AI and the visual arts: The case for copyright protection; Brookings, April 18, 2025

Judy Wang and  Nicol Turner Lee , Brookings; AI and the visual arts: The case for copyright protection

"Looking ahead  

As AI-generated art continues to reshape the creative landscape, the legal and economic challenges surrounding copyright, authorship, and enforcement will only grow more complex. Ongoing lawsuits, reactions from artists, and market shifts highlight the struggle to define human authorship and protect artists’ rights in an era where AI-generated works hold significant commercial value, but lack clear copyright protections. With increasing pressure on legislative and regulatory bodies to address these issues, the future of AI-generated art will depend on policies that balance innovation with fair compensation and safeguards for human creativity.  

While we await the final part of the Copyright Office’s report, which will determine the legal implications of training AI on copyrighted data, the more pressing determinant of fair use in GenAI training may come from the courts. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the Copyright Office should transcend its passive regulatory guidance and actively develop new mechanisms to distinguish human-authored elements from AI-generated ones to enforce its present guidance. In addition, the office must think creatively about flexible frameworks that can account for future, more nuanced and complex modes of collaboration between human and GenAI systems. This may require stronger disclosure requirements, improved detection methods, and a reexamination of what constitutes meaningful human authorship in an increasing AI-involved creative process.   

Further, artists, tech companies, and policymakers must be brought to the table to ensure copyright law reflects the newest collaborations in AI and art, protects human creativity, and accommodates technological progress. Without safeguards, the rapid influx of AI into the art market could lead to a systemic devaluation of human original authorship and growing precarity in the creative field. The future of AI-generated art hinges on such governance. "

Why Musk and Dorsey want to ‘delete all IP law’; The Washington Post, April 15, 2025

Analysis by Gerrit De Vynck

 and 

Will Oremus

with research by 

Andrea Jiménez

 , The Washington Post; Why Musk and Dorsey want to ‘delete all IP law’

"Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and CEO of Square, posted a cryptic and drastic demand on Elon Musk’s X over the weekend: “delete all IP law.” The post drew a quick reply from Mr. X himself: “I agree.”

Musk’s laconic response amplified Dorsey’s post to his 220 million followers and sparked a debate that drew in a cast of characters including Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, tech lawyer and former vice presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan, novelist Walter Kirn, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller and the technologist and early Twitter developer Evan Henshaw-Plath, a.k.a. Rabble, among others...

Serious policy idea or not, the concord between Dorsey and Musk highlights how the debate over AI and copyright law is coming to a head in Silicon Valley.

How it’s resolved will have major ramifications for the tech companies, creative people and their livelihoods and the overall AI race."

Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement; The National Law Review, April 9, 2025

Jonathan D. Reichman of Hunton Andrews Kurth   - Publications , The National Law Review; Entrance to [Copyright] Paradise Halted by the Human-Authorship Requirement

"In mid-March, a federal appeals court affirmed a ruling finding that artwork created solely by an artificial intelligence (AI) system is not entitled to copyright protection. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). This decision aligns with the position taken by the US Copyright Office in its recent report in light of the ongoing evolution, application, and litigation surrounding AI systems. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (2025).

While this decision may appear straightforward, future developments could arise through an application to the US Supreme Court or through cases addressing the extent of human involvement necessary in AI-generated works that seek copyright protection.

Key Takeaways

• The Copyright Act of 1976 (Act) requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being.
• The Act’s definition of “author” does not apply to machines.
• The work-made-for-hire doctrine requires an existing copyright interest.
• Thaler’s representation that the work was generated autonomously by a computer system weighed heavily against his challenges to the human-authorship requirement and the work-made-for-hire doctrine.
• The Court rejected Dr. Thaler’s arguments that (1) the term “author” is not confined to human beings; (2) the work was made for hire; and (3) the human-authorship requirement prevents protection of works made with AI.
• The Court affirmed the denial of copyright registration where the author of the work was listed as a machine."

The Copyright Office takes on the sticky issue of artificial intelligence; Federal News Network, March 11, 2025

 Tom Temin, Federal News Network; The Copyright Office takes on the sticky issue of artificial intelligence

"Artificial intelligence raises storms of questions in every domain it touches. Chief among them, copyright questions. Now the U.S. Copyright Office, a congressional agency, has completed the second of two studies of AI and copyrights. This one deals with whether you can copyright outputs created using AI. Emily Chapuis, the Copyright Office’s deputy general counsel, joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to discuss...

Emily Chapuis: Yeah. That’s right. So we don’t recommend in the report that Congress take any action. And the reason for this is we think that copyright law is sufficiently flexible to deal with changes in technology. And that’s not just based on AI, but on the entire history of copyright law, has had to deal with these questions, whether it’s the development of the camera or the internet. The questions about copyright ability are always on a case-by-case basis. And the technology that’s used and how it’s used and what it’s used for are important elements of that. But the sort of defining legal principles aren’t different in this context than in those other ones.

Tom Temin: Right. So the human input idea then is kind of an eternal for copyright. How do you decide that? Is it a percentage of human input? Because the machine does a lot here. But you could say, ‘Well, the camera did a lot when it opened and closed the shutter and exposed silver halide. And then there was a machine process to produce that image. But it was the selection, the timing, the decisive moment.’ To quote Henri Cartier-Bresson, another French photographer. That’s really the issue here. The human input and not the machine input.

Emily Chapuis: Yeah, that’s right. And it’s hard to parse. I mean, we’ve had people ask, so what’s the percentage that has to be human created? And there’s not a clear answer to that, again, because it’s case by case. But also the question isn’t really amount as much as it is control. So who’s controlling the expression. And so one of the things that we try to explain is that even the same technology can be used in a variety of different ways. So you can use generative AI technology as a tool assistive to enhance the human expression or you can use it as a substitute for human expression. And so control is sort of the bottom line in terms of what we’re looking at to draw that distinction."

UK newspapers launch campaign against AI copyright plans; Independent, February 25, 2025

Martyn Landi, Independent; UK newspapers launch campaign against AI copyright plans

"Some of the UK’s biggest newspapers have used a coordinated campaign across their front pages to raise their concerns about AI’s impact on the creative industries.

Special wraps appeared on Tuesday’s editions of the Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Mirror, the Daily Star, The i, The Sun, and The Times – as well as a number of regional titles – criticising a Government consultation around possible exemptions being added to copyright law for training AI models.

The proposals would allow tech firms to use copyrighted material from creatives and publishers without having to pay or gain a licence, or reimbursing creatives for using their work."

Musicians release silent album to protest UK's AI copyright changes; Reuters, February 25, 2025

 Sam Tabahriti, Reuters; Musicians release silent album to protest UK's AI copyright changes

"More than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush and Cat Stevens, on Tuesday released a silent album to protest proposed changes to Britain's copyright laws, which could allow tech firms to train artificial intelligence models using their work."

AI and Copyright: Expanding Copyright Hurts Everyone—Here’s What to Do Instead; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), February 19, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); AI and Copyright: Expanding Copyright Hurts Everyone—Here’s What to Do Instead

[Kip Currier: No, not everyone. Not requiring Big Tech to figure out a way to fairly license or get permission to use the copyrighted works of creators unjustly advantages these deep pocketed corporations. It also inequitably disadvantages the economic and creative interests of the human beings who labor to create copyrightable content -- authors, songwriters, visual artists, and many others.

The tell is that many of these same Big Tech companies are only too willing to file copyright infringement lawsuits against anyone whom they allege is infringing their AI content to create competing products and services.]

[Excerpt]

"Threats to Socially Valuable Research and Innovation 

Requiring researchers to license fair uses of AI training data could make socially valuable research based on machine learning (ML) and even text and data mining (TDM) prohibitively complicated and expensive, if not impossible. Researchers have relied on fair use to conduct TDM research for a decade, leading to important advancements in myriad fields. However, licensing the vast quantity of works that high-quality TDM research requires is frequently cost-prohibitive and practically infeasible.  

Fair use protects ML and TDM research for good reason. Without fair use, copyright would hinder important scientific advancements that benefit all of us. Empirical studies back this up: research using TDM methodologies are more common in countries that protect TDM research from copyright control; in countries that don’t, copyright restrictions stymie beneficial research. It’s easy to see why: it would be impossible to identify and negotiate with millions of different copyright owners to analyze, say, text from the internet."

Copyright battles loom over artists and AI; Financial Times, February 16, 2025

louise.lucas@ft.com, Financial Times ; Copyright battles loom over artists and AI

"Artists are the latest creative industry to gripe about the exploitative nature of artificial intelligence. More than 3,000 have written to protest against plans by Christie’s to auction art created using AI."

Google lifts its ban on using AI for weapons; BBC, February 5, 2025

 Lucy Hooker & Chris Vallance, BBC; Google lifts its ban on using AI for weapons

"Google's parent company has ditched a longstanding principle and lifted a ban on artificial intelligence (AI) being used for developing weapons and surveillance tools.

Alphabet has rewritten its guidelines on how it will use AI, dropping a section which previously ruled out applications that were "likely to cause harm".

In a blog post Google defended the change, arguing that businesses and democratic governments needed to work together on AI that "supports national security".

Experts say AI could be widely deployed on the battlefield - though there are fears about its use too, particularly with regard to autonomous weapons systems."

Vatican says AI has 'shadow of evil,' calls for close oversight; Reuters, January 28, 2025

 Joshua McElwee, Reuters ; Vatican says AI has 'shadow of evil,' calls for close oversight

"The Vatican on Tuesday called for governments to keep a close eye on the development of artificial intelligence, warning the technology contained "the shadow of evil" in its ability to spread misinformation.

"AI generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of society," said a new text on the ethics of AI, written by two Vatican departments and approved by Pope Francis.

"This issue requires careful regulation, as misinformation—especially through AI-controlled or influenced media—can spread unintentionally, fuelling political polarization and social unrest," it said."

Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report; U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060, January 29, 2025

 U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1060; Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This Part of the Report addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

“After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”

In early 2023, the Copyright Office announced a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and AI. Since then, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars, met with experts and stakeholders, published a notice of inquiry seeking input from the public, and reviewed more than 10,000 responsive comments, which served to inform these conclusions.

The Report is being released in three Parts. Part 1 was published on July 31, 2024, and recommended federal legislation to respond to the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The final, forthcoming Part 3 will address the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.

As announced last year, the Office also plans to supplement its March 2023 registration guidance and update the relevant sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.

For more information about the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative, please visit the website."

Copyright Under Siege: How Big Tech Uses AI And China To Exploit Creators; Virginie Berger, January 25, 2025

Virginie Berger

, Forbes; Copyright Under Siege: How Big Tech Uses AI And China To Exploit Creators

"Generative AI is reshaping creativity in ways that highlight a troubling paradox: while touted as a force for innovation, it increasingly relies on exploiting copyrighted materials, songs, books, and artworks, without consent or compensation. This transformation underscores the growing conflict between technological progress and the preservation of artistic integrity. At the heart of the issue lies a troubling paradox: while companies like OpenAI and Google promote AI as a force for innovation, their reliance on scraping copyrighted materials, songs, books, and artworks, undermines the very creativity they claim to enhance. This exploitation is often disguised as progress or justified as necessary for global competitiveness, particularly in the AI race against China. However, these claims mask a deeper reality: the consolidation of power by Big Tech at the expense of creators. As the balance of influence shifts, those who drive culture and innovation are increasingly marginalized, raising urgent questions about the future of intellectual property and creative industries."

Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists; BBC, January 25, 2025

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC; Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists

"Sir Paul McCartney has told the BBC proposed changes to copyright law could allow "rip off" technology that might make it impossible for musicians and artists to make a living.

The government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use creators' content on the internet to help develop their models, unless the rights holders opt out.

In a rare interview for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Sir Paul said "when we were kids in Liverpool, we found a job that we loved, but it also paid the bills", warning the proposals could remove the incentive for writers and artists and result in a "loss of creativity". 

The government said it aimed to deliver legal certainty through a copyright regime that provided creators with "real control" and transparency."

Is the law playing catch-up with AI?; Harvard Law Today, January 16, 2025

Harvard Law Today; Is the law playing catch-up with AI?

"Harvard Law Today: Why was the Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law Conference in November convened? Why is it important to be talking about AI and IP right now?

William Lee: In the past, this event has been much more focused on the specifics of the law and comparisons of the different approaches across jurisdictions. This year, the conference addressed AI more generally with moderators and panelists from a wider variety of fields including homeland security, life sciences, technological development, non-profit advocacy, and even ethics. I think it was an introduction into AI for many of the people in the room and who better to provide that introduction than [Harvard Law School Professor] Jonathan Zittrain ’95. Matt Ferraro, senior counselor for cybersecurity and emerging technology to the secretary of Homeland Security and executive director of the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board, led a panel primarily of industry leaders, explaining the capabilities and trajectory of AI technology. Then, Iain Cunningham from NVIDIA chaired an excellent panel mostly composed of academics and people from industry discussing how IP law and AI interact. We also had input from experts on the AI and IP relationship in jurisdictions across the globe, including Europe, the UK, and Africa, on a panel moderated by Terry Fisher that was particularly illuminating. Then, we closed with a judges panel where a group of five Federal Circuit and two District Court judges offered views on AI issues as well as IP more broadly.

Louis Tompros: IP law has historically, and inherently, operated at the intersection of law and fast-moving technology. Artificial Intelligence is currently where technology is moving the fastest and where the law has the most ground to cover in order to keep pace. This conference was designed to educate folks about AI technology and the various IP law approaches taken in the United States and around the world, and to help forecast how protections for creative and useful ideas will function in the context of these innovative systems. We try to make the IP conference as broadly appealing and relevant to the groups of constituents that are interested in participating, that is, people within the legal community, the business community, and the academic community, including Harvard Law School students. This year was the first time ever that the conference was fully subscribed via pre-registration which is, I think, a great testament to the level and breadth of interest. You can tell that we got it right precisely because of the incredible interest in this year’s event.

HLT: Throughout history, innovations have compelled IP law to adjust and evolve to account for new technology, like the radio, the television, and the internet. Is AI different?

Tompros: The law can’t possibly stay ahead. It will always lag a bit behind. Honestly, that’s part of the fun of IP law because the law is perpetually having to evolve by necessity to keep pace with rapidly evolving aspects of technology. I don’t think AI is different in kind from previous technological revolutions that affected the law, but I do think it is quite possibly different in scale. The pace of the development of the technology here is so accelerated that the speed at which technological advances are coming makes it even harder for the already trailing legal system to catch up. That leads to some interesting possibilities, but it also leads to some serious challenges. Ultimately, it demands creative and innovative thinking in the design of legal structures established to try to manage it."

Congress Must Change Copyright Law for AI | Opinion; Newsweek, January 16, 2025

Nicholas Creel  Assistant Professor of Business Law, Georgia College and State University , Newsweek; Congress Must Change Copyright Law for AI | Opinion

"Luckily, the Constitution points the way forward. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is explicitly empowered "to promote the Progress of Science" through copyright law. That is to say, the power to create copyrights isn't just about protecting content creators, it's also about advancing human knowledge and innovation.

When the Founders gave Congress this power, they couldn't have imagined artificial intelligence, but they clearly understood that intellectual property laws would need to evolve to promote scientific progress. Congress therefore not only has the authority to adapt copyright law for the AI age, it has the duty to ensure our intellectual property framework promotes rather than hinders technological progress.

Consider what's at risk with inaction...

While American companies are struggling with copyright constraints, China is racing ahead with AI development, unencumbered by such concerns. The Chinese Communist Party has made it clear that they view AI supremacy as a key strategic goal, and they're not going to let intellectual property rights stand in their way.

The choice before us is clear, we can either reform our copyright laws to enable responsible AI development at home or we can watch as the future of AI is shaped by authoritarian powers abroad. The cost of inaction isn't just measured in lost innovation or economic opportunity, it is measured in our diminishing ability to ensure AI develops in alignment with democratic values and a respect for human rights.

The ideal solution here isn't to abandon copyright protection entirely, but to craft a careful exemption for AI training. This could even include provisions for compensating content creators through a mandated licensing framework or revenue-sharing system, ensuring that AI companies can access the data they need while creators can still benefit from and be credited for their work's use in training these models.

Critics will argue that this represents a taking from creators for the benefit of tech companies, but this misses the broader picture. The benefits of AI development flow not just to tech companies but to society as a whole. We should recognize that allowing AI models to learn from human knowledge serves a crucial public good, one we're at risk of losing if Congress doesn't act."

Biden bids farewell with dark warning for America: the oligarchs are coming; The Guardian, January 15, 2025

 David Smith in Washington , The Guardian; Biden bids farewell with dark warning for America: the oligarchs are coming

"The primetime speech did not mention Donald Trump by name. Instead it will be remembered for its dark, ominous warning about something wider and deeper of which Trump is a symptom.

“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,” Biden said.

The word “oligarchy” comes from the Greek words meaning rule (arche) by the few (oligos). Some have argued that the dominant political divide in America is no longer between left and right, but between democracy and oligarchy, as power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. The wealthiest 1% of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.

The trend did not start with Trump but he is set to accelerate it. The self-styled working-class hero has picked the richest cabinet in history, including 13 billionaires, surrounding himself with the very elite he claims to oppose. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has become a key adviser. Tech titans Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg – collectively worth a trillion dollars – will be sitting at his inauguration on Monday.

Invoking former president Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in January 1961 that warned against the rise of a military-industrial complex, Biden said: “Six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech industrial complex. It could pose real dangers for our country as well. Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power.”

In an acknowledgement of news deserts and layoffs at venerable institutions such as the Washington Post, Biden added starkly: “The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact checking. Truth is smothered by lies, told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable, to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power.”

Zuckerberg’s recent decision to abandon factcheckers on Facebook, and Musk’s weaponisation of X in favour of far-right movements including Maga, was surely uppermost in Biden’s mind. Trust in the old media is breaking down as people turn to a fragmented new ecosystem. It has all happened with disorienting speed."

Meta Lawyer Lemley Quits AI Case Citing Zuckerberg 'Descent'; Bloomberg Law, January 14, 2026

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; Meta Lawyer Lemley Quits AI Case Citing Zuckerberg 'Descent'

"California attorney Mark Lemley dropped Meta Platforms Inc. as a client in a high-profile copyright case because of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” the Stanford University professor said on LinkedIn."

USPTO announces new Artificial Intelligence Strategy to empower responsible implementation of innovation; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), January 14, 2025

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ; USPTO announces new Artificial Intelligence Strategy to empower responsible implementation of innovation 

"AI Strategy outlines how the USPTO will address AI's impact across IP policy, agency operations, and the broader innovation ecosystem  

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a new Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy to guide the agency’s efforts toward fulfilling the potential of AI within USPTO operations and across the intellectual property (IP) ecosystem. The Strategy offers a vision for how the USPTO can foster responsible and inclusive AI innovation, harness AI to support the agency’s mission, and advance a positive future for AI to ensure that the country maintains its leadership in innovation. 

“We have a responsibility to promote, empower, and protect innovation,” said Derrick Brent, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO. “Developing a strategy to unleash the power of AI while mitigating risks provides a framework to advance innovation and intellectual property.”  

The strategy aims to achieve the USPTO’s AI vision and mission through five focus areas which include: 

1. Advance the development of IP policies that promote inclusive AI innovation and creativity. 
2. Build best-in-class AI capabilities by investing in computational infrastructure, data resources, and business-driven product development. 
3. Promote the responsible use of AI within the USPTO and across the broader innovation ecosystem.
4. Develop AI expertise within the USPTO’s workforce.
5. Collaborate with other U.S. government agencies, international partners, and the public on shared AI priorities.

The USPTO and our sister agencies within the Department of Commerce, as well as the U.S. Copyright Office, are providing critical guidance and recommendations to advance AI-driven innovation and creativity. In 2022, the USPTO created the AI and Emerging Technology (ET) Partnership, which has worked closely with the AI/ET community to gather public feedback through a series of sessions on topics related to AI and innovation, biotech, and intellectual property (IP) policy. Since its 2022 launch, more than 6,000 stakeholders have engaged with us on these critical issues. In addition, the USPTO collaborates across government to advance American leadership in AI by promoting innovation and competition as set forth in the Biden-Harris Administration’s landmark October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

The full text of the AI Strategy can be found on the AI Strategy webpage. Additionalinformation on AI, including USPTO guidance and more on USPTO’s AI/ET Partnership, can be found on our AI webpage. "

3Blue1Brown copyright takedown blunder by AI biz blamed on human error; The Register, January 7, 2025

Thomas Claburn , The Register; 

3Blue1Brown copyright takedown blunder by AI biz blamed on human error

"The errant copyright takedown of a popular video explaining Bitcoin, from Grant Sanderson's smash-hit YouTube channel 3Blue1Brown, has been reversed, with human error blamed.

The brand protection company responsible for the unwarranted takedown, ChainPatrol.io, also acknowledged that the legal demand was a mistake, and has been in communication with Sanderson about its efforts to return the video to YouTube. Sanderson – who has 6.8 million subscribers on YouTube, and whose in-depth videos mainly on mathematics and science have been viewed more than 600 million times – raised the alarm in a social media post on Monday.

He said he had just learned that YouTube had removed a 2017-era video he had made and applied a copyright strike – three of which will get an account terminated – despite the fact that he had only used his own content in his video."

At the Intersection of A.I. and Spirituality; The New York Times, January 3, 2025

 Eli Tan, The New York Times; At the Intersection of A.I. and Spirituality

"For centuries, new technologies have changed the ways people worship, from the radio in the 1920s to television sets in the 1950s and the internet in the 1990s. Some proponents of A.I. in religious spaces have gone back even further, comparing A.I.’s potential — and fears of it — to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.

Religious leaders have used A.I. to translate their livestreamed sermons into different languages in real time, blasting them out to international audiences. Others have compared chatbots trained on tens of thousands of pages of Scripture to a fleet of newly trained seminary students, able to pull excerpts about certain topics nearly instantaneously.

But the ethical questions around using generative A.I. for religious tasks have become more complicated as the technology has improved, religious leaders say. While most agree that using A.I. for tasks like research or marketing is acceptable, other uses for the technology, like sermon writing, are seen by some as a step too far."