Traveller, TAS, and AI

[boggo2300]

To reiterate, we've been here before.

Ethically speaking, how many books have been ghostwritten, or even cooperatively, with a single person taking the credit?

Personally, I've been considering feeding the military organization aspects of my Vargr thread to an artificial intelligence generator, and see what is extruded, and then submit that.

you are conflating different things

Ghost Writers are PAID to write

people whose prose is stolen by LLC's are not paid

Collaborative writing is usually published under a made up (often conlation of the authors names, Grant Naylor, or James Corey, OR with all author names listed, Niven and Pournelle, or at least mentioned in a preface, Tom Clancy and Larry Bond.) those other cases tend to be rare, and are indeed immoral.

EVERYTHING "written" with an LLC is stealing someonelses words, without exceptiion, sometime with permission, but mostly without, thats a HUGE difference to some edge cases of an edge case of writing.

 

[Condottiere]

If it is a question of unlicensed copyright, when would that expire?

If the database only extends to that, would it be ethical?

Definitely, in a hundred years from now, since drawing styles seem rather stuck, as music is, we then should be able to employ this method without undue legal or ethical concerns.

 

[Sigtrygg]

No, I don't think a meaningful number of in particular rpg artist says this.

I'm not talking about what the artists say, commercial artists have already adopted AI.

I am relating what every small publisher who will no longer be able to publish for TAS has said. This is not the first thread on this topic, there have been many. Read back and you will find the consensus among the small publishers is they will drop out of the TAS program for the simple reason they can not afford to pay for art.

This decision is not going to see more work for human artists, it is going to see less small publishers in TAS. That is my prediction, let's see what happens.

 

[middenface]

Well for the record this publisher is not dropping TAS and I know one other is not.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You have the resources for art, you can do it yourself, many can't.

If you provide your art, for free, to other publishers then another artist is losing work regardless of AI use.

 

[Hardwire]

You have the resources for art, you can do it yourself, many can't.

If you provide your art, for free, to other publishers then another artist is losing work regardless of AI use.

No, If the publisher was not going to continue publishing because they could not afford to pay an artist then there was no work to loose.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Lose, the word is lose, loose is the opposite of tight. AI doesn't pick up that mistake...

If the publisher is provided free art they can stay in business. No artist is paid.

If not the publisher goes out of business and no artist is paid... the upshot of free art is artists out of work, the upshot of no free art is artists out of work - catch 22.

 

[rinku]

If you can't draw, find someone who can who is willing to work for what you are able to pay.
If you can't write find someone who is willing to work for what you are able to pay.

It is actually that simple.

And... public domain art is a thing. There's a lot of out of public domain science fiction art out there.

 

[TrooperSJP]

I support the ban on AI generated materials in TAS works.

 

[PeterDebney]

Dragon isn't AI, as stated it just types what you say.

Speech recognition is AI. It works by artificial neural networks trained on speech. But crucially it is not generative AI. Dragon and its kin try to reproduce what you say and not make up words for you (except by accident).
This is key.
Generative AI is trained on the works of creative humans. If those humans are all replaced by AI then there will be no new creation. Just endless recycling of the same until it all turns to mud.
If our stone-age ancestors had used generative AI then we would all still be living in caves.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Speech recognition is AI. It works by artificial neural networks trained on speech. But crucially it is not generative AI. Dragon and its kin try to reproduce what you say and not make up words for you (except by accident).
This is key.
Generative AI is trained on the works of creative humans. If those humans are all replaced by AI then there will be no new creation. Just endless recycling of the same until it all turns to mud.
If our stone-age ancestors had used generative AI then we would all still be living in caves.

Makergod? lolz

 

[Terry Mixon]

Speech recognition is AI. It works by artificial neural networks trained on speech. But crucially it is not generative AI. Dragon and its kin try to reproduce what you say and not make up words for you (except by accident).
This is key.
Generative AI is trained on the works of creative humans. If those humans are all replaced by AI then there will be no new creation. Just endless recycling of the same until it all turns to mud.
If our stone-age ancestors had used generative AI then we would all still be living in caves.

