ARTISTS -''STUDENTS''- ARTICLE : A. I. COMPASS ESSAY

 

! FIRST AND FOREMOST ! : The Global Founder Framers of The World Students Society should have maximum fear and anxiety from '' Artificial Intelligence.'' The students have just no trump card in building the Ecosystem.

HISTORY OFFERS Founder Engineer Salar Khan a clue : '' The World Students Society - while a work of great art is also, both a responsibility and an opportunity to lead the world to greater heights.'' 

'' Salar, in your free time, on your days off, and even late at night, you have to train and get built, ''Sam Daily Times Model'' and position it for Artificial Intelligence publishing. Consider navigating on your own genius and hard work. 'Wisdom guarantees that Breaking, Making is the best way forward.''

The great students of America must lend Founder Engineer Salar Khan a hand. [ !WOW! is working on Global Elections.] This is the challenge we dare.

CREATIVITY - not mere mimicry, is human beings trump card. I've got 99 problems with A.I. but '' intellectual property '' ain't one.

MEDIA and entertainment industries have lately been consumed with questions about how content generated by artificial intelligence systems should be considered under intellectual property law.

Last month, an American federal judge ruled against an attempt to copyright art produced by a machine.

In July, another federal judge suggested in a hearing that he would most likely dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by artists against artificial intelligence art generators.

How A.I. might alter the economics of the movie and TV business has become one of the primary issues in the strike by writers and actors in Hollywood. And major news companies - including The Times - are weighing steps to guard the intellectual property that flows from their journalism.

IN THE FACE of all the possible action against A.I. and its makers, I'd suggest caution. I've been thinking a lot about whether musicians, painters, photographers, writers, filmmakers and other producers of creative work - including, on good days myself - should fear that machines might damage their livelihoods.

AFTER extensive research and consultations with experts, I've arrived at a carefully considered, nuanced position :

Controversies over A.I. are going to put a lot of copyright lawyers kids through college. But the more I use ChatGPT, Midjourney and other A.I. tools, the more I suspect that many of the intellectual property questions they prompt will ultimately prove less significant than we sometimes assume.

That's because computers by themselves cannot yet and might never be able to produce truly groundbreaking creative work.

Indeed, I'll bet that artists and creative industries will ultimately find A.I. to more a boon than a competitor. In a recent assessment of A.I. produced comedy, Jason Zinoman, The Time's comedy critic, suggested that A.I. comedians might ultimately improve human comedy :

'' Competition from increasingly clever computer programs will force artists to not only rely more on intuition than limitation, but also to think harder about what makes then, and their work, distinctly human.''

 I think he's right - not just about comedy but also many other creative fields. What accounts for my sunny stance?

History offers one clue : Technologies that made art easier to produce have rarely ended up stifling human creativity.

Electronic synthesizer didn't eliminate the need for people who play musical instruments. Auto-Tune didn't make singing on pitch obsolete. Photography didn't kill painting, and its digitization didn't obviate the need for profession of photographers.

Then there's the content I've seen A.I. produce : Unless it's been heavily worked over by human beings, a lot of music, images, jokes and stories that A.I. has given us so far have felt more like mimicry than great art.

Sure it's impressive that ChatGPT can write a pop song in the style of Taylor Swift. But the ditties still smack of soulless imitation. They're not going to go platinum and or sell out stadiums.

A.I. might undermine some of the more high-volume corners of photography - stock photos, for instance - but will you use it to capture your wedding or to document a war? Nope.

Which is not to suggest there won't still be a lot of legal wrangling. Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School who teaches and litigates on issues of intellectual property law, told me that he thinks the next five or 10 years will be marked by a series of legal battles about the role A.I. plays in media.

'' The number of issues is going to expand and get more complicated, '' he said.

The Publishing continues. The World Students Society thanks author Farhad Manjoo and dedicates this post to The New York Times and the great students of America.