My opinion on Marche’s article is that he has a good point and he is coming from a place of more understanding about the topic compared to the other people who talk about the topic. Many people don’t actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to AI and its effects on art and creativity because all they do is ask it a question or give it a prompt and because it gives them something legible they think AI can do anything but when that piece of writing is examined by someone who has a deeper knowledge in linguistics or writing and the process of writing, the story changes from, ‘wow this is incredible’ to ‘eh this is ok but here is what I would change’. This is shown in Marche’s article because he actually used AI to write a book and he basically said its very literal and can’t be more flexible or creative when he gave it prompts like ‘write as this person’. As he wrote about his experience I realized that AI is just a machine. Yes this is obvious but I mean there is nothing going on in its brain, so to speak. It is intelligent but it’s not smart, it can’t think and produce its own intellectual thoughts and make certain connections the way that people can. It’s just spitting back information based on certain parameters that a human gives it. Calling it artificial intelligence is almost misleading because it’s really just a ‘complex information processing’ machine. It just shows you the most common, popular, and agreed upon things other people have done and said and collects the information you need based on the prompts you give it. It just does it in a way that makes it look like it’s producing original thought but it’s just regurgitating information rather than making intricate connections, theories and ideas like humans do. It’s essentially just a bunch of code being told what to do. It cannot think for itself. And unless there is a real life Tony Stark and Infinity Stone, I don’t think AI is going from Jarvis to Ultron anytime soon. To end this post, my final conclusions are that Marche did a really good job of showing his understanding of the topic he was talking about and actually having some basis for what he’s saying since he is very knowledgable in the topic of writing and he actually wrote a book using AI. He was able to give a different and more educated perspective on the topic. He also provided good ‘evidence’ and references on the topic for readers to draw their own conclusions if they want to, but I think for me its pretty clear that AI is not as smart as humans and can’t do some important things that humans can so the probability of it destroying all art is not as likely as I thought it was before I read the article.
