Luminar Neo Crack License 100% Working Free
losbeten
41 views
15 slides
Apr 28, 2025
Slide 1 of 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
About This Presentation
This Site is providing ✅ 100% Safe Crack Link:
Copy This Link and paste it in a new tab & get the Crack File
↓
➡ 🌍📱👉COPY & PASTE LINK👉👉👉 👉 https://downloadrecoveryfile.info/
Luminar Neo - photo editing software for PC and Mac! Simple pho...
Slide Content
Annotated Bibliography
Bozard, Zachary. “What Does It Mean to Create Art? Intellectual Property Rights for
Artificial Intelligence Generated Artworks.” South Carolina Journal of International Law &
Business, vol. 20, no. 1, Sept. 2023, pp. 83–101. EBSCOhost,
research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1e159bd5-3ddb-3a1e-9a3d-29468eb9d87c.
This article centers on the evolution of artificial intelligence and how, to some people, it
is astounding how a machine can create such masterpieces that mirror some famous paintings
from the seventeenth century while others find it terrifying how it can replicate something so
precise. For example, in April 2016 there was a new artwork piece introduced in Amsterdam,
Netherlands. The artist of this piece was unknown. The piece looked so realistic with the lighting
and shading that it looked like it came from the seventeenth century. It was discovered that the
art piece was created by an AI machine; therefore, it was a deception in my opinion. It used the
painter Rembrandt’s body of work trained for artificial intelligence to create the same style. This
obviously made a lot of people have some emotional opinions about it. AI art technology is made
to decentralize art, allowing regular people to create artwork without the skill or time. As AI
technology is evolving more and more rapidly, it is leaving the U.S questioning the copyright
system of something they do not know how to handle. Even if AI artwork can be copyrighted,
human artists are looking to protect their copyrights by challenging AI companies with copyright
infringement claims. I think this article would be helpful for my research because it shows how
artists are trying to fight for their creative rights. AI should not be able to steal people’s artwork
to create art for someone who is not willing to put in the skills, time or imagination.
Brunotts, Kate. “AI Will Not Replace Artists.” Skeptic, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 42–48.
EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=12c07371-1505-39c6-bc4e-
0a582c6b4eb7.
This article talks about the rights of artists and how a future bill would protect that type
of industry and the authenticity of their work. The U.S Senator Chris Coons announced a draft
bill entitled “No Fakes Act” or the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe
Act” to keep people from stealing artists’ original work with the artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
There is an example stated of how an anonymous user made music with AI based on a song that
was already created by The Weekend and Drake without their consent. That was the first-eye
opening to the thought of AI being able to create and plagiarize music causing many
disagreements. The main type of artist the article is addressing are the musicians although they
are still a type of creative artist. The author of this article states” To be clear, I’m not against
utilizing certain forms of AI in my own music production process. Whether it’s using Ableton’s
Magenta Studio4 to generate drum pattern ideas or playing with AI-assisted toggles in my
Bozard, Zachary. “What Does It Mean to Create Art? Intellectual Property Rights for
Artificial Intelligence Generated Artworks.” South Carolina Journal of International Law &
Business, vol. 20, no. 1, Sept. 2023, pp. 83–101. EBSCOhost,
research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1e159bd5-3ddb-3a1e-9a3d-29468eb9d87c.
This article centers on the evolution of artificial intelligence and how, to some people, it
is astounding how a machine can create such masterpieces that mirror some famous paintings
from the seventeenth century while others find it terrifying how it can replicate something so
precise. For example, in April 2016 there was a new artwork piece introduced in Amsterdam,
Netherlands. The artist of this piece was unknown. The piece looked so realistic with the lighting
and shading that it looked like it came from the seventeenth century. It was discovered that the
art piece was created by an AI machine; therefore, it was a deception in my opinion. It used the
painter Rembrandt’s body of work trained for artificial intelligence to create the same style. This
obviously made a lot of people have some emotional opinions about it. AI art technology is made
to decentralize art, allowing regular people to create artwork without the skill or time. As AI
technology is evolving more and more rapidly, it is leaving the U.S questioning the copyright
system of something they do not know how to handle. Even if AI artwork can be copyrighted,
human artists are looking to protect their copyrights by challenging AI companies with copyright
infringement claims. I think this article would be helpful for my research because it shows how
artists are trying to fight for their creative rights. AI should not be able to steal people’s artwork
to create art for someone who is not willing to put in the skills, time or imagination.
Brunotts, Kate. “AI Will Not Replace Artists.” Skeptic, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 42–48.
EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=12c07371-1505-39c6-bc4e-
0a582c6b4eb7.
This article talks about the rights of artists and how a future bill would protect that type
of industry and the authenticity of their work. The U.S Senator Chris Coons announced a draft
bill entitled “No Fakes Act” or the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe
Act” to keep people from stealing artists’ original work with the artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
There is an example stated of how an anonymous user made music with AI based on a song that
was already created by The Weekend and Drake without their consent. That was the first-eye
opening to the thought of AI being able to create and plagiarize music causing many
disagreements. The main type of artist the article is addressing are the musicians although they
are still a type of creative artist. The author of this article states” To be clear, I’m not against
utilizing certain forms of AI in my own music production process. Whether it’s using Ableton’s
Magenta Studio4 to generate drum pattern ideas or playing with AI-assisted toggles in my
favorite plugins, I’m no stranger to taking advantage of machine learning to feed me inklings of
a great idea.” Brunotts is saying that she is open to using AI as a tool, basically, which to me is
fair. Rather than letting AI completely take over the creation part for your use, it as an inspiration
to start something new. I think after reading this article it will be helpful for my research because
it talks about how it affects other artists. It opens up my perspective on how it is just not the type
of artists who create on paper that is being affected by AI.
Chowdhary, Krishi. “13,500+ Artists Sign a Petition to Speak against AI Data
Scraping.” Techreport, 24 Oct. 2024, techreport.com/news/13500-artists-petition-ai-data-
scraping/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
This article is about how over 13,500 artists have joined together to start a petition
against AI companies using copyrighted data to train AI without a license. The petition was
started by Ed Newton-Rex, a British composer and who was a former audio head at “Stability
AI” until he realized they were using copyrighted items without consent to train AI. After
realizing that, he began on the path to protect fellow artists. Newton-Rex started his own
company that certifies other companies who train AI models if they have obtained consent from
the original creator. The fight between artists and artificial intelligence has been going on for a
long time now. AI companies are taking away content from original creators. Artists already
struggle with trying to get their name out there. They do not need another difficulty added to that.
There was another petition going on initiated by the Artists Rights Alliance to protest tech
companies creating AI tools for music. The petition was signed by more than 200 artists such as
Niki Minaj and Billie Eilish. This is not just about musicians but all types of artists. After reading
this article it has given me hope that maybe we artists will win this legal battle and be able to
create without fear of theft. Using this article for my research shows that artists are trying to help
one another.
Folk Intuitions as to Whether AI-Driven Robots Can Be Viewed ...,
dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3530875. Accessed 19 Sept. 2024.
This article concerns scientists named Elze Sigute Mikalonyte and Markus Kneer who
have created an experiment to see whether AI robots can make art and be considered the artists.
It is already known that AI can make art that is indistinguishable from art made by humans, but
the scientists are questioning if AI can be called artists and count their creations as human work
or generated art. Many people believe robots do not have human-like features like intelligence,
mental states and emotions because art is “not that easily attributed to non-human entities,”
Another question arises is if robots are counted as artists what would be the cause of that
determination. What specifically would make them count as artists? To what extent are people
willing to call robots artists and their creations art? The scientist stated that they are trying to
discover folk intuitions in robots and see their ability to feel like humans. I think the question is,
can machines create art? is a harder question to answer. That is what this experiment is about,
a great idea.” Brunotts is saying that she is open to using AI as a tool, basically, which to me is
fair. Rather than letting AI completely take over the creation part for your use, it as an inspiration
to start something new. I think after reading this article it will be helpful for my research because
it talks about how it affects other artists. It opens up my perspective on how it is just not the type
of artists who create on paper that is being affected by AI.
Chowdhary, Krishi. “13,500+ Artists Sign a Petition to Speak against AI Data
Scraping.” Techreport, 24 Oct. 2024, techreport.com/news/13500-artists-petition-ai-data-
scraping/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
This article is about how over 13,500 artists have joined together to start a petition
against AI companies using copyrighted data to train AI without a license. The petition was
started by Ed Newton-Rex, a British composer and who was a former audio head at “Stability
AI” until he realized they were using copyrighted items without consent to train AI. After
realizing that, he began on the path to protect fellow artists. Newton-Rex started his own
company that certifies other companies who train AI models if they have obtained consent from
the original creator. The fight between artists and artificial intelligence has been going on for a
long time now. AI companies are taking away content from original creators. Artists already
struggle with trying to get their name out there. They do not need another difficulty added to that.
