The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship as such is not what they value at all.
See e.g. corporate green and rainbow washing, Amazon marketplace, organic food.
On the contrary; it seems to me that caring about its authorship even though the product may be outwardly indistinguishable from something a human could have made shows that human authorship is, in fact, precisely what they value.
Are you trying to make an argument that "if they really valued human authorship so highly, they'd devote their every waking moment to learning what every possible method is to tell when a given work was created by an LLM" or something? Because I would think that was fairly obviously bullshit by this point. For one thing, there's plenty of ways to make LLM-generated works (especially smaller, simpler ones) that are 100% indistinguishable from something human-created. (This is especially true in text formats, where the amount of information, and thus the possible failure modes, available in the output is smaller than in images or video.)
If you buy a fake that looks extremely close but falls apart a month later, that doesn't mean you don't care.
If art is visually polished in some way such that quick quality cues are handled that doesn't mean that it will actually have a meaning or a message. You won't know until you have a chance to fully consume it.
It's a Turing test for art -- and the machines are winning, at scale.
By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all.
Or: the fact that (some) people can't tell between food that is marketed to them as "healthy" and food that actually makes them healthy, is strong evidence that healthy food was not what they value at all.
Neither follows. Both blame the victim of a lie.
Well, no? Most people don't value gold for intrinsic attributes of the metal, but for the market-assigned value of it or perceived status.
I think GP overstated the point, but it's clear that a lot of people who object to AI authored content are objecting not because of the intrinsic attributes of the content but because of their emotions on the subject.
That doesn't make it invalid. If someone really doesn't want to consume AI generated content, then so be it.
But I also think the people making a big deal out of this seriously overestimate how deeply most people care. I suspect most people care only to the extent that the quality is lacking.
I'd justify that view with your example: People keep eating unhealthy food despite knowing it's bad. And as another example, we keep buying things we can't be sure is ethically sourced. We're willing to look past a whole lot.
The same way "Made in ..." labels were originally protectionist measures, I suspect disclosure requirements etc. will seriously backfire when it turns out most people stop caring the moment the quality is usually good enough.
I don’t want something you prompted an AI for because genuinely I could just do that myself. The barrier to entry is nil. I’m not interested in the idea an artist has I’m interested in how they execute it.
If they executed it through human effort then I place a much much higher value on that. Same as I would if someone selling a hand forged a knife rather than a mass produced cut out.
Even if the human-made item is lower quality I’d prefer it by a mile if for no other reason than I know someone’s love and effort went into it.
I could never have that appreciation for something a machine generated.
The lines might blur if an artist uses an AI to manipulate their own art that they made.
Point is - the output quality fundamentally doesn’t matter. It’s principle, not the output quality, that guides most people in avoiding AI art.
> The lines might blur if an artist uses an AI to manipulate their own art that they made.
Where’s the line? Is using tools in maya and photoshop to rapidly speed up asset generation ok?
> I could never have that appreciation for something a machine generated.
Do you feel the same about PCG?
Do you want to have to go ask for refund after refund after noticing it's yet-another-AI-slop-cookie-cutter-lookalike several hours in?