@jackmaurus While I agree with this in terms of active use (i.e. I would never use AI on a client project without their permission), I don't think it applies to end products. If someone releases a youtube video or video game that uses AI art, there's no reason they should have to disclose that. The consumer isn't harmed by that like they are with deceptive advertising.
@jackmaurus If the video is just a slideshow of AI art, I'd agree with you.
But if the art is used as an element of a larger creative work, I'd argue that that is transformative, and no longer needs to be disclosed.
It's like, if a human samples a number of AI tracks to create their own song, is that "real"?
@LouisIngenthron Again, exceptions are entitled to a fair appeal. I trust others to tend to these and other situations. As they must. AI is a force, will remain a force, and will always require monitoring and review.
AI is not of our design or creation. It is Frankenstein's monster; created in a lab. Time will tell if the good doctor was a madman. We need to keep watch until we are certain.
@jackmaurus Eh, it's no magical monster. I've trained models, myself, seen under the hood. It's an advanced pattern matcher. Its biggest danger is the same as any other computer program: garbage in, garbage out.
@LouisIngenthron I am encouraged by your optimism. :)
Into the night, you go first. I will follow with a pitchfork - just in case. :)
@LouisIngenthron Okay, I am with you on that. There will be many exceptions, and they are all due consideration in the spirit of fairness and intellectual integrity. In principle, I am urging people to acknowledge the need to consider rules on disclosure for every application, exceptions noted.
I see no harm done requiring a video/game disclosing that "AI was used in production of this video." The reason to disclose it is to inform that it is not real. It is artificial.