ARE OUR DEFINITIONS TOO LOOSE? | Boundaries, Disclosures, and Certifications in AI-Assisted Writing
The Definition of "Human" and "AI" Requires Clarification: There's a need for a more precise and comprehensive definition of what constitutes "human" and "AI" to avoid ambiguity and ensure clear boundaries in various contexts.
Self-Disclosure of AI Use in Authorship: Authors should consider implementing a sub-heading system to indicate the extent of AI usage in their works. This approach helps readers understand the role of AI in generating content and promotes transparency.
Certification and Collaboration in Creative Writing: Exploring the possibility of certifying authors based on the extent of AI involvement in their work could be a valuable addition to the creative process. Authors may benefit from disclosing the percentage of AI contribution, leading to potential new categories of co-authored or AI-assisted works. The challenge of copyright in the age of AI-generated content should also be addressed systematically.
I have a vague feeling that the definition of “human” and “AI” generated is too loose, and the suggested boundaries are incompletely defined. The casual use of AI, spell check, grammar, and the like could be identified as a sub-heading indicating the amount of AI used as part of the authorship self-disclosure. I used italics when quoting my mother’s memoirs in the opening chapters of my autobiography and indicated the device in the opening pages, for example. The self-disclosure aspect is a discipline that works for some with a value system that will survive the tempting word, phrase, or explanation used without revealing the same. As an example, I am a Certified International Foodservice Executive, card-carrying, sworn to uphold the highest standards of conduct in the execution of any work, consultation, or active participation in any activity in food service worldwide. It took me eight years to be certified. Losing it means I would be ostracized by the industry when someone checks. If creative writing is partially AI, some may be receptive to a percentage that qualifies for AI as an addition to the creative process, e.g., 25% AI. This part is represented by spelling, grammar, Chat GPT, etc. The forgoing is then “considered” whole to the author, and a higher percentage means it is a collaboration with AI (Co-author ? ) or not. Can a person be certified as an original author? Given the world’s population, can anyone create a thought memorialized in a script? Like music being copywritten, the recent challenge seems clumsy and overly fastidious. Yet, it exists. I recently gave my Addiction lectures to someone to use as a launching point at a conference; my first question was, are they copyrighted? They were not. My autobiography is, by the simple act of publishing (?). Subscribing to an ethic in writing and collecting and managing such a compilation seems monstrous, yet it is done in some activities.