Is AI capable of original creativity? A critical discussion of the real impact of AI creativity on IP regulation

Activity: Talk or presentationInvited talk


Human creativity is at the foundation of all current IP regulatory frameworks. To understand the real impact of AI creation on the regulation of IP, we need to consider this important issue: Can machines ever be truly creative in the human sense, and further, what determines original creativity? Can creativity be defined, and if so, is there scope for machines to have the necessary attributes to replicate or initiate the equivalent of human creativity? There have been different views on what constitutes original creativity, but from both a legal and philosophical perspective, it can be argued that mere mimicking or copying would not meet the criteria for originality. Efforts to use deep-learning AI mechanisms to create works of art, music or written expression are currently no more than transformative imitation, requiring at least some human collaboration or input. This paper argues that original creativity requires more than the mere manipulation of existing art, language or music – it requires a response, reflection and observation, and a recognition of artistic expression which relies on social and other external circumstances. It posits that the existential angst over autonomous AI creation replacing human creativity is overstated, and that AI creation should be seen in the context that it is currently being used – as a manipulator of big data to ‘create’ and ‘invent’ under human control.
Period29 Sept 2021
Event titleIntellectual Property After Artificial Intelligence

Event typeWorkshop
LocationCanberra, Australia, Australian Capital TerritoryShow on map
Degree of RecognitionNational