Question on AI Content and Disclosing it.

[FlyersFan]

This came up this week at ATS and no one knew what to do.   A new poster came on and posted about 35 times.  Each of his posts was obviously not written by a human and KENZO did a check and discovered it was all AI material.

If someone is posting content that is not their own authorship, should they have to disclose it?  Or can they post AI generated walls of text and claim it as their own and not reveal that they aren't the real authors?

[MrGashler77]

I personally think they should. Good on Kenzo for catching it. I saw the thread and could see why people were suspicious. I found it kinda funny that the poster went totally silent the moment that someone mentioned something about it possibly being AI generated content.

[Maxmars]

This came up this week at ATS and no one knew what to do.   A new poster came on and posted about 35 times.  Each of his posts was obviously not written by a human and KENZO did a check and discovered it was all AI material.

If someone is posting content that is not their own authorship, should they have to disclose it?  Or can they post AI generated walls of text and claim it as their own and not reveal that they aren't the real authors?

Members, which is to mean DI community members, enjoy the freedom and confidence that comes with communicating with others here, where we gather.  It is an honesty thing.  For some that notion may be lost... as social media has become less 'community-nurturing' and more 'theater-forward."  It's a trend that will pass...

If you (or anyone) feels an AI-infused production deserves a look, and or want to discuss it, you are more than welcome.

However, of course, if you present it without contextual disclosure... you are not being honest.  We are not psychic here, and I feel that all with whom you might communicate are not here to be 'experimented upon' or 'socially engineered.'  This is the wrong venue for that... leave it to those "others" who find something profitable or 'funny' to do so.

A huge thanks to Kenzo, although I am no longer an ATS member, I appreciate the conscientiousness and favor he did for those less able to discern the practice casually.

I really hate most of the AI 'content' I have reviewed. 
It's a personal thing. 
I would explain, but I feel this thread needn't suffer my 'thread drifting.'

[pianopraze]

This came up this week at ATS and no one knew what to do.   A new poster came on and posted about 35 times.  Each of his posts was obviously not written by a human and KENZO did a check and discovered it was all AI material.

If someone is posting content that is not their own authorship, should they have to disclose it?  Or can they post AI generated walls of text and claim it as their own and not reveal that they aren't the real authors?

I would assume this falls under plagiary rules which ats has long enforced.

warning/banning etc.

[Maxmars]

I would assume this falls under plagiary rules which ats has long enforced.

warning/banning etc.

No one directly "owns" what AI systems produce "creatively."  That ship has sailed already. 

I think it may be more a "misrepresentation" hazard.  The idea that what you contribute to the site comes from "you" not some machine...

Unless it is disclosed otherwise, the implication is that what a user posts is really their own personal content.

[pianopraze]

No one directly "owns" what AI systems produce "creatively."  That ship has sailed already. 

I think it may be more a "misrepresentation" hazard.  The idea that what you contribute to the site comes from "you" not some machine...

Unless it is disclosed otherwise, the implication is that what a user posts is really their own personal content.

Even so, some universities do consider it plagiarism. 

This means that the "generative" and "new" works that these AI programs create may actually be someone else's work. In addition, even when AI generative works don't directly plagiarize, they often reuse ideas and steal core concepts from copyrighted works without crediting the original creators. This is still considered plagiarism.

Arkansas State University

You can cite others who only consider it only academic dishonesty. So obviously the definitions are in process with this new tech. But plagiarism is definitely part of that discussion. I think it falls fully into it as Oxford says:

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own

It might not be "someone" but it is "taking [something] else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own."

[Maxmars]

You are of course correct.

For me it's the dishonesty... AI only simulates "creation" by making a rearranged amalgam of what is has to draw from... by that reasoning everything AI produces is someone else's work... in one way or another.

But in the law, it has been reduced to AI content being "free use" content... (for now, anyway... wait until the money arrives from the entertainment industry... THEN that will magically change... akin to the recent definition change of the word "vaccine.")

[FlyersFan]

This past week on ATS when it happened, everyone could see that the guy hadn't written it himself.   Everyone kept saying it looked like it was a bot.  Then KENZO somehow did some kind of search and discovered it was all AI generated and he even said which AI did it.  

I don't understand AI at all and have no idea how Kenzo did that.  But everyone appreciated it.

When Kenzo posted the information, the guy disappeared.   He had started out by posting four new topics, all anti-Isarel/anti-Jewish .. all at once ... then immediate left when outed and no longer posted.

I think it might be a good thing for DI to include something in it's 'Terms and Conditions' that says if someone is posting AI content that they have to say that it is, and that it's not their own content.   Just a suggestion.  But considering how popular AI is becoming, I think it might be a good idea.

[pianopraze]

I received two or three weird replies on my threads last night.

wonder if it’s people trying to train ai.

example: Bees nest bomber reply

When you're done slobbering all over the place. 

new account, makes no sense to the thread.

[Encia22]

I received two or three weird replies on my threads last night.

wonder if it’s people trying to train ai.

example: Bees nest bomber reply

new account, makes no sense to the thread.

If you want nonsensical, check out the same poster's other ATS thread.

That kind of crap can only dumb down AI; perhaps training on how not to be an asshole.

I can't believe that thread is up to nine pages!