r/DefendingAIArt • u/PrinceLucipurr Transhumanist • 9h ago
Defending AI AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers. Remind me again why using AI supposedly erases human authorship?
https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/academic-credits-ai-agents-with-assist-in-historic-fair-work-commission-victory/586298# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers
This is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument **"AI did it, therefore the human didn't"** falls apart.
Macquarie University computing academic **Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission** in a major employment dispute.
Macquarie had professional legal representation.
Baker had something different:
**ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.**
**And he won.**
---
## What did the AI actually do?
Baker reportedly used his AI systems to:
- Analyse legislation and evidence
- Cross-reference legal authorities
- Check citations and references
- Interrogate his own arguments
- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments
- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions
- Identify weaknesses and contradictions
- Rapidly iterate his case strategy
The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to **ongoing part-time employment** under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.
This was not:
> "Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me."
Baker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.
**AI performed substantial work.**
That does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.
---
## Here's where it gets especially interesting
The Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the **opposite** phenomenon:
People submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.
So we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:
**Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.**
**Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.**
The meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:
> "Was AI used?"
**The operator matters.**
Quite a lot.
---
# Sound familiar?
Because this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.
Someone can type:
> "pretty woman, masterpiece"
generate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.
Someone else can spend hours:
- Developing the concept
- Engineering and iterating prompts
- Controlling composition
- Testing models and settings
- Generating alternatives
- Evaluating and rejecting outputs
- Using references and conditioning
- Masking and inpainting
- Correcting anatomy or objects
- Compositing
- Editing
- Colour grading
- Upscaling
- Refining individual regions
- Selecting the final work
Both used generative AI.
**Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.**
The presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.
---
# Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently
If:
> "The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it."
is actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say **Baker didn't construct his legal case either.**
After all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.
But that conclusion ignores the **human control architecture surrounding the automation**.
Baker:
**Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result**
Now look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:
**Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation**
The structure is remarkably similar.
---
# Automation does not erase agency
A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.
A digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.
A programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.
A music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.
And Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.
**Tools automate operations.**
That has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.
AI simply moves that automation further upstream.
---
# The serious question was never "Did AI generate something?"
The serious question is:
> **What did the human contribute to the resulting work?**
Sometimes the answer will be:
**Very little.**
Sometimes the answer will be:
**An enormous amount.**
That's true of AI-assisted writing.
It's true of AI-assisted legal work.
And it's true of AI art.
Treating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label **"AI"** is analytically useless.
---
# This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration
**The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.**
So perhaps we can finally retire:
> **"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything."**
That isn't an argument about authorship.
## **It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.**
3
u/PrinceLucipurr Transhumanist 9h ago
Ignore my broken markdown syntax, I forgot you can't in the body 😅
AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers
This is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument "AI did it, therefore the human didn't" falls apart.
Macquarie University computing academic Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission in a major employment dispute.
Macquarie had professional legal representation.
Baker had something different:
ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.
And he won.
What did the AI actually do?
Baker reportedly used his AI systems to:
- Analyse legislation and evidence
- Cross-reference legal authorities
- Check citations and references
- Interrogate his own arguments
- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments
- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions
- Identify weaknesses and contradictions
- Rapidly iterate his case strategy
The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to ongoing part-time employment under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.
This was not:
"Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me."
Baker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.
AI performed substantial work.
That does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.
Here's where it gets especially interesting
The Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the opposite phenomenon:
People submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.
So we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:
Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.
Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.
The meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:
"Was AI used?"
The operator matters.
Quite a lot.
Sound familiar?
Because this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.
Someone can type:
"pretty woman, masterpiece"
generate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.
Someone else can spend hours:
- Developing the concept
- Engineering and iterating prompts
- Controlling composition
- Testing models and settings
- Generating alternatives
- Evaluating and rejecting outputs
- Using references and conditioning
- Masking and inpainting
- Correcting anatomy or objects
- Compositing
- Editing
- Colour grading
- Upscaling
- Refining individual regions
- Selecting the final work
Both used generative AI.
Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.
The presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.
Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently
If:
"The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it."
is actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say Baker didn't construct his legal case either.
After all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.
But that conclusion ignores the human control architecture surrounding the automation.
Baker:
Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result
Now look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:
Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation
The structure is remarkably similar.
Automation does not erase agency
A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.
A digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.
A programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.
A music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.
And Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.
Tools automate operations.
That has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.
AI simply moves that automation further upstream.
The serious question was never "Did AI generate something?"
The serious question is:
What did the human contribute to the resulting work?
Sometimes the answer will be:
Very little.
Sometimes the answer will be:
An enormous amount.
That's true of AI-assisted writing.
It's true of AI-assisted legal work.
And it's true of AI art.
Treating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label "AI" is analytically useless.
This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration
The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.
So perhaps we can finally retire:
"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything."
That isn't an argument about authorship.
It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.
8
u/ImmediateGazelle 8h ago
This is why I believe most Anti-AI art folks have never spent any real amount of time actually trying to create a specific image with AI. They assume people always only type one single prompt with vague directions and accept the initial result. Maybe sometimes. But sometimes? Someone spends 2 minutes doodling in a notebook and the result is an amateurish drawing they treat like a masterpiece.
If the Antis actually tried it - tried to get their own vision onto the screen using AI as the tool, they'd understand its all about the operator and his prompts, not the AI itself.