RE: 🤖 AI on Steemit: The DOs, DON'Ts & Community Rules

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

🤖 AI on Steemit: The DOs, DON'Ts & Community Rules

in hive-172186 •  4 days ago 

many are out of context for a post in the Newcomers' Community, so perhaps I'll try to put them into a separate post in a different context

As I wrote this, I considered the same. But "Rules" were requested. So as much as it pained me, I wrote some Rules.

In addition to the uses that you mentioned, I think it's also ok to quote AI output in an article, as long as it's limited, relevant, and acknowledged

Agreed. As we've discussed before, it's all about transparency. I'll need to update the article to include this.

In addition to the uses that you mentioned, I think it's also ok to quote AI output in an article, as long as it's limited, relevant, and acknowledged

Good point, I'll include this too. The moderator needs to be intelligent and exclude Diary Games from this (probably).

key update today from the US Copyright Office for protection of AI-generated works:

And this copyright has been discussed elsewhere online - most AI is infringing on the original author's copyright by sharing their content / intellectual property without permission.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a class-action lawsuit from website owners against AI's unauthorised use of their content.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a class-action lawsuit from website owners against AI's unauthorised use of their content.

I agree. It's similar to when Google was sued by publishers and the RIAA. I expect they'll get sued and eventually reach some settlement that involves revenue sharing/royalties.

The new guidelines are about granting new copyrights for artists and writers who use AI, though. It's the output, not the input. Basically, I think Steem's curation decision-makers should follow similar rules to the Copyright office.

I think Steem's curation decision-makers should follow similar rules to the Copyright office.

This position is hopefully where the article ended up - albeit without knowledge of the Copyright office.

The biggest challenge I’ve found is that whilst I know where my lines of acceptability are, others want a measurable metric. Something which removes subjectivity entirely. Which I keep saying is impossible. But I’ve tried. Always trying. Rarely succeeding.

This position is hopefully where the article ended up - albeit without knowledge of the Copyright office.

Agreed. That's why I posted it. I think it reinforces most of what you wrote.

👍