Technology and future journalist and writer Becca Caddy has written a great summary of a number of issues around the rapid adoption of AI based creativity tools. The discussion on who own a synthetically created, but otherwise indistinguishable, version of Eminen's voice raises profound issues. If GPT-4, for example, contains copyrighted works, how is the owner compensated? And should they be compensated, if at all? As if copyright law is not complex enough.
The visual effects industry also offers a counter point to 'the AI's will steal out jobs' perspective, showing where it can be used to reduce tedious manual processes. Though this could be the start of effects artists helping to perfect their replacements.
Becca Caddy is a member of Purposeful Relations' Advisory Board.
Just wanted to add an additional thought to Tim's piece. The use of intellectual property is one we often discuss when I run workshops on AI. There are two main schools of thought. One is that expressed by the lawyer in Becca's article who is attempting to justify his existence by claiming infringement if the AI data set includes copyright work. The other is that the copyright work is simply being used for inspiration which is what writers, composers and artists have done for centuries. They aren't copying or using the work of other people, but are obviously influenced by it as they've spent their entire life seeing it and hearing it.
Which school of thought is closest to what you think?
In the last issue of PR Futurist, we shared some research from VistaCreate and the Content Marketing Institute that showed marketeers personal likes and dislikes don't match what consumers like and dislike.
In this issue we have another example of the same problem. Advertising professionals’ view of what makes a good ad is not only biased, it’s usually wrong, as their reaction to Tourism Australia’s last campaign shows.
The example I often use is every day my Twitter account tweets out my Paper.li newsletter. It's an automated 'newspaper' made up of stories from links shared by people in my Twitter network. The automated tweet includes some Twitter handles who were some of the story sources. I hate it. It's spammy and horrible. Why do I do it everyday? Because it works. I have people replying to say thanks for including them. I have DMs and emails to say thank you. I've had work out of doing it. I still hate it, but while it works I'll keep doing it.