I think this question about what it means to be intelligent is an important one. That is why I find the proposed change in language surrounding AI concerning. The word “artificial” is fitting because AI does not think or create in the same way that humans do; it draws from information that already exists rather than producing truly original thought. I think that distinction is important because the way we talk about AI can influence how we understand and interact with it. Removing the word “artificial” could make it easier to anthropomorphize AI and forget that, despite how human-like it may seem, it is still a technology created and trained by humans.

I really like how concern for the community’s wellbeing is at the centre of their mission. I think one of the major problems with many modern inventions is that human wellbeing is often secondary to profit. Social media is a good example of this. In my opinion, its algorithms are not designed with users’ best interests in mind; they are designed to keep people on the platform for as long as possible so that companies can continue making money. This can include promoting content that provokes anger or outrage because strong emotional reactions encourage people to comment, share, and keep scrolling. To me, this reflects a larger problem with the way some technologies are developed, where financial incentives can take priority over the people who are actually using them.

This line reminds me of just how busy our lives have become. It can be difficult to find the time or energy to take action on larger issues when we are already trying to balance work, school, relationships, and our personal lives. I think this is partly how BigAI has been able to make such significant changes without generating the level of public pushback we might expect. The world is moving so quickly, and people are often so preoccupied with their own lives that they may not have the time to stop and consider the broader consequences of what is happening. In a way, our busyness may be allowing these developments to happen around us before we have even had a chance to fully process their implications.

Although I think me and many people would choose this “home-cooked, locally-grown, heart-felt digital meals over factory-farmed fast food” every time, I don’t think many people really even know the difference. Some people may not care enough to learn where the content they consume comes from, while others may not have the media literacy skills needed to recognize the difference. This makes me think that having access to good information is only part of the problem; people also need to know how to identify it. Without these skills, it can be easy to consume low-quality or misleading content without even realizing it.

This paragraph makes me wonder what would happen if this trend continues. Will people eventually stop sharing their work online altogether? If there is no financial incentive from clicks and views, will fewer people be willing to share their research online, perhaps causing us to return to physical media such as books? This idea also reminds me of something called the “dead internet theory,” which suggests that people will eventually become so fed up with the amount of low-quality, AI-generated content online that they stop using the internet altogether. The theory suggests that, eventually, the internet could become mostly AI bots interacting with one another rather than real people.

Unfortunately, I believe that the barriers being put up are the beginning of a time when credible information will become even harder to find. Most students are not willing to pay to access information just to ensure that the sources they use for their papers are accurate. As more authors and scholars put their work behind paywalls, students may have to rely more heavily on information that is freely available, which is not always as reliable. I do not blame independent authors or scholars for using paywalls, however. I would not want my own work to be taken and used without receiving credit either.

This makes me think about how school boards and institutions may eventually have to create agreements with scholars and publishers so that students can access credible information for free through their school logins.

This paragraph reminded me of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now known as “X”). I remember in 2023, when he introduced the idea of charging a fee to use the app, there was a lot of outrage online. Although the idea was discussed, X did not end up requiring all users to pay to use the platform. This made me think about how much influence users can have when they come together and speak out about changes they disagree with. Although this may be an optimistic way of looking at the situation, I think it is important to recognize that the internet is not entirely out of our control.

I think it is easy to forget how truly amazing the internet really is. Growing up, the internet was already very much in motion. Since it was always around, I tend to overlook the incredible nature of it and instead be hypercritical of it. Especially in the past few years, I find that the internet has become a breeding ground for negativity and insecurity. I think the constant exposure to other people’s idealized lives makes it difficult to recognize the positive aspects of being connected. It makes me wonder how different my relationship with the internet would be if I had grown up without it.

Although I think it is extraordinary that just anyone can create content online, it is also scary. Too many people do not think critically about the content they see on the internet and do not question if the content is accurate or true. I remember growing up, teachers would warn us against using Wikipedia since the pages could easily be edited by anyone at the time, yet many took what the website had to say as fact.