AI Literacy Framework

We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI. To develop our framework, we analyze existing definitions of AGI, and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy.

The Report will be published in several Parts, each one addressing a different topic. The first Part addresses the topic of digital replicas—the use of digital technology to realistically replicate an individual’s voice or appearance. Subsequent Parts will turn to other issues raised in the NOI, including the copyrightability of works created using generative AI, training of AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and allocation of any potential liability.
To learn more, visit www.copyright.gov/AI.

We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. That authorship is protected by copyright. However, as discussed below, the images in the Work that were generated by the Midjourney technology are not the product of human authorship.

The Copyright Act protects, and the Office registers, “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Courts have interpreted the statutory phrase “works of authorship” to require human creation of the work. See Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-cv-1564, 2023 WL 5333236, at *4 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023) (stating that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright” in affirming the Office’s refusal to register a work “autonomously” created by AI).

In considering plaintiff’s copyright registration application as to “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” the Register concluded that “this particular work will not support a claim to copyright” because the work lacked human authorship and thus no copyright existed in the first instance.

This case presents the question of who, or what, can be an inventor. Specifically, we are asked to decide if an artificial intelligence (AI) software system can be listed as the inventor on a patent application.

The appeals court upheld the district court: archiving student work for the purpose of detecting plagiarism constituted fair use. It deemed the use transformative because it was unrelated to the works’ expressive content and was instead aimed at detecting and discouraging plagiarism.