Democrat seeks to regulate AI-generated campaign ads after GOP video depicts dystopian Biden victory in 2024
A House Democrat proposed legislation this week that would require political campaign ads to make it clear to viewers when
generative artificial intelligence is used to produce video or images in those ads, an idea that is a response to an AI-generated ad against President Biden that was released last week.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democra...ctory-2024
Why stop at political ads?
First the law needs to make it clear that ai generated material gets no copyright or other protections meant for creative content, second, make it the law that all ai generated content published anywhere in the USA has to be clearly labeled as such.
(05-05-2023, 06:06 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why stop at political ads?
First the law needs to make it clear that ai generated material gets no copyright or other protections meant for creative content, second, make it the law that all ai generated content published anywhere in the USA has to be clearly labeled as such.
Agree. There needs to be firmly drawn lines established now. It’s a technology ripe for abuse and deception.
(05-05-2023, 06:06 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why stop at political ads?
First the law needs to make it clear that ai generated material gets no copyright or other protections meant for creative content, second, make it the law that all ai generated content published anywhere in the USA has to be clearly labeled as such.
I don't think that would be workable. A person could do the slightest bit of editing and claim the copyright. Sort of like those paintings that are machine made, but then a person at the factory puts a few brush strokes on it and it's sold as one-of-a-kind.
Besides, how "AI generated" would a work have to be to be called "AI generated?" 90%? 80%? And how could you tell?
(05-05-2023, 06:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2023, 06:06 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why stop at political ads?
First the law needs to make it clear that ai generated material gets no copyright or other protections meant for creative content, second, make it the law that all ai generated content published anywhere in the USA has to be clearly labeled as such.
I don't think that would be workable. A person could do the slightest bit of editing and claim the copyright. Sort of like those paintings that are machine made, but then a person at the factory puts a few brush strokes on it and it's sold as one-of-a-kind.
Besides, how "AI generated" would a work have to be to be called "AI generated?" 90%? 80%? And how could you tell?
It’s a nascent technology so those answers will have to be figured out. It’s best to get a handle on it now.
(05-05-2023, 06:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2023, 06:06 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why stop at political ads?
First the law needs to make it clear that ai generated material gets no copyright or other protections meant for creative content, second, make it the law that all ai generated content published anywhere in the USA has to be clearly labeled as such.
I don't think that would be workable. A person could do the slightest bit of editing and claim the copyright. Sort of like those paintings that are machine made, but then a person at the factory puts a few brush strokes on it and it's sold as one-of-a-kind.
Besides, how "AI generated" would a work have to be to be called "AI generated?" 90%? 80%? And how could you tell?
It wouldn't solve every problem but it should prevent many. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Another thing we need to implement, yesterday, is a sort of digital signature on all cameras, so that the files they record can be reliably traced back to a recording device. Many devices have something like this, but it should be a requirement going forward, and more robust. And a software that edits the file should have to place its own signature. If a bad guy tries to use AI to make a public figure appear to say something they never said, their video file would lack those signatures.
Have you guys worked with AI at all? It's not like it just makes things perfectly when you ask. You have to frame and reframe each idea. I'm fine with copyrights being available with AI. Maybe someone who knows better than me can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed.
(05-05-2023, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2023, 06:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that would be workable. A person could do the slightest bit of editing and claim the copyright. Sort of like those paintings that are machine made, but then a person at the factory puts a few brush strokes on it and it's sold as one-of-a-kind.
Besides, how "AI generated" would a work have to be to be called "AI generated?" 90%? 80%? And how could you tell?
It wouldn't solve every problem but it should prevent many. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Another thing we need to implement, yesterday, is a sort of digital signature on all cameras, so that the files they record can be reliably traced back to a recording device. Many devices have something like this, but it should be a requirement going forward, and more robust. And a software that edits the file should have to place its own signature. If a bad guy tries to use AI to make a public figure appear to say something they never said, their video file would lack those signatures.
You edited it. You originally said, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the goof." Which I thought was a pretty good line. You should have kept that.
