AI Generated Content (AIGC) has received tremendous attention within the past few years, with content generated in the format of image, text, audio, video, etc. Meanwhile, AIGC has become a double-edged sword and recently received much criticism regarding its responsible usage. In this article, we focus on 8 main concerns that may hinder the healthy development and deployment of AIGC in practice, including risks from (1) privacy; (2) bias, toxicity, misinformation; (3) intellectual property (IP); (4) robustness; (5) open source and explanation; (6) technology abuse; (7) consent, credit, and compensation; (8) environment. Additionally, we provide insights into the promising directions for tackling these risks while constructing generative models, enabling AIGC to be used more responsibly to truly benefit society.

On a Friday morning in October, in the lobby of a sleek San Francisco skyscraper, Matthew Butterick was headed toward the elevators when a security guard stopped him. Politely, the guard asked if he was lost. It was an honest mistake. He looked more like the type of guy who makes fun of the typical corporate warrior. He explained, equally politely, that he was in fact a lawyer with a legitimate reason to be in the building. His co-counsel, Joseph Saveri, leads an antitrust and class-action firm headquartered there.

Artists outraged by artificial intelligence that copies in seconds the styles they have sacrificed years to develop are waging battle online and in court. Fury erupted in the art community last year with the release of generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs that can convincingly carry out commands such as drawing a dog like cartoonist Sarah Andersen would, or a nymph the way illustrator Karla Ortiz might do. Such style-swiping AI works are cranked out without the original artist's consent, credit or compensation--the three C's at the heart of a fight to change all that. In January, artists including Andersen and Ortiz filed a class-action lawsuit against DreamUp, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, three image-generating AI models programmed with art found online. Andersen told AFP she felt "violated" when first she saw an AI drawing that copied the style of her "Fangs" comic book work.

Last year, a Tennessee-based artist named Kelly McKernan noticed that their name was being used with increasing frequency in A.I.-driven image generation. McKernan makes paintings that often feature nymphlike female figures in an acid-colored style that blends Art Nouveau and science fiction. A list published in August, by a Web site called Metaverse Post, suggested "Kelly McKernan" as a term to feed an A.I. generator in order to create "Lord of the Rings"-style art. Hundreds of other artists were similarly listed according to what their works evoked: anime, modernism, "Star Wars." On the Discord chat that runs an A.I. generator called Midjourney, McKernan discovered that users had included their name more than twelve thousand times in public prompts.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is suddenly the darling of the tech world, thanks to ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that can do things such as carry on conversations and write essays and articles with what some people believe is human-like skill. In its first five days, more than a million people signed up to try it. The New York Times hails its "brilliance and weirdness" and says it inspires both awe and fear. For all the glitz and hype surrounding ChatGPT, what it's doing now are essentially stunts -- a way to get as much attention as possible. The future of AI isn't in writing articles about Beyoncé in the style of Charles Dickens, or any of the other oddball things people use ChatGPT for. Instead, AI will be primarily a business tool, reaping billions of dollars for companies that use it for tasks like improving internet searches, writing software code, discovering and fixing inefficiencies in a company's business, and extracting useful, actionable information from massive amounts of data.

Check out all the on-demand sessions from the Intelligent Security Summit here. Three artists launched the lawsuit through the Joseph Saveri Law Firm and lawyer and designer/programmer Matthew Butterick, who recently teamed up to file a similar lawsuit against Microsoft, GitHub and OpenAI, related to the generative AI programming model CoPilot. The artists claim that Stable Diffusion and Midjourney scraped the Internet to copy billions of works without permission, including theirs, which then are used to produce "derivative works." In a blog post, Butterick described Stable Diffusion as a "parasite that, if allowed to proliferate, will cause irreparable harm to artists, now and in the future."

A class action lawsuit is filed in the US against Midjourney and Stability AI as well as the art platform DeviantArt. US artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz file a class action lawsuit in California against Stability AI (Stable Diffusion) and Midjourney. The artists are seeking damages and an injunction to prevent future harm. Art platform DeviantArt is also accused of providing thousands or even millions of images from the LAION dataset for Stable Diffusion's training. Instead of siding with the artists, DeviantArt put DreamUp online, an AI art app based on Stable Diffusion, according to the plaintiffs.

Continue reading the main story Lawsuit Takes Aim at the Way A.I. Is Built A programmer is suing Microsoft, GitHub and OpenAI over artificial intelligence technology that generates its own computer code. Send any friend a story As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share. Give this articleGive this articleGive this article Video Tom Smith, a veteran programmer, shows how Codex can instantly generate computer code from a request in plain English.CreditCredit...Jason Henry for The New York Times Cade Metz, based in San Francisco, writes about artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. ET In late June, Microsoft released a new kind of artificial intelligence technology that could generate its own computer code. Called Copilot, the tool was designed to speed the work of professional programmers.

Nearly every new generation of technology -- even online search engines -- has faced similar legal challenges. In late June, Microsoft released a new kind of artificial intelligence technology that could generate its own computer code. Called Copilot, the tool was designed to speed the work of professional programmers. As they typed away on their laptops, it would suggest ready-made blocks of computer code they could instantly add to their own. Many programmers loved the new tool or were at least intrigued by it.

Github Copilot, an AI tool that automatically suggests blocks of code to add as programmers type, has recently come under the scanner for the violation of open-source licenses. Earlier this month, a programmer and lawyer, Matthew Butterick, along with a team of lawyers, filed a class-action lawsuit in the US against Github Copilot, its parent company Microsoft, and AI-technology partner OpenAI, claiming that the tool profits "from the work of open-source programmers by violating the conditions of their open-source licenses." The people behind the lawsuit alleged that Copilot does not provide attribution when it reproduces code, violating the licenses governing open-source code, noted an article in Wired. Joseph Saveri, founder of the law firm behind the suit, called it the "first major step in the battle against intellectual-property violations in the tech industry arising from artificial-intelligence systems." The New York Times noted that the lawsuit may well be the first "legal attack" on the way AI is trained.