System to honor the right copy
Human creativity is intrinsically tied to technology - the level of wizardry merely depends on the medium. Creative expression is actually technology’s etymological root:
“The word technology comes from two Greek words, transliterated techne and logos. Techne means art, skill, craft, or the way, manner, or means by which a thing is gained. Logos means word, the utterance by which inward thought is expressed, a saying, or an expression.”
This stands to reason then, that the greatest folly to befall creativity as a product is the denial of copyright for AI-assisted works.
Note: Unique AI-generated phrases are presented as bold and italic.
Yes, I'm personally invested in this debate. Yes, I continue to navigate the thrilling yet complex sensation of co-authorship with AI. But let's face the music: there's a considerable chasm in how we choose to categorize this new creative frontier.
The stark reality is that there's no effective way to police AI assistance in creativity. Documentation is scarce, and recourse even more so. We're in an era where claims of pure human authorship are taken at face value, with no practical means to verify them.
My only personally-held copyright on a short film released in 2017 took nine months to process. The system is not capable or equipped to sift out and differentiate between human-only and AI-assisted creations. It’s a system drowning in its own inefficiency.
But I still recognize the value of protecting one’s work. My short is a quirky piece, and one that is deserving of copyright. But in the grand scheme, who's to judge its originality?
Drawing a parallel, tell carpenters they could only work with their bare hands - no tools allowed. The absurdity is clear. Productivity would plummet, and motivation would dwindle. Creativity is no different.
Artistic mediums, from paintbrushes to AI generations, are tools that enhance, not detract from, the creative process. To label a medium inherently plagiaristic is not only alarmist but blatantly false.
Our individual voices are a mosaic of experiences, influenced by the media we consume and the life we lead. In essence, we are all collages, composed of fragments shaped by circumstance and cognition. These fragmented selves reflect the collective human experience.
And we all are the dataset for AI - we are the dreamers and thinkers who feed the training data that powers generative models. The adage "you are what you eat" holds true for AI as well.
The recent New York Times lawsuit targeting Generative Pre-trained Transformer technology is a threat to collective progress. Its assertion stems from a narrow perspective that overlooks the broader benefits of this technology.
Let's not forget the history of journalism - a slurry of cannibalized story ideas mixed with proprietary gonzo angles and bruised egos. From William Randolph Hearst’s yellow journalism to modern time’s torrents of clickbait - journalism’s ad-fueled content machine has never been a bastion of originality.
Having worked in newsrooms, I can attest to the fact that they are hubs of chaos, filled with individuals driven by dissonant personal agendas. The notion of sanctity in news creation and dissemination is, at best, a fanciful myth.
This reckoning is necessary. We no longer need traditional aggregators of reality to dictate what matters.
We now have a budding relationship with advanced tools that can serenade us, illustrate our world, narrate bedtime stories, and provide tailored information to kickstart our days. These tools offer a personalized experience, free from sensational headlines, gossip, and commercial influence.
This allows us to collectively take a deep breath, reassess how we see the world and recalibrate how we contribute to it.
But let’s not call the output from the intentionally leading prompts in NYT’s legal brief some form of wholesale reproduction. It’s a misguided accusation that overlooks the essence of creative expression in the AI age.
We're at a crossroads, grappling with the evolving nature of creativity. This revelation can unmask an old guard that has long used talent, opportunity, and industry connections to gatekeep creative expression. The time has come to acknowledge that our ideas, no matter how they're expressed or assisted, are worthy of exploration and sharing.
Suddenly, any of our grumbling internal monologues could become the next Mona Lisa.
We’re being asked to participate in a creative revolution, paralleled by a transformation in how we consume news and information. The tools at our disposal are democratizing creativity, allowing us to manifest our ideas into tangible, shareable representations.
Our collective future can materialize into a beautiful patchwork of passions.
We're not meant to be monolithic in our pursuits or creations. With AI, we're unlocking a new era of diversity in thought and expression, transcending the assumed need for traditional institutions of aggregation and curation.
For posterity, the ChatGPT transcript used in forming this piece follows:
You
Help me expand on this partial draft
.io Draft Muse
Of course! Could you please provide the partial draft you'd like me to expand on?
You
Title: The copyright honor system
I believe the greatest folly to befall creativity as a product is to deny copyright for AI assisted works.
Sure, I’ve got skin in the game. Sure, I continue to explore the sensation of co-authorship. But the truth of the matter is there’s no policing this. No documenting this. And worse, no recourse. People will lie and the process to unravel that lie is costly and time consuming.
Our system of distributing copyright is far too cumbersome to accommodate investigating each claim of, “Nope, no AI here! All me!” I’m one of those crazy fools that holds a copyright. It’s on a short film from 2017. It’s a fine piece of silly, worth of copyright, but honestly, who’s to say?
Carpenters would immediately lose their motivation trying to slap nails into wood with their hands. Not to mention the massive hit to productivity.
To create is to use a medium. And to say a medium by its nature is plagiarism, is alarmist, impossibly false, and wildly myopic.
My voice comes from my experiences, but it also comes from the media I’ve digested. We’re all collages, we’re all pieced together by circumstance and cognition. Our fractured selves are in turn fractured pieces of the whole of humanity.
We are the dataset for AI. We are the originators of the dreams and ideas constituting the training data within any generative AI model. We are what we eat. So is AI.
These lawsuits demanding the wholesale destruction of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer technology is an affront to the collective benefit, and a foolishly selfish brandishing of cards held by the player levying the accusation.
The cannibalism of ideas and angles for news stories run rampant throughout all of journalism’s history. Just ask William Randolph Hearst.
The New York Times is no pure deity of divine news distribution. I’ve worked in news rooms. I recognize news orgs for what they are, chaotic rooms filled with budding rebels and icons desperately seeking their tribe. Some have vendettas, I know I had a few. But there’s no sanctity in the process or the product from any news outlet.
