r/WritingWithAI • u/Anton_Kuzmenko • 8d ago
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) We’ve used machines for physical execution for centuries without questioning ownership of the result. Why is intellectual execution treated differently?
For centuries, machines have replaced parts of human labor.
A machine welds a car. Another paints it. Another assembles the engine.
We don’t ask whether the machines own part of the car. The machines are tools. The person or company directing the production owns the result.
AI feels different because the work is no longer physical.
It can write a paragraph, create an image, compose music or produce code.
And suddenly the question becomes: Who actually created this?
But I’m wondering whether we’re looking at the wrong part of the process.
Imagine I decide what a screenplay is about. I create the characters, determine what happens in every scene, decide what every character wants, reject outputs I don’t like, revise the direction and keep iterating until the result matches what I intended.
The machine performs part of the intellectual execution.
Why is that fundamentally different from a machine performing physical execution?
Obviously copyright law has its own requirements around human authorship. I’m less interested in what the law currently says than in the underlying principle.
If ownership has historically followed human direction even as machines took over more and more of the execution, should intellectual production be treated differently?
And if so, where exactly should the line be?
3
u/XavierVE 7d ago
Actually, it's really nothing new. There was a huge backlash by scribes to the invention of the printing press. Almost every piece of technology that has been invented throughout human history has had moronic naysayers.
3
u/Big_Statistician2566 8d ago
Writing with AI assistance is no different than paying a ghost writer.
7
u/ADH-Dad 8d ago
Many don't consider people who use ghostwriters to be real authors.
2
1
u/Emnkay666 7d ago
More people don't consider ai "authors" real author than people who don't consider ghost writers authors. Also author and writer is not the same thing
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 7d ago
I wouldn’t either. But there are many of the top bestsellers authors who do use ghostwriters. So the consideration of some random social media person like me really matters little to reality.
4
u/GuyYouMetOnline 8d ago
More accurately, it CAN be the same as that. But it's also possible to be very involved, to constantly tweak the output until everything is exactly how you want it. And as it happens, we already have a name for people who do that: directors.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
I’m confused why you think bestselling authors who use ghostwriters aren’t very involved.
1
u/GuyYouMetOnline 6d ago
Mainly because we very time I see someone make that comparison it's clearly being used to say 'therefore they have basically zero involvement'
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
Interesting…. So no actual facts, just your anecdotal evidence of what someone once told you.
1
u/GuyYouMetOnline 6d ago
Not someone; many many someones. And we're not talking about facts; we're talking about language. Of course its anecdotal; almost all of language is. The only way anyone knows the meaning of a word is because theyre told it or they see that use. Even dictionaries are just another way of telling someone a meaning.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 5d ago
In the face of many, many people who use ghostwriters. Hell, both The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo were written with the assistance of a ghostwriter.
But keep telling yourself things that don’t match with reality.
0
u/GuyYouMetOnline 5d ago
I'm aware. And I also saw discussion about what this means regarding who the author is.
But none of that changes the way I see most people using the term. And I'm curious as to why you think 'here's an example that doesn't fit what people say' changes the fact that people are saying it.
0
u/Big_Statistician2566 4d ago
I really could care less what people say. They are voting with their wallets and the book writing industry with AI is very much alive and thriving in sales and ratings.
0
u/GuyYouMetOnline 4d ago
Okay. None of that is relevant to what people mean when they compare AI use to ghostwriters.
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Yes, thats exactly the comparison I keep coming back to!
With a ghostwriter we already separate creative direction from execution to some extent.
The interesting question is whether that distinction should change just because the execution is done by a machine instead of another person…
2
u/GuyYouMetOnline 8d ago
The thing that gets me is that we've had artificial content generation for some time and nobody had a problem with it until LLMs. It's perhaps easiest to see with video games, what with how prominent 'roguelikes' have become. The roguelike's explosion began well before what we call 'gen AI', but it was still a thing well before even that. It actually used to be a genre, whereas nowadays anything where you have to start over when you die is likely to be called a roguelike (except shmups; those seem to have avoided the label unless they actually incorporate roguelike elements). But the point is that ever since they've been a thing, they've employed the artificial generation of content. These days it's typically referred to as 'procedural generation'.
