[Through BCL India] An Inquiry — Part I

Research report that I worked on and published through my firm, BCL India. Explores the Indian AI landscape.

Should we all re-emphasise effort in learning?

And while the earliest premise of the internet may have certainly been “we should all know more”, I refuse to believe it was meant to usher in an era where everyone knows everything, but only enough that they can get by — at work, and at school, and in conversations.

Creativity, copyright law and AI - a denialist takes stock

A denialist is defined in Merriam Webster to be a “person who denies the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid.” And so, if it is seen that there are multiple “truths” to generative AI as it is today, it is only two that I oppose: first, the commodification of creativity that generative AI models are being perceived to enable, and two, the irresponsible (and illegal?) trawling of creative output it takes to build these models. This essay will address both of these: in the first part, I’ll primarily use the cited entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy to discuss why AI-enabled output can never constitute a product of creative process, (the entry also undertakes the very exercise, but I can attest to the honesty of my attempt – whatever that attestation may be worth in an era of a de minimis deception becoming accepted) and in the second, I’ll appraise extant copyright law.

What is poetry, anyway?

Are song lyrics poetry? (And yes, this stems from folklore and evermore.)