This is a little bit of a divergence, but the topic of resources like research work and scientific analysis made me think about the fact that some science publishing companies charge people to read the articles. I think this is ridiculous. Furthermore, they charge the authors of the papers to publish in their journals. The fact that these studies were openly shared would help advance the research field much quicker and provide a more accessible and equitable approach to research only makes me appreciate the companies that do not privatize their resources behind a paywall.

This monopolization is not only in the podcast industry, but also in the film industry, which often uses data and algorithms to determine and curate exactly what audiences want to watch. Many people may be fatigued by this which may explain why the success of "Obsession" in theatres was celebrated so much this year. I think this movie acted as a source of hope that genuine human creativity is still valued in the industry.

I wonder if there will be any stricter rules, laws, or policies put in place in the future regarding the use of these tools by people and institutions. To be honest, I think it would've been a wise idea for proactive policies to have been in place before the release of generative AI tools to the public and I'm surprised that they just released it to the public so easily. I think that simply harm reduction is not sufficient; there needs to be preventative measures in place to avoid harm occurring in the first place. Bigger stakeholders need to care more about the potential harm of AI; the companies themselves need to be more concerned as well, in order for these approaches to work.

Nowadays, many people who have no experience coding have greater access to building applications or scripts by asking AI to code it for them through "vibe-coding". I have no doubts that AI can code better than I can, but I wonder how much reliance (if any) companies and senior programmers place on using AI to help them program? Additionally, I worry about the impact AI has had on the job market for those with computer science degrees attempting to get entry-level jobs. I've heard from many of my friends in that field that it's been very difficult to get a job right now (maybe due to companies using AI instead of hiring human programmers?), even those that have been working for almost five years.

A concerning trend I have been seeing in my students and friends is that they typically Google search something and immediately rely on the Gemini AI-generated response without validating the information from actual websites or other sources. This article discusses how AI platforms train their content on Wikipedia—which, classically, we have been told in school, is not a reliable source, due to its reliance on volunteer contributions—and thus, I think that if these AI-bots don't distinguish between reliable sources and non-reliable sources on the internet, AI content will remain not entirely trustworthy. I wonder how/if AI companies are training their AI to ensure that they only train from reliable content? I know that some companies such as Outlier have been hiring AI-trainers to correct the AI responses in niche subjects.