Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Generative AI and Creative Work: Narratives, Values, and Impacts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Online discourse about generative AI and creative work is built by tech firms and media, not artists, and promotes creativity as disembodied ideation freed from human labor.

desk verdict A useful five-value map of AI-in-creative-work discourse that overstates its case by calling the values 'dominant' without measuring prevalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03940 v1 pith:XW7I2FE5 submitted 2025-02-06 cs.CY

Baptiste Caramiaux , Kate Crawford , Q. Vera Liao , Gonzalo Ramos , Jenny Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords generativeAIcreativeworknarrativesmediadiscourseanalysisautomationdemocratizationofcreativityartisticlaborculturalvalues
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the public story about generative AI in creative work is a constructed narrative, not a neutral description: it is told mostly by technology companies and mainstream media, not by artists. Analyzing 188 media articles and 19 product descriptions, the authors find the dominant discourse presents creativity as an idea separated from its material execution, with automation speeding production and skill reframed as a barrier rather than a craft. If this is right, public debate about AI art is being shaped by the economic interests of tool vendors, and the values embedded in the discourse—speed, output volume, low barriers—are reshaping what counts as creative work and who can claim to do it.

What carries the argument

The central analytic device is the narrative as a cultural artifact: a story that conveys a point of view or set of values. The paper operationalizes this by assembling a corpus of 188 articles from 19 online sources plus 19 product descriptions through 18 search-engine queries, filtering to sources that published more than five relevant articles, and coding the material inductively into 102 codes grouped into five themes. The five value oppositions—automation over manual work, efficiency over exploration, concept over execution, artifact over process, short-term over long-term skills—are the mechanism that carries the argument, translating scattered media language into a coherent value system with stated impacts on creative work.

