How a responsible publisher (Wired magazine) is dealing with AI

[highplainsdem]

Smart, ethical guidelines. Kudos to Wired. So much better than CNET and any other publication willing to use AI to get rid of human staff even if the resulting stories are filled with errors.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-wired-will-use-generative-ai-tools/

We do not publish stories with text generated by AI, except when the fact that it’s AI-generated is the whole point of the story. (In such cases we’ll disclose the use and flag any errors.) This applies not just to whole stories but also to snippets—for example, ordering up a few sentences of boilerplate on how Crispr works or what quantum computing is. It also applies to editorial text on other platforms, such as email newsletters. (If we use it for non-editorial purposes like marketing emails, which are already automated, we will disclose that.)

This is for obvious reasons: The current AI tools are prone to both errors and bias, and often produce dull, unoriginal writing. In addition, we think someone who writes for a living needs to constantly be thinking about the best way to express complex ideas in their own words. Finally, an AI tool may inadvertently plagiarize someone else’s words. If a writer uses it to create text for publication without a disclosure, we’ll treat that as tantamount to plagiarism.

-snip-

We do not publish AI-generated images or video. AI-generated art is already all over the internet, but artists and image libraries are suing the image generators for violating copyright by using their work as training data. In some countries, there are laws prohibiting such use. At least until the legal issues are settled, we won’t publish such art, even if it’s made by a working artist we’ve commissioned and paid. As with text, we will make exceptions when the fact that AI was used is the point of the story, and will disclose it, as well as get permission. (For instance, we asked some artists who had designed covers for WIRED to create AI-enabled variations on their own work in order to illustrate an essay on the potential of generative AI.)

We specifically do not use AI-generated images instead of stock photography. Selling images to stock archives is how many working photographers make ends meet. At least until generative AI companies develop a way to compensate the creators their tools rely on, we won’t use their images this way.

-snip-

[sanatanadharma]

1. Ethics implies a "Commonwealth"

Ethics implies a "Commonwealth" and is the opposite of selfishness which implies a scarcity to be snapped up by some, of all that is needed.

"We" vs "Me", so simple.

[highplainsdem]

2. +1,000,000