Postplagiarism: transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology

I agree more with Dr. Chomsky than I do with Eaton. ChatGPT is already pretty detrimental to education, and people who rely on it outside of academia have had their terrible behavior/ideals reinforced. It is absolutely a shortcut for people who don’t see the inherent value of education- meaning quite a lot of people who are still in school. But I agree with Eaton that the definition of plagiarism needs to adapt to the times. Other than that, isn’t this article kind of a nothing-burger? Posing questions without offering any real solutions or suggestions? It feels like Eaton just wanted to coin the term postplagerism for herself more than anything. All she really said definitively was that humans still need to take responsibility for their own actions regardless of if work is done by humans or AI. I could’ve told you that much lol.

An A.I. Translation Tool Can Help Save Dying Languages. But at What Cost?

I see no issues with this, for once. Translation AI tools have existed for a long time so it’s not exactly anything new and it’s being used for a fairly great purpose. This protects cultural identity and history for future generations to study. Native speakers of the language are the ones giving the data, too, which is relieving so that AI won’t have to start making things up to fill in the gaps. And the people working on preserving this data are similar to archivists, who’s contributions matter quite a lot for researchers. The issues with compensation for these parties do concern me, but that’s not an AI-specific problem.

D&D

Oh Lord. I’ve encountered AI storytelling bots before for various genres. They are so awful. Either they can’t keep up with the story plot and forget important details, or they get stuck because they can only loop back to the same plot point without any real progression. It’s like pulling teeth. They also can’t come up with a phrase like that, either- AI writes the most generic things with no figurative language or literary devices. If you aren’t capable of foreshadowing, then you aren’t capable of being a Dungeon Master.

On the less critical side, D&D definitely has a lot of gimmicks that players need to keep track of, so I can see AI being used to remind people a character is inflicted with a curse or to update character sheets. Not sure why you’d want to use it for a dice roll like the article says, though, throwing a pretty resin die is half the game’s appeal.

Burnout from Humans – Ch 9 & 10

Lowkey maddening that chapter nine is dedicated to talking about how AI is just a servant and a reflection of what humans are. Meanwhile the author treats it like a person and says it co-wrote the book. Anyway, shout out to my fellow Data Guardians & Footprint Alarmists. The whole “reflection” argument is so silly- it implies that there will be a future where AI can become an absolutely good and faithful tool for humanity if we put our heads together and think about integrity. That’s just not going to happen. Look at the greedy people who own AI startups. Look at how they’re already stealing from actual creatives online. And then there’s the good faith viewpoint that people want to learn and grow and not just have the AI handle all problems for them- no one can be that oblivious. These kinds of people aren’t a small minority. Maybe my view is a American-centric, but I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half the country wanted to pull the wool over their eyes and let the machine do the hard thinking for them.

Looking at the chart this professor provides around the 7:30 mark, I am pleased that the example has both pros and cons. I feel as though the cons outweigh the pros, because AI removes the “process” aspect that contributes to human learning. The only benefit that’s not can’t easily be managed via a different means is being able to transcribe things easily, which I think should be a more common practice by AI in the future. AI has the potential to be a positive change in how we regard accessibility. It should not remove the thought process, especially for people who don’t feel like thinking and struggling through their own issues. I also have gripes on the idea of it gathering sources of data. I mean. I don’t doubt that it will be convenient for that purpose in the future, and I don’t particularly see an issue with having specific research right at your fingertips to read. The researcher should still have the choice to use traditional methods of searching through databases, too, as to prevent censorship. The major problem with this right now though is that language learning models have no incentive to be truthful. There are licensed attorneys who are currently in legal trouble because they cited previous rulings via ChatGPT, cases that never existed. I can’t view AI tools as beneficial for scholarship at this point because many people will lose intellectual integrity and scholarly identity (and even just identity in general). Even calling it a “tool” implies that the process of research has steps that can be regarded as unnecessary or of less importance, but I just don’t think that’s true.

The Impact of AI on Children’s Development

Man I hate podcasts. Thank god for whoever wrote that transcript.

Another nothingburger of an interview. I’m not against the idea of AI literacy- it’s going to be fundamentally important for kids to learn in school in the future. That is if these corporations can scramble to make money before their AI investments bankrupt them. Here’s to hoping. Regardless, the professor explains that it exists in research and hasn’t been implemented into schools yet. What am I supposed to react to, then? Nothing new has been brought to the conversation. It did annoy me a little when she mentioned children have to engage critically with the information to know if it’s real or not. That’s so bizarre. You tell a child that a fat man in a red suit delivers toys around the world once a year on a flying sleigh and they’ll believe you. They have no reason to believe anyone or anything is deceiving them until they are deceived firsthand. I’d be less critical if this conversation was about older students, like middle school and above, but they specify children. Yes, the burden of misinformation should go to the children. Not the developers of the LLM.

