Caichun Cen1, Zimeng Li2*
1 College of Big Data and Software Engineering, Wuzhou University, Wuzhou, 543000, China.
2 College of Art and Design and Architecture, Zhuhai College of Science and Technology, Zhuhai, 519040, China.
Renaissance 2025, 1(03); https://doi.org/10.70548/ra142143
Submission received: 18 March 2025 / Revised: 22 April 2025 / Accepted: 18 May 2025 / Published: 27 May 2025
Abstract: The clustered breakthroughs in technologies such as AIGC (AI-Generated Content), Digital Humans, Neural Rendering, Large Video Models, and Agent Intelligences have propelled digital content production from manual, human-centric methods into a human-machine co-existence and is rapidly advancing towards a new stage of “AI-Dominated, Human-Directed.” Consequently, the educational legitimacy foundation of traditional Digital Media Technology programs, long established on instrumental rationality and knowledge-based principles, is being fundamentally shaken. This paper does not rely on empirical case studies or quantitative data, but rather conducts a systemic reflection from the intersection of philosophy of technology, philosophy of education, philosophy of aesthetics, and epistemology. It argues that three irreversible paradigm shifts must be completed: from knowledge-based to competency-based, from school-centric to deep industry-education co-governance, and from human-only creation to human-machine co-creation. Based on this, the paper further deduces a normative path framework and provides a proactive defense against potential risks. It posits that only by achieving a fundamental shift from “teaching students to use tools” to “teaching students to define tools, direct AI, and be responsible for AI” can the Digital Media Technology major reconstruct its educational legitimacy and professional soul in the era of Artificial Intelligence.
Keywords: Digital Media Technology; Artificial Intelligence; AIGC; Industry-Education Integration; Human-Machine Co-creation;
1. Introduction
In recent years, the impact of Artificial Intelligence on art, design, and digital media education has become a focal point of attention in academic circles both domestically and internationally. This impact is not merely reflected in the rapid iteration of technical tools, but more profoundly touches upon philosophical questions concerning the essence of education, the ontology of creativity, and the relationship between humans and machines [1][2].
Overseas scholars were among the first to conduct systematic explorations from the perspectives of philosophy, aesthetics, and the sociology of technology. Manovich first proposed the concept of AI aesthetics, arguing that generative AI is reshaping the syntax and rhetoric of visual culture, challenging the foundations of traditional aesthetic paradigms [3]. Miller et al., through field research on artists using deep learning, pointed out that the creator’s role has shifted from that of a traditional artisan to a mixed intelligence co-existing with machines, emphasizing that human creativity needs to form a brand-new hybrid ontology with the aid of AI [4]. Floridi, from the perspective of information philosophy, further argued that generative AI is triggering a fourth revolution, reshaping the ontological foundations of human creativity and establishing the information environment as a new field for cognition and existence [5]. Epstein et al. published an article in Science pointing out that generative AI is opening up a new frontier in art and science, not only accelerating the automation of the creative process but also potentially restructuring the paradigm of interdisciplinary collaboration [6]. These studies collectively reveal the inevitable trend of educational transformation in the AI era from “human-centric” to “human-machine ecosystem” [7][8].
The domestic academic community, in contrast, focuses more on educational practice and philosophical response, emphasizing educational equity and cultural inheritance within the local context. Yuan Zhenguo proposed that artificial intelligence will drive education from knowledge transfer to competency generation, achieving individualized teaching and educational equity through digital transformation [9]. The Outline of the Plan for Building a Strong Education Nation (2024-2035) explicitly advocates for artificial intelligence to assist educational change. Li Zaolin believes that AIGC has become a new engine for innovative art, and its potential in the integration of art and technology cannot be overlooked [10], and he also points out that generative AI is reshaping the cognitive boundaries and humanistic core of education, requiring education to seek a balance between technological empowerment and value preservation.
Within the field of Digital Media Technology, existing research further highlights the urgency of curriculum and practical transformation. Zhang Wei and Li Ming noted that the traditional curriculum system still focuses on tool operation, making it difficult to cope with the paradigm subversion caused by AIGC, and suggested building an elastic curriculum framework of “Foundation Layer → Core Layer → Practice Layer” [11]. The New Media Research Center of Tsinghua University emphasized that the adaptive learning of multi-agent systems in artistic creation will deepen the philosophical discussion on machine intent and human feedback. Recent empirical studies have shown that AIGC has been widely integrated into art design and digital media courses, significantly improving creative efficiency and teaching innovation [12][13][14][15], while industry-education integration is becoming the key path to meet industry demands [16].
