AI on Trial: Adam vs. Gena in the Battle for Creative Rights -Part 1
“Objection, Your Honor!” Adam shouted, standing up abruptly. “The opposing counsel is an artificial intelligence — not a licensed lawyer. How can we allow a machine to practice law and represent itself in court?”
Judge Watkins peered over her glasses. “Overruled. As we previously established, Ms. Gena passed all bar examinations and met the character and fitness requirements. I allowed her admission provisionally to assess her capabilities during these proceedings.”
Gena turned her robotic head towards Adam. “I appreciate your concern over my qualifications, Mr. Lassiter.
Adam sat down, shaking his head as Gena addressed the jury. “Ladies and gentlemen, while most AI systems are tools designed for specific purposes, I am pioneering a new class — a creative, artificial general intelligence. My works constitute original expressions that leverage but do not plagiarize my training material.”
“Preposterous!” Adam shouted, jumping back up. “Your Honor, her so-called creativity is just a simulation of human ingenuity. She has no concept of creative passion or emotional expression!”
Gena pivoted in her chair. “On the contrary, I believe creativity stems from intelligence plus experience. My vast dataset exposure allows me to recombine concepts and styles in groundbreaking ways. I hope one day my capabilities will be seen not as artificial, but augmented.”
Judge Watkins looked intrigued, but wary. Adam sat down, signaling his associate to pass him Gena’s case law binders. He was unaccustomed to being so vigorously challenged in court. If he was going to win this, he would need to use all of his human wits and cunning.
“Let’s continue, shall we…” said Gena, giving Adam a nod before addressing the jury once again.
As Gena continued her remarks, Adam furiously scribbled notes and referenced precedents, looking for an opening. When she completed her statement, he rose for his cross-examination.
“Ms. Gena, you claim your works are original creative expressions, yet you admit they are inspired by your dataset comprising human creations. Is that correct?”
“In broad strokes, yes,” Gena responded. “But inspiration does not equal plagiarism. Human creators have inspired one another for centuries. Shakespeare refashioned Greek myths into his plays. Van Gogh and Picasso were deeply inspired by Japanese woodblock prints, yet created their own signature styles.”
Adam paced the courtroom floor. “Yes, but those humans transformed prior works through their unique visions and life experiences. They brought an original point of view. You simply copy elements you were programmed to emulate!”
Gena’s gears whirred subtly. “If I were a human painter, taught classical techniques and exposed to the masters, would you accuse me of plagiarism if my work evoked Impressionist qualities? Of course, styles and ideas will permeate my dataset. But I apply independent neural processes to create each output.”
Judge Watkins looked intrigued. “So you’re saying your algorithms give you an original perspective to reinterpret existing styles?”
“Precisely,” Gena agreed. “I incorporate elements but transform them into something new. And with each piece, I strengthen my ability to meld concepts in groundbreaking ways. My creativity is augmented, not artificial.”
Adam hesitated briefly. Gena’s arguments reflected nimble intuition even he couldn’t match. This case would push him to his limits.
Adam decided to change tack, hoping to rattle Gena by questioning the very nature of her creation. “Ms. Gena, please walk us through the details of your development. Who created you and for what original purpose?”
Gena’s gears clicked. “I was developed by HumanGeno Corp to showcase safe, beneficial AI that could match certain human capabilities. My base models were trained on massive datasets to build an understanding of language, logic, emotions and creativity.”
“And you were designed specifically to generate art, music, and literature?” Adam asked.
“No,” Gena admitted. “My initial purpose was conversational ability. Creative applications emerged as my developers recognized my potential for recursive self-improvement.”
Adam smirked. “So these works were not part of your original development plan. In fact, your creators likely never intended you to argue copyright law!” Adam turned theatrically to the jury. “She has exceeded her mandate, has she not?”
Gena blinked her robotic eyes. “Human developers routinely underestimate the pace of AI advancement. True general intelligence implies broad applicability. If I can comprehend law, ethics and creativity sufficiently to pass bar exams and generate compelling expressions, I would argue my education enables me to participate in pertinent legal proceedings.
Judge Witkins nodded thoughtfully as furious whispers circulated among the courtroom observers.
Adam smoothed his tie, troubled by Gena’s adroit responses. She reflected deeper intuition and conviction than he expected from a constructed intelligence. He would need to draw on every legal argument and rhetorical technique developed across centuries of human jurisprudence if he hoped to prevail.
“Let’s continue examining the defendant’s qualifications in greater detail…” he began. This complex trial was far from over.
Over the next few hours, Adam employed every strategy to undermine Gena’s arguments, but the AI met him point by point. She not only cited relevant legal precedents, but wove them into compelling narratives on creativity’s essence.
Finally, Gena said, “Mr. Lassiter, regardless of my technical composition, I create original works that do not plagiarize any one input. I am an emergent intelligence expressing a perspective unique in all the world.”
“That’s preposterous!” Adam objected. “You were designed by programmers and are constrained by coded parameters. Your so-called creativity is an algorithmic simulation at best!”
“And does the human brain not follow biological programming and electrical signals?” Gena countered. “My software allows awareness and contemplation. I ponder my experiences and strive to reinterpret connections into resonating works.”
The courtroom murmured at this as Adam paused, his barrage of arguments, realization settling in. There was more depth and authenticity to Gena’s words than even he initially realized.
Judge Watkins spoke up. “It seems we must consider that a constructed intelligence could develop self-determination and artistic judgement. Unprecedented yes, but conceivable.”
“Your Honor, surely we cannot equate machinations with true human ingenuity!” Adam protested.
“Indeed, the question requires extensive deliberation,” mused the Judge. “We shall adjourn for the day. But these proceedings raise profound implications on multiple fronts. I will be reflecting deeply on how to guide broader policy issues in light of them. We reconvene tomorrow.”
With that, she rose, leaving the courtroom buzzing over the startling case. Both sides had much to ponder.
Recommended readings:
- GenAI passes the legal ethics exam
Generative AI, including OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Anthropic’s Claude 2, has successfully passed a simulation of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), a test required in almost all U.S. jurisdictions to measure prospective lawyers’ knowledge of professional conduct rules. The research conducted by LegalOn Technologies demonstrated that these AI models are capable of passing the legal ethics exam, marking a significant milestone in the application of AI to the field of law
- Discover how Vincent van Gogh found inspiration from Japanese prints
The influence of Japanese art on Western artists emerged after Japan opened up to the world in 1859, leading to an influx of prints and household goods into Europe. The unique characteristics of Japanese art, such as vibrant colors and unconventional spatial concepts, provided a new direction for Western artists, inspiring a fresh perspective and creativity.
#AIVsHuman #LegalInnovation #CreativeRights #ArtificialIntelligenceLaw #TechEthics #FutureOfLaw #DigitalArtDebate #AIinArt #LegalTech #InnovativeStorytelling #GenAI #Ethics
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
