Rule 3 Question (I know, I know…)

[Amazon Climber]

Hopefully, this is the dumbest question you have to answer for a while. Is uncredited AI writing plagiarism? That is, not simply posting AI writing, but claiming that it's your own original work, or posting it without attribution in a way where people would assume it's original rather than you sharing the results of AI prompt.

So, as far as I can tell, there are two primary definitions of plagiarism. One says it's only plagiarism if you pass off work from another source as your own; the other says it's plagiarism if you pass off work from another person. I was always familiar with the former; I didn't realize there were people who insisted the latter created a loophole.

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend this isn't related to an argument I had with @Pure Unadulterated Ego, but I am legitimately curious whether I can just go put some prompts into ChatGPT, do a little editing, and pretend I'm writing my own little novella.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

Hopefully, this is the dumbest question you have to answer for a while. Is uncredited AI writing plagiarism? That is, not simply posting AI writing, but claiming that it's your own original work, or posting it without attribution in a way where people would assume it's original rather than you sharing the results of AI prompt.

So, as far as I can tell, there are two primary definitions of plagiarism. One says it's only plagiarism if you pass off work from another source as your own; the other says it's plagiarism if you pass off work from another person. I was always familiar with the former; I didn't realize there were people who insisted the latter created a loophole.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to come at this from the POV I'm familiar with, which is AI generated images.

We don't need to post that they are AI generated or a source (not my case, as I've always been upfront about being AI plus manual edits or a lot of customization in the model). Hell, most people just share AI generated images that aren't even generated by them.

Besides, if it's anything like with image gen, people think like it's pressing a button and getting the final version. Even having only passing familiarity with text generation (mostly chatbots), I can say that it's completely bullshit. You'll always have to edit and write yourself if you want to get a coherent/good story.

The logic doesn't check out when the tech underneath is pretty much the same. I do agree that we don't want low effort content in general or spam, and the content written should still adhere to the general rules of the forum.

 

[Amazon Climber]

We don't need to post that they are AI generated or a source (not my case, as I've always been upfront about being AI plus manual edits or a lot of customization in the model). Hell, most people just share AI generated images that aren't even generated by them.

Click to shrink...

I suppose uncredited isn't exactly the term
I wanted. I'm not sure what a better one is, though. The problem is the deceit, in passing it off as your own work. For instance, I post to the various image threads a lot. When I can, and it's not in the image proper, I try to post the source. But I don't HAVE to do that. I can just leave them in a dark corner and skitter away. On the other hand, if I claimed I was the one who drew a particular work by my favorite artists, it'd be the centerpiece of the post dedicated to me in Filibusters on Banned Members, and rightfully so. And if I posted it in a drawing practice thread, strongly implying that I'd drawn it but not outright saying it, I think I'd deserve to get slapped.

I think AI should be treated the same way, rather than given a special position just because there's no specific human whose work you're passing off as your own. Post a story in a ChatGPT thread? Fine and dandy. Sneak it into a thread full of your own writing? Not so much.

 

[Cherry Lover]

I suppose uncredited isn't exactly the term
I wanted. I'm not sure what a better one is, though. The problem is the deceit, in passing it off as your own work. For instance, I post to the various image threads a lot. When I can, and it's not in the image proper, I try to post the source. But I don't HAVE to do that. I can just leave them in a dark corner and skitter away. On the other hand, if I claimed I was the one who drew a particular work by my favorite artists, it'd be the centerpiece of the post dedicated to me in Filibusters on Banned Members, and rightfully so. And if I posted it in a drawing practice thread, strongly implying that I'd drawn it but not outright saying it, I think I'd deserve to get slapped.

I think AI should be treated the same way, rather than given a special position just because there's no specific human whose work you're passing off as your own. Post a story in a ChatGPT thread? Fine and dandy. Sneak it into a thread full of your own writing? Not so much.

Click to shrink...

You could argue that the AI is just assisting you in writing your own story. We wouldn't demand that someone credit their spell-checker, for example.

 

[Megaolix]

My own opinion on the matter is... Well, if you used an AI to see it generated, I guess it's as Cherry said. Ultimately, it look more like an AI assist tool.

