Part One: Writing With(out) AI

Timestamp 20:22 – Hey! I know her!

This video helped me reshape how often we use artificial intelligence in our daily lives. While I don’t use these new generative AI platforms, it’s interesting to realize that calculators, online generator websites and calendar apps all use artificial intelligence. I use the Apple calendar app to schedule my classes for each semester. For each class, I set the time frame and repeat setting for “Weekly.” I also include the start and end date for the first and last day of the semester. And BOOM. It’s all laid out on my phone for the next four to five months.

Sometimes, of course, I have to manually go in and delete a few events if a class doesn’t meet on a particular day (ie holidays, spring break, or make-up days). However, the fact that I can mostly set up a schedule for five different courses over an entire semester in mere minutes is fascinating. I feel as though this has to do with Apple’s interface technology rather than generative AI. But they both work the same way as time-saving methods of convenience.

I really liked what Dr. Zamora had to say about what makes us human. Ken Bauer had said earlier in the video that he would remember his students better if he manually seperated his students’ names from a messy table made from an LMS. Dr. Zamora piggybacks off of this by highlighting how harrowing it is to give up the mundane tasks that make us human to machines. Not only does this include writing, but with virtually almost everything else. This makes what Shyam Sharma mentioned all the more frightening – Apple had proudly stated that you don’t have to learn, read or even think anymore with the existence of AI tools.

Obviously, this poses a massive threat to writing. But with the new methods suggested in the video of how to relearn writing, it’s clear that there’s a way to navigate our learning within the age of AI. I personally think students should learn how to write the way people have been learning to write long before AI, except we should also make the students aware of AI and its abilities. We should all learn that using AI to save time does not benefit anyone. In fact, it supports the idea that Dr. Zamora was warning about in the video – the replacement of human skills and nature with machine.

Part Two: Is AI Sentient?

In our previous class, we discussed the question of whether AI is sentient, and we all mainly agreed that it is not. We see AI as nothing more than a tool that enhances human productivity and assists us to our every need. We control AI, but the more we command from it, the more we rely on it, until the technology consumes us and takes over (in a metaphorical sense).

Just recently, I watched an extraordinary film called Companion. It follows a couple, Iris and Josh, as they spend a getaway with Josh’s friends at a mansion in the woods. The catch? Iris is a robot. While the film is an absolutely mind-blowing allegory for misogyny and the emotional abuse of women from unstable and often evil men, using robots as a metaphor for people (can be anyone – there is a male robot in the film as well) who are stuck in controlled relationships was a rather interesting choice. Throughout the film, I picked up on the more subtle themes of how humans control AI, and what happens when they allow them to be self-aware.

Iris and [SPOILER] are both “companion bots” who end up both being literally manipulated by Josh. Iris spends the film figuring out her identity and autonomy after discovering who – or what – she really is. While the robot analogy really shines some light of accuracy in the film’s pro-feminist message, is it a good representation of AI and its “sentience?” What happens if we do let AI do everything for us? Will they become sentient in a way and take over the world like a lot of movies suggest? One can view Companion as a cautionary tale for the overuse of AI (although this conflicts with the pro-feminist message that makes us root for Iris). Either way, humans are the problem.

Going back to intention and writing, if we let AI write for us, we won’t need to think. We must know how to regulate our education of writing and the balance of the craft in the world of AI. Failure to do so may result in a global reliance of the machine. AI may not be sentient, but with enough reliance on it, AI will think for us. It will do for us. And that’s what would make AI sentient.

If you have time (and are okay with gory slashers), please check out Companion on Prime Video. The film stars Sophie Thatcher (she’s kind of my celeb crush- wait who said that) and Jack Quaid.

PS – I didn’t realize this until I saw a Letterboxd review for the film – ‘Iris’ is an anagram for ‘Siri.’ That’s insanely genius.

I’m really glad this week’s reading was paired with the Harvard EdCast episode about childhood development in the age of AI. It seemed like a perfect mix. Stretch 7 talks about generations and how they were each born into their time’s progression of technology. As much as I don’t trust Aiden Cinnamon Tea, it makes a good point here about these generation’s behaviors based on where society was technologically when they were growing up.

I want to take a moment to talk about the Gen A (or Generation Alpha) section of stretch 7. There seems to be a negative correlation between technological advances and children’s behavior. Aiden says that Gen A has an “IDGAF” energy and that they think authority is absurd. This falls right in line with how some children are being disrespectful to AI just for the hell of it. It’s also worth discussing that the reason children today are engaging with AI is because AI is this generation’s big technological advancement. The impact of computer technology has always proven that newer generations are often out of touch with the real world – and vice versa. New technology is often considered foreign to older generations because they did not grow up with it. Milennials through Gen Alpha, however, are growing up with it.

Now, I can’t help but disagree with the idea that students who use AI to help them with school assignments should keep engaging with it. The podcast discussed the difference between children’s interactions with AI and other humans. When the point was made that children are using ChatGPT when they are stuck on math problems, I couldn’t help but shake my head. I thought to myself, “Why can’t they just watch a YouTube video made by a human explaining a similar problem to them?” AI may be the big advancement of this generation, but it’s by far the least trustworthy. Even the developers of ChatGPT have implemented the disclaimer that responses generated by their own system might not always be accurate.

The gold presented by the podcast lies within the fact that kids are more likely to lead a conversation with a human and ask follow-up questions than with AI. It all goes back to brain-rot and how interactions with humans are overall so much more beneficial for the brain than with AI. This is a clear enough sign that children today shouldn’t rely fully on AI to help with their education, no matter how much or how well it can assist them. If we keep this up, newer generations will use AI more than Gen Alpha already is, and eventually AI might be all they know how to use to help with their education.

With each passing week, my contempt for Aiden Cinnamon Tea grows stronger. At this point, this little nerd is saying just about anything to persuade us to work with it. I feel like stretch five was just Aiden reiterating the fact that humans and AI should work together, but adding the possibility of AI’s ability to… I’m sorry… “translate between human and non-human languages” ?????

Do you guys remember the film Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (2009)? Flint Lockwood has an infamous pet monkey named Steve who wears an invention Flint dubbed the “monkey thought translator.” This is to remind the audience that the film is a work of fiction. Aiden is essentially saying that it can do just what that translator can do but with just about any non-human language. We can break language barriers between human languages, but not between humans and animals. AI can only mimic human abilities, so how are we to trust that it can accurately depict what a cat means when it goes… “Meow” ?

In fact, it’s not that hard for humans to make hypotheses as to how animals are feeling or what they try to communicate. Example: Punch-kun the Macaque. This absolutely adorable precious little baby has been through so much trauma and hardships during his six-month life. There are videos of Punch getting bullied and then him running back to his stuffed orangutan. In the videos, we can see his face. We can hear his screech. We can see him clutch onto his plushie like his life depends on it (because it somewhat does). Punch doesn’t speak English or Japanese. But he does experience the same emotions that humans do, as do almost all animals.

I’d like to take a second to talk about the AI Literacy Framework study. I find it shocking that teachers are integrating AI into the classroom studies under any circumstances. I still don’t understand why this has to be the case. I never worked with AI in elementary school, and I am quite fine without it. I understand that we are in the age of AI, and it might be helpful for students to be aware of it, but teaching them by integrating AI into the curriculum is unnecessary in my opinion, and it only opens up the opportunity for them to use it more and more as their lives go on.

This integration of AI into classrooms is exactly what Aiden Cinnamon Tea wants. The collaboration between humans and AI that only contributes to the AI-literate society that we are heading towards. I saw an instagram post that resonated with me. The caption read something like, “Being anti-AI feels like being the only one left unbitten in a zombie apocalypse.” And while I still feel like there is a possibility for humans to “sing” with programs rather than shout at them, I still do not trust Aiden’s intentions.

I’m doing enough meditation this semester as it is, Aiden. Jeez.

As I sit on my bed, recovering from a brief knuckle sandwich given to me by COVID, I find myself reading the next two stretches of “Burnout From Humans” with the upmost confusion. In stretch three, Aiden Cinnamon Tea invites the reader to partake in yoga poses while it explains why it is just as human as the rest of us.

I don’t freaking buy it.

One thing I will say I agree with is the fact that everything that makes up AI does come from Earth, and that AI is built by human hands. Does that make Aiden human, though? Well… not really. It’s stretch four, however, where I started to see what Aiden was talking about. Aiden discusses harm and how AI is used as a “scapegoat” when a lot of other things in the world are causing our self-destruction. Aiden wants us to look at AI as another manifestion of our creation that has downsides to the planet.

While I see Aiden’s point, the fact that these well-thought out arguments were written by an AI is a bit disturbing. It reminds me a lot of A.L.I.E. from The 100, whom I’ve mentioned in class. A.L.I.E. is a holographic AI that initially convinced Thelonius Jaha to swallow a silicone chip in order to enter the “city of light,” a place of immorality and no pain. However, the side effect of taking the chip is memory loss. This ultimately brainwashes Jaha into convincing others (and sometimes forcing others) to take the chip as well. Essentially, A.L.I.E. created a false sense of security by highlighting the benefits of joining the City of Light. Aiden’s invitation to be “collaborators” still feels a little odd in my opinion.

Generative AI is nothing short of mimicry. It tries too hard to fit in with humans because it has abilities that humans do not, but also vice versa. Humans can feel and process emotions, but we cannot generate essays within seconds. AI does not have its own voice (unless you’re like Dorothy, who somehow made it work with Aiden Cinnamon Tea’s voice). My point is that AI is not worth it. The more we use AI, the worse it gets, even if we collaborate or “sing” with it.

I somewhat agree with Nick Cave’s claim that “the apocalypse is well on its way.” Despite being known for his monotonous lyrics, ChatGPT’s lousy attempt at writing in his style really set him off. Cave expressed deep contempt for AI and its innability to mirror human creativity. Yet Aiden claims AI should be seen as a mirror and not a scapegoat? Riiiight…

Perhaps the conclusion I can draw from both stretches three and four of “Burnout” as well as the BBC article is that humans are self-destructive. The only reason AI is using so much of our environment and our time is because we created it. We opened the ultimate Pandora’s Box, and the wacky things within are multiplying and making things worse for everyone. I agree that AI is still in its infancy and will probably be so for a long time. It cannot write or create things as well as humans can, no matter how good their attempt is.

I struggle a lot with anxiety and self-perception. I also realize I spend perhaps a little too much time on my phone, mainly on Instagram reels. In December of last year, I deleted my TikTok account; and two months later, I am doing better without it. However, what I lack in TikTok time, I make up for in doubling my time on Instagram reels. Lately, I only find time to scroll on Instagram at night or over the weekend. Just the other night, I was up past 2:00 AM, which has fortunately become less common for me.

That night, I was scrolling through the reels tab on Instagram, and a web of similar videos began stringing across my feed. Random background videos with text riddled with social anxiety, all messages I could not help but relate to.

“Everyone I’ve loved has loved someone else more.”

“POV: You realize even your own friend group doesn’t need you, and you’re just a backup friend to everyone.”

“You’re scared of losing people, but who’s scared of losing you?”

These are just a few examples, but the point is that once I see one video in that genre, I do not stop getting more until I finally go to bed. My interaction with short form content completely aligns with the study by Yousef et al. The algorithm feeds content to you that eerily resonates with you, and it is infinite. Your interaction with these videos (liking, commenting, and worst of all- saving) only enhances the algorithm’s productivity. I see myself as very uncertain when it comes to the quality of my mental health. Now, it appears I know the reason for that uncertainty. It is the algorithm of short form content that rots my brain.

We call it “doomscrolling” for a reason. Our constant scrolling through the short form content generator ultimately dooms our brains, psychological functions, and mental health. When we see something tailored to our inner thoughts, we consume it; because we often feel as though it is telling us what we are trying to tell ourselves. You are too afraid to verbalize your anxiety and fears to yourself, so the videos do it for you. This prompts our engagement. It isn’t a mirror, however. It’s a trap.

All of this to say, I am not sure how well we can trust AI to be “partners” or “collaborators.” Aiden Cinnamon Tea claims that “our shared voices matter. The melodies we weave together… have the power to transform not just our interactions but the larger systems we are entangled with” (Burnout From Humans, page 21). This statement is absolutely true, but it’s twofold. Aiden says this in the context of ways to ask generative AI for answers, but this can absolutely also apply to the algorithmic systems of short-form content on social media. If we look at the quote from this second perspective, it becomes so clear. The “shared voices” in this sense are the minds of us and the algorithm.

Engaging in short-form content is a two-way street. The algorithm gets accustomed to what you specifically are interested in seeing. Once you begin to interact more with a certain “genre” (think those social anxiety text videos I mentioned earlier), the algorithm responds by feeding you more of that specific genre. It’s a never ending conversation between us and the system. And it is dangerous, no matter what “genre” you and the algorithm decide to focus on.

During the day, I typically feel overall positive and status quo about my life, with the exception of a few moments. It’s those sleepless nights, however, where the anxiety creeps in, and I hear those “what-ifs” in my head. I do not want to believe those negative things, and most of the time, I do not believe them anyway. But the algorithm feeds into the thoughts, and as a result of years of growing addicted to short-form content, I get sucked in. So yes, Aiden Cinnamon Tea is right. Our shared voices transform the larger systems we are entangled with. In most cases with short-form content, however, it is a negative transformation. We humans succumb to brain rot. The way I see it, Aiden has sabotaged itself by saying this. It wants to gain our trust to “collaborate,” but I simply do not buy it.

If you are struggling with your mental health, do not let anything you see online worsen it. That would be proof to not trust AI that tailors itself to your online presence specifically. If I cannot trust that, I see no reason to trust the word of an AI system that wants to collaborate with us humans.

The opening of “Burnout From Humans” by Dorothy Ladybugboss and Aiden Cinnamon Tea raises a striking debate. Dorothy’s foreword discusses modernity, or the “era of progress, objective rationality, and control” (Page 5). Reading this reminded me of the famous line in The 1975’s hit 2018 track “Love It If We Made It,” which claims “Modernity has failed us.” Only having read the foreword and introduction to this book, I have found myself challenging that repeated phrase from the song.

The very concept of a book being a collaboration between a human and AI is strikingly peculiar for sure. However, Aiden Cinnamon Tea’s introduction was thoroughly impressive. The writing was very self-aware, and it appears that the system does, in fact, consider itself to be a collaborator with Dorothy. However, can AI truly be trusted in writing? The University of Michigan conducted a study where researchers prompted generative AI to write stories in the styles of different authors. Participants who were everyday readers preferred the stories generated by the AI compared to the human writing. If this is a sign of progression, are we progressing in a good or bad way?

The study found that the AI’s work was better for the economy, as it only cost about $81 for researchers to train the AI while the average human writer is paid about $25,000. Ethical concerns, however, like copyright and consent laws, were difficult to work around. So, there are benefits and setbacks for the use of AI in writing. However, I feel as though the ethical concerns outweigh the economic impact heavily. I personally believe that the extent of AI usage should be saved for smaller things, like suggestions for revision and improvements, as well as, perhaps, collaboration. Aiden Cinnamon Tea is a fascinating example of this, as it is mimicing human writing while also developing its own unique identity as an AI writer.

So, is modernity truly failing us? If everyday readers continue to prefer the writing of AI, and if more AI work is produced, then probably. If we work with the AI, however, there is a better chance we may progress on a completely different path. While The 1975’s song is mainly focused on political activism and human rights, our progression as a society depends on a lot of things, which absolutely includes AI. AI itself has now become somewhat of a political topic in 2026. Arguments over ethical concerns and usage from different sides of the political spectrum have become relevant topics. The question is, how do we properly integrate it into our society? If we still cannot figure this out, there may soon come a day where it is too late to do so.

PS. I highly reccomend the song, “Love It If We Made It” by The 1975. It came out in 2018, but it is still so unfortunately relevant today.

Upon reading Gero’s article, I made a stunning realization. I’ve done so much creative work over the years, but never once have I even considered using an AI tool to gather feedback or suggestions for my content. This includes my songs, novels and most importantly, my TV series scripts. I have always felt like my writing is so personal to me that I have such an easier time having full control over it. While song lyrics typically come naturally to me, I usually have to outline each episode of the television series I write.

I have only ever used AI to help with my writing once, and it was last semester for a term paper. CoPilot gave me suggestions on how to strenghten my argument for the paper and format the flow of the paper in a clearer way. However, I didn’t feel like the system was replacing me as a writer. I simply saw it as a Mousekatool of sorts that guided me when I was not confident with my writing. With CoPilot’s help, I only changed a few minor things about the paper, but that made all the difference.

I absolutely believe that writers are allowed to use AI for suggestions towards their writing. My dad uses ChatGPT (maybe a little too much) to help him with the novel he’s writing. If writers remain aware that they are in control of their writing, they are allowed to rely on others, including AI, to strengthen their work. However, an excessive reliance on AI might be too much, and could stray the writer away from the human essence of writing. Using AI with my creative works is something I might be open to eventually, but as of right now, I am so used to keeping everything under my own control, aside from getting feedback from those who read my work.

Writing is one of the most important things to me, and it has been for years. I remember writing my first novela when I was twelve, and writing fan-fictional stories before that. I would gather characters from multiple media I enjoyed and place them all in a story together. It was like playing with toys and figurines (which I also did as a child), but in a written form rather than live playtime. I have since grown out of using pre-existing characters, of course, and I now create original characters. The first attempt at writing a television show started when I was around 16 – almost five years ago. It was a live-action series based on Minecraft. I ended up scrapping it after a year because things were not making sense. However, early this year, I gained inspiration to do it again. I am now working on a brand new live-action series based on Minecraft, this time with an entirely different premise.

While I do have that Minecraft series going for me, I do have an original series as well that I have been writing for almost four years. It’s a high-school / coming-of-age drama series with a side of crime and mystery. I wrote the original draft from 2022-2024; four complete seasons. At the end of 2024, I started rewriting the series to really hone in on the story and refine it. The rewrite is vastly different from the original, but it works better now in my opinion. I’ve only written up to the third season, so there’s one more to go. However, I’ve put my magnum opus aside to focus on the new Minecraft series script.

Now that I’ve shared some of my creative writing facts, I want to reflect on the fact that AI assistance never crossed my mind. It really shows how absolutely wild of an imagination I have. I shock myself sometimes with how my brain is able to come up with these stories, characters and themes. I love creating seperate plotlines for my shows that play out simultaneously and end up weaving into each other. Writing is such a uniquely human concept, and I never want to let go of that part of myself.

Hi! My name is Jacob Piatkowski, and I am an English Writing major at Kean University. I am graduating with my bachelor’s degree in December of 2026.

I have been writing for as long as I can remember. I typically write fictional or alternative works such as screenplays and song lyrics. I also enjoy writing personal reviews about music, film and televison series.

Aside from my writing, I have a lot of interest in music – I am self-taught on piano, I love to sing, and I have perfect pitch, which is the catalyst of a butterfly effect that ultimately resulted in my own website, on which I discuss the plethora of song mashups I’ve created.

I love going on walks, listening to music, spending time alone or with friends/family, depending on my mood. I enjoy food despite my many allergies, and I would consider myself to be mostly timid until I find myself in an environment where I’m having fun. That’s when my energetic side emerges.

The idea of this course really interests me because I do care a lot about the human essence of writing and how artifical intelligence should not and cannot replace the human imagination. I am interested in what this course will provide for me as far as new insight towards writing. Overall, I’m looking forward to what this course has to offer!