Interview Tim Boucher, a Canadian artist, writer, and AI activist, despatched a letter to the San Francisco decide overseeing an authors’ lawsuit in opposition to AI agency Anthropic to object to the best way the authorized submitting characterizes his work.
The grievance, which accuses Anthropic of violating authors’ copyrights, says that the corporate’s Claude mannequin “has been used to generate low-cost guide content material.” For example of the financial influence that AI-generated work has had on authors, it cites a Newsweek report about Boucher utilizing Claude to write down 97 books in lower than a 12 months.
In his letter [PDF] to Choose William Alsup, Boucher says that passage “mischaracterize[s] my work in a fashion that has led to reputational hurt, together with inflicting a significant media outlet to confer with me incorrectly as a ‘fraudster.'”
The letter – a request fairly than a defamation lawsuit at this level – scolds the plaintiffs’ attorneys (cc’d) for the unwarranted use of his title to assist their claims in opposition to Anthropic. And it asks for a revision of the grievance.
Acknowledging that the proliferation of AI-generated junk books on Amazon is an actual drawback, Boucher contends that his work shouldn’t be cited for example of misleading, damaging AI content material.
“I don’t copy or rip off the books of others,” he wrote. “The contents of my books come from my creativeness and I take advantage of AI instruments to appreciate that imaginative and prescient. I don’t falsely attribute my books to different authors. I don’t promote my books on Amazon.”
What’s extra, Boucher argues that since he has by no means paid Anthropic for AI companies, his work shouldn’t be used to assist allegations that Anthropic has profited from copyrighted work.
The dearth of care exhibited by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, he contends, “was pointless, unjust, and merciless. I ask that they appropriate the document and present higher consideration sooner or later for the actual human beings affected by their litigation ways.”
The Register requested two of the attorneys concerned within the grievance whether or not they’d care to remark. We have not heard again.
Following The Register’s reporting on the lawsuit, Boucher reached out to appropriate the document about his work. He agreed to be interviewed through electronic mail, previous to sending his letter.
The Register: I perceive that you just object to the best way the attorneys suing Anthropic have described your work of their grievance. Are you able to elaborate in your issues and the way you propose to reply?
Boucher: The grievance identifies some actual issues, significantly on Amazon, the place unscrupulous customers of generative AI are creating copycat or rip-off works, and falsely attributing them to in style authors.
Nevertheless, it then goes on to wrongly use my work as an illustration of this development. I do not have interaction in any of these practices. I do not even promote my books on Amazon. What’s in my books comes from my creativeness, and I take advantage of AI instruments to appreciate that imaginative and prescient, similar to I would in different instances use a paintbrush and canvas, or linoleum block cuts to do the identical.
I’m sending a discover to the legal professionals concerned within the go well with about the actual reputational hurt their mischaracterization of my work has precipitated me, and asking them to amend their submitting. If they don’t accomplish that, I might be sending a request to Choose Alsup to be allowed to enter an announcement into the general public docket for the case, correcting the inaccuracies contained within the submitting. If vital, I may even pursue the matter within the Courtroom of Quebec, the place I reside.
The Register: Do you’ve a view on whether or not AI fashions violate copyright legislation in Canada or different jurisdictions, both for coaching or inference?
Boucher: I am not an skilled on copyright legislation, however I did submit an announcement as an artist utilizing generative AI instruments to each the US Copyright Workplace’s public session on generative AI, and the one run by the Canadian Mental Property Workplace final 12 months. I participated in that as a result of it is essential that artists of every kind (whether or not or not they select to make use of AI) have a voice, since they finally drive a whole lot of innovation, and are hardly ever acknowledged for doing so.
Here is a hyperlink [PDF] to my particular person submission, reproduced on Berkeley Legislation’s web site.
To paraphrase from that doc, and as said within the advert hoc Artists Utilizing Generative AI group submission to Copyright Workplace:
Copyright legislation is sophisticated, and varies considerably between international locations. Once more, I am an artist and never a lawyer, however based mostly on my analysis below US legislation, most makes use of of copyrighted supplies for coaching functions appear to qualify as Truthful Use, and never infringing. The aim of together with gadgets in AI knowledge units is to not copy, retailer them for retrieval, or reproduce them. Its intention is to investigate, measure, and evaluate their properties in mixture to be able to transformatively create new works which aren’t merely spinoff of works within the coaching knowledge however solely new.
My place on the copyrightability of outputs from generative AI programs is that they’re transformative, and that they ought to have the ability to be registered with the US Copyright Workplace. My books as a collection are in actual fact registered with CIPO, which doesn’t overview or assess copyright submissions just like the USCO does. I could possibly be incorrect, however I consider that below the Berne Conference, this routinely grants me copyright protections as a creator within the US, which might not in any other case be accessible have been I to create the works whereas bodily current there, because of the USCO’s overly restrictive rulings on [Gen]AI. There must be extra scholarly thought round how finest to harmonize these totally different regimes in a manner that makes extra sense than it does now.
As to Canada, I just like the place taken by the Canadian Bar Affiliation right here [PDF] that characterizes using generative AI as being much like what a cinematographer would possibly do after they compose and organize movie or video works, and that this ought to be tailored for AI-generated or assisted works.
The Register: What concerning the idea of ethical rights, which within the US is proscribed to the best to attribution and the best to integrity, and applies to visible works (17 U.S.C. § 106A), however extends to all works in Canada? Do you see a difficulty with AI because it applies to ethical rights?
Boucher: In France, the place my books are being translated and printed by Typophilia, my understanding is that ethical rights are a good stronger idea than they’re within the US or Canada. Not like financial rights, which might be bought or transferred, ethical rights of French creators over their works are perpetual, inheritable, and can’t be transferred or bought. I feel the French centering of this topic on the rights of the writer is actually fascinating in that it’s so totally different from how copyright legislation works within the US, and that it may be so empowering for creators to have some measure of downstream management – even the place it would battle with financial rights owned by a 3rd occasion. However I feel it is nonetheless not a settled matter in France as to how ethical rights precisely ought to be tailored into these coaching situations for AI fashions, the place billions of works are thrown right into a blender, and turn out to be a form of statistical soup that’s drawn from and combined by means of inference with knowledge from user-defined generative AI prompts.
There may be a bit by technologist Jaron Lanier, that I considerably agree with, the place he advocates for there being one thing like an “attribution layer” in generative AI programs:
I feel that is an concept that’s worthy of exploration, although I acknowledge that possibly within the current configuration of those applied sciences, it may be troublesome or maybe unimaginable to tug off. My understanding of generative AI know-how is that its outputs are transformative of the billions of factors of information required to coach these fashions. They aren’t usually reproducing any particular work(s) partially or in entirety, nor are they based mostly on any small given subset of works, however on broad statistical patterns distributed throughout all the coaching set. That stated, we must always be capable of design the applied sciences to work the best way we would like them to work, fairly than be pressured to simply accept them working in methods we do not all agree on. To say that it may’t work a sure manner as a result of it doesn’t presently is a type of technological determinism I strongly disagree with.
The Register: Is the output of AI fashions helpful or priceless to you as an artist? In that case, in what manner?
Boucher: AI has made me a vastly higher author. I have been writing for a number of many years now, personally and generally professionally. However there are particular issues I’ve all the time fallen brief in, sure types of structured writing and logical circulate of arguments particularly which have all the time eluded me. LLMs are inclined to excel at this sort of writing, even when their outputs can generally have a tendency towards the vanilla. So the flexibility to have this device, this writing accomplice, to bounce my concepts off of, and who can quickly produce semi-usable outcomes has been unimaginable. It is not strictly a query of enhancing productiveness or quantity of labor that I can create (although it is that too), however this interrogative manner of working has rubbed off on me, and the AI instruments have taught me the right way to truly suppose extra logically and clearly about issues, after which to extra plainly set up these ideas and talk them with others. The identical course of is essentially at play with utilizing picture mills as nicely, the place it has helped develop my eye as an artist and inventive director, the place I can have a look at a visible piece – whether or not a portray I did, or a [Gen]AI undertaking – and extra simply consider, does this work for the impact that I need? After which to have the ability to quickly iterate on the outcomes till it matches my imaginative and prescient.
The Register: Would you be keen to share any details about how a lot of your earnings today comes from the distribution and sale of AI-augmented or generated work?