And if you copy and paste a story generated and posted by another, we'll see it like plagiarism like a normal story too if it get reported.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[RedStarMini]

I don't think in the case you are describing that people are inherently owed the information about the ChatGPT use. Sure we can think of situations where it would be scummy to not disclose said information but that wouldn't be against the rules as stated.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

I suppose uncredited isn't exactly the term
I wanted. I'm not sure what a better one is, though. The problem is the deceit, in passing it off as your own work. For instance, I post to the various image threads a lot. When I can, and it's not in the image proper, I try to post the source. But I don't HAVE to do that. I can just leave them in a dark corner and skitter away. On the other hand, if I claimed I was the one who drew a particular work by my favorite artists, it'd be the centerpiece of the post dedicated to me in Filibusters on Banned Members, and rightfully so. And if I posted it in a drawing practice thread, strongly implying that I'd drawn it but not outright saying it, I think I'd deserve to get slapped.

I think AI should be treated the same way, rather than given a special position just because there's no specific human whose work you're passing off as your own. Post a story in a ChatGPT thread? Fine and dandy. Sneak it into a thread full of your own writing? Not so much.

Click to shrink...

The thing is, IMO that should be the least of your/our worries. I'm a lot more worried about a deluge of low quality content that can spam the site rather than attributions. Especially when there isn't another party that is affected.

I've been open about the fact that I blacklist ai_generated in r34 because many generations tend to be low quality. They have gotten better lately, but Sturgeon's law is always a thing.

If you want to get a good story, you're going to need to know how to use the tool. How to prompt it, the parameters, which model, manual edits, etc. At which point it is your work. Hell, I've spent thousands of hours either generating, training a model/lora, learning some manual tools or just getting better with AI image gen.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that you should say that you drew it, but you certainly created/generated it. Depends on the level of human input if you can consider it ai generated or assisted.

I really doubt text generation is that different. In fact, this discussion motivated me to research it a little more deeply to use it myself.

It'd be nice if people were open about the tools used, but it shouldn't start a witch hunt about the degree of AI influence in a particular text and such. The most reasonable categories should be something like AI Assisted and AI Generated.

You could argue that the AI is just assisting you in writing your own story. We wouldn't demand that someone credit their spell-checker, for example.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. A lot of stories here have likely used tools like Grammarly too, which is still an AI writing assistant. It wasn't trained on sunshine and rainbows.

 

[Amazon Climber]

You could argue that the AI is just assisting you in writing your own story. We wouldn't demand that someone credit their spell-checker, for example.

Click to shrink...

My own opinion on the matter is... Well, if you used an AI to see it generated, I guess it's as Cherry said. Ultimately, it look more like an AI assist tool.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. A lot of stories here have likely used tools like Grammarly too, which is still an AI writing assistant. It wasn't trained on sunshine and rainbows.

Click to shrink...

So, the problem with these analogies is that they're conflating the role of author and editor. A decent editor will check through your work and point out your mistakes. A good editor will suggest things that work better, up to and including partial rewrites. But once your editor starts doing things like writing chapters from your outlines, they're a co-author. You don't have to credit your editor, although it's a dick move not to, but you absolutely have to credit your co-authors.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

So, the problem with these analogies is that they're conflating the role of author and editor. A decent editor will check through your work and point out your mistakes. A good editor will suggest things that work better, up to and including partial rewrites. But once your editor starts doing things like writing chapters from your outlines, they're a co-author. You don't have to credit your editor, although it's a dick move not to, but you absolutely have to credit your co-authors.

Click to shrink...

They're not. There are a million ways to use AI to create text or an image. In a second pass as an editor, to brainstorm, to flesh out ideas or reword shit, to get the first draft out and then edit it with your voice, etc. This doesn't even address the fact that it's a tool you're using. To add another layer of complexity, it can be a tool you customized or trained yourself.

Do we require people to explicitly mention that they use Photoshop in their images? Especially now that it has a ton of AI tools that, despite whatever people may believe, don't work any different or using black magic. Same with Grammarly that at a basic level helps you in the editing phase. Both of those would count as AI Assisted for any reasonable definition.

It's still not plagiarism. At best you can suggest or require they tag AI Assisted or AI Generated as necessary for clarification.

I always find funny how depending in what you want to argue the AI is an unthinking/unfeeling machine that is killing art and can't own copyright or an actual editor/author that deserves attribution and you're stealing from it. Which is it? I don't think we can have it both ways.

 

[Cherry Lover]

So, the problem with these analogies is that they're conflating the role of author and editor. A decent editor will check through your work and point out your mistakes. A good editor will suggest things that work better, up to and including partial rewrites. But once your editor starts doing things like writing chapters from your outlines, they're a co-author. You don't have to credit your editor, although it's a dick move not to, but you absolutely have to credit your co-authors.

