Now the Humanities Can Disrupt AI by Karina Alarcon

Primary Claim

karinaalar05 — 2025-09-30 13:50:52 UTC

The author argues that AI is not equivalent to human intelligence or thought. Instead, it is an imitation of human intelligence that requires a lot of data. Therefore, the humanities are needed in questioning the AI craze.

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-09-30 13:57:25 UTC

AI depends on massive data and human labor, not creativity or thought.

Key Terms

karinaalar05 — 2025-09-30 14:30:20 UTC

Mouth without a brain: describes how AI talks but doesn't understand
Machine intelligence: to explain how computers mimic thinking with data
Anti-thought: basic writing without real ideas

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-09-30 14:35:29 UTC

AI is not true intelligence instead it just imitates human thinking.

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-09-30 14:35:51 UTC

Since AI can only mimic language without genuine understanding, people must be responsible for their own judgment, meaning, and ethical thinking.

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-02 18:29:09 UTC

"They often “hallucinate” sources and make up facts" (Goodlad & Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-02 18:29:25 UTC

"With the explosion of human data on the web, smartphones, social media, and an everexpanding “internet of things,” “Big Data” became a form of capital, while scale—the quantity of training data and the size of the model that mined it—promised to deliver new kinds of power and knowledge" (Goodlad & Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-02 18:38:29 UTC

"As if assuming that human
words are never anything but bullshit, text generators sell a fantasy of writing as a frictionless act that borders on anti-thought" (Goodlad and Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 18:39:21 UTC

"The effort to detoxify ChatGPT required Kenyans earning less than $2 per hour to label graphic content at high speed including child sexual abuse, bestiality, murder, suicide, torture, self harm, and incest” (Goodlad and Baker).

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:11:32 UTC

AI often gives false or misleading information.

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:16:26 UTC

"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" (Goodlad & Baker).

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:20:02 UTC

The world has to count on human judgment and critical thinking to stop the spread of false information because AI cannot verify the truth.

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:27:11 UTC

AI’s progress relies on global inequality and exploitation, which raises ethical and social concerns about who benefits from AI.

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:29:38 UTC

“The human brain evolved over 500 million years to help people make sense of a world of multifarious objects... deprived of any such biological or social affordances, today’s machine learning models require arsenals of computer power and thousands of examples"(Goodlad & Baker).

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:32:23 UTC

Big tech corporations control AI for profit

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:34:36 UTC

"GPT-3... was funded by Microsoft... it is estimated to have required about $5 million in ‘compute’ for training alone... Microsoft invested $10 billion in OpenAI in exchange for a 49 percent stake" (Goodlad & Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:35:26 UTC

“As the cost of training new models has risen... ‘AI’ increasingly becomes an engine for consolidating monopoly power" (Goodlad & Baker).

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:38:06 UTC

AI is shaped by large corporations for financial gain, restricting fairness, equity, and open access to information.

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:39:51 UTC

AI threatens authentic writing as well as learning.

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:42:33 UTC

"The marketers of these systems encourage students to regard their writing as task-specific transactions, performed to earn a grade and disconnected from communication or learning" (Goodlad & Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:44:03 UTC

"A tool for passing off “anti-thought” as if it were accountable human writing could encourage a new-fangled Newspeak" (Goodlad & Baker).

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:48:28 UTC

AI tools have the ability to damage real learning and creativity, turning writing from a critical expression to a computerized result.

Argument

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:50:27 UTC

The humanities can challenge and guide AI.

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:52:05 UTC

“Humanists—including those who teach writing as a medium of public communication, shared experience, democratic dialogue, artistic experiment, and new knowledge—are ideal ‘domain experts’ for the current juncture" (Goodlad & Baker).

Evidence

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:53:23 UTC

“In the longer run, humanities educators can be leaders in helping students and the public to grasp the possibilities and perils of language models and other ‘generative AI" (Goodlad & Baker).

Implication

karinaalar05 — 2025-10-12 19:55:23 UTC

The humanities foster critical thinking, ethics, and awareness. These skills are needed to guide technology responsibly and protect human understanding.