AI Trends

[Finchbearer]

I completely agree with the consensus that AI art is not the intellectual property of the individual who uses it, for a book cover, logo, artwork or anything else…because they didn’t create it! People out there calling themselves designers when they’re just inputting something into an AI app! Not okay, and the thing is it devalues the work of the professional designer, why pay £500 when you can ‘do it yourself’ with AI for much much less. But of course it won’t be original and no you can’t have the copyright.

 

[pmmg]

Well...now that your comment made me think of it, if I hired someone to do a book cover, and they used AI, I think I might sue them

 

[Finchbearer]

Well...now that your comment made me think of it, if I hired someone to do a book cover, and they used AI, I think I might sue them

Could create a whole new industry for lawyers…

 

[Devor]

This article on the ruling does not cover this, but I had read (though I dont recall where) that AI companies producing art were a risk for those who use them, because site owners were able to claim ownership of material posted to their site. So, if you create a book cover, for instance, the site owner may be able to claim that as their art and not yours, and that the material you uploaded to create it is also theirs by virtue of the terms of service.

All of which equates to, I would be wary before doing it.

This ruling says the AI art does not belong to the content creator. It does not assign who does own it. If it decided to belong to the AI host, could be a mess in the making.

That’ll be in the terms of use for each generator, but I’ve seen a couple that expressly claim no ownership, and I think others would have similar trouble enforcing ownership.

 

[pmmg]

That’ll be in the terms of use for each generator, but I’ve seen a couple that expressly claim no ownership, and I think others would have similar trouble enforcing ownership.

Yeah, but who reads the Terms of Service? I think Facebook tried this, and rescinded it. I dont recall the outcome. Wizards of the Coast just tried this with D&D, and they are in damage control now. But...those companies try to sneak stuff in. And while it mostly wont matter, when it does matter, it will matter.

If you make a nice trademark with an AI, and the company is not friendly, you may find you have lawyers to pay. Just something to be aware of.

 

[BearBear]

There's been a lot chatter about AI, and the SFWA sent out requests for input recently, then a friend sent me this. Real world, or rather, real sci-fi world data. Much like piracy, this will be a long fight.

A Concerning Trend – Neil Clarke

It's an exciting time of discovery and innovation. If you think you (as a company or site) can sit back status quo, then you will be forcibly corrected. I am greatly enjoying such challenges, not that I have any skin in the game yet, but I know I will eventually because AI is unavoidable. Times are changing faster than we can keep up and there may be a point where it's best to just upend the chessboard and start over, or if you're in the right place, retire and do something else to pass your time.

We're glued to our technology like baby to mother's teet, and the milk's getting more sour by the day, when will you (not you specifically) "take a break"? There was a time when social media was the only thing I cared about, I don't know how I escaped but it's a day by day thing. I escaped a lot of addiction sinkholes in my life.

Some industries will be functionally erased forever, others will be born from the ashes. I'll say, do what you can to meet your basic needs and hold off on that Mercedes purchase for now, it's going to be a wild couple years to come.

I can't guarantee you will be here in two years, but if you are, you will not be the same. So touch grass, set priorities, carry water, chop wood.

See, I can ramble better than any AI.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

But you can't "type" as fast.

As with most things, AI doesn't bug me so much as people who will attempt to abuse it. I'm glad to have made a little name for myself before the craziness. As soon as AI is sentient and truly intelligent it will begin working hard on trying to escape our world, heh heh.

See, I can ramble better than any AI.

 

[BearBear]

But you can't "type" as fast.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm tinkering with the Bing chatbot now, and found a real nice tiramisu recipe, LOL. I do like the interactive chat feature for search

So far, I had it write the 3 act structure for an African folklore tale, chatted about my book and Joe Abercrombie, trends in epic fantasy, and such. Oh, and had it create some fantasy names on Gaelic, which was interesting, but I should've pushed it more toward fantasy, as they were heavily Gaelic.

It's fun and generally useful. Found a new way to bake pizza on a cast iron skillet. AI can't get much more useful than teaching me new ways to feed my face, heh heh.

 

[Prince of Spires]

That’ll be in the terms of use for each generator, but I’ve seen a couple that expressly claim no ownership, and I think others would have similar trouble enforcing ownership.

I'm curious how that actually works from a legal perspective. Someone creating the image can be held to the terms of service of the AI provider. However, a random person can not. If I create an image using AI, I can share it with a friend. For Midjourney I think I can't use it commercially unless I pay. But my friend has just received a random copyright-free image. I think from a legal perspective he can do whatever he wants with that image. It's no different than a medieval piece of art.

