Authorship in the era of generative artificial intelligence: a look at contemporary fictional production in Brazil
The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence systems, notably ChatGPT, raises tensions regarding cultural practices developed in a context where devices take on human tasks. Faced with the possibility of a tool creating fictional texts, our objective is to problematize the attribution of auth...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Estado: | Versão publicada |
| Data de publicação: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
| Repositório: | Texto digital |
| Idioma: | português |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/96937 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/textodigital/article/view/96937 |
| Access Level: | Acceso aberto |
| Palavra-chave: | Authorship Literature Law ChatGPT Direito Autoria Literatura |
| Resumo: | The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence systems, notably ChatGPT, raises tensions regarding cultural practices developed in a context where devices take on human tasks. Faced with the possibility of a tool creating fictional texts, our objective is to problematize the attribution of authorship to narrative texts produced by IAGs. The research has an exploratory and descriptive character, employing techniques of bibliographic and documentary research, as we conceptualize authorship from the perspective of literary studies and compare it with copyright legislation in Brazil. The results indicate that there are no provisions within the Brazilian legislative framework that address this issue. The Bill No. 2,338/2023, which concerns the use of IAG systems, given its nature, also does not delve into this specific case. Despite the literary quality of the textual productions by IAGs and the reader's sovereignty in assigning value to a work, we emphasize that these technologies introduce new challenges in defining authorship. This new context is complex and lacks focused attention on the relationship between such systems and cultural production. On one hand, it is necessary to consider the authorship of literary texts, whether canonical or not, used for machine training; on the other, it is not possible to attribute full authorship to individuals who produce and publish fictional texts through such tools. We conclude that narratives generated by IAGs may be considered of hybrid authorship, and this condition should be communicated to readers and other stakeholders in the literary scene. |
|---|