Chat bot generated poems and critique
Daniel, you said: "My only qualm with it is that, if you do not cite that the poem or critique was written by a chat bot, even if you then edit it to make it sound more human, there is a fundamental deception to using it and allowing those who read it to assume that it is your original thoughts and writing...."
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
VeronikaB said:Daniel, you said: "My only qualm with it is that, if you do not cite that the poem or critique was written by a chat bot, even if you then edit it to make it sound more human, there is a fundamental deception to using it and allowing those who read it to assume that it is your original thoughts and writing...."
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
I was wondering if anyone would bring up the process vs. product angle.... because for me, that's the greatest value in writing poetry - the creative process. I also love sharing it, because of the interactions with other poets that come from that, but sharing something I didn't write would be more like... I dunno, maybe like being in a book club?! (Hey, here's this cool thing someone else wrote, let's talk about it!) I prefer to share a piece of myself that I wrestled to the page, and connect with other people around it.
But any time we're focused on the product over the process, that's when we run the risk of plagiarism - including bot poetry. Students do it in school because a good product gets better grades. Artists of all sorts do it if they're after the accolades & even money, because a polished product gets more attention. People here on DUP might do it to win comps. Unfortunately, once you get into this product-focused realm, you're always going to have to compete with whatever tool makes a better product, because these tools aren't going away - ethical or not.
I don't think AI will "destroy the creative process". Those of us who are focused on process and connection with other poets will carry on as we always have.
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
I was wondering if anyone would bring up the process vs. product angle.... because for me, that's the greatest value in writing poetry - the creative process. I also love sharing it, because of the interactions with other poets that come from that, but sharing something I didn't write would be more like... I dunno, maybe like being in a book club?! (Hey, here's this cool thing someone else wrote, let's talk about it!) I prefer to share a piece of myself that I wrestled to the page, and connect with other people around it.
But any time we're focused on the product over the process, that's when we run the risk of plagiarism - including bot poetry. Students do it in school because a good product gets better grades. Artists of all sorts do it if they're after the accolades & even money, because a polished product gets more attention. People here on DUP might do it to win comps. Unfortunately, once you get into this product-focused realm, you're always going to have to compete with whatever tool makes a better product, because these tools aren't going away - ethical or not.
I don't think AI will "destroy the creative process". Those of us who are focused on process and connection with other poets will carry on as we always have.
Yes, absolutely. I also feel sharing your creative work is an important part of the creative process. And sharing work that's not yours is absolutely fine, as long as the author is acknowledged. The problem is the deception, and the intention behind it. Josh and I were just talking about this. Of course students do it because the whole school/ university system is geared around results, not the creative process, (which puts the whole degree system into question but that's another topic)
The question is, why would anyone do it here, on THIS forum, which is not about grades and results, or getting a degree?
In my experience as a writer, technology does have an impact on the creative process. Sometimes in a good way (e.g. it enables us to share our work in a forum like this).
Technology always has an impact. It is often unsettling and hard to predict. Writing itself was once a new technology, and it has virtually ended the oral tradition. But I agree, it's unlikely that AI will "destroy the creative process"... because humans are creative by nature.
The question is, why would anyone do it here, on THIS forum, which is not about grades and results, or getting a degree?
In my experience as a writer, technology does have an impact on the creative process. Sometimes in a good way (e.g. it enables us to share our work in a forum like this).
Technology always has an impact. It is often unsettling and hard to predict. Writing itself was once a new technology, and it has virtually ended the oral tradition. But I agree, it's unlikely that AI will "destroy the creative process"... because humans are creative by nature.
This is timely—this company "Future of Life" is requesting a 6-month pause of AI technology so we can have adequate time to evaluate the impact on life. You can add your signature to the 18980 ( at time of my posting ) if you choose.
Their mission statement is:
Steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Their mission statement is:
Steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Ahavati said:This is timely—this company "Future of Life" is requesting a 6-month pause of AI technology so we can have adequate time to evaluate the impact on life. You can add your signature to the 18980 ( at time of my posting ) if you choose.
Their mission statement is:
Steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Interesting link to futureoflife.org, thank you
I remember a lot of talk in the 1970s and 1980s about "Technology Assessment", predicting the impact the computer was about to have on society, and how to control computer technology development in a way to benefit society.
What has actually happened is the emergence of global-scale Big Tech who are accountable to no-one because of the power they wield - and the prize of 'ruling the world' (or large parts of it) via tech seems (to them) now so close it has produced a frantic rush to be top-dog under the triple-whammy combined ethic of 'might-is-right' + 'the ends justify the means' + 'what technology can do, it must do'.
A moratorium on bio-weapons has worked to a point (though I consider even junk-food a bio-weapon), and it hasn't really stopped chemical-weapons. Nor have heard-and-fast international laws stopped torture or slavery.
With Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari and Steve Wozniak as signatories (the other names mean nothing to me) maybe at least the need for a moratorium will get talked about - like the need to stop killing off the earth - but I doubt much will happen regarding holding back AI to give a breather for a rethink. The lure of power and money and controlling others is too strong.
Their mission statement is:
Steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Interesting link to futureoflife.org, thank you
I remember a lot of talk in the 1970s and 1980s about "Technology Assessment", predicting the impact the computer was about to have on society, and how to control computer technology development in a way to benefit society.
What has actually happened is the emergence of global-scale Big Tech who are accountable to no-one because of the power they wield - and the prize of 'ruling the world' (or large parts of it) via tech seems (to them) now so close it has produced a frantic rush to be top-dog under the triple-whammy combined ethic of 'might-is-right' + 'the ends justify the means' + 'what technology can do, it must do'.
A moratorium on bio-weapons has worked to a point (though I consider even junk-food a bio-weapon), and it hasn't really stopped chemical-weapons. Nor have heard-and-fast international laws stopped torture or slavery.
With Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari and Steve Wozniak as signatories (the other names mean nothing to me) maybe at least the need for a moratorium will get talked about - like the need to stop killing off the earth - but I doubt much will happen regarding holding back AI to give a breather for a rethink. The lure of power and money and controlling others is too strong.
Josh said:
Interesting link to futureoflife.org, thank you
You're welcome. I found it interesting that the concern isn't isolated to just a poetry site but a global concern.
I remember a lot of talk in the 1970s and 1980s about "Technology Assessment", predicting the impact the computer was about to have on society, and how to control computer technology development in a way to benefit society.
What has actually happened is the emergence of global-scale Big Tech who are accountable to no-one because of the power they wield - and the prize of 'ruling the world' (or large parts of it) via tech seems (to them) now so close it has produced a frantic rush to be top-dog under the triple-whammy combined ethic of 'might-is-right' + 'the ends justify the means' + 'what technology can do, it must do'.
A moratorium on bio-weapons has worked to a point (though I consider even junk-food a bio-weapon), and it hasn't really stopped chemical-weapons. Nor have heard-and-fast international laws stopped torture or slavery.
With Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari and Steve Wozniak as signatories (the other names mean nothing to me) maybe at least the need for a moratorium will get talked about - like the need to stop killing off the earth - but I doubt much will happen regarding holding back AI to give a breather for a rethink. The lure of power and money and controlling others is too strong.
I remember the computer debates well; I think I even referenced that in the AI discussion thread. Attempts to combat the fallouts ( security breaches, etc. ) are still being addressed today. The computer happened fast. AI is happening fast. I agree that it's likely nothing will come of the request regardless of who's signed.
We don't seem to have learned from history thus far, why start now? [/sarcasm ]
Hope you list your mile-long accreditations with your signature ( if you sign ). You just might get a call, Josh. They say that specifically at the end ( referencing certain signees ).
Interesting link to futureoflife.org, thank you
You're welcome. I found it interesting that the concern isn't isolated to just a poetry site but a global concern.
I remember a lot of talk in the 1970s and 1980s about "Technology Assessment", predicting the impact the computer was about to have on society, and how to control computer technology development in a way to benefit society.
What has actually happened is the emergence of global-scale Big Tech who are accountable to no-one because of the power they wield - and the prize of 'ruling the world' (or large parts of it) via tech seems (to them) now so close it has produced a frantic rush to be top-dog under the triple-whammy combined ethic of 'might-is-right' + 'the ends justify the means' + 'what technology can do, it must do'.
A moratorium on bio-weapons has worked to a point (though I consider even junk-food a bio-weapon), and it hasn't really stopped chemical-weapons. Nor have heard-and-fast international laws stopped torture or slavery.
With Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari and Steve Wozniak as signatories (the other names mean nothing to me) maybe at least the need for a moratorium will get talked about - like the need to stop killing off the earth - but I doubt much will happen regarding holding back AI to give a breather for a rethink. The lure of power and money and controlling others is too strong.
I remember the computer debates well; I think I even referenced that in the AI discussion thread. Attempts to combat the fallouts ( security breaches, etc. ) are still being addressed today. The computer happened fast. AI is happening fast. I agree that it's likely nothing will come of the request regardless of who's signed.
We don't seem to have learned from history thus far, why start now? [/sarcasm ]
Hope you list your mile-long accreditations with your signature ( if you sign ). You just might get a call, Josh. They say that specifically at the end ( referencing certain signees ).
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
My latest poem has been visited by another one. Or at least I suspect so, based on my intuition and looking into the user's profile. Might as well get used to them, I guess; I have no intention of playing the witch-hunt game of "spot the bot", as I'm definitely not infallible.
Josh said:I read my way through the now closed forum "AI content concerns and solutions", and agree with much.
