Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) has entered the mainstream culture and become a subject of extensive academic investigation. However, the character and background of its impact on art require subtler scrutiny and more nuanced contextualization. This paper summarizes a broader study of the roles that AI's conceptual and ideological substrata play in influencing art notions. The focus is on divergent but coalescing and often questionable ideas, values, and political views that generative AI and other art-related AI technologies propagate from the computer science and AI/tech industry to the contemporary art and culture. The paper maps the main areas of this complex relationship and concisely critiques their key aspects.

This literature review interrogates the intersections between artificial intelligence, poetry, and art, offering a comprehensive exploration of both historical evolution and current debates in digital creative practices. It traces the development of computer-generated poetry from early template-based systems to generative models, critically assessing evaluative frameworks such as adaptations of the Turing Test, the FACE model, and ProFTAP. It also examines how these frameworks endeavour to measure creativity, semantic coherence, and cultural relevance in AI-generated texts, whilst highlighting the persistent challenges in replicating the nuance of human poetic expression. The review contributes a Marketing Theory discussion that deconstructs the figurative marketing narratives employed by AI companies, which utilise sanitised language and anthropomorphic metaphors to humanise their technologies. This discussion reveals the reductive nature of such narratives and underscores the tension between algorithmic precision and the realities of human creativity.The review also incorporates an auto-ethnographic account that offers a self-reflexive commentary on its own composition. By acknowledging the use of AI in crafting this review, the auto-ethnographic account destabilises conventional notions of authorship and objectivity, resonating with deconstruction and challenging logocentric assumptions in academic discourse. Ultimately, the review calls for a re-evaluation of creative processes that recognises the interdependence of technological innovation and human subjectivity. It advocates for interdisciplinary dialogue addressing ethical, cultural, and philosophical concerns, while reimagining the boundaries of artistic production.

Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of manuscripts which are submitted for publication. With the recent rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), a new risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on LLMs to perform the often time consuming process of reviewing a paper. However, there is a lack of existing resources for benchmarking the detectability of AI text in the domain of peer review. To address this deficiency, we introduce a comprehensive dataset containing a total of 788,984 AI-written peer reviews paired with corresponding human reviews, covering 8 years of papers submitted to each of two leading AI research conferences (ICLR and NeurIPS). We use this new resource to evaluate the ability of 18 existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs. Motivated by the shortcomings of existing methods, we propose a new detection approach which surpasses existing methods in the identification of AI written peer reviews. Our work reveals the difficulty of identifying AI-generated text at the individual peer review level, highlighting the urgent need for new tools and methods to detect this unethical use of generative AI.

The multivariate, asynchronous nature of real-world clinical data, such as that generated in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), challenges traditional AI-based decision-support systems. These often assume data regularity and feature independence and frequently rely on limited data scopes and manual feature engineering. The potential of generative AI technologies has not yet been fully exploited to analyze clinical data. We introduce ICU-BERT, a transformer-based model pre-trained on the MIMIC-IV database using a multi-task scheme to learn robust representations of complex ICU data with minimal preprocessing. ICU-BERT employs a multi-token input strategy, incorporating dense embeddings from a biomedical Large Language Model to learn a generalizable representation of complex and multivariate ICU data. With an initial evaluation of five tasks and four additional ICU datasets, ICU-BERT results indicate that ICU-BERT either compares to or surpasses current performance benchmarks by leveraging fine-tuning. By integrating structured and unstructured data, ICU-BERT advances the use of foundational models in medical informatics, offering an adaptable solution for clinical decision support across diverse applications.

