[gashatfreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Nowadays the ability to write works like a machine gun is valued, and there will always be fans.

Not necessarily. The appeal of writing is the 'human touch' behind it. Sacrificing quality for quantity won't end well. Just look at the overhwleming amount of straming services we have right now. Just look at the MCU. Eventually people would be so bombarded with information that they'll tune off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Therefore, AI can help many slow writers or hobbyists with limited resources.

While I do agree to an extent, the issue is always going to be the abuse of AI and plagiarising other content. Some people publish books entirely written by AI, clogging ebook stores with junk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

After all, which of our recent contemporaries became famous for one work that they wrote all their lives? The last such individuals remained in the last century.

Those people are the exceptions rather than the norm. Artists, wirters and other people who pursue cultural contributions typically produce multiple works over their lifetime to refine their skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

I think there is corruption here.

How exactly did you come to this conclusion?

[Talisman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gashatfreak

Those people are the exceptions rather than the norm. Artists, wirters and other people who pursue cultural contributions typically produce multiple works over their lifetime to refine their skills.

And some people only have One Big Work in them and that's fine, especially in regards to collaborative efforts like filmmaking.

It is a rough experience juggling time, money, resources, and people, not everyone can do it let alone do it well or often and especially while enjoying the process. And that is, I reiterate, fine. And honestly, if you're really concerned about allowing people to create as much as they want, worry less about getting plagiarism engines to be commonplace and more about making it easier for people to eat and keep a roof over their heads.

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH21965

You are defending a product that?s used to scrape and steal real artist?s work. YOU are part of the problem. Lazy useless TRASH for lazy untalented can?t put the effort in people, I stand by that 100%

Tarantino copied Ringo Lamb's "City on Fire" in "Reservoir Dogs." Stephen King uses ghostwriters. They, and many others, do not need AI at all to plagiarize. Fines in this case will work much better than any bans.

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gashatfreak

Not necessarily. The appeal of writing is the 'human touch' behind it. Sacrificing quality for quantity won't end well. Just look at the overhwleming amount of straming services we have right now. Just look at the MCU. Eventually people would be so bombarded with information that they'll tune off.

Well, what speaks against this is that fans are not at all against the work of ghostwriters. How is AI fundamentally different from them? It?s also debatable about the MCU, because it can also be said that they simply did not keep up with the trends of the time, continuing to suck up to liberal trends in a conflict era.

Quote:

Some people publish books entirely written by AI, clogging ebook stores with junk.

I agree, but there was a lot of garbage among books long before the advent of AI. This is all about quality editing. Again, it seems to me that fines will solve this problem much better than disputes.

Quote:

How exactly did you come to this conclusion?

As I wrote: "If a painted explosion is more expensive than a regular one, then what's the point in it?" It's also obvious that it's much easier to pocket money from CGI than from practical special effects. Few people will be able to distinguish graphics for 5 million from graphics for 50 by eye. And if they can, then they can always answer that everything was accidentally deleted and had to be done again. Also, wherever there is big money, corruption inevitably arises. And the film industry consists of liars, libertines and drug addicts, so it is very naive to count on their honesty.

[gashatfreak]

Me and my cousin went to a short upskilling course today to learn how to brew coffee and become baristas.

Now I don't drink coffee (I still maintain that tea is the superior beverage), but after tasting cappucino for the first time in my life, I realised why people get hooked into this stuff. So anyways, they taught us how to brew lattes and espressos and different types of coffees. And well, free coffee is free coffee amirite?

I ended up drinking what I thought was four shots of coffee out of paper cups. And then when I went home and my parents told me how much a shot of coffee actually was, I realised I actually drank the equivalent of eight shots.

Welp.

[Talisman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gashatfreak

Me and my cousin went to a short upskilling course today to learn how to brew coffee and become baristas.

Now I don't drink coffee (I still maintain that tea is the superior beverage), but after tasting cappucino for the first time in my life, I realised why people get hooked into this stuff. So anyways, they taught us how to brew lattes and espressos and different types of coffees. And well, free coffee is free coffee amirite?

I ended up drinking what I thought was four shots of coffee out of paper cups. And then when I went home and my parents told me how much a shot of coffee actually was, I realised I actually drank the equivalent of eight shots.

Welp.

I warn you, this is a dangerous path. I speak as someone who did five years as a poor wretch working for The Siren. The skills and acquired taste I gained on top of my pre-existing coffee obsession have not exactly made me the easiest person to please in regards to the black brew...

[DH21965]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Tarantino copied Ringo Lamb's "City on Fire" in "Reservoir Dogs." Stephen King uses ghostwriters. They, and many others, do not need AI at all to plagiarize. Fines in this case will work much better than any bans.

This is a terrible argument. They are HUMAN.

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH21965

This is a terrible argument. They are HUMAN.

That's it. And they could answer for their plagiarism before society and the law. Why this doesn't happen is a completely different question. But the point is that AI is also used by humans to create works. And, if this person using AI is conscientious enough, then he will clearly check the created work for plagiarism. Let's take a book as an example.There is an author, there is a representative of the publishing house who receives it, there is an editor, most often more than one. And this is still the most simplified scheme. And in the case of a song or film, there will be even more such links. Do you really think that all these people were corrupted by the AI ​​and in other circumstances would have done their job honestly? Of course not. They would have found another way. They would download the book in another language, translate it into Google and replace the names in Word.It would have turned out even more sloppy than with the help of AI.
In principle, I do not understand the desire to see the problem in AI, and not in the person who uses it. It is as pointless as blaming a car for an accident or a bat for a beating. AI is a tool. Advanced, but a tool. Not a person or even a living organism (although even aggressive dogs are the responsibility of their owners). So people should be punished for crimes committed with the help of AI.
Plus, I wonder why the other side of the coin is ignored. AI can also be used to detect plagiarism. Improve the ?search by image? function a little and you?re done. Of course, this requires human supervision and verification, but still the process becomes much easier and faster.
Although this creates the following problem. In the age of postmodernism, how many human-made works can withstand the emotionless machine test? Will it Star Wars pass? Matrix? Films of the same Tarantino? Power Rangers after all? But for many, these films are the foundation of media culture that has shaped their personality. The problem is that plagiarism is already widespread and widespread. They turned a blind eye to it for decades and AI looks like a very belated attempt to draw a line, at the same time throwing responsibility onto someone who cannot fight back. But it's not fair and it won't work.
I sincerely believed that Luddism remained at the beginning of the last century, but apparently, learning from other people?s mistakes is too boring. Bans never work. They didn't work with witchcraft, alcohol, abortion. They won't work with AI either. They will simply transfer the AI ​​to the criminal underground, which will only worsen the situation. But fines are a completely different matter. Simply because they will push to improve the AI ​​and create a version that avoids plagiarism. Not out of good intentions, but to lead the market. Do I really have to explain how the business works?

[Kiwami]

I post this without context so you can have the same reaction as I did when I unsuspectingly clicked on this

[gashatfreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwami

I post this without context so you can have the same reaction as I did when I unsuspectingly clicked on this

Oh cool, this looks interesting.

*clicks on video*

Me: Wait a second...

EDIT: Oh wait it's literally in the title lol. If you can read some Japanese you'd know what to expect.