The Storyweaver article raises several significant concerns. In addition to the requirement that translation AI models need over 100,000 translations before producing acceptable results, there are substantial labor costs involved. It is unsurprising to me that individuals providing data for these AI models are not being compensated fairly. Companies such as Outlier AI similarly contract people to translate for AI models at minimum wage. However, the article’s statement that some individuals were paid less than minimum wage is particularly troubling. Although these workers are from other countries, this practice constitutes exploitation through low wages. I believe that such exploitation has always existed, but it appears to be intensifying. Once AI models are sufficiently trained, positions that could have provided stable employment for translators are rapidly disappearing. This is currently happening in my school district, and at my mother’s company. Executives are very excited about these new AI tools. However, I keep telling my mother that these tools are designed to reduce labor costs, not to increase convenience. One day her team will be laid off, and then it will be her. With that being said, translator roles are being eliminated nationwide. These models are not primarily developed for convenience; rather, they are designed to reduce labor costs and thereby increase shareholder value.

In response to Sarah Elaine Eaton’s article, I would like to propose a potential solution, though I anticipate it would be met with considerable resistance. The widespread use of artificial intelligence to generate term papers is a growing issue. Students at all educational levels, from K-12 to doctoral programs, are utilizing AI to complete their assignments. While this constitutes plagiarism and carries consequences, the scale of the problem has become overwhelming, making consistent enforcement unsustainable. Additionally, as much research has already been conducted, the risk of unintentional plagiarism has increased. At this stage, I believe that in certain fields, research should no longer be the primary focus. Instead, we should transition toward capstone-based dissertations and theses.

As someone currently in the classroom, I struggle to see the necessity of completing a purely research-based dissertation or thesis. These final program assessments should be more experience-based. This is not to say that research does not matter, because it absolutely does. However, we should be moving toward more experience-driven practices. Personally, I strongly dislike theses and dissertations and see them as an inefficient use of time. I believe this is one reason why students turn to A.I.; they simply do not find these projects meaningful. We need to transform these requirements into something more impactful than thousands of hours spent researching and writing without practical application. As hurtful as this may sound, if I was an administrator at any level, I would want my team members to be using experience-based practices that are backed up by research, not using research-based practices that are purely theory-based.