This, again, reflects "publish or perish", and the desperation created by these institutions to force its faculty into feeling that to be considered valuable to their university, they NEED to rapidly produce content at all costs. Is this truly scholarship being produced? Or is it the AI slop that is diminishing the field? It's going to become harder and harder to detect AI in the future, and if this isn't addressed or at least regulated at this level, then I can picture the average faculty member becoming obsolete.

This reminds me of the impact of "publish or perish". We see so many academics heavily rely on AI generated articles that are put through peer review and edited (hopefully by a human but at this point who knows), then sent out for publication. That fear of falling behind in this sphere has made people so desperate that they feel they need to publish an upward of 12 pieces per year.

I'm so fascinated by the idea of "ghost studies" and AI systems essentially creating falsified work to fill gaps in its knowledge. It feels unethical and presents such a dystopian reality for those who may not be aware this occurs or who take what is presented at face value. How can we encourage the general pop to take this extra time to do more work when the hottest commodity right now is doing less?

This was a new phrase for me, and its usage here was quite interesting. In this sense, it almost poses academics as puppets being micro-managed and in danger of being viewed as "unnecessary" by their institution if they fall out of line. However, as we see so much of Ontarios education being destroyed and programs being stripped of their autonomy (e.g., teacher ed being forced to a 12 month program to be ready for next year), I feel like that authority mentioned herewon't last much longer.

I'm interpreting this as the infiltration of falsified knowledge gaps that AI has been filling. The worry of the general pop taking these at face value and as fact, given what we know currently about LLMs, puts forward new challenges in terms of who benefits from the misinformation being produced, the outcome of that information being spread, and how the information is internalized.

It never ceases to amaze me that education continues to be of such little importance when it is so foundational. How much more will education be gutted over the next decade? Where else will they cut when the need arises? What will they deem worthy to fund, and what message will this send students?

This doesn't surprise me at this point. Our governments current spending habits reflect the current war on education they've been waging on teachers and the system in general. You can see if every time you go into a classroom. The only reason the classroom even feels like a space for learning (and is one) is due to independent teacher spending.

This, again, signals to me that Universities are often putting these programs in place to appear as if they care about the LGBTQ+ community so as to appease groups, rather than actually putting in the work to create change. This lack of consideration by treating the topic as "lesser" continues to perpetuate the idea that those in the community are "less than" and have to minimize themselves for the sake of heterosexual comfort and preference.

The concept of "found family" in the LGBTQ+ community has been referred to as a survival mechanism against rejection, prejudice, and abuse. These spaces are not only affirming, but offer emotional validation and a chance for people to thrive in spite of unsupportive biological families. While incredibly sad that these familial structures were born out of such dreadful circumstances, I can only imagine the countless lives they have saved in the process.

Policies are present to protect the university, and sometime can fee like box checking. While the university put these parameters in place, which is a first step, the issue itself runs much deeper, and if the student feels unsafe or unsupported should they choose to report discrimination, it will go "untold". Based on the authors admission of the potential pitfalls of the university's programming, it continues to give "performative". Without involving members of the LGBTQ+ a seat at the table when organizing said courses and prioritizing heterosexual comfort over LGBTQ+ realities, then the entire mission is useless.

This is an incredibly sad reality that so many people continue to face today. I can only imagine the emotional turmoil being experienced by members of the LGBTQ+ community under the Trump administration as they attempt to navigate the possible consequences of coming out to family, friends, and community. From my knowledge, the legalization of same-sex marriage is beginning to be brought to debate after over 10 years in several states, which threatens the start of a domino effect. https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community

It's interesting to me that they acknowledge the history of "queer" being a slur and the harm it may still do in some communities, yet they choose to use it as they feel it works best for their context. This plays into the later idea of the "saviour" complex discussed in later annotations as it feels as though the word id being used out of connivence rather than genuine concern. As a reader, this feels negligent and would require more than a sentence to address it.

They may have had more luck in findings pieces that suited their criteria if they allowed non-academic works. The 90s have been referred to as the "Gold Age" of print (e.g., news papers, magazines, etc.) as a cultural influence. They were daily staples in peoples lives and could have included incredible potential for this review.

I wonder if this remains an issue of performativity on behalf of the university (similar to what was described during Thursdays readings), or if the policies in place are uninformed/ ineffective. I have seen people describe Universities as "all lip service" when they assume that hanging pride flags during June makes them "inclusive". It's incredibly disingenuous on the part of the school.

If these AI driven algorithms are pushing these particular beliefs, I can imagine people having biases being reinforced and keeping this oppressive system in power. If we are continuously made to believe that this is "just the way things are" by those in control, how can we as a society feel capable of creating change?

I don't think it is just as simple as valuing data; it is who values it. If biases are so ingrained in LLMs to this degree (and potentially worse in the future [not very a very optimistic take, but thinking on least favourable outcomes]), who knows how it may radicalize this generation of children and youth growing up with this digital landscape? It is so easy to fall down rabbit holes of hateful extremism via algorithmic funnelling, that truly anyone could be victimized by, and if those who are creating these platforms harbour those beliefs (or make it easy enough for these dangerous ideologies to infiltrate them), I have to ask perhaps a conspiratorial question: what is the true motive behind all of this?

Reading texts such as this is a very real point of privilege for me. As someone who has grown up so far removed from the issues raised in this article, its genuinely startling. This brings the question of who get's to determine these rankings of language, who is placing the value of use? This reinforces Sam Altman's quote regarding the selling of knowledge. In this case, I feel as though the primary customer base would begin to become more and more exclusive as time went on. Again, we can grapple with the idea of the right to knowledge. Thinking even about the UN sustainability goals (4: quality education to be specific) set for 2030, is this not directly going against humanitarian rights?

(link for more info on SDGs if anyone is interested: https://globalgoals.org/goals/4-quality-education/)

It feels like these particular LLMs are a form of digital colonization. We are unknowingly fed information about different cultures and ways of being through a westernized lens, potentially developing a bias similar to that of the LLM, and possessing an unknowingly false representation of another country/ culture. The danger of inaccuracy is how hate spreads as a whole.

One of my first "culture shocks" of the potential harms of AI was learning about several stories where young teens had taken their own lives in connection with their AI usage. This ranged between researching methods without the content of the conversation being flagged, acting as a "suicide coach", and incidences of AI psychosis. Much of the backlash for the families and public sparked companies to redesign the platforms, but the concern still remains as to if there is enough being done to protect teenagers/ children that are using these tools. Should there be parental controls on AI platforms? An age restriction?

This is yet another reminder that nothing is truly neutral. It raises questions of who is actually in control of what we see? Is what we are seeing accurate/ factual, or is it manufactured by those who are the figure heads of these larger organizations? The idea that these biases are so ingrained within something so widely used is incredibly dangerous. Who is incharge of the narrative of what we consume online?

The phrasing of "squeezing it down" implies a condensing of culture - when I first read this, it felt as if LLMs are essentially breaking down the vast mosaics of what makes different cultures so valuable and simplifying it. Is this not a dehumanization of cultures? While I can understand and appreciate the complex processes that go into the creation of these algorithms, is it worth potentially losing a piece of humanity?