For Artificial Intelligence, we need smart intellectual property laws : US

Artificial intelligence, once a rumor-filled backwater, is today a “hair on fire” blaze of hopes and worries about the transformative technological change. These intelligent technologies, which already outperform humans in several areas, and their regulation are shrouded in great mystery. Making the appropriate decisions on how to safeguard or manage the innovation is the only means to ensure that optimistic predictions about AI’s advantages for science, medicine, and bettering lives in general triumph over repeated doomsday scenarios.

Over the past year, the public release of AI chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT has prompted obscene warnings. One of them was made by the Senate Majority Leader of New York State, Chuck Schumer, who asserted that AI will “usher in major modifications to the place of work, the classroom, our living rooms—to almost every aspect of life,” and another was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stated, “Whoever turns the ultimate authority in this field will become the ruler of the world.” These worries also include catastrophic predictions about unrestrained AI from prominent business figures.

To address these challenges, legislative measures have already started. The European Parliament adopted 771 amendments to the European Commission’s 69-page plan before voting to ratify the new Artificial Intelligence Act on June 14. The act mandates that “generative” AI systems, like ChatGPT, carry out a number of safeguards and disclosures, including those on the use of a system that “deploys subconscious techniques beyond a person’s consciousness” or “exploits and of the weaknesses of a particular population of persons because of their age, physical or mental disability,” as well as to avoid “foreseeable threats to health, safety, fundamental liberties, the environment, democracy and the rule of law.”

Whether authors or artists, who also want credit and payment for the utilization of their works, must provide their permission in order for their data to be used to train AI systems, is a hot topic across the globe.
To make it simpler to gather and utilize data for AI training, multiple nations have created unique data mining and text exclusions to copyright law. Some systems can now train on internet texts, photos, and other works that belong to other people thanks to them. Recently, these exceptions have encountered resistance, especially from copyright owners and detractors who have more widespread grievances and aim to slow down or damage the services.

They add to the debates sparked by the recent explosion in information about the dangers of AI, including the potential for bias, social engineering, loss of money and employment, disinformation, fraud, and other risks, which includes dire prognoses of “the end of humanity.”
The “three C’s” of consent, credit, and compensation should apply to AI training data, according to authors, artists, and performers who frequently voice their opinions during recent U.S. copyright hearings. The most advantageous data mining and text mining exceptions recognized by some countries are not applicable to every C because of its unique practical difficulties.

The apparent problem with any kind of intellectual property (IP) rights granted to training data is that they are fundamentally national in scope, whereas the competition to produce artificial intelligence (AI) services is global. Anywhere there is energy and an Internet connection, AI algorithms can be used. A sizable crew or specialized labs are not necessary. Companies that operate in nations that place prohibitive or impracticable restrictions on the collection and use of data for the training of AI will face competition from companies that do business in more liberal settings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *