Overview
You will write a short reflection paper. The paper should be based upon i) the related assigned readings and class lecture/discussion on the topic preceding the debate; ii) relevant ethical considerations; and iii) the content of the in-class debate. The intention for this reflection is for you to integrate across these various materials and for you to critically think about the policy issues involved.
Your reflection should include a discussion of your own position on the policy and must make specific references (by name) to the debaters and their in-class arguments. You should primarily reflect on what your initial position was and whether the debate reinforced your position, flipped it, or modified what arguments/evidence you use to support it.
Formatting Guidelines, Submission, & Due Dates
Each reflection should be no more than three pages, double-spaced. Its margins should be 1 inch on all sides, and the font should be 10-12 points. There is no need to conduct any outside research, but if you are referencing material from additional reading you have done, then please cite it via footnote.
DEBATE RESOURCES:
RESOLVED: Content-creating firms, such as Disney, should lobby governments to adopt an opt-in standard for the use of their intellectual property in the training of AI models.The affirmative team will need to argue in favor of this proposition, with the negative team arguing against it. All students should complete the essential background reading below, as well as at least one reading from the affirmative side and one reading from the negative side. The participants in the debate should complete all of the below readings, as well as their own further research on the topic.
Essential Background Reading: “Artificial Intelligence Impacts on Copyright Law.” RAND Corporation: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3243-1.html
Additional Background from The Economist; you will need to login to UT’s library using your eid to access this link: https://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/imitation-game/docview/3040808846/se-2?accountid=7118
Readings on the Affirmative Side
- From Harvard Business Review; limited free views available here (so be sure to save/print): https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem
- From Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2024/05/30/ais-data-debacle-when-training-becomes-stealing/
- From Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained (an AI exec turned skeptic): https://ed.newtonrex.com/optouts
- Readings on the Negative Side
- From the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/ai-data-restrictions.html
- From the Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2024/10/04/ai-training-data-dilemma-legal-experts-argue-for-fair-use/
- From Nature (an older article on copyright and data mining that equally applies to AI): https://www.nature.com/articles/490029a
USE THE PDF I HAVE ATTACHED WITH MY NOTES FROM THE DEBATE. Use these notes and take whatever original and final stance that you want. Let me know if you have any questions. NO USE OF AI TO WRITE.
ATTACHMENTS