3 ms·

As long as we add the stigma of them getting paid for their AI's effort too. Then it could absolutely work.

monkeywork 3mo ago
Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used? Do other authors have a stigma for using a word processor instead of a typewriter? Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas?
- dspillett 3mo ago
  > Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used? Is it being used a tool, or is it being used as a ghostwriter? There is often stigma attached to that when done by humans. > Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas? Yes, that used to very much be the case. Now it is often considered a different form of expression, so loses a lot of the stigma mostly by not pretending to be what those looking down on it are comparing it to. Similar in the debate between CGI and practical effects. Perhaps if AI-backed authors are willing to have their work classed as a different type of writing they can skip by the comparison-stigma too?
  - lern_too_spel 3mo ago
    If it's being used as a ghostwriter, they don't get copyright protection, making it harder to profit off the work.
    - dspillett 3mo ago
      If they are actually doing some work (editing significantly after generation) then they are protected on two fronts (currently, active cases may change this): * as discussed elsewhere in these threads, the judgements pertaining to copyright not applying to generated work all only seem to cover entirely generated work where there is very little human activity after the prompt. * even if the generated work is public domain, the derived work (the edited version) is not necessarily so (much like Disney's derived works created from the tales of Hans Christian Andersen's writings). If they are not doing significant work after the ghostwriting, then sod'em, they are earning the stigma of essentially committing fraud to get that profit from the work.
- harimau777 3mo ago
  The issue is that word processors and photoshop replace the traditional technique of art. AI replaces the expression of art. Since the invention of the camera made representation trivial, the art community has moved towards viewing expression as the soul of art.
fidotron 3mo ago
Surely having the idea and curating the result actually is work? And pricing is determined by what someone else will pay for something, so if people want to read it and the author is charging for it . . . that's up to them if they want to make a trade about it. The odd thing is this attempt at gatekeeping what other people value.
- harimau777 3mo ago
  Price is determined by what someone is willing to pay but value isn't. If the value from art comes from expression, then LLMs directly attack the core value of art.
  - fidotron 3mo ago
    Damien Hirst, among many other prominent modern and historical artists, famously employed teams of human assistants to execute the bulk of the work. In the Hirst case that extended to the spot paintings, many of which he had very limited involvement in as a direct feature of the concept of the work itself. Something tells me that doesn't alter the value of the art as expression of the intention of the artist, and not the assistant be it human or machine. In the spot painting case he was deliberately playing with this idea to the degree it added to the perceived value.
    - skydhash 3mo ago
      Have you ever seen the end credits of a movie. It’s not made by one person either. Just like cathedrals aren’t built by one person. But someone has the vision and make it real. That which is real is a medium from one soul (or many) to you. I still have to see someone using LLM to share a soulful vision of his.
    - harimau777 3mo ago
      That's a great point! I wonder if the difference might be that, as you mentioned, Hirst's lack of direct involvement was part of his artistic message. I wonder "work where the medium is part of the message" might just be an exception to the rule? Although in general I am suspicious of whether AI art is really art, I would consider it art if using AI was part of the message. However, does that generalize to other messages that people use art to communicate?

Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used? Do other authors have a stigma for using a word processor instead of a typewriter? Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas?

dspillett 3mo ago
> Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used? Is it being used a tool, or is it being used as a ghostwriter? There is often stigma attached to that when done by humans. > Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas? Yes, that used to very much be the case. Now it is often considered a different form of expression, so loses a lot of the stigma mostly by not pretending to be what those looking down on it are comparing it to. Similar in the debate between CGI and practical effects. Perhaps if AI-backed authors are willing to have their work classed as a different type of writing they can skip by the comparison-stigma too?
- lern_too_spel 3mo ago
  If it's being used as a ghostwriter, they don't get copyright protection, making it harder to profit off the work.
  - dspillett 3mo ago
    If they are actually doing some work (editing significantly after generation) then they are protected on two fronts (currently, active cases may change this): * as discussed elsewhere in these threads, the judgements pertaining to copyright not applying to generated work all only seem to cover entirely generated work where there is very little human activity after the prompt. * even if the generated work is public domain, the derived work (the edited version) is not necessarily so (much like Disney's derived works created from the tales of Hans Christian Andersen's writings). If they are not doing significant work after the ghostwriting, then sod'em, they are earning the stigma of essentially committing fraud to get that profit from the work.
harimau777 3mo ago
The issue is that word processors and photoshop replace the traditional technique of art. AI replaces the expression of art. Since the invention of the camera made representation trivial, the art community has moved towards viewing expression as the soul of art.

fidotron 3mo ago

Surely having the idea and curating the result actually is work? And pricing is determined by what someone else will pay for something, so if people want to read it and the author is charging for it . . . that's up to them if they want to make a trade about it. The odd thing is this attempt at gatekeeping what other people value.

harimau777 3mo ago
Price is determined by what someone is willing to pay but value isn't. If the value from art comes from expression, then LLMs directly attack the core value of art.
- fidotron 3mo ago
  Damien Hirst, among many other prominent modern and historical artists, famously employed teams of human assistants to execute the bulk of the work. In the Hirst case that extended to the spot paintings, many of which he had very limited involvement in as a direct feature of the concept of the work itself. Something tells me that doesn't alter the value of the art as expression of the intention of the artist, and not the assistant be it human or machine. In the spot painting case he was deliberately playing with this idea to the degree it added to the perceived value.
  - skydhash 3mo ago
    Have you ever seen the end credits of a movie. It’s not made by one person either. Just like cathedrals aren’t built by one person. But someone has the vision and make it real. That which is real is a medium from one soul (or many) to you. I still have to see someone using LLM to share a soulful vision of his.
  - harimau777 3mo ago
    That's a great point! I wonder if the difference might be that, as you mentioned, Hirst's lack of direct involvement was part of his artistic message. I wonder "work where the medium is part of the message" might just be an exception to the rule? Although in general I am suspicious of whether AI art is really art, I would consider it art if using AI was part of the message. However, does that generalize to other messages that people use art to communicate?