Amazing Stories Five Laws AI Content Policy
- We will not displace human creative content with AI-created content
- We will not pay for wholly AI-created content
- However, we will not impose restrictions on the use of tools, AI or otherwise when they are used by humans to create content
- Creators must disclose the use of AI tools
- We will only publish wholly AI-generated material if they are of sufficient quality and interest, and we will only offer such content for free and identified as AI-created.
This being said it is probably best now to offer some additional background on what our process was.
First, it was an ideological one. We adhere to the concept that Science Fiction, both its fiction and its institutions, are forward-thinking, progressive entities whose business is looking into the future, speculating and extrapolating and attempting to identify and advocate for future beneficial change, and we see no reason to change that approach in the face of these particular technologies.
Like any other technological innovation, usage can work to both our benefit and detriment. The technology itself is not good or evil, though the purposes to which people put it can be, and we believe that our policy strikes the correct balance in that regard, by focusing not on the technologies themselves, but on the uses to which they are put.
“Art” has been modified by technology from the beginning of artistic expression, and each technological innovation that has been introduced has caused disruption and rejection, the results of which we see around ourselves every day: writer’s use word processors, not styluses and clay tablets, artists use digital paint programs, not charcoal and cave walls.
In fact, most creatives have already adopted various AI-based tools without objection, perhaps without even realizing they are doing: spelling checkers, grammar checkers, search optimization (research), have all been enhanced by AI-based tools over the past couple of years.
Not to mention that these technologies are here and impacting all of us already. They will not be going away, and nothing that anyone does can make them go away. Accepting this fact is not surrender – IF we manage them properly. In fact, their “intrusion” has really only just begun. Clearly, the only effective response is to craft a policy that understands this and minimizes the negative impacts they will have on people in creative fields.
We are also aware of related IP issues and, while we do not at present believe that the training of Large Language Models infringes on Copyright or other IP, the output of such programs might (as is claimed in some pending lawsuits).
Our policy addresses this by placing such concerns where they belong: if infringement occurs, there already exist formal methods for addressing it. We do not think that anything has changed in this regard.
In preparing this policy, we conducted research, queried experts, reviewed a lot of opinion by experts and consulted with our own staff. Not everyone is in one hundred percent agreement – nor did we expect that to be the case – but we do think that we have identified a navigable path by clearly identifying the nature of the issue:
Human creatives should not be displaced by artificial ones, and we will not be doing so.