof of iterative authorship, they would've one according to the standards of US Copyright.
No harm no foul, respect you engaging and your opinion, but I'm not going to buy into an out-of-court settlement as some kind of proof or gotcha of anything. It's an admission that you didn't want to be dragged through a crappy legal system.
I understand what you're getting at, and I do believe safeguards should be in place, but I stand by all of my main points, the dominos are falling at this point, precedent is being set over and over in favor of these models, how they train, their outputs, and what constitutes authorship.
Appreciate you engaging with me and for the spirited disagreement. Wish you the absolute best.
Tools are what they are. I do a ton of SQL coding in the dayjob. AI has been a huge boon to the workflow, but you need to not be unskilled in order to utilize the tool properly.
You can give me a race car and a sonic wall thickness gauge but I don't know what to do with the damn thing. Give me an AI assistant and have me apply the expertise I've gained in my field, and I'm going to get my job done more efficiently. That's the difference, I suppose.
So, given that AI is a modern fact of life, is it wrong to want "truth in advertising", a "Nutrition Facts" label, a list of ingredients? How much sodium benzoate and red dye #2 is in the video, the short story, or a YouTube political screed? Me? I'd like to know.
Yes, I use spellcheck. No, I don't use a grammar aid. Any animus I may or may not have with regard to AI probably comes from being duped by some deep fake of COL Douglas Macgregor speaking DNC talking points.
Let's be fair to AI. One ought to share the credit when it has partnered with you.
I agree on your main point. Deepfakes are bad, and should be labeled as such. These can be highly dangerous.
I am not advertising. I'm creating. You don't have to consume it. It's not dangerous for your gut health. Everything else you're talking about here is just another version of a True Scotsman purity test.
No, I am not required, nor should I be, to break down my creative process by tool or by time to sate someone's curiosity. If it took 15 hours of storyboarding, writing, musical arrangement or audio engineering to create a video, you have no "right" to an inventory of my creative process broken down by individual tool or technique.
AI is not a partner in the same way a firearm is not violent. It has zero agency outside of human interaction. It will sit there and do nothing until someone with intention manipulates it.
Thus, tool.
This is a fundamental point. Should authors be required to say they've used Grammarly or Scrivener, ProWritingAid, Microsoft Word? Actually I'd like a list of every word your spellcheck caught, so I can see how much heavy lifting Microsoft Word is doing for you ... then I'll know if you're a REAL author. Do you see the issue with this sort of demand?
"List your ingredients" is positing a "light" version of gatekeeping - making a determination on the value of someone's work based on the tools they've chosen to use instead of the actual work.
You can dislike Skrillex because he's "just pushing buttons" and making electronic noise. He also fills stadiums with 50,000 people having the time of their life. This is the problem with trying to identify art by ingredients. It doesn't work for something which is subjective as an end product.
I'm definitely not talking about books exclusively. I don't use AI to write because the writing process is a) enjoyable and b) AI cannot replicate my style or humor - it's terrible at it.
It absolutely can be mis-used. We've already seen published books by well-known authors that included an AI prompt to "write this section" within the published book.
There's nothing wrong with using an LLM to help you organize thoughts, outline, etc. It works well as a task manager and organizational assistant. Really well, in fact. If you want to use it to help you write your bio, go for it. Need to write descriptions for a YouTube Thumbnail? Have at it. But for long-form creative work, it's just not anywhere near good enough to replicate a human author and their experience.
For book covers? It is capable of doing some amazing things, for far less and with far more flexibility than hiring an illustrator when you don't have the money to afford one, and you know a small book will not make up the cost of a $1000 artist.
There are uses for AI everywhere - and doing so ethically and with boundaries to protect how you interact with it creatively are key.
“You lost” is a pretty confident stance. The game ain’t over until it’s over. Maybe you’re right, but I foresee a tsunami of lawsuits. It’s starting already.
1) A book cover designer recently got sued and lost his job because his AI-generated cover infringed on existing art. He had no idea AI had plagiarized on his behalf until he received the cease-and-desist letter.
2) Bandcamp recently disallowed AI music. Of course, they cited high-minded reasons, but I suspect they fear lawsuits from the famously litigious music industry.
There WILL come a day when writers are able to identify (probably using AI) where their storylines and prose have been infringed via AI, prompting lawsuits against the “authors” just like the cover designer lawsuit.
I think you’re playing with fire, but maybe I’m wrong. Keep pumping out that wonderful AI content and let’s see what happens.
Shawn, forgive me, but this really was wanky of you to go so low as to the "keep pumping out that wonderful AI content" remark. You clearly have no actual grasp of any of the real points the author is making. It's not about 'dropping the slop' as you think. It' sabout breaking down the barriers to creativity for everybody and not you being its self-proclaimed gatekeeper. Please mind your pearls on the exit door.
Yes, my comment wasn’t directed at the author, but I understand it looks that way. I should have phrased it differently. It is rather wanky of you, however, to assume that I view myself as the gatekeeper. I think people who use AI in the creative process are hacks and plagiarists, but as I’ve written elsewhere, I don’t care if that what others want to do. They can knock themselves out. I will be over here trying to improve my craft.
Re #1 can you link to the lawsuit? I’d read that briefing for sure.
Re #2 bandcamp is notoriously terrible for creators. Both Udio and Suno have partnered with major labels. So “labels will go after them” makes no sense. They’ve merged with them because of the popularity and revenue potential, AI songs are on the charts, and many producers are using the tools.