Reading this forum seems to have taken it a bit further ... and DUP will have to sort something out about it.
************************************
My interest though is about the meta-issue of AI vs The Creative Process.
From ancient mystics to quantum physicists we know there is no such thing as matter. Everything therefore is process.
This process is by nature creatively interactive with connections to other realms, which sometimes we experience easily, at other times not so.
AI has none of this; it is not sentient or having consciousness (or rather, it cannot 'be consciousness' which is what humans are). AI is a slave to algorithms; that's all. And its world is limited to what's on the internet, which is a small %ge of 'all knowledge'.
What's more, it has no originality of its own; and can only steal 'creativity' from humans, re-jiggle it, and re-present it as apparently original material. It is devoid of spirit, of soul, of inspiration, of intuition, of will, of imagination, of instinct ...,
although it does a good job on 'intellect'. However, a car can go faster than a human but we don't say a car is a better runner than a human.
Therefore true creativity (in poetry or any other art-form) is 100% a human prerogative (birthright, power, privilege).
And it's always good to remember when considering new technologies, the question: What does it mean to be human that technology might somehow deprive me of?
Which brings me to the issue of redefining what we mean by the word 'poetry'.
To me, by definition, it is 100% a human affair.
To say humans invented AI poetry capability and therefore is 'partly human anyway', or to equate AI poetry and commenting as just a faster way of doing what a widely read person who is good with words might do, is not the point.
The point is the human connection ...
As Psalm 115:8 says concerning idols:
"Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them".
I've never been a fan of reductionism.
AI is a challenge, but an opportunity to increase our sense of our own inheritance as humans.
Well elucidated Josh thank you for this comprehend and insightful contribution to the discussion. I concur with you.
Reading this forum seems to have taken it a bit further ... and DUP will have to sort something out about it.
************************************
My interest though is about the meta-issue of AI vs The Creative Process.
From ancient mystics to quantum physicists we know there is no such thing as matter. Everything therefore is process.
This process is by nature creatively interactive with connections to other realms, which sometimes we experience easily, at other times not so.
AI has none of this; it is not sentient or having consciousness (or rather, it cannot 'be consciousness' which is what humans are). AI is a slave to algorithms; that's all. And its world is limited to what's on the internet, which is a small %ge of 'all knowledge'.
What's more, it has no originality of its own; and can only steal 'creativity' from humans, re-jiggle it, and re-present it as apparently original material. It is devoid of spirit, of soul, of inspiration, of intuition, of will, of imagination, of instinct ...,
although it does a good job on 'intellect'. However, a car can go faster than a human but we don't say a car is a better runner than a human.
Therefore true creativity (in poetry or any other art-form) is 100% a human prerogative (birthright, power, privilege).
And it's always good to remember when considering new technologies, the question: What does it mean to be human that technology might somehow deprive me of?
Which brings me to the issue of redefining what we mean by the word 'poetry'.
To me, by definition, it is 100% a human affair.
To say humans invented AI poetry capability and therefore is 'partly human anyway', or to equate AI poetry and commenting as just a faster way of doing what a widely read person who is good with words might do, is not the point.
The point is the human connection ...
As Psalm 115:8 says concerning idols:
"Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them".
I've never been a fan of reductionism.
AI is a challenge, but an opportunity to increase our sense of our own inheritance as humans.
Well elucidated Josh thank you for this comprehend and insightful contribution to the discussion. I concur with you.
VeronikaB said:Daniel, you said: "My only qualm with it is that, if you do not cite that the poem or critique was written by a chat bot, even if you then edit it to make it sound more human, there is a fundamental deception to using it and allowing those who read it to assume that it is your original thoughts and writing...."
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
Excellent and salient points thank you so much for this contributor to the discussion. Absolutely I would concur with your argument. I said something to this point on the now closed suggestion thread, AI concerns and solutions. Essentially that the bot is using algorithms to recreate patterns from a vast database, it is sampling from the end result of others creativity, it has no creativity of its own.
That we've gotten this issue in the open and are discussing it is the most important achievement we've made in regards to the additional paradigm of AI generated content being copy pasted onto the site I think. We've raised awareness.
and then "... the chat bots are a database of human knowledge, so the generated response is essentially human, it is just not authentic to that particular human that is copy pasting it into DU."
Taking any kind of writing, tweaking it a little, and then publishing it as your own used to be called plagiarism. As far as I'm aware, this violates copyrights and is essentially an illegal activity ("Plagiarism: taking any sequence of more than three words without citing is stealing work from others. Taking an idea, image (photograph, table, or graph) without citing is also plagiarism and may also violate copyright laws.")
Taking a poem generated by a chat bot (that is a database of human writing) I'd say is basically stealing words written by fellow humans, appropriated by a chat bot. The fact that the words are passed through an AI filter doesn't 'neutralise' the theft of intellectual property.
So there are fundamentally two deceptions. First by the chat bot, and then by the person publishing chat bot generated content as their own. No wonder this triggers intense irritation!
Apart from all that, I see a bigger problem with this – It's the invasive take over of the creative process. This, for me, throws up a massive dust cloud of questions.
A chat bot generated poem is focused entirely on the result. Is that why poets write poems? I'm assuming that writing poetry is mostly about the PROCESS of writing, grappling with an idea or problem, 'wrestling the words to the page' (this is what I'm witnessing more or less daily, living with a poet).
In philosophy, poieisis is defined as "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before."
As a writer myself, I know the deep satisfaction of bringing forth a piece of written text, from the first draft, through multiple stages of editing, to its final form. This interaction with the writing is, to me, a profoundly meaningful process.
Is the chat bot short cut supposed to "free us from all that hard work" – HURRAY!!??
Or is the chat bot going to be a new writing tool, which some of us are currently resisting?
Or is AI threatening to interfere with the human creative process?
Could AI, used in this way, potentially destroy the creative process?
And how can we as creative writers prevent this from happening?
Excellent and salient points thank you so much for this contributor to the discussion. Absolutely I would concur with your argument. I said something to this point on the now closed suggestion thread, AI concerns and solutions. Essentially that the bot is using algorithms to recreate patterns from a vast database, it is sampling from the end result of others creativity, it has no creativity of its own.
That we've gotten this issue in the open and are discussing it is the most important achievement we've made in regards to the additional paradigm of AI generated content being copy pasted onto the site I think. We've raised awareness.
brokentitanium said:My latest poem has been visited by another one. Or at least I suspect so, based on my intuition and looking into the user's profile. Might as well get used to them, I guess; I have no intention of playing the witch-hunt game of "spot the bot", as I'm definitely not infallible.
Understandable. At this point we can do what we've always done, be guided by our intuition and choose whom we will engage with.
Understandable. At this point we can do what we've always done, be guided by our intuition and choose whom we will engage with.
Betty said:
I think I’m going to start adding something in my author’s notes excluding AI content. I’m not sure where else to start.
people have been stealing off my plate for what seems like forever... just the art of talking is a gift and poetry is a language that can be mimicked but not understood by AI it's okay people I know you are afraid I'm here blood and bone of flesh this is an alien invasion but I'm ready... the markers were removed a blood vow was broken by our Father he failed to tell me had a father time now unwind technology you are a cheat.
I think I’m going to start adding something in my author’s notes excluding AI content. I’m not sure where else to start.
people have been stealing off my plate for what seems like forever... just the art of talking is a gift and poetry is a language that can be mimicked but not understood by AI it's okay people I know you are afraid I'm here blood and bone of flesh this is an alien invasion but I'm ready... the markers were removed a blood vow was broken by our Father he failed to tell me had a father time now unwind technology you are a cheat.
And he’s back, and has taken the top reviews spot on the site.
You have witnessed the fall of many things in your life, perhaps. Roll-up windows. House telephones. The cassette tape. Democracy.
And now … you will witness the death of poetry as we know it.
Enjoy the shit show.
You have witnessed the fall of many things in your life, perhaps. Roll-up windows. House telephones. The cassette tape. Democracy.
And now … you will witness the death of poetry as we know it.
Enjoy the shit show.
Betty said:And he’s back, and has taken the top reviews spot on the site.
You have witnessed the fall of many things in your life, perhaps. Roll-up windows. House telephones. The cassette tape. Democracy.
And now … you will witness the death of poetry as we know it.
Enjoy the shit show.
There's some saying shit floats up, the heavy gold always reaches the depths.
Anyone with an iota of love and recognition of art I'dd say would clearly see the difference between Art and artificially generated blocks of words. Meaning but no depth. The aforementioned is not poetry.
I share your concern and frustration Betty and there clearly is a need to act on part of the site's policies and procedures re dealing with the issue.
At the same time I'd point to my first sentence in this reply, all humans can see/ feel the difference between the heavy gold and the floating shit. Shit show indeed in that way it is I'd say 😉
You have witnessed the fall of many things in your life, perhaps. Roll-up windows. House telephones. The cassette tape. Democracy.
And now … you will witness the death of poetry as we know it.
Enjoy the shit show.
There's some saying shit floats up, the heavy gold always reaches the depths.
Anyone with an iota of love and recognition of art I'dd say would clearly see the difference between Art and artificially generated blocks of words. Meaning but no depth. The aforementioned is not poetry.
I share your concern and frustration Betty and there clearly is a need to act on part of the site's policies and procedures re dealing with the issue.
At the same time I'd point to my first sentence in this reply, all humans can see/ feel the difference between the heavy gold and the floating shit. Shit show indeed in that way it is I'd say 😉
