Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:58:55AI art [...] anything made by AI should not be eligible for legal protection. So other people can reuse your AI generated image [...]
Now of writers want to use AI to help them save time on research, as long as they fact check all sides.

As you know, I use AI to generate Go move sequences and empirical positional judgements, and I am about to use them for books I (not AI) write. This puts my AI use somewhere between art and writing. Here is my take:

- I check facts by personally verifying (or sometimes refuting) AI output and comparing it to other sources, as far as they have already had something to say about it.
- I credit what other texts or AI I use.
- Everybody can learn from the AI-generated Go move sequences and judgements to improve their own play (but must not cheat by consulting during playing tournament / rated games).
- Everybody using the AI-generated, if new, Go move sequences and judgements from my writing, which comes with my organisation and comments, in their writing or speech must credit my text source and similarly reasonably limit plain, exact copy of contents or organisation without newly added creativity, like one must do whenever citing texts, or images in texts, according to copyright laws.

That is, AI-generated contents does not deactivate copyright laws but both coexist. Doing research using AI is creative effort by both the AI and the researchers and, like every research, deserves credit. The AI and its creators also deserve credit.

My opinion is as follows:

AI art - I personally see no issue with AI scraping art for training models. If a person can learn from other people's art for free, no reason why AI can't. That said, I also believe anything made by AI should not be eligible for legal protection. So other people can reuse your AI generated image

End of the day, for art the writing is on the wall. You aren't going to escape it. People will use AI art for their personal use and there is no way to enforce it. This will probably be devastating for amateur artists who try to make money on the side. For professional artists, it would have little impact as long as copyright remains solid. But I can imagine countries with weaker copyright laws, it will be an end game for paid art. But all things come to an end eventually

So how do I feel about using AI images for headlines? Sure go ahead

AI blog content - Now this is just annoying. These are usually the articles that generate lots of word spam with little actual content. Not to mention a lot of mistakes. Now I know some argue that "well media outlets themselves dish out generic content and throw in poorly researched bias". But at the very least I can tell which outlets or authors are putting out bad content. On top of that if authors read the comments and see corrections from readers, they can "sometimes" implement that going forward. For AI articles, you have no control over content quality, no clue about biases or etc. It just outputs trash

Now of writers want to use AI to help them save time on research, as long as they fact check all sides. Then sure, go ahead

If those instruments help you to deliver something of use/entertainment, by all accounts proceed with those tools.

If those instruments are just about pushing more content quantity-wise, it's not worth it.

Very good for me - I see it and I skip the article because it's safe to assume that a large chunk of it was also AI generated. So I save time by not reading it. W in my book.

"more than half of which later required edits for factual accuracy"

"hundreds of sites have popped up that use AI to peddle misinformation"

These statements are VERY hilarious to be honest. What?! You never heard of Verizon, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, L.A. Times, IGN, PC Gamer (just all Future plc's outlets) GSMARENA, WCCFTECH, Engadget, BBC, Ars Techina... on & on that all of these  outlets, their human employees, has feed ***misinformation*** FOR DECADES... up
until today... that ~97.99% of all of their data comes from the ignorant umbrella as... wait for it... OUR **UNKNOWN** SOURCES! SMDH!

AI news or human news is the EXACT SAME to the WISE which = FAKE NEWS... and the WISE take extreme caution... AND FACT-CHECK **EVERY** outlet's source on our own if we DESIRE HONEST & STRAIGHTFORWARD NEWS without that outlets appended OPINIONS with that article, ect!

Reap what you sow, I say. It's really... just that simple.

It's lazy and misleading at best. I don't see a use for AI generated content apart from flooding sites with subpar content for the sake of content.

It's an option for small sites that don't have a big name yet. But it's pretty ugly for big names to do that

As long as you still deliver accurate, quality content - why not?