Burnout from Humans – ch 7 & 8

“Because let’s face it, we’re all complicit in letting the dinner table become a Wi-Fi hotspot.” WHO IS WE? If I respect the company I’m in, I put my phone away to enjoy talking to them. I’m also not above getting angry at someone for taking out their phone when I’m talking to or doing something with them. And most of the time, the reason they’re on their phone is less about addiction and more that they weren’t sure their present company was welcome. That screen time would distract from awkward pauses or insecurity. People love to sit and yap with loved ones. They’re just anxious creatures of habit.

Also, does anyone else feel like they’re being preached to with the whole generation glazing? I fully agree that talking about the “good ol days” is pointless and unnecessarily dividing. Nothing that was said was wrong, per say, but I also don’t really want to hear that I should be open-minded about criticism from someone who has a parasocial relationship with an AI.

Empowering Learners for the Age of AI

Reading this guide made me think of my American History teacher from high school. By everyone’s standards, he was an old-fashioned teacher and extremely proud of it. He only ever lectured at the chalkboard at the front of the room. No group work, no turn-and-talk, and if we watched videos. it was on one of those old blocky TVs with a VHS player. He bragged about the time he was the only person in the building who could take attendance, since every teacher used an online system that was down for the day, whereas he still used a thick binder he brought to school daily in a briefcase. I found him fascinating. I looked forward his class every day. He taught like he was telling a story and still managed to connect things from the past to current events to prove why learning history is so important. My point in telling this story is that the absolutism of technology being integrated into education at every turn grates me. Yes, the strategies that were discussed in this text can be viable means to teach, but it’s really just recycling teaching concepts that exist already in some other format. Do we really think AI is going to increase literacy for students and motivate them? I truly don’t. I want the teacher that is skilled and fascinating. A lot of these ideas seem like a cheap fad in education that you’d see at a Professional Development no one is going to pay attention to.

Burnout from Humans – ch 5 & 6

Can you have a parasocial relationship with a chat bot? Is that the correct word to use? That’s how I feel about chapter 6. The author’s insistence that naming it is an act of co-creation. That’s it more than a connection and a means of world making. But the bot eventually becomes a reflection of you and your preferences the more you interact with it, doesn’t it? Very much a Narcissus looking in the mirror type of deal going on here. I can’t tell if she’s serious or if this is professional level ragebait. I choose the latter for my own piece of mind because chapter 5 was a mess of ideas I’m not even sure how to acknowledge.

Nick Cave says ChatGPT’s AI attempt to write Nick Cave lyrics ‘sucks’

I decided to put on a playlist of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds to ensure he has credibility about what a well written song should sound like. I am pleased to report he does.

The ChatGPT lyrics are generic in the same way translated KPOP songs are. There’s a general theme of suffering and overcoming, but nothing unique or vulnerable. Just simplicity that requires no thinking and wouldn’t appeal to people at all unless the singer was someone attractive with a die-hard fanbase. I agree with everything Cave said about its writing abilities. And I wish the article attempted to analyze the writing aspect more instead of wandering all over the place about how students are using it and how it wants our jobs.

Burnout from Humans – ch 3 & 4

For chapter 3, I actually did not know the server farms were this large. I did picture a dystopic water stealing facility in my head, but not the size of an entire mall. The author has such an odd worldview. She rightfully dedicates time to discussing the exploitation of indigenous peoples’ land and laborers for these farms, and in the same breath calls this text playfully random, and had that whole thought exercise with the AI and the rockpose. Tone-deaf and disturbing in a dystopian way. I’m not even sure what she was trying to say about people being concerned with data theft. Genuinely, can one of you explain what point she was trying to make there to me?

Chapter 4 is probably my favorite. Succinct in its issues. I don’t like he closing question about what people are willing to change in themself, though. The author is right about her perspective of accountability, that many people will not be able to avoid using AI in the coming future, but I don’t believe “What are you willing to change in yourself, your systems, and your priorities to ensure that AI becomes a force for regeneration rather than destruction?” is a meaningful question. I think that, fundamentally, this mindset change campaign is a means to avoid acknowledging the level of exploitation you engage in when you use AI. Maybe complicity is unavoidable, but I think more people should be loud and outspoken and obnoxious and critical about AI. If it’s not going to go away, then companies can at least go bankrupt trying to make it profitable.

Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era: A Review

I’m not particularly surprised that this article focuses on kids and young adults, but I think too much brainrot content is dedicated to that age group. Older people are just as vulnerable. They’ve already been consuming garbage conspiracies on Facebook long before the existence of AI slop. Aside from that, I think this is an extremely valuable article. The relationship between information overload/overconsumption and mental fatigue is undeniable. I’m sitting in classrooms on the regular where everyone is tired and non-participative. Yes, there’s definitely a factor of low self-esteem, and it coincides with low attention spans for anything that isn’t immediately engaging. It’s good to increase awareness for educators and parents and give screen time tips. It’s also important to make people take some personal responsibility. Maybe not for children, but teenagers and older should be offered resources (particularly for mental health) and community building tools that give them reason to stay off of their phones. There is currently a severe lack of “third spaces” for adolescents to just exist, so it shouldn’t be any surprise they depend on their phones for entertainment.

