Why A.I isn’t going to make art. The question is, can A.I create art? In short response, no. A.I has a lack of creativity, connection, and intention. It only has one straight answer. Art needs to express emotion and tell a story. These examples are something A.I can not create.
In the article “Why A.I Isn’t going to Make Art” the author explains all the reasons for the limitations that A.I has on writing compared to a human. It writes about Roald Dahl’s short story “The Great Automatic Grammatizator” and how it questions if A.I can originally create art or does it just copy other styles that has already been made. A.I tends to mimic other work and is never one hundred percent original. With the few artists that use A.I for the work they take the output and modify it until it’s something new.
A.I has the intelligence and skill to create art but lacks human creativity. It certainly has the intelligence but it can’t create depth like a human can, it can’t create raw feelings and emotions. It can’t make choices, it only gives the straight fact. Art from humans comes from intention and sincerity. It creates a fear that the more the use of A.I happens the loss of human creativity occurs. A.I lowers the expectations of writing. Teachers fear A.I will weaken students critical thinking skills. “The point of writing essays is to strengthen students’ critical thinking skills; in the same way that lifting weights is useful no matter what sport an athlete plays, writing essays develop skills.”
The Article also explains that A.I must be trained. In Google’s AlphaZero players get to play chess against A.I. This took immense training. It describes the long hours it took to master the game. “During its training it played forty-four million games, far more than any human can play in a lifetime. For it to master a new game it will have to undergo a similarly enormous amount of training.” A.I can do better in specific skills but lacks flexibility and understanding of true intelligence.
This article presents an argument of why A.I isn’t going to make art. The top argument is how A.I can not be creative like a human can. It has no real emotion. It explains why A.I just mimics other work and cannot be original work. While using A.I you will get an already created piece of art just slightly different. A.I gets rid of the true meaning and intention behind art. It creates a world with less artistic depth and human connection. I agree with this statement. Like said previously art needs to show emotion and tell a story. A.I does not understand emotions.
Before this article I assumed A.I had the answer to all, but it doesn’t. A.I art can not be compared to real human art. It has no true meaning. A real artist can create an amazing story through their work, but an artist who uses A.I will not have the same level of story on their finished product.
Works Cited
“PrintFriendly.com: Print & PDF.” Printfriendly.com, 2025, www.printfriendly.com/print?url=www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to-make-art?src=longreads. Accessed 10 Mar. 2025.
“ChatGPT.” Chatgpt.com, 2025, chatgpt.com/c/67ce4e91-7c8c-8009-be65-b4cf02dd72d1. Accessed 10 Mar. 2025.
How is the essay structured and does it follow guidelines?
The essay is structured well with the summary in the beginning and your response following it. My only concern is that it seems a bit short and is not entirely clear on where the summary ends and your response begins. You use the phrase that A.I. “gives the straight facts” a few times in your draft and I’m not sure what that means. I think a few sentences clarifying that or using different wording would be helpful to the reader.
Is the summary complete and accurate?
The summary appears complete and follows the article well. The only part that appears contradictory is where you mentioned in paragraph 3 that A.I. cannot make choices. The article states that when you enter a prompt into an A.I. program, the program must make decisions in creating the piece, even if those decisions are heavily influenced by works already in existence. It may be better to write that A.I. cannot be creative or make something original.
Does the writer handle source ethically?
Yes, the sentence structure and wording is not close the original article. However, neither the author’s name nor title of the article is included in your citation. I am also unsure where you placed your quote from ChatGPT as I see no in-text citation for it.
Are paragraphs focused, well-developed, and coherent?
Each paragraph is well focused although the sentence in paragraph 2 referring to Roald Dahl’s short story could be clarified upon or removed.
Is the response substantive?
The final paragraph appears to be your response, and while I agree with your statement it is a little bit short.
Your peer reviewer did a good job, I’d say!) You do a pretty god job here of following assignment guidelines, with both summary and response. Summary is developed more though; response is quite short. For your intro I’d suggest by starting with something a bit more general about AI, not the question in title of article. Some work needed on Works Cited. You need author, title, magazine,e date and URL fr the source I gave you (use original URL, not the one after article was fed through print friendly). ChatGPT site doesn’t seem to be used in article, and i don’t think there’s anything much you could get from it—so you’d need another article.
Some smaller issues for revision:
—Be sure to give author’s name along with title when you start summary.
—In para 1 limitations doesn’t seem to be quite the right word, and article is not just bout writing. Ralf Dahl story isn’t directly about AI exactly.
—In para 3 I’d say article seems to quesiton whether AI systems are indeed intelligent (what you say in para 4 seems to contradict what you’re saying in in para 3 about intelligence). When you use quote, delete that part that basically repeats what you already said. (Btw it’s not normal formatting to make quotes italic—maybe you had a teacher that requested that, but it’s not standard.)
—In para 5 beginning seems to be repetitive, and then shifts into beginning of response. I’d use a para break to make that transition from summary to response.
—Finally (this is more important) work on developing n response into several paras. Could you explain more about what you originally thought AI could do—what you mean by “had the answer to all.” What have been your experiences with it?