|
Probably all the LLMs collecting source material 
|
|
|
|
|
subject obviously stolen...so let continue stealing
When in the Course of human events, it
became noticeable that society is not willing to manage itself
smart layers will see the money making opportunity and make rules and laws.
In my opinion, each and every AI assisted text , message , chat ( especially ) etc
MUST be required , by law, to be identified as such:
"This was produced by/ with an aid of AI, caveat emptor "
This rant was not build using AI ( can you tell ?)
|
|
|
|
|
Trouble is that that's like having an "Are you 18?" page on a naughty website with two buttons: "I'm 18 or over, let me in" and "I'm under 18, I'll go away now" and expecting anyone ever to press the second one ... 
Since we don't have any proper real-world identification with the internet, many feel free to do or say what they want: plagiarise from people or AI, troll, or attempt to destroy. Who is going to arrest them if the AI is in China and he hands it in as his own work in the USA?
Laws that can't or won't be enforced are worse than useless - they undermine the fabric of "real laws".
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It could be a requirement of the code that all copy/pasted material include an indelible "watermark". So to use it without the mark, you'd have to type it out yourself.
Of course this would usher in another challenge of creating apps to remove the watermark, but with this logic, why bother with even locking your doors?
|
|
|
|
|
How do you propose we add a watermark to text? 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That would be a job for someone other than me 
|
|
|
|
|
Ai in Chinese means "to love". Spread it.
|
|
|
|
|
Salvatore Terress wrote: smart layers lawyers
Obvious that the rant was not produced by AI. Because today's AI would'nt produce such a typo.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: AI would'ntdn't produce such a typo.
FTFY; sorry, couldn't resist. 
|
|
|
|
|
(Covering myself under a hood) ... not a native English speaker 
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: not a native English speaker
But you still (probably speak*) and write it better than many who are. Having worked for a few weeks in India I know from experience how well many of you speak English.
|
|
|
|
|
As non-native English speakers, we have an advantage: We don't know 'The Right Way' of speaking English. We do not frown at neither Indian English, Australian, US or Oxford English. When I speak with Indians (there were 3-4 of them in my last job), it took me a week after a vacation to get back into their special pronunciation and wordings. Going to the US of A, it may take me a day or two to get into Americanisms. Years ago, I had a Scottish coworker who sometimes was away for a few months. When he returned, I really had to concentrate to understand his speaking for the first two days - but he insisted that he didn't speak English, but Scottish  .
Certainly, most Americans are quite tolerant about variants of English (you have to be ) - but certainly not everyone. Maybe the percentage of intolerant British really is higher, but on the other hand, out of politeness they don't say anything; they just signal their dismay through body language.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of Australian English experiences, there's a humorous incident commonly quoted here. (Not to offend anyone)
An Indian cricketer landed in Sydney and went to the hotel receptionist to check in. Here's the conversation:
Receptionist: Did you come here to die?
Indian cricketer: Er... Well... I came here to live, and to play.
Only later did the Indian cricketer realize that 'today' was pronounced as 'to die'.
|
|
|
|
|
In India itself, there are several variants of English.
I speak Kinglish (Kannada + English). Then there is Hinglish (Hindi + English). There are also Tamil + English, Malayalam + English, and many others.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it was Kinglish that I was exposed to in Bangalore. As a very small child, born in Mussoorie, I spoke a mixture of Urdu and English. But I soon lost that when we left and came to England.
|
|
|
|
|
The most commonly spoken language in the world is broken English.
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Or else, it must commit the sender, no less than a human-sent message
|
|
|
|
|
... well that's the "plan". I'm technically, between contracts - but, more realistically, probably at the end of the road of a forty year career in software development. So of course, I thought... I'll write a novel - a fiction novel, in fact. Doesn't everyone?
Well it's not all fun and games trying to be an author. I started on a new chapter... five lines in and I'm thinking:
1. Does that look right?
2. Is this how it should start?
3. What happens next.
4. Is this really a chapter?
Just like programming, I guess! 
|
|
|
|
|
Are you a plotter or a planner?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a plotter/planner - not a 'pantser'. Although that's not going exactly as I expected either. I had it all mapped out - down to the chapter level. And actually wrote the final chapter - so knew exactly where I was headed. And then...
A few weeks back, someone asked: "How's the book going?" I replied: "Two more chapters to go." Since then, I've written four more chapters, (and revised some of the earlier ones), and I still have two more chapters to go! 
Again, very much like software development.
|
|
|
|
|
As you know, we in software development call that refactoring.
I think most successful authors would tell you need to write, then re-write over and over again. It doesn't matter how detailed you plan is even before you start writing a single line.
So, just like software development.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: As you know, we in software development call that refactoring Scope Creep
FTFY
If you can't find time to do it right the first time, how are you going to find time to do it again?
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: dandy72 wrote: As you know, we in software development call that refactoring Scope Creep
FTFY
When I write "novels", scope creep it the very purpose of it.
I don't write for anyone but myself; I will never try to have my texts published (or even show them to others). I started out writing about 25+ years ago, in frustration over my inability to fix my own car; I am completely dependent on car mechanics for everything; I know nothing about cars. My brain started churning on this: I know nothing about how soap is made. How to smoke meat and fish. How to use a chainsaw. ...
So in my mind I created a scenario with noone around to help me (almost). A post-apocalyptic world where I would have to solve all problems on my own. I attacked one are at a time - and also asking myself: Do I really need to solve this problem - is is an essential one?
