*Nelly song reference*

The article “How A.I. Will Drive the Future of Work” discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the workplace and will continue to do so in the future. The author argues that AI will not only replace jobs, but also create new opportunities for workers. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to automate routine tasks, freeing up time for workers to focus on more creative and strategic work. AI can also assist workers in decision-making, providing data-driven insights that humans may not be able to identify on their own. The article “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans” explores the potential impact of AI on human society, raising both opportunities and concerns. The author argues that AI has the potential to revolutionize fields such as healthcare, transportation, and education, but that its implementation must be carefully considered. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to process and analyze large amounts of data quickly and accurately. This could lead to significant advancements in healthcare, such as the development of personalized medicine and the ability to detect diseases at an early stage. In transportation, AI could lead to safer and more efficient modes of transportation, such as self-driving cars.

Suggestions that the articles make had resonated with me. I agree that we as humans in order too combat this, workers need to focus on developing skills that are difficult for AI to replicate, such as emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and problem-solving. This keeps us around, gives us more of a purpose. I’m not sure why we would have to put more effort to show that we as humans are needed compare to a machine, but hey, welcome to 2023 I guess.

I think it’s scary of how advanced AI has become and the possibility of how much more advanced it can get. But every individual has purpose and I don’t fully think we are replaceable. But it is a scary thought.

Found poetry is something we got to talking about a little bit last semester in e-lit when I got to talk a bit about the Blackout Poetry Tool. Keith Holyoak also talks some about it in his article which explores the question Can AI Write Authentic Poetry?

Holyoak dove too deep into that question of AI truly being able to create real poetry, the explanation for what found poetry is serves as an important reminder, yes, but also gives a good preface into his stance and somewhat even goes into the why.

I, for one, already have an idea of where I stand on this issue for the reasons expressed in one of my previous blogs. Artificial intelligence can only use what it’s been given, as is the case with humans also. But here’s the catch: even though humanity is given such boundless resources and knowledge, we still have limited knowledge of and access to much of it. I mean why do you think things like AI and other technologies are still developing and discovering things? Because there’s still more out there.

So that said, AI is still limited to human knowledge, language and opinions, with a “brain” modeled much after the mind of man (I mean, man created it after all, and its “brain” is the internet which includes record of the endless spewing of human thought, knowledge, stupidity, wisdom, and interaction). It may not be able to experience or develop the way we do, but it can calculate and model what our experience and development is like. On top of this, its “brain” has the ability to work much faster than ours do, in part because we have so heavily relied on it’s computational powers as a replacement for our own (rather than using it more like a crutch when some part of us needs rest).

And because this “brain” has become so vast with the developments of AI technology and its codes modeled to function similarly to humans that the way it functions is now somewhat unpredictable at times.

Computer programs can now learn from enormous sets of data using methods called deep learning. What the programs learn, and how they will behave after learning, is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to predict in advance. The question has arisen (semiseriously) whether computer programs ought to be listed as coauthors of scientific papers reporting discoveries to which they contributed. There is no doubt that some forms of creativity are within the reach, and indeed the grasp, of computer programs.

Can AI Write Authentic Poetry? Keith Holyoak

When we did AI-generated poems in class a few weeks ago and shared them, most did not include much wordplay or unique uses of clichés (rather, the clichés were used in the most cliché ways where it was not necessary to a strong poem). So given how fast AI can learn and develop, I decided to try it again with a poem I wrote last year and recently re-edited.

I think it goes without saying, but just to clarify, the first document attachment is my own work (with italics being words pulled from the English Standard Version of Psalm 22 John 19:30), while the second was AI generated. When it comes to creative writing, I’m sure that if we’ve made it this far into a degree in English Writing (regardless of our status as graduate or undergraduate) that we’ve had the phrase “show, don’t tell” beaten into our minds. AI language models like ChatGPT may see these words a lot, considering its vast “brain” that is the internet, but it hasn’t yet reached a point where it can understand the word. It associates definitions to words because there are online dictionaries, sure, and that leaves open the possibility; in the meantime, while it can connect the dots, it has not yet been able to elicit or create its own meaning from that in the same way we have because it has no ability to personally experience these things its prompted to write about.

(Sorry this post ends pretty abruptly, Holy Week is next level busy this year).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZESTKVFDBg

https://youtu.be/WImlyoQuQzo

These videos are clips from the Joe Budden Podcast, some thing I am a frequent viewer of. I like when Joe brings the conversation of AI and the art of creating together because he himself is a creator. At one point he was a rapper, but he always prided himself on the ideas of freedom of expression and being authentic with lyrics for the artist who were his peers. All artist, whether they are musical artist, painters, sculptor’s, etc., are very passionate about the things they create because at some point it was literally an original feeling or thought towards something or someone that brought them to their creation, whether its a song, or painting.

We all know they are able to manufacture anything just about today, even the music can be produced through AI. This now creates a question with the authenticity of the music. This is how vocal artist can connect with their fans. Cinematographers connect through their lens with their fans and core audience. How will an AI truly connect with an audience if they are lacking the feelings and emotions that express empathy, that creates timeless pieces. Some may argue that when Vincent Vangough created his masterpieces their were no electronics and it was all done by hand with the most basic tools compared to what we see today, but this painting has been in galleries all around the world, and has inspired many individuals. Do we lose this if we give the power to AI to create what we as humans feel and express?

The article that spoke on Computational Creativity gives a great counter argument to the question on if AI’s and humans should be held to the same standard . “Rather than just seeing the computer as a tool to help human creators, we could see it as a creative entity in its own right. This view has triggered a new subfield of Artificial Intelligence called Computational Creativity.” Authenticity comes from the emotions humans have developed when dealing with life and going through new experiences. Computers are programmed by humans who have had these experiences, but it still wasn’t there to “feel” it for itself, so to speak. So what makes it authentic enough to be compared to great human artist who have shared from personal experience and personal knowledge.

AI is great with assisting artist in the production of their work. That comes with the many technological advances we are starting to make in shorter time spans, which leaves us with so many options to produce the best work faster. Because today everything moves pretty fast in our part of the world so keeping up with the mass production from peers artist today are trying to find faster ways to not only perfect their craft, but to also produce it at a faster rate to keep the engagement from their core audience interested. AI helps with this part when it comes to the money and circulation of the work the artist is selling, but from an authenticity point I can see it creating some issues with trust between artist and fans, nothing would seem real.

The two articles I chose to read this week went hand in hand. They both explored the art side of the AI world. The article, “What do AI image generators mean for visual artists and the rest of us?” sort of set up the scene for us. Basically AI is able to create realistic images like below

You can check out that article here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/people/ct-chicago-artist-viral-ai-pope-francis-puffer-20230330-3uxq3nk6svgqpihoy46b2y7jwq-story.html

By the way when I first saw that picture on Twitter I thought it was real and I was supportive as one would be. But also shocked that the Pope would put an outfit like this together. But that’s besides the point. The article explores the idea of how AI is able to generate images like this and what that means for us. The article also raises concerns about the potential consequences of relying on AI for artistic production, such as the displacement of human artists and the potential for bias or unethical use of the technology. The article highlights the need for ongoing dialogue and ethical considerations around the use of AI in the arts, and the importance of preserving the human element in artistic creation.

But I kept reading, and the other article I read was “Madeleine: Poetry and Art of an Artificial Intelligence.” The article describes the creation of a poem by an artificial intelligence (AI) named Madeleine. The poem was created using a neural network, which analyzed a large corpus of poetry to generate its own unique piece. The article also includes a visualization of the poem in the form of an art installation, which features a projected image of the poem accompanied by ambient music. So now AI is not only able to create a five page paper for you, it can also do your art project? AI is able to produce creative works which now raises the question about the nature of artistic expression and the role of technology in the arts.

I’ve said this countless times before but this is getting scary. Literally AI is not letting us having anything. Now it’s creative too?! I just feel like now it is taking everything special that we individually offer and almost corrupting it. It will come to a point where we won’t feel the need to express and offer our talents, because AI will show us that it can do it “better.”

” But the idea of super intelligent machines with their own agency and decision- making power is not only far from reality- it distracts us from the real risks to human lives surrounding the development and deployment AI systems.” I want to start with this quote from “The Exploited Labor Behind Artificial Intelligence” article, simply because this offers the best assessment to the entire AI talking realm. In movies and television we have seen some options of the end of the world being robots taking over the world, and humans became slaves. Literally this is not true, but figuratively this is slowly something that can become possible. I always think of WALL-E whenever disgusting AI. The technology took care of the people in that world so much that they knew how to do nothing without a screen in front of their faces and became slaves to the robots who were caring for them. If they moved out of line or did anything out of order the humans were quickly corrected, and the robots were in control of order. That is no different as it comes to talking about jobs and career related issues.

Looking at job security now can start to look a bit shaky. During covid we were able to see a big change in how you can easily replace the daily office with at home work with the use of technology. This has created a great deal of benefits for both the business and the employees. With this shift it truly shows how great a service technology is actually doing and how well we are advancing with technology. Now with us working from home I can easily see how businesses who have may have seen a huge saving from having workers WFH, can see how AI technology can help them save more if they no longer have to depend on humans for their labor. This can increase the revenue for the businesses, and BUSINESS is all about earning money. If as a business you see something causing your profit margin to grow you are more likely to do it.

Taking a look at the music industry, which is a very big business, songwriters, producers, and engineers, which are very influential authentic parts to the production of music, can have questionable jobs at this point. There was a full AI rapper created and he was an example of the entire culture and even had a feature with a premium artist. A gaming company was behind the production of the rapper and even was Abel to sign his deal. Is this an Authentic artist and should he be help to the same standards of those who have worked hard int he music industry and created their own works? This is the question AI poses as it slowly replaces humans. The control will come from the idea that we as humans were the ones programming it to know everything about us, so in some way by using our phones, and different social apps, or regular apps we are feeding into the total control AI will have over us all.

In the article, The Exploited Labor Behind Artificial Intelligence sheds light on the hidden labor that is involved in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). The article explores the labor practices of the global tech industry and highlights the exploitative conditions that many workers face.

The article argues that AI technologies rely on a complex network of human labor, including data labeling, programming, and algorithm development. However, many of the workers who perform these tasks are underpaid, overworked, and subjected to poor working conditions. Which honestly, seems to be nothing new when fast paced systems (or jobs) like these are created. The exploitation of these workers is enabled by the global supply chains and outsourcing practices of the tech industry, which prioritize cost-cutting and profit-making over workers’ rights and welfare.

After the readings, I can definitely say that this is giving Apple, Fashion Nova, and many other big companies that exploit their workers. Now we can officially add AI to that mix. There definitely needs to be greater attention and a continued conversation on this arising issue that sees no end in sight. We need all the attention we can get for human rights and the working conditions of the labor force that underpins the development of AI technologies. Because this will only continue and potentially get worse. But to be honest just like many other bigger companies the only end to this issue is bringing more awareness and protests and even stake-holding approach to involve government, industries, and organizations to help promote ethical and sustainable practices in the tech industry as well as in other industries.

I think anyone with an eye for what effort really looks like can probably figure out the difference between ChatGPT and a human being’s writing. The AI tool can be used as a cheating device that, when the user has enough practice and knows precisely how to prompt a decent essay, can generate (I refrain to say that it can really write) a decent essay. That said, it can easily help students edit papers they may have honestly written as well, saving time and reducing stress for many– especially those with heavier workloads. Don’t get me wrong, the art and practice of manually editing (among other tasks) is still important to understand and be able to do, but at a certain point where one has already learned how it works the manual effort is sometimes unnecessary. So it seems that Katherine Schulten poses a valid question as the title of her New York Times opinion piece, How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT? She also poses several other important questions that not only should educators be taking into account, but their students as well.

• Have you experimented with ChatGPT, whether in school or on your own? What did you think? How promising or useful do you think it is? Why?

I’ve experimented with ChatGPT, and it really could be an extremely useful tool when it’s used with the right intent. Like I said before, it can be used to skip learning things, or it can be used as an aide to things already learned. So, teachers can potentially use ChatGPT to have something generating work for students doing better on certain topics, while they help struggling students understand what’s being taught. Or maybe how the teacher phrases things might not click for some students– in this case, maybe the student can ask the AI for an explanation of some sort and get started on starting to understand things a bit better. No class is going to have a bunch of students that learn exactly the same way or at the same pace. ChatGPT could potentially help with that.

• Why do you think many educators are worried about it? The New York City school system, for instance, has blocked access to the program for fear of “negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content.” Do you agree? What “negative impacts” can you imagine? What, if anything, worries you about this tool?

Educators seem to be more concerned about cheating than they are about ChatGPT, but the bot is just the means through which that cheating might occur. Sure, some healthy boundaries are entirely necessary to deter dishonesty in academics, and they’re also necessary to ensure that there is a legitimate measure on whether or not students are actually learning the content being taught (which means math being done manually or in-class review of their, there, and they’re). So I don’t entirely think blocking ChatGPT is the best idea, but it’s not the worst either. I think a better solution might be to create in-class, interactive, and tech-free lessons to keep students engaged when they are initially learning content. Having no boundaries on ChatGPT might create a lazy work ethic and a lack of learning content (but not a total lack of learning anything, if I’m honest– users would still learn how to use AI).

• This article argues that ChatGPT’s potential as an educational tool outweighs its risks. How do you feel? Should teachers “thoughtfully embrace” this technology? If so, what could that look like? For example, how would you imagine using the chatbot on an upcoming assignment in a way that supports your learning?