(05-05-2023, 08:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Have you guys worked with AI at all? It's not like it just makes things perfectly when you ask. You have to frame and reframe each idea. I'm fine with copyrights being available with AI. Maybe someone who knows better than me can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed.
Great point. We've had computer programs that help you write computer programs for many years, and we still get a copyright on the code.
(05-05-2023, 08:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Have you guys worked with AI at all? It's not like it just makes things perfectly when you ask. You have to frame and reframe each idea. I'm fine with copyrights being available with AI. Maybe someone who knows better than me can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed.
Copyright is for creative works.
What we're talking about when we reference "AI" currently isn't creative at all, it's entirely based on creative inputs, and those inputs always originate as human creativity, not from a computer output. It's inherently not intelligent or creative, but it's a hell of a demonstration of what can be done that mostly appears so.
That you might get slight differences in output on subsequent runs of the same input isn't due to creativity, either, it's due to algorithms designed to slightly randomize the starting weights on the inputs to the function.
Sure, but you still have to tweak the AI to get a work that's desirable. Like, I could say write me a story about a boy, and it could write a story. I could copyright that, but the question is whether or not it's a good story/idea. Most times, when I'm playing around with AI, it's good at simulating emails, but bad at being artistic. Getting something that is good takes work still, so I don't know why you can't copyright your AI produced ideas. What difference does it make? Just first to market problems that resolve themselves over time.
I guess I just don't see why you can't copyright something you have the AI produce.
(05-06-2023, 01:35 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but you still have to tweak the AI to get a work that's desirable. Like, I could say write me a story about a boy, and it could write a story. I could copyright that, but the question is whether or not it's a good story/idea. Most times, when I'm playing around with AI, it's good at simulating emails, but bad at being artistic. Getting something that is good takes work still, so I don't know why you can't copyright your AI produced ideas. What difference does it make? Just first to market problems that resolve themselves over time.
I guess I just don't see why you can't copyright something you have the AI produce.
The main problem is that the ai doesn't provide anything original, it provides a recombinant version of whatever creative content you feed into it, and that doesn't even touch the ethical problem of using other people's work to develop the algorithm to start with. You can't make a machine that outputs material in the voice of someone else without making use of a lot of someone else's material. Was all of that really done with those creators expressed consent?
If one produced all of that creative content their self then why not just create the content directly from the start? If one didn't produce the creative content and are, instead, using someone else's creative content then all they've done is operated a very advanced plagiarism machine to output a derivative work.
I could see granting an ai operator copyright on ai generated material that only trained on inputs of that person's work, but in the case of derivative work it makes more sense to serve the person running the ai with a lawsuit than to reward them. Of course ai generated plagiarism will probably be very hard to detect, so it makes more sense to just disallow all ai content for copyright.
I mean, if we're getting real about it, we are all using other people's work to create new concepts. That's what you're doing at art class. AI just doesn't have to train for years to develop the skills to steal from other people. We are constantly recycling old ideas in new ways, and, imo, AI just redistributes those creative opportunities to those who lack skills. I know this disenfranchises those who trained to some degree, but isn't that what progress is about?
To your point, the more I mess with AI, the more I can pick out patterns... especially in human faces, but that's where the human vision comes in to change it.
(05-06-2023, 05:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, if we're getting real about it, we are all using other people's work to create new concepts. That's what you're doing at art class. AI just doesn't have to train for years to develop the skills to steal from other people. We are constantly recycling old ideas in new ways, and, imo, AI just redistributes those creative opportunities to those who lack skills. I know this disenfranchises those who trained to some degree, but isn't that what progress is about?
To your point, the more I mess with AI, the more I can pick out patterns... especially in human faces, but that's where the human vision comes in to change it.
So you think someone writing a book about their experiences aboard a whaling ship (as Melville did) is the same as someone feeding a bunch of stories written about experiences on a whaling ship into an algorithm and having it write a story using those inputs?
I think it would do you good to think about it all a bit more.
AI is such false marketing.
(05-06-2023, 06:25 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2023, 05:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, if we're getting real about it, we are all using other people's work to create new concepts. That's what you're doing at art class. AI just doesn't have to train for years to develop the skills to steal from other people. We are constantly recycling old ideas in new ways, and, imo, AI just redistributes those creative opportunities to those who lack skills. I know this disenfranchises those who trained to some degree, but isn't that what progress is about?
