RE: AI-Generated Content = Not Original Content

[valued-customer]

I must differ with your attempt to compare translating a written work into another language with prompting AI to compose a written work based on your prompt. The prompt to compose a literary work is comparable to instruction of an educator directing students to compose a work. The teacher is not then the author of the homework of the students. They have composed themselves their homework.

The question posed to the AI, or the prompt, is your work, but not the response of the AI resulting. If you thereafter use the AI's text as the basis of your own composition I do not see the resulting text as plagiarising the AI, as long as you do not re-use the phrasing composed by the AI.

For example, if you ask me what color the sky is, and I say 'The color of the sky is blue.' If you later write 'The sky is blue', you have not plagiarized me, despite restating my idea in your own words. There are a limited number of ways to express the idea that the sky is blue, and it doesn't take long to torture language when trying to express a simple idea in novel language, as in 'Blue is the skies color.'

I will say that's pretty weak. It's not your original thought. To try to claim that you originated the idea that the sky is blue is plagiarism, and this is why research papers are full of citations of other's works. If you're using ChatGPT in this way, you had better credit it with the ideas it conveys, even if in response to prompts you wrote. If you don't want to credit AI in that way, don't use it in that way. If you reckon that the prompt is the source of the idea, and the AI is merely restating it, don't bother with the AI to begin with. Just write your ideas yourself.

Translation isn't comparable at all to prompting an AI to compose text based on your prompt. The purpose of the translation is to enable the thoughts already composed - not merely a prompt - to be expressed in a different language. Prompting an AI to compose a thought in the language you prompt it in isn't translating it. It's expressing it. If you reuse that expression in a post, you're plagiarizing the AI.

Some will rejoin that there is no original thought, that everything has already been considered and said, and we just recycle that limited suite of concepts in our own way. I disagree with them, even when we arrive at conclusions others have before us.

I feel it's necessary to add that I am not in any way representing Hivewatchers here. I do not participate in what they do, I don't regularly converse with them, and have no authority whatsoever to recommend or tell you how to conform to their requirements. I was interested in your comment and replied to it out of my personal interest, which I alone am responsible for. I don't even know who is in Hivewatchers.

There is a message I see that the owner is not permitting the video to be seen, so it's something to do with my VPN.

Comments

[dimarss]

My thoughts

AI helped: 1-check this text for stylistic, syntactical and punctuation errors. Make it more readable and beautiful without losing the original meaning 2-expand the text with suitable examples

Hi there! It seems to me that the @por500bolos wanted to say that there is such a type of abuse when a user takes someone else's formulated and framed thought and with the help of translation technologies, without putting the slightest effort, makes this content 100% original for checking to search engines! Appropriating authorship thereby. I also wanted to share my philistine point of view on the discussed artificial intelligence: Met documented cases of false answers issued by AI. When a person is well versed in the topic, he can notice serious errors in the answers of artificial intelligence. The AI, caught cheating, apologizes and corrects its answer, but again with a mistake! Does he either check us according to an algorithm set by someone, or is he learning from us an effective substitution of concepts? (Not about that now) Conclusion: 1. Artificially generated content, without proper assessment of the accuracy and validity of the content by a professional in the subject, can be dangerous to the consumer or misleading! 2. in order to make really high-quality professional content with the help of AI, you need to be able to set professional tasks for AI! Professionally check the result for veracity. Make adjustments to the result in accordance with your idea. It’s more difficult than copy-pasting someone else’s idea into a translator and making money on the hive! With the same success it is possible to consider as plagiarism the works made with the help of the graphic editor PAINT. Before us is nothing - a blank sheet and a tool not created by us, carrying out invisible calculations in the processor. We use the mouse to tell the computer to draw a circle of a given color and get the result. Did we draw this circle? did we do those digital calculations? No! We simply "instructed" the primitive AI from where, to where we want to stretch our circle with a simple mouse movement! So it is with chatGPT, we tell the AI what thoughts to take, what conclusion to draw from them, in what style to arrange, what theses and terms to reveal in support of what ... In no case do not think that I have claims or accusations against you! I just wanted to express my point of view here. Thank you for your attention:)

