To an extent, this idea of Chat GPT having its own flaws could be seen as beneficial from the perspective of mimicking the reality that one person might have false beliefs. For example, given the context of the passage having been about Chat GPT attempting to take on the role of someone within a sales market and providing a questionare, it would be beneficial for the student to be exposed to many different questions that can stem from a multitude of beliefs. However, given from the perspective of the student simply giving a prompt allowing for correction, this "inherent bias" might show through and just completely throw off the student and even might cause the student to doubt their text even more (proving to be unhelpful).

Granted, this might be personal preference or just might expose how my brain works best with understanding information, but I feel as if this is the job of the professor to teach rather than Chat GPT to be used as a resource. Although this text is encouraging the use of AI without an over-reliance, this claim is essentially being its own contradiction by contradicting what it had made previously in the text. Encouraging the use of generative AI to "promote divergent thinking" and "challenge expertise bias" is in fact being over reliant on the AI generation because this is the job of the professor to program into the kids brains through lectures ad just general understanding through out a specific course. This "resource" would simply just replace the job of the professor and, as a result, create that over reliance.

Speaking from my own experience, I know that this use of AI has in fact been helpful with studying to an extent. Knowing that AI cant replace my lecture videos but rather provide some feedback on possible mistakes I have made and providing steps that In could learn from essentially provides my study practices with a well educated teacher. I would say that I may have been guilty in terms of attempting to use AI to "help" with my physics homework by prompting to explain the steps to solve, However, come up empty handed with no solutions and resources to help solve it myself. Ultimately, did it help me? Yes. Was it my desired outcome? No. But this still begs the question of "does that make Chat GPT or other generative AI's incorrect for not providing a desired outcome from the given prompt"? I think yes and because of this, I wouldn't recommend studying with it in fear of the answers being generated having the potential to just be blatently incorrect.

From my own personal belief I think that having a public access to AI allows for the inevitable downsides to outweigh the positive benefits. The whole discussion about AI generation can parallel the topic of social media. there are in fact both positives and negatives to the use of it. However, specific to social media, the over reliance on trusting the user to use the system in good faith is unreliable as not everyone uses social media for its desired benefits. I believe the same can apply to AI generation. AI has great benefits such as providing quick and easy to digest summaries and can assist with learning but can be abused to replace out own original thought. That downside in itself is scary to think because without any sort of rationale, original thought, society will just slowly get "dumber" in essence and stay stagnant.

This idea brought about the form of a survey digs into the big uncertainty of the future. With the ever evolving world of technology and the constant new models of different AI being produced, AI is started to become more normalized simply due to the sheer amount. AI becoming more advanced and harder top spot forced universities to have to adapt to policies regarding its use knowing its inevitable to completely ban it. I know just in the recent years at USF there used to be bans strictly prohibiting any use of it what so ever. However, those have recently changed to be more lenient and give that power to the professors to determine what is or what is not allowed in terms of AI use. This who paper in itself is a microcosm for being forced to exercise the skill of adaptation to ensure authenticity.

This example of paralleling trigonometry students use of calculators as similar to a way that students could benefit from the use of AI in terms of marketing heavily relies on two principles. The First one having ,what I believe to be ,a slight potential over reliance that the AI generation ,specific to Chat GPT, is in fact correct when presenting evidence and or could be helpful for the student. The second, being an example of a trigonometry students request compared to a potential marketing student is obsolete. This is simply due to the fact that Chat GPT would be generating two very different things based on two very different prompts that could also be deemed as either incorrect or not helpful for the marketing student. The two different subjects deal with two different subject matter. Math being very formulaic and marketing having a subjective element that would be difficult for a program to replicate.