We unavoidably and inarguably live in an increasingly digital age. This statement is so common, so accepted, that it is a platitude. But it is true. The world we live in is changing, metamorphosing into an evermore modern, efficient, and automated system. With this comes inevitable fears. Are we straying too far from unaided, independent, and distinctive work? In other words, are we still human enough? Are we trading ethics for productivity? Or, are we luddites — too involved in our own consternation, too pessimistic, and too technophobic to acknowledge that life is evolving, and that not all evolution is bad?
Artificial intelligence is the newest consequence of our rapidly mechanized society. Its introduction spawned many of the same conversations, worries, and enthusiasms as inventions like the computer, the internet, and the smartphone. It’s precisely this reason that many welcomed AI. Civilization didn’t end when the world wide web was introduced, so how would AI be any different?
Nevertheless, ethical concerns, anxieties over job loss, privacy questions, and the degradation of individual thinking and expressionism, are all real concerns — ones which cannot be assuaged by aphorisms like, “it all worked out in the past.” For these reasons, institutions are trying to correct early for AI-related issues moving forward. At Colby, AI is integrated in the classroom across disciplines and more directly through centers like the Davis Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Since AI is an inescapable part of the future, the College looks to prepare students for an unpreventable technological fate, one where graduates can adapt to, maneuver, and excel in the unprecedented.
But, in the era of AI, we should require more of ourselves than simply gaming the system to ensure our own monetary success. We are also required to consider the implications of interacting with AI, and more specifically, whether our use or proponency of AI is moral. This is a complicated issue, one without a clear answer.
AI is a large umbrella which, with technological reforms, has progressed to impact many facets of current life. My conversations with Colby students focused in particular on one of these facets: AI’s influence on the arts. I was interested in student’s opinions regarding whether AI art was really art; how large language models factored into their own projects; if technology weakened the creative expressionism intrinsic to art; and if “art” was defined as something solely human-created or could instead be a product made by real and digital designers.
Ben Bognon `29 and Sailor Perry `29 are artists. Bognon is currently taking art classes in his first semester at Colby, while Perry hopes to increase her involvement in the arts in the near future. Both Bognon and Perry define art as a form of expression, which begs the question, is an AI-generated piece considered art if it evokes an emotion or articulates a particular opinion?
Bognon says art doesn’t have to be “human-made.” Similarly, he thinks using AI for inspiration is not necessarily a sign of inauthenticity, but rather a productivity tool. “You can’t coin AI as your own. But when writing an essay, AI can help with ideas, structure, and reformatting. As soon as you make AI write something for you, it’s not your work. You are taking credit for something that is not your own. But it can help you get there.” To Bognon, the same applies to art. AI is a device, and it should be used. People didn’t ditch using calculators for long division simply because they aren’t computing the problems themselves.
By contrast, Perry responded to the question of whether AI could have a role in the arts with a resolute “no,” explaining, “AI art is not really art.” Her attitude is a byproduct of growing resentment towards LLMs that “are taking away a lot of jobs… That goes for music, writing, teacher’s positions, everything,” she says. Even if AI was capable of producing art that stimulated a reaction, to Perry, AI art shouldn’t outcompete the talents of human artists.
Bognon sees AI pragmatically. It’s not that allocating fair credit, promoting the work of good artists, and continuing human-made outlets of creative expression aren’t important problems. The worries Perry has are valid and real. But Bognon doesn’t see an alternative. He has accepted the new reality. “In general, AI is taking over and replacing a lot of people’s jobs. But at the same time, it’s creating jobs for people.” As for what happens to these new positions when AI progresses to the point of writing its own code, Bognon remains unsure. He says that’s a topic for the future. But, is this a question we can afford to delay answering?
~ Maya Corrie `29
Be First to Comment