I have separated my understanding of the chatbot ai phenomenon into two philosophical and conceptual frameworks; information and connection, or to put it another way chat gpt and character ai. In class, I asked the question, how is digital media evolving what we understand being human to mean? And, in regards to digital media, especially artistic media, this question becomes increasingly important as we must also interrogate and define art. This is an interesting corner that we have been figuratively forced into by the rapid evolution of ai. Art is a concept that is notoriously difficult to define, what makes art what it is, and more deeply what signifies quality in art remains elusive. However, a principle that seems to go without saying is that it is created and consumed by humans. We value the sweat upon one’s brow, the wavering of a voice in song. It is the small idiosyncrasies and laborious nature of art, the emotion and intentionality of a piece, that must be and is based on its distinctly human nature. In other words, it is the subjectivity of human creation that makes it art, or at least that is how we as a society have subconsciously regarded it. We know that a piece of art is a piece of art because someone made it. The same can be said for how we communicate with one another. We know that real “authentic” communication is occurring because it is happening with another living being who can respond and understand and insert their own subjective experience into what is otherwise a one-sided non-exchange. So then, with ai, we seem to be seeking this out when we create digital minds that are capable of mimicking this connection as I have described it as above. So then, art is a form of communication, however broad and intangible it may be, and communication is the human means of connection. If we are to understand the creation of ai under these lenses, to serve either to connect us or streamline information, then we must then understand why ai takes the shape and form it does, in the most literal sense. Why do we imagine the most advanced AI as taking the rudimentary form of the human body, and able to speak as fluidly as another person. Why must it speak to us at all, and have a “human” voice. Similarly, why do we have character ai that simulates conversing with the president, or a mob boss? On the one hand, it is an appeal to the senses. What digital media intrinsically lacks is the ability to stimulate us on any level beyond 2-dimensional pixels. This is why so much software and hardware is now dedicated to advancing technology on the fronts of sound and sight. This is the reason a “meta” wishes to completely immerse us in sight and sound to the virtual spaces, and attempt to simulate a 3-dimensional world. So then, what humanity is importantly defined by in this new digital age, and what much of digital media attempts to do is arrest our attention on the most fundamental levels of human senses. Though, what else might be the reason for the way that AI chatbots are designed, and the way that robotic forms as well as certain digital media are crafted. We create these forms of intelligence in our image, and to meet the conscious and subconscious desire for these artificial intelligence to transcend their limitations as we too attempt to. In the question of transhumanism, it would seem to me that just as humans create AI and other technological advancements to transcend our organic limitations, we are simultaneously pushing AI to transcend its mechanized limitations. Though we imagine it to be for the purpose of serving humans. So then, an almost existential question comes to mind. We are attempting to reach the complexity of the human mind, by artificial means, in order to serve us. It would seem then, that human needs and wants are only satiated through the intensive labor of other humans, or human-like performance. Other questions I have considered for this topic were more on the side of AI art. What makes an original idea? It is the matter of the amalgamations and originality of a piece. AI is requiring us to bring the abstract of these artistic processes into focus. Art AI artists “real” artists? This uncanny valley of creation and whether or not this thin thread of “human intervention” is enough to keep us protected from AI manufacturing human talents in the next few years, possibly months. It is a question of utility and ethics. We have yet to form shared ethics around ai, and how it is best to perform with these tools under the contexts of information and connection. What values should we have underpinning those ethics? To what degree can these AI be utilized safely and objectively? How do we ensure that prejudices are separated from AI?