data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c70ed/c70edaeef71311dd07366206bcae980fdc943867" alt=""
Carys Craig
Kate Darling will lead a discussion of Carys Craig and Ian Kerr‘s Death of the AI Author on Friday, April 12, at 1:45 p.m. Saturday, April 13, at 4:00 p.m. at #werobot 2019.
Much of the second-generation literature on AI and authorship asks whether an increasing sophistication and independence of generative code should cause us to rethink embedded assumptions about the meaning of authorship, arguing that recognizing the authored nature of AI-generated works may require a less profound doctrinal leap than has historically been suggested. In this essay, we argue that the threshold for authorship does not depend on the evolution or state of the art in AI or robotics.
Instead, we contend that the very notion of AI-authorship rests on a category mistake: it is not an error about the current or potential capacities, capabilities, intelligence or sophistication of machines; rather it is an error about the ontology of authorship.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e375/1e375802ffd312e53f6a15a5764093656f0240a7" alt=""
Ian Kerr
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dab41/dab4111b0ce3f043d45048afd5a4654cbc80bfa8" alt=""
Kate Darling
The ontological question, we suggest, requires an account of authorship that is relational; it necessitates a vision of authorship as a dialogic and communicative act that is inherently social, with the cultivation of selfhood and social relations as the entire point of the practice. Of course, this ontological inquiry into the plausibility of AI-authorship transcends copyright law and its particular doctrinal conundrums, going to the normative core of how law should—and should not—think about robots and AI, and their role in human relations.