A scene from the making of a role-play with the Source Synthesis Method. Five marionettes sitting around a round table in a studio. Strings from the dolls lead up to a cloud filled with various icons like YouTube. Ligne Claire style.

The Making of: The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries

I. Introduction: Continuing the Source Synthesis Journey

Welcome back to our ongoing exploration of Source Synthesis, a method for creating structured dialogues that distill diverse perspectives on complex issues. In this “making of” post, we’re pulling back the curtain on our most recent application of this method: a role-play titled “The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries.”

For those new to this journey, let’s briefly recap the previous installments. It all began with a simple experiment (Episode 1), an AI-powered role-play that explored the implications of OpenAI’s o3-mini model. This initial foray sparked a deeper inquiry into the potential of structured dialogues for analyzing complex topics, ultimately leading to the development of the Source Synthesis whitepaper (Episode 2). This whitepaper laid out the theoretical framework and practical guidelines for creating Source Syntheses, emphasizing the importance of careful source selection, persona creation, and dialogue construction.

Armed with this framework, we then embarked on a more ambitious project: a role-play that delved into the very real and pressing concerns surrounding AI-generated content and its impact on creative professionals (Episode 3). This dialogue, featuring three distinct personas – The Writer, The Analyst, and The Illustrator – brought to life the anxieties, hopes, and uncertainties surrounding this rapidly evolving landscape.

Now, in this fourth and last installment, we’re taking a behind-the-scenes look at the creation of that role-play. Our aim is to provide transparency, share insights gleaned from the process, and reflect on the choices we made along the way. We’ll examine how the Source Synthesis method, as outlined in the whitepaper, was applied in practice, and we’ll discuss the challenges, limitations, and potential refinements that emerged from this experience. By dissecting our own process, we hope to offer valuable insights for anyone interested in utilizing Source Synthesis to explore complex issues in their own work.

The four SOSY role-play posts in the series resulted in the Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook.

II. From Theory to Practice: Implementing the Whitepaper

With the theoretical framework of the Source Synthesis whitepaper as our guide, we embarked on the practical task of creating the role-play. This involved a series of deliberate choices, each shaping the final product in significant ways.

Topic Selection

The first step was choosing a topic ripe for exploration through the Source Synthesis method. We settled on “The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries” for several reasons. Firstly, it’s a topic of immense contemporary relevance, sparking heated debates and raising critical questions about the future of work, creativity, and human expression. Secondly, it’s a multifaceted issue with diverse perspectives, ranging from the anxieties of displaced workers to the optimism of tech innovators. This inherent complexity made it an ideal candidate for the Source Synthesis approach, which thrives on exploring nuances and contrasting viewpoints.

Source Selection

The whitepaper emphasizes the importance of careful source selection, and this stage proved crucial in shaping the direction of our role-play. We decided to use YouTube videos as our primary source material. This decision was driven by several factors:

  • Accessibility: YouTube offers a vast and readily accessible repository of diverse perspectives on a wide range of topics, including AI’s impact on creative fields.
  • Authenticity: Videos often capture the raw emotions and personal experiences of individuals grappling with real-world issues, providing a level of authenticity that can be harder to find in more formal written sources.
  • Direct Engagement: Using videos allowed us to directly engage with the language, tone, and arguments of individuals actively discussing the topic.

Our selection criteria mirrored the guidelines outlined in the whitepaper:

  • Relevance: We sought out videos that directly addressed the impact of AI-generated content on creative professionals.
  • Diversity: We aimed for a range of perspectives, ultimately choosing videos representing the viewpoints of a writer, an analyst, and an illustrator.
  • Credibility: We prioritized videos from individuals with demonstrable experience or expertise in their respective fields.

We intentionally postponed the reveal of the specific videos until the end of the role-play. This decision was made to allow the personas to stand on their own, encouraging readers to engage with the arguments based on their merit rather than any preconceived notions about the original speakers.

Persona Creation

This stage involved transforming the raw material of the video transcripts into distinct and believable personas. We meticulously analyzed each video, extracting key arguments, identifying underlying assumptions, and noting the speaker’s tone and emotional tenor.

Based on this analysis, we crafted three personas:

  • The Writer (Red): This persona, based on two videos from the channel “Rami Intelligence,” embodies the anxieties of a writer who lost his job to AI. The persona’s statements reflect the original speaker’s firsthand experience with job displacement, his concerns about the devaluation of human writing, and his determination to adapt and find new opportunities. The persona was given the name “The Writer” to emphasize his former profession and the sense of urgency in his message.
  • The Analyst (Green): This persona, based on two videos from the channel “Alex Wei,” represents a more analytical and detached perspective, focusing on the broader societal implications of AI-generated content. The persona’s statements reflect the original speaker’s concerns about the “Dead Internet” scenario, the impact on content creators, and the need for critical engagement with these emerging technologies. The persona was given the name “The Analyst” to highlight his focus on analyzing the broader implications of AI.
  • The Illustrator (Blue): This persona, based on a video from the channel “Holly Exley,” embodies the perspective of a visual artist grappling with the challenges posed by AI art generators. The persona’s statements reflect the original speaker’s deep concern for the devaluation of human art, her advocacy for Universal Basic Income, and her emphasis on the unique value of human creativity. The persona was given the name “The Illustrator” to clearly identify her profession and area of concern.

Each persona was assigned a color (Red, Green, Blue) to enhance readability and provide a visual cue for readers to distinguish between the different voices. The decision to use these specific colors was based on the RGB color model, representing the primary colors of light and symbolizing the diverse perspectives brought together in the dialogue.

It’s important to acknowledge the ethical considerations inherent in creating personas based on real people. We strived to represent the original speakers’ views respectfully and accurately, focusing on the core arguments and concerns expressed in their videos. However, we also recognize the inherent limitations of this process and the potential for oversimplification or misinterpretation. By providing links to the original videos at the end of the role-play, we encourage readers to engage with the source material directly and form their own interpretations.

Furthermore, the decision to create personas based on real individuals raises questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach. On one hand, it allows for a more authentic and relatable representation of diverse perspectives, as the personas are grounded in the lived experiences of individuals grappling with the issue at hand. On the other hand, it necessitates careful consideration of ethical implications, such as the potential for misrepresentation or the blurring of lines between the real individuals and their constructed personas. This is in contrast to creating wholly fictional personas, which offers greater creative freedom but may lack the grounding in reality that can make source-based personas so compelling.

An interesting observation arising from this process is the inherent alignment between our chosen personas. All three, being drawn from YouTube videos addressing AI’s impact on their respective fields, shared a fundamental concern about the disruptive potential of this technology. While this allowed for a focused and constructive dialogue, it also prompts reflection on the potential value of incorporating more radically different viewpoints. Including a persona who, for instance, enthusiastically embraces AI as a tool for maximizing profit, regardless of its impact on human workers, could have introduced more conflict and tension into the conversation, potentially mirroring real-world debates more closely.

However, this must be balanced with the primary goal of Source Synthesis: to foster understanding and explore complex issues from multiple perspectives, rather than to simply create drama or showcase extreme viewpoints. Ultimately, the degree of conflict or alignment among personas will depend on the specific topic and the chosen sources, and it’s a factor that creators of Source Syntheses should carefully consider.

III. Constructing the Dialogue

With the personas established, the next step was to construct a dialogue that would both reflect their individual perspectives and contribute to a meaningful conversation about the impact of AI on creative industries. This involved carefully weaving together synthesized statements from the source videos, guided by the principles outlined in the whitepaper and informed by the specific characteristics of each persona.

The Moderator’s Role

As suggested in the whitepaper, a moderator played a crucial role in facilitating the conversation. We developed the persona of Alex (Yellow), a tech journalist with a keen interest in the intersection of technology and society. Alex’s primary function was to guide the discussion, ensuring that each persona had an opportunity to share their views and that the conversation remained focused and productive.

Alex’s persona was characterized by neutrality, inquisitiveness, and a commitment to fostering a balanced discussion. They were not meant to be an AI expert but rather an informed observer, reflecting the perspective of a thoughtful individual trying to make sense of this complex issue.

We opted for a blended approach to Alex’s role, incorporating elements of both a neutral facilitator and a more active participant who introduces “what if” scenarios. This allowed Alex to both guide the conversation and introduce thought-provoking prompts that pushed the personas to explore the issue from new angles.

Dialogue Structure

The dialogue was structured in a clear and logical manner:

  1. Introduction: Alex introduced the topic and the three personas.
  2. Initial Statements: Each persona was given the opportunity to present their core perspective on the impact of AI-generated content, drawing upon their respective video sources.
  3. Moderated Discussion: Alex guided the conversation, posing questions based on the personas’ statements and introducing a “what if” scenario about the potential emergence of a market for “human-made” content. This scenario was chosen for its relevance to the ongoing discussion and its potential to stimulate debate about the future of creative industries.
  4. Q&A: Alex presented three pre-selected audience questions, allowing the personas to address broader societal concerns related to AI, the role of critics and curators, and the future of education. These questions were chosen to further explore themes raised in the initial discussion and to provide a platform for the personas to offer more concrete suggestions and solutions.
  5. Closing Statements: Each persona offered a final reflection, summarizing their key takeaways and offering a concluding message.
  6. Conclusion: Alex synthesized the main points of the discussion and offered some final thoughts on the future of creative work in the age of AI.

This structure provided a framework for a focused and engaging conversation while allowing ample room for each persona to express their unique viewpoint.

Writing Process

The writing process involved a careful synthesis of the original video transcripts. We extracted key statements and ideas from each source, rephrasing and condensing them to create concise and impactful statements for each persona.

Throughout the process, we strived to maintain the authenticity of each persona’s voice while ensuring that the dialogue flowed naturally and contributed to a coherent overall narrative. This required a delicate balance between staying true to the source material and crafting a conversation that was both informative and engaging for the reader.

We also made sure that Alex, the moderator, asked questions that logically followed from the personas’ statements, creating a sense of natural progression in the conversation. The “what if” scenario and the audience questions were strategically placed to deepen the discussion and explore specific aspects of the issue. The personas were directed to answer based on their established viewpoints, adding to the consistency of the dialogue.

IV. Challenges and Limitations

Creating this Source Synthesis role-play was a valuable learning experience, but it also presented several challenges and highlighted some inherent limitations of the method.

Challenges Encountered

  1. Condensing Complex Viewpoints: One of the primary challenges was condensing the rich and nuanced perspectives expressed in the source videos into concise statements for each persona. The original videos contained a wealth of information, personal anecdotes, and detailed arguments. Distilling these into a shorter, dialogue-friendly format required careful selection and summarization, inevitably leading to some loss of detail.
  2. Balancing Persona Representation: Ensuring that each persona was fairly represented and had an equal voice in the dialogue was another challenge. We aimed to strike a balance between allowing each persona to fully express their core arguments while also keeping the conversation flowing and preventing any single persona from dominating the discussion.
  3. Maintaining Natural Flow: Crafting a dialogue that felt natural and engaging, despite being constructed from synthesized statements, required careful attention to the language and transitions. We strived to create a conversation that flowed logically and avoided sounding overly scripted or artificial. It was important that the conversation felt authentic, even though it was based on personas and not actual people.
  4. Staying “In Character”: Although based on real individuals, it is important to remember that the personas are still constructs. It was important to make sure that the personas stayed “in character” throughout the dialogue. This required careful consideration of their established viewpoints and motivations.

Limitations of Source Synthesis

  1. Constructed Nature of the Dialogue: It’s crucial to acknowledge the fundamental limitation of Source Synthesis: it creates a constructed dialogue. While based on real-world sources, the conversation itself is a product of the creator’s choices and interpretations. It’s not a spontaneous exchange but a carefully curated representation of different perspectives.
  2. Potential for Oversimplification: The process of distilling complex viewpoints into shorter statements inevitably involves some degree of simplification. There’s a risk that the nuances of the original speakers’ arguments may be lost or that their positions may be presented in a way that’s more simplistic than in the original source material.
  3. Dependence on Source Quality: The effectiveness of a Source Synthesis relies heavily on the quality and diversity of the selected sources. If the sources are biased, incomplete, or lack diversity, the resulting dialogue will likely reflect these limitations. The choice of sources can significantly impact the outcome of the Source Synthesis. In this particular case, the personas were relatively aligned in their views, which was a result of the chosen sources.
  4. Limited Scope: This method is most effective when applied to a specific, well-defined topic. Trying to cover too broad a range of issues or perspectives within a single Source Synthesis could lead to a superficial or unfocused discussion.

V. The Discovery of Pre-editing

In applying the Source Synthesis method to create our role-play, we encountered a crucial element that, while implicitly present in the process, wasn’t explicitly addressed in the original whitepaper: the power of ‘pre-editing.’ This concept emerged as a defining characteristic of Source Synthesis, distinguishing it from both traditional journalistic reporting and live, unscripted dialogues.

‘Pre-editing,’ as we’ve termed it, refers to the significant shaping of the dialogue that occurs before the conversation is even constructed. It encompasses the choices made during source selection, persona creation, topic framing, question design, and scenario selection. These decisions, made by the creator, exert a powerful influence on the direction, scope, and tone of the ensuing dialogue.

Unlike a live debate or a journalistic interview, where the conversation unfolds spontaneously and participants can react in real-time, Source Synthesis involves a curated selection and arrangement of pre-existing material. The sources chosen act as foundational building blocks, determining the range of perspectives and arguments that will be represented. The process of persona creation further refines these perspectives, highlighting specific aspects of the original speakers’ viewpoints and communication styles. The framing of the topic and the design of the moderator’s questions further guide the conversation, setting its boundaries and prompting the personas to address specific themes.

Addressing the Skeptic: What Distinguishes ‘Pre-editing’?

Now, a skeptical reader might ask, “Isn’t this just the normal creative process involved in any writing or dialogue creation? Are we simply inventing the concept of ‘pre-editing’ from thin air?” This is a valid concern, and it’s important to clarify what distinguishes ‘pre-editing’ in Source Synthesis.

While all writing involves choices and shaping of material, ‘pre-editing’ in Source Synthesis has several distinct characteristics:

  1. Foundation in Source Material: Unlike purely fictional dialogue, Source Synthesis is fundamentally grounded in pre-existing source material. The personas and their statements are derived from, and constrained by, the chosen sources. This creates a unique dynamic where the creator is working within a framework established by the source material, rather than creating entirely from scratch. The personas are to a large extent defined by the source material.
  2. Persona as a Construct: The creation of personas, based on real or hypothetical individuals, is a deliberate act of framing and interpretation. The creator selects and emphasizes certain aspects of the source material to construct these personas, shaping how they will interact within the dialogue. This is different from simply quoting or paraphrasing individuals; it’s a process of crafting distinct voices that embody specific perspectives.
  3. Structured Dialogue: Source Synthesis aims to create a structured dialogue around a specific topic, guided by pre-determined questions and scenarios. This is different from simply presenting a collection of quotes or summaries. The creator actively shapes the flow and focus of the conversation through the “pre-editing” choices.
  4. Transparency and Acknowledgment: Crucially, Source Synthesis emphasizes transparency about its constructed nature. Unlike some forms of creative writing that aim to present a seamless or objective narrative, Source Synthesis acknowledges the role of the creator in shaping the dialogue and encourages readers to be aware of the “pre-editing” process. The personas are clearly identified as constructs, and the sources are revealed, allowing readers to critically evaluate the choices made.

In essence, while all writing involves selection and arrangement of material, “pre-editing” in Source Synthesis is characterized by its deliberate grounding in source material, the creation of distinct personas, the structured nature of the dialogue, and a commitment to transparency. It’s not simply about writing a dialogue; it’s about constructing a conversation that illuminates diverse perspectives on a specific issue, using pre-existing material as its foundation. This is a different kind of writing with unique challenges.

VI. Lessons Learned and Future Directions

This experiment with Source Synthesis has been a valuable learning experience, providing insights into both the potential and the limitations of the method. Reflecting on the process and the resulting role-play, we can identify several key takeaways and areas for future refinement.

Reflection on the Method

The Source Synthesis method, as applied in this case, proved effective in creating a structured and engaging dialogue that illuminated diverse perspectives on a complex issue. The use of personas based on real individuals added a layer of authenticity and relatability to the conversation, while the moderator’s role helped to guide the discussion and ensure a balanced representation of viewpoints. The “what if” scenario and the Q&A section further enriched the dialogue, prompting the personas to explore the issue in greater depth.

Control Questions – A Critical Evaluation

Let’s now turn to the “control questions”, reflecting on the process as if the preceding sections of this blog post were already written:

  1. Persona Creation:
    • What are the pro’s and con’s of basing personas on real individuals?
      • Pros: Basing personas on real individuals grounds the dialogue in authentic perspectives and experiences, making the conversation more relatable and impactful. It allows readers to connect with the issue on a more personal level.
      • Cons: There’s a risk of misrepresenting or oversimplifying the individuals’ views. It also requires careful ethical consideration to ensure respectful and accurate portrayal.
    • What are the pro’s and con’s of creating fictionalized personas?
      • Pros: Creating fictionalized personas offers greater creative freedom and allows for the exploration of hypothetical viewpoints. It can also avoid the ethical complexities of representing real individuals.
      • Cons: Fictionalized personas may lack the authenticity and grounding of source-based personas, potentially making the dialogue feel less relatable or impactful.
    • How did the decision to use personas based on real individuals affect the authenticity and relatability of the dialogue?
      • In this case, using personas based on real individuals enhanced the authenticity of the dialogue. The personas’ statements, while synthesized, were rooted in the genuine concerns and experiences of individuals grappling with the impact of AI on their respective fields. This likely made the conversation more relatable to readers who may be facing similar challenges or uncertainties.
  2. Methodology:
    • Did we stay true to the whitepaper’s guidelines for Source Synthesis? What worked well, and what did not.
      • We adhered to the core principles of the whitepaper, including careful source selection, persona creation, and structured dialogue. The use of a moderator, the “what if” scenario, and the Q&A section were all in line with the guidelines. However, the relative alignment of the personas’ viewpoints, stemming from the choice of sources, presented a slight deviation. While the whitepaper emphasizes diverse perspectives, our chosen sources resulted in a more homogenous set of concerns. This worked well for a focused discussion but might limit the exploration of more conflicting viewpoints.
    • How did the personas develop during the different stages of the conversation? Were there any unexpected shifts or changes in their perspectives?
      • The personas remained largely consistent throughout the dialogue, reflecting their core beliefs and concerns as established in their initial statements. However, the “what if” scenario and the Q&A section prompted them to elaborate on their views and consider new angles, leading to a richer understanding of their perspectives. For example, The Illustrator (Blue) expanded on the potential benefits of Universal Basic Income, while The Analyst (Green) expressed reservations about the “human-made” label.
  3. Scenario and Questions:
    • How did the “what if” scenario about the value of “human-made” work out? Did it stimulate valuable discussion, or did it feel forced?
      • The “what if” scenario proved effective in stimulating a valuable discussion about the potential for a niche market that values human creativity. It allowed the personas to explore the economic and practical implications of such a scenario, highlighting both its potential benefits and challenges. It flowed naturally from the preceding conversation and added a forward-looking dimension to the dialogue.
    • Did the Q&A add to the conversation, or did it feel repetitive? How could the Q&A be improved in future applications?
      • The Q&A section added value by allowing the personas to address broader societal concerns and offer concrete suggestions, such as the need for educational reform. While there was some overlap with earlier points, the Q&A format provided a platform for more direct engagement with potential audience concerns. In future applications, the Q&A could be further enhanced by incorporating a wider range of questions, perhaps even crowdsourced from readers in advance. Also, the personas could be directed to answer the questions in a way that adds new information or perspective, rather than simply reiterating their previous points.
  4. Challenges and Rewards:
    • What was the most challenging part of creating the role-play?
      • The most challenging aspect was condensing complex viewpoints from the source videos into concise and impactful statements for each persona while maintaining the authenticity of their voices. Balancing the representation of each persona and ensuring a natural flow to the dialogue also required careful consideration.
    • What was the most rewarding part of the process?
      • The most rewarding part was witnessing how the Source Synthesis method could bring diverse perspectives together in a structured and engaging format. It was also gratifying to see how the personas, despite being based on real individuals, took on a life of their own within the dialogue, offering unique insights and contributing to a richer understanding of the issue.
  5. Key Takeaways and Future Improvements:
    • What are our key takeaways from this experiment with Source Synthesis?
      • Source Synthesis is a powerful tool for exploring complex issues from multiple perspectives. It can be particularly effective in illuminating the human impact of technological advancements and fostering empathy for different viewpoints. The method is highly adaptable and can be tailored to suit a wide range of topics and source materials. It is, however, important to be mindful of the limitations of the method and to strive for transparency and ethical representation when creating personas based on real individuals.
    • How could the method be improved or refined in the future?
      • Future applications could explore the inclusion of more diverse and even conflicting viewpoints to create a more dynamic and representative dialogue. Additionally, incorporating interactive elements, such as allowing readers to submit questions or vote on different perspectives, could further enhance engagement. Another area for improvement could be developing more robust guidelines for persona creation, particularly when dealing with sensitive or controversial topics.
    • What other potential use cases for the method can we envision, based on our experience?
      • Source Synthesis could be applied to a wide range of topics, including historical events, scientific debates, ethical dilemmas, policy discussions, and even fictional narratives. It could be used in educational settings to foster critical thinking, in journalism to provide more nuanced reporting, or in business to facilitate strategic planning. The possibilities are vast.
  6. Ethical Considerations:
    • What are the ethical considerations of creating personas based on real people?
      • The primary ethical considerations revolve around accurate representation, informed consent, and potential harm to the individuals involved. It’s crucial to avoid misrepresenting or oversimplifying their views and to be transparent about the constructed nature of the dialogue.
    • How can we ensure that the personas are represented respectfully and accurately?
      • By carefully analyzing the source material, focusing on the core arguments and concerns expressed, and providing links to the original sources, we can strive for respectful and accurate representation. However, it’s important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of interpretation and the potential for subjective bias.
    • What are the potential risks of misrepresentation or oversimplification?
      • The potential risks include misinforming the audience, damaging the reputation of the individuals involved, and undermining the credibility of the Source Synthesis method itself. It’s essential to be mindful of these risks throughout the creation process and to take steps to mitigate them.

Future Directions

This experience has reinforced our belief in the potential of Source Synthesis as a valuable tool for exploring complex issues. We envision applying this method to a variety of other topics, experimenting with different source materials, and refining the process further. For instance, future applications could explore:

  • Different Source Types: Using podcasts, articles, or social media posts as source material.
  • More Personas: Incorporating a larger number of personas to represent a wider range of perspectives.
  • Audience Interaction: Allowing readers to interact with the personas directly, perhaps through a chatbot or a moderated forum.

VII. Conclusion

Our journey through the creation of “The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries” has been a testament to the power and versatility of the Source Synthesis method. By distilling diverse perspectives from real-world sources and weaving them into a structured dialogue, we’ve aimed to illuminate the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by the rise of AI in creative fields.

This “making of” post, in particular, has provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on the practical application of the method, to examine the choices we made, and to identify areas for future refinement. From the selection of the topic and sources to the crafting of personas and the construction of the dialogue, every step has offered valuable lessons.

The concept of “pre-editing” emerged as a particularly significant insight, highlighting the unique characteristics of Source Synthesis and the powerful role of the creator in shaping the narrative. This concept will be further explored and integrated into future iterations of the method and will be included in a revised version of the whitepaper. Furthermore, the role of editing was discussed, especially regarding its limitations within the method. Pre-editing has many similarities with the creation of NPC characters in video games.

Ultimately, this experiment has reinforced our belief in the potential of Source Synthesis as a valuable tool for exploring complex issues in a nuanced and engaging way. By continuing to refine the method, by exploring new applications, and by engaging in ongoing critical reflection, we can harness the power of Source Synthesis to foster deeper understanding and more productive dialogues in an increasingly complex world.

We encourage you, the reader, to try your hand at creating your own Source Syntheses. Experiment with different topics, sources, and persona configurations. Share your creations and your reflections on the process. The more we collectively engage with this method, the more robust and insightful it will become.


Posted

in

by

Comments

2 responses to “The Making of: The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries”

  1. […] Prologue: This is the third part in a series about the Source Synthesis method. The present post consists of a role-play based on Source Synthesis. Other parts: 1) o3-mini in the Spotlight: A Play of Two YouTube Transcripts 2) Source Synthesis: Engaging Perspectives Through Role-Play 4) The Making of: The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries […]

  2. […] This is the second part in a series about the Source Synthesis method. First part: o3-mini in the Spotlight: A Play of Two YouTube Transcripts Third part: The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries: A Source Synthesis Role-Play Fourth part: The Making of: The Impact of AI-Generated Content on Creative Industries […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *