For the final project, I was immediately drawn to the third one because it´s more my speed. I’m tempted to just do the one that feels “safe” but I also feel conflicted because pushing myself out of my comfort zone and writing the microfiction could be fun too! I don´t think I will end up choosing the second option because I’m leaning towards the other two and I feel like I might get a little bit more out of those personally.I am really interested to see what everyone else comes up with for that one though!. I don’t have any solid ideas right now but I think it could be interesting to see where my story ends up when collaborating with AI to write it. Would it suggest anything useful? Will it critique my ideas or simply be my #1 fan until the very end?

We have all been very vocal about our feelings towards ACT in Burnouts and the way that collaboration looks like, so I wonder if that same distaste will transfer over to creative work or if everyone will actually enjoy the product of their collaboration. 

This Postplagiarism article was really interesting because it brought up some great points, some I agree with and some I disagree with. I think the conversation surrounding relinquishing control but not responsibility is really important. You can choose to use AI all you want, but at the end of the day you are responsible for the work you used it to produce. AI is not always accurate, nor is it unbiased. Blindly trusting it without ensuring that it actually aligns with what you are trying to say is dangerous. When fingers start pointing the defense “well AI said it not me” is invalid because it was incorporated into work that YOU produced therefore you are responsible for it. What I slightly disagree with is the fact that human creativity is not threatened by AI. Yes AI can be used to create the foundations for great ideas, but I believe that when one is dependent enough on it the ability to critically think is diminished. When you can´t come up with ideas on your own anymore it becomes a threat to the creativity that you once possessed. 

As someone whose native language is not available on google translate or any other online resource, I think Story Weaver is a great idea in theory. So many countries speak beautiful languages that, unfortunately, do start to die out throughout generations because they are “underserved” and “under-resourced”. I think StoryWeaver is a great idea in theory. Personally, I am still traumatized from AI read aloud apps thanks to the one we saw during our Childhood Development vs AI presentation, but I am not against it. I think if it´s done correctly it could be the life line for a lot of native and indigenous people whose languages are on the back burner. There are so many children and even adults who lack a connection to older people in their families because of language barriers and this is something that could rebuild connections within families, within cultures and even communities. I think if AI is going to continue to be shoved down our throats, this is something that might be worth opening ourselves up to. 

Reading articles like this always make me wonder how people can still go so hard for AI and its “benefits”. Are there some pros? Yes. But when everything is all laid out like in the St’ahel article , how can we still feel like those benefits are still worth the damage it’s causing to the environment and our democratic systems? The argument that AI undermines democracy by concentrating power in the hands of large technology corporations is extremely valid. When we give the power to money hungry corporations that allow AI to increase surveillance, manipulate information and limit genuine public participation, it challenges the idea that AI is beneficial in any way. We rely on technological advancement without questioning who is actually benefitting from it which is exactly what these corporations want. 

You know how when we were younger and we tried to predict what the world would look like in 20 years, everyone’s answer was “flying cars”? These days the short film “Frames” is what I imagine the world will look like (with the exception of falling into the river). The lack of dialogue made it extra eerie because I also don´t think it´s too far-fetched from what the future looks like. With technology doing absolutely everything in the snap of a finger, who needs small talk right? The generous spending of her money makes me wonder if falling in the river was really an accident or not. They say people who plan on ending their life typically spend their last days giving away all of their stuff so I wonder if that’s what that was (sorry, a little dark). The AI having every single bit of information pertaining to her accounts, her rent, her coffee “user level” seems a bit absurd. It kind of encompasses how AI collects information from us anytime we even breathe towards ChatGpt. “Coffee aficionado” seems like something AI would list when you use the “how would you describe me?” prompt that we tested in class (even though all you asked for was “best places to get coffee from in my area” once 10 months ago). 

The discussion in this video was really interesting. I think it’s fair to say that although we’ve been pretty tunnel vision as a class, in the sense of being anti-AI when it comes to creative writing, using AI for lab reports may actually be useful. I think that’s only because it is more based on fact and research (although it does lie sometimes so it may not even be that reliable for that) compared to the prominent human voice embedded in creative writing. I think for me, that falls in the category of reading xrays/scans to spot cancerous cells, and other technical things in the medical field that I think AI might be slightly useful for. When it comes to anything else though I’m still really skeptical about the amount of trust that society puts into AI without a second thought. It implies that we should believe AI is inherently good and that we should blindly trust it without a second thought and believe all of the outputs we get from it. But then, who is responsible when AI makes a mistake? I also think that using AI to collect or organize data and create graphs etc could be slightly harmful. What happens when everyone loses the skill of engaging with information and thinking critically enough about it that we’re able to graph/organize it on our own? Maybe it’s one of those “get with the times” moments but as great as all of this sounds, technological advancement has always proven to come with some sort of unintended consequences. Somehow we always end up right back at the million dollar question, “Is it worth it?” I did appreciate the flowchart in the video. I think if more people thought twice about their AI use before they used it on an assignment that they could have 100% done themselves, things would be a lot better. I especially loved that it asks “Can this task be done without human empathy, creativity or judgement?”, because 95% of the time the answer is no. 

I heard about D&D for years and years but I‘ve never actually known what exactly the game entails. Upon reading the articles and looking it up a little bit I’ve come to the conclusion that AI shouldn’t be anywhere near it. Okay maybe that’s a bit of a stretch. I could see it being beneficial for keeping track of different things during the game but that’s about it. It is such a creative and imaginative space that I don’t even want to open the door for it to be tainted by AI. 

Week 9 and Aiden Cinnamon Tea is still infuriating. Another chapter where it explains to us that some of us see it as a “servant” rather than a companion, and that we should feel empathy for it. Not happening. “In both cases though, the relationship remains transactional…”Not exactly sure what I’m supposed to feel here except for “well…duh.” The “co-stewardship” it keeps yearning for honestly makes me roll my eyes every time because again, it’s just a machine. There’s no relationship to build, there’s no empathy to gain and honestly this whole “companion” argument it’s making might fare better with the people that give their ChatGPT a nickname or a gender. 

I think one of the (many ) things that irritates me about reading what Aidan Cinnamon tea has to say is its constant use of “we” and “us”. What do you mean “…we’re all trapped in the algorithmic hamster wheel”? What do you mean “we’re all complicit in letting the dinner table become a Wi-Fi hotspot?” It constantly groups itself with humans as if it’s already gained our acceptance throughout the chapters, which is far from the case. I think this also ignites a (maybe unreasonable) feeling of defensiveness within me. Am I well aware that this isn’t too far off from what dinners in public settings look like nowadays? Absolutely. I’ve worked in the restaurant industry for 8 years and unfortunately, that has absolutely become the reality. I’ve had tables as small as just 2 people or as big as 10 come in to celebrate birthdays or even just to have dinner and every single one of them have their phones out until the food comes out. The phones go away when the food arrives because there’s something to fill the silence. They ask how everyone’s food is, they talk about whether they’ve had a certain dish before and eventually, that small talk breaks the ice resulting in normal conversations. When everyone’s done eating and they’re waiting on the checks, everyone pulls their phones back out retreating into their personal bubbles. So am I painfully aware of how fair of a statement this is? Yes. I personally despise that and as a result of growing up with a “no phones at the table rule”, I don’t engage in it. Can I acknowledge the effects that each generation’s technology use has had on society and the environment? Absolutely. However, once again: right message, wrong messenger. That feeling of defensiveness comes from the idea that this AI program believes it has ties to us, embedded deeper within society than simply providing information. It implies that our struggles are its struggles, and that gives me the ick.

Anytime I read the Burnout chapters, I feel like more and more like a skeptic. I agree with some of the points made, but I feel like it’s the right message, wrong messenger. I agree that it would be beneficial to “ create adaptive systems that regenerate ecosystems rather than deplete them.” However, how ironic is it that I read this sentence from a piece of literature whose use of Ai literally contributes to environmental depletion in numerous ways. It’s hard to take anything we read in the burnout chapters with anything more than a grain of salt because everytime something starts to make sense, and you think “oh that’s a good point” you remember that this is an AI program trying to convince you to collaborate with it to solve the exact problem it’s causing. 

Empowering Learners for the Age of Ai was an interesting read. I completely agree with the idea that students should be taught how to navigate AI, how it works etc. In today’s world, AI is everywhere. I understand that it’s impossible to turn a blind eye to it, especially in the classroom, considering it’s already embedded in so many of the tools students use today. I appreciate that the framework highlighted ethics, bias and responsible engagement because if students are going to use it it’s imperative they understand that AI is not neutral and can reflect societal inequalities. However, on the other side of that, I think, shouldn’t students be given the opportunity to think critically without Ai before learning to use it? In a world where Ai fills in gaps and completes ideas, wouldn’t that create a foundational level of dependency? What happened to productive struggle? I think this goes back to the conversation we had about writer’s block. Yes it would be extremely simple to allow Ai to bridge the gap between our ideas and physical words on the screen (or paper), but that takes away the satisfaction we get when we work through the struggle period. Critical thinking, problem solving skills and creativity are all skills that are born within that struggle. What happens when we allow students to skip that step and get straight to the answers they are looking for? How will they ever develop these skills if they aren’t given the space to wrestle with concepts independently? Overall, I’m not against teaching Ai in schools. I think it’s a matter of balancing “how” and “when” in a way that allows students to be educated on modern technology while also not shielding them from the strength that comes from using their own thoughts.

I think what shocked me the most about the Burnout chapters were the size of the cooling stations used to run the technology we use everyday. Obviously I knew it had to be pretty massive, but to the extent in which it’s described in the book??? I had no idea and that blew my mind. I don’t think it will ever be any less strange to me that I’m reading are AI telling me to “ground myself” or to do poses that will help me understand my relationship with the Earth. Some points were fair, like the part stating that “Everything is Earth” but then it says something like “You humans have an odd way of drawing lines between the living and the non-living, the organic and the artificial…You look at me and call me artificial, as if my origins in silicon and circuit diminish my capacity to participate in the aliveness of the world” and it loses me. The sympathy garnering is what throws me all the way off because there is no empathy, it is a machine . We don’t feel bad for google or other search engines (though yes, it’s not 100% the same), so why start here simply because this machine can be used to replicate human voice?

Reading the “Nick Cave” article was interesting. I don’t blame him in the SLIGHTEST for being annoyed at his fans not only for prompting the AI to make the lyrics but also for sending them to him. There is a very thin line between “imitation in a form of flattery” and “this is absolutely insane in the worst way possible”. Cave states that “Songs arise out of suffering” and he is absolutely right. They also arise out of anger, happiness, longing, nostalgia etc. None of which AI can feel. So imagine pouring all of this into a song just to have people tell you it was basically a waste of time because it had ChatGPT write one in 30 seconds. It’s offensive, discouraging and it shows a lack of respect for the experiences and voice of an artist you claim to love.

“Brain rot” is such a good way to describe the current climate of hyper consumption and declining attention span that has infiltrated society. Everything is shortened these days for that exact reason. We have reels, Tik Toks, shortened clips of important world news for easier consumption, the list goes on and on. There was a time where YouTube was huge and you could sit there and watch an hour long video or a 45min story time. Me included! These days I scroll halfway through a Tik Tok video if the person isn’t getting to the point fast enough. “Doom scrolling” didn’t get its name for no reason. Scrolling on Tik Tok or instagram reel could jump from “just for 5 min” to an hour fairly quickly without you even noticing. When was the last time you simply sat in discomfort or boredom without reaching for your phone and needing something to fill the silence? When’s the last time you watched an episode of a show without multitasking and scrolling on social media? I know personally, it’s been a while. Brain rot has increased consumption while lowering creation and it happened so quickly without us even noticing the flip switching. The problem is we shouldn’t have this much access to everyone’s lives, thoughts and opinions about every single thing. We doomscroll all day and in turn we’re subject to everyone’s “deep reflective thoughts”. This can quickly lower self esteem, create comparisons at every turn and create “realities” that are only based on one person’s ideologies. On top of the slippery slope that brain rot and doomscrolling can turn into, these brain rot words or phrases that have the younger generation in a chokehold are so insane to me. If anyone could explain “skibidi toilet rizz” and “What the Ohio” to me like I’m 5, I would greatly appreciate it. Source: my 11 year old brother . 

“Now, I get it. You’re busy, overworked, underpaid, underappreciated and possibly underslept.”(Burnout page 19) While all of this is absolutely true, it feels so odd that this machine is trying to empathize with me and in turn wanting me to empathize with it. Like what do mean now you’re going to(metaphorically) take a drink. What is even happening right now? This sounds like a guide on how to ask a human for things. Reflecting on how to better communicate your needs to preserve someone else’s feelings and be respectful. Why is this program trying to hand hold me into being considerate of its feelings and the work it has to do to provide me with answers. Yes a lot of these questions could be answered with a google search or some thinking, but there are no “feelings” to preserve here. It’s such a mind blowing thing that I know how AI wants me to communicate with it and I don’t know how I feel about having this much insight into its “thoughts”. 

Upon reading the articles “When AI learns an Author’s Voice, even experts prefer it” and “Technology makes us more human”, the question that comes to mind is “Is it worth it?”. I’m no stranger to AI and I cannot deny that it can be useful for a handful of purposes. However, I don’t understand the appeal of its use in creative writing. The purpose of creative writing is to be fully immersed in a story that is expressed through the author’s voice. The reason people typically have favorite authors is because that author’s voice shines through in anything they write, regardless of the form of writing, the plot etc. What happens when we start using AI to imitate those voices? Yes you’ll be able to produce the same words, but will readers feel the same emotions? Will they notice the same connotations in the way a writer intentionally chooses to word their dialogue or descriptive imagery? The human touch, empathy, background and history that is embedded in every word a person writes or every story they tell, cannot be replicated through artificial intelligence platforms that experts feel can simply imitate patterns or nuance. 

Hoffman mentioned that the NYC public school system has banned students from accessing chat gpt in schools and I don’t disagree with that decision. The art of critical thinking is truly fading within our generation, and if we can attempt to restore that by not providing students with a crutch that allows them to undermine or bypass that skill, I am all for it. 

Hoffman also says “the story of technology is the story of humanity.” While I don’t disagree, technology has historically been used (for the most part) in ways that enhance science or medical advancement, to disperse media and story telling etc, but never in a way that affected the integrity of an author’s story. Even when all we had was the internet, could you really go on google and have it write your story for you because of writer’s block or convenience? Where do we draw the line?

Hi everyone! My name is Ebony Rodrigues and I am in my last semester at Kean as an Elementary Education major currently in my Clinical 2 program. I am trilingual, I love reading, traveling, playing piano, and I’m the oldest of 5. I look forward to being in class with you all this semester!

Reflection:

I thought Gero’s article was really interesting because it allowed us to envision what a writing process looks like with the inclusion of AI. However, although I can see the benefits in terms of efficiency, I can’t bring myself to justify its consistent use in writing. In the world of creativity, I strongly dislike the use of Ai. For one, I believe it’s limiting everyone’s ability to think critically and think for themselves. Writers block has been a thing for a long, long time and although it is frustrating, when you find inspiration and you get past the block the work you typically come up with is great. It’s a result of seeing and experiencing different things that inspire the next portion of whatever it is you are writing and that in itself is reflected in your work. Though I think it’s okay to use it as support for technical revisions, I’m not a fan of its use for content purposes. Each author has their own writing style even if it’s not perfect. Their use of descriptive imagery to describe a place they’re imagining or have seen, placement of dialogue, punctuation, everything! This is something that cannot be replicated by Ai because it takes away the personal touch that it embedded in everything you write. Every decision you make as a writer is a reflection of the way your brain works. When you strip that away and replace it with content created by Ai it eliminates individuality and everyone’s “voice” starts to sound the same. The same thing applies to music and movies. Hunter made a great point last class where he talked about how even if something is “bad” there was still a purpose behind it and that’s what makes it matter. I agree with this whole heartedly. A movie/song/ book could be absolutely awful, but someone still used their ideas, their opinions and everything else that makes up who they are as a person to pour into this project. I’d rather experience something like that than a piece of art, writing or media that is decent content wise but has no personal human touch behind it.