来源：光明日报 随着AI（人工智能）工具的大量涌现及不断迭代，艺术创作的门槛大大降低。进入AI艺术创作平台， 输入一段简单的提示词，短短几秒钟，便可创作出诗歌、图片、视频等不同类型的作品。不过，观察对 比大量的AI作品后会发现，这些作品高度同质化，自然传神、新颖独创的作品非常稀缺——这已经是 人们的共识。AI艺术创作有没有可能像人类艺术创作那样迸发出灵感的火花？笔者认为，AI艺术创作 要想突破同质化，须从算法创新、模型构建以及用户素养培养等方面协同发力。 从提示词撰写到作品遴选修改，构建提升作品独创性的机制 中国传统画论中有一个至高标准曰"传神"，顾恺之讲"传神写照"，谢赫讲"气韵生动"，这些观点都在强 调同一个道理：艺术不是对物理表象的机械复刻，而是对生命内在精神和世界本质的揭示。 当下的AI艺术创作，面临的一大困境是擅长"写形"，却不擅长"传神"。要理解这一困境，必须回到艺术 创作的逻辑原点。郑板桥曾精辟地将画竹的过程概括为三个阶段，即"眼中之竹""胸中之竹""笔中之 竹"。"眼中之竹"是艺术家深入生活、体验万物，通过感性认识直观获取的生活真实；"胸中之竹"是艺 术家经过审美情感的浸润、过滤、重构与升华形 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the contentious issue of intellectual property rights related to generative artificial intelligence (AIGC), highlighting the divide between two opposing viewpoints regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works [1][2]. Group 1: Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works - One viewpoint argues that AI-generated works should be protected under copyright law due to their appearance as works [1][3]. - The opposing viewpoint contends that AI-generated works lack the human originality required for copyright protection, as they do not involve human authorship [1][2]. - Both viewpoints center around the concept of "originality," which is crucial for determining copyright ownership [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Practical Implications - Current copyright law does not recognize AI as having legal personality, meaning AI cannot hold or exercise copyright [2][4]. - The allocation of rights to individuals or entities other than the AI raises concerns about historical legitimacy in copyright law [2][4]. - Courts face challenges in identifying AI-generated works in copyright infringement cases, often relying on the plaintiff's claims without sufficient evidence [4][6]. Group 3: Misinterpretation of Legal Concepts - The "idea-expression" dichotomy is often misapplied in discussions about AI-generated works, leading to the erroneous conclusion that AI outputs lack originality [4][5]. - Human user prompts and AI-generated content both fall under the category of "expression," which complicates the argument against the originality of AI-generated works [6][5]. - A comprehensive discussion on AIGC intellectual property issues requires acknowledging that AI lacks legal personality and differentiating between various application scenarios [6][6].

Group 1 - The article discusses the copyright protection issues of AI-generated content, aiming to balance interests and promote the integration of cultural creativity and intelligent technology [1][2] - AI-generated content, such as articles, music, and paintings, is becoming an important part of cultural production and dissemination, posing unprecedented challenges to existing copyright laws [1][2] - The article outlines the necessity of protecting AI-generated content based on the purpose of copyright law, historical contributions, and originality standards [1][2][16] Group 2 - The definition of artificial intelligence (AI) is explored, indicating that it encompasses a range of technologies and algorithms aimed at simulating human intelligence [2][3] - AI-generated content is characterized by its ability to autonomously create outputs based on deep learning and vast datasets, distinguishing it from traditional mechanical generation [6][7] - The article emphasizes the unique features of AI-generated content, including high efficiency and unpredictability in output, which significantly enhances its application across various fields [10][13][14] Group 3 - The article highlights the ongoing academic debate regarding the originality and copyrightability of AI-generated content, with no consensus reached in the current legal framework [25][26] - Different perspectives on copyright ownership of AI-generated content are discussed, including the designer, investor, and user theories, each presenting its own rationale and challenges [31][32][34] - The necessity of establishing a legal framework for AI-generated content is underscored, as current laws do not adequately address the complexities arising from AI's role in content creation [38][39] Group 4 - A recent case in Beijing highlights the legal challenges surrounding AI-generated content, where the court recognized the creator's rights based on their artistic input despite the use of AI tools [39][41] - The ruling reflects the need for a nuanced understanding of the relationship between AI as a creative tool and the human input required for content generation [42][43] - The article argues for the importance of granting copyright protection to AI-generated content to foster creativity and innovation in the cultural sector [44][46]