I think I have decent taste in art, visit museums and galleries occasionally, make some myself and donâ(TM)t find any of the images in the article interestingâ¦I have seen interesting AI-generated images and I donâ(TM)t understand why they have selected these in particular to auction offâ¦what good is AI art if you still have terrible human curators and critics?

My problem with this is not the outcome - itâ(TM)s with what it shows about our underlying values...the Globe should have just done this because they donâ(TM)t want to ruin peopleâ(TM)s lives, not because they want to fix systemic racism...our store of everyday ethics is being drained to fuel a super-charged morality of American guilt and shame...when America is finally egalitarian there wonâ(TM)t be anything human left to share.

I agree with all of this and it is all well reasoned. But, after naming the relevant fields of advertising, politics, and social science, how about mentioning that of journalism. "Fast Company" published this article which reviews the Amnesty International statement and correctly places it in the context of technological developments in the areas of artificial intelligence and social media. But what if they added a simple disclaimer at the end to the effect that this article makes no defensible claims in the realm of social science, so as to avoid confusion? Now that would be responsible journalism, don't you think?