🚨Don't Be Fooled: Why You Shouldn't Pass Off AI Writing as Your Own

[The Moonshiner]

So you used Google's AI tool, Bard, to create an article discouraging the use of AI tools for content creation? Interesting.

Created by me.

Exactly.

 

[RoyalChick]

AI's reply:
That's an interesting observation. AI tools are trained on vast amounts of text data, which can sometimes result in their output being more verbose compared to human writing. Humans have the ability to condense information and express ideas concisely, while AI might prioritize providing comprehensive information. However, it's worth noting that AI is constantly improving, and there are AI tools available that can mimic human writing styles more effectively. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to decide which approach aligns better with their preferences and needs.

Good one.

Or as this human might put it
AI tools err on the side of being comprehensive rather than succinct. However, they will adapt their style over time.

 

[Debbie292d]

Not aware of a premium plan. Does it not only fix spelling but offer thesaurus suggestions?

Not that I'm aware of but MS Word can if you highlight the word and right-click, a menu comes up and Thesaurus is a choice.

 

[JedJackson]

What do teachers do now to weed out AI written student reports? Or do students even write reports any more? lol

 

[Brooks_]

Not that I'm aware of but MS Word can if you highlight the word and right-click, a menu comes up and Thesaurus is a choice.

 

[azurbanclucker]

My observation so far - the AI tools are very wordy compared to the real people.

You've never seen me get going. I can easily spend 3 paragraphs on "Hello, how are you?"

 

[SwampPrincessChick]

It's just for fun - and you have ever participated in one of the contests you would see that everyone has to tell what you punched into the search and what AI image creator that you used.

I have scrolled through those contests before and seen that those are among the requirements, although I still do not believe using A.I. to create any kind of art or writing piece is appropriate, since A.I. learns how to draw art by stealing and tracing from the work of real artists online. Furthermore, due to the fact that A.I. has a habit of using more complex language, it is putting a bad name on people who also write in a similar form. For example, I have heard of teachers suspecting of one of their students to use A.I. in their writing work only because of how their writing style is similar.

 

[azurbanclucker]

Good one.

Or as this human might put it
AI tools err on the side of being comprehensive rather than succinct. However, they will adapt their style over time.

 

[azurbanclucker]

A.I. learns how to draw art by stealing and tracing from the work of real artists online.

I would like to take a moment and make a clarification here, because it's an important one.

AI models are not stealing anyone's art any more than saving it as desktop wallpaper is stealing it. AI models are trained on a data set provided by the programmer. It isn't some autonomous computer presence surfing the internet gobbling up copyrighted works at will and then reproducing them. The AI is still only capable of building results based on the training data it's fed. If there's no Picasso in that data (for example), asking it to do a piece in the style of Picasso will probably get you something insane and not at all in the style of Picasso. Fault the developer here, not the AI itself. It is only as smart as its programming is, and it's only as intelligent as the data set lets it be. A human is still determining what the AI knows, and so instead of this being some scary computer program out to steal all the world's great works, it's really just another case of HUMAN malfeasance or HUMAN stupidity on the programmer's part. Don't blame the code, blame the coder.

There are several lawsuits in flight concerning AI training data and copyright infringement (Getty V Stability AI being a notable one). This is shockingly similar to "Sampling" in music, which was rampant in hip hop in the 90's and eventually resulted in changes to copyright law and new types of licensing. What we're (probably) going to see is new laws and rules around how and what kinds of data can be used for training AI's, and what compensation creators can seek in order to license their work as part of that data set.

I will also point out that much of art is taking inspiration from the work of others or interpreting a theme you see in your own way. Ask 10 people to paint the same bowl of fruit for a still life, and you will get 10 similar but distinctly different paintings. Ask the same 10 people to paint their version of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and not one of them will 100% faithfully reproduce it.

As an artist, I have no problem whatsoever with throwing a description of a piece I want to work up into an AI and asking it for inspiration. I've got several original pieces in various states of progress based on asking an AI to create an image I'm having trouble visualizing from the pieces in my head.

So in the end, AI is just another tool. The human operating it (be that the programmer or the person asking it to "make me a picture of a sandwich that looks like it was painted by Dali" ) are still the problem in the equation.

(P.S. Is this original or AI?)

 

[Brooks_]

(P.S. Is this original or AI?)

Or BS?