There was another petition going on initiated by the Artists Rights Alliance to protest tech
companies creating AI tools for music. The petition was signed by more than 200 artists such as
Niki Minaj and Billie Eilish. This is not just about musicians but all types of artists. After reading
this article it has given me hope that maybe we artists will win this legal battle and be able to
create without fear of theft. Using this article for my research shows that artists are trying to help
one another.
Folk Intuitions as to Whether AI-Driven Robots Can Be Viewed ...,
dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3530875. Accessed 19 Sept. 2024.
This article concerns scientists named Elze Sigute Mikalonyte and Markus Kneer who
have created an experiment to see whether AI robots can make art and be considered the artists.
It is already known that AI can make art that is indistinguishable from art made by humans, but
the scientists are questioning if AI can be called artists and count their creations as human work
or generated art. Many people believe robots do not have human-like features like intelligence,
mental states and emotions because art is “not that easily attributed to non-human entities,”
Another question arises is if robots are counted as artists what would be the cause of that
determination. What specifically would make them count as artists? To what extent are people
willing to call robots artists and their creations art? The scientist stated that they are trying to
discover folk intuitions in robots and see their ability to feel like humans. I think the question is,
can machines create art? is a harder question to answer. That is what this experiment is about,
determining that and seeing if machines have enough intuition to be counted as artist and see if
they need copyrights as well. Are robots engaging in creative processes or are they just following
what they are programed for? There are so many questions when it comes to this topic and
experiment. There is a quotation I read that I liked. It said, “art is an expression of the creator’s
inner world and the creator’s emotions.” It sounds relatable and genuine. Recent work has
confirmed that the people who do consider robots as artists are because it is contingent on their
disposition to attribute intentions to robots in the first place. When judging about if it is
considered artwork the intent is because the artist or creator is seen as more important than the
appearance and production of an object. I totally understand that belief. This is why I think this
article will be helpful to me, because of the experiment they have tried and have actual data and
of course, the information on what is considered artwork.
Liu, Bai. "Arguments for the Rise of Artificial Intelligence Art: Does AI Art have Creativity,
Motivation, Self-Awareness and Emotion?" Arte, Individuo y Sociedad 35.3 (2023): 811-
22. ProQuest. Web. 16 Oct. 2024.
The topic of this article is about questioning whether artwork made by artificial
intelligence(AI) has the artistic and potential to be counted as authentic artwork. AI art is fairly
new in this generation, explaining why it is a sensitive topic for debate. It is questionable to see if
AI artwork has the ability to be called artwork. The article discusses background history of
digital art. Electronically computer art has been around since 1946. Graphics were also
introduced in that time as well by Ivan Sutherland. The graphics introduced techniques such as
digital paintings and new media art by 1950’s. AI art has emerged recently due to new computer
technology. Recently AI has been used for creating poems, scripts, videos and paintings even
though AI is generative art and can be made for splash. For example, “Jon McCormack’s Fifty
Sisters is a large-scale installation of 1m x 1m computer-generated images of plant forms, which
have been algorithmically “grown from computer code” using AI self-evolution and generative
algorithms, and do not exist in their own right.” Yes, there is a debate about questioning whether
it can even be considered art. I think reading this article will be helpful for my research because
of the history behind digital art and how it developed.” The creativity of AI art relies on
processes and algorithms, which in turn rely on clear logic. The basic logic is that creating art is
decomposable, processable, clearly relational, representable, and datable.” This is similar to the
basic idea of ‘dataism.” After reading this quote it gives me a greater perspective on the meaning
of AI art. That is what I like about this article. It is very logical rather than emotional.
they need copyrights as well. Are robots engaging in creative processes or are they just following
what they are programed for? There are so many questions when it comes to this topic and
experiment. There is a quotation I read that I liked. It said, “art is an expression of the creator’s
inner world and the creator’s emotions.” It sounds relatable and genuine. Recent work has
confirmed that the people who do consider robots as artists are because it is contingent on their
disposition to attribute intentions to robots in the first place. When judging about if it is
considered artwork the intent is because the artist or creator is seen as more important than the
appearance and production of an object. I totally understand that belief. This is why I think this
article will be helpful to me, because of the experiment they have tried and have actual data and
of course, the information on what is considered artwork.
Liu, Bai. "Arguments for the Rise of Artificial Intelligence Art: Does AI Art have Creativity,
Motivation, Self-Awareness and Emotion?" Arte, Individuo y Sociedad 35.3 (2023): 811-
22. ProQuest. Web. 16 Oct. 2024.
The topic of this article is about questioning whether artwork made by artificial
intelligence(AI) has the artistic and potential to be counted as authentic artwork. AI art is fairly
new in this generation, explaining why it is a sensitive topic for debate. It is questionable to see if
AI artwork has the ability to be called artwork. The article discusses background history of
digital art. Electronically computer art has been around since 1946. Graphics were also
introduced in that time as well by Ivan Sutherland. The graphics introduced techniques such as
digital paintings and new media art by 1950’s. AI art has emerged recently due to new computer
technology. Recently AI has been used for creating poems, scripts, videos and paintings even
though AI is generative art and can be made for splash. For example, “Jon McCormack’s Fifty
Sisters is a large-scale installation of 1m x 1m computer-generated images of plant forms, which
have been algorithmically “grown from computer code” using AI self-evolution and generative
algorithms, and do not exist in their own right.” Yes, there is a debate about questioning whether
it can even be considered art. I think reading this article will be helpful for my research because
of the history behind digital art and how it developed.” The creativity of AI art relies on
processes and algorithms, which in turn rely on clear logic. The basic logic is that creating art is
decomposable, processable, clearly relational, representable, and datable.” This is similar to the
basic idea of ‘dataism.” After reading this quote it gives me a greater perspective on the meaning
of AI art. That is what I like about this article. It is very logical rather than emotional.
Notaro, Anna. “State of the Art: A.I. Through the (Artificial) Artist’s Eye.” Electronic Workshops
in Computing, July 2020, https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/eva2020.58.Accessed 11 September
2024
This article focuses on how instead of artificial intelligence being its own thing creating
art instead it is more of an artist’s partner. This is interesting to me because I never thought of
wording it that way when I explain about AI and art. There is a quotation in the paper that I liked.
“Art is a human activity for human purpose, for human consumption, consideration, and
enrichment. I would say if machines could make art for machines, that would be fine. But it
would not necessarily have any relevance whatsoever to human beings” (Cizek, Uricchio &
Wolozin 2019, as quoted by Notaro). I like that because of how true it is. Art has the human
touch in it that machines cannot form. It also talks about how we artists could truly collaborate
with machines and explore new abilities to create a new type of art. In this article they used the
word “augmented art” and what that essentially means it is a fusion of digital elements with the
physical world. Thus, together being AI and an artist, they can create captivating and immersive
experiences. For example, video effects, adding a user’s real-world touch and a physical world.
Škiljić, Alina. “When Art Meets Technology or Vice Versa: Key Challenges at the Crossroads of
AI-Generated Artworks and Copyright Law.” IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property
and Competition Law, vol. 52, no. 10, 18 Oct. 2021, pp. 1338–1369,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01119-w.Accessed 11 September 2024
This article discusses introducing what Artificial Intelligence is (AI) and how intelligent
it is and what does it produce. AI is machine learning (ML) and requires little human interaction.
AI is used as a tool and like a camera, so copyright does not go against AI because there is no
involvement. The AI tool is currently in use for business work, language, and material work such
as science and history. This statement has caused academics and courts to question whether AI
could be used as an author of copyrighted work. The reason they are questioning it is because for
something to have copyright it must have human authorship. The latest tool development for
artificial intelligence is creativity in the arts and other fields. This means it can produce artwork
without human contribution. Even though AI can create artwork, many scientists think AI is not
so developed for it to be considered “intelligent”. That is why some people believe AI art does
not and would not take away from the “artist’s touch”… “Originality appears intrinsically linked
with the “humanness” of art creation and creativity, and is thus often used as an argument against
granting copyright protection to AI-generated artworks”(Skiljic). This source will help my
project because it has a solid stand on what my project is about. It talks about how if AI is
considered art or not as well as it is own person. I think it is important to know about this
background information and legal considerations.
in Computing, July 2020, https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/eva2020.58.Accessed 11 September
2024
This article focuses on how instead of artificial intelligence being its own thing creating
art instead it is more of an artist’s partner. This is interesting to me because I never thought of
wording it that way when I explain about AI and art. There is a quotation in the paper that I liked.