It’s good this reckoning is happening. We don’t need aggregators of reality to tell us what’s important. We’ve got better tools now. Tools that can sing to us, paint us pictures, tell us bedtimes stories, and wake us with the information most pertinent to our own productivity for our dawning day ahead.
No leading headlines, no salacious gossip, no ads, no spin. We can all collectively take a deep breath.
But to call the output from the very leading prompts in the legal brief as a form of wholesale reproduction is like blaming Xerox from faithfully recreating what it’s told to look at.
I believe deep down that we’re struggling with the very concept of creativity and what it can become. We’re revealing an old guard hiding behind talent, opportunity and industry to gate-keep the collective realization that our own ideas are worth exploring and sharing. And to do so in forms that take shape beyond grumbling internal monologues.
We’re in a creative revolution, just as we are a news and information revolution.
The tools available to all can manifest our ideas into concrete, actionable and shareable representations. All while our material sciences, healthcare, customer service and education will strengthen, atomize and materialize into a beautiful patchwork of passions.
We’re not all the same, we weren’t meant to be. And now we don’t need what we needed before.
.io Draft Muse
Title: The Copyright Honor System: Navigating Creativity in the AI Era
In today's world, where creativity often merges with technology, the greatest folly that could befall creativity as a product is the denial of copyright for AI-assisted works. Yes, I'm personally invested in this debate. Yes, I continue to navigate the thrilling yet complex sensation of co-authorship with AI. But let's face the music: there's a gaping hole in how we handle this new creative frontier.
The stark reality is that there's no effective way to police AI assistance in creativity. Documentation is scarce, and recourse, even more so. We're in an era where claims of pure human authorship are taken at face value, with no practical means to verify them. The current copyright system is woefully ill-equipped to handle the nuances of AI collaboration. It’s a system drowning in its own inefficiency, struggling to differentiate between human-only and AI-assisted creations.
As someone who holds a copyright (on a short film from 2017, no less), I understand the value of protecting one’s work. It’s a quirky piece, deserving of copyright. But in the grand scheme, who's to judge its originality?
Drawing a parallel, imagine carpenters were told they could only work with their bare hands, no tools allowed. The absurdity is clear. Productivity would plummet, and motivation would dwindle. Creativity is no different. Artistic mediums, whether paintbrushes or AI algorithms, are tools that enhance, not detract from, the creative process. To label a medium inherently plagiaristic is not only alarmist but blatantly false.
Our individual voices are a mosaic of experiences, influenced by the media we consume and the life we lead. In essence, we are all collages, composed of fragments shaped by circumstance and cognition. These fragmented selves reflect the collective human experience.
This is where AI steps in. We are the dataset for AI - the dreamers and thinkers who feed the training data that powers generative models. The adage "you are what you eat" holds true for AI as well.
The recent lawsuits targeting Generative Pre-trained Transformer technology are more than just legal battles; they are a threat to collective progress. They stem from a narrow perspective that overlooks the broader benefits of this technology.
Let's not forget the history of journalism, rife with idea cannibalism and angle replication. The industry, from the days of William Randolph Hearst to modern times, has never been a bastion of originality. Having worked in newsrooms, I can attest to the fact that they are hubs of chaos, with individuals seeking their path, often driven by personal agendas. The notion of sanctity in news creation and dissemination is, at best, a fanciful myth.
This reckoning is necessary. We no longer need traditional aggregators of reality to dictate what matters. We have advanced tools - tools that can serenade us, illustrate our world, narrate bedtime stories, and provide tailored information to kickstart our days. These tools offer a personalized experience, free from sensational headlines, gossip, and commercial influence.
Claiming that AI outputs are mere reproductions of inputs is akin to blaming a photocopier for doing its job. It’s a misguided accusation that overlooks the essence of creativity in the AI age.
We're at a crossroads, grappling with the evolving nature of creativity. This is a revelation, unmasking an old guard that has long used talent, opportunity, and industry clout to gatekeep creative expression. The time has come to acknowledge that our ideas, no matter how they're expressed or assisted, are worthy of exploration and sharing.
We are witnessing a creative revolution, paralleled by a transformation in how we consume news and information. The tools at our disposal are democratizing creativity, allowing us to manifest our ideas into tangible, shareable forms.
As we embrace this revolution, we'll see advancements across various fields - material sciences, healthcare, customer service, and education. These sectors will evolve, reflecting a diverse tapestry of interests and innovations. We're not meant to be monolithic in our pursuits or creations. With AI, we're unlocking a new era of diversity in thought and expression, transcending the need for traditional forms of ideation and creation.
You
I love it! Please generate a header image for this article using the contents as context on style and tone of the image
.io Draft Muse
Here is the header image, designed to visually encapsulate the themes of your article on creativity and AI in the context of copyright issues. It blends elements representing traditional creativity with futuristic AI motifs, creating a vibrant and thought-provoking representation of the creative revolution discussed in your article.
You
Scan https://charleswilke.io and look at the images currently appear on there for additional context on our next generation attempt
.io Draft Muse
I explored the content on your website, particularly focusing on the "Exploring L.ai.bor" section. It appears you are a writer who uses this platform to delve into the experience of creating with Artificial Intelligence. Notably, any AI-generated text that meets your editorial standards is highlighted in bold and italic, showcasing a unique blend of human and AI collaboration in your work.
Based on this context, for your next generation header image, a design that similarly blends human and AI elements while maintaining a professional yet creative tone would align well with your existing content style. The image could visually echo the theme of collaboration between human creativity and AI, perhaps using a mix of traditional artistic symbols and digital, AI-related motifs. This would reflect the essence of your work and the innovative approach you're exploring on your site.