Click any tag below to further narrow down your results
Links
Mitchell Zemil, a freelance animator and adjunct professor, writes in response to 3blue1brown's AI-in-math discussion, arguing that artists and mathematicians both value the human labor, intentionality, and personal "DNA" behind their work. He contends that generative AI turns making into tastemaking, and that mathematics is more than an answer-producing machine.
- Art is valued for the artist's labor, skill development, and intentional process, so generative AI's ability to produce polished output quickly threatens that value and raises ethical issues around training data.
- Past technologies like cameras and digital tools democratized art without erasing the human practice behind it, but generative AI is different because it shifts the work toward selecting from outputs rather than making them.
- Mathematics is often treated as a purely objective pursuit that machines could finish off, but Zemil argues people still value living mathematicians who explain, interpret, and push the frontier, much as audiences still value dancers at the ballet.