Case Study (Su2023)-3

.docx

School

Northeastern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2301

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ngocminhphan02

Case Study 1 Stop! Before you start, read the critical information in the Case Study Supplement and watch the tutorial video. Read the following case (generated with assistance from ChatGPT) : Art generating programs have revolutionized the creative landscape, providing unique opportunities for artistic expression and exploration. However, as these programs, such as Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Dall-E, gain prominence, ethical concerns surrounding their use and data scraping practices have emerged. Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Dall-E are cutting-edge art generating programs that employ artificial intelligence to create original artwork. These programs are trained on vast amounts of data, including images sourced from the internet, allowing them to learn and generate new artistic compositions. Imagine a hypothetical situation where a group of artists discovers that their artwork has been included in the training datasets of Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Dall-E without their knowledge or consent. This discovery sparks a broader discussion about the ethics of data scraping and raises questions about the rights of artists and the responsibilities of AI developers. Many artists, who have invested time, effort, and money into their work, have concerns about the appropriation of their art for commercial purposes. Those who make money off of their artwork also worry about their future earnings and livelihood. More generally, artists are also concerned that the inclusion of their artwork without their consent is a misuse of their intellectual property. For the most part, developers deny that they have misused the artists’ work. Some give an analogy to a human learning how to make art. A human will use other artists’ work to learn how to produce art of their own, mostly without the consent of those artists. Since that practice is not wrong, say these developers, then they have done nothing wrong by training their programs this way. Next, complete the following tasks. The tasks will be evaluated holistically, using the specifications listed at the bottom of this assignment. Task 1: Articulate, in a single clear and precise sentence, whether or not you think the developers should have used the artwork of these artists without their consent (via mass data scraping or otherwise) to train their programs. - I don’t think developers should have used the artwork of these artists without their consent (via mass data scraping or otherwise) to train their programs. - Task 2: Reconstruct, in valid deductive form, your argument for your answer. Use two premises and two premises only. Remember, the focus here is on form , not summarizing content. - Premise 1: Using someone's artwork without their consent for training AI programs is an act of unauthorized data appropriation and potential misuse of intellectual property.

Case Study 1 - Premise 2: Respecting artists' rights and obtaining proper consent for using their artwork is ethically and legally responsible. - Premise 1: If the practice of using others' artwork without consent as a learning tool is ethically justifiable, then the inclusion of artists' work in AI training datasets is also ethically justifiable. - Premise 2: The practice of using others' artwork without consent as a learning tool is ethically justifiable. Task 3: Support your first premise. That is, provide reasons to believe the premise which would make your premise more plausible to an undecided, yet reasonable, third party. Artists invest significant time, effort, and money into creating their artwork. By using their artwork without consent, developers are essentially benefiting from the fruits of the artists' labor without providing fair compensation or recognition. If we consider the principle of fairness and respect for creators' efforts, it becomes plausible that consent should be sought before using their work. The first premise could be supported with multiple reasons to be more plausible to an undecided, yet reasonable, third party. First reason is analogous learning practices which in various creative disciplines, learning from and building upon the work of others is a common and accepted practice. For instance, novice artists often study and replicate the techniques of established artists to develop their skills. This demonstrates a precedent for utilizing existing artistic creations as educational resources without direct consent. Consistency in ethical standards would also be a reason to support this premise because if society accepts the principle that learning and deriving inspiration from others' work is a legitimate way to foster artistic growth, then it should apply consistently to both human artists and AI systems. Failing to extend this principle to AI-generated art might suggest a double standard, where AI's creative development is restricted while human artists enjoy more leniency. The reason of contributory benefit also plays an essential role into supporting this premise. The utilization of artists' work in AI training datasets potentially contributes to the advancement of art and creativity on a broader scale. AI-generated art could lead to new forms of artistic expression, benefitting both creators and consumers of art. If this benefit is acknowledged, it may further support the ethical justifiability of including artists' work in AI training. These reasons establish a connection between established artistic learning practices and the inclusion of artists' work in AI training datasets. Tasks 4: Support your second premise. That is, provide reasons to believe the premise which would make your premise more plausible to an undecided, yet reasonable, third party. Intellectual property rights are essential for artists to protect their creations and livelihood. By using artists' artwork without their consent, developers may be inadvertently devaluing the artists' work and potentially affecting their future earnings. Respecting and protecting the rights of artists in the digital age is crucial to foster creativity and encourage artists to continue producing valuable works.

Case Study 1 The second premise could be supported with multiple reasons to be more plausible to an undecided, yet reasonable, third party. First reason is cultural and artistic evolution which throughout history, artistic development has been driven by artists learning from their predecessors. This iterative process of building upon existing works has led to the evolution of various artistic movements and styles. This progression suggests an underlying acceptance of using existing artwork as a foundation for learning and growth. Free exchange of ideas also would support this premise. The creative realm benefits from the free exchange of ideas and techniques. When artists use existing artworks for inspiration and education, it enriches the artistic landscape by introducing new perspectives and innovations. This exchange aligns with the principle of encouraging creativity through exposure to diverse influences. These reasons demonstrate that using others' artwork as a learning tool contributes to the vitality and evolution of the artistic domain, aligning with the broader principles of creative exploration and development. Task 5: Articulate what you take to be the strongest reason for an undecided, yet reasonable, third party to doubt one of your premises. An undecided, yet reasonable, third party might argue that the analogy made by developers to human learning from other artists' work without consent is valid and that AI programs are simply learning in a similar fashion. They could claim that the AI does not fully comprehend or have malicious intent, and therefore, it might not be as ethically problematic as unauthorized human data appropriation. The concern over the potential exploitation of artists' work without proper acknowledgment or compensation could be the strongest reason for an undecided but reasonable third party to doubt the second premise. This doubt could arise from the perspective that while learning from others' work is important for artistic growth, doing so without consent might infringe upon the original artists' rights and contributions. The third party might argue that artists invest their time, effort, and creativity into their work, and using their creations without permission might undermine their agency over their own art. It further on could lead to a belief that the ethical justifiability of using others' artwork as a learning tool hinges on proper attribution, acknowledgment, and a fair consideration of the original artists' perspectives. The third party might question whether the practice becomes unjust when the boundary between learning and appropriating for commercial purposes becomes blurred. Task 6: Articulate why you do not take that doubt to fully undermine that premise’s plausibility. While the analogy between human learning and AI training holds some weight, it does not fully undermine the first premise's plausibility. AI programs, although tools created by developers, can have significant societal impacts. Artists have legitimate concerns about their artwork being used without consent for commercial purposes, which potentially infringes upon their intellectual property rights. Respecting artists' rights and seeking consent are essential steps to ensure a fair and ethical approach to using their artwork in AI training. Additionally, just because a practice might have been common in the past does not necessarily justify its

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help