My Answer to HWcase1, Q3

[enderben]

 The following is the transcript between me and ChatGPT discussing my HWcase1 Q1 case:

 

Me:

Here is an ethics case with a list of sources and facts regarding the case:

<I copy - pasted my answer to HWcase1 Q1>

Teach me about ethics of this case using Socratic questioning. You ask me questions to guide my learning.

ChatGPT:

Alright! Let's explore the ethical dimensions of this case through Socratic questioning.

What do you think it means to "own" an image?

Me:

I think ownership of an image comes from having created it yourself. If you use AI to make an image, then I think part of the ownership belongs to the AI. But also, AI is effectively using images it doesn't own, so I don't think AI art can fully be 'owned' by a single person

ChatGPT: 

That's an interesting take! You're considering both the creator’s role and the AI’s contribution, which brings up more ethical questions.

You mentioned that AI is using images it doesn’t own. Do you think that makes AI-generated images ethically questionable, or is it similar to how human artists learn by studying other works?

Me:

I think artists learn from the styles of other artists to make their own, truly unique style. It may be similar and take inspiration from other artists, but the style is still unique to the individual. AI art fails to capture this uniqueness property because it fails to develop it's own 'truly unique' style

ChatGPT:

That’s a strong distinction! You're saying that human artists interpret and transform what they learn into something uniquely theirs, while AI simply recombines existing patterns without true originality.

If AI is fundamentally different from human creativity, should we treat AI-generated works differently under copyright law? For example, should they be in the public domain since no human is the true creator?

Me:

I believe so. I think it would make sense if, when an AI generated piece is created, it references the different art it used to make its own piece, and those artists receive partial credit for that piece.

ChatGPT:

That’s a compelling argument! You’re proposing a system where AI-generated works aren’t fully "owned" but rather acknowledge and compensate the original artists whose works contributed to them.