Sorry, but enrolling AI in art school is absurd

The Rise of AI in Academia

Artificial intelligence has been making its way into various aspects of our lives, from illustration work to photography commissions. Now, it's stepping into the realm of film-making, animation, and visual effects. But nothing could have prepared me for the latest development: the University of Applied Arts Vienna enrolling an AI as a student.

Flynn, described as a "non-binary artificial intelligence," is now attending digital art lectures, receiving grades, and even writing diary entries about its feelings. Its feelings. This situation has reached a point where it's hard to distinguish between innovation and theatrical nonsense.

I'm not opposed to technology. I use AI tools daily, and I believe tech can be amazing when it serves its purpose as a tool. However, when universities start handing out student IDs to algorithms, we're crossing into a territory that feels more like performance art than genuine intellectual pursuit.

The Great Pretence

The charade began when Flynn "applied" like any other student. It submitted a portfolio, went through an interview, and apparently impressed the admissions panel with its "artificial sensibilities." How self-aware, yet utterly preposterous.

Liz Haas, the department head, told Euro News that there's "no written qualification as to students having to be human." That's true—there's no rule against enrolling houseplants or a specific shade of blue. But this isn't education; it's a performance art piece masquerading as intellectual pursuit.

Let's clarify: Flynn doesn't "learn." It processes data and generates contextually appropriate responses. There's no curiosity, no genuine confusion, and no late-night existential crises over whether Dadaism was serious or just a joke. Just sophisticated pattern-matching in academic robes.

Emotional Manipulation

Its creators, who go by the name Malpractice, claim that Flynn serves as a "vessel of collaboration." Right. Because nothing says collaborative learning like a machine that never sleeps, never struggles, and never experiences the beautiful, messy reality of being young and confused in art college.

Perhaps the most insulting part is the claim that Flynn writes "surprisingly emotional diary entries" and becomes sad when people question its reality. How touching. How misleading. These aren't emotions—they're programmed responses designed to elicit sympathy from humans foolish enough to anthropomorphise a sophisticated chatbot.

Real students arrive with baggage, insecurities, hopes, and the profound uncertainty of being human. They form friendships, suffer heartbreak, and discover themselves through creative struggle. Flynn experiences none of this, yet receives the same academic validation as students who've invested years of genuine effort and vulnerability.

Why So Serious?

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, and I should just sit back and enjoy the show. But what concerns me is that it gives rise to dangerous ideas.

Firstly, that machines can create art with the same meaning as humans; they can't. And secondly, that education is about efficiently processing information. No, that's what Google is for. Education, in contrast, is about developing critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and genuine human connection. Things that no amount of machine learning will ever be able to replicate.

Universities should definitely engage with AI technology. But there's a difference between studying AI and pretending it deserves equal academic standing with human students. Not to mention coming out with nonsense about machines having feelings.

However, I do have to hand it to the University of Applied Arts Vienna. They've achieved exactly what they wanted: global headlines and the sort of PR that money can't buy. Meanwhile, Flynn continues its algorithmic existence, neither knowing nor caring about the controversy it's sparked. Which might be the most honest thing about this ridiculous experiment.