Well, I will have to revisit Borges. Anybody other than a theologian or historian of religion who knows who Basilides is deserves a second look. For myself, however, Terminator ruined my appreciation for anything like AI.
Quite a thoughtful post. As someone coming of age in this new world of Artificial Intelligence, I often find myself tempted to mingle in this creativity, only to feel morally guilty at the mere suggestion that I could lend my writing to AI on a creative and thoughtful prompt. Future students may not share my same sentiment.
Random typing would not produce punctuation nor grammar nor the changes therein over the history of writing. So the monkeys will produce The Canterbury tales in prose? In Middle English or in verse butch which English with which usage and which punctuation? How would they accommodate translated words or words derived from other languages with variable spellings and what of authors who purposefully misspell words would they correct those words or leave them as they are how would they achieve this randomly and if an author revised a text and reissues it then which version will the monies produce?
Statistics shows that the monkeys will never produce the outcome. It is a thought experiment unmoored from statistical analysis and Boolean logic. The universe will end before random moneys produce Shakespeare.
Splendid piece as always, Professor Brands! This question of "creativity" as it applies to an age defined by AI is an important one that we all should try to answer in order to preserve freedom of expression. On the topic of preserving freedom of expression, as a student at the illustrious UT Austin, "creativity" seems to be under attack. Just today, an email was sent out from our President informing us that certain disciplines have been condensed into two departments. Since this email was sent, several of my fellow students, faculty members, and I are all grappling with this seemingly uninformative change.
An article by Kut News discussing these changes includes a few opinions, with faculty members stating these changes are "sort of an encroachment on our academic freedom" continuing that it may potentially be a threat “if, from the top down in these curriculum reviews, certain classes are unable to be taught even though they're based in research and in a faculty member's area of expertise,” thus the implications this has on academic freedom are impossible to ignore. Other faculty members report that these changes have been rushed. With these changes coming in a nationwide conservatism push, I cannot help but think my university is slowly beginning to dwindle the very freedom of expression that has made UT so desirable to prospective students, especially students in the COLA, to aid in this ideological thrust.
With all of that being said, it appears to me that not only is AI a threat to creativity, but higher education is now being used as a weapon against creativity. As a student, I cannot help but fear what this means for the future of higher education as well as the future of my own university. With this school being extremely selective, us students have given a lot to have the opportunity to be a part of the UT system; these changes appear to undermine the hard work of students. Especially since the university is riddled with many issues separate from any COLA department or the core curriculum. Higher education is supposed to be a place where students and faculty can be creative freely, so the fact that my institution seems to be making it harder to do so, reads oxymoronically.
Well, I will have to revisit Borges. Anybody other than a theologian or historian of religion who knows who Basilides is deserves a second look. For myself, however, Terminator ruined my appreciation for anything like AI.
Quite a thoughtful post. As someone coming of age in this new world of Artificial Intelligence, I often find myself tempted to mingle in this creativity, only to feel morally guilty at the mere suggestion that I could lend my writing to AI on a creative and thoughtful prompt. Future students may not share my same sentiment.
Random typing would not produce punctuation nor grammar nor the changes therein over the history of writing. So the monkeys will produce The Canterbury tales in prose? In Middle English or in verse butch which English with which usage and which punctuation? How would they accommodate translated words or words derived from other languages with variable spellings and what of authors who purposefully misspell words would they correct those words or leave them as they are how would they achieve this randomly and if an author revised a text and reissues it then which version will the monies produce?
Statistics shows that the monkeys will never produce the outcome. It is a thought experiment unmoored from statistical analysis and Boolean logic. The universe will end before random moneys produce Shakespeare.
Splendid piece as always, Professor Brands! This question of "creativity" as it applies to an age defined by AI is an important one that we all should try to answer in order to preserve freedom of expression. On the topic of preserving freedom of expression, as a student at the illustrious UT Austin, "creativity" seems to be under attack. Just today, an email was sent out from our President informing us that certain disciplines have been condensed into two departments. Since this email was sent, several of my fellow students, faculty members, and I are all grappling with this seemingly uninformative change.
An article by Kut News discussing these changes includes a few opinions, with faculty members stating these changes are "sort of an encroachment on our academic freedom" continuing that it may potentially be a threat “if, from the top down in these curriculum reviews, certain classes are unable to be taught even though they're based in research and in a faculty member's area of expertise,” thus the implications this has on academic freedom are impossible to ignore. Other faculty members report that these changes have been rushed. With these changes coming in a nationwide conservatism push, I cannot help but think my university is slowly beginning to dwindle the very freedom of expression that has made UT so desirable to prospective students, especially students in the COLA, to aid in this ideological thrust.
With all of that being said, it appears to me that not only is AI a threat to creativity, but higher education is now being used as a weapon against creativity. As a student, I cannot help but fear what this means for the future of higher education as well as the future of my own university. With this school being extremely selective, us students have given a lot to have the opportunity to be a part of the UT system; these changes appear to undermine the hard work of students. Especially since the university is riddled with many issues separate from any COLA department or the core curriculum. Higher education is supposed to be a place where students and faculty can be creative freely, so the fact that my institution seems to be making it harder to do so, reads oxymoronically.