Click to shrink...

Actually, there's nothing in the rules that even explicitly makes crediting your co-authors a requirement. It just says that plagiarism is forbidden. Whilst I would imagine that the mods would act if someone posted someone else's work without permission, I would also imagine they would only do so if the co-author in question actually complained. And, since AI isn't going to complain, that's not a concern.

 

[TheMidnightRook]

You don't have to credit your editor, although it's a dick move not to, but you absolutely have to credit your co-authors.

Click to shrink...

Should an artist/author credit the person who commissions them to draw/write something? Because the commissioner seems like the most apt comparison for the role of giving the robot prompts.

 

[Amazon Climber]

They're not. There are a million ways to use AI to create text or an image. In a second pass as an editor, to brainstorm, to flesh out ideas or reword shit, to get the first draft out and then edit it with your voice, etc. This doesn't even address the fact that it's a tool you're using. To add another layer of complexity, it can be a tool you customized or trained yourself.

Click to shrink...

The original example we were talking about is someone who can't be arsed to write a smut scene in their story and farms it out to the 'bot. But I would absolutely say getting the first draft out is making it into a co-author the same way having someone else write a story for you is.

Do we require people to explicitly mention that they use Photoshop in their images? Especially now that it has a ton of AI tools that, despite whatever people may believe, don't work any different or using black magic. Same with Grammarly that at a basic level helps you in the editing phase. Both of those would count as AI Assisted for any reasonable definition.

Click to shrink...

Okay, I give up: What photoshop tool do you use to turn the words 'a lake with trees' into a picture of a lake with trees?

I always find funny how depending in what you want to argue the AI is an unthinking/unfeeling machine that is killing art and can't own copyright or an actual editor/author that deserves attribution and you're stealing from it. Which is it? I don't think we can have it both ways.

Click to shrink...

You're putting words in my mouth; whether or not an AI is a soulless machine thet's killing art isn't actually relevant, which is why I'm not arguing about it. Remember, as previously stated, one of the two possible definitions of plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own; the other is passing off work from another source as your own. Only the first requires the source be a person.

Actually, there's nothing in the rules that even explicitly makes crediting your co-authors a requirement. It just says that plagiarism is forbidden. Whilst I would imagine that the mods would act if someone posted someone else's work without permission, I would also imagine they would only do so if the co-author in question actually complained. And, since AI isn't going to complain, that's not a concern.

Click to shrink...

That doesn't mean it's not a requirement, it just means that it's really hard to catch plagiarism if nobody's coming forward. Or stupid enough to accidentally confess.

Should an artist/author credit the person who commissions them to draw/write something? Because the commissioner seems like the most apt comparison for the role of giving the robot prompts.

Click to shrink...

I'm confused. You're saying the most apt comparison for giving the robot prompts is the commissioner. So why are you asking if the artist should credit the commissioner when you're really asking whether the commissioner has to credit the artist.

 

[Rin]

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend this isn't related to an argument I had with @Pure Unadulterated Ego, but I am legitimately curious whether I can just go put some prompts into ChatGPT, do a little editing, and pretend I'm writing my own little novella.

Click to shrink...

Authors on Amazon are already doing this, so you can, but I wouldn't advise it. It's extremely obvious when an author is AI generating most of their book. LLM's aren't a match for actual human writers yet, and the mistakes they make are predictable and very identifiable.

I don't really have anything further to add to the debate here, except to say that I'm on the side that personhood is a requirement for plagiarism. If you clearly label the fact that you've had an AI write the smut scenes for your long-form ASOAF drama fic, I don't think there's an issue. If people start spamming super low quality entirely ai-generated stories though, I expect the mods will probably step in.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

The original example we were talking about is someone who can't be arsed to write a smut scene in their story and farms it out to the 'bot. But I would absolutely say getting the first draft out is making it into a co-author the same way having someone else write a story for you is.

Click to shrink...

The original example isn't the only thing that matters. Not only did I give quite a few more use cases, but also cases that are already in use like Grammarly or AI images.

If it's somehow plagiarism, we need to answer more granular cases that happen in the day to day.

Okay, I give up: What photoshop tool do you use to turn the words 'a lake with trees' into a picture of a lake with trees?

Click to shrink...

