2/9/25
A while ago I made the personal decision to avoid using generative AI in my work. I did not expect this decision to be so radical or or important. I made the decision after learning how much of an energy impact AI generation has on the environment. Besides all of the other questionable implications of AI, I didn't think it to be any other decision one would make to better the environment. When we talk about AI and why it's seemingly a 'must' for creatives in this field we can only talk about possibilities and theoretical probability. And despite that it, it seems to be the only thing that I am constantly told that I absolutely must partake in. Designers can work any way they want, but one thing they must do is learn these 'tools' (I'm sorry but I still do not see it as a tool but rather a 'process'). So for the time being I have not been convinced that this is true, and I am still shocked to see AI so freely encouraged without even a consideration of it's impact, as if we cannot at the very least have a discussion about ethical usage before freely and casually allowing AI to become intigrated into our work. Right now, schools are pushing curriculum outside of the bounds of human capability, expecting us to fill that gap with generated work. Filler content is still filler content no matter how it looks or feels at a first glance. How do you go back try to refine or articulate your work when it was built on a shaky foundation? How can you justify AI being part of education when it's use doesn't result in any real learning? With it's extremely low skill requirement, what is the reasoning behind making it a part of your 'skill set'? How does this 'skill' set you apart? Are fast, high fidelity results the only desirable thing that a designer has to offer? These are questions remained unanswered to me so for the time being I will continue with this experiment to see if it really is true.