Erik Hoel: A moral stand on AI

I said no to $20,000 because writers must take a moral stand on AI

It began earlier this year, when someone I respect and like reached out to me. Their offer? Do a book club version of a Master Class (get interviewed, write some commentary) about any book I want. The payment—notably high since it required only a few filming sessions and a little writing—was a hefty $20,000. … But while I was initially excited, there was another aspect of the project: I learned that this book club would be with not me, but rather an AI version of me; one based on a bit of original commentary I created about the book (not a very long précis, in my understanding), then repackaged through a chatbot. …

Furthermore, the app possessed something else I couldn’t get onboard with: the option to use AI to translate the text into “contemporary versions” that are supposedly more easily digestible. In other words, to rewrite the classics to be more modern, which I guess means simpler. Shorter. Keep in mind: Shakespeare is an option. What, precisely, is an “easier to digest” Shakespeare version? I have little confidence that an AI-simplified version of a classic contains the same nuances, the same emphasis of style. …

So I said no to the $20,000. Meanwhile, a host of famous and successful authors, names you assuredly know, all said yes. … I had to make a choice that I could stand behind, and one way to reason about ethics is to imagine the kind of world that you’d like to exist, and the world that I want to exist has more grounded notions of authenticity and more careful use of such a powerful technology. …

Even if I’m wrong, and selling your AI-likeness is fine and dandy, and AI-rewritten classics are just par for the course in the future, I’m still shocked that 95% of the writers asked said yes. For I don’t think that this is a 95% clear issue, even if I’m personally wrong about it. Many of the yeses self-style themselves not only as writers, but important voices of morality and ethics—including about AI’s threat to human art! Yet none of that showed through.

You can click through and read the whole thing, which is well worth reading. This thing about lending yourself to some kind of fake book club discussion, I’m not actually sure how that works, even though I did read Hoel’s post all the way through. I’m trying to imagine what that is, exactly? Is this like a lecture about the book, like a classroom lecture, except it’s mostly generated by AI according to some material, notes and a brief video lecture or something, provided by a person? I’m trying to see the point, but I’m having some trouble with it.

This other part, I’m quite clear on —

In my view, it should be illegal to produce a modified version of any work by any author without explicit permission from that author; and I don’t mean the author’s estate, I mean the author. If that means you can’t do it because the author is dead, then that means you can’t do it.

And that’s how I feel about that.

I don’t want to seem unreasonable, so I’ll compromise. You can produce a modified, modernized version of whatever you like, three hundred years after the death of the author, if the author’s estate agrees. No agreement from the estate? Then it’s four hundred years.

I am just sick at the idea of so-called “helpful” “experts” screwing around with the works of dead authors who can’t defend their works against this obviously unjust misuse.

Please Feel Free to Share:

The post Erik Hoel: A moral stand on AI appeared first on Rachel Neumeier.