1. Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both share great ideas and perspectives in their articles regarding A.I. and its relationship with art. Initially I disagreed with the belief that A.I. generated artwork should be looked at and considered as art. Art for me has been an outlet to express my own feelings and ideas that maybe couldn’t be put into words. A crucial part when creating an art piece is the process that it takes to do it. Imagine how much time I could save if I could physically write some of the artwork that I’ve done into an A.I. generator, That would be amazing! But because of the feelings and passion that I put into each of my work, I wouldn’t even know where to start. Though I feel the way I do about my own art, I do see how you can still look at it as art. It follows all the same “principles” and “guidelines” of what art is when you look at the end results from a surface level viewpoint. But comparing that process to the “regular” art creation process can uncover a variety of differences between them.

2. I believe that the artists argue a very fair perspective. Some of them may be exaggerating a bit, but its hard to say because of how passionate and dedicated some are to maintaining the authenticity of creating art. The concern of A.I. taking over specific jobs is a fear amongst a variety of occupations, making these concerns and worries completely reasonable. I think as long as artist realize that art is always going to be changing and new technology that is introduced into the art world doesn’t take away from the love and appreciation individuals still have for “human created art”. As a result of this people should be open to appreciating this new form of A.I generated art as another form of art and human expression.