Give them their own namespace
AISBN, and you may have to make it a 128-bit unsigned integer because 64-bit only gives them 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 possibilities, fewer if they use a check digit.Then we’ll know to ignore it from a single piece of objective information.
The specific part:
Use of artificial intelligence
By registering with ISBN Canada, you declare that your publication was written by a human author. You may use AI tools only for limited support tasks, such as brainstorming ideas, checking grammar, or formatting your book. ISBN Canada limits the quantity of ISBNs for works whose content is primarily generated by AI (text, illustration, translation). LAC is currently reviewing its policy regarding the use of AI content creation and our guidance is subject to change.
What is terrible is it will be hard to tell sometimes, publishers are awash with slop.
Its to the point if you can prove it was written before LLMs existed then the value of your work is suddenly much higher.
Publishers are using AI to edit and approve books. But that seems to fall into their acceptance of using AI as tools, just not the actual writing process. So it’s basically a placeholder rule until they figure it out and change it, and they say as much.
If the authors dont disclose to publishers they cant know too. For authors they get pressure to write faster because everyone is atleast AI assisted.
TBH i dont care if its AI written but the result of AI writing is sloppy. Lots of fluff and weird wording. Also sloppy research is likely as AI spits out facts and the authos dont have to look into the source anymore. Peer reviewing must become stronger and will be a quality sign for publishers in future.
ahem I think you mean SI /s
Yea, didn’t you hear calling it otherwise makes you tHe EneMy?
As they should be. Same as them not having much of a chance of getting Copyright on AI stuff.
AI turns everything to crap.
Not true.
Some stuff was already crap and AI just smears it in lipstick.
The silly thing is that the rule that’s always been the rule in data processing hasn’t changed: GIGO, or garbage in, garbage out. AI tempts people who would otherwise provide quality work to skip the quality part for the sake of speed.
Proper use of AI doesn’t really speed anything up; it just changes the scale of how you can leverage the results. And people, being lazy, settle for “good enough” output slop generated from “good enough” inputs.
So in reality, AI throws a spotlight on how crappy many people’s work is.
Come on, you have to admit that “proper use” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The GIGO problem is not just a result of "mis"use, but a pervasive and steadily worsening problem.
That was the point; AI encourages slop. It’s still people who are making the choice to leverage it that way. And we’ve seen that it’s virtually irresistible.
