In the article “ The Future Of Writing Is A lot Like Hip-Hop “ by Stephan Marche. When the author wrote “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing”? I believe it means that with AI it’s becoming a source that many will be using to speed up work and will spark up more creativity with just a matter of a few sentences. How easy it is to illustrate and be able to maneuver with a free mind and words. As there really is not much originality anymore in the world of AI because just with a few clicks on a computer everything will be illustrated and laid out right for you. Compared to human work, I feel as if you can feel the effort put into the art. You see the authenticity and care, compared to a computer. But it’s almost as, are you able to tell the difference, really? AI is normalized now that everyone in their everyday world uses it. I also do see it wouldn’t be changing  much now in the modern world. As day by day technology expands even more, new ways to cut down on work as well as techniques. Technology will have its power against the real world and the affects of our daily lives. 

In both articles by Sarah Kuta and Kevin Roose, I do believe that AI should be considered art but in its own specific category, still leaving room for the artists that hand paint or design paintings. This is so they are still kept into relevance since the art world doesn’t receive so much recognition as it once did. AI generated art is the new way to create many things. As to how, many people are able to express creativity. For it to reach the artistry world it gives it a new light to shine upon. As well as bring in a newer and younger audience into the artistry world. 

I do think artists have the right to feel any concern about this new innovation as it does become a conflict to many people who believe that one day all these new inventions and newer technology will completely take over us. As to the time that they gradually put into their work to it now all of it being done in a matter of a few clicks. The fear that artists will carry from learning their techniques from a young age to now being replaced by a machine will leave many jobless and confused as to why it even happened. 

Stephen Marche says that “creative AI is going to change everything. It’s not going to change anything either,” in my opinion, Stephen shows the work of AI and how people think AI changes the world, whether it’s good or bad, because AI is a tool that works a little bit faster than people creating new things, so people think AI is going to change work, but in reality AI is nothing more than a tool that writers must use, so you just need to improve the knowledge about AI and how to work and use properly with AI as a tool and in this way Stephen Marche gives us to understand about how creative AI is going to change everything. Nothing is going to change either.

Stephen Marche’s statement, “creative AI is going to change everything, but it’s also not going to change anything,” in my opinion means and reflects the two sides of the impact of artificial intelligence on humanity’s creativity.
When he mentions the first sentence of “creative AI is going to change everything”, he refers to the positive side of AI since it is producing a revolution in different social fields such as art, music, writing and others. AI creates new ideas and implements more options in terms of technology, in addition to facilitating and modifying some aspects that are created in humanity.
On the other hand, when Stephen adds “but it’s not going to change anything either,” he indicates that the fact that AI generates new creative ideas in technology will result in humanity’s creativity being stagnant since there will be someone else who creates and invents for them. As for experiences and emotions, they will also remain paused and will not advance since artificial intelligence cannot reproduce feelings which are the basis for humanity to be able to generate new ideas and create.

In the reading “The Future Of Writing Is A Lot Like Hip Hop” Stephen Marche makes a brazen claim in support of generative writing, likening DJ Kool Herc’s stroke of genius in creating the break beat to that of the derivative nature of A.I. writing. If it isn’t abundantly clear, I’m not in support of this statement and quite honestly find the sentiment laughable. While I do recognize the similarities in sampling and using Chat GPT for inspiration, The workload that goes into making a song with a sample versus writing a story that is ninety five percent written and constructed by an artificial being is quite stark. With that being said the Author did make some rousing points highlighting the downfall of creativity in current times before A.I. writing has come into full swing. He is explaining to us that a lack of creativity and genuine passion will always linger and creep it’s way into lucrative business opportunities. Marche looks at A.I. as a glimmering light in the gloomy and monotonous landscape that the artistic world is living in and he believes that, generative writing is neither bad nor good. It’s all about who is wielding the pen and what direction they decide to take with their knowledge of writing. He likens the accessibility of Chat GPT to an thesaurus stating how most folks have access to one but you wont find many people with a vocabulary quite that extensive. In the authors mind A.I. is nothing more than a tool, a reminder of a bygone era that affirms that we have been here before and we can grow past this again. When you think about the portrait artist and the shock that must of came from being able to capture life on film. There was a complete shift in how art was inspired and created after that and hopefully A.I. will push people to new heights and ideas we never thought possible before.

1. A.I is considered as an Artificial Intelligence. Well, art is considered as the expression of human creative skills and imagination, typically in a visual form. Art is developed throughout the year in many different ways. After reading the two articles by Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta, they explained Mr. Allens intentions in using A.I and the process of which he did so. For these reasons I agree that A.I should be considered as another aspect of art. He almost spent around eighty hours working on his entree piece. However after careful evaluation he piked his favorites and edited them more using other programs. So due all these reasons said that A.I generated art should be definitely considered as art.
2. when I think about the handicraft, the very first thought comes on my mind is time and patients. Well, I understand why artists are more concerned with the rapid growth in popularity of A.I but A.I has several specific points. Among the most important would be time dedication to their work. Since some artists takes long time and more efforts to elaborate them in details and see that something artificial intelligence facilitates this process, they could feel that all their efforts were in vain. Hence I do believe artist has the point but it is exaggerated.

The article “The Future of Writing is A Lot Like Hip-Hop” by Stephen Marche explains the many different processes it took to make the book “Death of an author”. So after reading I think what he meant was the process of making a peice of art will change, but the different components of making said art will remain the same. Marche mentions in this specific case of photography that” The value of understanding form and color, of framing, of the ability to recognize the transience of emotion across a face or a landscape—the need to understand the materials of production”. So even though painting and photography are two different forms of art that could produce the same results, you would still need to understand the values of what makes the art good. The same thing for using A.I to write a book, it could write you a book but without the values of a literary styles, or what polished sentences are, and even what a proper paragraph is. So I think the methods of creating things will change because, of A.I, but we will still need the traditional aspects/values of what make art good.

In “The Future of Writing Is a Lot Like Hip Hop” Marche explains the process of writing a novel using AI for 95 % of it. It is clear, that using AI is just that, a process. He unfolds how he went back and forth with 3 different AI systems to write various parts of Death of an Author, as each ones capability is limited. The decision were his, as were the ideas. AI only helped him combine these ideas to produce writing in the style of his choosing. But the book was far from finished only using what AI had generated. 

When Marche says “Creative AI is going to change everything. It’s is also going to change nothing“, to my understanding, he mean there is no good writing with AI without a good human writer behind it and the tools AI is equipped with, when used correctly, will further push writers to the excellence and creativity.  Although the book is 95% AI written it still had to be continuously edited. Marche stated he edited almost every passage of Death of an Author. He describes how he knows good writing, so he knew how to give those instructions to get a desirable outcome. AI needs to be fed thought out material for the results to be specific. Writers are still the brain behind the machine. When using AI writers have a literary vault at their fingertips. Being able access techniques great writes have used before them, helps evolve their own. AI tools can enhance writers creativity by giving them freedom to easily elaborate their ideas. AI is giving “writing” a new definition.