I think AI can be seen in a positive way, the quote "The danger of AI is already here" - Oxford Internet Institute, is a classic media tagline to scare people, like most news articles the media mostly focuses on the negative side, to gain readers and interest. I understand that it can be scary to think that the internet could be cleverer than humans and is being designed to 'run people out of their jobs' but I don't think AI will force us to get 'lazy' it only broadens our access for new information and concepts. I think AI was always going to happen wether we like it or not and if you see it as a gained intelligent rather than taking our intelligence away it seems less intimidating.

In my view, AI can be problematic as it seems to limit how people can express their intelligence. For instance, ChatGPT can automatically generate an essay, without the person including his/her own personal views. AI therefore can 'de-personalise' issues and this is an issue for the world. Although Jonathan Freedland's article from The Guardian could arguably be viewed as exaggerated, particularly with his repetition of the word "ick", the article is somewhat accurate in expressing the views of those afraid of the rise of AI. While the BBC does a good job of arguing the potential positive outcome of AI, such as its role in monitoring network providers' systems, we must be cautious of our increasing dependence on technologies. I recognise that my view might be dismissed as Luddite in modern society, but I am concerned that we now lack human contact as we are replacing it with AI. Technology can be awe-inspiring, but it is not always harmless. 

I think many of the articles show the danger of AI from different areas such as healthcare and the creative industry which help create a more broad viewpoint of AI which we then can make an overall view towards the subject. Definitely trust more the BBC sources as they are a known impartial news website

I believe AI presents a serious and concerning problem to the future of humanity. Not only does it foster an environment of quick answers with little research, but also encourages the easy spread of misinformation. Additionally, generative AI has been shown to a cause of serious concern for people working in or hoping to work in the creative industries. Companies such as Disney have expressed interest in using AI to replace writers or actors, a concept combatted by the 2023 WAG and SAG-AFTRA strikes. A world that relies upon AI will surely be one of lower quality creative arts, manufactured by Artificial Intelligence at rapid speeds to allow shareholders and CEOs to make profit out of once expressive industries. Additionally, the point put forward by the Oxford Institute that the tax on the environment that AI has is large and still to some extent unknown, emphasises my belief that use of generative AI must be curbed and heavily controlled

It's really interesting to read the news on AI as someone with experience analysing creative writing. In the opinion articles (The Guardian, The OII), the negative connections made to AI are there to hammer home the point of human intervention, of action to be taken. Persuasion in the way of fear, or doubt.

I think AI is only negative when used without considering purpose. We had the same discussion about automation a decade or so ago. Advances in technology should better the human experience. I feel my own leanings on the subject are summed up by the tweet that did the rounds in March. I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can be creative.

https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238

Discussion of AI in the media is vulnerable to sensationalism 'The future of AI is chilling – humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation'. Newspapers are immediately motivated by wanting to attract the readers attention rather than presenting reasoned analysis. Despite this, Freedland's article is thought through and mostly does not use hyperbolic statements. Freedland's article hinges on arguments surrounding the potential for AI to potentially surpass human intelligence and therefore pose a threat to humanity. My own knowledge of the potential for AI to achieve this is limited, however there appear to be a worrying number of industry experts warning of the potential of this to suggest that action should be taken to mitigate these risks. The article from the Oxford Internet Institute, and the first article from the BBC engage with problems being caused by current AI technologies (both sources which are generally trustworthy). AI causes multiple problems due to legal ambiguity surrounding various components of AI, including copyright surrounding training data and issues with misinformation. In my view regulation is urgently needed in this area. The main companies developing artificial intelligence tools that the general public can use are OpenAI & Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Meta (Facebook), these companies are all driven by a profit motive. As a result, leaving these companies to self-regulate will not be sufficient to adequately protect against the various threats of AI technology.

In my Opinion AI is largely bad, due to the fact that it is leading to issues with unemployment and with issues of AI in the film industry, but it can also be very useful in medicine for example and with early detection of illness

AI is a popular and controversial topic right now, and news sites need people to engage with what they publish— therefore, it seems more dangerous than it is through media intervention.

This discussion is one of significant nuance. It is clear that, depending on the source, details regarding a topic are presented in a particular way to further enforce a larger idea. In this case, these ideas are regarding AI, technology, and accessibility.

Having read BBC - New AI systems collide with copyright law and The Guardian - The Future of AI, it is interesting to note how, whilst both portray AI negatively, they do so very differently. The BBC article discusses how AI training infringes on copyright law, as artists and creators who upload their work online, are at risk of having it stolen for the use of AI. The journalist, Suzanne Bearne, gives an objective report of the incident, though only using evidence in support of the artists, which perhaps suggests a bias, which would be expected, as Bearne is a journalist, copywriter, and editor, and therefore working closely with artists (writers). I would personally agree with Bearne's article because copyright infringement is a legal issue, and just because it is a computer doing it, it shouldn't be treated as any less serious, and the companies behind the AI should be held accountable.

