#gpt3

Hi, AI ethicist + fanfiction expert here. (This is one of those times where I feel uniquely qualified to comment on something...)

I’m seeing this weird game of telephone about the Sudowrite AI that I think started out pretty accurate, but now has become “Elon Musk created an AI that is stealing your fanfiction” (which frankly gives him far too much credit). I can probably say more about this, but here are a few things that I want to clarify for folks, which can be boiled down to “Elon Musk has nothing to do with this” and “this is nothing new”: Elon Musk is not involved in any way with Sudowrite, as far as I can tell. Sudowrite does, however, use GPT-3, the widely-used large language model created by OpenAI, which Elon Musk co-founded. He resigned in 2018, citing a conflict of interest due to Tesla’s AI development. It wasn’t until after he left that OpenAI went from being a non-profit to a capped for-profit. Elon Musk doesn’t have anything to do with OpenAI currently (and in fact just cut off their access to Twitter data), though I can’t find anything that confirms whether or not he might have shares in the company. I would also be shocked if Elon actually contributed anything but money to the development of GPT-3.

Based on Sudowrite’s description on their FAQ, they are not collecting any training data themselves - they’re just using GPT-3 paired with their own proprietary narrative model.  And GPT-3 is trained on datasets like common crawl and webtext, which can simplistically be described as “scraping the whole internet.” Same as their DALL-E art generator. So it’s not surprising that AO3 would be in that dataset, along with everything else (e.g., Tumblr posts, blogs, news articles, all the words people write online) that doesn’t use technical means to prohibit scraping. 

OpenAI does make money now, including from companies like Sudowrite paying for access to GPT-3. And Sudowrite itself is a paid service. So yes, someone is profiting from its use (though OpenAI is capped at no more than 100% return on investment) and I think that the conversations about art (whether visual or text) being used to train these models without consent of the artist are important conversations to be having.

I think it’s possible that what OpenAI is doing is legal (i.e., not copyright infringement) for some of the same reasons that fanfiction is legal (or perhaps more accurately, for reasons that many for-profit remixes are found to be fair use), but I think whether it’s ETHICAL is a completely different question, and I’ve seen a huge amount of disagreement on this.

Sorry if this was asked before, AI just makes me wary of my own aspirations as a writer cause if an ai can just do what I do a lot better and faster is there a point in trying to publish that work?

What AI art and writing is a threat to is your professional career first and foremost. It is automation, and the function of automation is to drive down labor costs and outcompete artisans by sheer volume. I can't promise you that you'll be able to earn a living from writing in the future, this technology could genuinely destroy the commercial market, but if your worry is that the AI is going to simply be better than you, then let me put your fears to rest.

The AI cannot and will never be better than you.

These machine learning algorithms (which are not actually even AI, I should say), can only ever do one thing, which is reproduce the data that is fed into them. They can mix and remix that data in a hundred billion different configurations according to whatever parameters are specified, but they can't actually create anything.

Algorithms have nothing to add, they don't invent anything. They have no experience, they have no perspective, they have no intent. Algorithms will never write a story to express anything, they'll only reassemble parts of other stories to fit a desired output.

This is not to say that algorithm art won't pass the Turing test, that's a fairly low bar, just that fundamentally, algorithms will never, ever generate something that is of higher quality than what's fed into them. And they will never invent anything new, or add anything to the conversation.

Something which is true and will remain true forever is that somewhere out there, there is someone who needs the thing that you create. And they need that thing from you, in your voice, from your perspective and informed by your experiences. This isn't poetic fancy, this is observed experience. Humans tell stories and create art because we fucking need to. And we need these things to connect with one another.

That is always going to matter.

You might only have an audience of one. You might never make any money doing it. You might not even be alive when the person who needs your work finally finds it, or if shit goes really bad, it might be lost to time and they never find it.

There's a 1985* sci-fi short story I once read by M.A. Foster called “Entertainment” that predicts what will happen in an increasingly AI-generated art world.  I can't find any excerpts or summaries of it online, but what I recall is:

In the future, humans can prompt machines to create any art -- e.g., "What would a collaboration between early-era Peter Gabriel and late-era Beethoven look like, with a music video directed by Werner Herzog?"  (That's a made up example, but someone originally gave me the story because Peter Gabriel and early Genesis are actually referred to in the text, and I was at the height of my fandom. XD )  An AI then comes up with a bunch of different examples, and the human who gave the prompt chooses the one(s) they like best.  They then release the creation to the broader world, and people make micropayments to stream it.  Everyone competes for attention, hoping to go viral or at least make a decent living.

(There's a dystopian aspect, where if you don't make enough money and your balance drops below zero, you disappear back into the human factory to get remade.  Also, people don't have sex in person -- they pay each other for the rights to their likeness, and they have sex with simulated versions of one another.  All of which is rather interesting, but not as directly relevant to the point I'm making here.)

M.A. Foster did an impressive job foreseeing a bunch of aspects of modern AI and online culture (especially keeping in mind that there was no Web or social media or digital streaming or online micropayments at the time this was written).   And it’s becoming easy to imagine that we may reach a point where many of the story’s predictions about art come true, as well.  

Objectively funnier, asking the AI smash or pass: