The ethical and legal implications surrounding the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and generative AI tools like ChatGPT are sure to impact companies, consumers and courts for years to come. For artists and creators, and those who buy or license their work, it can be a confusing time to consider how AI will affect who makes what and who owns it.
On Thursday, law firm Davis Wright Tremaine and nonprofit Lawyers for the Arts in Washington co- hosted a session titled "Artificial Intelligence: The New Muse? The Evolving Legal, Regulatory, and Ethical Landscape of Artificial Intelligence."
RELATED: Microsoft, Amazon, and other tech firms pledge responsible AI with White House
Panelists included Tiffany Georgievsky, AI , data privacy and intellectual property attorney at Sony AI ; Joaquin Hernandez , senior legal counsel at Pixel United ; and Joshua Trujillo , photographer, videographer and storyteller at Starbucks .
The discussion touched on some of the concerns of creators and those who study and debate the law on copyright protection, intellectual property, legislative and regulatory action, ethics, misinformation, transparency, and more.
Here are some highlights from the panelists' comments, edited for brevity:
Joaquin Hernandez.
- Hernandez: " In terms of output and what this tool produces -- who owns it? Someone will come back to us and say, 'Hey, this is really familiar to me. Artists will say, 'Are you infringing on my product? Who is responsible? The maker of the AI model, or are we using it? It's still a little unclear at this point.
- Trujillo: "There are a lot of AI tools that are actually advancing creators right now. I think the space that's really tight for creators is the generative space, because that's about your ability to get paid, your ability to get credit, your ability to make it a career. That's the scary place for a lot of people.
- Georgievsky: "Some of the things that I find very interesting are the different approaches AI providers take in their terms of service. Some will say, 'I don't own the output. Maybe you will. Maybe you don't, but not me. Others will actually say, 'I own the output, you have a license. If you're a paying member, you can own it. So, in fact, right now there isn't even a market standard for proving that someone uses these tools, artists might use these tools to enhance their creativity, they might end up creating something that they want to protect, they might not even own it Copyright, I think that's a huge area for artists to think about.
Joshua Trujillo.
-
Trujillo: "Photography is a creative medium that has always relied on technology—it's technology. There's always a little panic loop with every introduction. There's a little panic loop when autofocus is introduced. Will that replace me? Can everyone do it? When digital photography, when Adobe Photoshop, image processing—everything comes in, there's a panic loop. And then eventually people will find a way to take advantage of it and use it to be more creative. There are many fears.
-
Trujillo: "Truth is the hallmark of journalism, the hallmark of an informed crowd. All of us as citizens and voters need to be informed. If we get our information from disinformation and misinformation and malicious actors trying to influence opinion, that ultimately affects our democracy. We see what happens in elections with memes and Facebook, but this is a whole different monster. As informed citizens, we all need to be highly aware of this space right away because it's very dangerous."
Tiffany Georgievsky.
-
Georgievsky: "Know your suppliers, know what they're doing, know what their reputation is. How do you identify or not identify human work versus .AI generated work? There are regulatory proposals around transparency obligations to identify AI generated versus non-generated stuff. Content authenticity is a big area of research in AI right now - can we really say this is from a particular media or photographer, or can we at least identify what AI generated? some.
-
Trujillo: “There’s always been that stereotype of the starving artist, the poor artist. As an artist, it’s always been hard. I just hope there’s a system, a society, a legal framework or legislation that supports creativity in some way. Because I think a lot of people in the creative world right now feel left behind, a lot of them feel powerless right now.
RELATED: Voices of AI: Seattle music vet shares concerns, enthusiasm for how technology is affecting art
- Hernandez: "In terms of protection, it depends on -- do you protect it from someone grabbing your work into the dataset that trains the AI, and not the output? The output stuff is easy, because we've learned that no matter what opportunities AI creates, you can't protect it. But how do you protect it from AI companies using it as part of their dataset to train their AI models? It's a little bit harder. You can address fundamental issues like, be careful what you put in there.
- Georgievski : "AI, especially generative AI models, aren't designed to compete with artists, they're really meant to enhance creativity. The problem we're going to see is that everyone suddenly becomes an AI company. And you don't know who to really trust. The goal is not for AI to suddenly kill art. I don't think anyone wants that. What we're seeing is just an unintended consequence of a new technology that hasn't been fully resolved. And cool tools that can actually help enhance humanity, including through art.