This. So much this.

 

[Endie]

Speech recognition is AI. It works by artificial neural networks trained on speech. But crucially it is not generative AI. Dragon and its kin try to reproduce what you say and not make up words for you (except by accident).
This is key.
Generative AI is trained on the works of creative humans. If those humans are all replaced by AI then there will be no new creation. Just endless recycling of the same until it all turns to mud.
If our stone-age ancestors had used generative AI then we would all still be living in caves.

Can't believe you are condemning tens of thousands of translators to penury tbh. If we had allowed AI to translate languages for people who don't want to buy translation services from humans then we would still all be jabbering at each other in Sumerian dialects.

Same argument.

And I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, somehow, great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

 

[Arkathan]

Can't believe you are condemning tens of thousands of translators to penury tbh. If we had allowed AI to translate languages for people who don't want to buy translation services then we would still all be jabbering at each other in Sumerian dialects.

Same argument.

Reread. He says it is NOT generative. It is talk to text. That does not displace translators, it negates the need to train secretaries in shorthand.
And no, we would not be speaking Sumerian dialects. Ancient translators provided an option other than bows and spears. Having that option available did not stop internal decay from allowing the Akkadians to destroy them.

Generative AI does exactly what PeterDebney says. Kills opportunities for people and stagnates the creative field. It is a crutch, which cripples the user and others as well. AI belongs in areas that people do poorly in, or that present dangers for people (not warfare - the front lines SHOULD be filled with the politicians who start and prolong them. Star Trek TOS already covered the folly of AI warfare.)

A good parallel is bringing socialized medicine to the US. Bankrupting the main source of funding for global innovation means that China has no one to steal from. No new developments. Stagnation.

 

[Endie]

Reread. He says it is NOT generative. It is talk to text. That does not displace translators, it negates the need to train secretaries in shorthand.
And no, we would not be speaking Sumerian dialects. Ancient translators provided an option other than bows and spears. Having that option available did not stop internal decay from allowing the Akkadians to destroy them.

Generative AI does exactly what PeterDebney says. Kills opportunities for people and stagnates the creative field. It is a crutch, which cripples the user and others as well. AI belongs in areas that people do poorly in, or that present dangers for people (not warfare - the front lines SHOULD be filled with the politicians who start and prolong them. Star Trek TOS already covered the folly of AI warfare.)

A good parallel is bringing socialized medicine to the US. Bankrupting the main source of funding for global innovation means that China has no one to steal from. No new developments. Stagnation.

Reread my post, then! The fact that it is not generative has nothing to do with what I said about it putting translators out of work. PeterDebney's logical fallacy is exposed by that (and by all the other jobs that machines have destroyed and yet now we are richer than ever before). Oh God, will nobody think of the scythe manufacturers? The ox-bridle makers? The poor hand-threshers?

P.S. I first used Dragon Dictate (as it was) in 1994. I'm fairly aware of its nature.

Edit: since people consistently dodge engaging with this every time I post it, I'll keep doing so:

And I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, [I]somehow[/I], great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

It may be more of a problem of the sheer volume of AI slop drowning out good stuff. It will be hard to find the human art in thousands of auto generated items. The more computer power the better the software the more can be generated, humans can't match the volume.

