Once a backlog of speculationArtificial IntelligenceNow, with all the hopes and fears of revolutionary technological change, people's hair is on fire. The uncertainty surrounding these intelligent systems and their regulation is huge - in some areas they already exceed human capabilities. Only by making the right decisions to protect or control the technology can we hope for the benefits of artificial intelligence for science, medicine, and a generally better life that will overcome lingering fears of fatalism.
public performanceAI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPTThe past year has prompted major warnings. That included a point from New York Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who said artificial intelligence will "bring massive changes to the workplace, the classroom and our living rooms..."in almost every corner of life", and Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed: "Whoever becomes a leader in this areaBecome the ruler of the world“.This concern also includesWarning of dire consequencesUnlimited AI from an industry leader.
Legislative work to resolve these issues has already begun. On June 14, the European Parliament voted in favor of itNew law on artificial intelligenceFollowing the approval of the European Commission's 771 amendments to the 69-page proposal. The bill requires "engineered" AI systems like ChatGPT to implement a number of safeguards and disclosures, such as systems that "use subliminal technologies outside of human consciousness" or "the vulnerability of certain populations due to their age, whether physical or mental . exploit" disability" and avoiding "foreseeable risks to health, safety, fundamental rights, the environment, democracy and the rule of law".
A pressing global question is whether data used to train AI systems will require the consent of the authors or performers, who also require attribution and compensation for the use of their works.
Some governments have created special copyright exemptions for text and data mining to facilitate their collection and useInformation about training AI. This allows some systems to be trained on online texts, images and other works of others. These exceptions have recently met resistance, particularly from copyright holders and critics in general who want to slow down or degrade the quality of services. In recent months, there has been an explosion in reporting on the dangers of artificial intelligence, fueling further controversy over the technology's potential risks of bias, social manipulation, loss of income and employment, misinformation, fraud and other risks such as "end of humanity".
Current US Copyright LawhearingsThis reflects a common sentiment among authors, artists, and performers: AI training data must adhere to the "3Cs" of consent, acknowledgment, and compensation. Each C has its own practical challenges that contrast with the more favorable exceptions for text and data mining accepted by some countries.
Countries have different and evolving approaches to dealing with intellectual property rights related to training data. The US has faced several lawsuits to determine the extentFair use exceptionCopyrights apply. The 2019 European Union (EU) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market provides exemptions for text and data mining, including mandatory exemptions for research and cultural heritage organisations, while giving copyright holders the right to exploit their projects for commercial services. In 2022, the UK proposed a sweeping exemption for commercial use, but thenin the waiting queueearlier this year. In 2021, Singapore created an exemption for computer-aided data analysis in copyright law, which applies to text and data mining, data analysis and machine learning.Singapore is an exceptionAccess to data is required by law, but cannot be contractually regulated. China issued a statement saying that "content that violates intellectual property rights" will be excluded from the training data. According to an April article by the Stanford DigiChina Project:Described by Helen Toner, Georgetown University Center for Security and Emerging TechnologiesThis is "somewhat opaque, as the copyright status of much of the relevant data—often derived largely from a variety of online sources—is ambiguous." Many countries do not have specific exemptions for text and data mining, but have not yet adopted them in a position. Indian officials say they are unwilling to regulate AI at this time, but like many other countries, India is keen to support a domestic industry.
In formulating laws and regulations, care should be taken to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach where rules that apply to recorded music or art also apply to scientific work and data used for medical research and development.
Previous legislative work on databases has shown that caution is needed. 1990sDistributed sentencesAutomatic granting of rights to information extracted from databases, including statistical data and other non-copyrighted data. An example is a treaty proposed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1996. In the US,Diversity-Allianzscholars,libraryAmateur genealogists and public interest groups opposed the proposed treaty. But perhaps more important is the resistance from American companies, such as e.gBloomberg,Dun & BradstreetAndstatistical dataThey argue that database contracts are both unnecessary and burdensome because they increase the licensing overhead of procuring and making available to customers the data they need and, in some cases, create unnecessary monopolies. TheWIPO Database TreatyIt failed at a diplomatic conference in 1996, and subsequent attempts to pass legislation in the US failed, but so did the EU. Implementation of the Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases. Investment in databases has exploded in the United States over the decades, as has investment in databases in the European Union. Attempts to weaken his mandate through court rulings. It's 2005internal evaluation results"The tool showed no output impact on the database."
Pure practicality points to another caveat. The amount of data in large language models can be difficult to understand. The first version of Stable Diffusion, capable of generating images from text, requires training2.3 billion images. GPT-2, an early version of the ChatGPT model, was trained on 40 GB of data. A later version, GPT-3, was trained on 45 TB of data,1,000 times or more. OpenAI, opposite lefttrialIn terms of data usage, the exact size of the data set used for training has not been made publicThe latest version, GPT-4. Even for simple works, it can be difficult to clarify rights for copyrighted works, and for very large works or platforms, it can be difficult to consider searching for metadata and evaluating contracts between creators or performers and publishers. The practical requirements and even the challenge of knowing who owns it are almost impossible. In science, requiring consent to use copyrighted works can give publishers of scientific articles significant leverage to allow companies to use the data, even if most authors are not paid.