“Art is a human activity for human purpose, for human consumption, consideration, and
enrichment. I would say if machines could make art for machines, that would be fine. But it
would not necessarily have any relevance whatsoever to human beings” (Cizek, Uricchio &
Wolozin 2019, as quoted by Notaro). I like that because of how true it is. Art has the human
touch in it that machines cannot form. It also talks about how we artists could truly collaborate
with machines and explore new abilities to create a new type of art. In this article they used the
word “augmented art” and what that essentially means it is a fusion of digital elements with the
physical world. Thus, together being AI and an artist, they can create captivating and immersive
experiences. For example, video effects, adding a user’s real-world touch and a physical world.
Škiljić, Alina. “When Art Meets Technology or Vice Versa: Key Challenges at the Crossroads of
AI-Generated Artworks and Copyright Law.” IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property
and Competition Law, vol. 52, no. 10, 18 Oct. 2021, pp. 1338–1369,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01119-w.Accessed 11 September 2024
This article discusses introducing what Artificial Intelligence is (AI) and how intelligent
it is and what does it produce. AI is machine learning (ML) and requires little human interaction.
AI is used as a tool and like a camera, so copyright does not go against AI because there is no
involvement. The AI tool is currently in use for business work, language, and material work such
as science and history. This statement has caused academics and courts to question whether AI
could be used as an author of copyrighted work. The reason they are questioning it is because for
something to have copyright it must have human authorship. The latest tool development for
artificial intelligence is creativity in the arts and other fields. This means it can produce artwork
without human contribution. Even though AI can create artwork, many scientists think AI is not
so developed for it to be considered “intelligent”. That is why some people believe AI art does
not and would not take away from the “artist’s touch”… “Originality appears intrinsically linked
with the “humanness” of art creation and creativity, and is thus often used as an argument against
granting copyright protection to AI-generated artworks”(Skiljic). This source will help my
project because it has a solid stand on what my project is about. It talks about how if AI is
considered art or not as well as it is own person. I think it is important to know about this
background information and legal considerations.
The Associated Press. “Visual Artists Fight Back against AI Companies for Repurposing Their
Work.” NBC News, 31 Aug. 2023, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/visual-artists-fight-back-
ai-companies-repurposing-work-rcna102760.
In this article, it is about an artist whose work has been stolen by AI and AI companies.
The artist’s name is Kelly McKernan. This artist creates fine art and digital illustrations. They
paint with bold and bright colors, featuring women’s figures expressing the beauty of females in
bright colors such as greens and pinks. It has been a year since this artist found out their art was
being used by companies to train AI on how to “create” art. Mckernan did not know their art was
being used in AI companies until they were being tagged on Twitter. If you entered their name, a
very distinct artwork would be generated. The artist tried to reach out to the companies about this
theft but of course, no response. The company would make billions of dollars on artists’ works
while the artists themselves are struggling financially. “At the end of the day, someone’s
profiting from my work. I had rent due yesterday, and I’m $200 short. That’s how desperate
things are right now. And it just doesn’t feel right” Mckernan stated. They are one of the three
artists who decided to file a case. “The case alleges that AI image-generators violate the rights of
millions of artists by ingesting huge troves of digital images and then producing derivative works
that compete against the originals.” Artists fear that they will soon be viewed as too expensive to
commission and the companies would rather go the cheaper way to generated art, questioning
whether they will even have jobs in the future. This is why I think it is a good source for my
research to show the concerns that artists have, that they will be no longer needed with AI taking
over and the results of present theft as well.
Gangadharbatla, Harsha. “The Role of AI Attribution Knowledge in the Evaluation of
Artwork.” Empirical Studies of the Arts, vol. 40, no. 2, 16 Feb. 2021, p. 027623742199469,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697.
Harsha Gangdharbatla discusses the battle versus human art and art made by artificial
intelligence (AI). AI has been sneaking into the art field since they started learning about how to
steal art and create it. The creative touch is what humans still hang on to and be able to claim it
as their own. The creative process is what leads to art ideas and the machines are limited to
creativity. “It has also been argued that internet and digital technologies such as the ones used to
produce automated creative content are not capable of generating unexpected or serendipitous
moments” (Erdelez et al., 2018). I decided to use this quote in my research to show people that
no matter how much AI has been taking over it will still be limited. AI has been taking over other
topics as well such as advertising and science. The belief given in this research is that art is made
by hand, and that AI could not manipulate that aspect. That sentence gave me hope on how
maybe AI will not fully take over the art field. People can differentiate art between machine
made and human made. We may know that artificial intelligence can copy brush strokes and
techniques, however it cannot mimic the amount of time and effort a human puts into art.
Work.” NBC News, 31 Aug. 2023, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/visual-artists-fight-back-
ai-companies-repurposing-work-rcna102760.
In this article, it is about an artist whose work has been stolen by AI and AI companies.
The artist’s name is Kelly McKernan. This artist creates fine art and digital illustrations. They
paint with bold and bright colors, featuring women’s figures expressing the beauty of females in
bright colors such as greens and pinks. It has been a year since this artist found out their art was
being used by companies to train AI on how to “create” art. Mckernan did not know their art was
being used in AI companies until they were being tagged on Twitter. If you entered their name, a
very distinct artwork would be generated. The artist tried to reach out to the companies about this
theft but of course, no response. The company would make billions of dollars on artists’ works
while the artists themselves are struggling financially. “At the end of the day, someone’s
profiting from my work. I had rent due yesterday, and I’m $200 short. That’s how desperate
things are right now. And it just doesn’t feel right” Mckernan stated. They are one of the three
artists who decided to file a case. “The case alleges that AI image-generators violate the rights of
millions of artists by ingesting huge troves of digital images and then producing derivative works
that compete against the originals.” Artists fear that they will soon be viewed as too expensive to
commission and the companies would rather go the cheaper way to generated art, questioning
whether they will even have jobs in the future. This is why I think it is a good source for my
research to show the concerns that artists have, that they will be no longer needed with AI taking
over and the results of present theft as well.
Gangadharbatla, Harsha. “The Role of AI Attribution Knowledge in the Evaluation of
Artwork.” Empirical Studies of the Arts, vol. 40, no. 2, 16 Feb. 2021, p. 027623742199469,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697.
Harsha Gangdharbatla discusses the battle versus human art and art made by artificial
intelligence (AI). AI has been sneaking into the art field since they started learning about how to
steal art and create it. The creative touch is what humans still hang on to and be able to claim it
as their own. The creative process is what leads to art ideas and the machines are limited to
creativity. “It has also been argued that internet and digital technologies such as the ones used to
produce automated creative content are not capable of generating unexpected or serendipitous
moments” (Erdelez et al., 2018). I decided to use this quote in my research to show people that
no matter how much AI has been taking over it will still be limited. AI has been taking over other
topics as well such as advertising and science. The belief given in this research is that art is made
by hand, and that AI could not manipulate that aspect. That sentence gave me hope on how
maybe AI will not fully take over the art field. People can differentiate art between machine
made and human made. We may know that artificial intelligence can copy brush strokes and
techniques, however it cannot mimic the amount of time and effort a human puts into art.
Another reason I choose to believe that AI will not take over the art field is because stated in the
article the machines can only perform tasks that are programed in the code and algorithms.
Within 10 years they would not be able to perform tasks without some sort of code. That is why I
chose this article for my research, to help show that AI can not take over the art field. I think it
eases the overwhelming feeling that your art career could be taken from you.
Grassini, Simone, and Mika Koivisto. "Understanding how Personality Traits, Experiences, and
Attitudes Shape Negative Bias Toward AI-Generated Artworks." Scientific Reports (Nature
Publisher Group) 14.1 (2024): 4113. ProQuest. Web. 18 Jan. 2025.
This article discusses the debate on artificial intelligence’s impact on various industries.
