Science Journal Nature Bars AI Generated Illustrations

Well that was only a matter of time. Nature, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, has announced that it will not allow the use of generative AI images or video. (Thanks to Cynthia Turner for the catch.).

I must say that the journal’s rationale for rejecting this latest stop in Silicon Valley’s newest bubble is a pretty concise statement of the criminality of the bubble riders:

Why are we disallowing the use of generative AI in visual content? Ultimately, it is a question of integrity. The process of publishing — as far as both science and art are concerned — is underpinned by a shared commitment to integrity. That includes transparency. As researchers, editors and publishers, we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be verified as accurate and true. Existing generative AI tools do not provide access to their sources so that such verification can happen.

Then there’s attribution: when existing work is used or cited, it must be attributed. This is a core principle of science and art, and generative AI tools do not conform to this expectation. (Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27(2)) among other human rights instruments.)

Consent and permission are also factors. These must be obtained if, for example, people are being identified or the intellectual property of artists and illustrators is involved. Again, common applications of generative AI fail these tests.

Generative AI systems are being trained on images for which no efforts have been made to identify the source. Copyright-protected works are routinely being used to train generative AI without appropriate permissions. In some cases, privacy is also being violated — for example, when generative AI systems create what look like photographs or videos of people without their consent. In addition to privacy concerns, the ease with which these ‘deepfakes’ can be created is accelerating the spread of false information.

So that about sums it up. I would add that what Silicon Valley likes is the free-riding profit that is built in to failing to honor each of Nature’s objections aka what economists and tort lawyers call negative externalities.