The Founders’ Case for Human Authorship in the Age of AI

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-founders-case-for-human-authorship-in-the-age-of-ai

Publish Date: 2026-05-15 08:16:00

Source Domain: www.techpolicy.press

“People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart.” – Sam Altman

“The difference is that humans aren’t an inefficient line item. They’re the point.” – L. David Fairchild

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case (Thaler v. Perlmutter) about whether art generated entirely by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted. The DC Circuit had ruled against a computer scientist who listed AI as the sole author on a work of art, so the US Copyright Office can maintain its human authorship requirement, at least for now. Although the statutory interpretation undergirding the decision is sound—among other things, the Copyright Act expressly refers to the “intention,” “life,” and “surviving children” of an author—there is a deeper constitutional argument, rooted in the small “r”, republican foundations of the copyright system itself, that has received less attention. That argument matters because it provides a more durable foundation for eventual Supreme Court review of future cases—and guardrails for any reform.

The Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” James Madison argued that for both copyrights and patents,“the public good fully coincides… ­with the claims of individuals.” However, the Founders also understood that self-interest should be channeled towards socially beneficial ends, so they endorsed limiting and conditioning incentives accordingly.

Unlike rights in real property, which may be granted in perpetuity, copyrights and patents are inherently temporary — a bargain between creators and society. Those impermanent monopolies served not only an economic purpose but…

Source

The Founders’ Case for Human Authorship in the Age of AI

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-founders-case-for-human-authorship-in-the-age-of-ai

Publish Date: 2026-05-15 08:16:00

Source Domain: www.techpolicy.press

“People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart.” – Sam Altman

“The difference is that humans aren’t an inefficient line item. They’re the point.” – L. David Fairchild

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case (Thaler v. Perlmutter) about whether art generated entirely by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted. The DC Circuit had ruled against a computer scientist who listed AI as the sole author on a work of art, so the US Copyright Office can maintain its human authorship requirement, at least for now. Although the statutory interpretation undergirding the decision is sound—among other things, the Copyright Act expressly refers to the “intention,” “life,” and “surviving children” of an author—there is a deeper constitutional argument, rooted in the small “r”, republican foundations of the copyright system itself, that has received less attention. That argument matters because it provides a more durable foundation for eventual Supreme Court review of future cases—and guardrails for any reform.

The Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” James Madison argued that for both copyrights and patents,“the public good fully coincides… ­with the claims of individuals.” However, the Founders also understood that self-interest should be channeled towards socially beneficial ends, so they endorsed limiting and conditioning incentives accordingly.

Unlike rights in real property, which may be granted in perpetuity, copyrights and patents are inherently temporary — a bargain between creators and society. Those impermanent monopolies served not only an economic purpose but…

Source