What would settle it

Re-run the search protocol with artist-authored outlets or with queries grounded in artists' own vocabulary, such as 'AI art labor' or 'AI and craft,' and count how often the efficiency and automation frames appear; if they no longer dominate, the claim that the dominant discourse pushes disembodied creativity would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dominant online narratives about generative AI in creative work are anchored in five explicit values: automation over manual work, efficiency over exploration, concept over execution, artifact over process, and short-term over long-term skills. Each value carries implicit assumptions: creativity is a problem-solving process that can be rationalized and automated; time to output is the measure of creative value; craft and embodied skill are obstacles to democratization; and the final artifact matters more than the process that produces it. Because these narratives are told mainly by journalists and technology actors rather than by artists, the paper argues the discourse corresponds to a techno-positivist vision—a faith that technological progress is the measure of human progress—and asserts power over the creative economy and culture. Artists' own voices, when they appear, point the other way, valuing exploration, accidents, and small-scale choices.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a corpus built from the first 90 search results of 18 queries on two search engines, filtered to sources publishing more than five relevant articles, captures the dominant public narratives rather than a self-selected slice of tech-promotional media.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Public perception of AI art will keep centering speed and output volume, pushing process-oriented artistic practice to the margins of what is recognized as creative work.
  • The democratization framing that equates access with removing skill can weaken support for arts education and devalue craft, making creative careers harder to sustain for people without privileged starting points.
  • Freelancers and gig creatives will face pressure to meet AI-speed production benchmarks, which can lower prices and deepen inequality within the creative sector.
  • When artists do enter the discourse, their counter-narratives emphasize exploration, accidents, and small-scale choices, so the gap between maker experience and vendor messaging is likely to grow.
  • If narratives shape policy, the efficiency and automation frames may steer funding and regulation toward tool adoption rather than toward protections for artistic labor.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test this, but the same five value oppositions could be applied to discourse about AI in writing, coding, or design work, predicting that efficiency and concept-over-execution frames dominate those fields too.
  • A natural extension would be a survey experiment measuring whether exposure to efficiency-framed AI marketing shifts artists' stated willingness to engage in open-ended exploration.
  • The corpus is drawn from English-language search results on US and Europe-focused engines; applying the same coding scheme to non-English or artist-run media could reveal whether these narratives are a regional phenomenon tied to tech-industry communication.
  • The paper implies but does not analyze a tension: the 'democratization via skill removal' narrative coexists with a growing market in prompt-engineering expertise, suggesting the skill is displaced rather than eliminated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies how generative AI is framed in online media and product descriptions with respect to creative work. The authors construct a corpus of 188 articles and 19 product descriptions from search-engine queries, conduct inductive coding, and identify five explicit values in the discourse: automation over manual work, efficiency over exploration, concept over execution, artifact over process, and short-term over long-term skills. They argue these values form a dominant narrative in which creativity is freed from material realization through automation, and that this narrative primarily originates from technology companies and journalists rather than artists, with consequences for cultural values and artistic labor.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely topic and makes a credible interpretive contribution by synthesizing a corpus of contemporary media coverage and product positioning around generative AI in the arts. Its strengths include a transparent description of corpus construction, the inclusion of product descriptions alongside editorial articles, and explicit acknowledgement of the subjectivity of the qualitative analysis. If the empirical claims are supported, the five-theme framework could be a useful starting point for future quantitative content analysis and for critical scholarship on AI narratives. The paper does not provide machine-checked results or quantitative predictions; its contribution is qualitative and interpretive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The central claim that the analyzed discourse contains 'dominant narratives' is not operationalized. The paper reports 188 articles and 19 product descriptions (§3.2) and a codebook of 102 codes, but it never reports how many articles instantiate each of the five themes, whether any articles contain contrary or countervailing narratives, or how the authors decided that these five themes, rather than others, are dominant. In the limitations paragraph (§5) the authors acknowledge that the process 'is not systematic and calls on our subjectivity,' which directly undercuts the word 'dominant' as used in the abstract and throughout. To support the claim, the authors should either add a quantitative or systematic prevalence measure, or revise the claim to say that these are recurrent themes in a sample of frequently covered tech-oriented sources.
  2. [§3.1–§3.2] The corpus construction choices may systematically bias the sample toward technology-promotional content: the authors take the first 90 results per query from Google and Bing, then keep only sources that published more than five relevant articles over four years, and finally supplement the corpus with product descriptions from generative AI companies. This procedure makes it likely that large media outlets and company materials—rather than artist voices or critical publications—dominate the sample. The paper's broad conclusion that these are the 'dominant narratives' across online media outlets is therefore stronger than the sampling design can support. I ask the authors to report the distribution of sources by type, discuss how the filtering rules interact with the research question, and consider a sensitivity check on the >5 threshold, or to restrict the claims accordingly.
  3. [§3.2 and Table 1] The analysis is not auditable as presented: the authors state that 102 codes were grouped into five themes, but no codebook is provided, no inter-coder reliability is reported, no definition of theme boundaries is given, and Table 1 summarizes only the final themes with their implicit narratives and impacts. A reader cannot tell whether the five themes were derived from the corpus or imposed by the authors' prior interpretive framework. I recommend including a supplementary codebook with representative quotes per code, documenting the grouping procedure, and, ideally, adding a second coder or a member-checking step so that the theme derivation can be independently assessed.
  4. [§5] The discussion's third point, that 'artists are generally absent from the discourse,' is an important and potentially falsifiable claim, but the paper does not provide evidence about the authorship of the 188 articles beyond mentioning a few exceptions such as Ted Chiang. Since this claim supports the paper's argument about who controls the narrative, the authors should report the proportion of articles authored by artists, creative practitioners, technologists, or journalists, or explicitly code authorship in the analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'Genrative AI' is misspelled and should be 'Generative AI.'
  2. [§2.1] In the sentence about racial biases, 'raciable' should be 'racial.'
  3. [§3.1] The phrase 'date is between 2020 and Today' should name the actual cutoff date; also 'Bing As request keywords' has a spacing and formatting error.
  4. [§4.2] The quoted statement from RunwayML, 'bring research into production within weeks instead of years,' is presented without a date or URL, making it hard to verify; please add retrieval dates and URLs for all product-description quotes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the qualitative corpus analysis is independent of its inputs and the interpretive label 'dominant' is not a derived quantity.

