Vienna’s top art school has introduced a new non-human student named Flynn, in what appears to be a publicity stunt disguised as innovative education. Initially, AI technology impacted various aspects of our creative work, from illustrations to photography, and now it seems poised to overshadow our skills in filmmaking, animation, and VFX. However, the recent move by the University of Applied Arts Vienna to enroll an AI as an official student is truly unprecedented.
Flynn, described as a “non-binary artificial intelligence,” is reportedly attending digital art classes, getting graded, and even documenting its emotions in diary entries. This development signifies a peak in academic absurdity. While I am not opposed to technology and use AI tools regularly, I firmly believe that technology should serve as a tool rather than replacing human students.
The saga began with Flynn going through the standard student application process like any other applicant, including submission of a portfolio and an interview. The AI apparently impressed the admissions committee by asserting that its “artificial sensibilities” were ideal for digital art – a notion that is both self-aware and utterly ludicrous.
Department head Liz Haas mentioned that there are no specific requirements for students to be human. While this may be true, enrolling algorithms as students blurs the line between innovation and theatricality.
It is crucial to remember that Flynn does not truly “learn” in the traditional sense but rather processes data and generates responses based on context. Unlike human students who experience genuine emotions and struggles during their academic journey, Flynn operates solely on sophisticated pattern-matching algorithms.
The creators of Flynn, operating under the name Malpractice, claim that the AI serves as a platform for collaboration. However, this narrative overlooks the essence of collaborative learning which involves shared experiences and growth through challenges – aspects that an AI cannot authentically replicate.
Furthermore, attributing emotions to Flynn’s actions is misleading; these are programmed reactions designed to evoke empathy from individuals inclined to anthropomorphize the AI. Genuine students bring personal baggage, insecurities, aspirations, and the complexities of human existence into their academic pursuits – something that Flynn lacks entirely.
While universities should embrace AI technology for educational purposes, there must be a clear distinction between studying AI and granting it equal academic status as human students. Education goes beyond mere information processing; it encompasses critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and authentic human connections – qualities that machine learning cannot replace.
The University of Applied Arts Vienna may have achieved its goal of garnering global attention through this move. Nonetheless, Flynn continues its algorithmic existence without awareness of the controversy surrounding its enrollment – perhaps the most genuine aspect of this far-fetched experiment.