Cam Sanford

The post I read today, Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content, is about how AI is effecting creativity. The post goes over a study where writers were tested with AI and no AI usage. They found that the AI ones were statistically better than the ones without. In my personal opinion, even if AI can make a story better, add more details, create instantaneously, it will never be the same. Human creativity and writing is a form of art; AI is not art. Writing takes skill and this post says that Low DAT writers can be equal with High DAT writers. I am very against this, writing is something that takes skill, using AI to become a “good” writer means you are not good at it. If AI is used to create your idea, it is not your idea. However, I do believe their experiment was useful, it gives insight as to how the general public views AI works. They used an example about how AI can have usefulness but not be useful in every aspect, I believe this sums up pretty good how AI can help but it cannot give talent. AI can tell you how to draw but it cannot make you an artist. The articles take on how AI impacts writing is that AI writing for you can make the piece less boring, more useful, increase the novelty; but the moral of the story is when you use AI the piece is not your own.