Wow, this was unexpected! Clarkesworld magazine, one of the top publications for short speculative fiction, has closed indefinitely to submissions because they're being overwhelmed by AI-generated stories. Hopefully they can come up with a workable solution before too long. I wonder how other publications are dealing with this problem. http://neil-clarke.com/a-concerning-trend/
Clever of the damned orcs. Such a surreal problem. Sadly, it may affect new short story writers the most. And what does the end-game for AI written vs AI detection arms race look like? It must reach a point where a strong enough filter will make a lot of false-positives bounce right off.
I guess the real question would be who owns the rights to AI generated intellectual property? Bottom line, if somebody hits the buttons and sets the computerized fields of the AI generator, aren't they the author? Legally speaking? I guess the funny part is that the publication can't tell the difference.
It’s a legal gray area at the moment, but the USCO currently seems to favor “nobody” as the answer to that question.
It surprises me that anyone believes an AI story isn't somehow clumsy and obvious and is willing to claim it as their own work. I've seen some AI tricks that are astounding, but generating stories is not one of them. I suppose the grammar's correct, but nothing else works.
Nah, tech legislation moves about as quickly as molasses flowing uphill in a Rhode Island winter. Expect a patchwork of conflicting, confusing court decisions that finally come to a head in a Supreme Court decision that pisses everyone off sometime in the mid-2030s, then finally some real legislation a few years later that addresses things that have since become obsolete without dealing at all with whatever the then-current problem is. Seriously, though, you could argue that the AI's product is a derivative work of every story/poem/whatever that was used as its training data, which would imply that anything it generates violates pretty much every copyright in existence. I don't blame a publication for not wanting to touch them, even without getting into the deeper questions about creativity and where AI-generated work fits alongside human-written pieces that I'm sure we'll be debating for decades.
You are being optimistic about the legislative process. Social media is still operating under legislation created for hard wired phones.
I was going through the Duotrope list of publications open for submission yesterday and saw a note on one, not sure which, barring entries composed by AI, mentioning two programmes by name. I thought surely not. It seems surely so.
Not quite what classic sci-fi envisioned with the archetype of machines replacing humans in the workplace. You know, there's a lot to be said about requiring hand written notes or speaking to a human over the phone. When the only communication is email, text, or whatever, you really have no idea if you're dealing with a human at all. I know there's a human behind the spam, but still...
Clarke swirls can identify the AI-written submissions. It’s the sheer volume and time involved that led them to close submissions for now.
I think Otto Correct just created some perfect sci-fi terminology. "It's a good story, but textual analysis show it's full of Clarke swirls. Definitely AI-gen." Who says tech can't be creative?
I can see it now. "You want wheat toast, that will put you over your carb allowance for the day." Or "You need three hours on the treadmill mill, before I can do that. And it will report to me, so no cheating."
That would suck. You'd be surprised by the amount of people who come to the library asking for stamps and envelopes. Heck, i've never bought stamps.... I bum them off my mom. Who buys stamps anymore????? I guess i will if submissions go back to handwritten snail-mail
I think if someone is willing to let AI do their writing, transcribing it into handwritten format is not a stretch. One was 2stewpit4beeleaf. I can't remember the other. Best of luck to your friend.
