Chapter 1: The AI Dilemma

In recent discussions, the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) has been at the forefront, with many experts expressing both support and caution. Numerous “experts” are urging writers to embrace AI tools, suggesting that without such integration, we risk obsolescence.

According to these specialists, AI can assist in numerous aspects of writing, such as idea generation, identifying gaps in narratives, proofreading, managing marketing, and even designing cover images. While this list encompasses many functions, it certainly highlights the multifaceted nature of writing today.

However, these so-called gurus often offer to guide us through the complexities of AI usage in their respective domains—for a hefty price tag. After attending their sessions, writers are typically expected to subscribe to their favored AI platforms, as the free alternatives are deemed insufficient. It's worth noting that these experts likely receive commissions from those subscriptions.

A significant concern with AI is its learning process, which is dependent on the data it consumes. Text-based AI learns exclusively from existing written content, while image-focused AI relies on visual data. This reliance raises ethical questions, particularly regarding originality. If a human reuses someone else's writing and claims it as their own, it constitutes plagiarism; yet, there appear to be no such restrictions for AI.

Years back, during the early days of AI, a particular “expert” (let’s call him Dishonest Abe) promoted the concept of swiftly crafting an entire book within a weekend for a mere thirty dollars. His approach was to search online for “how to (fill in the blank)” and then to copy and slightly alter the information found, resulting in a hastily assembled book.

This blatant dishonesty and lack of originality did not seem to trouble him, despite his disclaimer to “make it yours.” This method resembles how students conduct research, with the key difference being that students reference original sources and acknowledge their learning process, rather than presenting themselves as experts.

Individuals who indiscriminately collect information online without proper verification and present it as their own are, in essence, fraudsters. Yet, once published online, their work can become a reference point for future scams.

YouTube is infamous for this behavior. When a video titled “12 Ancient Artifacts Experts Can’t Explain” goes viral, others replicate the idea with minor alterations, often diminishing factual accuracy, merely to attract clicks.

Now, onto the crux of my rant. I have a deep appreciation for science communication. Occasionally, conferences or symposiums upload their lectures on platforms like YouTube. I recently discovered several engaging talks by Brian Cox, whose passion for science and ability to simplify complex concepts make his presentations enjoyable.

When I stumbled upon a YouTube video featuring Brian Cox discussing a topic of interest, I eagerly pressed play. Unfortunately, the creator of that video appeared to have taken cues from Dishonest Abe and various AI courses, resulting in a disappointing product.

The video consisted of a few facts repeated multiple times in different phrasings, scraped from various sources. There was a brief audio clip of Brian Cox—just a few seconds—interspersed with poorly synthesized AI-generated speech that mispronounced numerous words. The robotic quality of the audio lacked the nuance and emotion of human speech, making it unbearable to listen to for long.

In short, I found it impossible to continue watching after just a few minutes. I was appalled that someone would misrepresent it as a legitimate video featuring Brian Cox. I hope he takes legal action against the creator.

This situation is disheartening because it might mislead viewers into believing they are engaging with genuine content. Meanwhile, companies like Alphabet benefit financially from such misleading material, as do the creators of click-bait content.

It’s a troubling reflection of our society when intellectual theft is not only tolerated but celebrated.

To create an Instagram account, users must accept terms that essentially grant the platform a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to utilize any content shared, including photos or videos. This, to me, feels like a green light for theft. Of course, with this “license,” they can argue they aren’t stealing.

Instagram is a widely used platform among illustrators, serving as a hub for artistic directors seeking talent, yet it also requires users to relinquish their rights.

The only viable strategy for creatives to combat plagiarism is to withdraw support from platforms that so overtly claim the right to it. Unfortunately, there are few trustworthy alternatives, as evidenced by the practices of companies like Meta and Alphabet.

Chapter 2: The Role of Ethical Content Creation

In this video titled "Just Like I Promised," the creator delves into the challenges of maintaining integrity in content creation amidst the rise of AI tools.

The second video, "Wilson Meadows Just Like I Promised," explores the implications of relying on AI-generated content and the ethical considerations it raises.