The issue of using the works of authors to train artificial intelligence algorithms is becoming increasingly controversial. Some authors categorically forbid the use of their works in this way, while others agree to it in exchange for proposed royalties from certain publishers. However, all agree that texts written by AI will never become part of the canon of fine literature. Technology does not create new artistic value, but only replicates existing patterns.
“Artificial intelligence handles formulaic books well, whether it’s fantasy or a crime novel, where there is a limited number of tricks and gimmicks. Where there are unexpected, ambiguous, disturbing things happening, where we as human readers do not fully understand what is going on, but are very moved by it, I do not think artificial intelligence is capable of doing more than just mimicking it from an average perspective, not really knowing what readers like us – of flesh and blood, expect.” said Piotr Siemion, a writer and translator, to Newseria Innowacje agency. “Literature helps us crawl out of various holes and often unexpectedly strengthens us. However, what artificial intelligence has created so far only serves for passive consumption, to kill time, and it does not help.”
As a rule, artificial intelligence is not capable of creating new artistic values. This is because linguistic models are not creative, but are based on literary works that already exist. This has aroused a lot of controversy. Some creators oppose the use of their works to fuel AI algorithms. In the Federal Court in California, three authors have already sued NVIDIA, which was supposed to use their works to train the NeMo model.
“We can ban artificial intelligence from accessing what we create for some time, until someone, a human or a machine, bypasses it. But I do not think we care about just disconnecting from this circulation, which will still be growing. We want to earn a decent living in some way, just like in any field of the economy. If there are subsidies for farm products, why shouldn’t artificial intelligence subsidize our sonnets or novels? It’s not easy to compensate writers or other creators just because our content, novels, symphonies and other works go into the great washing machine and we don’t know what happened to them next, how much someone earned from them, if any part belongs to us. We cannot check this and we will not be able to,” emphasizes Piotr Siemion.
Publishers have already started offering payments to authors in exchange for permission to use their works in AI algorithms. Recently, there were reports in the media that the lump sum offered by HarperCollins is $2,500. This was revealed by Emmy-nominated writer Daniel Kibblesmith, who categorically rejected such an offer considering it disgusting. However, many authors have accepted such an offer and in his opinion, it threatens to lower the status of the profession of a writer and to spoil the market.
Piotr Siemion believes that a tax should be introduced, collected from technology companies, and then from the collected money pay royalties acting like royalties.
“Today we can tax, collectively, with a simple flat tax, all corporations that deal with artificial intelligence and implicitly use our content. In the future, there may be some metadata systems, labeling what we create, so that everything can be calculated to the cent, but that’s a song of the future,” predicts the writer.
However, no one has any doubts today that artificial intelligence can support the creative process, for example, in non-fiction literature. This year, the Pulitzer Prize committee introduced an obligation to inform that AI was used when creating the submitted material. The authors of the two winning papers in the field of investigative journalism used innovative tools to analyze large data sets.
“A few dozen books from one author written with the help, or actually, by AI machinery, arrive at Amazon every day. You can easily recognize a fake here, but the market is free. If such a work finds readers, well, good for the author and his computer, tough. But somehow I am not worried,” concludes Piotr Siemion, adding that AI can support the industry in another way. “In my publishing company, there are 28 types of AI tools. Today it is a huge convenience, if we talk about transcription, translation, even human resources matters. Just as the steam engine made horses disappear from the coal mines in England, thanks to AI a lot of troublesome work will disappear, but so will some professions. We have great hopes and great fears.”
