Hello everyone,

It's been nearly a month since this petition first went live, so I thought that now would be a good time to share some thoughts and updates.

Since this has turned into quite a long post, I'll give a TL;DR:

• The petition has garnered over 7,000 signatures in less than a month - thank you to all its supporters.
• The UNSW SRC has called on UNSW to suspend the course and investigate the impacts of generative AI.
• If you support broader action against generative AI, shoot me a message at @chadwickdraws on Instagram (and specify if you're at UNSW or not). If there's enough support, I'll see what I can do.

First of all, a sincere thank you to everyone who has supported the petition. When I started it, I expected to get about a hundred signatures and maybe some passing attention from UNSW, but we're currently at over seven thousand signatures and counting. Three news organisations - AAP, SBS and the Daily Telegraph - wrote pieces on it, which I'd highly recommend reading if you're curious. It's been a busy, overwhelming and hopeful few weeks, and I have you all to thank for our progress.

In terms of updates, the UNSW SRC has passed a motion calling for the course to stop being offered or run, and for a broader review of the environmental and ethical impacts of using generative AI. This is a very promising start, and while I don't think it will dissuade UNSW from implementing broader AI integration, I think it will have an impact on the ADA campus at least. Still, I would love to hear if people would support broader action on generative AI - you can contact me on my Instagram @chadwickdraws if you have any input on that front.

I'd also like to address some counter-arguments here. I know I'm likely preaching to the choir, but I think it's a good idea to get the points out there nonetheless.

• AI art is art. 'What is art?' is a highly philosophical question. Reasonable people can disagree, but I would argue that art requires a human to make choices. I do not think media that is completely AI-generated provides enough human choice to be considered art.
• This is the next generation of art - you're behind the times. It's true that artists can sometimes be slow to accept change. The camera, the tablet and digital editing programs have all evolved art despite their critics. However, I cannot think of any other technology in the history of art that has proved such an immense and acute risk to the world and its people. It is, at this point in time, an inherently unethical technology that no artist should stoop to.
• This is where the market is going. But should it? Is the free market the be-all and end-all of art, morality and human progress? Should we be letting the largest corporations dictate the direction we go, even if specialists or the broader population disagrees? I don't think so.
• We need to discuss the impacts in an academic context. Completely agree! And I trust UNSW ADA and the course convenor to do that. I just don't agree with the use of generative AI that the course requires.
• You can't stop it - just accept it. I find this to be a very defeatist argument. I do not believe I can singlehandedly stop generative AI - not even with the support I've been lucky enough to garner - but surely we should try. Surely we can make some difference, however small. I don't think I can accept a world where the will of the people means nothing.

That about does it for this month's updates. Once again, thank you to everyone for the support. 
- Robin