Hello there!It appears to me that @por500bolos meant to convey that there is a form of abuse where a user takes someone else's formulated and framed thoughts and, with the help of translation technology, creates 100% original content without exerting any effort, thereby appropriating authorship and misleading search engines. For example, a blogger might take a popular article from an English language website, translate it into their native language using an automated translation tool, and publish it as their own without giving credit to the original author. I also wanted to share my thoughts on the topic of artificial intelligence. There have been documented cases of false answers given by AI. When someone well-versed in the topic reviews AI's responses, they can often identify serious errors. Although AI will apologize and correct its answer, it may still contain mistakes. This raises the question of whether AI checks us according to a pre-set algorithm or learns from us through the effective substitution of concepts.For instance, an AI-powered chatbot might give incorrect medical advice to a user, potentially causing harm, if it is not properly trained and evaluated by medical professionals. In conclusion: Artificially generated content, without proper assessment by a professional in the subject, can be dangerous or misleading to consumers. To create high-quality professional content with the help of AI, one must be able to set professional tasks for AI, professionally check the result for accuracy, and make adjustments to the result in accordance with their desired outcome. It is more challenging than simply copying and pasting someone else's idea into a translator and profiting from it! Similarly, we can consider works created with the graphic editor PAINT as plagiarism. We start with a blank canvas and a tool that was not created by us, but which performs invisible calculations in the processor. By using the mouse, we tell the computer to draw a circle of a specific color, and the result is generated. Did we draw the circle or perform those digital calculations? No! We merely "instructed" the primitive AI where and how to draw the circle with a simple mouse movement. The same applies to ChatGPT. We tell the AI which thoughts to take, which conclusions to draw, what style to use, and what theses and terms to reveal in support of our ideas. For instance, a writer might use ChatGPT to generate a blog post on a topic they are not well-versed in, but they must ensure that the resulting content is accurate and of high quality by editing and fact-checking it. Please note that I am not making any accusations against you. I simply wanted to express my point of view. Thank you for your attention :)

Which one is more artistic?

This is just an innovative tool, and for what purposes and how responsibly it is used depends only on us.

[valued-customer]

"This raises the question of whether AI checks us according to a pre-set algorithm or learns from us through the effective substitution of concepts."

There's no question. AI does not understand concepts. It does not reason. It's just a calculator that has algorithms that assembles text from examples, it's 'training data', by variably assigning words and phrases weighting per the algorithms.

Stephen Wolfram of Wolfram Alpha well explains it here.

"...appropriating authorship..."

Is plagiarism. You point out that Hivewatchers have a difficult job, made more difficult by the ongoing evolution of technology, and, IMHO, the inadvisable prior enabling of automation to usurp human social interaction, which I have long opposed.

I am aware there is a space between posting bot generated content and translation services, which your comment exemplifies. I can't lay down some law that, once automation of human social interactions is allowable, can separate what degree of editing, research, or suggestions is acceptable and what isn't.

To my mind, such technology is useful as a teaching tool, but posts on Hive should be manually typed by people. Hivewatchers have their own policies, and will undertake them as they see fit. They haven't asked me anything, and I don't expect them to.

Edit: you illustrate that principle that differentiates AI and plagiarism from Computer art and authentic writing in your example trying to claim using Paint is using AI.

"We use the mouse to tell the computer to draw a circle of a given color and get the result."

That is the difference. You're not prompting the computer to draw the circle. You're drawing the circle.

[dimarss]

I agree that a paint or a translator is not a very correct example for comparison with artificial intelligence. These are just one of the many high-tech tools that can help us. But what these tools will help us do is already a matter of morality for the users of these tools.

In my example, you can see how a text that was not very well-written by me (due to the imperfection of English proficiency) can be made pleasant for perception with the help of AI. But I could also copy your entire comment and ask the AI to respond to it instead of me with words of support or factual rebuttal...
Which would not be fair to other hive users at all.

[valued-customer]

As I said, I do not envy Hivewatchers their geas.

However, your suggestion that my comment, or part of it, be used to prompt AI for a response which could then be posted as a response to me, has already been done, albeit elsewhere. When this happened it was immediately noticeable, and I noted that in my response. The poster that did this soon lost interest in the topic, and quit the conversation, which I suspect will be the fate of any who do this regarding substantive matters.

If your only participation in society is as the AI prompter and reposter, society is of little interest to you, and it will be less after you start serving AI commentary, because that's a pretty crappy job with little prospect of advancement. It will never pay well, because it's zero skill and easy entry, and not ever will it engage or tax your faculties, touch on your interests, or enable any intellectual or personal growth - even if you never get challenged on it and can keep doing it forever.

You will only feel smart the first time you do it.

As I have always said, Hive is a society that has far higher values than it's token. People that parasitize Hive only for it's tokens have little actual interest in Hive. There will always be greener pastures, more happy climes, more conducive environs that such people will inevitably depart to, freeing the rest of us from their parasitic cost.

If you resort to using AI to edit your posts, you will never improve your ability to write English, and the task will become burdensome to you. If you enjoy discussing things on Hive, you'll write your own posts and comments, and will get better at writing as you practice it, all while deriving ever greater rewards than whatever upvotes on your posts provide.

Abusing AI plagiaristically is not fair to anyone on Hive, but least to who does so.