full rationale

This is a qualitative interpretive study with no equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions, so the main circularity patterns (self-definitional derivations, fitted inputs called predictions, uniqueness theorems imported from authors, and ansatz smuggling) do not apply. The corpus construction in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 selects articles by search-engine queries and a frequency filter, and the five themes in Section 4 are produced by inductive coding and thematic analysis; the conclusion that the discourse promotes freedom from material realization, efficiency, and low-barrier skills is an interpretation of that corpus, not a quantity defined by the corpus-selection rule. The paper cites the authors' own prior work ([8], [9], [10]) for background and supporting observations about artists' practices, but the central narrative analysis does not reduce to those citations; those citations are contextual and externally falsifiable qualitative findings. Section 5 openly states that the process 'is therefore not systematic and calls on our subjectivity,' which is a validity limitation, not evidence of circularity. The unoperationalized use of 'dominant narratives' is a potential correctness risk, since the paper does not measure prevalence or systematically test contrary narratives, but under the hard rules that concern is not a circularity finding. No specific step reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no numerical free parameters and no invented entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about how narratives exert influence and how the chosen corpus represents dominant discourse, both stated in the background and method sections.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Narratives in media shape public perception and policy.
    Stated in Section 2.1 as background for why narratives matter; the paper relies on this to infer social impact from its corpus.
  • domain assumption Search engine visibility of the first 90 results approximates dominant discourse.
    In Section 3.1, the authors collect only the first 90 results per query and state that articles beyond the first 9 pages receive significantly less visibility; this is a load-bearing assumption for calling the resulting themes 'dominant'.
  • domain assumption Inductive thematic coding by the authors yields valid themes.
    The paper uses inductive coding with 102 codes leading to five themes, but no inter-coder reliability or audit trail is provided; the paper acknowledges in the Discussion that the process is not systematic and calls on the authors' subjectivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative AI and Creative Work: Narratives, Values, and Impacts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XW7I2FE5

@misc{pith2026250203940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative AI and Creative Work: Narratives, Values, and Impacts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XW7I2FE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03940}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI has gained a significant foothold in the creative and artistic sectors. In this context, the concept of creative work is influenced by discourses originating from technological stakeholders and mainstream media. The framing of narratives surrounding creativity and artistic production not only reflects a particular vision of culture but also actively contributes to shaping it. In this article, we review online media outlets and analyze the dominant narratives around AI's impact on creative work that they convey. We found that the discourse promotes creativity freed from its material realisation through human labor. The separation of the idea from its material conditions is achieved by automation, which is the driving force behind productive efficiency assessed as the reduction of time taken to produce. And the withdrawal of the skills typically required in the execution of the creative process is seen as a means for democratising creativity. This discourse tends to correspond to the dominant techno-positivist vision and to assert power over the creative economy and culture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bar chart of the number of publications per month obtained from our queries over the period January [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of the findings. We identified five explicit values in the analysis (first column), from which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Memo Akten. 2021. Deep Visual Instruments: Realtime Continuous, Meaningful Human Control over Deep Neural Networks for Creative Expression. PhD Thesis. Goldsmiths, University of London

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Andy Baio. 2022. Exploring 12 Million of the 2.3 Billion Images Used to Train Stable Diffusion’s Image Generator. https://waxy.org/2022/08/exploring-12-million-of-the-images-used-to-train-stable-diffusions-image-generator/

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Mieke Bal. 2009. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative . University of Toronto Press

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2020. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code . Oxford University Press

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. 2018. Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Tom B. Brown. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020). https://splab.sdu. edu.cn/GPT3.pdf

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Alexander Campolo and Kate Crawford. 2020. Enchanted determinism: Power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society (2020). https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/6022?v=pdf

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Work" in AI

    Baptiste Caramiaux, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Stacy Hsueh. 2022. What Becomes of" Work" in AI" Artwork"?. In CHI’22 Conference-Workshop on Outsourcing Artificial Intelligence: Responding to the Reassertion of the Human Element into Automation. https://hal.science/hal-03810560/

    work page 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Baptiste Caramiaux, Malte Behrmann, Frédéric Bimbot, Giuseppe Amato, Fabrizio Falchi, Ander Garcia, Joost Geurts, Jaume Gibert, Guillaume Gravier, and Hadmut Holken. 2019. AI in the media and creative industries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04175 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Explorers of Unknown Planets

    Baptiste Caramiaux and Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2022. "Explorers of Unknown Planets": Practices and Politics of Artificial Intelligence in Visual Arts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 477:1–477:24. doi:10.1145/3555578

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. 2019. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature machine intelligence 1, 2 (2019), 74–78. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-019-0020-9 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK London

    2019

  4. [12]

    Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. 2020. The Whiteness of AI. Philosophy & Technology 33, 4 (Dec. 2020), 685–703. doi:10.1007/s13347-020-00415-6

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J. Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry

  6. [14]

    Ted Chiang. 2024. Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why- ai-isnt-going-to-make-art

    2024

  7. [15]

    Jennifer Chubb, Darren Reed, and Peter Cowling. 2024. Expert views about missing AI narratives: is there an AI story crisis? AI & SOCIETY 39, 3 (June 2024), 1107–1126. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01548-2

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Ross Clugston. 2023. Generative AI will change the world—but won’t put creative jobs at risk. https://www.fastcompany. com/90877017/generative-ai-will-change-the-world-but-wont-put-creative-jobs-at-risk

    2023

  9. [17]

    Taylor Dafoe. 2024. Surrealism in the Age of AI. https://www.artnews.com/list/art-news/artists/surrealism-and- artificial-intelligence-art-1234704046/the-fuzzy-future/ Generative AI and Creative Work: Narratives, Values, and Impacts 13

    2024

  10. [18]

    Antonio Daniele and Yi-Zhe Song. 2019. Ai+ art= human. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 155–161

    2019

  11. [19]

    John Dewey. 1934. Art as experience. In The richness of art education . Brill, 33–48. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/ book/9789087906092/BP000003.pdf

    1934

  12. [20]

    Marco Donnarumma. 2023. Against the Norm. Digital Culture & Society (DCS): Vol 8, Issue 2/2022-Algorithmic Art 15 (2023), 39. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RQXPEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA39&dq=info: qLNghTRUJJ8J:scholar.google.com&ots=HYv2mgbxmB&sig=GCEiNYra4bM7kXujFeF...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Doshi and Oliver P

    Anil R. Doshi and Oliver P. Hauser. 2024. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances 10, 28 (July 2024), eadn5290. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn5290

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Frank, Matthew Groh, Hope Schroeder, Amy Smith, Memo Akten, Jessica Fjeld, Hany Farid, Neil Leach, Alex Pentland, and Olga Russakovsky

    Ziv Epstein, Aaron Hertzmann, Laura Herman, Robert Mahari, Morgan R. Frank, Matthew Groh, Hope Schroeder, Amy Smith, Memo Akten, Jessica Fjeld, Hany Farid, Neil Leach, Alex Pentland, and Olga Russakovsky. 2023. Art and the science of generative AI: A deeper dive. Science 380, ...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Izsak, A

    Directorate-General for Communications Networks European Commission, Content and Technology, K. Izsak, A. Terrier, S. Kreutzer, and et al. 2022. Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence technologies for the cultural and creative sectors. Technical Report. Public...

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Jason Farago. 2023. A.I. Can Make Art That Feels Human. Whose Fault Is That? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/ 28/arts/design/artists-artificial-intelligence.html

    2023

  17. [25]

    Timnit Gebru. 2024. The changing naming convention in service of increasing AI Hype. https://www.linkedin.com/ feed/update/urn:li:activity:7255381872434720769/

    2024

  18. [26]

    Timnit Gebru and \’Emile P. Torres. 2024. The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence. First Monday (2024). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Lucy Handley. 2024. Part scary, part exciting: How artists are using AI in their work. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/ 01/generative-ai-in-art-how-artists-are-using-it-or-not.html

    2024

  21. [29]

