3 ms·

Those books are clearly milking his reputation and destroying it in the process. And did you see the text examples? That clearly looks like low quality filler

Those books are clearly milking his reputation and destroying it in the process. And did you see the text examples? That clearly looks like low quality filler content. I also wouldn't want that to be associated with my name.

Legend2440 3y ago
Sure, whatever. But he's claiming something stronger in the blogpost - that he owns this knowledge because of his 40 years of jazz experience, and AI doesn't have the right to "regurgitate" it. No one can own knowledge. Copyright only covers your specific expression, and that's on purpose.
- m0llusk 3y ago
  You misread. He is saying that he owns his knowledge. This is about what appears to be AI generated content that got his name put on it. You can generate stuff with AI all you want, but you should be honest about what you are doing and not steal the names and identities of others in order to make sales.
  - czl 3y ago
    > content that got his name put on it. Not his name but a similar name that can be confused with his name. > not steal the names and identities of others in order to make sales. Can writer Stephan King prevent other writers using names like "Steven King", "Steve King"? At some point I think we will have to digitally sign work because that will be the only way to show something is authentic.
DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
1. It's not his name. It's a similar name. 2. He doesn't get a monopoly on the first name "Ted" or the last name "Gioia" or even the name "Ted Gioia" since names for humans are not globally unique. If the book had a bio which was specific enough to only be him (like the Twitter account) that would be impersonation, the page doesn't say. So basically what we have here is an "author"[0] who published a book under two fake names. Which is not a new thing. [0] Somewhere a human was involved in generating this content, even if it was just a bit of prompting.

Legend2440 3y ago

Sure, whatever. But he's claiming something stronger in the blogpost - that he owns this knowledge because of his 40 years of jazz experience, and AI doesn't have the right to "regurgitate" it. No one can own knowledge. Copyright only covers your specific expression, and that's on purpose.

m0llusk 3y ago
You misread. He is saying that he owns his knowledge. This is about what appears to be AI generated content that got his name put on it. You can generate stuff with AI all you want, but you should be honest about what you are doing and not steal the names and identities of others in order to make sales.
- czl 3y ago
  > content that got his name put on it. Not his name but a similar name that can be confused with his name. > not steal the names and identities of others in order to make sales. Can writer Stephan King prevent other writers using names like "Steven King", "Steve King"? At some point I think we will have to digitally sign work because that will be the only way to show something is authentic.

DonsDiscountGas 3y ago

1. It's not his name. It's a similar name. 2. He doesn't get a monopoly on the first name "Ted" or the last name "Gioia" or even the name "Ted Gioia" since names for humans are not globally unique. If the book had a bio which was specific enough to only be him (like the Twitter account) that would be impersonation, the page doesn't say. So basically what we have here is an "author"[0] who published a book under two fake names. Which is not a new thing. [0] Somewhere a human was involved in generating this content, even if it was just a bit of prompting.