Entry #3 Art

 I recently read an article from The Verge about a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether AI-generated art can be copyrighted. It explains that the Court declined to hear a case arguing that any artwork created entirely by artificial intelligence should receive copyright protection (which is blasphemy). Because this happened, copyright law requires a human creator for a work to be protected. The report presents the legal outcome and explains why the case was important for the future of AI-generated content.

                                                                        Purple   By me

As someone active in the art community, I find it truly upsetting to witness AI becoming the norm. How can people in power decide to punish others whose hard work, livelihood, and hobbies are dismissed as such? While the people actively using artificial intelligence have nothing to back them up. The fact that they are willing to turn away from it just shows they want to continue using AI, whether it is wrong, they do not care. They only want to see how far AI can go in the world, and what more it can do. 

This type of reporting affects the audience by encouraging readers to view AI art primarily as a problem/threat rather than as a complex technology. When news sources frame information in this way, it can affect how people form opinions about new technologies and creative work. Understanding this kind of rhetoric is important since it helps citizens think critically about the media they consume and question how information is presented. Recognizing slanted reporting also helps readers understand the credibility of the sources they rely on for information.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Entry #1 Escapism and I

Entry #2 Yes, Stickmen.

Entry #0