5784.2
Artificial Intelligence and Authorship
Sh’eilah
I have been using AI, and I am using it in many ways as a rabbi. In particular, I have been using it to create poetry that I use as part of our minyan. For example, I have created poems for the Asher Yatzar prayer, for Kaddish, etc. These poems are the result of my prompts and the carefully selected themes that I wish to incorporate. I do not believe someone without a sophisticated understanding of Judaism could create what I create. If I write a story or poem with AI, can I take credit for the work or do I need to indicate that it was created using AI? (Rabbi Feivel Strauss, Palm Beach)
T’shuvah
We are writing this at a time when AI and its use are very much in flux. The potential ramifications of the creator/contributor divide are changing faster than society can normalize new assumptions, and rules regarding the use of AI have yet to be written, much less broadly accepted. Controversy around digitally created works[1] is common and it will take time before new normative understandings emerge. Without a doubt we will need to address AI-related issues in the future. But this responsum applies in the current moment.
The emergence of AI is blurring the line between creator and contributor. The owner of a house may say, “I built this house.” But does that mean that they took their tools in their hands and physically built it? Or does it mean that they discussed what they wanted with a contractor who then turned them into a blueprint and erected the house? Is AI the hammer and saw and drill, or is it the contractor?
Most people—including the sho-eil—operate in a context where AI is the contractor, producing something they could, in theory, produce themselves if they had the skills or put in the effort. AI programs such as ChatGPT supplement a person’s own abilities—producing different and more desirable (for whatever reason) results than what they could produce on their own. When someone says, “I wrote this poem using AI,” the ordinary person’s understanding is that it means, “I built this house by hiring a great contractor and telling them what I wanted.” In other words, a poem composed using AI is not the same as a poem one wrote oneself. It simply may be better, or produced in less time, or somehow preferable, to what one could write oneself.
Thus, if the rabbi claims to be the “author” of a poem without indicating that it was produced using AI, the congregation will hear the rabbi saying that he produced original content, that he took the hammer, and the saw, and the drill, and built the house himself, when in fact, he hired a contractor and told them what he wanted. To not make that difference clear is to engage in onaat d’varim (verbal fraud) or g’neivat daat (deception). Both of these are strenuously prohibited by our tradition, which reminds us that verbal exploitation or fraud is even worse than monetary exploitation or fraud, since the latter only involves a person’s money, while the former harms a person’s very self.[2]
While the field may indeed change, current guidelines from both the Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Style Guide both explicitly affirm the need to cite content that is produced by Large Language Models.[3] This parallels the oft-cited rabbinic admonition that one who does not repeat a teaching in the name of the one who originally uttered it is a thief.[4] While they are not literally a thief, the label comes from the unethical nature of the practice. In other words, the rabbis insist that what comes out of a person’s mouth and is presented as original, must be original.
Additionally, a member of this committee consulted an important developer of AI about this question and received this reply: “Here in very brief is the approach most organizations I know are taking: (1) If an author uses AI in some way to assist in the writing, that must be acknowledged with specifics, and (2) The ‘generative AI’ system cannot be an author because it cannot take responsibility.”[5]
Conclusion
The sho-eil may regard his AI-generated work as “original,” but the members of the congregation almost certainly do not share that understanding of the word “original.” Even though it may accrue benefit to the rabbi not to correct this, the rabbi is obligated to avoid fraudulent representations. The rabbi may acknowledge his role in prompting or using the AI in the creation of the work, but should not take direct credit for AI-generated work. We recognize that the sho-eil’s Jewish knowledge enables him to provide input that leads to a different, and likely superior, product than that produced by someone who lacks that knowledge. Nevertheless, he clearly feels that the result is superior in some way to what he could produce without using AI. He has every right to acknowledge his contribution, but no right to hide the contribution of the AI program. He should use appropriate formulations such as “I created this poem using AI” or “Written by AI with input from Rabbi Ploni.”
CCAR Responsa Committee
Rabbi Carey Brown
Rabbi Phil Cohen
Rabbi Joan S. Friedman, chair
Rabbi Ben Gurin
Rabbi Suzie Jacobson
Rabbi Audrey Korotkin
Rabbi Rachel Sabath-Beit Halachmi
Rabbi Amy Scheinerman
Rabbi Brian Stoller
Rabbi Micah Streiffer
Rabbi David Vaisberg
Rabbi Michael Walden
Rabbi Dvora Weisberg
Rabbi Jeremy Weisblatt
- Consider, for example, the artist whose copyright application was rejected by the US government because as a work generated by AI, it was not considered “his.” https://www.wired.com/story/ai-art-copyright-matthew-allen/ (accessed 22 October 2023). ↑
- BT Bava M’tzia 58b; Yad H. M’chirah 18:1; Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 228; Shulchan Aruch HaRav Choshen Mishpat 27; Aruch HaShulchan Choshen Mishpat 228. Also see p. 104 in Nahum Rakover, “‘Verbal Fraud’ and the Obligation to State a Matter in the Name of the One Who Said It [Heb.],” Dinei Yisra’el 6 (5735): 93–120 (Responsa Project, Bar-Ilan University, Version 27). ↑
- https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation/faq0422.html and https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt (accessed 22 October 2023). ↑
- Midrash Tanchuma (Warsaw) Parashat Bamidbar 22. ↑
- Email correspondence to Rabbi Phil Cohen from Barbara Grosz, 24 May 2024. ↑