000049130 000__ 03324cam\a22003975i\4500
000049130 001__ 49130
000049130 003__ SzGeWIPO
000049130 005__ 20240322214817.0
000049130 006__ m    eo  d        
000049130 007__ cr bn |||m|||a
000049130 008__ 240321s2024\\\\enk\\\\\o\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000049130 0247_ $$a10.1093/grurint/ikad133$$2doi
000049130 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1427545513
000049130 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000049130 041__ $$aeng
000049130 24500 $$aCopyright as Affirmative Action for Human Authors Until the Singularity.
000049130 264_1 $$a[Oxford, England] :$$bOxford University Press (OUP),$$c2023
000049130 300__ $$a1 online resource (pages  1-2)
000049130 336__ $$atext$$2rdacontent
000049130 337__ $$acomputer$$2rdamedia
000049130 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000049130 4901_ $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v73, 1, 2024
000049130 520__ $$aScholars have been grappling with the challenges posed by generative Artificial Intelligence (gAI) on copyright law. The question is whether we should apply 20th century laws to regulate 21st century technology, or should there be a recalibration of copyright law? In doing so, we cannot avoid the most fundamental question of all: what kind of culture do we want as a society? One diluted by gAI cultural products, where authors are replaced, or one where human authors get preferential treatment so that human creativity can continue to thrive?  Historically, human culture has been imperative to human flourishing, and has become arguably more sublime over time: from cave art to Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, from oracle bone script to Shakespeare’s Macbeth. After social media seduced humanity into sharing what makes it tick (Douglas Rushkoff, ‘How We Taught Technology to Program Humans’, 18 February 2023, https://rushkoff.medium.com/how-we-taught-technology-to-program-humans-2388adf91364), gAI poses the threat of replacing human culture with increasingly diluted versions of that culture. If a foundational model is trained on products generated by AI, the quality of its output nosedives due to the ‘curse of recursion’ (Ilia Shumailov et al., ‘The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget’ (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493). Then again, the ‘creativity of the machine’ could be increased by adding more randomness (‘increasing the temperature’ as they say in the jargon of computer science) and/or adding external sensory inputs. Human culture is a way in which humans idiosyncratically express themselves via works and share these with other humans. To outsource the evolution of human culture is to deprive humanity from actively shaping what it is like to be human and instead passively permeating society with a surrogate culture. To guarantee original creativity in the interim, society should provide preferential treatment to human creativity.
000049130 542__ $$fhttps://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505
000049130 588__ $$aCrossref
000049130 590__ $$aPublished online: 12-Dec-23
000049130 650_0 $$aCopyright$$xLaw and legislation.
000049130 650_0 $$aArtificial intelligence.
000049130 650_0 $$aCopyright.
000049130 650_0 $$aPatents.
000049130 7001_ $$aFriedmann, Danny,$$eauthor.
000049130 7731_ $$tGRUR International$$wGRUR
000049130 830_0 $$aGRUR International ;$$v73, 1, 2024,$$x2632-8550.
000049130 85641 $$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad133$$yonline version
000049130 904__ $$aArticle
000049130 980__ $$aGRUR