AI has already made its presence in fields such as education, retail, finance and transportation. AI
within the art field has now made its presence, and with its coming, there appear several
questions and challenges. It emerged during the first half of the 20
th
century. In 1935 Walter
Benjamin examined the impact of technical reproducibility. Thus began his research on the
technologies and machine techniques on photography and film. Benjamin is quoted as stating
that “fundamentally altered the nature of art by diminishing the unique presence or “aura” of the
original artwork. However, differently from the technically produced artworks mentioned by
Benjamin, generative AI systems have evolved beyond merely copying existing artworks (e.g.,
art prints) or reproducing images with human assistance (photography), and they currently
possess the capability to create seemingly “unique” art pieces.” I heavily agree with this quote,
AI art ruins that unique art and originality as well. AI art lacks true originality since it relies on
input data copied from other artworks. Unfortunately, there are some instances where people
cannot differentiate the difference between AI music and poetry versus human made. The more
AI advances the more it raises concerns about unemployment on certain fields and the
humankind. It could threaten people’s anthropocentric world views as well. Since it has been
threatening the people become more biased in expectations on human evaluations. Since AI will
be developing more and more throughout the years, we must know how important it is to examen
how individuals perceive and identify. When I read this article, I thought it was a perfect source
for my research because of how it explains this real life problem. Some may say AI will not take
jobs but, in this article, it did not sugarcoat the severity about AI. That is why I believe this
article can help people open their perspective on AI.
article the machines can only perform tasks that are programed in the code and algorithms.
Within 10 years they would not be able to perform tasks without some sort of code. That is why I
chose this article for my research, to help show that AI can not take over the art field. I think it
eases the overwhelming feeling that your art career could be taken from you.
Grassini, Simone, and Mika Koivisto. "Understanding how Personality Traits, Experiences, and
Attitudes Shape Negative Bias Toward AI-Generated Artworks." Scientific Reports (Nature
Publisher Group) 14.1 (2024): 4113. ProQuest. Web. 18 Jan. 2025.
This article discusses the debate on artificial intelligence’s impact on various industries.
AI has already made its presence in fields such as education, retail, finance and transportation. AI
within the art field has now made its presence, and with its coming, there appear several
questions and challenges. It emerged during the first half of the 20
th
century. In 1935 Walter
Benjamin examined the impact of technical reproducibility. Thus began his research on the
technologies and machine techniques on photography and film. Benjamin is quoted as stating
that “fundamentally altered the nature of art by diminishing the unique presence or “aura” of the
original artwork. However, differently from the technically produced artworks mentioned by
Benjamin, generative AI systems have evolved beyond merely copying existing artworks (e.g.,
art prints) or reproducing images with human assistance (photography), and they currently
possess the capability to create seemingly “unique” art pieces.” I heavily agree with this quote,
AI art ruins that unique art and originality as well. AI art lacks true originality since it relies on
input data copied from other artworks. Unfortunately, there are some instances where people
cannot differentiate the difference between AI music and poetry versus human made. The more
AI advances the more it raises concerns about unemployment on certain fields and the
humankind. It could threaten people’s anthropocentric world views as well. Since it has been
threatening the people become more biased in expectations on human evaluations. Since AI will
be developing more and more throughout the years, we must know how important it is to examen
how individuals perceive and identify. When I read this article, I thought it was a perfect source
for my research because of how it explains this real life problem. Some may say AI will not take
jobs but, in this article, it did not sugarcoat the severity about AI. That is why I believe this
article can help people open their perspective on AI.
Rodriquez, Kelsey. Why I’m Not Worried about AI ART. 5 Apr. 2023,
youtu.be/BsG2NDQC0kY?si=YPcLVDR5BfaGwoWm. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025.
I decided to use a video this time for a source. Using a video of an artist talking about AI
and the future of AI within art and other fields would be helpful. I think showing a real-life
artist’s presentation about artificial intelligence would help my research because it is more
intimate. When people think about AI and the future of using it as a “tool” they do not think
about human artists and instead on how beneficial it would be for their own sake. For example,
getting a product done so quickly, yes it can make something quickly, but the quality would not
be as high as art that is handmade. Rodriquez uses an example of if anything could be automated;
a movie, animated shows, commercials and so on. It could be successful since everyone would
want to keep up with the time and technology. Although if it could be more time efficient it could
also change the value of human labor and the way companies make money. If companies decide
that it would be beneficial for them to replace all their human workers with machines, people
will lose jobs very quickly. The economic system would collapse, and people would protest the
machines so human labor would be valued again. Massive changes would happen, and it would
be a complicated situation. Rodriquez also opinionates on how machines taking over the majority
of careers would simply be impossible. Companies should combine AI tools and human
creativity to make something amazing and ethically acceptable. Thinking about the future with
AI, if they were to take most creative fields, human art would turn out to be more valuable in the
long run because it is authentically made by humans. Using this knowledge, we can feel more at
ease knowing that there is hope to continue working in our dream art careers. That is why I think
this video would be a helpful source for my research.
Nguyen, Dat. “The Effects of AI on Digital Artist.” Www.theseus.fi, 2023,
www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/795505.
This article is about the effects of AI on digital artists, specifically on the video game
industry. It talks about what extent artists will be successful with AI and in their artist roles in the
video game industry. There were 20 participants who have art and video game design
experiences who were surveyed on their thoughts of the future of AI in digital art. In the article
they reviewed the analytics on that survey. The goal of this survey was to determine if AI-
generated art could replace human creativity. The main question is “What is the future of AI-
generated art in the game industry and how will it continue to impact the development of games
and the role of artists in this process?” The data is extremely essential for determining the answer
to that question. Twenty people from various backgrounds, including students, artists, game
developers, and graphic designers, participated in the survey. Four or five of them attended a
traditional art institution and were open to the interviewing portion of the survey. This process
ran from February 21, 2023 to March 7, 2023. The general questions were based on their
perceptions on generated tools and the second part were their opinions on if AI could affect game
youtu.be/BsG2NDQC0kY?si=YPcLVDR5BfaGwoWm. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025.
I decided to use a video this time for a source. Using a video of an artist talking about AI
and the future of AI within art and other fields would be helpful. I think showing a real-life
artist’s presentation about artificial intelligence would help my research because it is more
intimate. When people think about AI and the future of using it as a “tool” they do not think
about human artists and instead on how beneficial it would be for their own sake. For example,
getting a product done so quickly, yes it can make something quickly, but the quality would not
be as high as art that is handmade. Rodriquez uses an example of if anything could be automated;
a movie, animated shows, commercials and so on. It could be successful since everyone would
want to keep up with the time and technology. Although if it could be more time efficient it could
also change the value of human labor and the way companies make money. If companies decide
that it would be beneficial for them to replace all their human workers with machines, people
will lose jobs very quickly. The economic system would collapse, and people would protest the
machines so human labor would be valued again. Massive changes would happen, and it would
be a complicated situation. Rodriquez also opinionates on how machines taking over the majority
of careers would simply be impossible. Companies should combine AI tools and human
creativity to make something amazing and ethically acceptable. Thinking about the future with
AI, if they were to take most creative fields, human art would turn out to be more valuable in the
long run because it is authentically made by humans. Using this knowledge, we can feel more at
ease knowing that there is hope to continue working in our dream art careers. That is why I think
this video would be a helpful source for my research.
Nguyen, Dat. “The Effects of AI on Digital Artist.” Www.theseus.fi, 2023,
www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/795505.
This article is about the effects of AI on digital artists, specifically on the video game
industry. It talks about what extent artists will be successful with AI and in their artist roles in the
video game industry. There were 20 participants who have art and video game design
experiences who were surveyed on their thoughts of the future of AI in digital art. In the article
they reviewed the analytics on that survey. The goal of this survey was to determine if AI-
generated art could replace human creativity. The main question is “What is the future of AI-
generated art in the game industry and how will it continue to impact the development of games
and the role of artists in this process?” The data is extremely essential for determining the answer
to that question. Twenty people from various backgrounds, including students, artists, game
developers, and graphic designers, participated in the survey. Four or five of them attended a
traditional art institution and were open to the interviewing portion of the survey. This process
ran from February 21, 2023 to March 7, 2023. The general questions were based on their
perceptions on generated tools and the second part were their opinions on if AI could affect game
design development. One of the interviewers stated, “Do you remember the event of the birth of
the camera, for example, when the camera was first introduced, many questions were raised
about whether it could replace the artist, painter or not. But after all, painting is still alive,
photography becomes a part of art and goes hand in hand with other art fields. So, the evidence
in that history only proves that technology can never replace people.” I liked this response; it
shows that most people are optimistic and confident that their creativity would not be replaced.
This article explains the research experiment very well. When the next question was asked about
the most important traits or characteristics for artists in a world where AI-generated art is
increasingly used in the creative process, three out of seven interviewees believed that
mindfulness is key. The interviewers also emphasized how important it is for creativity and
adaptability when the world keeps changing. Interviewee 3 stated, “40 Times change, so we also
need to change when using new technology. We have to be mindful; we have to see where the
role of humans in work is and where is the role of AI in these markets and workflow and to what
extent and we have to be the one who controls it. More importantly, you can't let it do all its
work. The market will learn to eliminate what isn’t needed and is not important. So those who
use AI at a dependent level will also gradually be eliminated. As for bad habits, there is no such
thing as a bad habit because AI is a new technology that helps people, it is not called a bad habit,
it is called change.” I agree with this statement. Those who completely let AI take over on their
work will not succeed. I believe using AI as a tool to continue your work could be possible, not
as it would be taking over completely. Reading this article makes me think it will be perfect for
my research because it shows data on actual people’s perspective and workplace hopes.
