5 ms·

Why even care if it is written by a machine or not? I am not sure it matters as much as people think.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Why even care if it is written by a machine or not? I am not sure it matters as much as people think. You don't see the writing on the wall? OK, here is a big hint: it might make a huge difference from a legal perspective whether some "photo" showing child sexual abuse (CSA) was generated using a camera and a real, physical child, or by some AI image generator.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I don't think all jurisdictions make that distinction to start with and even if they did and societies really wanted to go there: not sure why a licensing regime on generators with associated cryptographic information in the images could not work. We don't have to be broadly permissive, if at all.
- claudiawerner 3y ago
  I agree with you, but in some jurisdictions the distance between stuff generated with AI and actual photographs of child abuse are treated rather closely; either way, possessing either could result in what the England & Wales calls a "sexual harm prevention order" (SHPO). To me the idea that someone could be served such an order without ever possessing real CSEM (or "child porn"), never mind actually never being near a child is rather worrying.
JohnFen 3y ago
There are a number of reasons people may care. For instance, the thing about art that appeals to me is that it's human communication. If it's machine generated, then I want to know so that I can properly contextualize it (and be able to know whether or not I'm supporting a real person by paying for it). A world where I can't tell if something is made by human or by machine is a world that has been drained of something important to me. It would reduce the appeal of all art for me and render the world a bit less meaningful.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Fair, but I think that will shake out easier than expected: if there is a market (i.e. it is being valued) for certain things human generated people will work on being able to authenticate their output. Yes, there will likeky be fraud etc., but if there is a reasonable market it has a good chance of working because it serves all participants.
jdshaffer 3y ago
Well, I teach English as a second language in a non-English speaking country. I often used short essays and diary-writing for homework. The students have had lots of English input over the years, but not much experience with output. So, writing assignments work out very well for them. Alas, with ChatGPT on the rise here, they no longer have to write it themselves. The upshot of which is, the useful writing assignments I used to give as homework will either have to be done in class (wasting valuable class time) or given up altogether (wasting valuable learning experiences).
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  What if they accompany the writings with a recording of them reading it aloud? I think you could pick up right quick on who understood what they wrote, and who didn't.
  - jdshaffer 3y ago
    That's actually a pretty good idea. I might have to try it selectively, though it'd be too much for 200 students submitting diaries and summaries every week. laugh They once said I should join Line then we can all talk, then I asked if it's possible to talk in groups of 200+ and their eyes got really big.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  Is your objective that your students learn, or to police them? In the latter case, yes, you have those two options you mentioned. In the former case, you can just continue as you were. Some will cheat and some will not. The ones who do are only cheating themselves.
  - jdshaffer 3y ago
    My goal is for them to learn. And yes, I can just carry on, and some will cheat. I've caught cheaters in the past, of course, but they were far and few between. With ChatGPT and even improved translators like DeepL, it's hard to get them to do the practice they need to learn. And as a teacher who really WANTS them to learn and to get that feeling, "Hey, I can actually do this!", it's depressing to think of the one who do cheat themselves. Oh well...

> Why even care if it is written by a machine or not? I am not sure it matters as much as people think. You don't see the writing on the wall? OK, here is a big hint: it might make a huge difference from a legal perspective whether some "photo" showing child sexual abuse (CSA) was generated using a camera and a real, physical child, or by some AI image generator.

RandomLensman 3y ago
I don't think all jurisdictions make that distinction to start with and even if they did and societies really wanted to go there: not sure why a licensing regime on generators with associated cryptographic information in the images could not work. We don't have to be broadly permissive, if at all.
claudiawerner 3y ago
I agree with you, but in some jurisdictions the distance between stuff generated with AI and actual photographs of child abuse are treated rather closely; either way, possessing either could result in what the England & Wales calls a "sexual harm prevention order" (SHPO). To me the idea that someone could be served such an order without ever possessing real CSEM (or "child porn"), never mind actually never being near a child is rather worrying.

JohnFen 3y ago

There are a number of reasons people may care. For instance, the thing about art that appeals to me is that it's human communication. If it's machine generated, then I want to know so that I can properly contextualize it (and be able to know whether or not I'm supporting a real person by paying for it). A world where I can't tell if something is made by human or by machine is a world that has been drained of something important to me. It would reduce the appeal of all art for me and render the world a bit less meaningful.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Fair, but I think that will shake out easier than expected: if there is a market (i.e. it is being valued) for certain things human generated people will work on being able to authenticate their output. Yes, there will likeky be fraud etc., but if there is a reasonable market it has a good chance of working because it serves all participants.

jdshaffer 3y ago

Well, I teach English as a second language in a non-English speaking country. I often used short essays and diary-writing for homework. The students have had lots of English input over the years, but not much experience with output. So, writing assignments work out very well for them. Alas, with ChatGPT on the rise here, they no longer have to write it themselves. The upshot of which is, the useful writing assignments I used to give as homework will either have to be done in class (wasting valuable class time) or given up altogether (wasting valuable learning experiences).

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
What if they accompany the writings with a recording of them reading it aloud? I think you could pick up right quick on who understood what they wrote, and who didn't.
- jdshaffer 3y ago
  That's actually a pretty good idea. I might have to try it selectively, though it'd be too much for 200 students submitting diaries and summaries every week. laugh They once said I should join Line then we can all talk, then I asked if it's possible to talk in groups of 200+ and their eyes got really big.
deadbeeves 3y ago
Is your objective that your students learn, or to police them? In the latter case, yes, you have those two options you mentioned. In the former case, you can just continue as you were. Some will cheat and some will not. The ones who do are only cheating themselves.
- jdshaffer 3y ago
  My goal is for them to learn. And yes, I can just carry on, and some will cheat. I've caught cheaters in the past, of course, but they were far and few between. With ChatGPT and even improved translators like DeepL, it's hard to get them to do the practice they need to learn. And as a teacher who really WANTS them to learn and to get that feeling, "Hey, I can actually do this!", it's depressing to think of the one who do cheat themselves. Oh well...