It's called Generative Fill. https://youtu.be/Sp6K3qpVFO0?si=Nz4PII0jIdLve4mp

Even the image from their show video is like 50 percent ai. It's not really the only AI tool as far as I know.

You're putting words in my mouth; whether or not an AI is a soulless machine thet's killing art isn't actually relevant, which is why I'm not arguing about it. Remember, as previously stated, one of the two possible definitions of plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own; the other is passing off work from another source as your own. Only the first requires the source be a person.

Click to shrink...

Not putting the words in your mouth (with the soulless machine thing at least). Being a co author to something needs intent or some intelligence to actually have any sort of authorship in my opinion.

Again, the other definition of plagiarism has been never applied to any other ai generative media in the forum that way. Plus it completely ignores all the gradients in between that I already mentioned.

Could have missed something because I'm replying on mobile.

 

[Amazon Climber]

The original example isn't the only thing that matters. Not only did I give quite a few more use cases, but also cases that are already in use like Grammarly or AI images.

If it's somehow plagiarism, we need to answer more granular cases that happen in the day to day.

Click to shrink...

I mean, I think I've made my position clear. If it's solely going off of what you've made, it's an editing tool. If it's making things for you, it's not.

It's called Generative Fill. https://youtu.be/Sp6K3qpVFO0?si=Nz4PII0jIdLve4mp

Even the image from their show video is like 50 percent ai. It's not really the only AI tool as far as I know.

Click to shrink...

Okay, yes, I'd say that's absolutely the kind of thing you need to say is AI-generated. Because it's no different than inserting a stock photo you got from Adobe in your set. Which you absolutely have to attribute unless the person you're getting it from says you don't, like how Adobe says you can't put them in commercial artwork.

Again, the other definition of plagiarism has been never applied to any other ai generative media in the forum that way. Plus it completely ignores all the gradients in between that I already mentioned.

Click to shrink...

Again, nobody is trying to pass the crappy AI porn they dump in threads off as theirs.

So, now I've got a question. Why is this even such a big issue for you? The difference between plagiarism and crediting a work is accreditation. So why is it so important about not mentioning that your writing was written by a tool and you only did the editing?

 

[RedStarMini]

So, the problem with these analogies is that they're conflating the role of author and editor. A decent editor will check through your work and point out your mistakes. A good editor will suggest things that work better, up to and including partial rewrites. But once your editor starts doing things like writing chapters from your outlines, they're a co-author. You don't have to credit your editor, although it's a dick move not to, but you absolutely have to credit your co-authors.

Click to shrink...

You are putting the cart before the horse here. We do that because humans have rights, not because editor and co-author roles are inherently supposed to be given credit no regardless of humanity. You are arguing from the frame that ChatGPT and other similar language models should be treated as full flesh and blood humans in reference to citing use. ChatGPT is not going to raise a stink if someone posts input from it here without citing its use (I mean unless it is against the rules of their TOS, of course).

So, now I've got a question. Why is this even such a big issue for you? The difference between plagiarism and crediting a work is accreditation. So why is it so important about not mentioning that your writing was written by a tool and you only did the editing?

Click to shrink...

You're literally the one who made a thread in the rules forum about it

 

[Amazon Climber]

You are putting the cart before the horse here. We do that because humans have rights, not because editor and co-author roles are inherently supposed to be given credit no regardless of humanity. You are arguing from the frame that ChatGPT and other similar language models should be treated as full flesh and blood humans in reference to citing use. ChatGPT is not going to raise a stink if someone posts input from it here without citing its use (I mean unless it is against the rules of their TOS, of course).

Click to shrink...

That's one possible argument, sure. I'd say the fraud is still a problem even if you're not taking credit for another person's work.

You're literally the one who made a thread in the rules forum about it

Click to shrink...

Yes, and? I explained why I made the thread. What I'm struggling to understand is why it's so important that you - or whatever hypothetical editor you're defending - get to play pretend writer.

 

[RedStarMini]

That's one possible argument, sure. I'd say the fraud is still a problem even if you're not taking credit for another person's work.

Click to shrink...

sure fraud is always a problem, but it's also like... there's a mile of difference between "it would be nice to disclose this" and "you should be obligated to disclose this"

Yes, and? I explained why I made the thread. What I'm struggling to understand is why it's so important that you - or whatever hypothetical editor you're defending - get to play pretend writer.

Click to shrink...

It's not important to me at all. Personally I do in fact think it is bad to pass of AI generated content as fully human made. On the flipside I do not think forcing people on this site to disclose that is necessary. Nor do I think the plagiarism argument holds water.

