Got me thinking…

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5078574

Authorship.ai

When a "chatbot" produces text, who is the author? This question has vexed scholarly publication since the commercial release of ChatGPT. Copyright scholars, however, have been conducting a robust discussion of authorship issues raised by artificial intelligence for decades. With regard to the 2023-2024 wave of new generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, etc. there is an obviously correct answer. Generative AI outputs are authored by the prompter. So why does no one believe us?

AI as defendant?

https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/items/abb2f249-3f50-4719-8286-484a6e19d501

Blame the Bot: an Assesment of Liability for Artificial Intelligence Defamation in New Zealand

Artificial intelligence (AI) defamation claims are appearing across common law jurisdictions, namely in the USA, Australia and Ireland. In the wake of these claims, it is worth assessing how a court would respond if a similar case arose in New Zealand. This paper evaluates the liability of an AI chatbot for defamation under New Zealand's law. Key issues are whether AI chatbots are publishers, whether any defences apply and whether harm is “more than minor.” On analysis, it is likely a plaintiff will succeed in proving defamation so long as they surpass the harm threshold. However, it is likely that in many instances, harm will be less than minor due to a lack of widespread publication. Following an assessment of liability, this paper then considers whether New Zealand should take any alternative action to respond to defamation harms caused by chatbots. An assessment of responses in the UK and the EU finds that Europe has not turned their mind to defamation harms. Alternative preventative methods to harm, such as stronger disclaimers or changes to the code provide options to manage harm but fail to balance to rights of AI firms. As New Zealand favours the innovation and use of AI, this paper concludes the best response to defamation harms is to use the courts as a mechanism for redress, as opposed to any regulatory or legislative amendment. The "more than minor" harm threshold bars trivial claims while allowing redress for the most serious cases.

Perspective.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5213562

Technology and Me and You: Getting Comfortable with AI

This short essay reflects on the author’s surprising dive into artificial intelligence (AI) despite his longstanding caution about adopting new technology. As a self-described tech-wary curmudgeon who avoids unnecessary upgrades and stays off social media, the author explores how AI – specifically, a custom-built RPS (Real Practice Systems) Negotiation and Mediation Coach – nonetheless has proved to be unexpectedly valuable.

Drawing from personal experience, the essay suggests how people can become comfortable using AI, suggesting how they can overcome hesitation and use AI productively. Rather than treating AI as a black box or magic solution, it emphasizes the importance of human control, iterative prompting, and critical judgment in generating useful results.

The insights in this essay are widely applicable to academics, practitioners, students, and others integrating AI in their work.

Tools & Techniques.

https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/35171

AI Toolkit: Libraries and Essays for Exploring the Technology and Ethics Behind AI

In this paper we describe the development and evaluation of AITK, the Artificial Intelligence Toolkit. This open-source project contains both Python libraries and computational essays (Jupyter notebooks) that together are designed to allow a diverse audience with little or no background in AI to interact with a variety AI tools, exploring in more depth how they function, visualizing their outcomes, and gaining a better understanding of their ethical implications. These notebooks have been piloted at multiple institutions in a variety of humanities courses centered on the theme of responsible AI. In addition, we conducted usability testing of AITK. Our pilot studies and usability testing results indicate that AITK is easy to navigate and effective at helping diverse users gain a better understanding of AI and its ethical implications. Our goal, in this time of rapid innovations in AI, is for AITK to provide an accessible resource for faculty from any discipline looking to incorporate AI topics into their courses and for anyone eager to learn more about AI on their own.