Undawntech: The Creative, Ethical, and Legal Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in the Creative Writing Field

There are different types of artificial intelligence. AI, ASI, ANI, AGI- the acronyms continue to be created in order to name the newest innovations in the software industry.  According to Merriam-Webster, artificial intelligence (AI) is: the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial%20intelligence

Another illustration is (Artificial) superintelligence (ASI), and it is defined as:an entity that surpasses humans in overall intelligence or in some particular measure of intelligence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superintelligence

If you would like to read the technical aspects of what artificial narrow intelligence, artificial general intelligence, and artificial superintelligence are, then read this article by IBM: What is artificial superintelligence?

https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-superintelligence

For the creative mind, artificial intelligence, or AI, has its pros and cons. Drawbacks: some writing agents, publishers, and even story contests have distanced themselves from the AI revolution. These entities will not accept anything AI assisted or produced, so be sure to read the fine print before submitting your creative works. Advantages: AI can help elevate works for better understanding, assist writers with word and grammar choices, and reformat content for a wider appeal.

On the Authors Guild’s site, it has an article called, AI Best Practices for Authors, the uses, misuses, and abuses of AI are discussed. The site also frames the need for disclosure. As a matter of ethics, if a writer uses AI in their writing process, it is best to disclose this fact to their readers, editors, and publishers.

https://authorsguild.org/resource/ai-best-practices-for-authors

There are other angles to the use of artificial intelligence: the contracts writer’s sign. Are you comfortable that a corporation uses your copyrighted work to train their AI systems? Would you find that using your copyrighted content without compensation is beyond the legal jurisdiction for corporations?

What may be the most important part of the writing process is the contractual nature of AI. In the section, Preventing Your Publisher from Using Your Work in AI or using AI to Produce Aspects of Your Book, the writer gives contractual clause examples for authors to use.

“We have drafted a model clause that authors and agents can use in their negotiations that prohibit the use of an author’s work for training AI technologies without the author’s express permission. Many publishers are agreeing to this restriction, and we hope this will become the industry standard.

Keep in mind, however, that this clause is only intended to apply to the use of an author’s work to train AI, not to prohibit publishers from using AI to perform common tasks such as proofing, editing, or generating marketing copy. As expected, publishers are starting to explore using AI as a tool in the usual course of their operations, including editorial and marketing uses, so they may not agree to contractual language disclaiming AI use generally. Those types of internal, operational uses are very different from using the work to train AI that can create similar works or to license the work to an AI company to develop new AI models. The internal, operational uses of AI don’t raise the same concerns of authors’ works being used to create technologies capable of generating competing works.

We have recommended clauses in which publishers agree not to use AI to translate, produce cover art, or narrate an audiobook without the author’s permission. While we have heard that some publishers are rejecting an outright prohibiting of AI use to create translations, cover art, and audiobooks, publishers are sometimes granting authors a right of approval over the translator, design, and narrator of their book, which effectively gives authors control over rejecting AI translation and narration.”

Here is the model clause link: https://authorsguild.org/news/model-clause-prohibiting-ai-training.

The recommended clauses link: https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-introduces-new-publishing-agreement-clauses-concerning-ai.

How you use either or neither is up to the individual author. Artificial intelligence has skewed the creative writing field’s understanding of fair use, fair play, and fair market value forever. To protect copyrights from the AI revolution, the creative field will need to participate in the legislative process and pass laws. Additions to the already corporate copyright definitions will be difficult, especially in asserting individual and independent rights that counter mutlinationals’ demands for dominance. If creators of copyrighted content became a force within the industry, then changes to the current copyright laws could evolve to protect the weekend warrior writer to the mega publishing houses alike.

As writers, editors, and publishers embrace or reject the use of AI, professionals need to stay ahead of the curve creatively, ethically, and legally.

Undawntech: Technology That Is Stranger Than Fiction

Imagine a world where an insane aristocracy oversees the human race. Classic dystopian novels tell of such extreme societies and caution readers to avoid falling into the trap. The question is: have we heeded the warnings?

1984, Animal House, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and The Handmaid’s Tale are some of the most popular and recognizable stories in this genre. As modern-day writers, we have seen the world fall from stable nation-states to the dehumanization of culture wars, sneak attacks, propaganda, economic downturns, and invasions. Either the writers from a bygone era were psychic, or everything we are seeing now… was planned. Planned to keep humanity distracted while an elite class work on technology beyond any innocuous application.

Past narratives could not have foreseen the future of augmented reality, artificial intelligence, biochips, mRNA technology, or tracking satellites. By any other name, would dystopic smell as sour?

