www.thefabricator.com: In the 1980s, television stations across the U.S. picked up a tag line that originated in New York media for public service announcements that TV watchers from that decade will remember: “It’s 10:00 PM. Do you know where your children are?”
Today, parents can track their children through their smartphones and tablets. They have a good handle on where they are most of the time.
Can the same be said for manufacturing companies and their data? Do they know where that is?
8 comments:
As I was reading the article about AI and intellectual property it made me even more cautious about AI than I already was. I think people use AI because it is convenient without really thinking about what information they are putting into it. Someone could upload art, customer information, and/or private company documents without understanding what that information could do in the AI. That makes me uncomfortable. I already have bad feelings about how quickly AI is being brought into not only professional work but also creative, but I have not really thought about the intellectual property side of it before. AI is constantly advertised as a way to make work faster and easier, but saving a few minutes is not worth accidentally giving up something that belongs to you or your company especially when you have worked extremely hard to get it to the way it was.
Reading this article about intellectual property made me curious about the restrictions on intellectual property, along with the use of AI, in theatrical design. Particularly, I am concerned about AI models being fed drafting - while it remains the intellectual property of the designers, I am concerned that AI learns from these documents and attempts to produce its own or aid in the assistance of drafting process. AI learns from what it receives, so it is critical, in my eyes, to keep sensitive materials away from it. The concept of intellectual property is also interesting to me in the landscape of theatre because of how innately collaborative theatre is. I’m not sure if the differentiation and categorization are necessary in the theatre realm. I think in some manners it is, because when something is to go wrong, a specific person/department is usually pointed to take the blame, and on the other hand, when there is a particularly successful element- one that is the combination of multiple designers- how can we best credit the intellectual property of it? I find it an interesting conversation, but not sure if it is a necessary one to have.
AI is not just a scary thing to creative/art industry. One sentence from this article illustrated this concept very well: “AI is error prone and has no ethical awareness.” AI cannot generate something without stealing aspects of a real-life concept. Because of this, any manufacturing company’s patented and secure product details could be stolen. Luckily, products created with AI cannot be copyrighted, but a company could get sued if they partially use AI and that AI gave them copyrighted material. The sad part about this is the “could,” because there is no guarantee that there will be a way to prove that patented information was stolen. While creative industries have already expressed concerns about how this will impact their industry, this article proves that all industries could be caught in a tangled copyright web. Generative AI steals, not creates, and by using it companies are allowing the potential for their work and patented materials to be stolen.
I loved how the article started with an analogy that juxtaposes technology devices with children and parents. Nowadays, the majority of users own their phones and think of them as property that solely belongs to them, where the data and information can only be accessed by themselves. The analogy helped raise awareness that there is always a greater force behind these devices, just like parents have a certain level of control and influence over their children because they are the ones who created and raised them. While AI brings a lot of benefits such as efficiency to everyday work, it is built largely on the basis of coping other people’s work. This convenience is a really important factor to consider in the arts field, as designers and artists increasingly start to use AI for inspiration, it’s hard to draw the line between where inspiration ends and unauthorized taking advantage of intellectual property begins.
The article brought up interesting arguments on how to control and regulate generative AI. These points make me more hopeful for future control because of management in other fields like product development. If in these highly competitive situations there have been checks and balances put in place I hope and believe that similar efforts can be made for AI. I think our largest issue currently is the rapid speed of progression of AI in comparison to other inventions. Initially there were no patents or copyrights for products and text but after years of interaction it has naturally grown. To apply this to AI means we need to try to artificially create limits based of our previous knowledge and know that it will be a shaky and difficult system for a while until the innovations catch up and ground the use of AI.
Going into this article, I was really curious what an article on AI from The Fabricator was going to look like. Most of the articles we read regarding AI are related specifically to creative fields or people, so I was interested to see what take those in the manufacturing world would have on the subject. I found the portion on patent, copyright, and trademark laws regarding AI really interesting. The article specifies that to enact any of these protections, AI must only be used to assist in the making of the product. This rule makes perfect sense, if AI came up with your intellectual property, it's not really your intellectual property then. However, this has lead me to wonder about the enforceability of this rule. Where is the line? and how do those granting patents, copyrights, or trademarks test to see if AI came up with the idea? I don't know enough about the process to speculate, but I would be curious to learn more.
The morality of ai in the creative industry is something that I think about a lot, artists/creatives put their work out there for people to see and enjoy but whenever you put something on the internet for people to see you are at the risk of your work being put into data for an ai model, this is especially insulting since I would say most artists hate ai art, but it’s the work that they create that fuels the ai model. I know many artists that don’t support their work being put into these data sets but I’m 90% sure that doesn’t influence some of these companies at all and they just use their pieces anyway because how would the artist know. I do wonder if some of these ai companies have ever got into any legal trouble for using someone’s work, how would they defend themselves since they wouldn’t own the art that they used and they used it without consent.
In a world of AI and the internet, there is more and more that is beyond our control. I think the internet is a massive ball of information and people that it is impossible to track where your data goes and who might have access to it, either allowed or unallowed. It also doesn’t help that legislation and cybersecurity is moving a lot slower than the speed of people wanting your information. We can’t just rely on good safety measures and trust in the places we give our information to. Having some basic knowledge of it all can really help what you are doing online and how you can protect yourself from data mining and AI scraping in order to train systems. In the future, I will continue to be cautious about where my information is going and how I can protect myself and my property from everyone on the internet.
Post a Comment