In what ways does GenAI challenge traditional notions of authorship, originality, and expertise?
Read
You will compare and contrast these two readings. The Guardian article highlights how some creatives and academics are rejecting AI tools, while Seth Godin argues for a human-centered embrace of AI.
Discuss
What is lost and what is gained when we let machines help shape our words, ideas, or images? How should we navigate the ethical and professional tensions between rejecting, embracing, or adapting to generative AI?
2 replies on “thing 9: GenAI and Creative and Intellectual Work”
I first read The Guardian article, and afterward I felt panicked at the thought of GenAI taking over and humans having no purpose – or as Justine Bateman stated,”…essentially become just a skin bag of organs and bones…”. Then I read the blog post, ‘Productivity, AI and Pushback’ and realized we have evolved over centuries with the onset of a lot of new technological advances and we humans are still here. If we can harness AI to work with us and not against us – or harm us – we all can/will benefit and thrive. Now it is incumbent on all of us to work together to make that happen.
I am 100% in agreement with the second article. The first author is concerned, among other things, with AI being used in Russian warfare against Ukraine. I oppose any warfare Russians are using; the root of the problem is not in the tools… And, do you like it or not, progress can’t be stopped. Nobody likes nuclear weapons in the hands of dictators or terrorists. The antidot is having your own. This is unfortunate, but that’s how things work. Same with the AI. Some jobs unavoidably will be eliminated but new professions will emerge, quite unexpectedly. Luddites can’t win.