This semester, we’ve talked a lot about the dangers of AI, specifically AI-generated photos and videos, used by bad actors to spread disinformation. Could AI be harnessed for good? Could it even be used in your major assignment? Are you aware of any ethical issues with using generative AI? Can any of these issues be mitigated in some way? 

 

I believe that AI can be utilized for positive purposes, as it is influenced by human users rather than acting autonomously. Although we refer to it as ‘intelligence’, it essentially operates as intricately detailed programs designed and controlled by its human programmers and users. Without malicious intent from its creators, AI functions solely within the parameters of the information we provide it access to.

With this understanding, I advocate for the beneficial integration of AI into daily human activities. Many tasks in various workflows involve mundane, repetitive actions that contribute little to the cognitive development of individuals performing them. By employing AI to handle such tasks, we can liberate human creativity and mental capacity to focus on more significant and innovative endeavors. For instance, in collaborative projects, AI could assist in tasks like completing safety checklists, organizing information, or drafting documents, allowing teams to concentrate on aspects requiring human insight, such as creative composition, scripting, and editing.

However, ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI predominantly center on issues of intellectual property (IP) and proper attribution of AI-generated work. These concerns raise questions about honesty, integrity, and truthfulness in claiming credit for AI-facilitated work, prompting discussions on the rightful ownership of AI-generated content.

This already can be mitigated by referencing and crediting the programs that are used for the work; however, in regards to the above paperwork that viewers never actually see, it’s easy to give that amiss, which again calls honesty and honor into the question each individual that uses AI.

On a related note, as technology advances in generating visual content, we are likely to encounter challenges regarding the intellectual property rights of creative works, particularly in the realm of generative videos. This prompts inquiries into the copyright status of such content, including considerations about human likenesses and the attribution of credit for work that may not involve direct human intervention beyond skillful descriptive writing.

 

My final thoughts:

Those who appreciate art, media, and the craft of creating visual content will likely prioritize the creative process of filming and editing over the convenience of using generative AI. For many, the joy lies in the hands-on experience of crafting each element rather than solely in the final product. However, in my opinion, the concern lies in the potential impact of generative videos within the corporate landscape. As capitalism and consumer demand push for faster outputs of creative work, there’s a risk that generative content creation, being more cost-effective than hiring skilled media technicians, may become prevalent. This could potentially devalue the artistry and craftsmanship inherent in traditional methods, leading to a homogenization of visual content and a loss of diversity and creativity in the media industry.