Mazzone, Marian, and Ahmed Elgammal. “Art, Creativity, and the Potential of Artificial
Intelligence.” Arts, vol. 8, no. 1, 21 Feb. 2019, pp. 1–9, www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/1/26,
https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010026.
This essay discusses an AI process developed for making art and the issues that is causing
for the art community in the 21
st
century. The writers mention their training in computer science
and art history. The argument is about how to define human versus machine creativity. The work
they developed with the AI process for the art category relates to styles, patterns and the history
of art. They mention the history of art to examine how art has led to human made art and to test
if AI can be taught that same history. AI has no connection with creativity and art made by
humans. Artists have emotional and social intentions for their art making. The main point of this
article is to discover that connection with machines and their creative strengths. It stated that for
the past 50 years several scientists have been exploring with computer graphics that can generate
art. The machine cannot make any art without the use of programing. This proves that machines
cannot do the same creative process as humans. In October 2017 a team started to exhibit work
at venues in Frankfurt, Los Angles and New York City with different sets of images for each
show. People did not know the artwork was made by AI. They genuinely liked the artworks,
questioning “Who is the artist?”. This provoked many concerns about AI as a potential threat to
the camera, for example, when the camera was first introduced, many questions were raised
about whether it could replace the artist, painter or not. But after all, painting is still alive,
photography becomes a part of art and goes hand in hand with other art fields. So, the evidence
in that history only proves that technology can never replace people.” I liked this response; it
shows that most people are optimistic and confident that their creativity would not be replaced.
This article explains the research experiment very well. When the next question was asked about
the most important traits or characteristics for artists in a world where AI-generated art is
increasingly used in the creative process, three out of seven interviewees believed that
mindfulness is key. The interviewers also emphasized how important it is for creativity and
adaptability when the world keeps changing. Interviewee 3 stated, “40 Times change, so we also
need to change when using new technology. We have to be mindful; we have to see where the
role of humans in work is and where is the role of AI in these markets and workflow and to what
extent and we have to be the one who controls it. More importantly, you can't let it do all its
work. The market will learn to eliminate what isn’t needed and is not important. So those who
use AI at a dependent level will also gradually be eliminated. As for bad habits, there is no such
thing as a bad habit because AI is a new technology that helps people, it is not called a bad habit,
it is called change.” I agree with this statement. Those who completely let AI take over on their
work will not succeed. I believe using AI as a tool to continue your work could be possible, not
as it would be taking over completely. Reading this article makes me think it will be perfect for
my research because it shows data on actual people’s perspective and workplace hopes.
Mazzone, Marian, and Ahmed Elgammal. “Art, Creativity, and the Potential of Artificial
Intelligence.” Arts, vol. 8, no. 1, 21 Feb. 2019, pp. 1–9, www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/1/26,
https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010026.
This essay discusses an AI process developed for making art and the issues that is causing
for the art community in the 21
st
century. The writers mention their training in computer science
and art history. The argument is about how to define human versus machine creativity. The work
they developed with the AI process for the art category relates to styles, patterns and the history
of art. They mention the history of art to examine how art has led to human made art and to test
if AI can be taught that same history. AI has no connection with creativity and art made by
humans. Artists have emotional and social intentions for their art making. The main point of this
article is to discover that connection with machines and their creative strengths. It stated that for
the past 50 years several scientists have been exploring with computer graphics that can generate
art. The machine cannot make any art without the use of programing. This proves that machines
cannot do the same creative process as humans. In October 2017 a team started to exhibit work
at venues in Frankfurt, Los Angles and New York City with different sets of images for each
show. People did not know the artwork was made by AI. They genuinely liked the artworks,
questioning “Who is the artist?”. This provoked many concerns about AI as a potential threat to
art made by humans. The reason they put that work in those venues was to see whether people
found them aesthetically pleasing and how humans felt knowing after they discovered the
artwork was artificially generated. After this experiment, it opened people to the fear of AI taking
over the creative field and how the future would be with AI making soulless art. The article states
that AI is really limited to what it can do in terms of creation and that it was never the goal to
replace the human artist. I think using this article for my research is helpful for that reason. The
article indicates that AI should not be feared because it's not its future purpose.
Jiang, Haimin, et al. “AI Art and Its Impact on Artists.” AIES ’23: Proceedings of the 2023
AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 29 Aug. 2023, pp. 363–374,
dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3600211.3604681, https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604681.
The article states that in the last three years of having image generators the commercial
“generative AI Art” products have been popular in the market. Generative AI is estimated to $48
billion in the industry. Artists have spoken up about the negative effects they have experienced
due to that population in the market. This article is to discuss the reputational damage, economic
loss and plagiarism artists deal with. AI has been training and “improving” but using the training
data from artists without their consent. They claim to say that they use other artists as inspiration
but that is not the case. They are “straight up” stealing artwork. That claim is misleading and
harmful. Image generators are not artists and will never be considered as such. Companies who
are open to AI and produce images generated are valued for billions while they displace original
human artists. Image generators may be quick to make something, but they will not solve the
work problems and will send the message that it is okay to plagiarize artists, impersonating their
artistic style. This atmosphere creates legal questions on AI and image generators. There have
been some legal developments all over the world, but we are focusing on the United States. The
US has several lawsuits filed by artists trying to challenge this fight. There are many researchers
out there who have pointed out how this is a problem. Art is unique because it is created by
humans. People may think this is not so serious, but this is a real-life issue. No one would like
their work to be stolen no matter what type it is, whether it is music, research, math, etc. This is
also an economic issue; companies will be targeted by the original artists. AI has no stability
when it comes to creating art to replace authentic art. People may not think action has yet been
taken to artists losing their jobs but there is, for example, in Japan. Netflix has started using
image generators for animation and using the excuse that they is a “labor shortage” in the anime
industry. It has already begun. I chose this article to show the real-life problems with AI and
what has already been affected.
found them aesthetically pleasing and how humans felt knowing after they discovered the
artwork was artificially generated. After this experiment, it opened people to the fear of AI taking
over the creative field and how the future would be with AI making soulless art. The article states
that AI is really limited to what it can do in terms of creation and that it was never the goal to
replace the human artist. I think using this article for my research is helpful for that reason. The
article indicates that AI should not be feared because it's not its future purpose.
Jiang, Haimin, et al. “AI Art and Its Impact on Artists.” AIES ’23: Proceedings of the 2023
AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 29 Aug. 2023, pp. 363–374,
dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3600211.3604681, https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604681.
The article states that in the last three years of having image generators the commercial
“generative AI Art” products have been popular in the market. Generative AI is estimated to $48
billion in the industry. Artists have spoken up about the negative effects they have experienced
due to that population in the market. This article is to discuss the reputational damage, economic
loss and plagiarism artists deal with. AI has been training and “improving” but using the training
data from artists without their consent. They claim to say that they use other artists as inspiration
but that is not the case. They are “straight up” stealing artwork. That claim is misleading and
harmful. Image generators are not artists and will never be considered as such. Companies who
are open to AI and produce images generated are valued for billions while they displace original
human artists. Image generators may be quick to make something, but they will not solve the
work problems and will send the message that it is okay to plagiarize artists, impersonating their
artistic style. This atmosphere creates legal questions on AI and image generators. There have
been some legal developments all over the world, but we are focusing on the United States. The
US has several lawsuits filed by artists trying to challenge this fight. There are many researchers
out there who have pointed out how this is a problem. Art is unique because it is created by
humans. People may think this is not so serious, but this is a real-life issue. No one would like
their work to be stolen no matter what type it is, whether it is music, research, math, etc. This is
also an economic issue; companies will be targeted by the original artists. AI has no stability
when it comes to creating art to replace authentic art. People may not think action has yet been
taken to artists losing their jobs but there is, for example, in Japan. Netflix has started using
image generators for animation and using the excuse that they is a “labor shortage” in the anime
industry. It has already begun. I chose this article to show the real-life problems with AI and
what has already been affected.
*Lovato, J., J. W. Zimmerman, I. Smith, P. Dodds, and J. L. Karson. “Foregrounding Artist
Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative
Art”. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, vol. 7, no. 1, Oct.
2024, pp. 905-16, doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31691.