To begin with, the specific problems and solutions were in focus. Then came the scope creep: With limited resources, what do I really want to give priority? What it truly valuable to me? In my imaginary post-apocalyptic world, I wasn't all alone: A group of kids had survived as well. So I had to justify my choices to them, and we had to organize a new society. How would I build and organize a society from a tabula rasa, when noone else restricts my choices? (The reason why I let a group of kids survive was to give myself more freedom: They would have few very firm ideas about what a society should be, but they would all the time be questioning my, and gradually their own, choices.)
So the scope crept outward, to thoughts about society in general, how to relate to life and death, which morals can be justified for yourself and which can you impose on others, and so on.
As the work progressed, I was surprised to learn how may questions I had never before given a single thought. Also, thinking them thoroughly over made me, in several areas, change my deepest convictions. It changed me as a human.
Later, I have written a number of texts, as novels or (long) short stories, essentially by creating a scenario that I do not know how to handle. In order to make a trustworthy story, with people behaving and arguing in a way that makes sense, I have to do a lot of background studies. Almost always, it starts out with some very practical problem, like this group that gets involved in a new mining project: How do you get minerals out of the stone? I didn't have a clue. Now I have at least slight clue, especially about the variation in techniques both for finding the minerals and extracting them. But it also brings me into how multinational (and for that sake, national) mining companies behave: How mine workers are treated, how the pollution they generate is treated, how much respect they have for wildlife and nature, and so on.
And how do mining companies differ from other huge corporations? Can we at all imagine a society with both mining and other large-scale activities that does not have the same negative effects on everything around them? Could we have a society that allows the activity without giving the leaders the power tools to destroy everything else in their hunt for profit?
Often, issues like these makes me end up in a very non-PC corner. That is the main reason why I don't show my texts to others. I did show the first novel to a few, and that had some very negative consequences for me personally. If I have to adjust my thoughts to what is acceptable to people around me, then I don't have the freedom to decide for myself what I think would be the right answer.
To give an example: I honestly think that internet protocols is a can of worms. Or rather: A pail of garbage. So I create a scenario where the entire network (well, limited to the USA and their international connections) is completely destroyed and must be rebuilt from the ground up. You have the freedom to build a completely new network from scratch, unhampered by any old solutions - but you have the knowledge of all alternative technologies that had to yield to IP.
I don't care much for shouting matches with TCP/IP affectionadas, nor for (even polite) discussions about how internet could possibly be developed in the direction I suggest. I do not care to reshape a garbage can! I want to analyze how a completely different network could be designed, see if it could be made workable at all. (And yes, it could!) But I can hardly mention such thoughts of something to replace IP, throw IP on the garbage heap where it belongs, with anyone who knows the difference between TCP and IP. That is like pointing out to Christians that the two histories of the childhood of Jesus has practically no overlap, and must refer to two different boy children - they do not want to hear of it, and the run as fast as they can to fetch my coat.
To give a somewhat more specific advice to SteveH: Do not underestimate the importance of background research!
One thing my writing has made me realize in full: My competence, my knowledge is very limited. I can hardly write a novel based solely on what I've already got inside my head. The story always run into corners where an expert shakes his head: That author is writing about things he doesn't have a clue about. I know it from my own reading: Frequently, I see authors (even well known ones) giving descriptions and solutions that are far away from any reality, and it makes me p***ed. I stop trusting that author even in areas where I am not and expert. You don't have to become an expert in every area you refer to, but learn enough about it to make sure that you do not make any big blunders - in particular if your story in any way depends on the details you mention.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
The ideas and thoughts in your writings are yours, that's the whole point of writing and reading. I already know what I'm thinking (most of the time ) so I want to read what others think and write. (I'm an avid reader (about 2 hours a day).
If I don't like or agree with what someone writes I simply don't read it. If you don't like something I say or write about, ignore it. It's a pretty simple philosophy.
As an aside, I have learned many professions over the years, mainly because I'm too poor to pay someone else to do it.
If you can't find time to do it right the first time, how are you going to find time to do it again?
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: I already know what I'm thinking (most of the time )
Until you have had to (fiercely) defend your thoughts, you do not know for sure what you are thinking.
In my student days, we were a group of 8-10 students meeting every weekend for all sorts of discussions - almost as if the very purpose was to disagree. Whatever one of us suggested, it was met by some counter arguments. That was extremely stimulating, and made us dig really deep to see if we could truly defend our opinions. We were truly disagreeing: A newborn Christian, a jew, a couple traditional protestants, most were non-believers, but we could discuss religious questions through the night. One wore a Mao Tse Tung button on his jacket sleeve at all times, another one would definitely support an alternate president if he was in the US now, some were green, some wanted more or less a theocracy: The morals of the Christian churches should control all aspects of society; this of course led to fierce debates. Yet, we were all close friends when all arrived at my little apartment, and equally close friends when the left at night.
After we graduated, the group naturally dissolved. When I write, the main character(s) always have antagonist(s) opposing their ideas and thoughts. For me as an author, one of the most challenging tasks is to dig up all the counter arguments against the ideas held by the protagonists, which are 'obviously' the good, right ideas. No, that is not at all obvious. Then there would be no conflict around them. So I have to understand what makes the antagonists think the way they do. Therefore,
If I don't like or agree with what someone writes I simply don't read it. This is very much contrary to my line of thought. I must know the counter arguments, the arguments for a completely different taste or judgement. First, it can strengthen my ability to defend my own opinions. Second: What if they are right? What if I really should change my opinions? I am open to that alternative!
Finally: If you don't read what "someone" writes because you don't like it or disagree with it, how do you know that you don't like it or disagree with it? Is it due to a label that you or someone else has attached to the author, rather than the writings?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
