Song of the day: Serani Poji – a Kissaten at night

Reading the article “When AI learns an Author’s Voice, even experts prefer it” and the introduction to “Burnout from Humans”, it brings two sides of ai. One side is worrying how ai can takeover writing, the other is displaying how ai can work into writing. I admit, I am still hesitant about having ai in writing, although I think it’s important to understand that using it doesn’t always have to mean replacing it. Like with “Burnout from Humans”, it is using both human and ai writing, it is not claiming the ai words as their own- at least from what I understand. And no, I am not sure if I used this em dash correctly.

I have some questions/concerns about AI learning an author’s voice.
One, did the author sign up to let this happen? I doubt many authors would allow their voice to be learned by AI. If they did agree, why? What do they gain by having their voice be learned? I am confused on why any of this was happening in the first place, like who allowed the author’s voices to be learned, and what was the benefit?
What were the voices used for? Was the AI learning a voice and then making new work with that style? If that is what was happening, that is a little insane. Why would you allow this to happen? If your voice isn’t unique, you lose an audience. Having a unique voice is very important, so people can recognize your work and so that it is set apart from everything else. If people can just use AI to copy voices, that ruins a lot.

It ruins people’s trust. How do I know the author themselves came up with the story if AI can write like them? How will I know something is canon in the lore of the world? The author will be put out of a job cause AI can write like them. Fanfiction would be out too, for who needs to try and figure out a different universe of the story when AI can do it. How will I know what is meant to happen and what is not when I can’t tell who the real author is? Lots of concerns here. The people in the study also had concerns:”‘I thought I could tell what AI was, and now I’m not so sure,’ and some described feeling unsettled about what this means for craft and professional identity'”. It ruins people’s identities they work hard to form, cause AI can just learn it and write for you. Not knowing what is AI is also a problem, because that means it really is good at copying voices. The article also mentioned a lack of control could happen, which is true. People can just write whatever they want in the voice of the author. Have all their fantasy’s filled. Don’t need to wait for more content when they can create it themselves.

For the book, I like the opening. It is preparing us for the journey we are about to go on, and I sure do hope I “have a good laugh at” myself. I like the comment about “This book takes a different path: it reminds us that there is no way out—only through”. I feel like that is something to keep in mind about many situations. That we might want to escape, we might want a way out, but sometimes we need to go through. We need to be uncomfortable on a path through hardships, face certain things we might not want to, for escaping to being “out” of a situation doesn’t always work. Like the AI situation, if we just avoid it, not much will get done to fix it. If we travel through the situation, discuss it, see all perspectives, learn how to compromise with those who want to use it, maybe things can be solved. Going “out” doesn’t always work long term.

The book’s opening is also giving yoga to me “As you move through these pages, notice what is stirred within you: the hesitations, the sparks of curiosity, the inner voices that chatter or fall quiet. Pay attention not only to what is said but to the silent spaces between. What might they invite you to feel, to question, to rewire?” All of that sounds like mindfulness stuff to think of when you are doing yoga or something. Feels like the book was going to tell me to close my eyes and take a deep breath in. I like it though, as it reminds me of Professor Mastroeni’s classes. She would ask us things like that in our five-minute warm-up that got us in the right mindspace for class. So the book is taking me back there, preparing me by putting my mind in the right headspace, with all the mindfulness lingo.

The AI introduction was weird. It has a personality, and I do not like that it has one. Cause it does seem like a vibe, a funny, energetic author I would like. And I hate that. Cause booo AI. I say funny because what kind of name is Aiden Cinnamon Tea. ACT? Is that the name? Or Aiden? I can’t tell if it is a joke name or has a deeper meaning but it interested me that the AI has a silly name.

I liked what Cinnamon Tea said here “Some voices are clear, while others hum just beneath the surface, subtle and persistent. It is this interplay and labour of entanglement that resists singular authorship. To untangle it fully would be to miss the point, for the threads themselves are what make the weave”. I think it is good to explain things like this, especially in this case, where people might want to know who said what. It is good to read the readers, know what they will try to do, and point out that they would miss the point. Explaining how to fully take in the work is important; let people know how to interact with the piece. Let it speak to them and don’t ruin the meaning. (I was totally going to try and figure out who said what, so Cinnamon Tea called me out).

