LAW, MACHINE, AND CREATIVITY: SOCIO-LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF REGULATING GENERATIVE AI
The growing prominence of Generative AI within society has raised crucial questions about its potential impact on creativity. As advanced training models like diffusion and large language models continue to demonstrate their efficacy, society faces a pivotal moment in assessing whether Generative AI will reshape our understanding of creativity.
The concept of creativity, though relatively new as a formal field of study, has roots dating back to the 19th century (Bethune 1839). While the standard definition of creativity emphasizes originality and utility (Runco and Jaeger, 2012), the creativity literature acknowledges the roles of judgment, self-critique, and randomness.
The notion of creativity occupies a significant place in Western culture. It is said to manifest at the individual level (Cohen 2012), within communities (Craig, 2011), and across various industries (Hartley, 2005). In Western discourse, creativity encompasses the evaluations and reflections that ultimately contribute to an individual's self-actualisation.
In this way, the emergence of algorithms capable of emulating human creativity in generating diverse media outputs prompts critical inquiries into the future of creative expression, which also implicates the idea of self and, by extension, the image of social relations. This session aims to explore several pressing questions: Is creativity an exclusively human pursuit? Will Generative AI serve as a complement to or a replacement for human creativity? How can we strike a balance between safeguarding privacy and fostering creativity in the age of AI? What lies ahead in regulating Generative AI?