We are all dealing with AI as writers. Even if one doesn't use it there is the risk of being unfairly tagged as AI produced by marginal software. I only use it as part of my writer's tool kit to prepare the piece for writing and as a Beta reader. It doesn't write a word for publication and while it may inspire an idea or two, the intellectual property of that which is distinctly original to me and according to SCOTUS, cannot be owned by it since it is not fair use of its training database, is all mine. I find it invaluable as an assistant.
It is time to draw a line in the sand, not on a case by case basis but as a general stricture, that AI may not write for publication. Just as the patent office requires that a human register a patent so the copyright office must also, in law, require a human own a copyright and copyrights must be required for publication. Writers cannot compete with the volume of writing produced by AI and copyright has the same legal status as freedom of speech. It is worth at least the attempt to require it to publish.
These are complex and sophisticated times requiring complex and sophisticated responses to difficult problems. We may yearn for simpler times but the AI genie is out of the bottle and not going back in. We must deal with it legally and absolutely. Economics is a human centered discipline. It makes no sense to make a machine a legal principal in any economic activity.
Do Well and Be Well.
Comments
Post a Comment