Research in AI for Science often focuses on using AI technologies to augment components of the scientific process, or in some cases, the entire scientific method; how about AI for scientific publications? Peer-reviewed journals are foundational repositories of specialized knowledge, written in discipline-specific language that differs from general Internet content used to train most large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs). We hypothesized that by combining a family of scientific journals with generative AI models, we could invent novel tools for scientific communication, education, and clinical care. We converted 23,000 articles from Neurosurgery Publications into a multimodal database - NeuroPubs - of 134 million words and 78,000 image-caption pairs to develop six datasets for building AI models. We showed that the content of NeuroPubs uniquely represents neurosurgery-specific clinical contexts compared with broader datasets and PubMed. For publishing, we employed generalist VLMs to automatically generate graphical abstracts from articles. Editorial board members rated 70% of these as ready for publication without further edits. For education, we generated 89,587 test questions in the style of the ABNS written board exam, which trainee and faculty neurosurgeons found indistinguishable from genuine examples 54% of the time. We used these questions alongside a curriculum learning process to track knowledge acquisition while training our 34 billion-parameter VLM (CNS-Obsidian). In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the non-inferiority of CNS-Obsidian to GPT-4o (p = 0.1154) as a diagnostic copilot for a neurosurgical service. Our findings lay a novel foundation for AI with Science and establish a framework to elevate scientific communication using state-of-the-art generative artificial intelligence while maintaining rigorous quality standards.

This paper presents a set of provocations for considering the uses, impact, and harms of generative AI from the perspective of humanities researchers. We provide a working definition of humanities research, summarize some of its most salient theories and methods, and apply these theories and methods to the current landscape of AI. Drawing from foundational work in critical data studies, along with relevant humanities scholarship, we elaborate eight claims with broad applicability to current conversations about generative AI: 1) Models make words, but people make meaning; 2) Generative AI requires an expanded definition of culture; 3) Generative AI can never be representative; 4) Bigger models are not always better models; 5) Not all training data is equivalent; 6) Openness is not an easy fix; 7) Limited access to compute enables corporate capture; and 8) AI universalism creates narrow human subjects. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of resisting the extraction of humanities research by computer science and related fields.

Image-generative AI provides new opportunities to transform personal data into alternative visual forms. In this paper, we illustrate the potential of AI-generated images in facilitating meaningful engagement with personal data. In a formative autobiographical design study, we explored the design and use of AI-generated images derived from personal data. Informed by this study, we designed a web-based application as a probe that represents personal data through generative images utilizing Open AI's GPT-4 model and DALL-E 3. We then conducted a 21-day diary study and interviews using the probe with 16 participants to investigate users' in-depth experiences with images generated by AI in everyday lives. Our findings reveal new qualities of experiences in users' engagement with data, highlighting how participants constructed personal meaning from their data through imagination and speculation on AI-generated images. We conclude by discussing the potential and concerns of leveraging image-generative AI for personal data meaning-making.

Microsoft announced that it is making some features available for free in its Copilot AI assistant. Everyone now has unlimited access to Voice and Think Deeper, which is powered by OpenAI's o1 model. Copilot got the Voice feature, which allows users to have conversations with the AI assistant, in October 2024. Think Deeper is intended to parse complicated queries, such as assessing the pros and cons of major home purchases, taking cost and long-term value into account. "We are working hard to scale unlimited access to advanced features to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible," the blog post noted.

When OpenAI announced Deep Research at start of February, the company promised to bring the tool to Plus users "in about a month," and now it's doing exactly that. Starting today, the feature, which you can use to prompt ChatGPT to create in-depth reports on nearly any subject, is rolling out to Plus, Team, Edu and Enterprise users. Previously, you needed a 200 per month Pro plan to try out Deep Research. For the time being, Plus users will get 10 Deep Research queries per month included with their plan. For Pro subscribers, OpenAI is increasing the monthly limit to 120, up from 100 previously.

A Bangladeshi worker was eager to get started at their new OpenAI job--completing basic online tasks in exchange for consistent income, while getting into cryptocurrency investing at the same time. After connecting with the startup on Telegram and creating an account through a ChatGPT-branded app, they invested crypto into the platform and began a months-long job working for "Aiden" from "OpenAI." The work was performed through the website "OpenAi-etc," and internal conversations were held on Telegram. It was simple: Invest some crypto, complete a few tasks, and earn daily profits based on what was invested. Over the course of this worker's time with the company, mentors continuously encouraged them to invest more money into the fund and recruit more Bangladeshi people to the team.