For the interview we had to conduct for week seven, I reached out to four creatives on Instagram, as well as to one teacher via email. I received two answers out of these four requests on Instagram and received a response via email as well. Firstly, this was from an artist who creates installations and experiments with light and background videos, (meaning technology is involved in her work). She pointed out that she started using a lot of AI in her work, but in reality, it does not save her a lot of time. She brought up an example from her life and explained having a family and a job at the same time is the same amount of work for her and being busy never stops, with or without the help of AI. I drew the conclusion from it by thinking that in the creative field, AI still has a long way to go, as creativity could most likely not be replaced by any machine or system, as it could with Excel or maths tasks for instance.
The second conversation was with an expert in education. She described her thoughts about AI in the future, as most likely not having a choice. She mentioned that with most inventions they are viewed by people as doubtful, but eventually everyone just has to adapt to them. She mentions how AI is already changing our structures and can certainly be supportive for creatives to create projects, but this would also have limitations in terms of actually being creative, and would depend on the installed algorithm. It could help to do a job such as drawing but relying on them to come up with ideas seems too unsafe.
The interviewee demonstrated that the usage could theoretically make life in the workspace easier, but it isn’t a good idea to totally rely or depend on it. She also believes that in her workspace specifically, it could help save time and stress and could also be accommodating with budgets.
For this interview, I decided to also ask two spontaneous follow-up questions about the influence of payment in the future when AI will become involved more, as well as about the human’s future workload.
She believes that there is a high chance of employees even getting paid less due to these inventions, but that they undoubtedly always will be needed for navigation and final checks of a process. As an example, she refers here to all existing inventions in technology that nevertheless always need a final check-up by humans, as machines can always have system errors.
Finally, she declared that there will always be work for humans, but it all depends on what people want to get out of a project and how serious they are with it. This can also be a question of budget for instance. The expert came to the conclusion that this question is being asked by many whenever there is a technological improvement, but one can clearly see that no matter what invention we are talking about, humans are always needed at the end of the day, either for repair or support.