Who Is Responsible for AI Copyright Infringement?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Michael P. Goodyear: “Twenty-one-year-old college student Shane hopes to write a song for his boyfriend. In the past, Shane would have had to wait for inspiration to strike, but now he can use generative artificial intelligence to get a head start. Shane decides to use Anthropic’s AI chat system, Claude, to write the lyrics. Claude dutifully complies and creates the words to a love song. Shane, happy with the result, adds notes, rhythm, tempo, and dynamics. He sings the song and his boyfriend loves it. Shane even decides to post a recording to YouTube, where it garners 100,000 views.

But Shane did not realize that this song’s lyrics are similar to those of “Love Story,” Taylor Swift’s hit 2008 song. Shane must now contend with copyright law, which protects original creative expression such as music. Copyright grants the rights owner the exclusive rights to reproduce, perform, and create derivatives of the copyrighted work, among other things. If others take such actions without permission, they can be liable for damages up to $150,000. So Shane could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars for copying Swift’s song.

Copyright law has surged into the news in the past few years as one of the most important legal challenges for generative AI tools like Claude—not for the output of these tools but for how they are trained. Over two dozen pending court cases grapple with the question of whether training generative AI systems on copyrighted works without compensating or getting permission from the creators is lawful or not. Answers to this question will shape a burgeoning AI industry that is predicted to be worth $1.3 trillion by 2032.

Yet there is another important question that few have asked: Who should be liable when a generative AI system creates a copyright-infringing output? Should the user be on the hook?…(More)”

From Digital Sovereignty to Digital Agency

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Akash Kapur: “In recent years, governments have increasingly pursued variants of digital sovereignty to regulate and control the global digital ecosystem. The pursuit of AI sovereignty represents the latest iteration in this quest. 

Digital sovereignty may offer certain benefits, but it also poses undeniable risks, including the possibility of undermining the very goals of autonomy and self-reliance that nations are seeking. These risks are particularly pronounced for smaller nations with less capacity, which might do better in a revamped, more inclusive, multistakeholder system of digital governance. 

Organizing digital governance around agency rather than sovereignty offers the possibility of such a system. Rather than reinforce the primacy of nations, digital agency asserts the rights, priorities, and needs not only of sovereign governments but also of the constituent parts—the communities and individuals—they purport to represent.

Three cross-cutting principles underlie the concept of digital agency: recognizing stakeholder multiplicity, enhancing the latent possibilities of technology, and promoting collaboration. These principles lead to three action-areas that offer a guide for digital policymakers: reinventing institutions, enabling edge technologies, and building human capacity to ensure technical capacity…(More)”.

OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “The most recent phase of digital transformation is marked by rapid technological changes, creating both opportunities and risks for the economy and society. The Volume 2 of the OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 explores emerging priorities, policies and governance practices across countries. It also examines trends in the foundations that enable digital transformation, drive digital innovation and foster trust in the digital age. The volume concludes with a statistical annex…

In 2023, digital government, connectivity and skills topped the list of digital policy priorities. Increasingly developed at a high level of government, national digital strategies play a critical role in co-ordinating these efforts. Nearly half of the 38 countries surveyed develop these strategies through dedicated digital ministries, up from just under a quarter in 2016. Among 1 200 policy initiatives tracked across the OECD, one-third aim to boost digital technology adoption, social prosperity, and innovation. AI and 5G are the most often-cited technologies…(More)”

Human-AI coevolution

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Dino Pedreschi et al: “Human-AI coevolution, defined as a process in which humans and AI algorithms continuously influence each other, increasingly characterises our society, but is understudied in artificial intelligence and complexity science literature. Recommender systems and assistants play a prominent role in human-AI coevolution, as they permeate many facets of daily life and influence human choices through online platforms. The interaction between users and AI results in a potentially endless feedback loop, wherein users’ choices generate data to train AI models, which, in turn, shape subsequent user preferences. This human-AI feedback loop has peculiar characteristics compared to traditional human-machine interaction and gives rise to complex and often “unintended” systemic outcomes. This paper introduces human-AI coevolution as the cornerstone for a new field of study at the intersection between AI and complexity science focused on the theoretical, empirical, and mathematical investigation of the human-AI feedback loop. In doing so, we: (i) outline the pros and cons of existing methodologies and highlight shortcomings and potential ways for capturing feedback loop mechanisms; (ii) propose a reflection at the intersection between complexity science, AI and society; (iii) provide real-world examples for different human-AI ecosystems; and (iv) illustrate challenges to the creation of such a field of study, conceptualising them at increasing levels of abstraction, i.e., scientific, legal and socio-political…(More)”.

