Question 1 (Smithsonian article): How would you describe the relationship between technology, society, and culture?

Social media is both helpful and hurtful when it comes to making and maintaining relationships. Being someone who grew up in this era where we have so heavily depend on technology it’s hard to bring myself to say negative things about it because I too, am extremely dependent on it. Our technological creations are now inseparable from us. Technology and social media has changed the way we communicate on a multitude of levels. We live in a time  of instant gratification where the preferred means of communication is through text messages, email and social media as opposed to physically interacting with each other face to face or even over the telephone. We are now less likely to have face-to-face conversations with one another than ever. Even when we do have face-to-face conversations our devices are hugely distracting and get in the way of deep connection. In this generation our identity with technology runs deep, to our core. Despite its purposeful design, the internet has become a wilderness. Its boundaries are unknown, unknowable and new platforms and apps continue to draw us in deeper and take us away from genuine interactions.

Question 2 (SHINE News article). How would you respond to this claim (a slightly edited excerpt from the reading):  

Art generated by artificial intelligence is not your work and falls under public domain.  Not only do people not have to credit you and shouldn’t credit you for this artwork you did not create, but using artificial intelligence to replicate artwork is an insult to the work. 

I do agree with the fact that art created this way would fall under public domain if there are multiple other artworks used to create the art. But it is a hard question because if the artist credits all his sources that are used in the art work and as inspiration I believe that the artist could put together the artwork in a multitude of ways that could make you think about it differently and give you a new spin on the piece but it still would not be considered an original. 

​Question 3.  What U.S. laws would be relevant to this final statement from the article?  

“It should be noted that AI art generators are ultimately a means of production, so they are still regulated by current laws. We suggest caution in using pictures generated by artificial intelligence.
The US Copyright Office has already refused to grant a copyright registration for AI-generated art. That means that, under the current rules, AI-generated art has no owner. Under US copyright law, these images are technically not subject to copyright protection. Only “original works of authorship” are considered. “To qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being,” according to a US Copyright Office’s report