Cinnamon Tea also said we can’t escape “The question isn’t how to escape this reality—we can’t. The real question is how to hold it with awareness, let its weight transform us, and compost its harm into something that regenerates life instead of depleting it.” The AI is really getting the important stuff, and I do not like that. Stop saying things I agree with Cinnamon Tea, cause you are AI and I want to hate you. You doing all this is scary for writers, especially seeing you do it well. So I want to hate you, but someone fed you some good ideas. I like what you are saying, and I hate that.

Overall, the start of the book was very good. Both had great stuff to say about the book, to sit with and recognize the feelings, that this is to start a discussion and nothing is set, that there are mysteries unsolved, that this will be a journey, and to not want an out. I enjoyed the beginning. I liked all they had to say. I feel like most of it could be applied to any book, any class, any new start. That we might have our biases and opinions, but to still give it a chance. It already made me think a lot. I still don’t get how Cinnamon Tea wrote this, like did someone prompt it and it wrote? How exactly did this happen? I still have questions. I hope they get answered. But whatever happens, this was a great start that already got me thinking.

Onto the last reading for this week, and the first sentence already got me. “ChatGPT, a new AI system that sounds so human in conversations that it could host its own podcast, is a test of temperament.” I’m sorry, what. What do you mean it “sounds” human. Not us making the thing speak. We already got issues with the writing and we moved to speaking? I saw some Tik Toks on people listening to AI, but I didn’t think it was that common. I saw like three in my lifetime on people studying with AI and it randomly coughing or sneezing. Fully doing human things it doesn’t have to do. But, it sounded AI to me at that point. Does it no longer sound AI? Absolutely not. Not when it coughing and sneezing. Poeple really won’t be able to tell what is what.

Not the author including this “(In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I sit on the board of the OpenAI nonprofit, and that, through my foundation, I have invested in OpenAI.). Hello. You are on a board for OpenAI?? Yeah, there is some bias here cause what do you mean you are on a board and say “I still believe that improvement through technology is how humanity most effectively makes progress”? I get how that can be an argument, but with AI, we might be losing some humanity, as the machine is taking over a lot of creative aspects.

“Technology is the thing that makes us us. Through the tools we create, we become neither less human nor superhuman, nor post-human. We become more human.” You see, I don’t know about that. If humans aren’t thinking as much and just going to ChatGPT for answers, does that really make us more human? For most tech, I would say it is part of humanity to learn how to use tech. Tech has always advanced us. Farming better, producing better, communicating around the world, living more stable lives, surveillance, and so on. But AI? It is making people not think, not struggle, not write, and maybe now not even talk.

“… the urge to entrench the status quo against the uncertain terrain of new realities accelerates too”. So I guess it is human to either go with the tech or realize it is flawed and rise against the issues being presented. I think that is the case with most things, not just tech. You see protests happening for all kinds of issues and reasons, so it does apply to tech. That is an argument to make, that tech makes humanity stronger either way. It either directly improves it or, by fighting against it, humanity gets stronger. I still feel like humanity is being lost with AI. It might take a while to get stronger by fighting against it. By then, who knows how strong humanity will have to be to fight back. Kids are already writing a lot less than they used to. We don’t even know how COVID fully impacted them yet. By the time humanity realizes how AI made us less human, we might have a way too big of a fight to fight.

“But what if teachers used ChatGPT to instantly personalize lesson plans for each student in their class—wouldn’t that be humanizing in a way that the industrialized approaches of traditional classroom teaching are not? Aren’t tools that allow millions of people to visually express their ideas and communicate with one another in new ways a step forward for humanity?” But, is it humanizing? If it comes from AI and not the person themselves, learning how to do it? Is it not just the AI doing the work? Can’t people learn to express their ideas and communicate with one another on their own? Are those not valuable skills for people to learn without the tools? If we just rely on AI to fix our problems, are we ever going to fix them ourselves? Shouldn’t teachers learn how to make lesson plans? We are getting rid of learning for a tool to make it better. Just like we are losing writing for typing. Is that really better? To lose a skill to gain a different one? Wouldn’t it be humanizing to learn through the struggles together?

I did not trust this author as soon as being on the board was mentioned. I get that humans shouldn’t fully be against AI, but we got to be careful not to fully embrace it either. There needs to be a balance, and in that balance I think we can please both sides while keeping humans human.

So, I started by reading Burnout from Humans. Immediately, I thought that this book was written by AI. “No way it was written by a human,” I thought. Then I saw that we needed to keep an open mind, and so, I decided to do that. (However, I still think the book was written by AI, or that AI played a part in writing the book.) It just seems so monotone and robotic like. I don’t know how to describe it. It’s almost like the magic touch just isn’t there (giving credit to Hunter here.)

Regarding the article, “When AI learns an author’s voice, even experts prefer it,” I was horrified. To think that experts would prefer an AI model over a human creating work is just horrifying. Yes, it is cheaper, but what comes next? First, we have AI writing novels. Now writers are out of a job. Then, AI learns how to build cars and fix cars. Bye bye mechanics and line workers. Eventually, if we continue training artificial intelligence models to mimic us, they WILL replace us. People are already trying to make physical AI models. I fear that once we are able to master the creation of creating PHYSICAL AI models, we will be living in a society similar to the movie “i-Robot.”

Reading Katy Ilona Gero’s “AI Reveals the Most Human Parts of Writing” felt especially charged for me because I occupy two positions that often feel at odds: writer and teacher. As a writer, I have little desire to use AI to generate ideas, expand my thoughts, or write for me. Writing, for me, lives in the struggle of sitting with language, circling an idea, starting over, and trusting that something honest will eventually emerge. That struggle is not something I want outsourced. But as a teacher, I do not have the luxury of ignoring AI. I have to confront it head on, especially as more students turn to it as a shortcut rather than a tool.

What resonated most in Gero’s piece is her framing of writing as a set of cognitive processes planning, drafting, and revising rather than a linear sequence or a finished product. This mirrors the tension I feel daily in the classroom. I am not just teaching grammar or essay structure. I am teaching writing as a process that requires patience, revision, and intention. Yet AI complicates that work. It makes it harder to tell when students are engaging with the thinking behind writing versus submitting something polished that skipped the struggle entirely. That pressure to preserve the integrity of the process while navigating new technologies has made teaching writing far more stressful than it used to be.

One of the moments that gave me the most insight came from using a required AI supported platform, LUMI, in my classroom. What surprised me most is that LUMI does not actually write for students. Instead, it pushes them to critically think about their next words and narrative choices. The platform also creates a great deal of resistance. Students have to give the AI clear direction, revise repeatedly, and sit with frustration when the tool does not produce what they imagined. Many students openly protested its use, raising concerns about the environmental impact of AI and expressing irritation at how long it took to reach an end product. Some students are still struggling with it. That struggle, however, revealed something important. They were thinking, making decisions, and recognizing that AI does not replace intention or creativity. It demands it.

That experience pushed me to rethink how I approach AI in my classroom. I have to assume students will use it, so rather than policing its existence, I focus on teaching students how to begin. This means helping them generate foundational ideas, build outlines, and avoid repetition. Many students have shared that their biggest obstacle is simply starting. If AI is going to be part of their world, then my role becomes guiding them to use it as a support without surrendering ownership of their thinking. In this way, I align with Gero’s argument that the most meaningful parts of writing intention, vision, and decision making remain deeply human.

Ultimately, this reading reaffirmed something I already believe. AI can assist, challenge, and even frustrate us into better thinking, but it cannot create authenticity. Writing still belongs to those willing to struggle through it. As a teacher, my task is to protect that struggle while finding creative ways to work around a technology that is not going anywhere. As a writer, I remain convinced that what matters most is not how efficiently words appear on the page, but why they are there in the first place.

(Week 2 Blog)

There was a time when writers, (whether the ones who write professionally, or those of us who do it for class assignments)used to look for inspiration through their imagination, books, or even through a nature walk. That was before the age of Artificial intelligence when people actually think. For most people, those days are long gone. We’ve switched to using AI as a shoulder partner. “The role of AI writing systems as drafting buddies is a big departure from how writers typically get help”. As soon as we get the writer’s block, we immediately pick up a device and put AI to work for us. almost as if we stop believing in ourselves and the power of our brains. Forgetting how we used to be amazed by our imagination when we allow it to exercise and ‘run wild’. Nonetheless, as much assistance AI can provide to us, there are certain aspects in writing that only humans can achieve. There are many times when I use an AI platform to help correct an assignment, and when I read it, I ended up choosing my original over the corrected version because it sounds more human. As many tasks AI can do for us, drafting, picking up where we left off, completing a paragraph with instructions, and writing more words than we possibly can, it will always fell short in adding that human touch and connection.

After watching the documentary and reading the article, my views on AI have changed a little bit. A very small amount. I think it is bad for the creatives, horrible for humans to rely on, but could be helpful for science.

For the creative side of things, I always thought it was horrible. Creative people could turn to it and lose their spark. Sure, it could help you get over the block, but what is the fun in that? It is as if you always won at something. At first, it would feel great to win. However, over time, you will be bored with a lack of challenge. What is the point in writing or drawing if you just get over the hardships? Half of doing something is failing or struggling. That is where learning comes in. If you just go to something else every time, eventually you will go to it more and more for every problem, and then the AI would be the creator and not you. Failing or struggling also makes you, you. It is how you find yourself or your voice. Sure, the AI could learn your voice or the way you write, but it won’t ever be as good as the real you. It learns patterns, but you could break those patterns. Change things up. Be creative instead of just using what is there, like it does.

As a writer, I want it to help me with nothing. I want to figure out the writing myself. I want to say “I wrote this” and mean it. I do not care if I get stuck; that is part of the journey. I will be a better writer after getting through that block. I want to navigate my writing, learn how to make it stronger, and write the piece myself. The idea of using it for feedback was okay, but I still wouldn’t use it for that. Why? Cause I ain’t listening to no robot. Sometimes the grammar checker is wrong. It wants me to sound academic, but what if I am writing a creative piece? It might not understand what I am meaning, and I am not killing the environment trying to get it to generate the right thing. I would rather just talk to people and get feedback that way. It might be awkward, and the person still might make corrections I don’t think are needed, but at least I can have a conversation with the person. I can build a bond, check their work, get ideas or perspectives, learn something, and just be a better writer at the end of it. AI is a big BOOO for the creative in my book.

Now, for the horrible for humans to rely on aspect. Every time we discuss AI, I see all these crazy movies about robots in the future, but I always think WALL-E. I always think of humans relying on it too much that they get lazy and the planet being dead. This is kinda already happening. I see so many people use ChatGPT as a search engine. Google already sucked at having people just search up whatever whenever, but ChatGPT has made things so much worse. People don’t even Google and read the websites; they don’t think for themselves. They just generate ideas. Which is crazy. At least TRY to think. Take a second to come up with anything. I have seen people ChatGPT ice breakers. Insane. That is so easy to work out. If you can’t think of one, talk to people. Brainstorm. I fear we are losing that. We are just generating, not thinking or brainstorming anything anymore. Which is crazy to me. So, I still hate AI for that. Ruining people’s thinking. If it gets more advanced in the tech, people might really forget how to do things, as AI can just do it. But, at the end of the documentary, the guy was mentioning “No signal” when trying to work his arm. What if that happens? Then what. Will humans not be able to think without AI? Stupid. AI is bad for humans in terms of thinking and humans doing things themselves.

But what changed my mind a LITTLE bit? The science. Predicting patterns to save lives. Very the cool. I enjoy this. We love saving lives. I got no clue if this is the stuff that also kills the environment, which would then complicate things. Killing the environment to save lives, but killing the environment kills lives, so like, what are we doing. Killing or saving. Anyway, as a non-science guy, I thought it was pretty cool. My dad lost part of his leg, knee and below, so tech for prosthetics is easy for me to like. Maybe he would walk more if he had a better leg. Who knows. But stuff like that really changes lives for the better. Predicting fires also very helpful. And of course boo cancer we love saving people from that. So all that science stuff, yes. AI is good to use to help people for that, I THINK. I do not know if it still kills the environment, so I am unsure how good it is, but it seems good to me. I think all the science and tech stuff around that is super cool, and as long as it isn’t harming people, keep doing it.

The documentary didn’t get me to change my mind much, clearly. AI is still bad in many ways. And that scientist wanting to give out warnings after helping create it was SCARY to hear. It is like Iron Man and Ultron up in here. Which is not good to hear, at all, very scary. For those who don’t know, Iron Man made Ultron, a robot, to help human kind right. And Ultron, who was on the internet for like a FEW MINUTES, was all “to save humans they all must die”. Real. But also no, please. So the scientist being like “it is too advanced, the risk is too great” was not cool to hear. “Best thing is to pull the plug before we can’t,” or something like that, being said was also not cool. As a non-science guy, very scary stuff here. If the science guy is freaking out about the robot, I sure am going to. I do not know anything about the robot; that guy does, so the freaking out was not a great thing to see. Thank you, documentary, for that.

Anyways, I do not know how to end this, but that was my thoughts on the reading and documentary!

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.

Hello everyone! I’m Veronica, and I am a senior English Writing major. I have a background in audio technology and music production and am passionate about music, movies, arts, fashion, and anything creative, really. In my free time, my favorite thing to do is go to music shows, no matter the genre, no matter the space, shows are where I feel the happiest. Maybe it’s because of the connection with the rest of the crowd all singing (and screaming) at once, or the movement of the music. Because I listen to so many different music styles, I don’t always have a friend who listens to the same artist or genre. That’s why, for the last two years, I’ve tried to build myself with courage and borrowed confidence to go to shows by myself. Standing in line to enter is terribly awkward, but sometimes I make friends. Other times, I sink into my phone until the doors open and the music begins to play.

A video I could not embed of a show:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FqETYwgpsG892byT8

A link the the studio recording version of the song:

La Vida Boheme – “¡Coño!” (Audio Oficial)

On another note, watching NOVA’s documentary helped me realize how much we needed AI technology to support our bio-advances. The fact that, thanks to AI, we can predict a cancer diagnosis five years prior, gives me hope for better treatment options and extending life expectancy. However, it fails to address environmental, creative, ethical, and socio-economic factors. This was about the accomplishments, rather than the challenges. It made me think of the owners of this AI software and those ads Facebook put out when they had just rebranded into Meta. Those ads featured doctors utilizing Virtual and Extended Reality glasses to treat patients, or students learning how to perform surgeries with the same technology. These made me question, how much personal information can one company own? From our social lives to the privacy of our medical records. Furthermore, what are these companies (owners) doing with all that information besides the main selling point for their product? Do they sell that information to third-party vendors? Maybe my ignorance limits my ability to answer those questions, but knowing — or knowing that I can’t know- makes me uncomfortable.

The documentary also made me remember our free writing prompt/quote from last class, about not being scared of AI to write well, rather than us forgetting why we write. AI Reveals the Most Human Parts of Writing poses an important perspective on what makes our writing ours rather than a machine’s. I believe that if we want to claim authorship on a piece, the plot, main idea, and endings all have to come from the writer and not the machine. However, even I have used AI to get inspiration and crush the writer’s block. But how can we put an official boundary and limit AI usage for writers if, as writers, we are all so different? From internship experiences, where AI was the main writer’s tool, I suffered several existential crises trying to understand if AI was still learning from my knowledge or if I had started learning from AI. Tragic. For this, I believe all writers must stand strong on their ground as the author and prevent the machine from taking the reins of our story.

Asking AI to give us a plot for a story should only be writing exercises that remain in the reference vault. But then again, will that rule satisfy all writers’ needs? I don’t think so. What if the piece ends up being amazing? Is it no longer mine because AI gave me the plot, but I wrote the rest? How could we even start to establish AI usage limits?

I think, as the Wire article suggests, this depends on what is important for each writer, what brings them joy or stress, but that wouldn’t solve plagiarism questions; it would just set a segway for an intellectual thief’s success.

Right now, what I know is that I know nothing, and I can only write in a manner that allows me inner peace, with myself and my work. For me, it’s important that the main ideas come from me and not the computer, but I am open to AI-brainstorming sessions. Nevertheless, Gero says that time, and practice, if I may add, are required to simply understand the machine. Understanding where the machine is coming from, why it is giving us certain information, and how that differs from where we come from and what we want to say. I don’t think I have time for all that. For now, I’ll just stick to asking the machine for synonyms or help me translate thoughts into more cohesive sentences.