How does human art differ from A.I. art? What makes human art special? Why is human art still chosen over A.I. art even though A.I. is more efficient and less time consuming to use?

Chiang has his own answers to these questions in his article. He said that, the numerous choices that humans use to make art, which can be either drawing, painting or writing novels, is what makes it so different from A.I. art. As much as I agree with this statement, I also have a question for this. The question is, “Can it be considered art if you tell an Ai to make all the choices that you would make?”. Humans like art not just because someone chose to make a large number of decisions in his/her work. I believe that humans like human made art because we understand that the piece of art made took a lot of time, effort and talent. What I mean to say is that, we like art made by humans because it’s not something that every human is capable of creating. We know that every fine masterpiece is a result of hard work and talent, something that holds value and is not easy to achieve. Let’s think about it for a second. If Mona Lisa or any other widely known piece of art could be painted by any person with barely any effort or talent, would the painting in question still hold the same value?

I agree with what he says about college essays. We are in fact, not lacking is the number of essays to read. Students are told to write such essays because it shows a student’s capability of expressing his/her thoughts about the topic and helps develop critical thinking. The more essays you write, the more you will learn how to think and write better, after all, experience is the best teacher.

I do have a little bit of disagreement with Chiang’s statement “The faster the person picks up the skill, the more intelligent we think the person is”. This can be argued a little because an individual’s ability to pick up skills can be called talent. An individual is called talented when the person shows a capable amount of skill on a task that he/she is fairly new with. I believe intelligence refers more to an individual’s ability to think critically and come up with solutions that is most suitable to for solving the problem they’re facing. And it is intelligence which helps prosper the skill and talent of any individual. For, example, if a child who are never touched a crayon, suddenly starts drawing very wonderful drawings, people will not say, “The child is intelligent”, they’ll say , “The child is talented” but if the child is solves a difficult puzzle it is considered intelligent as well as talented. A person who lacks intelligence will be unable to develop his/her skill and talent.

Despite Chiang’s article sounding like he is against A.I., he hasn’t explicitly said that A.I. should not be used or that he hates the use of A.I. He only sounds like he discourages it. So, the question arises. Is the use of A.I. to make art in any form, unethical? Is the use of A.I. in art really a bad thing? I believe that, as long as the intention of using A.I. to make art for non commercial intentions and just to mess around and play with it is okay. As long as people don’t go around claiming they made the art which they generated using A.I., I think using A.i. to experiment for fun is completely fine.