 

[Arkathan]

I remember when "journalists" of a certain bent chanted for coal miners to learn to code. Now AI is doing the coding.
I see translators at every high level leadership meeting and at televised discussions at the UN. Doesn't look like they are out of a job.
Faster is not better. The ability to create an actress out of thin air, while a technological marvel, is in the realm of We CAN do it, but SHOULD we? The answer is no.
The AI crowd keeps dodging the fact that it's use in the Humanities is nothing more than than a participation trophy. Some people, brought up by those pushing participation trophies are OK with that, as demonstrated by the anecdote of the poster who said many of his fellow students were using AI to construct their college papers. Learn nothing, improve nothing, cheat your way through. (And go into crippling debt in the process, since a degree that allows someone like that to pass will not pay well.)
The bad artists churning out furry trash? They are more talented than the people using AI to avoid learning how to do something.
Bad art is better than no art, but no art is better than relying on AI.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Can't believe you are condemning tens of thousands of translators to penury tbh. If we had allowed AI to translate languages for people who don't want to buy translation services from humans then we would still all be jabbering at each other in Sumerian dialects.

Same argument.

And I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, somehow, great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

Translation is not a creative endeavor. Creative endeavors are where AI should be kept out of. If AI wants to clean my laundry, clean my house, or keep my fridge stocked, I am more than happy to let it do that. If AI wants to create content that is supposed to be emotive, then no, it needs to stay in its lane. Civilizations that cripple their artists and free-thinkers with unfeeling AI "artists" are societies who find emotion a burden and not a blessing. I am simply not sure that path leads to anywhere that I would want to live.

btw... I am a horrible artist and I am red-green colorblind. Art AI could have huge benefits for me, but I'd rather give money to a living, breathing artist. If you want to put street art on the side of your building, you hire an artist (or you get lucky! lol). Hiring an accountant who can tell a computer make pretty pictures on his computer would likely not be that helpful.

 

[Endie]

Translation is not a creative endeavor. Creative endeavors are where AI should be kept out of. If AI wants to clean my laundry, clean my house, or keep my fridge stocked, I am more than happy to let it do that. If AI wants to create content that is supposed to be emotive, then no, it needs to stay in its lane. Civilizations that cripple their artists and free-thinkers with unfeeling AI "artists" are societies who find emotion a burden and not a blessing. I am simply not sure that path leads to anywhere that I would want to live.

btw... I am a horrible artist and I am red-green colorblind. Art AI could have huge benefits for me, but I'd rather give money to a living, breathing artist. If you want to put street art on the side of your building, you hire an artist (or you get lucky! lol). Hiring an accountant who can tell a computer make pretty pictures on his computer would likely not be that helpful.

That's just deflection, though. Quibbling over ontologies to privilege one sort of human activity over another.

And since everyone still fails to address it directly, relying on logical fallacies and no true Scotsman arguments:

And I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, [I]somehow[/I], great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

 

[Arkathan]

The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

That isn't the case, though. If the SAG and Screenwriters don't block AI, the suits WILL use generative AI to make their current level of crap AND use AI actors to do it. AI should be used in making humanity BETTER. Tasks that require adjustments too rapid or equations too long for a human to do quickly and accurately. It should NOT be competing with humans in the arts.
The lack of anything else to copy WILL result in stagnation.
What is to stop main stream news organizations, already proven to have no compunction with telling the public blatant lies and frequently under either overt or clandestine governmental control, to employ AI as if it were factual? This is "1984" territory.

Job "revolutions" are a constant. Obama tried to drive a nail in the coffin when he sided with globalists to help to complete stripping the US of manufacturing capacity. He said it would take a magic wand to bring those jobs back. The globalists wanted to turn the US into a service industry economy, and then the liberals raised the minimum wage to the point that robots were cheaper in several states. Result: well-paying manufacturing jobs became McJobs and McJobs got cut. One can argue about the contributing effect of unions getting contracts where janitors got $45 per hour in 1980's dollars, but the results and the actors are the same. The environmentalists told the coal miners to code, and those jobs were already saturated and endangered by generative AI.

The AI slop makes noise/takes up space which SHOULD be going to a talented human. Instead, THOT slop adorns thousands of competing indy/semi-pro products. I pointed out one AI slop creator that averages three submissions per day. Why? Because the lack of talent and a lack of ethics allows the steady churning of dross.