To your point, the more I mess with AI, the more I can pick out patterns... especially in human faces, but that's where the human vision comes in to change it.
So you think someone writing a book about their experiences aboard a whaling ship (as Melville did) is the same as someone feeding a bunch of stories written about experiences on a whaling ship into an algorithm and having it write a story using those inputs?
I think it would do you good to think about it all a bit more.
I don't need to think about it more, because it's not just looking at a book about whaling. It's looking at what you tell it to look at. If all it does is aggregate whaling stories, you're going to end up with one or two interesting books (maybe). Then they will be the same thing written slightly differently, and people who are into whaling books will notice that. So, first-to-market might do alright, but pretty soon, it's going to take outside-the-box creativity to stand apart, and that will take human ingenuity, at least until it gets better.
And again, you completely discount the fact that it's not doing anything different than we are doing. We read books. We gather ideas. Then, we reform them into something that's arranged in a different or novel way. Yet none of them are new. Very few people have an original idea. MOST of what's popular is just a re-skinning of something that's come before it. How many books are based on Shakespeare? How many movies are based on Christ? Where did those ideas come from? Lived experience?
AI (which I agree is false marketing) does what you tell it. It does what humans do, just faster. It lacks creativity, but it understands how to interpret its inputs very well. It will only be as good as the person who is feeding it good information and giving it good direction. At least for the foreseeable future.
Maybe you should write a book with AI and sell it to everyone since it's so easy.
(05-07-2023, 09:18 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-06-2023, 06:25 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]So you think someone writing a book about their experiences aboard a whaling ship (as Melville did) is the same as someone feeding a bunch of stories written about experiences on a whaling ship into an algorithm and having it write a story using those inputs?
I think it would do you good to think about it all a bit more.
I don't need to think about it more, because it's not just looking at a book about whaling. It's looking at what you tell it to look at. If all it does is aggregate whaling stories, you're going to end up with one or two interesting books (maybe). Then they will be the same thing written slightly differently, and people who are into whaling books will notice that. So, first-to-market might do alright, but pretty soon, it's going to take outside-the-box creativity to stand apart, and that will take human ingenuity, at least until it gets better.
And again, you completely discount the fact that it's not doing anything different than we are doing. We read books. We gather ideas. Then, we reform them into something that's arranged in a different or novel way. Yet none of them are new. Very few people have an original idea. MOST of what's popular is just a re-skinning of something that's come before it. How many books are based on Shakespeare? How many movies are based on Christ? Where did those ideas come from? Lived experience?
AI (which I agree is false marketing) does what you tell it. It does what humans do, just faster. It lacks creativity, but it understands how to interpret its inputs very well. It will only be as good as the person who is feeding it good information and giving it good direction. At least for the foreseeable future.
Maybe you should write a book with AI and sell it to everyone since it's so easy.
I'll give it one last shot.
Me: someone goes out, experiences something, writes about it.
You: everyone is just copying something that they once read, which is what "ai" (in the context of LLMs) is also doing.
Are you seeing what I'm talking about? Computer algorithms don't experience anything at all, they get trained by someone. People experience the world around them, including witnessing others' output.
People are capable of writing something original, in the sense it's not related to any output that came from someone else, and clearly that would need to be the case since people didn't come into existence with a pantheon of material already available that they could copy. AI is also capable of originality, but only in the sense that it can possibly output a different sequence of words than have ever been output by someone.
And I'M saying that you're right. Therefore, AI, in order to be good at what it does, needs people to guide it in ways that will make it interesting. You are going to have a short time where everything it produces is novel, but it will become quickly apparent that AI is not original or creative, and then it's not exploitable.
Let me put this another way. Say I went out and had a grizzly bear encounter. If I come back and say AI, write a grizzly bear book, it's going to be boring and uninspired.
However, now I explain the encounter, give it a sample of my writing style and then tell it to merge my style with, say, Jack London. It can write that encounter with a blended style, making it unique. You'll say, it's stealing from Jack London, but I could just as easily go study Jack London and try to do the same thing. It's just harder. AI takes a fraction of the effort, but all of the vision and experience is that of the author, not the AI. It's just easier.
