When Stephen Marche asserts that “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing” I believe he’s trying to make us understand that just like anything; things change and evolve. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is negative or that it is beneficial. It just means we have to adjust to our new environment in order to be content with the changes even if it takes a while. A great example he used was comparing it to hip-hop; he stated that “It took about 20 years for the public to recognize that hip-hop was an art”. While it’s about to be over 18 years since hip hop was considered art and right now that information doesn’t change anything. This same situation has happened all throughout history there will always be people who bat an eye at change but with time adjust to the changing times. It might seem like a big issue now but give it a few more years and it might even be incorporated into your day to day.

What Steve Marche is referring to when he says that “creative AI is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing” is that most of the people think that artificial intelligence will cause them to lose their job but this is totally wrong. The essence of a human in the writing place is something that AI can handle but not completely replace. For the reason that AI does not create anything it just uses existing data that was already uploaded on the internet and readjusted to the topic you are asking for. In short words, AI can be a tool that can manipulate the writing process, but not entirely because it is still going to need the creativity and originality of a human.

By Stephe Marche saying “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing” I believe he’s trying to assert that while things are changing they are also evolving; on the idea that throughout the whole text he was providing us with examples of inventions that at first were met with rejection. For example they state “It took about 20 years for the public to recognize that hip-hop was art” as i read about this information i was surprised and thrown back because in this time in age its recognized as art so there was no question in mind that it could have been faced with rejection by the public. And while there are still groups who greatly support hip-hop there is still a group that are determined to not acknowledge it as an art and that is understanding because we all are individuals with our own perspectives. Returning to the statement “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing” just like every new invention there will be backlash to the unknown and what we feel is threatening but that’s what comes with change.

“Creative A.I. is going to change everything. It is also going to change nothing.” This sentence may seem confusing, but there is a clear meaning behind Stephen Marche’s words. His attitude towards A.I. in the context of utlizing it as a tool for creation tells us that he is an avid supporter of it. He means that A.I. is going to help a lot of people in their creative writing, though people might argue that the “creative” aspect is tarnished with the use of A.I. When he says that it’s going to change nothing, he implies that creativity will not diminish from the use of A.I. People will still require a creative mind to effectively use A.I. So A.I. will continue to help artists translate their ideas into images, and it will not render creativity outdated.

I believe when Stephen Marche stated “creative A.I. is going to change everything . It’s also going to change nothing “ he was trying to say even though A.I. is literally changing everything it’s not possible to change everything at the end of the day A.I is just performs as a help that adds to your creativity, thoughts , or even imagination . It’s not made to actually really do everything for you . There is an 50/50 chance that eventually nobody will care for A.I or they will , But what if they do that will just prove that without A.I were probably not as creative.

I think Marche meant that AI is no different a tool than any other author might use to write, except in its complexity. He remarked at the machine’s ability to imitate patterns of writing but was underwhelmed with its ability to compose more compelling narratives. Its usefulness, he asserts, lies with artists ability to adapt and expand their skill sets. I personally disagree in that I feel Marche disregards the fact that most tools don’t output a finished product with little to no effort. In my personal opinion the process of creation is apart of the essence of the artwork itself. If you develop an ICBM for the purposes of deploying warheads and use one to destroy an incoming meteor that hasn’t changed the fact that you are responsible for creating a potential doomsday device. It certainly doesn’t preclude you from acknowledging the potential harm that you have introduced into the world.

1. I think A.I generated art should not be considered as art . Art should be something creative or even with way more thought behind it , like a song or poem with a message that you want to send , a painting , or even a beautiful picture you took . To me art should be something that you should be able to use to express yourself with or just even do for yourself like a coping mechanism . It should not be typing some words into a computer and getting a random photo. 2. I believe the concerns that the artist have are not exaggerated, mostly because I can understand where they are coming from . It’s as if people are using computer science to create art , something that people have been doing for a long time way before this new and improved technology even existed. A.I is slowly taking over the world not only in art in many other aspects of life , for example alexa or Siri , we could use them for weather , crime reports literally anything just another form of A.I.

When it comes to different forms of art, some forms may cause many different opinions and outlooks to be shared. An example would be, AI generated art. Stephen Marche explained that when it comes to AI generated art, it opens new ideas and gives different resources for people to show off their art. As well as a way to find new people with similar interest who are open minded to this form of art. Overall, it’s a new and innovated way for art to be created. Marche also emphasizes that AI generated art will not change the originality and creativity from other forms of art, specifically physical forms. The artist who create other forms of art, will not be looked over and still appreciated.

In his exploration of generative AI in writing, Stephen Marche argues that the future of literary creativity resembles hip-hop, where knowledge and curation of existing art are crucial. He discusses his experience producing an AI-generated novel, “Death of an Author,” emphasizing the balance between human creativity and machine output. Throughout his process, he found that while AI tools can assist in storytelling and imagery, they lack the nuanced understanding of narrative form and style, highlighting the importance of human input. Marche posits that originality in creativity has diminished prior to the rise of AI, suggesting that embracing these technologies may lead to innovative expressions rather than diminish artistic value. Ultimately, literary curatorship becomes vital in this new creative landscape.