LLMs and the dwindling number of people who appreciate and value language
-
This is what the tech oligarchs wanted and due to our unresponsive politicians, it's what they got, carte blanche. AI should have been regulated from the get-go but too many of the world's population couldn't believe they had a new super human toy to play with and we all know what it's like to take toys away from children.
Humanity's collective knowledge should not be owned by a handful of technology developers who seemingly care very little for our collective history. They've been given free rein to swipe the entirety of human effort with no strings attached.
Sorry this has happened to you Mary Anna. I do believe we are at the point where it is nigh impossible to discern what is real and what is not.
@Bernard I agree with everything you wrote, Bernard.
They have indeed swiped a good chunk of human effort. I think the Anthropic settlement which, although it was a billion-and-a-half dollars, feels like they're throwing us a bone. When it came through, I thought that perhaps all the AI companies were going to at least have to throw us a bone, but I see no sign of it.
The way the settlement was written, books were thrown out because of restrictions on the pub date and because our publishers sometimes neglected to register our copyrights. We've always been told that registration is just a formality and it's not necessary to defend our work in court, but the settlement was written in such a way that it matters. Our contracts are written in such a way that the publisher is responsible for registering the copyright, but has no liability if they didn't. Because of details like this, the database of stolen work includes 24 of my titles, but only eight of them qualified for the settlement.
It isn't known yet how much the lawyers will take, but the judge sent their request back and told them they couldn't have the huge percentage they wanted. Whatever makes it through that gauntlet will be split (50/50, in most cases) betwen the writer and the publisher. (Yes, the same publisher who cost me many thousands by neglecting to register some of my copyrights.)
I think my settlement check will be in the low five figures, but it really should be approaching six.
-
@Bernard I agree with everything you wrote, Bernard.
They have indeed swiped a good chunk of human effort. I think the Anthropic settlement which, although it was a billion-and-a-half dollars, feels like they're throwing us a bone. When it came through, I thought that perhaps all the AI companies were going to at least have to throw us a bone, but I see no sign of it.
The way the settlement was written, books were thrown out because of restrictions on the pub date and because our publishers sometimes neglected to register our copyrights. We've always been told that registration is just a formality and it's not necessary to defend our work in court, but the settlement was written in such a way that it matters. Our contracts are written in such a way that the publisher is responsible for registering the copyright, but has no liability if they didn't. Because of details like this, the database of stolen work includes 24 of my titles, but only eight of them qualified for the settlement.
It isn't known yet how much the lawyers will take, but the judge sent their request back and told them they couldn't have the huge percentage they wanted. Whatever makes it through that gauntlet will be split (50/50, in most cases) betwen the writer and the publisher. (Yes, the same publisher who cost me many thousands by neglecting to register some of my copyrights.)
I think my settlement check will be in the low five figures, but it really should be approaching six.
-
I think my settlement check will be in the low five figures, but it really should be approaching six.
And it’s taxable as ordinary income so after you split your money with the publisher, you split it again with US/NJ.
-
That explains the writing I have encountered that makes me wonder who told a high schooler they could write?
-
I worry that people are so used to reading AI, especially anything longer than a social media post, that they start picking up all the tropes AI uses. For example, ending a paragraph with the flourish, “that’s not X, it’s Y!” and all the myriad other tells.
I get electric jolts up my spine when I read, "Sit with that for a moment."
Urrrrggh.
"Sit with that for a moment."
Ugh, this is one of those expressions that maybe was "cool" or sort of startling the first time someone used it, but now it just ... barf.
AI slop is so gross btw. And those "tells," whether it's the sentence where there's a subtle grammatical "offness," or something like what MA describes where you know it could only have been written by a machine because of the complete lack of understanding that's baked into it...
Like @jon-nyc , I worry that people will just incorporate all that yuckiness into their own writing. And thinking.
Sloppification of humanity, here we come.
-
I just watched David Kippling's (astronomer, professor) latest video. It's timely to this discussion.
Link to video
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login