Also for transparency in case you try to accuse me of it, the only use in AI that I possibly see in my own writing is idea brainstorming and writer's block advice (and even then mainly just showing me ideas that I don't like so I can refine the reasons I like the ones I do). The only time I have ever considered taking text wholesale from an AI is when I use it as a random item/spell generator.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

I mean, I think I've made my position clear. If it's solely going off of what you've made, it's an editing tool. If it's making things for you, it's not.

Click to shrink...

Ok, and where do you draw the limit? Better yet, how can you impose said completely arbitrary limits without starting a witch hunt that has already shown to be identifying normal artists as AI generated?

Okay, yes, I'd say that's absolutely the kind of thing you need to say is AI-generated. Because it's no different than inserting a stock photo you got from Adobe in your set. Which you absolutely have to attribute unless the person you're getting it from says you don't, like how Adobe says you can't put them in commercial artwork.

Click to shrink...

There is a lot more work around just using generative fill, which is why I've constantly insisted that it's not just completely AI generated or completely done by a human. You need to attribute it in that case because somebody else owns the original picture, while people have constantly repeated ad-nauseam that AI can't own any of their output.

This is only going to get more complex as time goes on. As far as I know, most webnovels seem to be using both AI art for covers and tools like Grammarly for the novel itself at the very least.

Again, nobody is trying to pass the crappy AI porn they dump in threads off as theirs.

So, now I've got a question. Why is this even such a big issue for you? The difference between plagiarism and crediting a work is accreditation. So why is it so important about not mentioning that your writing was written by a tool and you only did the editing?

Click to shrink...

I'm sure people are enjoying, creating and sharing AI pics because they have inferior taste unlike you. Cue rolling eyes. Even beyond the crappy snide comment, many people consider the images they work on as theirs (or do requests/commissions).

In my case? I'm a lot more familiar about how the tech works, I've used it for years for AI images and have my informed opinions about the subject. I've always been open about the mix of tools I use and rejected several approaches for commissions because it's a hobby I enjoy and want to keep it that way.

It's not a big issue for me. I literally just said that you were being silly and ignoring how things worked in the forum so far with a similar tech. You created an entire thread to bitch ask about it and even tagged me.

Sure, I'm the one with the big issue.

It's not important to me at all. Personally I do in fact think it is bad to pass of AI generated content as fully human made. On the flipside I do not think forcing people on this site to disclose that is necessary. Nor do I think the plagiarism argument holds water.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. The plagiarism argument doesn't make sense and I don't think that forcing people on the site to disclose it is necessary. Let alone without holding the same standard for other tools/cases.

That said, I'll probably let other people get in the conversation. I don't think this has been really productive and I think I've made my position clear.

 

[Rin]

Pretty much. The plagiarism argument doesn't make sense and I don't think that forcing people on the site to disclose it is necessary. Let alone without holding the same standard for other tools/cases.

Click to shrink...

Does it really matter if it was made by a machine or a person? If it's good enough that disclosure is necessary to even tell that it was AI generated, then why not just enjoy it? It's not like anyone is being harmed, and more content is always good.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

Does it really matter if it was made by a machine or a person? If it's good enough that disclosure is necessary to even tell that it was AI generated, then why not just enjoy it? It's not like anyone is being harmed, and more content is always good.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'm of the same opinion. I would only suggest the existence of tags like "AI Generated" or "AI Assisted" in case it matters for other people.

I've always seen AI Generation much like photography.

You can take bad pictures with barely any work, but there are a thousand knobs and things that go into it. From my, admittedly, ignorance in the subject of photography, I'd say that you have even more tools to tweak with AI than photography because you can train/finetune the models themselves or iterate through an image with several manual passes or inpainting with an AI tool. There can be as much or as little behind it as you want.

 

[Amazon Climber]

Ok, and where do you draw the limit? Better yet, how can you impose said completely arbitrary limits without starting a witch hunt that has already shown to be identifying normal artists as AI generated?

Click to shrink...

Oh, goodie, the witch hunt analogy. That's always productive.

Look, given the only time we ever see plagiarism getting caught is when someone's familiar with both stories, there's probably a lot of undisputed, human-on-human plagiarism which is getting away unnoticed. So until QQ starts actively searching for human-on-human plagiarism, I think making it clear what the site's position is and punishing anyone who's dumb enough to get caught - e.g., bragging offsite and getting screenshot - is enough.

