Blurts

People use microblogs (e.g., Twitter, Mastodon) for different reasons. I have mostly used such tools for discovery. I get the feeling many have moved from RSS readers to microblogs to keep up with innovations.

I am also on the other side of this trend. When I examine the data on how individuals come to my blogs, I see an obvious trend away from RSS to search and microblog recommendations. I mostly blog using WordPress which offers extensions that will automatically send tweets and toots when a new post is published. This is very handy and eliminates to the need to connect to the microblogs and generate a post.

Twitter has obviously undergone changes in the last year or so with the new ownership and agenda. I understand that some of these changes concern political issues, but some involve how to generate revenue. Evidently, some of the new revenue plans involve charging heavy users. I have bumped up against this change, not because I am a heavy user by any means, but because it appears Twitter is changing its API to differentiate those who post automatically into different tiers.

Anyway, this means that the WordPress extension I have used for years suddenly stopped working requiring some adjustment on my part. My familiar WordPress extension refused to allow me to post and provided the following alert.

I began searching for an updated extension and was dismayed to find that the process had become far more complicated. There is still a free tier for those of us making occasional use, but application process seems quite complicated.

I did start the application process, but I quickly became annoyed over what used to be such as simple thing. For the immediate future, I have decided to just manually post to Twitter and wait to see what happens. How many casual bloggers are going to make this effort?

Apple, Amazon, and several other companies that make heavy use of tech have requested that their employees not use services such as ChatGPT and Bard. It is not that these companies are concerned about the use of AI in general, but that the content added in using AI may end up being shared with others.

As a fairly heavy user of these AI tools, I wonder how realistic it is that specific code or concepts are shared per se. OpenAI (ChatGPT) does not continually update its knowledge base and the present build of content ended in 2021. Bard works a little differently. However, there is an interesting issue here. These models are built by scraping web content and collecting ongoing material from users (to be incorporated later in some cases). All of this content is integrated. I do wonder whether there is an issue with material created by a specific user or company, but the general issue of scraping content is clear. Is this different from search engines, which advertise against search returns? Not exactly, the content in search is still sent from the original source to users and the creators can associate this content with ads. The collection of this same content that contributes to the development of an AI knowledge base does not offer any such benefit. What the big companies have noticed is very similar to what any content creator is experiencing.

One of the concerns I have read about large language models (AI such as ChatGPT) is that these services allow the creation of content so easily that the Internet will be flooded with material written for all purposes and of varying quality and individuals will be unable to use what was once a valuable resource effectively. I find this concern a restatement of many original concerns about the Internet and we seem to have survived to this point.

I want to explore the use of AI large language models to offer blog posts. I also want to keep such content separate from my education blogs (LearningAloud and Blurts). I have a Blogger account I have mostly neglected and I have decided to use it for AI generated posts. I want to see how readers react. Will people find it and will they follow what is written there? My idea is address a variety of topics first writing in my own voice about this topic and why it interests me and then offering a post generated with AI services (I identify) addressing this topic.

This AI-generated blog can be found at https://learningaloud.blogspot.com/. I include the following to offer an idea of what this looks like.

Understanding the TEACH Act

As a textbook author, there were some topics I always struggled to write about with confidence. One of these topics is copyright law. My interpretation of aspects of the law that applies to what is shared online appears more conservative than that guiding many who post content online. I have asked lawyers and others presenting about copyright and fair use and often get a glazed look when I cite the provisions of the TEACH Act. My understanding of the TEACH Act suggests that the open Internet is different from the use of the Internet to share with students enrolled in a class. The educator is expected to protect some content by restricting access to actual students. Posting to the open Internet is more like publishing and I would not be allowed to include many types of content in a textbook without consent that I would use as examples in a face-to-face class. My interpretation is that the same is true of posting online for all to view.

I thought I would ask the AI Assistant I use within Obsidian about the TEACH Act and I think “it” agrees with me. In the following material, my prompts are bolded.

*******************************

Summarize the TEACH Act

The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act is a 2002 amendment to the US Copyright Law that permits the use of copyrighted materials for distance and online learning in accredited nonprofit educational institutions. The Act defines the terms and conditions under which copyrighted materials may be used in the classroom and through distance-learning mediums such as the internet, video, and other digital technologies, without explicitly requiring permission from the copyright owner. The Teach Act places certain restrictions and requirements on the institution that wants to avail of its benefits such as providing information on copyright laws and implementing technological measures to prevent unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted materials. The TEACH Act seeks to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs of educational institutions and to promote online and distance learning opportunities.

How does the TEACH Act relate to copyright law and fair use?

The TEACH (Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization) Act is a law that aims to balance copyright protection with the use of copyrighted materials in online education. It provides guidelines and limitations for the use of copyrighted materials in distance education settings, such as online courses and virtual classrooms. 

The TEACH Act is related to copyright law and fair use because it provides specific exceptions to copyright infringement for educational purposes. It outlines the conditions under which educators may use copyrighted materials without seeking permission from the copyright holder, such as limited portions of audiovisual works, performances, or displays. In doing so, it aims to promote the use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes, while still respecting the rights of copyright holders. 

The TEACH Act also includes requirements for digital security measures and limitations on the retention and distribution of copyrighted materials to prevent unauthorized access and piracy. These measures ensure that educators are using copyrighted materials in a way that is both legal and ethical. 

Overall, the TEACH Act is an important tool for educators to navigate the complex world of copyright law and fair use in the digital age. It provides clear guidelines and limitations to ensure that educators can effectively use copyrighted materials to enhance their instructional materials without violating copyright law.

A teacher posts a lesson she has created to Google Sites for anyone to view? This lesson contains a poem the teacher has taken from a book of poetry and directs students to analyze the poem in a specific way and explains how teachers can evaluate the analyses that students generate. Would this shared lesson be a violation according to the expectations established in the TEACH Act?

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but according to the TEACH Act, this shared lesson could potentially be a violation. The TEACH Act allows for the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes in certain circumstances, such as when the use is non-profit and limited in scope. However, there are specific guidelines that must be followed, such as using authorized copies and limiting access to students enrolled in the course. It is unclear if this shared lesson meets all of the requirements outlined in the TEACH Act, so it would be best for the teacher to consult a copyright expert or seek permission from the copyright owner before sharing the lesson.

Those excited about the capabilities of AI services need to understand that the inexpensive or free services they use presently are not sustainable. This analysis appearing in online Forbes provides details of the actual costs which will eventually need to be recouped to sustain the infrastructure and labor costs.

Tirias Research forecasts that the data center server infrastructure and operating costs for GenAI will exceed $76 billion by 2028, challenging the business models and profitability of emergent services such as search content creation and business automation incorporating GenAI. The cost and scale of GenAI will demand innovation in optimizing neural networks (NNs) and is likely to push the computational load out from data centers to client devices like PCs and smartphones.

I have an OpenAI account which I created to evaluate costs. I admit that I cannot figure out which of the various ways I use AI are generating charges. I think it is just ChatPDF and not ChatGPT or the uses I make within Obsidian, but I am not certain. I understand that this is not useful to you. I set a limit of use at $20 assuming this was not time-dependent, but it turns out it is per month. Clearly, this is far more than needed. Since I can adjust, I will do so in a week or so I can continue to evaluate upper limits. Just knowing the price is in pennies is comforting. I use some AI services a few times a day and not for any large project, but so far I have not been able to run up much of a bill.