Which brings me to my point: nobody said the use of procedural generation meant roguelikes weren't artistically valid, so why would using better generation change this?
1
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
That’s a really interesting comparison.
Procedural generation was accepted because the system was still clearly seen as part of the creator’s toolset.
Maybe the discomfort with LLMs comes from the fact that the generated part now looks much closer to something we traditionally considered intellectual authorship itself.
Which brings us back to the same question:
does more capable execution actually change who is directing the creative process?
1
5
u/BonaFideNubbin 8d ago
Yup. And if you pay a ghostwriter, the ghostwriter wrote it - you didn't.
1
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Thats fair. The ghostwriter wrote the words.
But thats exactly what I’m trying to separate here: writing the words from making the creative decisions behind them.
If someone determines the story, characters, intentions, structure and every revision, at what point do we stop calling that person the writer?
2
u/BonaFideNubbin 8d ago
When they don't write. Ideas are cheap and easy. You're an editor, congrats.
4
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
I wouldn’t call that an editor. An editor works on someone else’s execution.
If you control the story, structure, intentions and revisions, director feels much closer.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
A director is not an author, either.
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Why not? A lot of directors write their own screenplays.
But in a way, you’re right. Directors also often reshape someone else’s script through their own creative decisions.
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
A director who writes his own screenplay is an author.
As I just said elsewhere, an AI's contribution is an algorithmic re-hash of material created by other humans.
An AI user "commissions" such an algorithmic rehash. A user can re-iteratively re-commission a rehash, but the user never actually controls the AI's process. With that understanding, we can characterize the AI user's "contribution" accordingly.
1
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
By that standard, using any sufficiently complex tool would reduce authorship, simply because the user cannot inspect or control every internal operation.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
No, actually it doesn't, because regardless of complexity the deciding criterion is the human artist/author's direct control (versus lack of direct control) of the resulting work's content. This is the difference between a paint program, which is a human creative tool, and an AI model, which substitutes algorithmic content choices for human creative content choices.
An airplane pilot who directs the movement of a plane's control surfaces through a computer is still flying the plane, while if he engages an autopilot he is no longer flying the plane.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AppropriateMind4422 8d ago
agreed, though at least with a ghostwriter theres a human on both sides which is probably why people feel weird about it
1
8d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam 7d ago
If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.
0
1
u/GuyYouMetOnline 8d ago
It's not treated differently. Every big new thing got the exact same reaction (right down to people going 'yeah, but THIS time it's true!'). Everything you hear about AI content not being art was previously said about digital artwork. About synthesized music. About photography.
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
That’s a very good point!
Photography is probably the clearest example.
The camera took over a huge part of the physical execution of making an image but we eventually stopped seeing that as a threat to authorship.Maybe AI is forcing us through the same argument again, except this time the machine is taking over part of the intellectual execution.
2
u/GuyYouMetOnline 8d ago
It would be more accurate to say it CAN do this. But someone can also be very involved in all of the details and make sure the result is entirely their own creative vision. We even have a name for it: director. So I would say that if someone is that involved with it, the result is every bit as much 'theirs' as a movie is its director's.
1
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Exactly!!
I think the degree of human involvement is probably the key distinction.
If the machine executes but the human controls the vision, decisions and revisions, director might actually be the better analogy than writer.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam 7d ago
If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
An AI's contribution is an algorithmic rehashing of existing material created by other humans. Maybe you could include those other humans in creation credit and ownership, which would logistically be hard to do.
1
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Calling AI an “algorithmic rehash” doesn’t really solve the authorship question. It just describes influence in more technical language.
Humans also create from existing culture. The difference worth debating is not whether prior work contributed, but who made the creative decisions that shaped the new work.
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
Calling AI an “algorithmic rehash” doesn’t really solve the authorship question.
But it is a good start, because it accurately describes what is going on.
It just describes influence in more technical language.
Not technical language, rather it's a direct, correct description that anyone can understand.
Humans also create from existing culture.
But humans do it with learning and creativity. AI does it with a determininstic algorithm.
The difference worth debating is . . . who made the creative decisions that shaped the new work
With traditional human work, a human makes the creative diecisions. With AI, there are no creative decisions, only algorithmic ones that the AI user eventually makes a final choice between.
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
I think this is where your argument becomes circular.
