If a new piece of music is created, but created by an artificial intelligence, how is the question of creativity to be assessed and how will copyright work, what part of the resulting artistic work will be regarded as a manifestation of the creativity of a technologically advanced tool such as certain artificial intelligence solutions, and what part will be regarded as the creativity of a human being who operates, questions, teaches etc. the artificial intelligence so that it performs in a certain way tasks which until recently were regarded as possible only by humans?
In the context of the development and successive but also relatively fast emerging new applications of artificial intelligence technology, reflections on the essence of creativity, which until recently was considered an exclusively human trait, are emerging. However, rapidly emerging new applications of increasingly refined artificial intelligence, which can be taught to process increasingly creative and much more efficient multi-criteria processing of ever larger data sets, is becoming the basis for consideration of creative task solving by specific artificial intelligence solutions, including generative language models, i.e. ChatGPT 4.0. Among the many different fields in which humans develop their capacity for creativity is the arts. Within the framework of artistic activity, humans have been developing several key artistic fields such as painting, sculpture, architecture, literature, theatre, music and singing since ancient times. On the other hand, modern artistic fields such as photography and film are also developing, thanks to the technological revolutions that have taken place over the past two centuries. In recent years, a large proportion of the artworks collected in art galleries, libraries etc. have been digitised and have their digital counterparts, which are made available on the Internet. During the Coronavirus pandemic of 2020, the processes of digitisation of various types of artistic works and other products of human activity and creativity accelerated significantly. New ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 have become of great help in the processes of digital processing, analysis and use of increasingly large amounts of data, including artistic works. Artificial intelligence technologies currently under development, after the application of specific learning processes, i.e. the application of machine learning and/or deep learning technologies, are capable of combining different types of data, including on different types of digitised media and digitised artistic works, to create something new, which can be considered a kind of new form of creativity. Sometimes, the effects of this kind of creativity realised by artificial intelligence are such a new field of application of this technology that the relevant legal regulations, including but not limited to copyright, have not yet been established. Well, if with the help of artificial intelligence it is possible to create pictures of an event that did not happen, i.e. as if one were to photograph a media-famous person in a situation and place where he or she has never really been, one can create a film with a cast of people who are no longer alive or who did not really exist at all, etc., then where does the creativity of those using artificial intelligence end? where does the creativity of people using artificial intelligence as a tool to achieve a specific goal end and where does the creativity of this technology begin, which, understanding the commands of humans, more and more precisely creates a kind of innovative solutions, more and more efficiently performs specific tasks and more and more creatively creates a kind of artistic works that are difficult to distinguish from their analytical works created traditionally, i.e. without the use of advanced information technology by humans. One particularly interesting thing that has already happened is the creation, with the help of artificial intelligence, of a new musical work of a song, in which the voice of a certain real existing singer is used, combined with new music and new song lyrics, and in this way a recording of a song sung by a singer who in reality never wrote the music and never sang the song is created. And if a song created in this way finds its way to the top of the charts, how will the question of honouring copyright be resolved, who is and to what extent the creator of such a work, to whom should the key part of the creativity in such a creation of a musical work be attributed? But of course, this is only an example, as similar, as yet unregulated complex processes for the creation of artistic works with the involvement of artificial intelligence in this process can and probably will be applied in other fields of art as well. In addition, the question of the creativity of artificial intelligence in the context of human creativity, in which also thought processes, consciousness, emotions, etc. are involved, also remains to be resolved.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
If a new piece of music is created, but created by an artificial intelligence, how is the question of creativity to be assessed and how will copyright work, what part of the resulting artistic work will be considered as a manifestation of the creativity of a technologically advanced tool such as certain artificial intelligence solutions, and what part will be considered as the creativity of a human being who operates, questions, teaches, etc. the artificial intelligence so that it performs in a certain way tasks that until recently were considered to be possible only by a human being?
What do you think about it?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The question of creativity in an artistic work created by artificial intelligence (AI) can be a complex one, as it depends on how we define creativity. Some argue that creativity requires intentionality and conscious decision-making, which machines do not have, while others argue that creativity can arise from emergent patterns and interactions that are not consciously planned.
Assuming that we consider the output of an AI system to be creative, the question of copyright ownership becomes important. In most countries, copyright law grants exclusive rights to the creator of an original work, which typically includes the right to reproduce, distribute, and profit from the work. However, in the case of an AI-generated work, it is not immediately clear who should be considered the creator and thus the copyright holder.
There are several possible ways to address this issue. One option is to consider the human creator of the AI system as the copyright holder, since they designed and programmed the system that generated the work. Another option is to consider the AI system itself as the creator, and grant it copyright protection as a legal entity. A third option is to consider the AI-generated work as belonging to the public domain, since it was not created by a human author.
The question of copyright ownership in AI-generated works is still being debated and is likely to be the subject of ongoing legal and policy discussions. In the meantime, it is important for creators and users of AI-generated works to be aware of the legal and ethical issues surrounding their production and use.
Based on my own work (for example: Thesis PhD Thesis (2006) Chapter 4 -A Conjunctive Theory of Art: Tr...
), I would suggest that, unless and until AI gains sentience, that its outputs are always at the prompt of some human intervention. In this sense, AI is rendered as simply one tool in a possibly artistic process. As is the camera, a pot of paint, a lump of clay. This does not and should not detract from AI's enormous capability as a tool that, in many respects, overshadows any other potential tool used artistically. It can certainly, as we witness, foreshorten the artistic process.The difficulty with art is--as I believe it will remain for some time to come yet--the question of power. Whatever artistic process an individual human might engage in, prompt, or otherwise initiate, it is left to a power-politic dynamic to accord the output of that artistic process that status as art object. It takes an art-institution, an artworld or a society (or indeed a wealthy patron) to suggest any product of artistic work is an artwork. And it is only when reified to the level of artwork, imbued with some sense of intrinsic value, that the question of ownership is at issue.
In this sense, it is perfectly possible for a society to take the collective view that AI outputs are legitimate artworks and therefore of some intrinsic value, for which allocation of property rights (intellectual of other) becomes an issue. But should this not lead us to question our own identity and capabilities in the face of AI? Are we, as a society, ready to imbue AI with a sentience that it does not (yet?) possess? Simply because we stand fascinated by something some power-politic declares is artistic in nature? Are we really as insecure in our own identities as that?
An interesting question Dariusz Prokopowicz
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators