I like that this article gave a realistic view on how AI can help accelerate the efficiency of certain tasks but also has its limits. AI use can often be abused and is sometimes thought to be a cure all for any work, however it should be used as a supplement to learning instead of replacing the act of learning.

I feel like although this helps lessen research time, one should always cite their sources and at least skim the actual documents that they are referencing their information from because AI can be wrong or biased a lot of times.

My opinion on this may not be popular, however we live in a society that will always choose profitability over employees and so the concept of AI not replacing human jobs is not realistic because it is cheaper for corporations and organizations to use AI than to pay employees.

I think that this is something that people often miss when discussing AI. AI is generally seen as "more intelligent than us" and its advice is held to a higher standard and yet it gets things wrong all the time and is an unreliable source when it comes to cultural communication.

I agree with this statement, there are a lot of reasons why I heavily dislike generative AI and don't use it willingly but the most crucial detriment of AI is that it causes people to use their brains less and less and become dependent on it rather than the actual act of learning. AI doesn't actually help people learn most of the time and as a psychology student, I will even go as far as predict that my generation will have an uptick in Alzheimer's cases when we are older because of this brain atrophy.