The ever increasing use of generative artificial intelligence raises significant questions about authorship and related issues such as credit and accountability. In this paper, I consider whether works produced by means of users inputting natural language prompts into Generative Adversarial Networks are works of authorship. I argue that they are not. This is not due to concerns about randomness or machine-assistance compromising human labor or intellectual vision, but instead due to the syntactical and compositional limitations of existing AI systems in handling natural language prompts. This, I argue, gives rise to ‘authorship gaps’.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tamer Nawar (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: