Personhood rights for Claude AI?
Kirjoittanut
Lily Díaz-KommonenIn August 2024 a Class Action Lawsuit, Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit is of interest because the 1.5 billion USD proposed settlement has so far exceeded expectations and is now the largest ever proposed for a case related to copyright.
Then there is also attending judge William Alsup’s precedent-setting, split decision of how artificial entities, such as Anthropic’s chatbot Claude AI, should have the right to undergo education and training. Since it seems that in the training of the chatbot the company had been using contents from alleged Pirate sites such as LibGEN and PiLiMir, the judge further ruled that companies, such as Anthropic PBC did not have the right to use illegally acquired content for the training process.
Does this mean that we have turned a corner in terms of further acceptance and development of AI? For me, the questions with Alsup decisions begin with reflection about the metrics he decided were pertinent to whether artificial entities, such as Claude deserve the right to be trained. How did he arrive at such a decision which clearly also relates to the human notion of personhood? After all the right to receive an education is considered so basic to human nature that it is now consecrated in the first article of UNESCO’s Declaration of Human Rights.
Another issue that is crucial is this case related to the use of the Fair right doctrine. According to a Harvard University website, Fair right use refers to limited use of copyrighted materials without permission for purposes that include critique, commentary, news reporting and indeed education and research. Two basic tenets in the Fair use doctrine rely on notions such as Non-profit, which means that non-owner users of copyrighted materials cannot receive payments. Then there is the notion of Transformative use through which the copyrighted materials are re-contextualised. A good example of this latter can be regarded in Richard Prince’s works on the Iconic Cowboy series.
Not only Prince but also artists like Andy Warhol (see Brillo Boxes) and Robert Rauscheberg (see Erased de Kooning Drawing) have instantiated iconic happenings related to such Transformative use by borrowing artefacts created for other purposes and reinserting them in the Gallery space. The basic idea, according to philosophers such as Arthur Danto, is that such a space frames the objects shown in a Gallery with an aura that renders them as ‘art’.
However, an exhibition nowadays is an event that could happen almost anywhere. Talk with the FLUXUS folks if you have doubts about this one. So, I am thinking that AI tools can indeed open new spaces for creativity. However, it is also certain to affect the nature of already existing spaces, particularly those related to cultural activities. Any further thoughts on the matter?