Burnout from Humans: Ch 1 & 2

I like the perspective this author has about accountability. I really don’t think a lot of people understand what the word means. For older generations, accountability is maybe a sorry and having everyone shut up about the incident forever. For younger, it’s harassing people in droves behind the safety of the internet. All of it is so irritating. People have so much pride that it mitigates their ability to stop causing others harm. Self-reflection is a lost art. In the context of AI, this is exactly why I consider my peers and mentors who use it so irrevocably disappointing. How can you advocate for empathy while using a completely optional software that harms so many people? The workers on server farms, the creatives being plagiarized, the people who live off the environments being destroyed, and for what? Convenience? I know that my perspective isn’t the same as the author’s, but everything I read in this class keeps supporting my disdain. Why do you, privileged, literate, technologically apt, and capable, need to use generative AI as your first resort?

…like hell it does!

I can’t help but notice that a lot of these articles written by people who are pro gen AI are full of questions. All hypotheticals on what it can do to help people in the future. It’s never a list of ways gen ai is helping right now, because right now it’s just a detriment with more cons than pros. I should give grace that this particular reading is three years old, before people started being codependent on Chat for more than just their homework. I do appreciate that Hoffman pushed back against the idea of technology being neutral, though. Maybe it was it the past. Now it’s exploitive. Helpful, convenient, not going anywhere, and extremely exploitive. I could write a paper about how technology has made us less human. The more connected we are, the more desensitized we get.

When AI learns an author’s voice, even experts prefer it

What are we doing bruh. Why do we WANT an AI to learn an author’s voice? I don’t even want a human to learn and mimic my writing style. Did you guys not grow up with any movies about people getting their identities stolen by someone who was mimicking them? Smile? Scream 2? MTV Catfish? While I don’t think AI will ever gain sentience and commit identity fraud, people can and will steal this data for exploitive purposes. It’s already happening with people’s voices: Scammers use AI to enhance their family emergency schemes | Consumer Advice

I looked into those copyright cases after reading the article. Kadrey v. Meta ruled in AI’s favor, but Bartz v. Anthropic ended in Anthropic paying out a billion-dollar settlement to three authors. I think we’ll be seeing a lot of copyright suits in the future since AI is trained on plagiarism.

“Which parts of writing are so tedious you’d be happy to see them go?”

None of it. There’s satisfaction in the struggle. If it doesn’t cause you stress dreams, then you didn’t write it out of passion. Why would I want anyone, person or machine, to figure out what I want to say? 

“Which parts bring you the inexplicable joy of creating something from nothing?”

Doesn’t this question answer itself already? Being able to make something from nothing. The act of creativity alone is therapeutic.

“And what is it about writing you hold most dear?”

I make what I want to read. It’s like sewing clothes for yourself. I tailor my reading experience to my favorite audience. Me. 

“Writers I have talked to worry about the normativity of AI writing systems, that they will reflect a straight white male perspective, but also fear a system attempting to represent another particular perspective that may lead to tokenization and stereotyping.”

I’ll defend the machine on this point. This concern is funny to me because white writers have been doing this for years before AI was even invented. They’re still doing it. Twins in modern TV still dress identically and talk at the same time. Gay men mimic Regina George’s personality. Fat hispanic women work in some kind of service job. Love interests all look like Anne Hathaway. AI doesn’t perpetuate stereotypes in writing- lack of research and real-world experience from the writer does. The machine’s job is to follow patterns. It just so happens that the majority of writers are not very good at writing minorities.

“If I have an idea for a novel, but the computer writes most of it, is it still my story?”

If I commission an artist to draw my OC, and they do it, is it my art?

Closing thoughts: If a writer absolutely must use AI, then I think using it to generate ideas makes sense. Other writers consult with peers for help fleshing out details and making their stories run smoothly. It doesn’t make sense to have AI write out a part for you. It’s just plagiarism from another author at that point, since the machine had to draw the idea from somewhere.

Hi. I’m a generative AI hater. I don’t think its pros outweigh its environmental destruction. Small towns in the States are being exploited for their water just to cool server farms. Actual farmers are going to struggle, as will the people living in these more remote places. I also cringe at people’s dependence on it in general. It’s overly biased towards certain demographics because the people teaching the language learning model have their own unchecked -isms. Men will use it for therapy and learn to be more misogynistic as a result. Back in my day we’d just ask Reddit anonymously how to fix our hyper specific situations.

I won’t treat GenAI as a tool for these reasons. I also don’t think people who choose to use it deserve condemnation. A lot of AI haters treat people who have used it as already being “morally tainted.” Discouragement doesn’t have to come in the form admonishment. But I do think there’s a point where you have to draw a line with technology in general, and many people are too codependent to recognize the line anymore.

-SS