# data[].attributes.body
In terms of comprehending the argumentative view of Goodlad and Baker, they have structurally made their argumentative point clear in terms of their preference with AI. They have restrictions on it and surely, opinions on human adaptation to AI. Goodlad and Baker do not want the presence of AI to be forgotten but for it to be depleted in terms of how much power it holds and for humans to remain consistent of their human comprehension and interpretation. Sure, you can use AI for a knowledge foundation but heavy reliance on it can be dangerous and ineffective. It is important that we are able to synthesize issues in a deeper sense, even with AI's answer to our problems. It is our responsibility to think even further than AI's mundane answers.

# data[].attributes.body
Education must find ways to work/maneuver around the presence and usage of AI. With this, it is crucial for educators to teach the limitations AI has and how its results is not efficient in terms of achieving the best quality of work.

# data[].attributes.body
"We therefore caution educators to think twice before heeding the advice of enthusiastic technophiles... Requiring students to work from this shallow foundation is hardly the best way to empower their thikning, hone their technique, or even help them develop a solid grasp of an LLM's limitations."

# data[].attributes.body
"They can also help to contextualize an array of social impacts: for example, the racial implications of automated decision-making, the increasing carbon footprint of “cloud” computing, the long histories of technological change, and the dangerous stereotypes that internet data amplifies."

# data[].attributes.body
Goodlad and Baker make a great point in terms of being cautious of AI usage within academics but it is also important to implement the presence and acknowledge AI for what it is. Sure, it can conceptualize various ideas but what Goodlad and Baker are trying to express is that educators should try and teach their students on how to think more broadly and in-depth than AI's answer to their prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
AI doesn't hold the humanistic and empathetic perception as us humans, do. However, it is suggested by Goodlad and Baker that we work collaboratively in an interdisciplinary sense to effectively make AI provide us with a less polarized perspective and grow more humanely through a humanistic insight.

# data[].attributes.body
"Because such models mimic the human-generated idiocies in their scraped internet data, GPT-3 was found to emit “persistent toxic” content, “severe” bias against Muslims, and “misconceptions” that include conspiracy theories, climate change denial, and pseudo-scientific beliefs."

# data[].attributes.body
"These endemic flaws make LLMs ripe for automated trolling, propaganda, spam and fake news: Malicious or just-plain bogus content, which could further degrade an online discourse already coarsened and dumbed down by algorithmic manipulation and the chase after clicks."

# data[].attributes.body
Goodlad and Baker strongly believe that the presence of AI should be acknowledged but also regulated in terms of usage. In fact, their argument suggests that AI holds various biases and false news that could easily be interpreted wrong. However, it is up to researchers, technologists, and policy makers to address this spread of false information and provide a more humanistic software than just stereotypes from AI sites like ChatGPT.

# data[].attributes.body
Using multimedia within this essay was an efficient way for both Goodlad and Baker to make their argument even stronger and grasps the readers attention very effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
Goodlad and Baker provide illustrations of tweets from online netizens that relate to the aspect of AI usage. Using such tweets allow for the readers to get a more effective insight on others perception of using AI and its general presence. Not only is it a comprehension tool for the reader, but also grasps their attention with the large lettering and new font.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this method to be extremely helpful in terms of envisioning the actual usage of AI. This shows how easily accessible and how quick AI provides and answer to stuff. However if you actually read the answer that ChatGPT provides, it shows how AI might have a grasp on the human experience of why freedom of speech is important to society but it doesn't provoke the real, human feeling when expressing yourself through the freedom of speech. It simply defines and shows the importance of free speech within a democratic society, and missing that humane empathy and provoking emotion in their answer.

# data[].attributes.body
Using these certain key terms allows for Goodlad and Baker to express their central bias and tone on the aspect of human adaptation around AI. Upon reading, you can grasp their sense of distaste of AI with their word choices.

# data[].attributes.body
"OpenAI's CEO (a Stanford dropout who believes that 'colleges' discourage risk) talks vaguely of a coming revolution which just happens to enrich him and his friends."

This alone shows both of the author's distaste in the OpenAI's CEO and his views, which reflect their views on the usage of AI. The tone of this excerpt is very vexed in terms of their ill-preference of the OpenAI's CEO.

# data[].attributes.body
"In that Graeberian universe, Bullshit Jobs beget Bullshit Words. As if assuming that human words are never anything but bullshit..."

Using the format and applying the term "bullshit" allows for a message to come across for better meaning for the audience of this article.

# data[].attributes.body
The term: "LLM"

LLM essentially means Large Language Model which allows for AI softwares to be trained on massive datasets and code to understand human language. Constantly referring to LLM's allows Goodlad and Baker to personify the LLM identity and vilify it against a topic they are talking about.