Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay’s lawsuit claims their books were used without their consent. But copyright protection doesn’t apply to ideas – they’ll need to demonstrate the likelihood of economic loss.
From open letters to congressional testimony, some AI leaders have stoked fears that the technology is a direct threat to humanity. The reality is less dramatic but perhaps more insidious.
Artificial intelligence looks like a political campaign manager’s dream because it could tune its persuasion efforts to millions of people individually – but it could be a nightmare for democracy.
I study artificial general intelligence, and I believe the ongoing fearmongering is at least partially attributable to large AI developers’ financial interests.
Figuring out how to regulate AI is a difficult challenge, and that’s even before tackling the problem of the small number of big companies that control the technology.
Generative AI can seem like magic, which makes it both enticing and frightening. Scholars are helping society come to grips with the potential benefits and harms.
In a world of increasingly convincing AI-generated text, photos and videos, it’s more important than ever to be able to distinguish authentic media from fakes and imitations. The challenge is how.
When OpenAI claims to be “developing technologies that empower everyone,” who is included in the term “everyone?” And in what context will this “power” be wielded?
ChatGPT is a sophisticated AI program that generates text from vast databases. But it doesn’t understand the information it produces, which also can’t be verified through scientific means.
While ChatGPT has the potential to enhance marketing effectiveness, it can’t replace human creativity or form meaningful connections with customers like humans can.