Let’s take a journey into next generation technologies, most being hidden in plain sight:

For instance, currently, Iridium Satellites can track wildlife, personnel, data and assets, as well as bridging the internet of things… this technology is real-time situational awareness.

“Iridium’s unique constellation architecture makes it the only network
that covers 100% of the planet. Satellites are cross-linked to provide
reliable, low-latency, weather-resilient connections that enable
communication anywhere in the world.”

www.iridium.com

On a mundane level, medicine has exceeded its normal perimeters. With new technology, comes new issues that medical science has no answers to give. mRNA technology has potential, but its numerous and fatal consequences have been obscured from public scrutiny:

“In this paper, we call attention to three very important aspects of
the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively
documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of
IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have
a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the
reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to
effectively combat future infections. Second is the dysregulation of
the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven
malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for
vaccination to promote those transformations. Third, mRNA vaccination
potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by
exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike glycoprotein mRNA to
produce high levels of spike-glycoprotein-carrying exosomes, with
potentially serious inflammatory consequences. Should any of these
potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around
the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the
short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/

Or is there more to injecting untested, unregulated technologies into our bodies than heart inflammation, other serious adverse reactions, and increased morbidity in the injected? What if, the scare of 2020 was to introduce tracking systems into the human genome?

Internet of dead bodies Bluetooth MAC address corpses

https://www.brighteon.com/41a1e7f3-ca8a-42d3-b201-f31e4a2c3189

In a novel, a scientist might believe the only thing the human brain would need to plug into technology like brain chips, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality would be a third strand of DNA made from silicon, but that is so 1980s and 90s technology:

Science: A triple helix to cripple viruses

“As scientists accumulate more knowledge of the sequence and function
of human genes, the triplex approach should allow scientists to turn genes
on or off at will, says Hogan.”

www.newscientist.com/article/mg13017644-100-science-a-triple-helix-to-cripple-viruses

What has grown from hypothesis and curiosity of the scientific community has transformed from the dystopic and into the realm of horror. Technology being employed to change the human race sounds as if the nightmare of Mary Shelley has been realized. The author of Frankenstein once wrote of surgically combining body parts with an electric jolt from lightning. Today’s scientists have gone beyond ethics and straight into creating artificial life forms.

Engineers Put Tens of Thousands of Artificial Brain Synapses on a Single Chip for Portable AI Devices: 

“MIT engineers have designed a “brain-on-a-chip,” smaller than a piece
of confetti, that is made from tens of thousands of artificial brain
synapses known as memristors — silicon-based components that mimic the
information-transmitting synapses in the human brain.”

https://scitechdaily.com/engineers-put-tens-of-thousands-of-artificial-brain-synapses-on-a-single-chip-for-portable-ai-devices/

As technology advances, external sources to manipulate the human brain are becoming readily available. Pull up a seat. Put on a cap. Play your favorite video game without lifting a finger. Mind and artificial intelligence merge through frequency of brainwaves.

Transfer learning promotes acquisition of individual BCI skills: 

“Noninvasive brain–computer interfaces (BCI) based on
electroencephalography (EEG) have proven efficient in applications
such as neurorehabilitation (1, 2), robotics (3, 4), communication (5,
6), or virtual reality (7, 8). Motor imagery (MI)—mental rehearsal of
a limb movement without execution—is a common EEG–BCI modality.”

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/2/pgae076/7609232?login=false

As writers, we have to ask ourselves: are we already in a dystopian novel, playing characters, who unknowingly, unwittingly are about to face a critical juncture in human evolution?

What does this evolution entail? Will humans and technology as one creature relinquish our independence? Individual sovereignty? Our Constitutional Rights? Will we be considered homo sapien sapien? Or, homo sapien extincti?

Horror has manifested in our world. The horror that dystopia was not an end, but a beginning to the ramblings of madmen. Writers have the obligation to warn humanity that we have ventured past derangement and into the immoral machinations warned in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

As the establishment plays god, what would the dystopian authors caution us about? What would Mary Shelley write as her sequel to Frankenstein with the knowledge present herein? To be, or not to be… human with all our flaws or a controlled serfdom at the whim of a plutocracy? According to science, we are already there. The only choice now is preservation or slavery.

Isn’t that the conditions writers should be asking of their readers? Because no one else is giving humanity the time to think about the ethical obligations, horrific consequences, or generational ruin that these technologies have laid at our feet. It is not difficult to ascertain: the world we live in is stranger than fiction.

“No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.” Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

Has the road of futurist technology been paved with good intentions? Only time will tell what the intention for humanity and these technologies are. For humanity’s sake, we better know evil when we see it.

Undawntech: Emergence of the Engineered Reaction

Like any other right we exercise, technology is no different. Our right to do something is balanced by our innate responsibility. Meaning: just because you can do something, should you do it? What are the ramifications? What is the legal perspective?

In recent weeks, technology has been used in an unscrupulous fashion. From images to videos, prominent figures in society are being defamed for clickbait. Clickbait is emotional advertisements that invoke a strong reaction like anger, hate, surprise, shock, and even curiosity. If you feel impassioned by a headline and its imagery, then it is best to steer clear of that link. This manipulation is milking the public for money without adding anything positive to culture.

Let’s say that you are an actor or musician in the public eye. Your identity is your source of notoriety and income. The public buys your products because they enjoy your style, image, and music or movies. The actor or musician also has contracts with production companies, record labels, agents, and others in their industry that bank on that specific style, image, and product. Many contracts have legal clauses, which prohibit any deviation from the artist’s public persona, as well as morality terms. A public figure has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

If someone creates an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) image of an inappropriate nature, then the creator of said image has defamed you. Imagine that you are a young, female popstar with an innocent, wholesome image, but someone creates an A.I. representation of you as a blood-soaked, slut, then the generator of said image has defamed you as an artist. The same goes with male actors, who are purported to say or do something on video that is not them.  

The term “defamation” means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or condemnation of any person.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4101

The First Amendment protects speech and freedom of expression, but not defamation, be it libel or slander. A public figure owns their appearance and likeness, public image, and other copyright and trademark rights. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

If you would like to state unfavorable political, religious, social, or other views, then your right to say or write them is protected speech. Hate speech, which this fascistic phrase is not a legal term, is covered by the Bill of Rights. The right to speak, even to be silent (Miranda Rights), are both covered by the First Amendment. Comedy, as well as parody (Spaceballs) and criticism of another’s works (Book & Movie Reviews), are preserved as a right.

Nevertheless, the First Amendment does not cover every facet of speech or expression. For instance, freedom of speech does not grant someone the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the health and safety of other people (fighting words). Pornographic materials created with minors is unprotected speech and expression (child pornography). Reckless disregard for facts and truth about a public figure is considered defamation (malice). Other actions unshielded by the First Amendment include: obscenity, perjury, blackmail, incitement (to be lawless), solicitation (to commit a crime), fraud, and plagiarism.

www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression

In the age of technology, users must understand and navigate the legal framework of their rights, including speech and expression. What does the creative community do in an ever-changing landscape of expressive and innovative technology? First, read the law. Next, research case law. Both of these legal avenues will help creators create with peace of mind.

Copyright in the United States as a general rule is the death of the artist, actor, musician, et al., plus seventy years. If you would like to delve into the entirety of the law, visit the U.S. Copyright Office: www.copyright.gov/title17.

Besides laws to govern new technology, the best way to balance rights and responsibilities is to ask yourself: would I like someone doing that to me, my works, or my copyright/trademark? If the answer is no, then you have found the legal threshold.

Undawntech: Innovative Creativity

Since technology is ubiquitous in our modern lives, sometimes it is nice to peel back the layers and see how devices serve us, to identify when we are serving them and break that negative feedback loop. Technology in its proper place enhances our life experience. That brings us to the scope of this column. Our discourse will range from computers, writing and image software, artificial intelligence, video creation, social media, and other applications, as well as our handy peripherals.

Creators are barraged with advertisements and gadgets to make their lives as writers easier, but do they really make our lives better? When faced with the new versus the old, which one wins out in the end? And are expensive items just a gimmick when a tried and true device will do? Or, is this situation another case of buying a different waffle maker each holiday season to the point where the cupboards are filled with old versions of the same gadget, but they no longer serve a real purpose? Let’s clean out the storage, make a list, and remove what no longer serves our ability to do what we love. Then we will have what we need to create from our imaginations, instead of worrying about the next waffle maker.

For instance, spellcheck and grammar programs, I have two different ones on my computer to see which one serves my needs. One tells me that I require a comma for a clause. The other one tells me to remove the comma from the sentence. Which one is correct? Could both programs be right? Wrong? In the age of technology, sometimes the simplest answer is to read the language rule to decide, if the comma is necessary or not. There is nothing like computer program arguments to wish for a time without them.

Technology can be foreboding, yet indispensable in the creative arts. In the coming months, we will work together to build a knowledge base that helps unleash the creator in us all while working with technology and allowing it to serve our greatest and highest good.

I look forward to Writing to be Read readers joining me on this new adventure.

Originally published on Writing to be Read, January 5, 2024.