Your argument is akin to people arguing that people shouldn't use electric tools because it's not real work.
Even still, how much have you messed around with AI? It's really hard to get to do what you want. I think it will get easier, but right now, it's a very tedious process.
Haha, AI is so funny. I told it to emulate my writing style and fed it my last 6 posts. I wanted to see what kind of response I would get if it made the argument for me. Here's its first attempt:
Quote:I gotcha, mate! I see what you're getting at. Working with AI ain't as simple as some folks make it out to be. It ain't like flicking a switch and voila! You've got the perfect creation. Nah, mate, you gotta put some work into it. You gotta frame and reframe your ideas, tweak the AI to get something desirable.
Now, here's the thing: I reckon you should be able to copyright your AI-produced ideas. Why not? You've put in the effort, mate. Sure, the AI spits out a story or an idea, but it's up to you to make it good. It's up to you to add that artistic touch, that human ingenuity. Trust me, most times, AI is decent at simulating emails, but when it comes to being truly artistic, it falls a bit short.
But let me ask you this: What's the difference between you writing a story and an AI writing a story based on your instructions? Not much, I reckon. We're all building on what others have done before us. We're all recycling old ideas in our own unique ways. It's progress, mate. It's how we move forward.
And don't forget, AI isn't some magical creative genie. It's only as good as the information and direction you provide. It's a tool, mate. It lacks creativity, but it's a fast learner. It understands its inputs and can churn things out quicker than us humans. But it's your vision, your experience, that shines through. So, why not protect it with a copyright?
Some folks might argue that AI is stealing from others, but c'mon, mate, it's just a tool. It's like using an electric tool instead of doing everything by hand. It's more efficient, but the skill, the artistry, that's all you, my friend.
So, I reckon you should go ahead and copyright your AI-produced work. Embrace the blend of your ideas and the power of technology. It's progress, it's easier, and ain't nothing wrong with that. And who knows, maybe one day I'll even write a book with the help of AI and share it with everyone. Cheers, mate!
Added more content, and you can see it's adopting some of my arguments and style. This thing thinks I'm really southern, apparently:
Quote:Have you guys ever worked with AI, huh? It ain't as simple as just commanding it to make things perfect. Nah, you gotta frame and reframe each idea, tweak it till it's desirable. Now, personally, I'm all for copyrights on AI stuff. I mean, maybe someone smarter than me can explain why it shouldn't be allowed, but from where I'm standing, it makes sense.
See, here's the thing. Sure, you can tell the AI to whip up a story about a boy, and it'll churn out some words. But the real question is, is it a good story? Is it a compelling idea? 'Cause let me tell ya, most times when I've dabbled with AI, it's pretty good at simulating emails and such, but when it comes to being truly artistic, it falls short. Getting something worthwhile takes effort, mate. So, why can't you copyright the ideas your AI spits out? I don't see the harm in it. It's just about being first to the market, and that sorts itself out over time.
Now, I reckon some folks might argue that it ain't fair, that AI is stealing creativity from others. But hey, let's get real here. We're all using existing ideas to create something new. We read books, gather inspiration, and then reshape it in our own unique way. Not many folks out there have purely original ideas, mate. Most of what's popular is just a fresh take on something that's come before. How many books are based on Shakespeare or movies on Christ? They're all drawn from lived experience, and that's the same fuel AI runs on.
AI, yeah, it's a bit of false marketing, I agree. But at the end of the day, it's only as good as the person guiding it. It's fast, it understands how to interpret input, but it lacks that true creative spark. So, while it might have a short time where everything it produces seems novel, sooner or later, people will realize it ain't truly original or creative. And that's when human ingenuity comes into play.
So, my friend, if someone wants to copyright their AI-generated content, I say let 'em. They've put in the effort, they've added their vision and experience to guide the AI. It's just an easier tool, a shortcut to bring their ideas to life. And who's to say that's a bad thing? Progress is all about finding smarter ways to do things, just like using electric tools instead of sticking to old-fashioned methods.