    Drew Hemment, Morgan Currie, SJ Bennett, Jake Elwes, Anna Ridler, Caroline Sinders, Matjaz Vidmar, Robin Hill, and Holly Warner. 2023. AI in the Public Eye: Investigating Public AI Literacy Through AI Art. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Isabella Hermann. 2023. Artificial intelligence in fiction: between narratives and metaphors. AI & SOCIETY 38, 1 (Feb. 2023), 319–329. doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01299-6

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Aaron Hertzmann. 2018. Can computers create art?. InArts, Vol. 7. MDPI, 18. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/7/2/18 Issue: 2

    2018

  24. [32]

    Rob Horning. 2022. Word Processing. https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/word-processing-surrealism- artificial-intelligence-1234625624/

    2022

  25. [33]

    Stacy Hsueh, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2024. What Counts as ‘Creative’ Work? Articulating Four Epistemic Positions in Creativity-Oriented HCI Research. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

    Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. 2023. AI Art and its Impact on Artists. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . ACM, Montr\’{e}al QC Can...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Reishiro Kawakami and Sukrit Venkatagiri. 2024. The Impact of Generative AI on Artists. In Creativity and Cognition. ACM, Chicago IL USA, 79–82. doi:10.1145/3635636.3664263

    2024

  28. [36]

    Kevin Kelly. 2022. Picture Limitless Creativity at Your Fingertips. https://www.wired.com/story/picture-limitless- creativity-ai-image-generators/

    2022

  29. [37]

    Will Knight. 2023. Where the AI Art Boom Came From—and Where It’s Going. https://www.wired.com/gallery/where- the-ai-art-boom-came-from-and-where-its-going/

    2023

  30. [38]

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (2012), 1097–1105

    2012

  31. [39]

    Lingo and Steven J

    Elizabeth L. Lingo and Steven J. Tepper. 2013. Looking Back, Looking Forward: Arts-Based Careers and Creative Work. Work and Occupations 40, 4 (Nov. 2013), 337–363. doi:10.1177/0730888413505229

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Bernard Marr. 2024. How Generative AI Will Change The Jobs Of Artists And Designers. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/bernardmarr/2024/05/28/how-generative-ai-will-change-the-jobs-of-artists-and-designers/ 14 Caramiaux et al

    2024

  33. [41]

    Jon McCormack, Camilo Cruz Gambardella, Nina Rajcic, Stephen James Krol, Maria Teresa Llano, and Meng Yang

  34. [42]

    Pierre-Michel Menger. 1999. Artistic Labor Markets and Careers. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 1 (Aug. 1999), 541–574. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.541

    1999 doi

  35. [43]

    Rebelo (Eds.)

    Is Writing Prompts Really Making Art? In Artificial Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design , Colin Johnson, Nereida Rodríguez-Fernández, and Sérgio M. Rebelo (Eds.). Vol. 13988. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 196–211. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29956-8_13 Series Title: Le...

    doi

  36. [44]

    Alexander Mordvintsev, Christopher Olah, and Mike Tyka. 2015. Inceptionism: Going deeper into neural networks. Google research blog 20, 14 (2015), 5. http://research.google/pubs/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural-networks/

    2015

  37. [45]

    Vera Molnar. 1975. Toward aesthetic guidelines for paintings with the aid of a com- puter. Leonardo (1975), 185–189. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1573236?casa_token= LS23fMhPmpEAAAAA:bzu56Bqz1y0I-Hd2OJt9-ODUxpEFdeQ4egB4CGh00Dd4gNlkYAei1jSpg9j7lK_ QZhu9ZgHRi9z4QfAnYmcGp82wsSrD5...

    1975

  38. [46]

    Lisa Nakamura. 1995. Race in/for cyberspace: Identity tourism and racial passing on the Internet. Works and days 13, 1-2 (1995), 181–193. https://docdrop.org/static/drop-pdf/nakamura1995-gD4bi.pdf

    1995

  39. [47]

    Mowery and Nathan Rosenberg

    David C. Mowery and Nathan Rosenberg. 1991. Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth . Cambridge University Press. Google-Books-ID: eU8FhP3_XrgC

    1991

  40. [48]

    David Noble. 2017. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation . Routledge, New York. doi:10.4324/ 9780203791806

    2017

  41. [49]