This article discusses how 495 artists were surveyed on their opinions about AI-
generative art and how this may be a threat towards the art community. AI tools were meant to
be used to create or assist in the creative process. This could be a great potential towards the
future for artists, but AI can bring great harm. The study was meant for people to be able to
understand artists why they think it is a threat to the art community and how we could prevent
the harm from happening. They disclosed the facts that AI art broke the copyrights of original
artists by using their work and breaking ethical fairness. About 80% of the answers of the survey
indicate that AI should share heavily on how they gained their “creativeness” and how they were
trained. 50% of the artists stated, “I don’t need to profit, but I don’t want for-profit companies to
profit from my art. “I think it is important to understand that most people do not want to sell their
art to just anyone and they have the right to decide. Their right to decide was taken and their art
was stolen. Some people did not even know. Reading about the survey is important for my
research. It can be hard to understand people’s different perspectives on the issues related to AI,
but people should try to understand. That is why I chose this article for my research. Artists are
questioning the relationship practices between humans and machines. “How might this tech-
nology distract me? Is the machine using me, or am I using it? Is this image-making or
artmaking? How does this assisted automation serve my artistic intentions and practice?”
(Karson). These quoted questions are some questions artists have generally asked themselves. I
think the quote “is this machine using me or am I using it” is the powerful question. We want to
use AI as tools not as them completely stealing your creative process and credit. Although AI
seems mostly on the harmful side of the to controversy, there is room for improvement and can
be a positive addition simply by using it differently, rather than using it as artists eyes we can
have an “enhance agency”.
Leibowicz, C., E. Saltz, and L. Coleman. “Creating AI Art Responsibly: A Field Guide for
Artists”. Diseña, no. 19, Sept. 2021, p. Article.5, doi:10.7764/disena.19.Article.5.
Machine learning tools can be used negatively and misleadingly. The article’s purpose is
to explain how to use those tools in a responsible way and a careful manner. Leibowicz and
Coleman emphasize the importance of knowing how to use the tools for the artists and designers
out there in the career field. There are many ways to not let AI take over that creative part; for
example, Naoko Hara uses images drawn from her own animation work as data to generate art
(Hara, 2020). That is a way to use the tools in a nonnegative way. Recently, there was a person
who used AI to prove technology’s effects on society. In 2019, Bill Posters and Daniel Howe’s
installation ‘Spectreʼ featured a fake video of Mark Zuckerberg to illuminate his Facebook’s
Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative
Art”. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, vol. 7, no. 1, Oct.
2024, pp. 905-16, doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31691.
This article discusses how 495 artists were surveyed on their opinions about AI-
generative art and how this may be a threat towards the art community. AI tools were meant to
be used to create or assist in the creative process. This could be a great potential towards the
future for artists, but AI can bring great harm. The study was meant for people to be able to
understand artists why they think it is a threat to the art community and how we could prevent
the harm from happening. They disclosed the facts that AI art broke the copyrights of original
artists by using their work and breaking ethical fairness. About 80% of the answers of the survey
indicate that AI should share heavily on how they gained their “creativeness” and how they were
trained. 50% of the artists stated, “I don’t need to profit, but I don’t want for-profit companies to
profit from my art. “I think it is important to understand that most people do not want to sell their
art to just anyone and they have the right to decide. Their right to decide was taken and their art
was stolen. Some people did not even know. Reading about the survey is important for my
research. It can be hard to understand people’s different perspectives on the issues related to AI,
but people should try to understand. That is why I chose this article for my research. Artists are
questioning the relationship practices between humans and machines. “How might this tech-
nology distract me? Is the machine using me, or am I using it? Is this image-making or
artmaking? How does this assisted automation serve my artistic intentions and practice?”
(Karson). These quoted questions are some questions artists have generally asked themselves. I
think the quote “is this machine using me or am I using it” is the powerful question. We want to
use AI as tools not as them completely stealing your creative process and credit. Although AI
seems mostly on the harmful side of the to controversy, there is room for improvement and can
be a positive addition simply by using it differently, rather than using it as artists eyes we can
have an “enhance agency”.
Leibowicz, C., E. Saltz, and L. Coleman. “Creating AI Art Responsibly: A Field Guide for
Artists”. Diseña, no. 19, Sept. 2021, p. Article.5, doi:10.7764/disena.19.Article.5.
Machine learning tools can be used negatively and misleadingly. The article’s purpose is
to explain how to use those tools in a responsible way and a careful manner. Leibowicz and
Coleman emphasize the importance of knowing how to use the tools for the artists and designers
out there in the career field. There are many ways to not let AI take over that creative part; for
example, Naoko Hara uses images drawn from her own animation work as data to generate art
(Hara, 2020). That is a way to use the tools in a nonnegative way. Recently, there was a person
who used AI to prove technology’s effects on society. In 2019, Bill Posters and Daniel Howe’s
installation ‘Spectreʼ featured a fake video of Mark Zuckerberg to illuminate his Facebook’s
influence on his social life. AI can affect people if not used responsibly. It is crucial for people to
understand the potential harms for not just artists but those who do not know what they are doing
and trying to let AI take the whole working process for themselves. There are organizations to
help people understand such as the Algorithmic Justice League. They help with the new biases
towards AI and the high impact systems like facial recognition and affirmative consent. Artists
may want to ask themselves what is appropriate content that requires some AI tools. These
questions can help you decide whether you should reach out to an artist instead. Achieving these
tasks could prevent work being used to train AI without consent to allow for AI machines to keep
being produced and using data from humans. Without consent, artists will have to use the
copyright infringement laws to claim what is rightfully theirs. This brings the question: Why not
avoid asking for permission or simply reaching out for artists to achieve the project rather than
using a non-human object with no ability to create with the artistic soul?
Hassani, Hossein, et al. “Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Intelligence Augmentation (IA): What Is
the Future?” AI, vol. 1, no. 2, 12 Apr. 2020, pp. 143–155. MDPI, www.mdpi.com/2673-
2688/1/2/8.
This article is about the future with AI and what the crucial factors are; namely, the use of
AI to help with human productivity. It will always be improving due to humans striving to better
products and keep testing for better abilities. AI was made back in the 1950’s. The purpose was
for computers to be able to improve effectiveness and efficiency towards work. In today’s time,
AI is not limited to robots; instead, it is programing other devices to understand human nature;
for example, self-driven cars. The “big data” is making new opportunities and challenges for
humanity. Computer technology is “bootstrapping” human creativity and capabilities. Creativity
is skill, consciousness, emotion and intuition, which means all processes that a computer cannot
comprehend. This source is to investigate what the future holds with the presence of AI. Today’s
AI cleverly uses algorithms to analyze large amounts of data. It follows a pre-programmed set of
rules and patterns; therefore, it cannot perform outside of its knowledge. The generative machine
will not go away and keep being programed for more and more professional fields. We have to
understand how to live with AI but not allow it to replace human work. According to Hassani, he
believes AI will be simply an assisting tool to help humans. Like the self-driven car, AI can drive
the people who have disabilities, and drones can pick up objects as well. Rather than replacing
people’s skills and work, it can be used as a helpful tool. He discusses that they could help save
people more time and efforts when struggling with disabilities. One example stated in the source
that is not being used as tool there is a fashion designer who used AI for fashion designs,
manufacturing and selling. The designer allowed the machine to take over the process
completely rather than using it for some parts that were difficult for them. This is an example of
the negative use of AI. It shows that it can easily take over people’s creative jobs and that is not
what we want in our specialized fields. This raises the question whether how long until humans
will allow AI to take the driver’s seat. This could be not only a threat to people’s jobs, but their
understand the potential harms for not just artists but those who do not know what they are doing
and trying to let AI take the whole working process for themselves. There are organizations to
help people understand such as the Algorithmic Justice League. They help with the new biases
towards AI and the high impact systems like facial recognition and affirmative consent. Artists
may want to ask themselves what is appropriate content that requires some AI tools. These
questions can help you decide whether you should reach out to an artist instead. Achieving these
tasks could prevent work being used to train AI without consent to allow for AI machines to keep
being produced and using data from humans. Without consent, artists will have to use the
copyright infringement laws to claim what is rightfully theirs. This brings the question: Why not
avoid asking for permission or simply reaching out for artists to achieve the project rather than
using a non-human object with no ability to create with the artistic soul?
Hassani, Hossein, et al. “Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Intelligence Augmentation (IA): What Is
the Future?” AI, vol. 1, no. 2, 12 Apr. 2020, pp. 143–155. MDPI, www.mdpi.com/2673-
2688/1/2/8.
This article is about the future with AI and what the crucial factors are; namely, the use of
AI to help with human productivity. It will always be improving due to humans striving to better
products and keep testing for better abilities. AI was made back in the 1950’s. The purpose was
for computers to be able to improve effectiveness and efficiency towards work. In today’s time,
AI is not limited to robots; instead, it is programing other devices to understand human nature;
for example, self-driven cars. The “big data” is making new opportunities and challenges for
humanity. Computer technology is “bootstrapping” human creativity and capabilities. Creativity
is skill, consciousness, emotion and intuition, which means all processes that a computer cannot
comprehend. This source is to investigate what the future holds with the presence of AI. Today’s
AI cleverly uses algorithms to analyze large amounts of data. It follows a pre-programmed set of
rules and patterns; therefore, it cannot perform outside of its knowledge. The generative machine
will not go away and keep being programed for more and more professional fields. We have to
understand how to live with AI but not allow it to replace human work. According to Hassani, he
believes AI will be simply an assisting tool to help humans. Like the self-driven car, AI can drive
the people who have disabilities, and drones can pick up objects as well. Rather than replacing
people’s skills and work, it can be used as a helpful tool. He discusses that they could help save
people more time and efforts when struggling with disabilities. One example stated in the source
that is not being used as tool there is a fashion designer who used AI for fashion designs,
manufacturing and selling. The designer allowed the machine to take over the process
completely rather than using it for some parts that were difficult for them. This is an example of
the negative use of AI. It shows that it can easily take over people’s creative jobs and that is not
what we want in our specialized fields. This raises the question whether how long until humans
will allow AI to take the driver’s seat. This could be not only a threat to people’s jobs, but their
creative minds. Humans who will be using AI to let them do everything and think for themselves
is not a good idea. This could cause serious problems. As stated in the source, it could also cause
people to question what is real and what is not. This is a serious problem; this is why I think it is
a good source for my research. It makes a reality check that this road we are heading can be
damaging.
Hagendorff, Thilo, and Katharina Wezel. “15 Challenges for AI: Or What AI (Currently) Can’t
Do.” AI & SOCIETY, vol. 35, no. 355-365, 28 Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-
00886-y.
This article focuses on what AI can do with a whole range of skills that they have
acquired throughout the years. This article gives an overview of what the limits are with AI.
Their restrictions and limits are generally overlooked too focused on the “positives” it can do.
The data of AI systems cannot correspond to reality very well. The collection of data they have is
simply personalized, such as characteristics, interests and plans. They can also be known as a
digital persona that simply follows what is programed. What is programed is by people who steal
other people’s data and information, making the machine know how to make certain artwork,
music, writing, etc. Their data is collected specifically in a certain order so the machine can
answer particular questions.” The functionality of the technology basically represents the idea
that software can learn from the statistical patterns contained in datasets or sensory inputs. But
that means that computer outputs typically reflect what is already given, and not what could or
should be, what is new, surprising, innovative or deviant.” This quotation helps understand more
thoroughly of how the machine knows what to do based on the data given. This can be
problematic because they are focused on past knowledge and not information that is up to date.
This could cause people to go back into the past knowledge without focusing on the present since
their data is not updated. This can confuse people on the current degree of knowledges. Another
thing AI can not do is understand social sciences. Software engineers often develop “solutions”
for different social areas. However, software engineers usually only have an educational
background in computer science, but not in the social science perspectives. Their social
limitations can isolate certain cultures and social circumstances, making people feel
discriminated against some issues. There is a lot of negative things AI cannot understand, I chose
this article to show that in my research, AI is usually known as the positive life changer but there
are many cons included.
is not a good idea. This could cause serious problems. As stated in the source, it could also cause
people to question what is real and what is not. This is a serious problem; this is why I think it is
a good source for my research. It makes a reality check that this road we are heading can be
damaging.
Hagendorff, Thilo, and Katharina Wezel. “15 Challenges for AI: Or What AI (Currently) Can’t
Do.” AI & SOCIETY, vol. 35, no. 355-365, 28 Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-
00886-y.
This article focuses on what AI can do with a whole range of skills that they have
acquired throughout the years. This article gives an overview of what the limits are with AI.
Their restrictions and limits are generally overlooked too focused on the “positives” it can do.
The data of AI systems cannot correspond to reality very well. The collection of data they have is
simply personalized, such as characteristics, interests and plans. They can also be known as a
digital persona that simply follows what is programed. What is programed is by people who steal
other people’s data and information, making the machine know how to make certain artwork,
music, writing, etc. Their data is collected specifically in a certain order so the machine can
answer particular questions.” The functionality of the technology basically represents the idea
that software can learn from the statistical patterns contained in datasets or sensory inputs. But
that means that computer outputs typically reflect what is already given, and not what could or
should be, what is new, surprising, innovative or deviant.” This quotation helps understand more
thoroughly of how the machine knows what to do based on the data given. This can be
problematic because they are focused on past knowledge and not information that is up to date.
This could cause people to go back into the past knowledge without focusing on the present since
their data is not updated. This can confuse people on the current degree of knowledges. Another
thing AI can not do is understand social sciences. Software engineers often develop “solutions”
for different social areas. However, software engineers usually only have an educational
background in computer science, but not in the social science perspectives. Their social
limitations can isolate certain cultures and social circumstances, making people feel
discriminated against some issues. There is a lot of negative things AI cannot understand, I chose
this article to show that in my research, AI is usually known as the positive life changer but there
are many cons included.
Lena, Jennifer C., and Danielle J. Lindemann. “Who Is an Artist? New Data for an Old
Question.” Poetics, vol. 43, Apr. 2014, pp. 70–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.01.001.
Accessed 16 Jan. 2021.
This article discusses employment within the art field. Working as an artist has seen great
growth recently. Creative Industries reports that more than 548,000 arts businesses and employed
2.9 million workers in the United States in 2006, which may be increased as of this year.
Although this article does give numbers and facts, what about the social viewpoint? There are
different social viewpoints on what is considered an artist. The current question is, How do we
label someone who is an artist and those who create or perform art in their non-work time? The
article states that the label “artist” is given to workers who see themselves and that are seen by
others as producers of artistic objects and ideas. This statement has led to some people thinking
about the same methods of definition and data as they would about doctors and lawyers. The role
of artistic labor reviving industries has been of a particular interest to scholars in multiple
disciplines including public policy, urban planning and sociology. Although artistic roles do play
a part in those examples, it is still hard to gain an artistic job. The human capital states they are
facing the problem of defining “creative” majors and degrees. Having no degree can make it
more difficult to find an artistic employment. Because it is harder to find a job related to that
field, they must gain a job in a different field. They reported that 24% of artists had no job in the
arts. Arts professionals report that much of their time is devoted to non-artistic jobs, and a
significant percentage of their earnings often derives from non-artistic labor. Seeing the label
“artist” as a social role can keep from work lives, hobbies, and a disposition toward one’s
community. It is hard to fit in the social roles in today’s time. The study of creative industries is
going to be more complicated by the frequent emergence of new job categories like for example,
web design, graphic design, coding, etc. This causes a result of both changing technology and
increasing specialization. It is going to be even harder for artists since Artificial Intelligence is a
new technology tool in the art field. This raises the question, How much more will that
percentage go up showing that artists will not achieve in the work field? This is why I wanted to
use this source in my research. I want to show the difficulties already in the artistic field,
moreover now with new AI tools added to it.
Kumar, Harsh, et al. “Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on
Divergent and Convergent Thinking.” ArXiv.org, 2024, arxiv.org/abs/2410.03703.
This article discusses the rise of generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and
how it has the potential to revolutionize the creative process. These systems can algorithmically
generate ideas for creating art. Although concerns exist about the impact of AI assistance on
human creativity. AI might impair an individual's ability to think creatively without assistance,
leading to reduce diversity. There is also a chance that AI could help spark that human creativity.
This would be like another pair of eyes and having a fresh partner. AI should be only used as a
Question.” Poetics, vol. 43, Apr. 2014, pp. 70–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.01.001.
Accessed 16 Jan. 2021.
This article discusses employment within the art field. Working as an artist has seen great
growth recently. Creative Industries reports that more than 548,000 arts businesses and employed
2.9 million workers in the United States in 2006, which may be increased as of this year.