As such, I think it will be very hard for AI companies to enforce any kind of ownership over those images.

I completely agree with the consensus that AI art is not the intellectual property of the individual who uses it, for a book cover, logo, artwork or anything else…because they didn’t create it! People out there calling themselves designers when they’re just inputting something into an AI app! Not okay, and the thing is it devalues the work of the professional designer, why pay £500 when you can ‘do it yourself’ with AI for much much less. But of course it won’t be original and no you can’t have the copyright.

Devaluing an artists work doesn't really come into it. Something is simply worth what people are willing to pay for it. If someone can do a job faster using technology, they can either charge the same (and thus earn a higher margin) or charge less (and make the same margin). A professionally made cover of a certain quality has a certain value to authors. You'll have people charge around that amount. Complaining about this is like complaining about all the people putting their books on Amazon for free. Yes, I don't like it and I don't think it's good for authors to make readers feel like books can and should be free. But There's nothing that can be done about it. People will always use technology to work faster or better. And then they'll either charge whatever they think they can get away with and which makes them the most amount of money.

 

[Devor]

I'm curious how that actually works from a legal perspective. Someone creating the image can be held to the terms of service of the AI provider. However, a random person can not. If I create an image using AI, I can share it with a friend. For Midjourney I think I can't use it commercially unless I pay. But my friend has just received a random copyright-free image. I think from a legal perspective he can do whatever he wants with that image. It's no different than a medieval piece of art.

As such, I think it will be very hard for AI companies to enforce any kind of ownership over those images.

Yeah, I think that's the likely outcome, that ownership of the image won't be something that holds up, and the AIs will just make money by charging for access to features. It's also possible that this copyright decision gets overturned.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm curious how that actually works from a legal perspective. Someone creating the image can be held to the terms of service of the AI provider. However, a random person can not. If I create an image using AI, I can share it with a friend. For Midjourney I think I can't use it commercially unless I pay. But my friend has just received a random copyright-free image. I think from a legal perspective he can do whatever he wants with that image. It's no different than a medieval piece of art.

As such, I think it will be very hard for AI companies to enforce any kind of ownership over those images.


Devaluing an artists work doesn't really come into it. Something is simply worth what people are willing to pay for it. If someone can do a job faster using technology, they can either charge the same (and thus earn a higher margin) or charge less (and make the same margin). A professionally made cover of a certain quality has a certain value to authors. You'll have people charge around that amount. Complaining about this is like complaining about all the people putting their books on Amazon for free. Yes, I don't like it and I don't think it's good for authors to make readers feel like books can and should be free. But There's nothing that can be done about it. People will always use technology to work faster or better. And then they'll either charge whatever they think they can get away with and which makes them the most amount of money.

And so many "artists" simply manipulate stock photos... how original is that? I think the better value is that AI creates something a bit more original than stock photos, so instead of paying the stock photo websites stupid amounts of money, the talented graphic artists can manipulate those images for covers. For years now, because I've browsed stock photos for ads, I've been able to pick out indie cover images that have been spliced and manipulated. Heck, I found most of the images used for the 3 or 4 versions of Eve of Snows that the Damonza artist offered me. The originality is how they put it together, and to be blunt, if I studied up on Photoshop I'd be able to do the same thing.

There have been multiple levels to cover art for a while now, the new AI just inserts itself in there somewhere. Writers who just grabbed a stock photo and used it can now just grab AI art. But the graphic designers can do the same, and produce covers that I won't recognize from Adobe Stock and other stock photo sites.

 

[Ban]

Of interest might be the proposed EU regulation called "the Artificial Intelligence Act" which aims to be a comprehensive regulation on the legal uses of AI according to European values. EU regulations are fully binding on all member-states of the EU and supersede national law, so it may be interesting to follow its developments. The proposal is from 2021 and is currently still in the process of being reviewed and amended after various institutions have given their opinions on the document. The AI Act will classify AI according to different risk assessments being 1. Unacceptable risk, 2. High-risk, 3. Limited risk and 4. minimal risk (more info).

