Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been the hot topic for a while now thanks to ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and other tools which have made recent advances. On one hand, there are those who believe AI will replace human content creators. On the other hand, there are those who view AI-generated "content" as little more than plagiarism and spam, particularly since there is no actual human engagement by many who are posting AI content.
The biggest public controversies now are probably complaints from writers and artists that their intellectual property is being used to train these systems without their consent. Here on HIVE, the concern is lazy content creation presented as original work by copy/pasting AI output. This is akin to plagiarism in the sense that the content is not your own work, even though AI is more like a highly advanced tool than another creator.
People keep predicting one day AI will write a literary masterpiece. Science fiction is full of artificial intelligence examples, and I would be curious to see them at play in the real world. However, what we have now remains a complicated algorithmic process susceptible to good ol' GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I wanted an illustration for this post showing a robot unveiling a piece of art. This image was made by pasting one AI-generated picture inside another and adding some shoddy digital brushwork in Paint3D afterward. I used NightCafe Studio over several sessions for both key parts of this unsatisfactory result. Could I do better if I had more understanding of AI art creation prompts and parameters? No doubt. Is this better than using clip art and shapes in Canva, or sharing a stock image? Maybe, maybe not.
It is possible AI tools can improve productivity and creativity. If AI helps inspire you, better organize ideas, or overcome a language barrier, that's not a problem for me. If you need to plagiarize a robot to maintain your output rate and reap rewards, we do have a problem. I dispute "intellectual property," but HIVE is still fundamentally a community for creators, not copy/pasters, regardless of the source.
I may dabble in AI art to see if it can actually help me create quick cover images for posts, but if I do, I will endeavor to offer attribution just like I already do for stock photos or Canva creations. I encourage other creators here to do the same. Be honest and transparent about the content under your name, and always give credit where credit is due. Remember, there are tools to help catch the dishonest.
All opinions in this mess of a post are those of the fallible human who typed them out himself, and as such are subject to change based on further information and consideration. No AI tools were used beyond those for the illustration. This disclaimer can be implicitly assumed unless explicitly stated otherwise so I don't feel a need for a stupid wall of boilerplate text after every single post, OK?
I've been having a blast with the stuff. Leaning into what it does differently and weirdly. The way it takes concepts, and works them with autistic focus in some direction I'd never consider, and seeing how much that varies across iterations. I've found it tremendous for generating ideas, and often better at portraying the essence of what I'm talking about than a photograph or bit of clip-art could be. Hopefully I've been clear enough in my attributions.
As with any tool, the problem is not that you use it, but how you use it.
Just saw this right after I got done writing about/posting AI art. I've not really followed the discussions around ChatGPT but the ones about the AI art has amused me. Reminds me a lot of the ruckus over Marcel Duchamp's Readymades, the old guard is mad because the new kids don't give a shit for their rules. We've fetishized art for so long but really 'art' is just the act of doing something.
It took my a while to figure out how to fit AI art into the grand scheme of things but I eventually settled on using it to make stuff where the 'reward' comes from being seen rather than anything else.
What an interesting coincidence, my foul-mouthed alter ego is currently in the process of writing an article about AI and plagiarism as well, though mostly it's about specific instances of the latter. What I've discovered over the course of collecting tea leaves ("tea leaf" is British slang for "thief") is that people who engage in intellectual dishonesty, i.e. fallacious reasoning, manipulative behaviour, and lying by structure, also engage in quite a lot of old-fashioned academic dishonesty as well, i.e. passing the ideas of others off as their own. It's long, since I had to include an entire history lesson in order to provide some background information on serial liar Pierre Sprey.
I keep finding other things to do than translate my article about the mushroom queen and share yet another batch of Hero Forge miniatures, I really must make time to do that before my programming boot camp starts in two days, because I'll probably be too busy to post much of anything for the next five months. On the bright side, maybe I'll learn to program a bot to write my articles for me, and I can just focus on visual art!
I was just thinking if More ideas would not be written about the AI Contents, now that this one is Here, I know everyone will learn that AI contents are just machines work, Hive contents creators should maintain originality and authenticity as always. Nice post.
First we had monkeys randomly typing Hamlet, now we've got AI randomly producing masterpieces
There are both good and bad in any technology, AI is the same. Use it, don't let it use you. I have no advice on how to avoid letting it use you though. I will avoid AI altogether for now, mostly because I don't want to take the time to figure out something new.
The arguments about infinite monkeys eventually writing Hamlet is flawed. Once the first monkey makes a typewriter do something, it'd descend into an infinite monkey fight over that one typewriter instead 😆
Artificial work will always be artificial, it can not be matched with real artist, this is my view.
In term of technology, artificial intelligence is doing great.
I think that's the key, if you use AI stuff in your writing or art or anything behind open and up front about it is fine but when you attempt to pass it off as your own that's a big no no.
It's proving to be a helpful tool, but it's certainly not perfect by any means. I have been playing with ChatGPT for many different things. For posts, I use it to help me with SEO optimization and editing, which sometimes I have to fix again, so it still needs a human touch... but for how long is the question, lol.
I have been using it to help me with code, which it is also not perfect at either, lol. We still have a ways to go before it completely takes over, although I would keep an eye on it for sure.
It's interesting what is happening, but yeah, it will be abused on Hive, but there isn't much anyone will be able to do to stop it.
AI abuse should be downvoted IMHO. That's something a lot of us can do. I mainly want to promote transparency and encourage real creativity, with AI used st most as a tool instead of a crutch.
You could downvote it, but it will eventually get to a point that you won't be able to tell really. Any tool can be abused in the wrong hands. I am not going to be actively out trying to run scans on people's posts to try and figure out if it's AI or not. It can be a great tool. Basically I use it the same way I used Grammerly, but ChatGPT is not invasive on every app I use, lol. It is also very useful for video scripts and things like that. Helps give a nice outline and such to go buy and speeds up that process. Again, all in how it is used.
I have been digging the AI search tools like Perplexity.ai and have been using it instead of Brave or Duck Duck Go lately for my searches. Then I just heard about one called you.com which looks really awesome.