Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per subreddit rules.
It’s not what it is, it’s what someone else can prove in court. I don’t really understand why someone who went to the trouble to write 20% of a book would offload the other 80% onto a bunch other folks via a computer program, but that’s people for you.
Ghost writers are a thing. Same concept here. They wrote/edited parts and “directed” the book, but didn’t write the whole thing. Whether they take credit for it is up to them.
They’d be an editor the same way editors are editors when they edit books written by people.
If you’re asking legally, I highly doubt any current laws would give a shit. The onus would be on someone else to prove that the LLM, and thereby the “author”, plagiarised them, which would be practically impossible.
No. It will be a subpar product because good writing involves a human connection that AI can only pull from past writings. Meaning it will always be a little off. IMO
If you have an idea ask AI to write an outline and then write to the outline.
This is a sticky gray area. It’s not plagiarism if you’re not copying another person’s work. Generative AI works (images, artwork, stories, etc) are legally the intellectual property of the person that created and input the prompts. AI is a tool, nothing more. It’s like using a CNC machine to make something out of wood. I didn’t actually carve the piece, but I have full rights to market and sell that piece. The interesting part is when you use AI to come up with the prompts for an AI written story. It fuzzies the line between creating and simply producing. As computers learn it’s going to he harder to tell, but there will always be a market for un-aided creations.
A part of my English course was teaching us to analyze writings by rephrasing them. Here’s my quick ones:
If I compile a bunch of other people’s writings and mannerisms into a coherent story but I add 20% to it and edit/publish it. Am I still the author?
If I throw together a bunch of random words that are influenced by how other people combine words to form sentences, paragraphs, and books, but I add 20% and make sure it’s legible. Am I still the author?
It seems to me, that even if you can’t point at a person and say they wrote the 80% doesn’t impact the fact you only wrote 20% of the story. Sure, legally and strictly speaking you’d be the author. Just like if you wrote a fan fic on Star wars and borrowed all the characters, plot points, and narratives from others it’s still your story…….but…..is it really? Are you still the author or is showing the other side of the picture worthy enough to claim it so?
Personally, I think it’s more up to the person. As anyone who watches copyrighted music trials can understand: sometimes art isn’t about the words on the page.
Why not. Your story isn’t really about style or ability, it’s about your unique perspective.
The problem we will have is that all works will eventually feel homogenized because it’s all coming from the same machine.
Here’s the thing, I believe Ai can be used as an assistive tool for creativity, but when it takes up the majority of the work, at that point it’s no longer a tool but a whole template. So I treat it like stock- silly as that sounds. If you put 51% of your own genuinely unique work into it and it fills in the other 49% based on your work then it’s still just a tool and doesn’t matter so much.
But if you put 20% work in and have it finish 80% for you, then you’re basically feeding ingredients into a machine to do the entire task for you. A template.
The way I see it the amount of effort that goes in is equivalent to how much credit should be given. Because for better or worse we will always use tools to make tasks easier, what matters is that it doesn’t take away from the creative process- merely compliments it.
I’ve not done this myself but I would if I could, I draw a lot, and some days I wonder what it would look like if I fed my 50% effort into a machine that could color and render for me. But for some reason I have this strange mental block about it. My art could go from “good” to “phenomenal” but, it wouldn’t feel entirely mine? I guess?
Comments
Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per subreddit rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
It’s not what it is, it’s what someone else can prove in court. I don’t really understand why someone who went to the trouble to write 20% of a book would offload the other 80% onto a bunch other folks via a computer program, but that’s people for you.
Ghost writers are a thing. Same concept here. They wrote/edited parts and “directed” the book, but didn’t write the whole thing. Whether they take credit for it is up to them.
They’d be an editor the same way editors are editors when they edit books written by people.
If you’re asking legally, I highly doubt any current laws would give a shit. The onus would be on someone else to prove that the LLM, and thereby the “author”, plagiarised them, which would be practically impossible.
No. It will be a subpar product because good writing involves a human connection that AI can only pull from past writings. Meaning it will always be a little off. IMO
If you have an idea ask AI to write an outline and then write to the outline.
This is a sticky gray area. It’s not plagiarism if you’re not copying another person’s work. Generative AI works (images, artwork, stories, etc) are legally the intellectual property of the person that created and input the prompts. AI is a tool, nothing more. It’s like using a CNC machine to make something out of wood. I didn’t actually carve the piece, but I have full rights to market and sell that piece. The interesting part is when you use AI to come up with the prompts for an AI written story. It fuzzies the line between creating and simply producing. As computers learn it’s going to he harder to tell, but there will always be a market for un-aided creations.
A part of my English course was teaching us to analyze writings by rephrasing them. Here’s my quick ones:
If I compile a bunch of other people’s writings and mannerisms into a coherent story but I add 20% to it and edit/publish it. Am I still the author?
If I throw together a bunch of random words that are influenced by how other people combine words to form sentences, paragraphs, and books, but I add 20% and make sure it’s legible. Am I still the author?
It seems to me, that even if you can’t point at a person and say they wrote the 80% doesn’t impact the fact you only wrote 20% of the story. Sure, legally and strictly speaking you’d be the author. Just like if you wrote a fan fic on Star wars and borrowed all the characters, plot points, and narratives from others it’s still your story…….but…..is it really? Are you still the author or is showing the other side of the picture worthy enough to claim it so?
Personally, I think it’s more up to the person. As anyone who watches copyrighted music trials can understand: sometimes art isn’t about the words on the page.
Why not. Your story isn’t really about style or ability, it’s about your unique perspective.
The problem we will have is that all works will eventually feel homogenized because it’s all coming from the same machine.
Here’s the thing, I believe Ai can be used as an assistive tool for creativity, but when it takes up the majority of the work, at that point it’s no longer a tool but a whole template. So I treat it like stock- silly as that sounds. If you put 51% of your own genuinely unique work into it and it fills in the other 49% based on your work then it’s still just a tool and doesn’t matter so much.
But if you put 20% work in and have it finish 80% for you, then you’re basically feeding ingredients into a machine to do the entire task for you. A template.
The way I see it the amount of effort that goes in is equivalent to how much credit should be given. Because for better or worse we will always use tools to make tasks easier, what matters is that it doesn’t take away from the creative process- merely compliments it.
I’ve not done this myself but I would if I could, I draw a lot, and some days I wonder what it would look like if I fed my 50% effort into a machine that could color and render for me. But for some reason I have this strange mental block about it. My art could go from “good” to “phenomenal” but, it wouldn’t feel entirely mine? I guess?