I literally just prompted it with “Please finish this essay” and then typed in what justqueenthoughts had posted. And yeah, I think it followed along in the style of the prompt reasonably well, but didn’t really add anything interesting. Which is no surprise, that’s what LLMs do. Point it in a direction and it will supply an approximation of the mean in the training data that applies.
I have to admit, though, I hadn’t heard of the “Two Cultures” debate, popularized by C.P. Snow.
Replying to my own comment, I think the best tell that this is AI generated is the — character. There’s not even a key on the keyboard for that. Alt-0151 (on the keypad) is the only way I know how to get it. Aside from that, I pity the teacher who has to grade this type of slop. But then, I guess grading high-school essays has never been a highlight of the job.
(A thousand apologies for bringing Chat GPT into this assignment, but, well, I couldn’t help myself.)
In this essay I will explore how the artificial divide between Arts and STEM disciplines has been perpetuated, the consequences of this separation, and the immense potential that lies in their collaboration. Using the example of Queen—a band whose members’ diverse academic backgrounds fueled their creative genius—I will argue that the intersection of artistic imagination and scientific rigor is not only possible, but essential for innovation and progress. Furthermore, I will examine the role that societal structures, particularly those influenced by business interests, have played in maintaining this divide, and how overcoming it could empower individuals and communities alike.
First, let us consider the origins of this divide. Historically, the “Two Cultures” debate, popularized by C.P. Snow in the mid-20th century, framed the arts and sciences as fundamentally incompatible. This narrative has been reinforced by educational systems that require students to choose between creative and analytical paths early in their academic careers. As a result, students often internalize the belief that they must be either “artistic” or “scientific,” rarely both. This false dichotomy not only limits personal growth but also stifles the kind of interdisciplinary thinking that leads to groundbreaking achievements.
Queen’s story challenges this narrative. Brian May’s background in astrophysics, Roger Taylor’s training in dentistry, Freddie Mercury’s art school experience, and John Deacon’s expertise in electronics all contributed to the band’s unique sound and stage presence. Their music is a testament to the power of combining technical skill with artistic vision—an approach that has resonated with millions and stood the test of time.
But why does this divide persist? Here, I return to the business major, a metaphor for the systems and structures that benefit from keeping Arts and STEM apart. In a world where creativity and technical knowledge are siloed, those who control the means of production and distribution—often with business backgrounds—can more easily exploit both groups. By fostering competition rather than collaboration, they ensure that neither side realizes its full potential, maintaining the status quo and their own position of power.
The consequences of this separation are profound. When artists and scientists work in isolation, society misses out on innovations that require both creative insight and technical expertise. From medical breakthroughs inspired by artistic anatomy studies to technological advances driven by aesthetic design, history is full of examples where collaboration has led to extraordinary results.
In conclusion, the supposed rift between Arts and STEM is not a natural divide, but a constructed barrier that serves the interests of a select few. By recognizing our shared potential and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, we can unlock new possibilities and create a more vibrant, innovative, and equitable society. Just as Queen’s members combined their diverse talents to create music that transcends genres, so too can we bridge the gap between art and science to achieve greatness together.
Every time something hopeful like this appears I start wondering if it’s safe to imagine that maybe things could get better here in the US. But so far I’ve been disappointed over and over. Part of me wants to just skip over the “maybe something good will happen” part and get right to the “oh, well, looks like he was assassinated by a blackwater hit squad” part. Money is power. The donor class gets what they want. And I have no faith that working within the electoral system will fix that.