Distinguishing who owns what is important. It's one thing to convince copyright holders of popular music recordings to opt out of a database. Excluding copyright holders of popular music recordings from a database is another matter. The situation is different if an important scientific work is not carried out due to a license challenge. When using AI in hospitals and gene therapy, do you really want to exclude relevant information from the training database?
In addition to consent, the other two "c's", credit and compensation, also present their own challenges, as shown by the current high cost of suing for copyright or patent infringement. But one can also imagine datasets and their use in the arts or biomedical research, where a well-managed AI program could facilitate benefit sharing, such as the one proposedOpen source bonusIntroduction of successful biomedical products.
In some cases, the data used to train the AI can be decentralized with a number of safeguards. These include enforcing privacy, avoiding unnecessary monopolistic control, and useThe "Data Space" method.Now let's build on some scientific facts.
All of this poses obvious challenges to any kind of intellectual property rights assigned to education data: while these rights are national in nature, the race to develop AI services is global. AI programs can run anywhere there is electricity and internet access. You don't need a large staff or a special laboratory. Companies operating in countries that impose costly or impractical obligations to collect and use data for AI training will compete with companies operating in more permissive environments.
If anyone thinks differently about the future of artificial intelligence than Vladimir Putin, then this is food for thought.
This is an opinion and analysis article and does not necessarily reflect the views expressed by the authorscientific American.
About the Author
James loveHe is Director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-profit organization focused on funding, intellectual property, pricing and access to medical advances.
The rapid development and application of AI in various fields present significant challenges to intellectual property law. As AI systems become more capable of producing creative works, inventions, and trademarks, legal systems must grapple with issues of authorship, ownership, and eligibility for protection.Why do we need AI regulation? ›
When used constructively, AI can help diagnose cancer you don't have yet or help cure autism in children. But without properly framed AI regulations, it can give you biased answers, spread misinformation, and destabilize the world by deciding who gets access to a loan or a job opportunity.Should AI have IP rights? ›
For example, AI systems can create original works such as music, literature, and art, and it could be argued that these works should be protected by IP law. In addition, granting IP rights to AI systems could provide incentives for the development of AI technology and encourage investment in the field.Can AI be protected by IP? ›
“The relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) can be complex, but there are a few ways to balance the two: Protecting AI with IP: Just like any other invention, AI can be protected by intellectual property rights such as patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.Will AI replace IP lawyers? ›
While AI can assist patent attorneys in some of these tasks, such as conducting patent searches and analyzing prior art, it cannot replace the legal judgment and expertise that a human attorney brings to the table.What are the negative effects of AI in law? ›
Potential impact on careers
AI provides the potential to automate repetitive and time-consuming legal tasks, opening up the possibility of its introduction impacting the legal profession as a whole. AI could, in time, displace many of those in lower-skilled legal jobs.
Regulating artificial intelligence has both pros and cons. While regulation can provide a framework for ethical practices, information security and consumer rights, it could stifle innovation and slow progress.What did Elon Musk say about AI? ›
"One way to achieve world peace is to take all the weapons away from the humans so they can no longer use them," Musk said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "I don't think the AI is going to try to destroy all Humanity but it might put us under strict controls.”What are the three laws of artificial intelligence? ›
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.Is AI a threat to intellectual property? ›
AI systems that are not properly programmed or trained may inadvertently infringe on existing IP rights. For example, if an AI system is trained on copyrighted code and produces similar code, this could lead to infringement claims.
Within IP management, AI can empower IP professionals. Day-to-day IP tasks can be time consuming, but AI technology enables professionals the time to focus on more strategic decisions in their portfolio.Who owns the IP of artificial intelligence? ›
Patent law generally considers the inventor as the first owner of the invention. The inventor is the person who creates the invention. In the case of autonomous AI generating an invention, there is no legal owner as the AI technology cannot own the invention.Why is AI a threat to privacy? ›
The main privacy concerns surrounding AI is the potential for data breaches and unauthorized access to personal information. With so much data being collected and processed, there is a risk that it could fall into the wrong hands, either through hacking or other security breaches.What is the relationship between AI and IP? ›
The emergence of AI, however, raises many problems and inquiries related to IP. IP encompasses AI since the latter is also an intangible product of human ingenuity. There is a nexus between the enforcement of IP rights and the protection of AI and AI-generated works.Can AI violate human rights? ›
Another example is that AI can foster discrimination in its own algorithms. This has been observed in tests of facial recognition and medical algorithms. Additionally, AI surveillance technology can harm one's right to peaceful assembly and protest by giving governments information on the identity of protestors.How does AI cause privacy violations? ›
Challenges for Businesses Using AI
One of the significant challenges of Data Privacy with AI technology is the issue of data security. Hackers and cybercriminals can exploit vulnerabilities in AI systems to gain access to sensitive information, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers, and medical records.
The use of copyrighted materials for training AI models is considered to be in a legal grey area. As it stands now, copyright laws do not safeguard any creation that is wholly generated by AI, regardless of whether it stemmed from a human-crafted text prompt.