I also cited numerous cases in my post of - yes - the anti-AI crowd taking L after L. “You lost” isn’t objectively in dispute legally or culturally at this point. The “theft” argument has had a legal resolution in multiple cases. The Copyright argument has as well. The “training data” issue has also been settled in court. Precedent has been set.
Lastly, I don’t “pump out” content.
All of this is of course clear if you read my post.
Didn't intent to personally accuse you of pumping out slop. Sorry. Link:
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/i-thought-ai-output-was-free-to-use-i-was-wrong-1bf0b826e868
They cite cases that have already been decided, and they cite as evidence legal issues from 2023 which have since been settled.
In addition, this was an out of court settlement to avoid further legal fees.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this. The Getty Images lawsuit (UK) has already been settled. They've already settled and said that training even on pirated data is fair use providing it doesn't store and make an exact duplicate.
Models do not spit out exact replicas of existing works. They can't. It's not how they function on a technical level.
That article is misinformed fear mongering, and it's not up to date with current cases and precedent. It was an out of court settlement to avoid a 75K to 150K legal bill. It sets no standard, and if they had proof of iterative authorship, they would've one according to the standards of US Copyright.
No harm no foul, respect you engaging and your opinion, but I'm not going to buy into an out-of-court settlement as some kind of proof or gotcha of anything. It's an admission that you didn't want to be dragged through a crappy legal system.
I understand what you're getting at, and I do believe safeguards should be in place, but I stand by all of my main points, the dominos are falling at this point, precedent is being set over and over in favor of these models, how they train, their outputs, and what constitutes authorship.
Appreciate you engaging with me and for the spirited disagreement. Wish you the absolute best.
The only thing that is more tedious than “AI will solve all problems” is “AI is evil theft” slop.
AI has its uses, namely, automating auxiliary tasks that require soft reasoning.
Tools are what they are. I do a ton of SQL coding in the dayjob. AI has been a huge boon to the workflow, but you need to not be unskilled in order to utilize the tool properly.
You can give me a race car and a sonic wall thickness gauge but I don't know what to do with the damn thing. Give me an AI assistant and have me apply the expertise I've gained in my field, and I'm going to get my job done more efficiently. That's the difference, I suppose.
Super helpful breakdown of the fallacies! Plus the updates on the law decisions is handy to have.
So, given that AI is a modern fact of life, is it wrong to want "truth in advertising", a "Nutrition Facts" label, a list of ingredients? How much sodium benzoate and red dye #2 is in the video, the short story, or a YouTube political screed? Me? I'd like to know.
Yes, I use spellcheck. No, I don't use a grammar aid. Any animus I may or may not have with regard to AI probably comes from being duped by some deep fake of COL Douglas Macgregor speaking DNC talking points.
Let's be fair to AI. One ought to share the credit when it has partnered with you.
I agree on your main point. Deepfakes are bad, and should be labeled as such. These can be highly dangerous.
I am not advertising. I'm creating. You don't have to consume it. It's not dangerous for your gut health. Everything else you're talking about here is just another version of a True Scotsman purity test.
No, I am not required, nor should I be, to break down my creative process by tool or by time to sate someone's curiosity. If it took 15 hours of storyboarding, writing, musical arrangement or audio engineering to create a video, you have no "right" to an inventory of my creative process broken down by individual tool or technique.
AI is not a partner in the same way a firearm is not violent. It has zero agency outside of human interaction. It will sit there and do nothing until someone with intention manipulates it.
Thus, tool.
This is a fundamental point. Should authors be required to say they've used Grammarly or Scrivener, ProWritingAid, Microsoft Word? Actually I'd like a list of every word your spellcheck caught, so I can see how much heavy lifting Microsoft Word is doing for you ... then I'll know if you're a REAL author. Do you see the issue with this sort of demand?
"List your ingredients" is positing a "light" version of gatekeeping - making a determination on the value of someone's work based on the tools they've chosen to use instead of the actual work.
You can dislike Skrillex because he's "just pushing buttons" and making electronic noise. He also fills stadiums with 50,000 people having the time of their life. This is the problem with trying to identify art by ingredients. It doesn't work for something which is subjective as an end product.
Thanks for the response. I do not fully understand AI. Maybe that is why I worry about the "purity" of what I pay for to read. It's a personal thing.
I use SpellCheck because I can't type, not because I can't spell.
To each his own. I don't much care for silicone enhanced breasts, either. Can we agree that AI can be misused? Ill used, in the eye of the beholder?
I'm definitely not talking about books exclusively. I don't use AI to write because the writing process is a) enjoyable and b) AI cannot replicate my style or humor - it's terrible at it.
It absolutely can be mis-used. We've already seen published books by well-known authors that included an AI prompt to "write this section" within the published book.
There's nothing wrong with using an LLM to help you organize thoughts, outline, etc. It works well as a task manager and organizational assistant. Really well, in fact. If you want to use it to help you write your bio, go for it. Need to write descriptions for a YouTube Thumbnail? Have at it. But for long-form creative work, it's just not anywhere near good enough to replicate a human author and their experience.
For book covers? It is capable of doing some amazing things, for far less and with far more flexibility than hiring an illustrator when you don't have the money to afford one, and you know a small book will not make up the cost of a $1000 artist.
There are uses for AI everywhere - and doing so ethically and with boundaries to protect how you interact with it creatively are key.