Conclusions¶

In this book, I have addressed the concept of authorship in the era of artificial intelligence from two complementary perspectives. In the first part, I outlined my vision of how the concept of author could and should evolve to adapt to the new creative realities made possible by AI, introducing the idea of the hybrid author, a figure that fuses unique human skills with the potential of generative AI. Similarly, the concept of work is also affected by the same challenges.

In the second part, I examined the current state of the question through the analysis of recent rulings and judicial cases. This overview allows us to understand how legal systems are trying to adapt traditional concepts of authorship and copyright to the challenges posed by new technologies.

Despite the apparent differences between these two perspectives—one looking to the future and the other confronting the present—the common element is the centrality of the person in the creative process. Whether it is the vision of the hybrid author or the legal interpretation of human creative contribution, in both cases it is the human contribution that remains crucial and irreplaceable.

This common thread manifests itself in multiple and significant ways. The creative vision remains firmly in the hands of the human being, who conceives the initial idea and guides the creative process from beginning to end. Both in the idea of the hybrid author and in the analyzed legal cases, it clearly emerges how the control and direction of the creative process by the human are considered fundamental and essential elements.

In this evaluation, the human capacity for interpretation and selection is also crucial: the ability to understand, evaluate, and give meaning to AI outputs proves determining in the creative process. This capacity for discernment and interpretation is a distinctive element that characterizes both the future vision of hybrid authorship and the current legal interpretation. Equally significant is the human contribution in terms of understanding cultural, emotional, and social context: this dimension remains irreplaceable, representing a fundamental bridge between the future vision and the interpretation of current laws.

Looking to the future, I consider it likely that the concept of authorship will continue to evolve as AI technologies become increasingly sophisticated. However, the lesson that emerges from this analysis is that, despite technological progress, the role of the human being in the creative process will remain central. The challenge for the future will be to find a balance between recognizing human contribution and accepting the creative potential of AI, creating a legal and cultural framework that can welcome and enhance this new form of hybrid creativity.

As we move toward a future in which collaboration between humans and AI will become increasingly common and sophisticated, I believe it is fundamental to keep the unique and irreplaceable value of human contribution at the center of the discussion. Only in this way can we fully exploit the potential of generative AI while preserving the essence of what makes art and creativity profoundly human.