By Katerina Karp, Visual Artist, Researcher, Journalist
We live in an extraordinary time – an era of change and the birth of a new world. The global coronavirus pandemic, the escalation of local conflicts into wars, the reshaping of trade routes and economic ties – and now the dawn of a new technological era with artificial intelligence. AI has become available to everyone, threatening to replace humans in many fields – or promising to free us from the drudgery of modern life. Like it or not, these changes are transforming us. The only difference is that, seemingly, we can influence the development of AI. Can we really?
At the regular meeting of the Philosophy Café at Manchester Art Gallery, we explored AI from many perspectives: What ethics should govern AI? Are we truly aware of how AI works? Could AI be used by dictatorial governments to control people? And many more. Yet, as always, the most fascinating part was the flow of our conversation – the ideas born in the moment.
Fear of the Unknown
For many, AI remains a mystery – and people fear what they do not understand. There is no clear, universally accepted explanation of what AI actually is or what it should be used for. Its applications vary depending on profession, personal preference, or imagination. It’s like a “universal matter” from which everyone creates what they need. And herein lies the first insight: fear often stems from not knowing what one truly needs. Unlike past inventions – the steam engine, internal combustion engine, penicillin, DNA – AI can be applied virtually everywhere. This boundlessness may be the true source of fear.
Yet, there is no need to fear a machine uprising: at the beginning of every technological process stands a human being, endowed with critical thinking – the ability to discern truth from fake. AI is merely a tool; everything depends on how humans choose to use it. Admittedly, it has become easier to spread fake news, challenging trust and communication. But this isn’t new: the telephone, mobile phone, and messengers all revolutionized communication before. Now, we casually send an emoji instead of speaking.
Art, AI, and Climate Change
After the initial group discussion, we moved into the gallery halls to link AI to selected artworks. In Gallery 11, Ruth invited us to think about AI and climate change. We examined several paintings before Ruth introduced a small tile – the “Dodo tile” designed by William de Morgan (1875–80). The dodo, symbolizing extinction, led us to reflect: how do people perceive change? Fear arises from things that seem immutable, monstrous even.
We then watched a short film about AI and climate change. The conversation turned to resource consumption and fair distribution. As with any powerful tool, AI raises questions of fairness and equity. Could AI democratize access to climate knowledge and solutions? Or are corporations exaggerating their role, claiming that only through them can we tackle climate change?
It became clear that while the tool exists, we lack an established ethics for its use. Big Tech understands the landscape and quietly steers it. Scientists traditionally relied on inductive methods – slow, careful experimentation – while small companies now leverage AI to accelerate medical research, often with success.
The second artwork that sparked discussion was Emily Allchurch’s *Albert Square, Manchester (after Valette)* (2015) – a vivid collage created by layering multiple photographs referencing a 19th-century painting. Her work questions whether anything truly changes over time. Although she used software rather than generative AI, a debate unfolded: is using software a form of AI?
We agreed that AI’s hallmark is its ability to learn and change – unlike static software. Adaptability is a human trait, and now we may have found a rival species. Human learning is tied to emotions and beliefs; AI learns through logic, devoid of feeling.
Another profound question arose: can we assess the value of a piece of art in the moment? If we view it as “an information unit,” does it remain art? A fresh lens on creative work.
AI and the Future of Information
In the concluding group discussion, we acknowledged both the benefits and dangers of AI. Fears of singularity – machines controlling humans – persist. States might use AI for surveillance. Yet again, the problem lies not in technology but in its use. Ordinary people often don’t understand how AI works, nor the responsibilities it entails. Transparency and ethics are urgently needed.
In the end, everything revolves around studying human behavior. Perhaps we are approaching a moment of truly decoding ourselves – and we might not like what we find. We blame AI for highlighting uncomfortable truths about us. But fundamentally, humanity remains the same – maybe we have merely created another “atomic bomb.”