Boucher: I admire the curiosity that individuals have in particular financials for gross sales of AI books, as this data continues to be onerous to come back by. I made the error early on in my Newsweek article of going into some particulars about that within the curiosity of transparency, and what I noticed was that it provoked two attainable units of indignant reactions: 1) this man is making an excessive amount of cash off AI, and a pair of) this man isn’t truly making that a lot cash off AI. Neither of these responses actually drive the dialog ahead in a significant manner, I feel, nor do they get on the extra advanced points round AI and copyright, and what function we would prefer to have AI play in relation to human creativity. So I’d simply as quickly keep away from rehashing these arguments once more.
I’ll say that my books proceed to promote and get media protection with none promoting. And that a good portion of my patrons turn out to be repeat patrons, with many, many examples of readers coming again to purchase ten, 20, or in a single case even practically 50 totally different titles. That tells me persons are excited concerning the format and contents of my books, and that is rather more essential than particular gross sales numbers, which might solely go up with time.
The Register: Does it concern you that utilizing AI to generate books floods the market and dilutes financial alternative for authors writing with out AI help? Or do you see your work as separate from the general media/consideration ecosystem?
Boucher: I feel it’s totally regarding when individuals do truly create knock-off works which misuse the names of authors. The grievance is appropriate there. These practices completely flood the market and dilute the financial alternative for these authors. However that is not what I am doing in any respect.
My books are one thing else solely. My books are marketed as AI-assisted books and embody disclaimers prominently stating that reality. The print variations in France even have stickers affixed to the covers alerting readers to this reality. To me it is a promoting level, not a downside. Not everybody might be into it, however being clear and up entrance about correct labeling is all the time good observe, and ought to be adopted all through the trade.
What I feel is that, as these applied sciences enhance, many readers would possibly discover they get pleasure from AI books as a lot or greater than these produced by human authors. A number of the AI “minds,” for instance, in Iain M Banks’ Tradition books turn out to be achieved artists. There is a actually compelling paradigm shift that generative AI invitations us into as readers and viewers, the place the act of making and consuming turn out to be type of fused. The human writer turns into form of the “first reader,” who then helps level the best way ahead for different readers. Or it may be that works created this fashion might be privately produced for an viewers of 1, and that is simply effective too. I assist any and all permutations of how that might work for artists and audiences, together with for many who select to not use these instruments in any respect, and to keep away from any work created utilizing AI. There’ll all the time be markets for each sorts of creation.
The Register: Do you learn/view/hearken to different AI-generated content material if you’re studying/viewing/listening for pleasure? Or do you favor human-authored works?
Boucher: I’ve learn a number of AI-generated books, however they weren’t memorable for me as a result of they weren’t doing something particularly new or fascinating with the shape. That is a giant innovation that utilizing AI has been capable of afford me: I can now play with these bigger meta-forms by means of my work, as a result of a certain quantity of boots-on-the-ground labor has been liberated. I feel what we’re seeing now could be genuinely the delivery of a brand new artwork motion and would like to see people who find themselves working on this house actually push the bounds of the know-how and our standard understanding of what “books” and even “artwork” are. However we nonetheless have to infuse ourselves, our personalities, our ideas, our feelings, our humanity into these works to make them actually partaking and thrilling.
The Register: Did you employ AI to help with any of those solutions?
Boucher: Naturally, I attempted. I took the questions, together with different prior items of writing I had on this house, and tried to get ChatGPT to provide one thing usable. Generally that works, however usually it does not. On this case, the solutions fell very brief and have been extraordinarily flat and peculiar and boring. So I did undergo a bit with it simply to suppose out loud about sure factors, however did not find yourself utilizing any precise textual content generated by AI to reply these questions.
The Register: Any additional ideas you’d need to share?
Boucher: Already lined a ton of floor right here, so I do not suppose there’s something actually lacking. Actually admire you taking the time to listen to me out. I might like to assist scale back the stigma for artists who need to discover and create on this new rising media that I consider as a “hypercanvas,” the place as a substitute of particular person brushstrokes, every picture, or every question in an LLM turns into the “brushstrokes” in these increased dimensional works. I’ve taken a whole lot of flak publicly for being up entrance about what I am doing, however I am a agency believer that these conversations have to occur publicly about what we would like from AI (or from not utilizing AI), and the way finest we will get there. So, if what I am doing can open the door for different artists to not be scared to experiment with these unimaginable and extremely imperfect new applied sciences, and to not be always insulted, threatened, and mischaracterized, nicely then, I feel I’ll have achieved one thing ultimately. ®
Interview Tim Boucher, a Canadian artist, writer, and AI activist, despatched a letter to the San Francisco decide overseeing an authors’ lawsuit in opposition to AI agency Anthropic to object to the best way the authorized submitting characterizes his work.
The grievance, which accuses Anthropic of violating authors’ copyrights, says that the corporate’s Claude mannequin “has been used to generate low-cost guide content material.” For example of the financial influence that AI-generated work has had on authors, it cites a Newsweek report about Boucher utilizing Claude to write down 97 books in lower than a 12 months.
In his letter [PDF] to Choose William Alsup, Boucher says that passage “mischaracterize[s] my work in a fashion that has led to reputational hurt, together with inflicting a significant media outlet to confer with me incorrectly as a ‘fraudster.'”
The letter – a request fairly than a defamation lawsuit at this level – scolds the plaintiffs’ attorneys (cc’d) for the unwarranted use of his title to assist their claims in opposition to Anthropic. And it asks for a revision of the grievance.
Acknowledging that the proliferation of AI-generated junk books on Amazon is an actual drawback, Boucher contends that his work shouldn’t be cited for example of misleading, damaging AI content material.
“I don’t copy or rip off the books of others,” he wrote. “The contents of my books come from my creativeness and I take advantage of AI instruments to appreciate that imaginative and prescient. I don’t falsely attribute my books to different authors. I don’t promote my books on Amazon.”
What’s extra, Boucher argues that since he has by no means paid Anthropic for AI companies, his work shouldn’t be used to assist allegations that Anthropic has profited from copyrighted work.
The dearth of care exhibited by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, he contends, “was pointless, unjust, and merciless. I ask that they appropriate the document and present higher consideration sooner or later for the actual human beings affected by their litigation ways.”
The Register requested two of the attorneys concerned within the grievance whether or not they’d care to remark. We have not heard again.
Following The Register’s reporting on the lawsuit, Boucher reached out to appropriate the document about his work. He agreed to be interviewed through electronic mail, previous to sending his letter.
The Register: I perceive that you just object to the best way the attorneys suing Anthropic have described your work of their grievance. Are you able to elaborate in your issues and the way you propose to reply?
Boucher: The grievance identifies some actual issues, significantly on Amazon, the place unscrupulous customers of generative AI are creating copycat or rip-off works, and falsely attributing them to in style authors.
Nevertheless, it then goes on to wrongly use my work as an illustration of this development. I do not have interaction in any of these practices. I do not even promote my books on Amazon. What’s in my books comes from my creativeness, and I take advantage of AI instruments to appreciate that imaginative and prescient, similar to I would in different instances use a paintbrush and canvas, or linoleum block cuts to do the identical.
I’m sending a discover to the legal professionals concerned within the go well with about the actual reputational hurt their mischaracterization of my work has precipitated me, and asking them to amend their submitting. If they don’t accomplish that, I might be sending a request to Choose Alsup to be allowed to enter an announcement into the general public docket for the case, correcting the inaccuracies contained within the submitting. If vital, I may even pursue the matter within the Courtroom of Quebec, the place I reside.
The Register: Do you’ve a view on whether or not AI fashions violate copyright legislation in Canada or different jurisdictions, both for coaching or inference?
Boucher: I am not an skilled on copyright legislation, however I did submit an announcement as an artist utilizing generative AI instruments to each the US Copyright Workplace’s public session on generative AI, and the one run by the Canadian Mental Property Workplace final 12 months. I participated in that as a result of it is essential that artists of every kind (whether or not or not they select to make use of AI) have a voice, since they finally drive a whole lot of innovation, and are hardly ever acknowledged for doing so.
Here is a hyperlink [PDF] to my particular person submission, reproduced on Berkeley Legislation’s web site.
To paraphrase from that doc, and as said within the advert hoc Artists Utilizing Generative AI group submission to Copyright Workplace:
Copyright legislation is sophisticated, and varies considerably between international locations. Once more, I am an artist and never a lawyer, however based mostly on my analysis below US legislation, most makes use of of copyrighted supplies for coaching functions appear to qualify as Truthful Use, and never infringing. The aim of together with gadgets in AI knowledge units is to not copy, retailer them for retrieval, or reproduce them. Its intention is to investigate, measure, and evaluate their properties in mixture to be able to transformatively create new works which aren’t merely spinoff of works within the coaching knowledge however solely new.
My place on the copyrightability of outputs from generative AI programs is that they’re transformative, and that they ought to have the ability to be registered with the US Copyright Workplace. My books as a collection are in actual fact registered with CIPO, which doesn’t overview or assess copyright submissions just like the USCO does. I could possibly be incorrect, however I consider that below the Berne Conference, this routinely grants me copyright protections as a creator within the US, which might not in any other case be accessible have been I to create the works whereas bodily current there, because of the USCO’s overly restrictive rulings on [Gen]AI. There must be extra scholarly thought round how finest to harmonize these totally different regimes in a manner that makes extra sense than it does now.
As to Canada, I just like the place taken by the Canadian Bar Affiliation right here [PDF] that characterizes using generative AI as being much like what a cinematographer would possibly do after they compose and organize movie or video works, and that this ought to be tailored for AI-generated or assisted works.
The Register: What concerning the idea of ethical rights, which within the US is proscribed to the best to attribution and the best to integrity, and applies to visible works (17 U.S.C. § 106A), however extends to all works in Canada? Do you see a difficulty with AI because it applies to ethical rights?
Boucher: In France, the place my books are being translated and printed by Typophilia, my understanding is that ethical rights are a good stronger idea than they’re within the US or Canada. Not like financial rights, which might be bought or transferred, ethical rights of French creators over their works are perpetual, inheritable, and can’t be transferred or bought. I feel the French centering of this topic on the rights of the writer is actually fascinating in that it’s so totally different from how copyright legislation works within the US, and that it may be so empowering for creators to have some measure of downstream management – even the place it would battle with financial rights owned by a 3rd occasion. However I feel it is nonetheless not a settled matter in France as to how ethical rights precisely ought to be tailored into these coaching situations for AI fashions, the place billions of works are thrown right into a blender, and turn out to be a form of statistical soup that’s drawn from and combined by means of inference with knowledge from user-defined generative AI prompts.
There may be a bit by technologist Jaron Lanier, that I considerably agree with, the place he advocates for there being one thing like an “attribution layer” in generative AI programs:
I feel that is an concept that’s worthy of exploration, although I acknowledge that possibly within the current configuration of those applied sciences, it may be troublesome or maybe unimaginable to tug off. My understanding of generative AI know-how is that its outputs are transformative of the billions of factors of information required to coach these fashions. They aren’t usually reproducing any particular work(s) partially or in entirety, nor are they based mostly on any small given subset of works, however on broad statistical patterns distributed throughout all the coaching set. That stated, we must always be capable of design the applied sciences to work the best way we would like them to work, fairly than be pressured to simply accept them working in methods we do not all agree on. To say that it may’t work a sure manner as a result of it doesn’t presently is a type of technological determinism I strongly disagree with.
The Register: Is the output of AI fashions helpful or priceless to you as an artist? In that case, in what manner?
Boucher: AI has made me a vastly higher author. I have been writing for a number of many years now, personally and generally professionally. However there are particular issues I’ve all the time fallen brief in, sure types of structured writing and logical circulate of arguments particularly which have all the time eluded me. LLMs are inclined to excel at this sort of writing, even when their outputs can generally have a tendency towards the vanilla. So the flexibility to have this device, this writing accomplice, to bounce my concepts off of, and who can quickly produce semi-usable outcomes has been unimaginable. It is not strictly a query of enhancing productiveness or quantity of labor that I can create (although it is that too), however this interrogative manner of working has rubbed off on me, and the AI instruments have taught me the right way to truly suppose extra logically and clearly about issues, after which to extra plainly set up these ideas and talk them with others. The identical course of is essentially at play with utilizing picture mills as nicely, the place it has helped develop my eye as an artist and inventive director, the place I can have a look at a visible piece – whether or not a portray I did, or a [Gen]AI undertaking – and extra simply consider, does this work for the impact that I need? After which to have the ability to quickly iterate on the outcomes till it matches my imaginative and prescient.
The Register: Would you be keen to share any details about how a lot of your earnings today comes from the distribution and sale of AI-augmented or generated work?
Boucher: I admire the curiosity that individuals have in particular financials for gross sales of AI books, as this data continues to be onerous to come back by. I made the error early on in my Newsweek article of going into some particulars about that within the curiosity of transparency, and what I noticed was that it provoked two attainable units of indignant reactions: 1) this man is making an excessive amount of cash off AI, and a pair of) this man isn’t truly making that a lot cash off AI. Neither of these responses actually drive the dialog ahead in a significant manner, I feel, nor do they get on the extra advanced points round AI and copyright, and what function we would prefer to have AI play in relation to human creativity. So I’d simply as quickly keep away from rehashing these arguments once more.
I’ll say that my books proceed to promote and get media protection with none promoting. And that a good portion of my patrons turn out to be repeat patrons, with many, many examples of readers coming again to purchase ten, 20, or in a single case even practically 50 totally different titles. That tells me persons are excited concerning the format and contents of my books, and that is rather more essential than particular gross sales numbers, which might solely go up with time.
The Register: Does it concern you that utilizing AI to generate books floods the market and dilutes financial alternative for authors writing with out AI help? Or do you see your work as separate from the general media/consideration ecosystem?
Boucher: I feel it’s totally regarding when individuals do truly create knock-off works which misuse the names of authors. The grievance is appropriate there. These practices completely flood the market and dilute the financial alternative for these authors. However that is not what I am doing in any respect.
My books are one thing else solely. My books are marketed as AI-assisted books and embody disclaimers prominently stating that reality. The print variations in France even have stickers affixed to the covers alerting readers to this reality. To me it is a promoting level, not a downside. Not everybody might be into it, however being clear and up entrance about correct labeling is all the time good observe, and ought to be adopted all through the trade.
What I feel is that, as these applied sciences enhance, many readers would possibly discover they get pleasure from AI books as a lot or greater than these produced by human authors. A number of the AI “minds,” for instance, in Iain M Banks’ Tradition books turn out to be achieved artists. There is a actually compelling paradigm shift that generative AI invitations us into as readers and viewers, the place the act of making and consuming turn out to be type of fused. The human writer turns into form of the “first reader,” who then helps level the best way ahead for different readers. Or it may be that works created this fashion might be privately produced for an viewers of 1, and that is simply effective too. I assist any and all permutations of how that might work for artists and audiences, together with for many who select to not use these instruments in any respect, and to keep away from any work created utilizing AI. There’ll all the time be markets for each sorts of creation.
The Register: Do you learn/view/hearken to different AI-generated content material if you’re studying/viewing/listening for pleasure? Or do you favor human-authored works?
Boucher: I’ve learn a number of AI-generated books, however they weren’t memorable for me as a result of they weren’t doing something particularly new or fascinating with the shape. That is a giant innovation that utilizing AI has been capable of afford me: I can now play with these bigger meta-forms by means of my work, as a result of a certain quantity of boots-on-the-ground labor has been liberated. I feel what we’re seeing now could be genuinely the delivery of a brand new artwork motion and would like to see people who find themselves working on this house actually push the bounds of the know-how and our standard understanding of what “books” and even “artwork” are. However we nonetheless have to infuse ourselves, our personalities, our ideas, our feelings, our humanity into these works to make them actually partaking and thrilling.
The Register: Did you employ AI to help with any of those solutions?
Boucher: Naturally, I attempted. I took the questions, together with different prior items of writing I had on this house, and tried to get ChatGPT to provide one thing usable. Generally that works, however usually it does not. On this case, the solutions fell very brief and have been extraordinarily flat and peculiar and boring. So I did undergo a bit with it simply to suppose out loud about sure factors, however did not find yourself utilizing any precise textual content generated by AI to reply these questions.
The Register: Any additional ideas you’d need to share?
Boucher: Already lined a ton of floor right here, so I do not suppose there’s something actually lacking. Actually admire you taking the time to listen to me out. I might like to assist scale back the stigma for artists who need to discover and create on this new rising media that I consider as a “hypercanvas,” the place as a substitute of particular person brushstrokes, every picture, or every question in an LLM turns into the “brushstrokes” in these increased dimensional works. I’ve taken a whole lot of flak publicly for being up entrance about what I am doing, however I am a agency believer that these conversations have to occur publicly about what we would like from AI (or from not utilizing AI), and the way finest we will get there. So, if what I am doing can open the door for different artists to not be scared to experiment with these unimaginable and extremely imperfect new applied sciences, and to not be always insulted, threatened, and mischaracterized, nicely then, I feel I’ll have achieved one thing ultimately. ®
