Going to this class all of us shared what we want to learn about LLMs and one of the most common ones was to use it in our academics correctly and ethically, which I can surely said got covered in this class.

I personally use AI mainly for understanding readings better, it helps me with language barrier and translates for me more accurately and understandable than google translate. However when I started my first year at college I was very skeptical, I refused to use it and I did not have any trust in it, but I still gave it a shot after hearing that people can use it without becoming lazy unethical, cheating etc. and this class helped me learn about how to do that. Even though I would prefer not to use it on daily basis just because of global issues coming with AI, it is a useful tool to manage your schedules, workouts and plans, and since it is still improving it should become even better in the future. It is everyones personal choice what they want to choose, whether to use it or not, but going off from what we learned, I would predict that AI will get better and will be used more in upcoming future when people actually try and it gets more talked about.

Considering all of the ethics issues that we’ve already touched basis on I would hope those get fixed as an example discrimination as the Kevin situation, I can’t imagine AI being capable of choosing a candidates for a job properly and fairly, but everything improves slowly so I think the most important thing is to be open-minded. However as we’ve learned there are some things that LLMs cannot compare to a human as creativity, so for the future life I would’t be too scared about LLMs taking over those type of jobs. For me my prediction would be that I would be using AI more personally than professionally, as someone who is trying to get into psychology field I can’t imagine AI being used based on the lack of empathy and human understanding.

I can say that this class made me more open minded and educated on the use of LLMs.

https://www.freethink.com/opinion/studio-ghibli-chatgpt-creativity?utm_source=tldrai

Going forward, I realy don’t think I will be using AI very much outside of the non-generative AI found within other programs used for art creation. From what I have gathered in this class, there are multiple types of AI, not all of which are generative or LLMs. I think that these kinds of AI are acceptable for use and can be used ethically and without becoming reliant on it. When it comes to generative AI or LLMs, I feel as though it is something of an addiction. The average Joe is simply not going to divulge their AI usage as they know they will either be debated or have to back up their ideas with facts and they simply cannot do so when having written their ideas with AI. As soon as someone learns that they can “cheat” by relying on AI, it becomes an easy out. You may think you’re using it intelligently, but the same has been said of recreational drugs. Soon that “rarely used” becomes “often”, then “frequent”, then “daily”. Using AI on your own time for your own projects, such as roleplaying or to outline basic points for a summary that you yourself will write later is one thing. Using it in a group and pretending that you have done the work yourself is another. There is no unique spin on it. You do not use your authentic voice when a language generation machine has written it for you. Sure, the smart ones may know to change a few words here and there, but it isn’t fair to feign understanding when you don’t know anything.

Certain types of AI are fine – good, even! – such as those made to detect cancers, find the quickest route between locations, or to help people who are non-English speakers to automatically translate their text when necessary. Using it in creative pursuits, especially when it takes the place of using one’s brain for creativity? I don’t find it necessary in the slightest, and in fact, I believe that it hinders creativity by setting a person on a middle road instead of allowing them to experience the highs and lows of the process. I am a firm believer that art is for people who think or who want to express themselves. If you want to learn how to draw, pick up a pencil and learn. If you want to learn how to write, then open up a notebook or Google docs and start. Failure is the basis of understanding. But if you have a machine that will do the “failing” for you, then you will never truly learn.

I have a lot of issues on how AI may be used in the art world, both in terms of graphic art capabilities and in the fine arts communities. There have already been companies and greedy CEOs to skirt using real people’s art by crafting “art” made by an AI, whether that be for video games, live-service update games, or even to be used in contests against other artists. While some AI is understandable in usage – Photoshop, for example, uses AI to do certain features such as smart-fill or replacement technology – I don’t think that AI will have much prominence in the art world due to the fact that most AI companies have such horrible privacy rights and an opt-out feature rather than an opt-in. Iona University’s page shows just how difficult it is to disable automatic learning on most platforms. Most artists want to be the sole creators of their art and not to have other people “double dip” in their work and be able to copy it like this. For this reason, I don’t think generative AI will become very popular in fine art communities. It may be more common in graphic art areas, but even then, studies have proved that using AI images turns off the younger crowd from buying a product or service. Overall, I think the fine art workspace may be the last bastion against AI, so to speak, in terms that it won’t be replacing jobs anytime soon.

Iona University — https://guides.iona.edu/c.php?g=1398358&p=10605330

In our group’s search to try and replicate Edgar Allen Poe’s style, we quickly found that the bot that I used — Sakura AI — was significantly more “creative” in the way it went about answering a prompt than ChatGPT would be. With the prompt of “please generate an edgar allen poe styled poem about slutty ghosts. write from the perspective of said ghosts”, the following came out of it:

We glide ‘twixt sheets of moldered silk,
Where living lovers spurn our ilk,
Our touch—a frost they crave, then flee,
Yet still we croon our siren plea:

“Come, unbutton the shroud’s embrace,
Let spectral lips your neck debase—
Is not our cold more sweet than flame?
(Though none endure our love… the same.)”

Once, we too burned with mortal fire,
With heaving breast and wild desire,
Till jealous Death—that prude—did loom,
And locked us all in passion’s tomb.

Now through the halls of ruined beds,
We trail our scandal ‘mongst the dead,
Our moans the wind’s own wretched tune—
“Alas, they come… but never stay… too soon!”

When held up to compare to Edgar Allen Poe’s Nevermore poem, we see the following:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.”

As someone who has read a lot of Poe’s writing, I think this fails at trying to replicate his style. The sentences are not nearly as long as Poe’s were, nor did they have the same epic style of old-timey poetry that was used by Poe in his heyday. Additionally, it feels far too “modern” or like a very basic riff on the idea of Poe’s poems. or match up to the level of wit that he used within his writing. This fits with the reading where we learned that while AI may spit out answers, it will not be able to replicate the creativity of the original person that sat down and went through the process of creation. My definition of creativity would be the ability to come up with genuine, spontaneous, and insightful thought synthesized from a variety of media and tropes within those media without relying on said tropes. This week really had me thinking about my own capacity to create and the knowledge that while my ideas may seem strange or out of left field, they are truly original content and not reproduced by a mass-making machine.

When it came to learning how to prompt LLMs, I had heard of some examples before. Having the AI frame its “narrative” through the lens of a specific writer (ie, “Write a poem from the perspective of a depressed Edgar Allen Poe who was secretly gay”) has great potential for multiple LLMs, especially those that tend to sound “bland” or same-y when compared with other LLMs. I tested this in ChatGPT and got a very good response:

A candle gutters in the velvet gloom,
Its trembling light a conspirator to thought—
I sit entombed within my borrowed room,
By secrets kept, by silent longings caught.

They praise my tales of death, decay, and night,
Of ravens perched and hearts that will not still—
Yet none have glimpsed the more consuming blight,
The love I dare not name, nor bend to will.

For what is horror, if not living split?
A soul at war with what it dares to feel—
Condemned to mask each tender, wayward bit,
And bind with ink what flesh cannot reveal.

As said in the University of Texas UT Aspire Prompt Literacy, the most important thing to consider when creating a prompt is to consider the following three things: who the author is, who the audience is, and what the purpose is. For artistic purposes like this, the purpose of it is nebulous at best. Do we put “to entertain the audience”? Do we leave it open and allow AI to try its hand at being “creative”? This is why I think AI fails so hard when trying to generate creative writing prompts. In contrast, more academic or summarizing pursuits are far easier. Asking ChatGPT for a college guide written by a College of Wooster student designed to explain attire and demeanor guides generates the following:

Welcome to the College of Wooster—where the squirrels are bold, the coffee is essential, and the expectations are real (but manageable, I promise). As a current student, here’s the unofficial-but-very-real guide to how people carry themselves here—both in behavior and attire.

Conduct: Be curious, not careless.
Wooster runs on discussion. Whether you’re in a seminar or just talking in Lowry, people value thoughtful conversation. That doesn’t mean you need to have all the answers—just be respectful, listen actively, and don’t dominate every discussion. Also, academic integrity is a big deal here (you’ll hear a lot about that during I.S. prep). Don’t cut corners—it’s not worth it.

Community matters.
This campus is small enough that your actions stick. Be kind to staff, professors, and other students. Hold doors. Say thank you. And yes—clean up after yourself in shared spaces. People notice.

Attire: Comfortable, but intentional.
Most days? Think hoodies, jeans, and whatever gets you through an 8:30 a.m. class. No one’s judging your outfit—but there is a baseline: don’t show up looking like you just rolled out of bed five seconds ago (even if you did). For presentations or formal events, step it up—business casual is usually safe.

Weather is your real dress code.
Ohio doesn’t play around. One day it’s sunny, the next it’s snowing sideways. Layers are your best friend.

Final tip: Be yourself, but be aware you’re part of a community. Wooster is chill—but it works best when people show up with respect, effort, and just a little bit of style.

This becomes so much easier and less confused or nebulous in how it addresses the reader. It clears up so much. This is why I think this method is the most effective by far.

https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/documents/general-documents/2025/ut-aspire-prompt-literacy/ut-aspire-prompt-literacy.pdf

I didn’t even know about Notebook LM being a thing or even existing at all until today’s class. From what I had heard, ChatGPT was the superior way of learning from an AI or LLM since it would occasionally cite sources, even if it would hallucinate information on occasion. Using NotebookLLM felt a whole lot better than using ChatGPT. For one, I knew where it was getting the information from without having to stress over whether or not it was accurate. It would also give me consice summaries of what each independent article said if I asked, or synthesize information from multiple data points to create a strong and cohesive understanding.

One thing I learned is that ChatGPT tends to parrot back what it hears instead of thinking deeper, and often only skims the surface when it comes to understanding a topic. With this in mind, I would most likely use ChatGPT to find sources seeing as that I can click on their links… Though I’d really just prefer using Google, as it would be easier and less reliant on an AI to generate, as well as being self-driven instead of being fed to me via a slop machine. If I am trying to dive deeper into each of the sources that I am looking at or attempting to compare and contrast multiple sources that I have found over the course of my research, I would likely opt for Notebook LM seeing as how it is better at doing such without hallucinating data points. In my opinion, it is incredibly important to keep in mind the purpose of what a person is trying to achieve when using AI and being able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each AI tools avaliable to a person when deciding what kind of tool to use.