1. I agree with the viewpoint expressed in this blog that A.I. can benefit many people, but it also has the downside of contributing to plagiarism and making it difficult to distinguish authentic artwork. The statement “Isn’t the whole point of being creative authenticity and originality?” highlights how art created before A.I. relied more on the human mind and imagination, resulting in more authentic and original artwork. When artwork is genuinely original, the difference is remarkable compared to work that is quickly generated by A.I. It seems like the world relies too heavily on A.I., causing some people to forget the value of authenticity and originality in creative work. Human-created original thinking and artwork are inherently more creative than the A.I.-generated artwork that is prevalent today. This is primarily because human creators bring their emotions, experiences, and unique perspectives to their work, resulting in pieces that reflect the depth and complexity of human existence. While A.I. can certainly facilitate and enhance the creative process, it currently lacks the intuitive understanding and emotional depth that human creators possess. In the passage “The Future of Writing is a Lot like Hip-hop” by Stephen Marche, he discusses how today’s music often relies on existing material. Music repurposes ideas; it is not released but archives. Marche draws parallels between the creative processes of both writing and hip-hop music, suggesting that they are both heavily influenced by existing works and cultural references. This intertextuality in contemporary art forms reflects a shift in the way creativity is expressed and understood in the digital age. It demonstrates how artists are drawing on a wide range of sources, such as literature, music, and other art forms, to create new and innovative works. This blending of influences creates a rich tapestry of meaning and depth in contemporary art, capturing the complexity and interconnectedness of our modern world.

2. Stephen Marche states that “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing.” Marche’s purpose with that statement is to convey that the power of A.I. has the potential to revolutionize the world. By that same token, A.I. could also have no effect. One example of its potential includes the streamlining of the creative process, such as being able to instantly generate intricate images. However, A.I. has its limitations regarding intuition, emotions, and personal experiences that fuel creativity and are essential for creating impactful art. This is all to say that while A.I. can be a valuable tool for society, it cannot replace the human experience that breathes life into art.

3. I somewhat agree and disagree. The reason is that A.I can be creative and do everything that human can do but faster that why many workplaces replacing their employees with a.i and it getting more advanced and better. But the company that get a.i help often to forget that it not always going to be stable and going to have problem because it made by a human. That’s the reason I also disagree because even though a.i can do everything and faster but it takes everything from that the human works they already did because it doesn’t have their own thoughts because of that human have to use their thoughts to make the a.i creatively make things that why I disagree because the there is always a human input needed for the a.i to do the work.

Comments are closed.