After months of complaints from the Authors Guild and other groups, Amazon.com has started requiring writers who want to sell books through its e-book program to tell the company in advance that their work includes artificial intelligence material.

The Authors Guild praised the new regulations, which were posted Wednesday, as a “welcome first step” toward deterring the proliferation of computer-generated books on the online retailer’s site. Many writers feared computer-generated books could crowd out traditional works and would be unfair to consumers who didn’t know they were buying AI content.

In a statement posted on its website, the Guild expressed gratitude toward “the Amazon team for taking our concerns into account and enacting this important step toward ensuring transparency and accountability for AI-generated content.”

  • dethb0y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Considering what a total wasteland amazon’s self published section is, i don’t know that it could be much worse.

    Of course any author with an IQ over 70 would have the good sense to never disclose they were using AI.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      My mother was originally going to self-publish her first novel on Amazon, but she realized what a scam it was. I’m glad she found a real publisher. She’s on her sixth book now. They aren’t bestsellers or anything, but people actually buy and read them. eBooks and physical copies.

  • donuts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is absolutely a good move, though I don’t know how effective it’ll be on its own. Unfettered AI garbage “content” is soon going to flood every storefront and service around, and the only way to really solve it is to close things down and move to more highly curated platforms. I wish that wasn’t the case, but I can image a future where it’s hard to find anything worthwhile in a sea of AI-generated junk.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Good. Unless you’re using an AI you yourself cultivated using your own creations: you’re plagiarizing with extra steps.

    • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Overly simplistic outlook.

      If you provide the sources and direct the LLM to use those sources, and then proofread the damn thing and cite the sources, it flat out is not plagiarism.

      It’s as much plagiarism as using a calculator is to find square roots.

  • rivermonster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Here comes the chorus of people who know nothing about how AI/machinelearning/generative models work.

    The problem is capitalism. There are no safe jobs, and we need a UBI and shouldn’t have to work with AI productivity gains.

    The bitching about ai and stupid statements from those ignorant to how it works are all out of a fear of lost income which is a fear instilled by zero sum capitalism.

    Build guillotines, make all productivity gains from AI 100% taxed, and relax.