Tab1
My thoughts after reading “Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art” by Ted Chiang, I agree with Ted on this topic because anyone can be an A.I. artist. Being an A.I. artist doesn’t require any skill at all. The only thing that A.I. artist has to know is how to write prompt, while painter or photographer take months, years to master these skills. As Ted said in the article that you can clearly see the difference between an amateur photographer and a professional photographer. A.I. art limits our creative thought because it’s only focus on prompt, while real artists have to decide numerous of choices to express their artwork. Personally, I still think A.I. is a useful tool and crucial for human progress, if we know how to utilize it. For example, it can help completing repetitive work, reduce researching time. Despite all of that, A.I. will never replace humans in terms of making art. Art without effort and attention to detail will never be true art.
My question : Will artists be replaced by A.I. in the future?
Tab2
- Chiang said that effort equals choice. A.I. companies don’t want to create an A.I. model that require plenty of effort. Which means, people who write a novel with A.I. will need to put effort into creating as much as people who don’t use A.I. to write it.
2. According to the article, the purpose of college essays is to strengthen students’ critical thinking skills. This will develop students’ skills necessary for whatever job a college student will get.
3. Chiang said that skill is how well you perform at a task, while intelligence is how effective you gain new skills.
4. It’s a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us less than what we are. We can do so much better than A.I. to communicate with others through art, writing, etc.
