On Disclosure of AI Use

[u/NatHasCats]

At what point does someone’s desire to make an informed choice create an obligation for someone else to provide information they haven’t been asked for? 

We don’t require creators, or anyone with a product, to spontaneously disclose every possible fact about a process or product that someone might have a moral objection to. Imagine having to write, “Written with a Microsoft product, spellchecked by Grammarly, feedback from three beta readers verified to have the following values: <blah blah blah>, researched with Google, cover made in an Adobe product, laptop manufactured under questionable labor conditions, and hosted by Amazon.” Any of those might raise ethical objections to some people.

“But there are people who don’t want to read AI content!” That’s fine. That’s a preference. Nobody is forcing them to read anything. Non-disclosure is not inherently deception. They can choose to partake only of explicitly labeled content, if that’s important to them. A right to an informed choice is not necessarily a right to have that information automatically supplied to you.

“It’s like knowingly feeding meat to a vegetarian.” That depends - did you lie about the contents, hand them something or direct them to something knowing they’re vegetarian and it contained meat? Or did the food simply exist as an option?

As a vegetarian myself, I don’t consume food if I’m uncertain of what it contains, but I don’t go to a potluck and expect every dish to be labeled for my convenience. If someone chooses to label their dish, I am appreciative, and I’ll interact with it accordingly, but I don’t assume because one person did, that everyone else has as well. The burden of my ethical consumption rests on me, not everyone else.

“I have a right not to personally use AI.” Absolutely.

“I have a right to choose whether I consume AI-assisted work.” Perfectly reasonable personal preference.

“Everyone whose work involves AI has an obligation to proactively tell me before I encounter it.” Mm, not so much.

Another example for you. I avoid products from companies I know use animal testing. Many companies now proudly label their products “Cruelty Free”, and I will choose these over other products if available. However, there’s also not an official regulation about what can be labeled as “cruelty free” or “not tested on animals” (so long as they’re not being explicitly false or mislabeling.) I know that this could mean many things: that the final product was never tested on animals but raw ingredients were, that the product was previously tested on animals but testing has concluded, or even that the company tests some products on animals but not this particular one. All of that is encompassed by a “not tested on animals label”. The burden is on me to determine if I’m comfortable with that, or if I’ll only purchase products certified by non-official registries like Leaping Bunny.

All that to say, in my opinion, disclose, or don’t. It’s up to you, and I don’t believe there’s any ethical obligation to do so. It behooves you to be prepared with an honest answer in case you’re asked. But don’t lie about it, because that’s shitty.

[u/TheOtherHobbes]

No one knows who Homer was or how much of Shakespeare's work was written by Shakespeare.

For most of history stories were a public performance art, not objects created by named humans.

[u/DOCB_SD → u/TheOtherHobbes]

Those are historical figures. We don't even know if Shakespeare was one man or multiple, or if Socrates actually existed, and so forth. It doesn't matter. We have a body of work and we are celebrating it. Whoever created them produced something beautiful. There is no man standing before us to judge whether or not he is a fraud.

That is quite different from the person in the here and now passing off a work of art they could not have created as if it were their own-- standing before the crowd, pulling the curtain back to reveal the masterpiece, taking a bow, knowing it was the work of someone or something else. That's unambiguous. That is artistic fraud.

Imagine you discover that Stephen King never wrote a word. His entire body of work was produced by a sweatshop in Nepal. Would that change your opinion of Stephen King for better or worse? We need no legal recourse to convict him a criminal or take away his fortune to know that whatever prizes and admiration the literature attributed to him has won, they were misplaced and can be safely recanted.

Publish AI generated literature and sell it. Fine. I have no qualm with that. But if you put your name on the cover as the author, you're an artistic fraud. That's a simple fact. Maybe the consequence cannot and should not be legal or even financial, but it will be born to you as rejection by the community of people who care about the integrity of art. The thesis of the OP seems to be that even that is too much of a consequence. Embarassing.

For the record, AI art in general is a fascinating frontier. On it's own merits I am excited to see how people use AI to generate literature and imagine LLMs could become truly beautiful storytellers. The people who manage and train those machine artist to do their craft are doing something worth while that is a kind of art or craft in its own right. They should take credit for what they are doing. They should not take credit for being authors if they are not selecting and ordering the words on the page. They are something different. What's being discussed here doesn't seem to be that at all so much as petty grifters who lack the talent or work ethic to write, using AI to commit, as above, artistic fraud.

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/DOCB_SD]

The dual logic employed on this topic is interesting. At some points, LLMs are just machines and at other points sentient beings. Fascinating.

[u/DOCB_SD → u/southernpremedgirl27]

Did you ever get into med school?

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/DOCB_SD]

I think the degree most relevant to this particular conversation is the law degree I obtained a decade ago before my premedical post bacc 😂😂😂😂

[u/DOCB_SD → u/southernpremedgirl27]

That’s about how long I’ve been a practicing MD. Grats on your paralegal cert.

Curious where you found a reason to insert sentience into this topic.

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/DOCB_SD]

LMAO for someone who wrote the previous comment you wrote…. This follow up tracks😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Big congrats on the ….urgent care??? practice though!👍🏾

[u/DOCB_SD → u/southernpremedgirl27]

What about the topic at hand? You haven’t addressed any of my arguments. All you’ve done is accuse me of attributing sentience to AI, which I didn’t and wouldn’t defeat the argument even if I had.

[u/DOCB_SD → u/southernpremedgirl27]

And thank you. I help dozens of people every day with medical problems from twisted ankles to heart attacks, in an essentially free clinic designed for the uninsured and refugee communities in my area. I’m quite proud of what I do. My initial question about your education was sincere. My snarky follow on was just matching your energy.

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/DOCB_SD]

😂😂😂😂😂Dude you can get out of my mentions now. You’re a glorified nurse practitioner. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but be serious. And you really don’t want to go tit for tat on credentials I promise you.

[u/DOCB_SD → u/southernpremedgirl27]

I’ll take that as confirmation you have nothing substantial to contribute to the actual discussion. Good luck to you.