The discussion sparked by Olga Tokarczuk's statement about the use of artificial intelligence when writing books has just flared up. The writer admitted that these are only consultations - she does not instruct the AI agent to write entire batches of texts - and that she addresses the model she chooses affectionately “darling”. Faced with such information coming from the mouth of the Polish Nobel laureate, the Internet turned upside down. Not surprisingly, after all, the use of artificial intelligence in art provokes extremely stormy conversations, which usually end with rather unflattering comments from publicists, as well as a series of anxious notions about the substitutability of artists by artificial intelligence.
It is impossible to hide that art actually, like many other professions, faces a difficult future associated with the development of large linguistic models. AI can now generate images, videos, write scripts, and On Polish Spotify last year, the ranking of the most listened music was dominated by AI creators. As many as 17 of the 20 songs on the Viral 50 playlist were the work of artificial intelligence. This ended with a media protest by part of the music community against Spotify's policies and drawing attention to the lack of artistic and financial future of real creators. And although AI-generated music does not bring Spotify direct profits, it is through its “clickability” that it pumps an investment bubble that encourages advertisers to promote themselves precisely on this platform.
The debate around Tokarczuk, although it seems a bit “grown-up” - after all, the writer talked about consulting chat about things like searching for dance music from decades ago - raises a lot of ethical questions that face artists, the law and art recipients alike. Although many reacted to the words of the Nobel laureate with exceptional indignation, such as Jacek Cieślak from “Rzeczpospolita”, suggesting Tokarczuk plagiarism and writing, between the lines: “so that writers respect themselves for what they invent, and not for what they will sell with AI Just pretending to be writers.However, this type of consultation, at least as far as we can believe the writer, is not very different from research done on the Internet during standard work on a book. It does not seem that this type of question from the slot machine is going to become plagiarism or independent writing of a book. And although Tokarczuk's statement from the point of view of PR and marketing has reaped double fruits - a fair ethical storm and controversy that will surely attract crowds of eager readers to see if Tokarczuk's new novel certainly does not show traces of AI and ethical outrage - it from the point of view of writing work, it is rather the use of a newer and more efficient tool than the Google search engine.
Of course, we could refer to other statements by Tokarczuk from the Poznan conference, which emphasized the incredible possibilities of the most expensive large language models and the author's sober observations on the unprofitability of great novels and the publishing market. Although it is a bitter reflection, it is difficult not to agree with its partial veracity.
From the point of view of ethics and intellectual property law - today, as part of the debate on the use of artificial intelligence to use the achievements of humanity in the creation of creative content - the issue of theft and rights due to authors raises more and more doubts. In the Polish law on intellectual property we have clearly written:
“The subject of copyright is any manifestation of creative activity of an individual nature.”
and:
“The development of someone else's work, in particular translation, modification, adaptation, is subject to copyright without prejudice to the right to the original work.”
(Law of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights, Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1))
The EU AI Act, recital 106, states:
'Operators introducing general-purpose AI models to the Union market should ensure compliance with the relevant obligations under this Regulation. To this end, providers of general-purpose AI models should implement a policy of compliance with Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular to identify and comply with reservations to rights expressed by rightholders in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790. '
However, let's go back to the era before the AI revolution and even search engines. The verifiability of quotations, borrowings, “inspirations” or any consultation - contrary to our somewhat idealistic and romantic ideas about the old days and their absolute reliability - left much to be desired. After all, there were a lot of stories about independent creativity that were never checked or verified until years later. Although it is nothing to brag about, today thanks to the development of law, as well as much easier access to sources, verification allows more effective protection of creators. However, it is also worth remembering that not every search, not every conversation or accidental inspiration was and can be annotated and the author can be mentioned.
Artificial intelligence is actually the mass of what we have created as humans. And like a writer who once used the knowledge of crowds, conversations heard in a cafe, or scraps of a foreign newspaper spread out in a hotel lobby - So today probably not every “thought”, especially in fiction, will be framed within the framework of property. Because, as it turns out, knowledge is, in a sense, just common. In scientific works, it is delimited between what is “known to the general public” and what requires a specific footnote. However, do we know for sure what is known and common in the collective consciousness today? And what does it mean - common? Have we become, as it were, hostages of privacy and property, in the field of which the struggle for “land” is taking place?
For arts professions that, even without AI, face many mundane but fundamental problems, such as lack of employment contracts, mobbing or lack of state funding, AI obviously represents another level of complication. These questions should be answered not only by law, but also by ethics and a kind of social contract between creators and recipients of art. Sources: 1. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19940240083/U/D19940083Lj.pdf
2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj?
Polski (PL)
English (EN)
Español (ES)
العربية (AR)
Українська (UA)