• Website maintained with the support of the Ian R. Kerr Memorial Fund at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society at the University of Ottawa
  • Blog
    • Biography
    • Press Kit
    • Contact
    • Approach
    • Contracts
    • Laws of Robotics
    • Building Better Humans
    • Books
    • Book Chapters
    • Journal Articles
    • Editorials
  • Research Team
  • Stuff
Menu

Ian R. Kerr [Archive]

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
ARCHIVED WEBSITE

Your Custom Text Here

Ian R. Kerr [Archive]

  • Website maintained with the support of the Ian R. Kerr Memorial Fund at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society at the University of Ottawa
  • Blog
  • About
    • Biography
    • Press Kit
    • Contact
  • Teaching
    • Approach
    • Contracts
    • Laws of Robotics
    • Building Better Humans
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Book Chapters
    • Journal Articles
    • Editorials
  • Research Team
  • Stuff

The Death of the AI Author

June 14, 2019 CLTS
AI author_sm.jpg

For years, I have been hoping to collaborate with my dear friend Carys Craig, a copyright expert and rockstar Prof at Osgoode Hall professor whose work I have admired for years. In this early draft, we confront the issue of AI authorship. In a world where robots are writing movie scripts and composing music, much of the second-generation literature on AI and authorship asks whether an increasing sophistication and independence of generative code should cause us to rethink embedded assumptions about the meaning of authorship, arguing that recognizing the authored nature of AI-generated works may require a less profound doctrinal leap than has historically been suggested.

In this essay, we argue that the threshold for authorship does not depend on the evolution or state of the art in AI or robotics. Instead, we contend that the very notion of AI-authorship rests on a category mistake: it is not an error about the current or potential capacities, capabilities, intelligence or sophistication of machines; rather it is an error about the ontology of authorship.

Building on the established critique of the romantic author figure, we argue that the death of the romantic author also and equally entails the death of the AI author. We provide a theoretical account of authorship that demonstrates why claims of AI authorship do not make sense in terms of 'the realities of the world in which the problem exists.' (Samuelson, 1985) Those realities, we argue, must push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations of originality, assessed in terms of what an author must do. Instead, what they demand is an ontological consideration of what an author must be. The ontological question, we suggest, requires an account of authorship that is relational; it necessitates a vision of authorship as a dialogic and communicative act that is inherently social, with the cultivation of selfhood and social relations as the entire point of the practice. Of course, this ontological inquiry into the plausibility of AI-authorship transcends copyright law and its particular doctrinal conundrums, going to the normative core of how law should — and should not — think about robots and AI, and their role in human relations.

Download the full article.

Schrödinger’s Robot: Privacy in Uncertain States →

Special thanks and much gratitude are owed to one of my favorite artists, Eric Joyner, for his permission to display a number of inspirational and thought–provoking works in the banner & background.

You can contact the Centre for Law, Technology and Society | Creative Commons Licence