The Ethics of Generative AI: Who Gets Credit?

As artists, writers, and creatives, we all know the value of originality and the importance of giving credit where it's due. But with text-to-image AI blurring the lines between human and machine creativity, the issue of attribution has become a contentious one.

Should we credit the writer who provided the original description, or the AI that brought it to life?

This presents a challenging situation in terms of intellectual property rights and attribution. Since an AI is trained on billions of parameters and the output it generates is usually a mix of more than one original source.

If a text-to-image generative AI model produces an output that is a mix of multiple original works, this can present a challenging situation in terms of intellectual property rights and attribution.

Here are some possible ways to tackle this issue:

1. Fair use: One possible approach is to rely on the concept of fair use, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holder. If the output of the AI model incorporates multiple works in a transformative way, it may be possible to argue that it falls under the fair use doctrine. However, this is a complex legal issue and would require careful consideration on a case-by-case basis.
2. Licensing agreements: Another possible approach is to use licensing agreements that govern the use of the output generated by the AI model. These agreements could specify how the output can be used, whether credit must be given to the original creators, and how any royalties or other compensation will be distributed. Then again, tracing back all the data points used to generate the output itself is a very demanding task, both technologically and financially.
3. Collaborative attribution: Another approach is to work collaboratively with the original creators to ensure that credit is given where it is due. For example, the output of the AI model could be shared with the original creators (given the output is traceable with very high accuracy), who could then provide feedback and input on how to attribute their work to the final output.
4. Creative input: It may be possible to involve the original creators in the creative process itself. For example, they could be asked to provide input or feedback on the output of the AI model to ensure that their work is properly represented and has key identifiable characteristics included in the training data.
5. Crowdsourcing: The ImageNet dataset, which is commonly used to train computer vision models, was built through a crowdsourcing effort that involved thousands of people labeling images. By involving the community in the creation of datasets, it becomes easier to ensure that credit is given where it is due and that the original creators are compensated for their work.
6. Education and awareness: Finally, it is important to educate users of these AI models about the potential legal and ethical issues involved. This could involve providing training and resources on best practices for data usage and attribution, as well as raising awareness about the importance of respecting intellectual property rights.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of plagiarism and intellectual property rights in the context of text-to-image generative AI. However, we must keep looking and find a viable solution to strike a balance that may not be perfect but shows us the way forward in this grey domain.

What are the possible approaches you can think of to appropriately solve this problem or provide a viable framework? Let me know in the comments.

If you like the article and understand the issue highlighted, then reshare the article to spread awareness about this issue.

#artificialintelligence #aiethics #generativeai