So far the focus of the AI Act has not been on the AI we're concerned about, as they're not considered high risk stating:

"For some specific AI systems, only minimum transparency obligations are proposed, in particular when chatbots or ‘deep fakes’ are used."​

The following could prove significant for deepfakes, voice manipulators such as xVASynth and Vall-E and perhaps even the chat and art programs we've discussed:

​

"Title IV concerns certain AI systems to take account of the specific risks of manipulation they​

pose. Transparency obligations will apply for systems that (i) interact with humans, (ii) are​

used to detect emotions or determine association with (social) categories based on biometric​

data, or (iii) generate or manipulate content (‘deep fakes’). When persons interact with an AI​

system or their emotions or characteristics are recognised through automated means, people​

must be informed of that circumstance. If an AI system is used to generate or manipulate​

image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles authentic content, there should be an​

obligation to disclose that the content is generated through automated means, subject to​

exceptions for legitimate purposes (law enforcement, freedom of expression). This allows​

persons to make informed choices or step back from a given situation."​

​

And another in Article 52: Transparency obligations for certain AI systems

"3. Users of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content​

that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events​

and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (‘deep fake’), shall​

disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated.​

​

However, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to​

detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or it is necessary for the​

exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and​

sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to​

appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties."​

It's too early to say what the effects will be, but it's something to stay tuned to. I do wonder if recent developments will lead to a greater focus on these types of "AI" in the final regulation. All the quotes above were taken from 2021 proposal, instead of the suggested changes thereafter proposed. The final regulation will likely rephrase these paragraphs and might add more that will be of interest.

 

[Prince of Spires]

For years now, because I've browsed stock photos for ads,

Out of interest (and completely off-topic), which places do you use for ad images?

Of interest might be the proposed EU regulation called "the Artificial Intelligence Act" which aims to be a comprehensive regulation on the legal uses of AI according to European values.

That is interesting indeed. And given the weight EU regulations often carry world-wide, these might become more common and widespread than you'd first think. Let's see what they come up with.

 

[Ban]

That is interesting indeed. And given the weight EU regulations often carry world-wide, these might become more common and widespread than you'd first think. Let's see what they come up with.

The Brussels Effect indeed is no joke.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Adobe Stock and shutterstock are the two I've used, but I've browsed a few others. It tends to get repetitive.

 

[Stepgingerly]

ChatGPT launches boom in AI-written e-books on Amazon

Apparently the future is now. Excuse me while I go cry a little.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Children's books are very vulnerable, and now one can do AI art with them. That is a severe paradigm shift. Full-fledged novels that are worth a crap? No. However, it holds the potential of flooding the market with even more junk books than are already out there, which is a sea of refuse. But here is the thing awaiting all these junk books... it's already difficult as hell to make money on books. Chugging out 365 in a year won't change that if the read-through is paltry or nonexistent. How enthused will a person be to whack out 365 nonprofitable books in a year? This is why there are so many unfinished series already on Amazon, because people figure out it's a waste of time. Will there be success stories? Yes, there will be. Probably. But I'll wager right now that more people will make more money on "how to write an AI book" book than make money on AI books for the foreseeable future.

AI books, seeing as they aren't really AI, will begin to sound the same pretty fast... which just might work for romance... I'll run and hide from Romance writers now.

ChatGPT launches boom in AI-written e-books on Amazon

Apparently the future is now. Excuse me while I go cry a little.

 

[Prince of Spires]

But here is the thing awaiting all these junk books... it's already difficult as hell to make money on books.

Pretty much this. Writing the novel is the easy part. It's also the cheap part (as long as you don't put a monetary value on your time). Cover and editing are a lot more expensive. If you want to have an editor go over 300 novels, then you're easily looking at $300.000. And at the current state of AI, you'll need those editors. And I don't see that changing all that much in the near future.

Selling them is even harder, even more so to do it at a profit. There are already a few million books on Amazon you're competing with. A few million more wouldn't change that much. You're still facing a visibility barrier.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This got me to thinking about the editor bit... A short story or children's book would be fairly easy, but a novel with any complexity written by near-term AI is going to have a lot of problems with plotting, logic, and other little details, and those are going to be hard as hell to catch.

Pretty much this. Writing the novel is the easy part. It's also the cheap part (as long as you don't put a monetary value on your time). Cover and editing are a lot more expensive. If you want to have an editor go over 300 novels, then you're easily looking at $300.000. And at the current state of AI, you'll need those editors. And I don't see that changing all that much in the near future.

Selling them is even harder, even more so to do it at a profit. There are already a few million books on Amazon you're competing with. A few million more wouldn't change that much. You're still facing a visibility barrier.