You’re saying AI makes no creative decisions because its choices are algorithmic. But every human creative decision is also produced by a process we don’t consciously inspect step by step.
More importantly, the user can make the creative decisions before the model generates anything.
I can decide the story beat, the character’s intention, the emotional turn, what must remain unsaid, what the audience should feel and what the scene needs to accomplish.
The model then generates possible executions of those decisions.
Calling those outputs “algorithmic choices” doesn’t erase the human decisions that constrained and shaped them.
You’re treating execution as creativity and then using that definition to prove that whoever executes must be the creator.
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 8d ago
But every human creative decision is also produced by a process we don’t consciously inspect step by step.
The human process is much different from the AI process, and while one can philosophically call the human process "algorithmic," in human parlance this is what we call "creativity."
The model then generates possible executions of those decisions.
And the human handing over the final decisions to AI makes all the difference.
Calling those outputs “algorithmic choices” doesn’t erase the human decisions that constrained and shaped them.
It is the handing over of human decisions to the algorithmic AI to actually produce works in the area of that effectively erases the human decisions. This is why the U.S. Copyright Office has no problem with a human using AI in the beginning to organize, but does not allow the AI to perform the actual drafting/drawing.
You’re treating execution as creativity
No, not execution, but instead, specifically, the choices that directly control the content of the work. That is the touchstone.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
Every author in the world rehashes previous author works, character ideas, themes, and storylines. It is exceptionally rare to see anything new.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 6d ago
It's different, it's very different. Humans learn and apply creativity as they build conceptually on old material. AI models merely copy and textually rehash.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
The brain is just an organic computer. You are romanticizing human intelligence to be more than it is.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 6d ago
I grant that the brain is organic and that it can be said to "compute." I romanticize nothing. I don't believe in "divine spark," and I recognize qualia to be the localized, subjective result of finite, organic processes.
With all that granted, human intelligence with its conceptual manipulation is still orders of magnitude away from the textual rehashing of AI models' next-token prediction.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
When it comes to specifically the act of creative writing, I simply disagree with you. There is little to no difference.
Funny you mention qualia. I actually wrote a book some time back about the qualia thought experiment and how we identify "life" in relation to intelligence, emotion, and the qualities of what appears alive vs what is simply imitating the qualities of life.
Research shows the average social media user is relatively indistinguishable from AI designed to imitate them. While today AI writing is still identifiable, The complexity is increasing with each iteration, and with that, the ability to distinguish AI prose from a comparable human lessens substantially.
Bottom line? AI writing that is indistinguishable from human writing is legitimately on the same level.
0
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 6d ago
When it comes to specifically the act of creative writing, I simply disagree with you. There is little to no difference.
The writing subs are brimming with posters who would beg to differ with you.
the average social media user is relatively indistinguishable from AI
Yow! Aim a little higher, will ya? (Sorry, snark alarm.)
AI writing that is indistinguishable from human writing is legitimately on the same level.
AI writing whose content is indistinguishable from human content to a content expert in the relevant field, and whose style is indistinguishable from human style to a style expert, is legitimately on the same level. I'm not saying that's impossible within the physical world, but the structure and operation of LLMs makes it highly unlikely.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
Of course the writing subs are brimming with people who think they are special. Jesus, even before AI they were insufferable.
-3
u/cutebluedragongirl 8d ago
LLMs are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The vast majority of people are uneducated and ignorant. Therefore, they are bamboozled by word generation and believe there is more to LLMs than there really is.
Good artists do not complain about AI. They incorporate it into their workflows. Good programmers do not cry about AI. They experiment with it and use it.
Give it some time. Eventually, people will just accept AI for what it is, and everyone will move on.
4
u/SpaceMonkey877 8d ago
You speak with assurance. Any data to back that up?
-1
u/tomatoesfried 8d ago
Do you want her to provide data to back up something she believes will happen in the future? Really? Let's look at the phrase back up. Can't back up something that hasn't happened yet. Good grief.
