Week 4 Image Analysis and Artificial Intelligence Lab

Here is my Omeka Item

Something I was struck by within the reading about the use of AI was the value and contribution that some of the applications of AI were being used for. Specifically, digitally restoring and coloring old paintings and using AI to create original creative works. One of the ethical issues I found arising within this discussion is why we are doing something possibly harmful just for the sake of doing it after reading and learning about the possible environmental cost of AI usage and the Sonja Drimmer reading/quote below, which discussed how some of the AI usage may be unnecessary. I was prompted with the question of when we draw the line. When can we quantify how much unnecessary bad is bad enough to stop? This could be responded to by saying that it’s not a big deal because it’s only one little project or it doesn’t seem costly, but I would respond by saying how many projects does it take then.

But outside of flexing the prowess of AI, is there any value – artistically, historically – to what the company is doing? These recreations don’t teach us anything we didn’t know about the artists and their methods.

Sonja Drimmer, How AI is Hijacking Art History, The Conversation

Continuing with this idea of possible unnecessary harm, I also found glimpses within The New Yorker article, as seen in the quote below. I’m curious about the potential harm and costs of supplying AI processes for unnecessary tasks and whether or not the continuation of this practice could lead to more unnecessary uses for AI in the future, especially building off just image manipulation.

Obviously, no one can speak for all writers, but let me make the argument that starting with a blurry copy of unoriginal work isn’t a good way to create original work.

Ted Chiang, ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web, The New Yorker