This urgent, critical book exposes the unprecedented push by trillion-dollar companies to build AI on billions of unauthorized human works and redefine fundamental areas of law, including copyright, contract, and free speech.
Abstract
The Generative AI revolution is driven by corporations demanding legal superpowers. If we allow it to continue unchecked, the implications will be profound. This urgent, critical book exposes the unprecedented push by trillion-dollar companies to build AI on billions of unauthorized human works and redefine fundamental areas of law, including copyright, contract, and free speech. Written by an industry insider who turned from AI champion to AI critic, this highly accessible work promotes AI literacy and provides essential tools to pierce the hype. Readers will learn how to assess AI's profound societal risks to democracy and autonomy and ensure that we are the architects of-and not bystanders in-our artificial future.
This Commentary argues that, in studying artificial intelligence in the creator economy, we need to consider more than questions of technology, artistic innovation, or markets. We need also to confront questions of political order, collective governance, and the varieties of creator policies that arise in response to AI. We need to reflect upon what is entailed by justice and what is meant by democracy in the management of AI. In short, as well as engaging with the creator economy we need to engage with the creator polity.
The accelerating integration of Artificial Intelligence into organizational life is prompting a critical reckoning with how we conceptualize, deploy, and coexist with these technologies. In this essay, I argue that the prevailing tendency to anthropomorphize AI fundamentally misrepresents the capabilities and limitations of these tools, and gives short shrift to the human qualities that drive innovation, judgment, and connection in the workplace. Business anthropologists have a crucial role in shaping how to best integrate these powerful amplification tools with human cognition. As tools evolve, the boundaries will undoubtedly shift, necessitating our expertise to help navigate the front lines of human and machine interplay, and to remind business leaders of the ongoing need to nourish and invest in people as well as technology in order to address complex organizational challenges.
Alexandra Mack· Journal of Business Anthropo...· 1 citation
Our reliance on the new wave of generative AI has increased exponentially in the last few years, with little sign of abating. This raises the natural question of whether we should trust this technology as a source of information. Drawing on the epistemology of trust, it is argued that generative AI does not meet the conditions for being a trustworthy source of information. In particular, it is argued that generative AI is untrustworthy because it is an unsafe source of information. This, in turn, entails that trusting generative AI as a source of information is not a route to knowledge.
This article develops the concept of justice-centred artificial intelligence (AI) through Hannah Arendt’s thinking on the danger of a machine world replacing the real world and the freedom achieved in communities of equals. It explores how regulation might advance localised forms of justice concerning AI development and deployment reframing corporate accountability from transparency to enforceable duties. It focuses on energy systems and engages with European data law
acquis
, proposing three principles for justice-centred AI: a reversed categorical principle, fiduciary obligations grounded in the
diligentia diligentis
standard, and the right to have rights. It presents justice-centred AI as a constitutional project for the EU, aligning technology with rights, ecology, and political freedom.
Esmeralda Colombo· Cambridge Yearbook of Europe...· 0 citations
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping scientific discovery, industrial organization, labor, and governance, with major implications for international development. AI can accelerate innovation in areas key to international development, yet the same systems can also reproduce bias, unsafe automation, environmental burdens, dependency, and unequal exposure to harms. Because the compute, data, infrastructure, and expertise needed to develop and govern advanced AI remain concentrated, the AI digital divide concerns not only who gains access, but who bears costs, who gives consent, and who shapes priorities short and long-term. This article argues that AI's developmental value, when applied to the most critical international development challenges humanity faces, still depends on the geopolitical, institutional, environmental, labor, and ethical conditions that determine how AI development and deployment benefits and risks are distributed.
Marta Koch, James Xiaolong Wang, Shreya Ravikumar et al.· MIT Science Policy Review· 1 citation
Describing the development and consolidation of the internet, the dotcom boom and bust, and post-2008 financial crash investments in tech, Vincent Mosco theorised the ‘digital sublime’ to describe the experience through which technical systems inspire awe and overwhelm at their apparent promises. As AI is further integrated within our daily lives, we need to heed Mosco’s call to interrogate the productive capacities of myth-making around emergent technologies. Drawing on recent work on the political economy of AI, we argue that the sublime myth of AI forms a crucial logic organising contemporary capitalism, from the geopolitics of economic and military confrontation to the micropolitics of everyday life.
Victoria Fleming, Fergie Maxwell· Work Organisation, Labour &a...· 0 citations