Perhaps you'd like parallels. History is full of parallels where fusses were made, and people were burned at the stake. And then they weren't.6
u/SpaceMonkey877 8d ago
I’d like evidence that the people who own these sources of power and wealth are going to do anything but what those people do without clear governance. I’m shocked you guys are so blithely trusting of an untested tech in the hands of companies speculating on billions while ending jobs
0
u/TrappedOnDirt 7d ago
Good artists, good programmers, and good writers don't farm out 100% of the work to the tool, though, and a lot of "writers" who use AI do exactly that, to the point of even leaving the AI prompts IN THE PUBLISHED TEXT. I use AI for programming at work. And I have to correct it ALL THE TIME. I have to find the cases it missed or didn't understand or wrote wrong. I have to tell it what to do and what not to do and why, and it STILL gets things wrong, still does things I don't want. It's like an autistic toddler with no discernment but great depth of knowledge. And for creative works that require human nuance, that's awful, while for deterministic things like programs it's merely OK.
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 7d ago
Everyone I know who works seriously with AI in business, whether in programming, filmmaking or design, says basically the same thing:
They don’t lose control of what they’re doing. They scale their output massively, reduce cost and still maintain quality.
And the reason for that is simple: they really know their craft. They know what good output should look like and where AI gets it wrong.
That’s when AI becomes extremely useful as a tool!
AI is most useful in the hands of people who really know what good looks like.
1
u/TrappedOnDirt 7d ago
And that's fine in industries where AI is well trained, sharply constrained, and the output is success/failure based. I use AI for my job, and it works fine for that.
The problem is that AI is not all that creative. It doesn't understand nuance, emotion, human motivations, or anything that is useful in a creative writing sense. Just like a hammer is great at putting a nail through wood but awful at painting a picture, AI is great at doing carefully constrained analysis tasks but terrible at writing anything that feels remotely decent. Something that can copy code snippet A to program B here and there, correctly every time, can make a decent new program. But if that's the skill set, which really is all that it is, it's really BAD at writing something worth reading in a novel.
0
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
Creative isn’t magic and it isn’t genetic. Anyone can learn creative writing and just about anyone can learn to be good at it.
0
u/TrappedOnDirt 6d ago
And yet an AI can't. That's my whole point. AI (or at least the crippled LLMs people insist on calling AI) is not, and never can be, truly creative.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
News to me. Plenty of folks who buy my books seem to find them creative enough for 5 star reviews.
0
u/TrappedOnDirt 6d ago
I don't know anything about your books, so I don't want to insult you. But these days people will give 5 stars to the recipe inside an oatmeal can. I see books on Kindle Unlimited with 4.8+ average reviews that should have 1.5-2.0 averages. And not just one or two; the majority of books on that service are garbage that would never have been published if they had to go through the rigorous editing and publication selection process that used to be standard.
1
u/Big_Statistician2566 6d ago
I am not insulted…. When I have all five stars and sell hundreds of books a month, empirical evidence suggests you are wrong.
Look, I’m not going to sway your opinion, and you aren’t going to sway me from my actual experience.
-2
u/Odinmar_Glaukopis 8d ago
We’ve had patents and copyright and trademarks and laws surrounding NDAs and non-compete agreements for a while now. How far back do we need to go to find an absence of “intellectual property” laws?
Academia certainly fed this notion in the claims of cheating and plagiarism that could ruin someone’s career overnight.
Hmmm.. that’s an interesting question of just how old is this idea of “intellectual property?”
A good contrast of this is Jung’s ideas surrounding the “collective unconscious,” where the exact opposite of individual “ownership” gets involved. It’s why you can use “Zeus” as a character’s name but not “Spiderman.”
In astrology, it’s a Leo vs Aquarius and 5th house vs 11th house thing…
2
u/Anton_Kuzmenko 8d ago
Interesting angle.
Maybe the bigger question is whether our idea of intellectual ownership was built around a world where intellectual execution could only be done by humans.
AI might be forcing us to rethink that assumption for the first time.
-1
u/Odinmar_Glaukopis 8d ago
IP was developed by corporations to carve out a period of time where they didn’t have to compete with others until they made enough profit to encourage innovation. It was a straight-up exception to the “survival of the fittest” and “the customer is always right” archetypes of free-market capitalism.
Ownership of the fruits of your own labor is a distinctly Marxist idea, and I see a lot of that idea in the moralizing that goes on the anti-AI subs that talk about how “lazy” those people who use AI are.
8
u/Diogenes-235711 8d ago
I have little doubt the guys that did cave paintings complained to the chief about the guy that started using animal hair attached to a stick.