unspeakablehorror | AI-Generated Articles and AI Bans (Reply)

Going to admit, I don't think there's any good way to handle AI-generated materials in external articles with a generalized AI ban.

* If the policy is that a person can't link to AI-generated material such that it gets captioned on Pillowfort as an image or text, you're expecting them to have way more dilligence than can reasonably be expected. Sometimes caption images don't even show up in the original article, and this is one of those times where people don't always look closely at the content.

It's also not doing anything to address the root problem of this material, namely that artists and writers are not getting paid to create it. Even if this was something I thought could reasonably be enforced, it's far too separated from the actual wrongdoers in this equation to be doing any good. None of the places writing these articles are going to have their bottom line affected by Pillowfort's AI Ban policy. The people who should be preventing this kind to exploitation from happening are the government, but realistically speaking, it's often organizations like unions who do the real work in pushing back on this kind of exploitation (eg. the terms negotiated by the WGA).

* And if the policy is that AI-generated articles can be linked to show these kind of AI header images or AI-produced headlines, then the policy is tacitly unfair and by and large targeting people who have no real place in this exploitative dynamic. Saying that people who are mostly just using AI to generate and post images or text they have no intention of selling for a profit are banned, while saying that people who are absolutely involved in this dynamic don't need to be held to the same standard.

I think this is a case of some very exploitative people being nigh untouchable, so instead, for people to feel like they are doing something, they demand punative action on easy targets, despite the fact that this does nothing to actually address the core issue.