#20 | THE INCIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP | Exploring the Boundaries of Creativity & Ownership in an AI World
The Uniqueness of Human Creativity: Human thinking can produce unique and original creations, such as thoughts, words, deeds, and creative works. The brain attributes ownership to these creations, instilling pride in their uniqueness.
Commercialization of Uniqueness: The commercial world thrives on uniqueness and novelty. Examples include new car models, consumer products, and copyrighted materials designed to satisfy a market's desire for the latest and most innovative offerings.
Artificial Intelligence and Ownership: AI, relying on algorithms and synthesized past materials, challenges the concept of ownership in creative works. This raises questions about stifling human creativity, attributing authorship, and the role of human intuition and emotional content in creative endeavors. The human element of doubt and imperfection is highlighted as a crucial aspect of creative expression.
The cognitive activity of thinking can produce a thought, word, or deed that is unique and otherwise never experienced before and generate a feeling of wonder and surprise. The brain finding that the experience is unique immediately attaches ownership to it, being solely the work of one’s brain. Creating a thought, an aphorism, a saying, a song, a picture, a design, and an equation are all manifestations of one’s brain and the content in memory that helped shape it, and its uniqueness to the creator suggests a first of its kind.
Ownership is an act of pride in doing something valuable and unique. These incidents occur frequently and also frequently represent a duplicative action, and each performance is a success, or at least close enough. When made known to others, individual manifestations of this process are a transfer of new knowledge to others, such as teaching, or can be merchandized for money. Ownership is transferred in a commercial transaction at the moment of sale, where the buyer gets complete access to the item, and the seller gives up all rights to the thing when money passes. There are, of course, in the real world, many alternatives to this fundamental consideration.
Unique and first-time products for sale are a lucrative and primary aspect of our commercial system; a typical example is the “newness” of yearly redesigned autos, the “newest” set out with design features that were not available the years before, or a new I-phone, or a new toothpaste that is extra, 3D, whiter, super, ultra, etc. The popular commercial song industry constantly creates new songs to satisfy a voracious market, mainly when performed by in-vogue artists.
Copyrighted materials have legal restrictions on their use and display to reward the uniqueness of each presentation, with ownership still in force. Patents run a 17-year legal right and, after that, are made public unless the patent can win an extension. The above is evident in the run-of-the-mill activity of everyday life. Then there is Artificial Intelligence, a computerized method of using all published material as a resource to satisfy an algorithm.
The material being available at no reward to the creator(s) flies in the face of a reward to acknowledge the source, work, effort, and hopes for additional material to use or enjoy. Could this stifle human ingenuity instead of cobbled-up synthesized arrangements of past efforts? Could this make it too difficult in time and effort to challenge one’s power of detailing a mood, tone tenor, and veracity of an emotional output of creativity into a form of communication from one person?
We are all different by the confluence of our DNA blueprint, allowing an individual expression of who and what we are and a unique individual to express themselves. An algorithm is a set piece whose instructions are not from intuition and emotional content but from a guide from desire and need to satisfy a want preordained by limits and boundaries to contain the defined result.
So, now again about ownership, whereas identifying a human being, or a team, as instigating and defining a new item, a thought, word, or deed, assigning the source and the common law will establish who owns what. Assigning the result of an algorithm is a multi-part source not identified, put together by a machine following a coded program setting a preordained outcome. The machine will execute the instructions, or as close to the available sources, and the ability to find contiguity.
What is missing is the human element of doubt that harmonizes a more extraordinary array of emotional vagaries to give “life” to the completed issue and almost always displays a degree of imperfection, which is the charm of human interplay.