What is ‘sovereign AI’ and why is the concept so appealing (and fraught)?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by John Letzing: “Denmark unveiled its own artificial intelligence supercomputer last month, funded by the proceeds of wildly popular Danish weight-loss drugs like Ozempic. It’s now one of several sovereign AI initiatives underway, which one CEO believes can “codify” a country’s culture, history, and collective intelligence – and become “the bedrock of modern economies.”

That particular CEO, Jensen Huang, happens to run a company selling the sort of chips needed to pursue sovereign AI – that is, to construct a domestic vintage of the technology, informed by troves of homegrown data and powered by the computing infrastructure necessary to turn that data into a strategic reserve of intellect…

It’s not surprising that countries are forging expansive plans to put their own stamp on AI. But big-ticket supercomputers and other costly resources aren’t feasible everywhere.

Training a large language model has gotten a lot more expensive lately; the funds required for the necessary hardware, energy, and staff may soon top $1 billion. Meanwhile, geopolitical friction over access to the advanced chips necessary for powerful AI systems could further warp the global playing field.

Even for countries with abundant resources and access, there are “sovereignty traps” to consider. Governments pushing ahead on sovereign AI could risk undermining global cooperation meant to ensure the technology is put to use in transparent and equitable ways. That might make it a lot less safe for everyone.

An example: a place using AI systems trained on a local set of values for its security may readily flag behaviour out of sync with those values as a threat…(More)”.

Engaging publics in science: a practical typology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Heather Douglas et al: “Public engagement with science has become a prominent area of research and effort for democratizing science. In the fall of 2020, we held an online conference, Public Engagement with Science: Defining and Measuring Success, to address questions of how to do public engagement well. The conference was organized around conceptualizations of the publics engaged, with attendant epistemic, ethical, and political valences. We present here the typology of publics we used (volunteer, representative sample, stakeholder, and community publics), discuss the differences among those publics and what those differences mean for practice, and situate this typology within the existing work on public engagement with science. We then provide an overview of the essays published in this journal arising from the conference which provides a window into the rich work presented at the event…(More)”.

Access, Signal, Action: Data Stewardship Lessons from Valencia’s Floods

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Marta Poblet, Stefaan Verhulst, and Anna Colom: “Valencia has a rich history in water management, a legacy shaped by both triumphs and tragedies. This connection to water is embedded in the city’s identity, yet modern floods test its resilience in new ways.

During the recent floods, Valencians experienced a troubling paradox. In today’s connected world, digital information flows through traditional and social media, weather apps, and government alert systems designed to warn us of danger and guide rapid responses. Despite this abundance of data, a tragedy unfolded last month in Valencia. This raises a crucial question: how can we ensure access to the right data, filter it for critical signals, and transform those signals into timely, effective action?

Data stewardship becomes essential in this process.

In particular, the devastating floods in Valencia underscore the importance of:

  • having access to data to strengthen the signal (first mile challenges)
  • separating signal from noise
  • translating signal into action (last mile challenges)…(More)”.

Ignorance: A Global History

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Peter Burke: “Throughout history, every age has thought of itself as more knowledgeable than the last. Renaissance humanists viewed the Middle Ages as an era of darkness, Enlightenment thinkers tried to sweep superstition away with reason, the modern welfare state sought to slay the “giant” of ignorance, and in today’s hyperconnected world seemingly limitless information is available on demand. But what about the knowledge lost over the centuries? Are we really any less ignorant than our ancestors?
 
In this highly original account, Peter Burke examines the long history of humanity’s ignorance across religion and science, war and politics, business and catastrophes. Burke reveals remarkable stories of the many forms of ignorance—genuine or feigned, conscious and unconscious—from the willful politicians who redrew Europe’s borders in 1919 to the politics of whistleblowing and climate change denial. The result is a lively exploration of human knowledge across the ages, and the importance of recognizing its limits…(More)”.

Democracy Theatre & Performance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by David Wiles: “Democracy… is actually a form of theatre. In making his case, the author deftly investigates orators at the foundational moments of ancient and modern democracy, demonstrating how their performative skills were used to try to create a better world. People often complain about demagogues, or wish that politicians might be more sincere. But to do good, politicians (paradoxically) must be hypocrites – or actors. Moving from Athens to Indian independence via three great revolutions – in Puritan England, republican France and liberal America – the book opens up larger questions about the nature of democracy. When in the classical past Plato condemned rhetoric, the only alternative he could offer was authoritarianism. Wiles’ bold historical study has profound implications for our present: calls for personal authenticity, he suggests, are not an effective way to counter the rise of populism…(More)”