Blog posts

There are 7 posts filed in Blog posts (this is page 1 of 1).

Blog Post #2

When Stephen Marche says that ai is gonna change everything and nothing he’s saying that in a way history is repeating itself. From what I understood Stephen knows that other people see ai as “destroying human originality” but then makes a good point about the top movies being sequels or prequels and that originality has been dead for a while. His second point is what really made me understand his view, he explained how a dj used a microphone and turntables to isolate the sound of a song specifically the part everyone liked creating the “break” and as he put it the dj was you can say “imitating” or simply using someone else’s work but at the same time was doing the most original thing which is ironic. With the tittle of the article being “the future of writing is a lot like hip-hop” this is exactly what he means, he says that it took 20 years for hip hop to be seen as a form of art. Using this point of view we can apply the same to ai Stephen is essentially saying ai will change everything by becoming a new tool to be used and will definitely be looked down upon for not being original or should I say derivative but in the end history repeats itself and maybe it’ll take longer to see ai as a form of art. While it changes everything by giving writers something new to experiment with and giving us stories not a single human could’ve thought of, it changes nothing because everyone will learn to accept it.

Blog Post 2

In Stephen Marche’s article, “The Future of Writing Is a Lot Like HipHop”, he asserts that “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing”. With the rise of creative artificial intelligence tools, the belief that it’s going to destroy creativity is justifiable. However, in addition to the many possibilities that A.I brings, there are certain limitations to consider. It is difficult to produce a decent piece of writing with artificial intelligence that replicates human work. This is demonstrated by Marche’s attempt at creating a book that was entirely generated using artificial intelligence. In order to achieve his desired result and writing style he had to use a variety of prompts, in which he asked the A.I tool to replicate other authors’ writing. Despite these efforts, he claims that if you looked closely, you could tell it was written by a machine. While it is important to acknowledge that artificial intelligence will have a significant impact on creative processes, it will not replace the human aspect of creative thought and expression. Creative A.I. is going to change everything because tasks once requiring human skill can now be automated. But, it’s also going to change nothing because despite these breakthroughs, A.I. cannot mimic emotion or creativity, it cannot reach the same emotional depth as humans.

blog post #2

When Stephen Marche states, “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing,” Marche is able to recognize the Yin and Yang of A.I.’s influence on creativity. I feel as though A.I. will completely transform the creative space by making it easier to write, produce art, and partake in other forms of self-expression.The way A.I speeds up processes that normally takes way more time to complete. The progression that’s taking place in technology can lead to a flood of creative outputs, because It’s breaking down stigmas, and allowing people more free will to experiment with newer forms of self-expression. However, with these advancements in technology, Marche implies that the want to over step boundaries and express unique ideas will remain unchanged. Just as decades and centuries ago technologies like photography and digital art tools didn’t eliminate the traditional forms of creativity but expanded them, A.I. will do the same. It may change the process of writing, and other forms of expression but the main source of creative expression still lies within the human. While A.I. will change how we create, it won’t alter what it means to be creative.

Blog Post #1

1. In the Articles by both Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both give some great viewpoints about A.I. generated work that I appreciated. In this particular artist who made this submission that had everyone talking, I do agree his work should be considered art. To me art is the time that you invest to put forth a vision that you had in your mind and made it physical. That is what this particular artist did. In both articles both writers explained the hours the artist put into his ideas and what he went through to choose his final entry. He took the time to build something from his thought process to create something so original that no other artist physically painted. My answer remains yes in this instance of A.I generated art can be considered Art. 2. I do believe the Artist do have a fair point. Especially taking the time with their hands to go through hours of a creating a template and painting it.it or building it. Basically, bringing it to life. So, it’s fair if we are talking about the hand work of an artist. But in my opinion, they are being sore losers. When you have talent in any form, it’s best not to compare yourself to others. If your great you create a lane of greatness that’s your won. A.I generated or handmade doesn’t matter. The person who made it so matters the most because no mind is the same. So, I commend anyone how takes the time to create a physical version of a vision they had. Not everyone can do so even if they put the physical time in or used A.I. the difference will always be the human mind behind it.

blog post #1

  1. In my opinion, A.I generated art shouldn’t be considered real art because it lacks the emotions and creative process that comes from human Artists. A.I doesn’t have the ability to feel emotions or pull ideas from personal experiences. In fact, it depends on gathering material from the internet to put together images, Kevin Roose explains in the article “An A.I generated picture won an Art prize. Artists aren’t happy.” Roose states “Apps like DALL-E 2 and Midjourney are built by scraping millions of images from the open web, then teaching algorithms to recognize patterns and relationships in those images and generate new ones in the same style. The operation of A.I generated art highlights how A.I lacks originality and authenticity, as it solely gives out existing work which doesn’t showcase true creative expression.
  2. I believe artists have valid concerns about A.I generated art, as it lacks originality A.I isn’t able to create new concepts, Rather it’s “thought process” is based on pre-existing images and ideas, which ends in work that lacks substance. Furthermore it can be used dishonestly. Sarah Kuta states in her article “Art Made With Artificial Intelligence Wins at State Fair”, “These technologies have the potential to spread disinformation and create deep fakes, an umbrella term for deceptive photos and videos that are digitally altered.” This shows the possible negative uses of A.I, beyond just creating art.

Prompt: Blog post 1

Please consider the following questions and write a blog post that details your answer (about 200 words):

  1. With the situation this article describes in mind, do you feel that A.I.-generated art should be considered art? Why or why not?
  2. New inventions and technologies in art making have frequently been a part of the history of art. (For example, more than 100 years ago many artists thought the photographic camera would disrupt the status of forms like painting and sculpture, but the camera is now a widely accepted artistic tool.) Do you think artists’ concerns about this innovation are exaggerated or do you think they have a point? Why or why not?