PhilArchive
open access
What If AI Learns How You Generate the New? - A Preliminary Discussion of the Normalisation and Political Economy of Generativity
Artificial intelligence systems have been developed for the most part on accumulated human artefacts. Systems that learn from recorded practice take a different object, since a demonstration, a workflow, a tool-use history, or a sequence of decisions records the course of an activity in place of its product. This paper asks what follows for political economy when the activity so recorded is one through which new possibilities are generated, and it develops the question through the case of research practice, where the question under investigation is itself frequently produced during the enquiry. The argument proceeds in five movements. It distinguishes four levels at which a generative practice admits description, namely outcome, representation, trajectory, and generativity, and holds these levels to be distinct, so that a record of a practice stands to the practice as a proxy stands to what it proxies. It treats the case in which a system maintains a representation of a particular other party and adjusts its operation with respect to that representation, and identifies the coupling so formed as an object lying outside that partition and held by whichever party operates the infrastructure sustaining it. It sets out a stage structure through which a situated practice becomes a portable capability: access, capture, legibility, abstraction, transfer, automation, valorisation, and enclosure. It describes the normalisation through which generative capacity comes to be treated as an ordinary economic input, and establishes a condition on any instrument whose application is triggered by a quantity of generativity. It then reads intellectual property doctrine as a diagnostic, holding that positive law has protected generative capacity through the inseparability of such a capacity from its holder, and that recording weakens the condition on which that protection rested. The normative proposal is stated as a constraint over each relation an arrangement touches, and it withholds any regime. Where generativity is relational, its protection runs through the construction and maintenance of domains affording occasions for its exercise, and the conversion of generativity into a further form of property would reproduce the ontology this paper questions.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Generative AI and the Future of Democratic Citizenship#724824
- The Invasion of Human Expression by Generative AI#715177
- Generative AI and the Limits of Work Product Doctrine#1174756
- AI in the Cage: Data, Censorship, and Emerging Subjecthood#76550
- Growing the image: Generative AI and the medium of gardening#87689
Record · ID 688453
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive