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). 

For Sarah:
I was not expecting this paper to go over democracy; I thought we were going to be discussing just the environmental aspect of AI. I am very happy I was wrong, because this paper had some good stuff.

“… most frequently used AI technologies are almost exclusively created and operated by corporations, which means by institutions that are neither established nor governed by democratic principles and practices. Therefore, they do not have the internal mechanisms of self-limitation that would make it possible to assume that they will not abuse the power they have.” We might have mentioned something like this before. I can’t really remember all the garbo Cinnamon said, but I think something about AI would just keep advancing was mentioned. However, I do not recall it being blamed on the companies and them not having limitations, but it makes so much sense. AI did truly just happen as this brand new thing everyone wanted to use, without anyone stopping to think about the consequences. No one put any limitations on it and just let it go wild. We joke about the AI slop all the time, but there are some videos out there of humans that you have to look super close to see if it is AI. The companies put barely any limits on it, and it has been kind of a free-for-all. That being said, I have been more focused on the customer side of the free-for-all. With it not being governed, companies can sorta do whatever with AI. Like how it isn’t much of a choice where AI pops up: your emails, searches, social media, etc. The company side of things is something I never really considered. I always blamed the humans for using it and not the cause of how or why they were using it.

“Given the long-term, often unpredictable implications of new technologies for the maintenance of conditions suitable for truly human life on Earth, Jonas articulated the need to approach them from a perspective in which “the prophecy of doom is to be given greater heed than the prophecy of bliss” (Jonas 1984, p. 31). The aforementioned Doomsday Clock Statement approaches AI technologies from this perspective.” I once did an AI debate in a class with Dr. Guitar. This girl got SO heated that my side (AI is bad) was using too much fear. She blamed us for being fearful of AI and went on and on about how we shouldn’t let our fear limit this new technology. I still think she is wrong. Fear can limit things in bad ways. I am not saying everyone should be fearful of everything. I do see how fear can be harmful. I am not going to say that fearing new technologies is the thing to do. I am not going to fear the Switch 2, I will hate it for other reasons, but I won’t fear it. But AI? Something that isn’t needed in some places, but having access to everything? Something that can generate whatever someone wants? Yeah, I will fear that. Glad to see research has some fear to it, too.

“It turns out that Jonas’s approach is justified. Expectations that AI will be able to solve serious societal, or at least scientific, problems are confronted with a reality in which the current level of AI use is already generating many risks.” So real. “at least scientific.” My stance exactly. This entire time since the first documentary. This quote was picked just cause I agree with it a lot, nothing really new to add, since I yapped about AI harms already.

“… on the limitation and control of weapons of mass destruction will resist the temptation to use AI in the military, in the development of new nuclear or biological weapons, or in the monitoring of the communications and activities of citizens and public institutions or in the manipulation of public opinion, both of their populations and of the populations of countries that they consider hostile.” I’m sorry what. I have never considered this. The military could use AI too. That… that is a scary thought. The military is already a big boooo in my book, and now you can use AI??? I already disagree with harming citizens and other military people just because we can (there is never a good reason for war), and now AI can be involved? That just sounds like a mistake waiting to happen. All of that sentence was a not good future for us.

“The desire not to be left behind in this never-ending modernization race is then forcing even small countries to invest more and more financial, human, raw material, and energy resources in digitalization. As in the past, existing social relations, civil rights, and freedoms are being sacrificed to this externally imposed modernization, as well as the quality of the environment—nowadays, above all, the commitments arising from the Paris Climate Agreement (UN 2015).” This is yet another thing I did not consider. That people might see what is happening elsewhere and just jump onto the trend without realizing how bad it could be. This is a problem I never thought of, that other countries could also be advancing with AI or other problematic things to keep up with other countries, and now we are in deeper problems. While joining countries can be good, like health organizations that share cures or climate change things, this is bad when it comes to joining AI trends.

“Thus, digital empires are emerging (Harari 2024), which have a far greater capacity to monitor, extract, and manipulate information than any totalitarian regime of the last century had at its disposal.” How amazing (I say as a joke). Just putting this quote here cause it is also bad news. We love our information being stolen or sold, how joyous.

“while democracy is meant to guarantee basic human rights, in practice, it is often shaped by the interests of powerful technological giants.” More bad news. Hate this for us. I mean, that is how things go typically, the big, rich things in life control aspects. But it still sucks. I would love to get more into this, but I wanna give some attention to Oliver, so hopefully Sarah has some discussion questions for us cause this paper was very interesting.

For Oliver:

Imma be yapping as I watch. First of all, giving Black Mirror. So, hopefully it is just as good. I think it is interesting this possible camera has something in the top right that is like a schedule. “Dentist cancelled”. Why a camera needs this information is weird. Not helpful to the person in the house. I don’t see how it is helpful to anyone who is watching either. “Human objects” is funny to me cause does that mean it counts anything that is human like? The camera also tells the wind and temp. Again, not every helpful to the human in the house. Cause I assume that means they have to look at the camera to see this. Dang okay it can sense your apartment, rent, and if you paid it. Interesting. I guess all this is helpful to security? Not sure why the amount of rent is needed or if it is paid or not. Not really anyone’s business but the landlord. At least the place looks rich and nice. It has that going for it. I like that it is showing the different rent status so we can see they are possibly at different stages of life. Very big elevator to fit three people side to side.

All this fancy tech and no one can figure out a shoveling system?? This person having to walk through all this snow. I can not read the screen well enough to understand what happened when the person gave up their seat. DANG that person got a huge new balance, hello. Waiting for this to turn bad and I think it might soon. Tracking what you buy already happens, so nothing too new or scary here. I have things that email me of “it has been a while since your purchase” so the tracking last bought was also not too scary. Suggested items, just how we live today. I guess in the grand scheme of things that is scary and weird, but I kinda like when it knows what I want (usually just more Funkos or Sabrina Carpenter albums). It may make shopping easier for people who dislike it, but I can see why it is creepy to have something know you so well.

The books still being around in this time was hard to believe but okay. What is going on with this rich person? This may be dark of me, but are they like going to give up on life and that is why the money is being spent like crazy? Also what are we paying for? If it was the book or coffee, why not pay earlier? Are we paying to stay in places in this world? Now why is the camera concerned about the transaction? I feel like so many other things should be concerned. The bank, the restaurant, the waiter. Not the camera. Oh I see the thing now, if you are a good person, you get points for something. Are points money? Is that how people get rich? Ya know what, sign me up for that life. All that surveillance, but I get rich for being kind, say less. I mean, there could be problems with a system deciding what is kind or not, and that if you are having a bad day you could lose a lot of points based on accidents. But it seems sorta good…

I like that it somewhat shows how surveillance can be good and bad. Yes, all this watching is scary. But the camera was able to predict if there was going to be conflict. In times of crime, it can be a good or bad thing. Good if you were the victim, so that it isn’t a “he said she said” type of situation. Bad if you did something by accident. Surveillance is either good or bad, depending on where you are in a situation. Could be super helpful in saving your life or if you didn’t do something, bad if you are caught at a bad time or just don’t want to be watched.

Um. Okay. So it can watch all this stuff but not see her fall into the water and get help? Bad kind of surveillance. I thought it would be helpful in any sort of way. But noo. It did a bunch of watching and nothing else. Also, I called it.

Anyways, I like what the caption says, “A smart city tracks and analyzes a woman walking through the city. Things she does are interpreted and logged by the city system, but are they drawing an accurate picture of the woman?” Does anyone draw an accurate picture of us? Aren’t we always showing different sides of ourselves depending on the situation? This was a very good question to have in the caption, because it leads to a bunch of other questions. Hopefully, Oliver brings it up amongst other things, because this whole thing of surveillance is a popular topic when tech keeps advancing. In fact, this was one of the many topics talked about at the conference I went to on Saturday, but this topic got people heated. I wonder if the same thing will happen in class.

I have known for a while now, that A.I. is destroying the environment. Our politicians are aware of it as well. In Richard Stahel’s article, I noticed how he mentioned that the constitution and legal system only matters if these measures are enforced. If politicians refuse to act, nothing will happen. I feel as if we are at the point in our society where the politicians would rather ignore the issue and hope that it becomes another generation’s issue to deal with. Most politicians are at retirement age, and to them, this is not an issue that they will have to live through, so they don’t see a reason to act. It is a really selfish reason.

With regard to “Screening Surveillance,” I can’t believe how we are always being watched. Sometimes I will say something out loud, and then my phone is showing my advertisements for that specific product. It has even been proven that the government is listening to us, activating our cameras without our permission, and yet, nothing is being done, despite this clearly being unconstitutional. Now, we have A.I., and I’m sure the government is “DEFINITELY” not going to find some sort of way to have A.I. models spy on us.

As I was watching #tresdancing, I couldn’t help but laugh at the inconveniences that the student is going through. The A.I. model is just so invasive and really doesn’t care about what the student has to say. On a more serious note, we may all find these videos funny, but at some point, these A.I. models may very well become the reality that we live in. Who will be laughing then?

I think the first thing I have to admit before even getting into these readings is this. If my mother heard the words Dungeons and Dragons growing up, I would have been in immediate danger. Not metaphorical danger. Real danger.

So when I sat down to read “4 Reasons to Start Playing Dungeons and Dragons with Your Colleagues,” I had to laugh a little at myself. Everything I had been taught to believe about D&D, dark, strange, maybe even “demonic,” was immediately undone by something much simpler and much more familiar. Storytelling. Community. Imagination. That shift felt similar to what I have been experiencing lately with AI.

Tommy Truong’s blog reframes D&D not as some isolated hobby, but as a collaborative and almost professional space. The idea that a group of people come together, each bringing different strengths, to build a story in real time feels deeply human. It reminded me of my classroom in ways I did not expect. The student who is more creative finds their place in backstory and character. The more analytical student thrives in strategy and problem solving. No one succeeds alone. The story only works because everyone is shaping it together. That idea that collaboration is everything stayed with me.

When I pair that reading with “Why AI Dungeon Is Not the AI Dungeon Master You’re Looking For,” the contrast becomes really clear. The second piece makes an important distinction. AI can generate a story, but it struggles to hold a world. There are no real rules and no real stakes unless you decide there are. There is no weight behind decisions and no true consequences. That is where something clicked for me.

What makes D&D meaningful is not just the storytelling. It is the structure underneath it. The rules. The unpredictability. The fact that you can fail. Your character has limits and your choices matter because they are not guaranteed to work. There is something about that tension between creativity and constraint that makes the experience feel real.

AI, at least in the ways described in the reading, removes that tension. It becomes a kind of choose your own adventure where the outcome bends too easily. The story continues, but without resistance. Without friction. And that friction matters.

It brings me back to the classroom. To writing. To the research papers I am currently grading where some students are trying to use AI to smooth over the process and make it easier and faster. In doing so, they remove the very thing that gives their work weight. The struggle to find a source that actually exists. The moment of realizing their argument does not quite make sense yet. The revision that hurts a little because it requires them to think differently. D&D, ironically, seems to protect that struggle.

There is also something powerful about the idea of fictional security from the first reading. In a fictional world, you can try on different identities, take risks, fail safely, and learn from it. That feels incredibly relevant for students as writers. They need spaces where they can experiment with voice, argument, and perspective without immediately outsourcing that process to AI.

I do not think this is about rejecting AI altogether. The second reading points out that AI can do certain things well such as generating story elements, supporting lore, and offering creative prompts. But it cannot replace the role of the Dungeon Master. The human who holds the world together, enforces the rules, adapts in real time, and responds in a way that feels alive. That feels important to name.

I keep thinking about my initial reaction to Dungeons and Dragons as something forbidden and misunderstood. Now I am realizing that what was once labeled as demonic is actually deeply communal and rooted in storytelling traditions that bring people together. Maybe the same is true in reverse for AI.

Something that feels innovative and efficient can also distance us from each other if we are not careful. If we let it replace the human elements instead of supporting them. So now I am sitting with this intersection.

A game I was not allowed to play growing up is teaching me about collaboration, risk, and storytelling. A tool that is everywhere in my students’ lives is forcing me to ask what parts of that storytelling we are willing to give up.

If Dungeons and Dragons teaches anything, it is that the story is not just about the outcome. It is about the people at the table. The choices they make. The risks they take. The way they build something together that no one fully controls. That is what I want to hold onto. Not just in games, but in writing, in teaching, and in everything else that asks us to create something real.

Reading the short article from Friends and Fables made me realize that slop is all around us. I want to preface by saying that people can do what they want. I get it, you might not have the time, or the imagination to make things yourself. I get that if people want to do cools things and don’t want to waste their time doing all the little things like managing a campaign and keeping track of abilities and such. In all of this I fall back to a simple question, Isn’t the hard parts the point of the process. Like I understand it. I have personally played Baldur’s Gate 3 for toooo many hours (400 hours as of this week) and have wanted more and more, but I just can’t understand the point of going to AI to find it.

Now I’m not the authority when it comes to DnD, but isn’t the point of it to create your own worlds or play in the worlds created by actual people. I don’t think that letting an AI make a world, classes, and skills for you is really the point of playing. I get it, some campaigns are better than others, some people are better at making interesting characters but that’s the point to me. I think this extends to the idea that gen AI shaves down the rough edges of the activities we engage in. We want the AI to do all the heavy lifting so only the most enjoyable parts are left. Do me this misses the point, the parts that suck make the parts that don’t suck mean more. In addition, I feel that this might lead to people not being as creative and less likely to make their own campaign.

This reading was a little jarring simply because it made it seem that all of the hard parts of the hobbies we like aren’t worth experiencing at all. But for better or for worse, the parts that suck are still part of it. I guess buddy never really got thought of this. (I also realize that this was written to get other people to ai money for their next ai campaign).