REVIEW 1 cited by
Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Since the emergence of generative AI, creative workers have spoken up about the career-based harms they have experienced arising from this new technology. A common theme in these accounts of harm is that generative AI models are trained on workers' creative output without their consent and without giving credit or compensation to the original creators. This paper reports findings from 20 interviews with creative workers in three domains: visual art and design, writing, and programming. We investigate the gaps between current AI governance strategies, what creative workers want out of generative AI governance, and the nuanced role of creative workers' consent, compensation and credit for training AI models on their work. Finally, we make recommendations for how generative AI can be governed and how operators of generative AI systems might more ethically train models on creative output in the future.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Signals of Provenance: Practices & Challenges of Navigating Indicators in AI-Generated Media for Sighted and Blind Individuals
Both sighted and blind/low-vision users frequently overlook platform AI labels and rely on titles, comments, and other content cues, with blind users further hindered by inaccessible label design.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.