This was a hard discussion to hear, but also very modulated and so my own views didn’t surge up as much as they could have… :-) But as a writer, I do feel what I create belongs to me and don’t want to see it as a potential feedbag for AI scavengers. I also would like to know what both of you would do or think if your own books and articles got grabbed and remolded into AI versions that you cannot prevent and for which you did not receive credit.
I tend to side with Ray Bradbury in his stories about the human mind being sidelined in favor of robotic finagling. He was really prescient.
100% agree that I don't want my work ingested or used or stolen by AI companies without credit or compensation (or even consent!) Totally agree with you. -- Ned Hayes
I think a lot of AI will come down to the original work of art being highly valuable and sought after, but the cheap printed poster version of the Mona Lisa will still be sold for 19.99.
Temu exists.
It’s not even AI.
What we are talking about beyond AI is ascribing value to human intelligence.
One might see that AI can be a brilliant collaborator, but it can’t think. Even those in the industry distrust the senient model.
This means, we have to embolden the mind for clever reason that outpases the sourced code statistical amalgamation of “knowledge.”
Knowledge is the known thing.
The human heart, who can know it?
Whenever I test my reasoning against AI on a particular topic, I often get an 80% unique rating for the way I think, what I think, and even tying closely to stating something that has not been stated before.
Much of what AI sources, specifically through the internet, are models from Google’s Public Domain literature, blogs, and free writing websites, both creative and journalistic. Many such sources are freely gained on the internet, meaning there is no copyright, which has to be legitimized for legal action.
The point there is, we regurgitate information already, and have done for years, to get clicks and be seen on the algorithm.
There’s a writing meme that I will see on every social media app more than once. People will continue to share it, and now AI validates it.
It isn’t original, but it fits the confirmation cycle that comforts the reader and allows them to feel validated. AI will validate and comfort what is known.
This is a great conversation. Jane reminded us that she believes we should think of AI as augmentation for human creativity, an idea I truly appreciate. More tools, yay! And Ned actually said out loud something that I am afraid to say: "It's easy for people who are ignorant in the humanities especially to say, all of this can be replaced." Thank you for saying "ignorant." Many of the interviews I've listened to with tech people make them sound a little unhinged in their vision for our future. I would be very interested in a sort of profile of the kind of person who works in tech. Have they read any fiction since high school? I feel like there are some things they don't understand about human society. Are these the kids who did well in math and barely passed English or history?
This was a hard discussion to hear, but also very modulated and so my own views didn’t surge up as much as they could have… :-) But as a writer, I do feel what I create belongs to me and don’t want to see it as a potential feedbag for AI scavengers. I also would like to know what both of you would do or think if your own books and articles got grabbed and remolded into AI versions that you cannot prevent and for which you did not receive credit.
I tend to side with Ray Bradbury in his stories about the human mind being sidelined in favor of robotic finagling. He was really prescient.
100% agree that I don't want my work ingested or used or stolen by AI companies without credit or compensation (or even consent!) Totally agree with you. -- Ned Hayes
I think a lot of AI will come down to the original work of art being highly valuable and sought after, but the cheap printed poster version of the Mona Lisa will still be sold for 19.99.
Temu exists.
It’s not even AI.
What we are talking about beyond AI is ascribing value to human intelligence.
One might see that AI can be a brilliant collaborator, but it can’t think. Even those in the industry distrust the senient model.
This means, we have to embolden the mind for clever reason that outpases the sourced code statistical amalgamation of “knowledge.”
Knowledge is the known thing.
The human heart, who can know it?
Whenever I test my reasoning against AI on a particular topic, I often get an 80% unique rating for the way I think, what I think, and even tying closely to stating something that has not been stated before.
Much of what AI sources, specifically through the internet, are models from Google’s Public Domain literature, blogs, and free writing websites, both creative and journalistic. Many such sources are freely gained on the internet, meaning there is no copyright, which has to be legitimized for legal action.
The point there is, we regurgitate information already, and have done for years, to get clicks and be seen on the algorithm.
There’s a writing meme that I will see on every social media app more than once. People will continue to share it, and now AI validates it.
It isn’t original, but it fits the confirmation cycle that comforts the reader and allows them to feel validated. AI will validate and comfort what is known.
This is a great conversation. Jane reminded us that she believes we should think of AI as augmentation for human creativity, an idea I truly appreciate. More tools, yay! And Ned actually said out loud something that I am afraid to say: "It's easy for people who are ignorant in the humanities especially to say, all of this can be replaced." Thank you for saying "ignorant." Many of the interviews I've listened to with tech people make them sound a little unhinged in their vision for our future. I would be very interested in a sort of profile of the kind of person who works in tech. Have they read any fiction since high school? I feel like there are some things they don't understand about human society. Are these the kids who did well in math and barely passed English or history?
Thank you both for a very informative interview. I am looking forward to AI as a tool for writers- in many forms.
So glad to have you as part of this conversation, Bonnie. Thank you for your comment!
You are very welcome!