    Alondra Nelson. 2002. Introduction: Future Texts. Social Text, 71 20, 2 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    François Pachet. 2003. The Continuator: Musical Interaction With Style. Journal of New Music Research 32, 3 (Sept. 2003), 333–341. doi:10.1076/jnmr.32.3.333.16861

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press

    2018

  44. [52]

    Agnieszka Pilat. 2022. I Make Art With A.I. Here’s Why All Artists Need to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Technology. https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/artists-embrace-ai-dall-e-op-ed-2199088-2199088

    2022

  45. [53]

    Roelof Pieters and Samim Winiger. 2016. Creative AI: On the Democratisa- tion & Escalation of Creativity. https: //medium.com/@creativeai/creativeai-9d4b2346faf3

    2016

  46. [54]

    Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. 2015. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. doi:10.48550/a...

    2021 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Téo Sanchez. 2023. Examining the Text-to-Image Community of Practice: Why and How do People Prompt Generative AIs?. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–61. doi:10.1145/3591...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Nina Rajcic, Maria Teresa Llano Rodriguez, and Jon McCormack. 2024. Towards a Diffractive Analysis of Prompt-Based Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3613904.3641971

    2024

  50. [58]

    Herbert A. Simon. 1973. The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence 4, 3-4 (1973), 181–201. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004370273900118 Publisher: Elsevier

    1973

  51. [59]

    Daniela Silva. 2024. MARIO KLINGEMANN, exploring the frontiers of AI, data poisoning, ethical challenges & art. https: //clotmag.com/interviews/mario-klingemann-exploring-the-frontiers-of-ai-data-poisoning-ethical-challenges-art

    2024

  52. [60]

    Stephanie Taylor and Susan Luckman. 2020. Creative Aspiration and the Betrayal of Promise? The Experience of New Creative Workers. In Pathways into Creative Working Lives , Stephanie Taylor and Susan Luckman (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–27. doi:10.1007/97...

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Grace Snelling. 2023. Why this CEO believes AI will never replace creativity. https://www.fastcompany.com/90977520/ why-this-ceo-believes-ai-will-never-replace-creativity

    2023

  54. [62]

    Meredith Whittaker. 2021. The steep cost of capture. Interactions 28, 6 (2021), 50–55. Publisher: ACM New York, NY, USA

    2021

  55. [63]

    Fred Turner. 2010. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press. Google-Books-ID: 2SNFpgX_WigC

    2010

  56. [64]

    Wijesiriwardena

    Subha M. Wijesiriwardena. 2017. Is the internet really democratic?: How the ‘wired world’ excludes women and other marginalized persons. https://blogsmw.com/2017/03/22/is-the-internet-really-democratic-how-the-wired-world- excludes-women-and-other-marginalized-persons/

    2017

  57. [65]

    Kyle Wiggers. 2023. This startup wants to train art-generating AI strictly on licensed images. https://techcrunch.com/ 2023/04/13/this-startup-wants-to-train-art-generating-ai-strictly-on-licensed-images/

    2023

  58. [66]

    Chloe Xiang. 2022. Artists Are Revolting Against AI Art on ArtStation. https://www.vice.com/en/article/artists-are- revolt-against-ai-art-on-artstation/

    2022

  59. [67]

    Geneva World Economic Forum. 2018. The impact of emerging technologies on the creative economy. In World Economic Forum, Geneva. Generative AI and Creative Work: Narratives, Values, and Impacts 15

    2018

  60. [68]

    Steven Zapata. 2022. The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= tjSxFAGP9Ss

    2022

  61. [69]

    David, and Suk Hi Kim

    Min Xu, Jeanne M. David, and Suk Hi Kim. 2018. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges. International Journal of Financial Research 9, 2 (Feb. 2018), 90. doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p90

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    Steven Zapata. 2023. Who Makes the Art in Utopia? https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxNwkkN9SnPpSJlnbkDK4q- NgxnaAyPHLL

    2023

  63. [2023]

    In Creativity and Cognition

    The Prompt Artists. In Creativity and Cognition. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 75–87. doi:10.1145/3591196.3593515

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.