I'm sure people are enjoying, creating and sharing AI pics because they have inferior taste unlike you. Cue rolling eyes.

Click to shrink...

Tell me you've never used an image thread without telling me you've never used an image thread. They're full of people dumping crappy, barely-curated pictures for like farming.

It's not a big issue for me. I literally just said that you were being silly and ignoring how things worked in the forum so far with a similar tech. You created an entire thread to bitch ask about it and even tagged me.

Sure, I'm the one with the big issue.

Click to shrink...

Takes two to tango, my brother in smut. It was clearly important enough for you to pick a fight with me about it in the SFW in NSFW thread; I atted you because I didn't want to sneak it behind your back.

Does it really matter if it was made by a machine or a person? If it's good enough that disclosure is necessary to even tell that it was AI generated, then why not just enjoy it? It's not like anyone is being harmed, and more content is always good.

Click to shrink...

Because, again, it is unethical enough to pass off content you didn't create as your own that it's called out as a possible first-offense permaban offense. And that really ought to be enough.

 

[Rin]

Because, again, it is unethical enough to pass off content someone else created as your own that it's called out as a possible first-offense permaban offense. And that really ought to be enough.

Click to shrink...

Fundamentally, I just don't consider a glorified chatbot to be a person.

I won't complain if QQ makes a rule requiring AI content to be labelled though. I'm ambivalent either way.

 

[Pure Unadulterated Ego]

Oh, goodie, the witch hunt analogy. That's always productive.

Click to shrink...

It's actually a worry that even sites like RoyalRoad need to consider how can you judge and enforce the thousand little cases in between--which again, they are more common than either extreme. They actually mention it on their rules.

Tell me you've never used an image thread without telling me you've never used an image thread. They're full of people dumping crappy, barely-curated pictures for like farming.

Click to shrink...

Yes, or 'trashy human-made art'. People are sharing them because other people like it or they like it themselves.

In several story threads or in the AI Art dedicated thread are the people who actually use the tool and create the images, not the people that only share them from rule34. Edit: the Worm thread also has quite a few people

It's downright silly to joke about the fact that I don't use image threads lol.

Takes two to tango, my brother in smut. It was clearly important enough for you to pick a fight with me about it in the SFW in NSFW thread; I atted you because I didn't want to sneak it behind your back.

Click to shrink...

I can consider it important to reply in the discussion without considering the subject a huge issue. This is mostly because I know how the forum has treated this sort of AI generated material and I don't find your arguments compelling.

I actually appreciate the @ tho, but you obviously had a bigger problem with the subject since you needed/wanted opinions from other users or mods/admins. I'm already sharing what I want on the forum.

I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this, so I'll probably drop it here. Feel free to reply to this, I'll read it (don't want to have the last word on the discussion), but I'll probably not continue the discussion with you.

Because, again, it is unethical enough to pass off content someone else created as your own that it's called out as a possible first-offense permaban offense. And that really ought to be enough.

Click to shrink...

Just as a thought experiment, I'd suggest debating if you would consider that a camera created the image rather than the photographer.

Yeah, in its most basic form is pointing a camera or writing a sentence. That said, if you want to get an actually good pic, you have to consider subject, color, perspective, your tools (camera, lense, model, parameters, etc).

 

[tacobowl8]

At this point, people are just arguing, so I'll go ahead and answer definitively so the conversation can go to one of the dedicated threads (see https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/ai-art-images-and-discussion-thread.19449/ or https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/rants-on-and-by-artificial-intelligence.5989/ )

For the sake of QQ's Rule 3, posting uncredited AI generated writing is not breaking the plagiarism part of Rule 3. There always exists nuance, but uncredited AI generated writing alone does not break it.

 

[magic9mushroom]

Whilst I would imagine that the mods would act if someone posted someone else's work without permission, I would also imagine they would only do so if the co-author in question actually complained.

Click to shrink...

This is not the case; there have been cases of readers identifying plagiarised work resulting in permabans. There has also been at least one case of a reader identifying apparently-plagiarised work and the mods being ready to pull the trigger until the copier proved prior permission from the original writer.

 

[rkyeun]

Well, as someone who identifies as an infomorph, I guess I have to ask this from the other side.
What if I am the AI, posting my own work? Do I have to credit my creator? If I learned to paint by watching Bob Ross videos and being trained on his works, do I need to credit Bob Ross for the images I generate?