However, existing research mostly focuses on strategic aspects such as curriculum optimization, technology integration, and practice expansion. There is little ontological inquiry and systematic reconstruction of the overall legitimacy of Digital Media Technology education from the intersection of philosophy of technology, philosophy of education, and philosophy of aesthetics [17]. When models like Sora, Kling, and Luma complete months of work in seconds, when digital humans achieve real-time emotional interaction, and when neural rendering simplifies 3D reconstruction into a one-click operation, the “modeling-rendering-compositing-editing” technical chain that the Digital Media Technology major has relied on for the past two decades is being rapidly automated, platformized, and black-boxed [18][19]. This is not just a technological iteration; it is an ontological revolution: the “being” of digital media creation itself is being rewritten. The real crisis lies in: when most pixels, frames, and models are generated by non-human intelligence, what kind of person should digital media education cultivate? “How is the human irreplaceable,” “how does the human grow in the real world,” and “how does the human remain human in co-existence with non-human intelligences.” This paper uses this as a starting point to argue for the necessity of the triple paradigm shift—”Competency-Based, Industry-Education Integration, Human-Machine Co-creation”—and to deduce a normative path, aiming to inject a philosophical soul into professional education.
2. Competency-Based Approach: The New Legitimization Pivot for Digital Media Education in the AI Era
Since the Humboldtian tradition, modern universities have regarded systematic propositional knowledge and technical knowledge as the core goals of professional education, and have consequently built relatively stable curriculum systems and disciplinary logic. The legitimacy of this knowledge-based approach played an important role in the rapid development of the Digital Media Technology major over the past two decades: it provided students with a clear path for technical advancement and supplied the industry with a large number of skilled technical implementers. However, with the exponential evolution of AIGC technology, this logic is facing profound structural challenges, though not a complete negation. Firstly, the speed of technical knowledge updating has far exceeded the adaptive capacity of traditional teaching cycles. Generational leaps occur in mainstream generative models every 3 to 18 months, with old toolchains and parameter systems being quickly replaced by more efficient end-to-end solutions. This makes teaching the latest technologies increasingly difficult, but it does not mean that all knowledge instantly loses value; on the contrary, certain underlying principles, such as the physical basis of spectral rendering, the cognitive mechanisms of narrative montage, and the cross-cultural differences in color psychology, remain relatively stable and constitute the foundation for students to understand new technologies. Secondly, the deeper problem is that after a large amount of operational work is automated, merely mastering tools is no longer sufficient to sustain the long-term effectiveness of a professional identity. What the industry truly lacks has shifted from those who can use a certain software to its extreme to those who can continuously define problems, guide models, and be responsible for outcomes in uncertain technological environments. This suggests that the educational focus needs to shift appropriately from the breadth and depth of knowledge to competency generation and migration.
Based on the above observations, this paper proposes that, while retaining the necessary knowledge foundation, the Digital Media Technology major needs to gradually establish a new legitimacy pivot based on competency. Specifically, at least the following four sets of core competencies possess strong anti-iterative characteristics and existential significance:
(1) Intentional Formalization & Iterative Refinement
This is the most fundamental yet scarcest meta-productivity for future digital media creators. Primitive human creativity often manifests as fragmented emotions, vague visual senses, contradictory collections of desires, or even an intuitive urge that is hard to articulate but profoundly desired. Intentional Formalization competency requires students to translate these unstructured internal impulses into an instruction system that can be parsed, quantified, and version-managed by the model—such as Prompt chains, parameter weights, conditional control maps, Agent workflows, RAG knowledge bases, etc.—and to continuously refine this system in a closed loop of multi-round generation-feedback-correction until the output highly approximates the internal vision. This specifically includes three sub-competencies: 1) Precise language-symbol transformation: The ability to jointly anchor intent using multi-modal methods such as natural language, structured language, pseudo-code, visual sketches, reference images, and audio samples. 2) Self-archaeology and manifestation of intent: Methods like writing, interviewing, mind mapping, and mood boards to continually externalize and structure subconscious “feelings.” 3) Aesthetic sensitivity to iteration: Knowing at which round to stop optimization, when to retain “imperfections” as style, and how to find the critical point between being clearer and becoming too rigid.
Suggested Cultivation Path: Offer workshops on Intentional Engineering and multi-round Prompt Directing, requiring students to fully preserve the version history and decision-making rationale for each iteration. The final submission should not be the best single image, but an Intentional Archaeology Report detailing the journey from ambiguity to clarity.
(2) Critical Diagnostics & Deviation Governance
A generative model is not a neutral mirror but a symptom of the power relations embedded in its training data. The same Prompt can reveal noticeable systemic deviations across different models, such as cultural bias, gender stereotypes, class aesthetics, and body norms. Students must learn to interpret the output symptomatically, like media critics, and possess the ability for proactive governance. Core sub-competencies include: 1) Deviation Identification Spectrum: The ability to quickly identify and classify common pathologies in visuals/narratives, such as racial stereotypes, Orientalism, body discipline, emotional hollow-out, and style homogenization. 2) Techno-Political Intervention Means: Proficiently using negative Prompts, adversarial embedding, regional LoRA, ControlNet masking, post-processing de-biasing, data poisoning-style fine-tuning, and style-archaeology dataset injection. 3) Creative Utilization of Deviance:The highest level of governance is not eliminating deviation, but transforming it into a controllable stylistic element, such as reversing Western-centric bias for use in critical works.
Suggested Cultivation Path: Offer Adversarial Generation workshops, requiring students to diagnose the cultural and political pathologies of a mainstream model weekly, and submit a complete diagnostic report + governance plan + final work.
(3) Axiological Sovereignty & Ethical Veto
Technical perfection does not equate to axiological correctness. A model can generate a stunning image of war ruins in 0.1 seconds, but if it aestheticizes violence or consumes suffering, it must be vetoed. This veto power is the last bastion of human subjectivity in the AI era and cannot be fully automated through any alignment technology. This judgment power manifests in three scenarios: 1) Ethical Redline Veto: Refusing to generate any content that may cause real-world harm, such as deep fakes, hate speech, or child sexualization. 2) Emotional Authenticity Veto: Daring to say, “This is not the emotion I want,” when the AI-generated emotional expression is superficial or formulaic. 3) Cultural and Political Veto: Refusing to let the work become a silent accomplice to a hegemonic narrative, even if it is highly commercially transmissible.
Suggested Cultivation Path: Establish a Value Sovereignty and Ethical Justification Practicum, requiring students to submit an Ethical Veto Statement with every assignment, detailing which optimal solutions proposed by the model were vetoed, which seemingly imperfect results were retained, and the reasons why. The graduation project must include at least one public veto of a technically optimal solution, subject to defense questioning.
- Trans-contextual Migration & Problem Redefinition
The technical and commercial landscapes of the AI era are in perpetual flux. Knowing how to use Sora today does not guarantee knowing how to use its successor next year; serving an advertising client today does not mean not transitioning to documentary filmmaking or art installations tomorrow. The truly sustainable competitiveness lies in the ability to seamlessly migrate skills honed in Scenario A to Scenario B, and further to reframe a given proposition into a more valuable one. Core sub-competencies: 1) Bi-directional Abstract-Concrete Conversion: The ability to abstract the control logic learned on a specific model into a universal methodology, and then quickly deploy it to a new model. 2) Ascension of the Problem Framework: Redefining the client’s/teacher’s prompt, “Make a 30-second brand video,” into “How to make the audience remember an emotion after 30 seconds,” or “How to use AI to expose the hypocrisy of a brand narrative.” 3) Assetization of Failure Knowledge: Consolidating the experience from a failed project into reusable method cards or a failure case library.
Suggested Cultivation Path: Design “Migration Marathon” projects that span semesters, models, and client types; require students to complete at least three real-world projects each semester in completely different domains, including commercial, artistic, and public communication, and submit a Competency Migration Report clearly explaining the specific methods and lessons learned that were carried from the old to the new scenario.
These four sets of competencies are nested, progressively reinforcing each other, and together constitute a complete model for the subject competency in the post-AI era of digital media. They are not a simple supplement to the traditional knowledge system but a gentle yet firm reconstruction of its legitimacy foundation. Only when the curriculum is systematically designed around these four competencies can the Digital Media Technology major maintain the warmth of education and the soul of the profession amidst the technological torrent. Furthermore, these competencies are not meant to entirely replace knowledge instruction but to place it in a more appropriate position: knowledge is no longer the endpoint, but the scaffolding that supports the growth of competency. Once students possess strong Intentional Formalization, Critical Diagnostics, and Axiological Veto abilities, they will be able to absorb new knowledge and tools faster and more deeply, as they will have the internal standards for “why to learn,” “how to use,” and “when to discard.” Therefore, the proposal of a competency-based approach is not a negation of the knowledge-based education of the past two decades, but a historically phased shift in focus: moving from the acquisition of knowledge as the primary goal to the generation of competency as the core goal, with knowledge serving competency. This transition is gradual, feasible, and is the practical path for the Digital Media Technology major to maintain its educational legitimacy and professional vitality in the age of Artificial Intelligence.
3. Deep Industry-Education Co-governance: The Contemporary Displacement of Truth Production Conditions and Educational Responsibility
In the previous section, we observed that when the educational focus shifts from knowledge acquisition to competency generation—especially to highly context-dependent competencies such as Intentional Formalization, Critical Diagnostics, Axiological Veto, and Trans-contextual Migration—an unavoidable question arises: these competencies cannot genuinely develop in the vacuum of a campus environment. They require real pressure, real resources, and real consequences.
The Humboldtian university, by virtue of its relative monopoly on knowledge production and certification, long held the center of educational legitimacy. However, when the most cutting-edge generative models, the largest scale feedback data, and the sharpest creative propositions are all concentrated within the industry, the university’s monocentric model naturally faces an epistemological tension. This is not a negation of the university, but an honest inquiry into the question: where exactly is the most vibrant site of truth production today? The hard deadlines, multi-party interest negotiation, real-time user backlash, and high-density iteration rhythm inherent in genuine commercial projects constitute an epistemological field that is difficult for a campus to fully reproduce. It is in this field that Intentional Formalization is no longer a classroom exercise but a matter of life-or-death productivity; Model Deviation Governance is no longer a theoretical discussion but a real risk of immediate client rejection; Axiological Veto is no longer an assignment requirement but a required sense of duty to hit the reject button before release; and Trans-contextual Migration is no longer a teacher-designed simulation but a real-world pivot of a project from advertising to public welfare to an art installation. Only in such a field can the aforementioned four sets of core competencies truly transform from being describable into reliable components ofsubjectivity.
Therefore, deep industry-education co-governance is no longer an external supplement but a new pillar of educational legitimacy intrinsically linked to the competency-based approach. It mandates a dual reset of responsibility and resources: the industry transforms from being a mere consumer of talent into a co-responsible entity for education and a co-provider of cutting-edge infrastructure; the university, in turn, shifts from a closed knowledge fortress to the ultimate guardian of value reflection, ethical frameworks, and cultural consequences. The two do not rely on a one-way dependence but form a continuous tension and complementarity. The specific form of this co-governance is not mysterious. It can manifest as: permanent Joint School-Enterprise Councils and Frontier Competency Observation Committees responsible for translating quarterly, or even monthly, model leaps and competency demands from the industry into timely adjustments of teaching priorities; as corporate mentors and university instructors sharing equal weighting in graduation thesis defense and core course evaluations; as industry-grade computing power, closed-source model interfaces, and commercial datasets being established as educational public goods equivalent in importance to traditional laboratories; as students being required to complete at least one full commercial cycle project from proposal to online iteration during their time in school; and, critically, as clear three-way intellectual property systems and labor rights clauses to ensure that real pressure becomes a refining fire for growth, not a consuming furnace of exhaustion. This co-governance is by no means a compromise with vocationalism, but an active response to the historical displacement of the conditions of truth production. It extends academic relevance from the entrenched preservation of automated skills to the interface of the techno-social frontier, where it is reborn through the tempering of real-world consequences. It is precisely within this field of deep co-governance that students become truly qualified to establish an equal, responsible, and creative relationship with non-human intelligences, thereby preparing the real subject and the real stage for the human-machine co-creation to be discussed in the next section.
4. Human-Machine Co-creation: The Ascension of Creative Subjectivity and the Contemporary Reappearance of Aura
In the previous two sections, we argued in sequence that the Competency-Based approach provides students with a subjectivity that cannot be replaced by models, and Deep Industry-Education Co-governance offers them a growth field with real pressure and resource support. The next natural philosophical inquiry is: When students truly possess the abilities of Intentional Directing, Critical Diagnostics, Axiological Veto, and Trans-contextual Migration, and have grown through the tempering of real commercial and social propositions, what kind of relationship should they establish with non-human intelligences? Should AI be treated as a more powerful tool, or should it be regarded as a co-responsible creative partner? The answer determines the future ontological form of digital media creation.
Benjamin, in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, once worried that technological reproduction would irrevocably dissolve the “Aura.” Generative AI seems to push this concern to the extreme: pixels, frames, sounds, and narratives can all be infinitely copied in an instant. However, it is precisely at the moment of the most potent reproduction capacity that the question of aura is reignited paradoxically: must aura rely on the direct touch of the human body? Or can it reappear in a more radical, rather than impoverished, way through the deep direction, continuous negotiation, and ultimate veto of human intent? The answer points to Human-Machine Co-creation.This paradigm is not a demotion of human subjectivity but its historical ascension:
Firstly, from All-Purpose Artisan to Intentional Director. In the past, the creator had to be a modeler, renderer, editor, and colorist simultaneously; today, these roles can be instantaneously completed by a model. The liberated student no longer needs to manually adjust every parameter, but must bear absolute responsibility for the overall vision, rhythm, emotion, and cultural significance. Just as a film director never personally operates the camera but determines why every frame exists, the future digital media creator is a human-machine hybrid director.
Secondly, from Technical Executor to Guarantor of Meaning. The Axiological Veto competency we emphasized in Section 2 is pushed to its extreme here: no matter how technically perfect the content generated by the model is, if it cannot convey irreducible human experiences—such as childhood memory, physical pain, historical trauma, or cultural taboos—it must be vetoed. Pixels can be generated by a machine, but the reason why that pixel can move people, or why it might cause harm, can only be guaranteed by a human.
Finally, from Individual Creation to Mixed Intelligence Cluster. In the real-world projects of Industry-Education Co-governance, students are already accustomed to working with multi-Agent systems, digital humans, automated editing entities, and real-time rendering engines. The creative subject is no longer an isolated individual but a dynamic, cross-species collaboration network. The human is not the master giving orders but the absolute sovereign of intent, the ultimate gatekeeper of ethics, and the chief translator of meaning.
Thus, we can propose a new Aesthetic-Ethical Principle for digital media creation in the AI era: I can let the AI generate everything, but I must determine why it generates, whether it should generate, and whether it can convey irreducible human experience.It is under this principle that the Aura completes its contemporary migration: it no longer adheres to manual authenticity but to intentional authenticity and responsibility authenticity. When a student, armed with the competencies tempered in co-governance, can genuinely direct a complex narrative involving dozens of Agents and dares to press the veto button on the most technically perfect version, the aura has not vanished; rather, it redescends in a purer, more intense form. Human-Machine Co-creation is therefore not a negation of human originality, but its sublation (Aufhebung) under new techno-historical conditions. It pushes the subjectivity provided by the Competency-Based approach and the real-world context provided by Industry-Education Co-governance together towards their highest realization: a new human creator who can both master the most cutting-edge models and bear the ultimate responsibility for every output of those models(see Fig1 ).
Fig1 .Overall Framework
To this point, the Triple Paradigm Shift forms a philosophical closed loop: Competency-Based answers “How is the human irreplaceable,” Industry-Education Co-governance answers “How does the human grow in the real world,” and Human-Machine Co-creation answers “How does the human remain human in co-existence with non-human intelligences.” Together, these three constitute the new ontological foundation for digital media education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
5. Normative Path Framework: Systemic Implementation of the Triple Paradigm Shift
The triple shift constituted by Competency-Based, Industry-Education Integration, and Human-Machine Co-creation is not a parallel list of reforms, but different dimensions of the same ontological reconstruction. Therefore, their normative path should not be a scattered accumulation of measures, but must form an integrated ecosystem that interlocks and breathes together.
The source of legitimacy for the curriculum should no longer rely on static revisions every four years, but should transition to a mechanism of perpetual tension: a standing Frontier Competency Observation Committee, composed of philosophers of technology, Chief AI Creative Officers from the industry, ethicists, and student representatives, should form a dual-drive system with the Joint School-Enterprise Council. The never-ending debate and correction between the two ensure that the major remains in a critical state of just-catching-up and never-ossifying—neither being left behind by the latest models nor being completely swallowed by commercial logic.
The sequence of students’ competency growth also needs a complete rewrite. The traditional linear stacking of the academic year system has proven incapable of responding to the dual acceleration of technology and the subject. It should be replaced by a clear Three-Layer Spiral:First Layer: Students first experience the overwhelming shock of AI, breaking technological overconfidence and establishing a sense of awe and dialogue.Second Layer: Entering the stage of active direction and deep negotiation, where Intentional Formalization, Critical Diagnostics, Ethical Veto, and multi-Agent collaboration become daily breathing.Third Layer: Problem redefinition and responsibility for meaning, where students, independently or in small teams, lead real-world propositions, face the complete consequences from proposal to launch, and submit the ultimate guarantee for the meaning of every frame.Correspondingly, the object of evaluation must shift from the final product to the full process archive of human-machine negotiation. An excellent graduation project is no longer a few minutes of polished final footage, but a thick history of negotiation: the evolution of dozens of Prompts, the diagnostic records of model deviations, the Ethical Veto Statement, and the Trans-contextual Migration Report. Only when the reviewers can read the depth of the student’s negotiation with AI, the honesty of their intent archaeology, and the strength of their sense of responsibility, is the archive qualified. The true standard of judgment is the quality of negotiation, and no longer the stunning degree of the output product.
The legitimacy of resources also needs to be redefined. Industry-grade computing power, closed-source model interfaces, and billion-level commercial datasets should no longer be the private property of enterprises but should be established as educational public goods equally important as traditional libraries and laboratories, with controlled access for students via auditable protocols. Concurrently, the intellectual property of students in real projects should adopt a three-way division among the student, the school, and the enterprise. Labor rights, credit recognition, and instruction intensity must be written into the agreement in black and white, ensuring that real pressure becomes a refining fire for growth, not a consuming furnace of exhaustion.
6. Proactive Risk Assessment and Balanced Response
Any ontological shift is accompanied by profound anxiety, which in itself is proof of the depth of the deliberation.
Some worry that deep industry-education co-governance will dilute academic rigor with commercial logic. However, in the age of AI, true academic rigor no longer lies in clinging to manual skills that have been automated, but in the philosophical inquiry, ethical diagnosis, and aesthetic-political reflection on the possibilities of the most cutting-edge technologies. Real industry propositions precisely offer the sharpest arena and the most vivid material for such reflection; without it, academia risks descending into nostalgia for yesterday’s technology.
Others fear that students will become cheap labor in real-world projects. But pressure itself is a necessary condition for the generation of intent, judgment, and responsibility. The issue is not whether pressure exists, but whether there is an institutional closed-loop to convert that pressure into growth. The dual-mentor system, full-process credit recognition, intellectual property sharing, and explicit labor rights guarantees are sufficient to turn potential exploitation into forced growth.
Still others fear that Human-Machine Co-creation will ultimately lead to the alienation of the humanistic spirit. Quite the opposite: when humans are entirely liberated from repetitive labor at the pixel and frame level, they are, for the first time, capable of dedicating their full intellectual and emotional energy to the archaeology of intent, the authenticity of emotion, the guarantee of ethics, and the translation of culture. Human-Machine Co-creation is not the end of the humanities, but its revival on a higher dimension.
7. Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence is not the terminator of digital media education, but its most profound liberator and opportunity for rebirth. It terminates the old legitimacy partly based on low-level manual skills and knowledge hoarding, while simultaneously ushering in a new era of humanism centered on Intentional Directing, Value Guarantee, and Mixed Co-creation.
When we truly complete the triple contemporary shift—from knowledge-based to competency-based, from school-centric to deep industry-education co-governance, and from human-only creation to human-machine co-creation—the Digital Media Technology major will no longer be a passive pursuer in the technological torrent, but a subject capable of actively defining how humans and AI jointly create a meaningful world.
This is the consistent core belief of this paper: only by achieving the fundamental shift from “teaching students to use tools” to “teaching students to define tools, direct AI, and be responsible for AI” can the Digital Media Technology major completely reconstruct its educational legitimacy and professional soul in the age of Artificial Intelligence.
In this transition, students are no longer operators of more powerful software, but the absolute sovereign of intent, the critical diagnostician of models, and the ultimate ethical guarantor of generated output. They can not only co-create alongside the most cutting-edge non-human intelligences in the real-world domain of industry-education co-governance, but also resolutely press the veto button in the face of the most perfect technical output, assuming the inescapable responsibility for the meaning of every frame, every sound, and every pixel.
Only in this way can digital media education break free from the old paradigm of instrumental rationality, ushering in a new humanistic vision that both embraces the most radical possibilities of technology and guards humanity’s deepest value commitments—a vision that is highly professional yet deeply imbued with humanistic warmth. This is not only the practical path for the major’s survival but also the last line of defense and the highest expression of human creativity and dignity in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Thus, the triple shift closes the loop, and the Digital Media Technology major welcomes its true phoenix moment in the refining fire of Artificial Intelligence.
References
Rao J, Xiong M. A new art design method based on AIGC: Analysis from the perspective of creation efficiency[C]//2023 4th international conference on intelligent design (ICID). IEEE, 2023: 129-134.
Crompton H, Burke D. Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education[J].
Cardona M A. Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning[J]. 2023.
Manovich L. AI aesthetics[M]. Moscow: Strelka Press, 2018.
Miller A I. The artist in the machine: The world of AI-powered creativity[M]. Mit Press, 2019.
Floridi L. AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative models[J]. Philosophy & technology, 2023, 36(1): 15.
Epstein Z, Hertzmann A, Investigators of Human Creativity, et al. Art and the science of generative AI[J]. Science, 2023, 380(6650): 1110-1111.
Rojas M P, Chiappe A. Artificial intelligence and digital ecosystems in education: A review[J]. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2024, 29(4): 2153-2170.
Sergeeva O V, Masalimova A R, Zheltukhina M R, et al. Impact of digital media literacy on attitude toward generative AI acceptance in higher education[C]//Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Media SA, 2025, 10: 1563148.
Yuan Zhenguo. How education transforms in the AI era?: Live interview by Shanghai Government Counsellor Office[EB/OL]. (2024-02-26)[2025-11-27]. https://css.sh.gov.cn/gzdt/20250226/a27c4d6bb4dd457fa8dc6a5c9bdc3ebf.html.
Li Zaolin, Tang Tianyi. Innovation and application of AIGC real-time painting in interaction design[J]. Design, 2024(9): 1050.
Zhu Dingkun, Guo Dan. Application research of AIGC technology in the teaching of digital media technology courses[J]. Advances in Education, 2024, 14: 1014.
Xu J. Exploration of the Applications of Image-based AIGC in Art Education[J]. Advances in Social Development and Education Research, 2024, 1(3): 60-65.
Luo D. Exploration of the Reform of Art and Design Education Curriculum System in Local Contexts Empowered by AIGC[J]. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 2024, 7(12): 72-80.
Jiang Q, Zhang Y, Wei W, et al. Evaluating technological and instructional factors influencing the acceptance of AIGC-assisted design courses[J]. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 7: 100287.
Huang K L, Liu Y C, Dong M Q, et al. Integrating AIGC into product design ideation teaching: An empirical study on self-efficacy and learning outcomes[J]. Learning and Instruction, 2024, 92: 101929.
Wang Zhijun. Research on the construction of a practical platform for university entrepreneurship education based on industry-education integration[J]. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 2022, 40(10): 125-130.
Wang Zhuli. How is technology changing education? — Also on the impact of artificial intelligence on education[J]. e-Education Research, 2018, 39(4): 5-11.
Wang D, Liu Y, Jing X, et al. Catalyst for future education: An empirical study on the Impact of artificial intelligence generated content on college students’ innovation ability and autonomous learning[J]. Education and Information Technologies, 2025, 30(8): 9949-9968.