Hacker News Reader

Comment by DicIfTEx | Hacker News Reader

Imagine I sell you something and you pay me in cash. The notes look authentic, but I later discover that they are conterfeits. It would be absurd to claim that your successful passing-off deception demonstrates that I don't value money at all.

View on HN

If you find a counterfeit bill, you experience a loss. Imagine if instead of a counterfeit bill you got a counterfeit movie. The quality is exactly like the real deal, but it's an illegal copy. You find out after the fact. Does this affect your enjoyment of the movie? You've been bamboozled either way, but in one scenario you lose out and in another scenario the people selling the movie lose out.

Whatever the morality involved, it's an unstable norm. There can be good actors who use AI and disclose, and good actors who don't use AI and don't disclose. There are bad actors, however, who will use AI and not disclose. The entire discourse will be flooded with non-disclosers accusing each other of AI use (particularly, the bad actors will accuse everyone else of AI use, to flood the zone with shit), and there will be no way for a consumer to distinguish good from bad. Bad actors will prevail economically.

See e.g. corporate green and rainbow washing, Amazon marketplace, organic food.

I agree that the current culture of disclosure is unstable. Nevertheless, I think that there will still eventually be a mechanism to verify the degree and manner to which AI was involved in the production of art, though perhaps with very different economic scale and distribution channels. Speculating, perhaps there may be an "organic food" niche of mass media art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com