Project Vision 21

Artificial generative intelligence (AGI) has advanced so rapidly over the past few months that it appears that in the near future humans will need to be certified as humans if they want to claim copyright for their creations, which they will also need to demonstrate that those creations. They are original and without contributions from IAG.

In other words, the IAG has made current copyright laws obsolete in a short time and, at the same time and for that reason, has forced experts not only to rethink those laws but also to rethink what human creativity consists of and, as a consequence, how humans are defined to certify that they are (we are) human.

Although the so-called Generative Era began about 10 years ago, according to Shelly Palmer (a renowned expert on the subject), it has only now reached the point where it is not only necessary to rewrite copyright laws, but also to distinguish between different levels of creativity, depending on the level of IAG involvement in the creative process.

That means, for example, that only a work created entirely by a human and without intervention by the IAG would be eligible to receive copyright, as long as the human is fully human, that is, lacks cybernetic elements in its body (such as augmented vision) that could have helped him create his work.

Numerous questions then arise. For example, how will one verify that a creation is fully human? Does there have to be a witness present at every step of the creative process? Does that witness have to be human or could it be artificial intelligence?

Furthermore, if an entirely human creation qualifies for its own copyright protection, then will a creation made entirely by the IAG qualify for those same rights? And what will happen to mixed creations? Will they lack rights?

There are still many more questions. For example, for a product to be presented as “Made in the United States” (or any other country), that product must have a certain percentage of elements from that country or be assembled in the country. But it does not need to be 100 percent created in the country. Will the same happen with mixed creations? Will there be established percentages?

Will there be different rights depending on whether the products are “fully human”, or “fully synthetic” or “derivative”? And how will humans prove that they are truly and fully human? Birth certificate? Medical exams? Perhaps a supervised creativity test?

Furthermore, if we accept that the IAG's creations are truly creations, do we then stop seeing the IAG and artificial intelligence in general as mere tools at our disposal and instead see them as our equals (or rivals) in creativity? And another thing: what can humans create now without the participation of some kind of technology?

Perhaps the focus should not be on adapting laws from the past to the present, but on creating a new future in which, regardless of technology, human creative capacity is cherished and celebrated.