Although this article does give numbers and facts, what about the social viewpoint? There are
different social viewpoints on what is considered an artist. The current question is, How do we
label someone who is an artist and those who create or perform art in their non-work time? The
article states that the label “artist” is given to workers who see themselves and that are seen by
others as producers of artistic objects and ideas. This statement has led to some people thinking
about the same methods of definition and data as they would about doctors and lawyers. The role
of artistic labor reviving industries has been of a particular interest to scholars in multiple
disciplines including public policy, urban planning and sociology. Although artistic roles do play
a part in those examples, it is still hard to gain an artistic job. The human capital states they are
facing the problem of defining “creative” majors and degrees. Having no degree can make it
more difficult to find an artistic employment. Because it is harder to find a job related to that
field, they must gain a job in a different field. They reported that 24% of artists had no job in the
arts. Arts professionals report that much of their time is devoted to non-artistic jobs, and a
significant percentage of their earnings often derives from non-artistic labor. Seeing the label
“artist” as a social role can keep from work lives, hobbies, and a disposition toward one’s
community. It is hard to fit in the social roles in today’s time. The study of creative industries is
going to be more complicated by the frequent emergence of new job categories like for example,
web design, graphic design, coding, etc. This causes a result of both changing technology and
increasing specialization. It is going to be even harder for artists since Artificial Intelligence is a
new technology tool in the art field. This raises the question, How much more will that
percentage go up showing that artists will not achieve in the work field? This is why I wanted to
use this source in my research. I want to show the difficulties already in the artistic field,
moreover now with new AI tools added to it.
Kumar, Harsh, et al. “Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on
Divergent and Convergent Thinking.” ArXiv.org, 2024, arxiv.org/abs/2410.03703.
This article discusses the rise of generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and
how it has the potential to revolutionize the creative process. These systems can algorithmically
generate ideas for creating art. Although concerns exist about the impact of AI assistance on
human creativity. AI might impair an individual's ability to think creatively without assistance,
leading to reduce diversity. There is also a chance that AI could help spark that human creativity.
This would be like another pair of eyes and having a fresh partner. AI should be only used as a
tool not for fully taking away human potential. We would have to understand on how to co-create
with AI effects on generating “creative ideas”. This study investigates the impact of the large
language models (LLMS) assistance on human creativity by examining divergent and convergent
thinking. The researchers conducted two pre-registered parallel experiments with 1,100
participants comparing the standard LLM assistance, coach like LLM guidance and no
assistance. This experience examined immediate effects and residual effects on unassisted
creative performance and assisted creative performance. In the end LLM assistance did improved
performance during the assisted tasks but it did not fit better than the unassisted tasks.
Participants who received guidance from LLM’s performed worse than the unassisted test
rounds. This proves that you must not let AI take over the work/creative process for you.
Designing systems for AI supported creativity should consider both exposure; this would ensure
long term human flourishing without diminishing independent creative abilities. AI-generated
ideas can distract participants from consuming cognitive resources and engagement in tasks.
LLMS can lead on to less original ideas and reduce deep engagement and thoughts with
concepts. We do not want people to go the easy way instead of going the extra mile to discover
on their own. We want people to use their own minds, their own hands, to make something, be
something. We should prioritize our own cognitive processes. Having a balance with AI support
is important and so is understanding the risks that it comes with undermining the human creative
process. This will be a challenge for the arts and humanities. For example, writers using the same
LLM could make homogenized content and work. Having similar work would defeat the purpose
of creating and being unique. This is a important knowledge to be aware of when it comes to AI.
This article is important because it emphasizes the importance of thinking on your own and
expressing yourself uniquely.
Art, AI. “Cybernetic Forests.” Cybernetic Forests. , 2025, www.cyberneticforests.com/online-
portfolio. Accessed 13 Mar. 2025.
This article is about an artist who works with AI-generative media. The artist is known by
the name, Eryk Salvaggio. He uses subverting tools to reveal the problems embedded in them.
His work is created through glitching machines. Salvaggio repurposes generative imagery to
express biases and other problems such as in social and technical. He has lectures on debates
with AI such as dehumanization and politics of extraction. There is a quote in this article that I
found to be a amazing perspective. “Many artists see AI as a tool for expanding the imagination,”
Salvaggio says, “But I aim to pull the imagination out of AI, to see it for what it is.” I like this
quote because it says that he wants to dig deeper into the topic with AI. Not only is he an artist
but he is also a writer and a researcher for challenging the myths on AI. One of his recent work is
named “Human Movie: Six Meditations on a Compression Algorithm”, it was made this year and
it is a 35 minute video expressing computational processes of diffusion models and human
with AI effects on generating “creative ideas”. This study investigates the impact of the large
language models (LLMS) assistance on human creativity by examining divergent and convergent
thinking. The researchers conducted two pre-registered parallel experiments with 1,100
participants comparing the standard LLM assistance, coach like LLM guidance and no
assistance. This experience examined immediate effects and residual effects on unassisted
creative performance and assisted creative performance. In the end LLM assistance did improved
performance during the assisted tasks but it did not fit better than the unassisted tasks.
Participants who received guidance from LLM’s performed worse than the unassisted test
rounds. This proves that you must not let AI take over the work/creative process for you.
Designing systems for AI supported creativity should consider both exposure; this would ensure
long term human flourishing without diminishing independent creative abilities. AI-generated
ideas can distract participants from consuming cognitive resources and engagement in tasks.
LLMS can lead on to less original ideas and reduce deep engagement and thoughts with
concepts. We do not want people to go the easy way instead of going the extra mile to discover
on their own. We want people to use their own minds, their own hands, to make something, be
something. We should prioritize our own cognitive processes. Having a balance with AI support
is important and so is understanding the risks that it comes with undermining the human creative
process. This will be a challenge for the arts and humanities. For example, writers using the same
LLM could make homogenized content and work. Having similar work would defeat the purpose
of creating and being unique. This is a important knowledge to be aware of when it comes to AI.
This article is important because it emphasizes the importance of thinking on your own and
expressing yourself uniquely.
Art, AI. “Cybernetic Forests.” Cybernetic Forests. , 2025, www.cyberneticforests.com/online-
portfolio. Accessed 13 Mar. 2025.
This article is about an artist who works with AI-generative media. The artist is known by
the name, Eryk Salvaggio. He uses subverting tools to reveal the problems embedded in them.
His work is created through glitching machines. Salvaggio repurposes generative imagery to
express biases and other problems such as in social and technical. He has lectures on debates
with AI such as dehumanization and politics of extraction. There is a quote in this article that I
found to be a amazing perspective. “Many artists see AI as a tool for expanding the imagination,”
Salvaggio says, “But I aim to pull the imagination out of AI, to see it for what it is.” I like this
quote because it says that he wants to dig deeper into the topic with AI. Not only is he an artist
but he is also a writer and a researcher for challenging the myths on AI. One of his recent work is
named “Human Movie: Six Meditations on a Compression Algorithm”, it was made this year and
it is a 35 minute video expressing computational processes of diffusion models and human
metaphors. The metaphors describe them to such as temperature, creativity, image recognition,
memory, reason, and the unmodeled. Even though the main concept is not about machines it also
goes along with the humanities. The main concept is about a humanist in comparison to limited
capacities of generative AI. He used a film subject as the idea of AI for a filter for noise. The
filter is supposed to mimic a human-like response to the world. Salvaggio’s main question was,
“But what human is this like?” This film explores the mental states that are modeled by AI and
their unsupervised ways using surreal visual language and AI generative errors to media
environments. To be honest, I wasn’t sure if I would find an artist related to AI in a positive way.
This work made by Salvaggio is amazing and so unique when it comes to such a challenging
topic. This is why I chose this article, to show a different perspective related to AI.
memory, reason, and the unmodeled. Even though the main concept is not about machines it also
goes along with the humanities. The main concept is about a humanist in comparison to limited
capacities of generative AI. He used a film subject as the idea of AI for a filter for noise. The
filter is supposed to mimic a human-like response to the world. Salvaggio’s main question was,
“But what human is this like?” This film explores the mental states that are modeled by AI and
their unsupervised ways using surreal visual language and AI generative errors to media
environments. To be honest, I wasn’t sure if I would find an artist related to AI in a positive way.
This work made by Salvaggio is amazing and so unique when it comes to such a challenging
topic. This is why I chose this article, to show a different perspective related to AI.
Categories
GeneralDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 41
- Slides 15
- Age 217 days
Related Slideshows
22
Pray For The Peace Of Jerusalem and You Will Prosper
RodolfoMoralesMarcuc
30 views
26
Don_t_Waste_Your_Life_God.....powerpoint
chalobrido8
32 views
31
VILLASUR_FACTORS_TO_CONSIDER_IN_PLATING_SALAD_10-13.pdf
JaiJai148317
30 views
14
Fertility awareness methods for women in the society
Isaiah47
29 views
35
Chapter 5 Arithmetic Functions Computer Organisation and Architecture
RitikSharma297999
26 views
5
syakira bhasa inggris (1) (1).pptx.......
ourcommunity56
28 views