Miscellaneous Has Google AI stolen my article and concept?!

[mizmar]

Why all this AI hate?

Seems to me, more like worry and justice.

Many websites are built on the premises that search will send traffic their way to improve engagement ; sales, advertising imprints, membership etc.
If an AI provides a sufficient and satisfying answer, why would someone click through? So, possible loss of business; and, to add insult to injury, in this case the answer served is exactly based on the target sites content. So, a bit like the news sites long running battle with news aggregators (included in search)

If I were to write about gravity would I have stolen Newton's work?

Not an equivalence.
Apart from that anyone interested in gravity would already know Newtown, Einstein, De Sitter etc.
Accademia has a long standing requirement of attribution. Natural or Artificial intelligence. If an honest academic wanted to use the idea in the OP they'd have to check out attribution to pass review.

True, there is a crisis in academia with students using AI, shoddy referencing etc. and other dodgy stuff

 

[Pete Thomas]

Why all this AI hate?

I don’t hate AI at all, it has some great uses. We even employed it here for a while with the Saxbot if you recall.

If a human had written that and provided a link to your article would you be accusing them of stealing your article and concept?

Only if, as in this case, I hadn’t realised there was a link. As I said, now I realise there is a link it’s OK by me. But I’d prefer it was clearer than just the chain icon.

I have changed the thread title now.

Perhaps you would. Perhaps you consider it to be the Pete Thomas concept of tone and sound which nobody else is allowed to mention because it's yours and belongs to you and not to anyone else.

Of course not and I’m not even sure I had the idea first however I have been unable to find it elsewhere. If it existed prior then I’d take my hat off to whoever came up with it.

 

[LostCircuits]

Why all this AI hate?

If a human had written that and provided a link to your article would you be accusing them of stealing your article and concept?

Perhaps you would. Perhaps you consider it to be the Pete Thomas concept of tone and sound which nobody else is allowed to mention because it's yours and belongs to you and not to anyone else.

If I were to write about gravity would I have stolen Newton's work?

I agree in general, even though you put it out a little harsh.

AI - and I work in this field, so I am biased - is meant to facilitate searches that have been done manually and in a very time consuming way. In the simplest case, it is a designer who draws an image of something he wants to produce but doesn't know what materials come closest to the desired effects. Technical details aside, the image is digitized (vectorized) and compared to a library. It can also be a picture taken with a smart phone of a rock or a tree or anything else. You can have 10 people sifting through catalogs for days to come up with the best match or you take your phone, submit the picture and the computer system will find you a set of matches in a matter of seconds.

You need to solve a math equation only you don't even know what the equation is for reducing weight of a spherical container filled with water and you drain 1/4 of the vertical axis. All you need now is ask. Ok, I hear some shouts in the background how this will deteriorate the education and skills and there is a point in that but you still need to be able to formulate and ask the correct question.

Predictable AI and risk assessment. Dr Watson has done it for years but now you can get close using cloud services and a smart phone. That includes weather, health, yadda yadda.

Generative AI - yeah, it's the bad kid on the block but think of a firefighter and a custom-produced protective gear for minimum weight and max protection. I do a 3D scan or the individual and 20 seconds later I get the exact recipe for the gear.

I could elaborate on details but some of it is confidential and most of it would be boring. Just a last one: Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks (cGAN) where two instances of a network fight against each other weeding out incorrect answers.

It's super exciting stuff, just think of a lung scan (pun intended) that takes 3 doctors * 10 minutes to evaluate. AI can do it in 10 milliseconds and then think of the cost savings for healthcare.

 

[turf3]

So this is regurgitated garbage? Obviously I don’t expect everyone to agree with my article or its concept (garbage?) but in this case I thought the AI summary was quite good and actually seems very articulate and concise to me.

What is it about this that is garbage?

While the terms "tone" and "sound" are often used interchangeably, particularly in music, they represent distinct concepts in the context of a saxophone. Tone refers to the fundamental, raw sound produced by the instrument itself, while sound encompasses the overall musical effect achieved by the player, including expressiveness, vibrato, and dynamics.

No, your writing isn't garbage. If the AI, this time, produced an accurate restatement of what you wrote, then that's OK. There's no guarantee that the next time it wThat's what I mean by "regurgitated garbage". If you

The problem is not with the valid applications of the tool. Pattern recognition in pathology, for example. Those are narrowly defined situations where actual experts teach the AI. The problem is in the generic "internet search bots" that just trawl what people have written and then spit it back to us, with no judgement. If 1000 people wrote that Klanbogens improved saxophone tone, that would be what would be spat back at us. The fact that no coherent theory of how woodwind instruments work supports this, would get lost. Same thing with nutritional claims.

For some kinds of products it has become impossible to read reviews because all that's out there are AI generated comparisons of published specs, with no human judgement.

 

[Pete Thomas]

No, your writing isn't garbage.

Thanks!

And we have to accept that some AI does work very well these days. Too well some may say.

A very good friend of mine has made a very good living for years as a translator of movie screenplays at a very high level, ie big feature films. Her translation work didn't slow down as she had predicted, it abruptly stopped a couple of years ago as the translations via AI suddenly changed up a gear and became as good (well maybe not quite, a bit of tweaking for some colloquialisms was necessary but a career ended just like that.


My main concern with AI is not so much the garbage but the environmental impact.

 

[LostCircuits]

Right now the environmental impact is pretty high but there are a lot of scalable AI solutions in the work using a much smaller footprint, both physically and energy-wise. Not everything needs to be calculated to double precision floating point values, when an 8-bit value gets sufficient results.

A lot of this is going to become obsolete when quantum computing becomes mainstream but that's going to be another discussion.

 

[thomsax]

Wright down your ideas and thought in a book and keep it to yourself. Read it again after some days and do some changes. Let is rest for some weeks and read it again ..... . If you want to share with others do so but do it face to face ..... . Don't feed AI. Free tuner app? Every time you use it you pay for it. And it's not with money.