Like I’ve said before, technology like this isn’t inherently bad. As far as I’m concerned, God created everything to be good but things ended up distorted (or in other words, bad) because of sin (or how we as human beings handled things). Nothing is inherently bad, it’s just distorted when it’s dealt with the wrong ways. The case is similar with ChatGPT: when we thoughtfully and intentionally approach its use, it can be a great help and support to how we teach or learn.

• Some educators say the threat of widespread student cheating means the end of classroom practices such as assigning homework, take-home tests and essays. Do you agree? Or, do you think those activities can be reimagined to incorporate the use of chatbots? If so, would that be a good thing? Why or why not?

I would somewhat agree, but frankly that’s something that will reflect in assignments done and tests taken in class without the use of any technology. This is why having a healthy balance of technology use and lack thereof is important to modern pedagogies. Allowing the use of it will allow students to not only learn but satisfy the (often subconsciously) perceived need and (in theory) make aptly designed in-class tech-free activities more interesting and engaging.

The idea of teachers having mixed views on AI chatbots, like ChatGPT does not surprise me. We haver those teachers who like new fresh ideas when it comes to planning lessons and engaging their students, but then their are some teachers who think the way things have been done have produced great results, so why fix something that isn’t broken. No way is right or wrong, all that matters is helping students to understanding the subject, and helping them they best way the teacher can to retain the information. If only it were that simple.

The one idea all teachers share when dealing with the education world today is that every student learns differently. Some may learn a bit easier than other, and some may need a few tries to hit a goal or target, either way a great teacher will get the job done, and that’s what makes them awesome!

I feel AI chatbots like ChatGPT can offer CONFIDENCE in the classroom if used correctly. With it being so downloaded with information on all subjects and able to do anything just about it can serve as a great learning tool to make students feel a bit more confident with the work they produce. I know teachers would hate for students to plagiarize things, and I personally wouldn’t agree with this either, but I you teach the uses of ChatGPT to students that shows them what they can find on it and ways it can help to “improve” their work, it could really bring better marks for students and give them a positive attitude towards school.

I remember I use to HATE history in high school. I even tried skipping the class at times ( which was impossible in a small private schools with nuns who knew your ever move), but I just wanted to be anywhere but there, because I always felt no matter how hard I studied it was no way I could possibly retain all of the information about past wars, politics, and dates mixed with important people blah blah blah, all for one test! And again I’ve always been a big reader because I learned early on if I read I retain the information faster , but it just never worked for that class and the C’s really made me unmotivated in that subject. I think if I had ChatGPT it would have really helped me to create better papers because I could pull up speeches, dates and full blown war accounts for soldiers who probably were there all in one place on demand, and it would have helped me to produce better work.

If the right teacher introduces ChatGPT to their students as a way to help them, and show students that you are trusting them to be responsible when it comes to integrity within the work, this could really change attitudes that students have early on towards school. A lot of time students get discouraged in subjects they may see others excelling in, but these AI tools can really bring them confidence in the work they produce and in return give them better grades.

The quote goes, if you can’t beat them, join them. This is us (educators and everyone else against AI systems) with our silent war of this ongoing funny business. But ironically now, we need to get down to business and discuss this arrising issue.

In the article, How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT by Katherine Schulten, she gives a special shoutout to Kevin Roose. He argues that schools should consider the technology (ChatGPT) as a teaching aid. Obviously, less like the enemy. While it can be hard to find that in-between balance once you already hate something, Roose has a point. AI systems can be a good tool to give feedback and even teaching tools for teachers to use in their classroom. A teacher can demonstrate how a generic and boring essay is suppose too look like. Or better yet, how students should write their essays for state tests. I can see that being a semi positive approach. New York has blocked access for students to be able to use ChatGPT but that won’t stop them from using it when they are home, unfortunately.

In Katherine Schulten’s other article with the New York Times, Lesson Plan: Teaching and Learning in the Era of ChatGPT she further dives in just how this tool can be used in the classroom. She shares how to play with the tool, giving it a prompt, then having the students analyze it. Open the discussion in the classroom on the overall prompt, opinions, and thoughts. While like I mentioned before, that can be helpful. I think this can actually be really helpful in a school environment. Within the state and all the state testing, it’s almost feels like their is that pressure to get rid of the students voice in order to generate more essays that are “academically correct.” This tool can be helpful to aid students on writing those essays for their SAT’s and so on and so forth.

In my opinion, if we approach ChatGPT for what it is, which is basic. Maybe students won’t be as intrigued or maybe they will be. But with new systems vast approaching, if you can’t beat them, might as well join them.