4 ms·

That's silly. Humans review books all the time, using very similar words. Where's the outrage over that? This is manufactured, stretched, overhyped objections.

That's silly. Humans review books all the time, using very similar words. Where's the outrage over that? This is manufactured, stretched, overhyped objections. I believe it's all as the OP suggests, because the word AI is in there. Not because anything illegal or immoral is going on. In fact it's a terribly useful tool, and once the mob cools off it'll likely return.

LikelyABurner 3y ago
You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. “Our algorithms are pretty much the same as human art criticism, so put down the pitchforks you unenlightened scum” is up there with telling them to eat (a Stable Diffusion generated picture of) cake.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  People starved while it was suggested they eat cake. Not sure how that relates - are the rights around art crit not the same as AI crit?
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    Of course they never were suggested to eat cake in reality. 1) The actual French quote was to brioche, a type of bread and mistranslated as cake because brioche wasn't common in English-speaking countries 2) Was never an actual suggestion -- the French philosopher Rousseau was making a sarcastic remark suggesting that if the people didn't have bread, they should eat brioche (a fancier kind of bread) instead. But for some reason in pop culture this was falsely transformed into an actual suggestion by Marie Antoinette
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      Glad to see someone else mention the falsehood of the original quote. It's actually really fitting to see that (mis-)quote used in the context of this outrage since from reading through the original vitriolic Twitter thread it's clear that many of the most outraged are incorrect about what the product does.
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      IT doesn't really matter to the idiom - what is understood by the reference is what it means.
- pikahumu 3y ago
  > You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. Just like the writers he talked to and got positive feedback? Everybody not agreeing with you represents "chauvinistic SV attitude"?
  - Riverheart 3y ago
    (Edited) No, he didn’t say anything about them. People side against their interests all the time, finding a few writers that like this is trivial. Are those people the majority opinion on this or are we just trying to prove how wonderful this technology is?
    - pikahumu 3y ago
      I'm assuming you read the article. Let's recap: > I launched the prosecraft website in the summer of 2017, and I started showing it off to authors at writers conferences. The response was universally positive, and I incorporated the prosecraft analytic tools into the Shaxpir desktop application [...] And he goes on mentioning that some authors even reached out to him to get their books added. Unless you are accusing him of lying or unreasonably overstating the response he got ("universally positive"), for which I really don't see any indication, then a statement like "finding a few writers that like this is trivial" is not a good faith engagement with this topic/conversation.
      - Riverheart 3y ago
        There’s no way to qualify the sample size of writers based on his claims so within the bubble of his experience I’m sure it’s correct but not useful to base an argument on that writers at large are onboard with this and as for good faith engagement your response to parent… “Everybody not agreeing with you represents "chauvinistic SV attitude"?” …wasn’t very good faith either as it’s unclear whether the writers share the same belief as some tech people that AI and humans doing stuff are the same and use that idea to further a pro AI agenda as opposed to them just finding a useful tool to incorporate into their workflow regardless of the underlying technology or politics. Your response assumed the former and paints parent poster as wrong based on your assumption. Some writers liking the tool, just like some artists liking stable diffusion, doesn’t invalidate the original criticism or imply their ideology. Indeed my experience jives with what he said. Many AI people I’ve seen comment are very much “adapt or die” when it comes to AI technology, suggesting that writers/artists must (even if begrudgingly) use these tools to stay competitive and see many datasets as fair game even when their authors are against its inclusion in said datasets, such as the author of this article.
- melagonster 3y ago
  or talking about human "just another matrix", so how dare them don't want to offer their artwork for new models. this even didn't contain how developers decided to let people lose job. people is angry because they worried about losing job.
- wink 3y ago
  Counting the ratio of nouns to verbs in a novel is an algorithm and I think it's like one of the most basic examples of what the thing in the article does, if I understood it correctly. But I guess there would also be people up in arms about this.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Or AI-generated Soylent.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  There's no outrage in the general population. Just of a minority that is just as small as silicon valley.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  Do you even know the meaning of chauvinism? Because this is literally the opposite of chauvinism. They aren't stating their view is superior, they just want it to exist.
Nullabillity 3y ago
They… quantify the number of adverbs and voices? I'm sorry, but have you ever read either a book or a review of one?
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Yes, and they have 1000 times the spoilers and quotations and judgemental attitude of ... a summary of adverbs and voices. So yes, I understand what a review is, thanks for the put-down, that certainly added something to the conversation. I think we are in agreement - doing statistical analysis on written works is entirely a lesser thing than simple review, and is harmless.
palata 3y ago
> That's silly. Humans review books all the time, using very similar words. Where's the outrage over that? Easy: humans are not machines. "X does it all the time, so I should be able to do it" is never a valid conclusion. It depends on the situation. > In fact it's a terribly useful tool, and once the mob cools off it'll likely return. Maybe this tool in particular does not "abuse" the books. Maybe this tool in particular is terribly useful. But you can't blame authors and artists for taking a stance against those new algorithms that provably have the potential to automatically "steal" from their work. You can believe that asking ChatGPT to "write a novel in the style of X" is not abusing the copyright, that's fine. And the authors can answer that they fear it has the potential to break their source of revenue to a point where they won't want to publish anything anymore. And they are entitled to it. And maybe someday we come up with licenses that prevent the use as training data (how in the world could one conclude today that "it is most definitely fair use", given that this is a very new way of using IP material?).
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  That was the accusation, and it was misplaced here. So we agree, this is a smear campaign in this case, not a sensible reaction to a reasonable application of machine algorithms. The idea that counting adverbs is steal their work to the point they won't want to publish anymore is clearly FUD. As my remark made clear.
  - palata 3y ago
    > The idea that counting adverbs is steal their work to the point they won't want to publish anymore is clearly FUD. I did not mean that, I am genuinely not sure if you rephrased my point to make it sound wrong or if you missed it. My point was that, IMO, it does not matter to the other whether counting adverbs is stealing their work or not. Probably if you counted them manually they would be fine (and most likely they were fine before generative AI). What matters to them is that generative AI is trained from their copyrighted material, and they fear it (I would, too). The day people stop reading my blog because they can just ask ChatGPT and will get something generated (partly) from my material without any kind of attribution, I can promise you I will stop my blog.

LikelyABurner 3y ago

You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. “Our algorithms are pretty much the same as human art criticism, so put down the pitchforks you unenlightened scum” is up there with telling them to eat (a Stable Diffusion generated picture of) cake.

Chris2048 3y ago
People starved while it was suggested they eat cake. Not sure how that relates - are the rights around art crit not the same as AI crit?
- jhbadger 3y ago
  Of course they never were suggested to eat cake in reality. 1) The actual French quote was to brioche, a type of bread and mistranslated as cake because brioche wasn't common in English-speaking countries 2) Was never an actual suggestion -- the French philosopher Rousseau was making a sarcastic remark suggesting that if the people didn't have bread, they should eat brioche (a fancier kind of bread) instead. But for some reason in pop culture this was falsely transformed into an actual suggestion by Marie Antoinette
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    Glad to see someone else mention the falsehood of the original quote. It's actually really fitting to see that (mis-)quote used in the context of this outrage since from reading through the original vitriolic Twitter thread it's clear that many of the most outraged are incorrect about what the product does.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    IT doesn't really matter to the idiom - what is understood by the reference is what it means.
pikahumu 3y ago
> You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. Just like the writers he talked to and got positive feedback? Everybody not agreeing with you represents "chauvinistic SV attitude"?
- Riverheart 3y ago
  (Edited) No, he didn’t say anything about them. People side against their interests all the time, finding a few writers that like this is trivial. Are those people the majority opinion on this or are we just trying to prove how wonderful this technology is?
  - pikahumu 3y ago
    I'm assuming you read the article. Let's recap: > I launched the prosecraft website in the summer of 2017, and I started showing it off to authors at writers conferences. The response was universally positive, and I incorporated the prosecraft analytic tools into the Shaxpir desktop application [...] And he goes on mentioning that some authors even reached out to him to get their books added. Unless you are accusing him of lying or unreasonably overstating the response he got ("universally positive"), for which I really don't see any indication, then a statement like "finding a few writers that like this is trivial" is not a good faith engagement with this topic/conversation.
    - Riverheart 3y ago
      There’s no way to qualify the sample size of writers based on his claims so within the bubble of his experience I’m sure it’s correct but not useful to base an argument on that writers at large are onboard with this and as for good faith engagement your response to parent… “Everybody not agreeing with you represents "chauvinistic SV attitude"?” …wasn’t very good faith either as it’s unclear whether the writers share the same belief as some tech people that AI and humans doing stuff are the same and use that idea to further a pro AI agenda as opposed to them just finding a useful tool to incorporate into their workflow regardless of the underlying technology or politics. Your response assumed the former and paints parent poster as wrong based on your assumption. Some writers liking the tool, just like some artists liking stable diffusion, doesn’t invalidate the original criticism or imply their ideology. Indeed my experience jives with what he said. Many AI people I’ve seen comment are very much “adapt or die” when it comes to AI technology, suggesting that writers/artists must (even if begrudgingly) use these tools to stay competitive and see many datasets as fair game even when their authors are against its inclusion in said datasets, such as the author of this article.
melagonster 3y ago
or talking about human "just another matrix", so how dare them don't want to offer their artwork for new models. this even didn't contain how developers decided to let people lose job. people is angry because they worried about losing job.
wink 3y ago
Counting the ratio of nouns to verbs in a novel is an algorithm and I think it's like one of the most basic examples of what the thing in the article does, if I understood it correctly. But I guess there would also be people up in arms about this.
avgcorrection 3y ago
Or AI-generated Soylent.
mardifoufs 3y ago
There's no outrage in the general population. Just of a minority that is just as small as silicon valley.
Nasrudith 3y ago
Do you even know the meaning of chauvinism? Because this is literally the opposite of chauvinism. They aren't stating their view is superior, they just want it to exist.

Nullabillity 3y ago

They… quantify the number of adverbs and voices? I'm sorry, but have you ever read either a book or a review of one?

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Yes, and they have 1000 times the spoilers and quotations and judgemental attitude of ... a summary of adverbs and voices. So yes, I understand what a review is, thanks for the put-down, that certainly added something to the conversation. I think we are in agreement - doing statistical analysis on written works is entirely a lesser thing than simple review, and is harmless.

palata 3y ago

> That's silly. Humans review books all the time, using very similar words. Where's the outrage over that? Easy: humans are not machines. "X does it all the time, so I should be able to do it" is never a valid conclusion. It depends on the situation. > In fact it's a terribly useful tool, and once the mob cools off it'll likely return. Maybe this tool in particular does not "abuse" the books. Maybe this tool in particular is terribly useful. But you can't blame authors and artists for taking a stance against those new algorithms that provably have the potential to automatically "steal" from their work. You can believe that asking ChatGPT to "write a novel in the style of X" is not abusing the copyright, that's fine. And the authors can answer that they fear it has the potential to break their source of revenue to a point where they won't want to publish anything anymore. And they are entitled to it. And maybe someday we come up with licenses that prevent the use as training data (how in the world could one conclude today that "it is most definitely fair use", given that this is a very new way of using IP material?).

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
That was the accusation, and it was misplaced here. So we agree, this is a smear campaign in this case, not a sensible reaction to a reasonable application of machine algorithms. The idea that counting adverbs is steal their work to the point they won't want to publish anymore is clearly FUD. As my remark made clear.
- palata 3y ago
  > The idea that counting adverbs is steal their work to the point they won't want to publish anymore is clearly FUD. I did not mean that, I am genuinely not sure if you rephrased my point to make it sound wrong or if you missed it. My point was that, IMO, it does not matter to the other whether counting adverbs is stealing their work or not. Probably if you counted them manually they would be fine (and most likely they were fine before generative AI). What matters to them is that generative AI is trained from their copyrighted material, and they fear it (I would, too). The day people stop reading my blog because they can just ask ChatGPT and will get something generated (partly) from my material without any kind of attribution, I can promise you I will stop my blog.