That sounds reasonable. The EU laws might be a bit different but I think also within the EU copyright plays a big role. So far I’m not aware of any case law that accuses AI generated text of copyright infringement.
Count me in. I’ve been exploring ChatGPT for about a week, and it’s very interesting. I’m using it as a brainstorming tool and factotum. I’d love to hear more about your workflows and ideas. Can we do a group DM?
1 Like
In academia it is called a disseration. 
3 Likes
These are great examples, thanks.
1 Like
I don’t know why people are so angry. It seems to me that ChatGBT has offered good examples of ‘show’ vs ‘tell’, and is a useful editing tool.
1 Like
I think that you are right. It is a tool and a tool is only as good as the craftsman that uses it. I strongly suspect that those who are arguing against you have not spent an evening or two working with Chat GPT4. If they did they would quickly realize that to a non-fiction writer like myself, it is not a threat but could be a useful research tool. I suspect that the same would be true for a fiction writer by I am not certain.
So I would strongly suggest that to those who are nay-sayers that they set aside at least a few days to play with this tool, It is not going to go away, so better to learn and master it. Others will. In the end you will at least be able to speak from experience because currently it seems that you do not.
You can try GTP4 for free on Bing, but to do that you have to access it through the Edge browser.
1 Like
You are absolutely right. This is exactly how I use it.
I think you guys are looking at it as a new opportunity, new possibilities.
I also think that you are looking at it through the narrow perspective of your own personal interests.
It is not new possibilities. It is the end of something. Even for those who use it.
Your books won’t sell because there will be so many books by anyone who one day wished he\she could write one that your books will have no value.
Perhaps you think “But, but, I tweak it and my books are better than others”. Even that, won’t matter. People just won’t get to know.
2 Likes
Had you previously trained it to know what the “show don’t tell method” was, or did it know that already?
ChatGPT already knows the method, since “Show don’t tell” is widely discussed in the web and a “hot topic” in many writing groups.
Yes, this is the end of something and the start of something. This is not new, this is the human condition, which is inexorably intertwined with the development of technology. Plato famously decried the innovation of the written word, made available to anyone with the time and money to learn the alphabet. He said that it would erode and devalue memorization and oral history, which created true understanding and true knowledge.
He was right, but it also transformed society for the better, and took knowedge from the hands of the few into the hands of the many, fostering geometric increase of innovation.
I expect AI will resemble Plato’s situation rather than the apocalypse.
2 Likes
Back then the alphabet didn’t replace the thinker.
1 Like
May I humbly suggest that you take a few days to try GPT4 and play with it and see what it can do and its limitations. Then if you still don’t like it you can at least argue from a position of experience.
1 Like
If it can’t, why bother?
If it can, why bother?
So that you can argue from a position of experience.
1 Like
I think this deserves some closer examination. The lawsuit hinges upon the idea that the body of training data included copyrighted artwork that was unlicensed. Meaning that the basis of the artists’ claim is that their artwork was used for a process (AI training) to create a service of value (Midjourney and the like) without paying the artists for the use of their art. Importantly, they are not claiming that the artwork generated by the AI was infringing, because the resulting images used the “style” of the artist, rather than their copyrighted images. “Style” is not protectable under US copyright.*
As I mentioned above, the US Copyright office has said AI generated material is ineligable for copyright protection. I conclude that it is therefore in the Public Domain, and can be used anywhere without penalty.
IMHO, the covers and illustrations that @anon91757562 is using are in the public domain, so there is no legal liability. That being said, someone else can copy and use them without fear of litigation from Thomas.
* footnote
*(Getty’s suit is different, because a earlier iteration AI was copying swaths of protected work to make images, and it copied the Getty watermark onto some images. This gave Getty a cause for action. Current AI bots have altered their training to avoid direct infringement.)
Except, I would be mad about it. 
1 Like
If this is real :
I don’t need more to know a nasty flood is coming.
It didn’t make things any easier for anyone when self-publishing platforms made publishing accessible to everyone. This won’t be different.
Except this time it’ll be anyone who ever whished he/she could write, not publish.
We could debate the quality of the results. But it won’t matter.
A flood carries crap just as much as it carries of anything else. And it is still just a flood.
Perhaps I’ll turn out to be a good plumber.
1 Like
Certainly would kill it for me.
In computing there is the principle of GIGO = Garbage In Garbage Out
A tool is only as good as the artisan.
A top of the line stove will not turn you into a 5 star chef. But a 5 star chef can cook a feast on a camp fire.
In the end talent reigns supreme.
1 Like