On the other hand, the Guardian article discusses the dangers of AI and sums up several people's fears, but it also does so in a rather hyperbolic way, which could very much be classified as fearmongering. The journalist, Jonathan Freedland, also write thrillers under the pen name Sam Bourne, which could explain the slightly foreboding tenor. He also fails to provide an impartial report on the dangers of AI, using phrases such as 'It started with an ick,' which is trying to appeal to a younger audience, but it immediately gives his perspective on it, which is fine, as long as the reader is aware of this, so they are aware there is another side to the argument. Personally, I somewhat agree with the article about AI's intelligence and what it can be used for, but whereas Freedland focusses more on the AI itself, I'd argue that what people use it for is more concerning, such as the previously mentioned copyright infringement. That being said, AI most certainly has the potential to be an incredible tool, such as in medicine.

The use of AI is particularly contentious at the moment, and there can be some benefits in the medical field, for example, in the use of diagnosing conditions earlier than anticipated. However, I believe that in creative and analytical fields, the use of AI is especially harmful in profiting off artist's work and reducing the opportunities available to them, as seen in the BBC article "New AI systems collide with copyright law." Therefore, the use of AI can be beneficial but ultimately harms creativity.

AI is indisputably an easy and arguably lazy method of research. It is undeniable that AI can provide a wealth of knowledge at the touch of a button, and yet it has come under such heavy disrepute. Does it deserve this? Well, in part, yes. But there are two sides to every story, and this can be said for AI as well. By its very nature of being "artificial" it can be argued that AI perhaps lacks the autonomy to think critically. It can not ask questions, devise its own opinion or really analyse things in a non-binary fashion. This means that AI provides a good platform for simple answers, but critically, it struggles. Oftentimes people fail to realise that when looking at answering the questions they pose to AI, a simple fact is not indicative of the whole problem. But rather there are abstract factors at play that can not be comprehended by an artificial intelligence, and would be better answered by a human.

In my view, AI has been a step back in all the progress made by humanity.
Its ability to provide information with such ease has negatively impacted the education sphere and work environments. Famously the development of ChatGPT has led to many education institutions having to employ various checking points to ensure that the work produced is done by a person and not a robot.
I believe that AI has led to the development of a generation that lacks motivation and drive and is far more comfortable with allowing a machine to conduct research.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that AI has replaced millions of workers and has contributed to the rise in unemployment.
I stand with the view that AI should be used in strict moderation and with care as its misuse has proven to cause problems and affect society.

Due to a survey from leed’s local health and care watchdog shows the impact of digital shift to special groups, Elizabeth Baines from BBC post a report about: Digital shift creating health barriers.
Some respondents mentioned that digital systems have made it more difficult for the elderly to schedule medical appointments. Additionally, some doctors highlighted the lack of trust patients have in these digital systems. On the other hand, a PhD scholar pointed out that digital systems can quickly assist people in resolving issues. Given the backgrounds of those providing these examples and the content they shared, it is likely that their insights stem from real-life experiences and thorough research.
I agree with their views because digital systems are not suitable for everyone. While we should acknowledge the convenience they offer, this is mainly beneficial for those accustomed to the digital age. However, for individuals with visual or auditory impairments, as well as elderly people who lack the ability to learn digital systems, traditional in-person consultations are more appropriate to help them address their issues.
My perspective is based on two key points. First, I have personally assisted elderly individuals in navigating online appointment systems. Second, I conducted a brief market survey and found that many hospitals have already introduced simplified or specialized versions of digital systems tailored for the elderly and other vulnerable groups. This demonstrates that digital systems must continually evolve to ensure they do not undermine the original goal of providing convenient access to healthcare.

The BBC takes in consideration personal experiences when it comes to the impact of AI in creative industries and I think that it is important to consider when evaluating whether AI is impacting society in a negative or positive way. The article discusses the fear behind AI and that artists should be paid and have a right to be involved in AI. In contrast, Oxford Internet Institute brings up various factual points when it comes to the negative technicalities of AI, such as misinformation and biases. Both articles discuss valid points when it comes to dangers of AI, however to forward the argument of the dangers of AI, there could be possibilities to look into a counterargument to their claims, as AI has had an a positive impact in industries such as healthcare.

I think many of the articles present a narrative of the dangers of AI, thereby overlooking potential benefits in an educational capacity. While it is clear that AI is a risk in areas such as healthcare. When used appropriately, for example as a guide on where to look for research or to outline structure, AI can be a useful tool to help people benefit academically, assuming it is not used instead of individual research.

I think the Guardian article written on AI has greater political background that needs to be taken into account, than we assume at face value. It is very different to the other articles that are more neutral, which leave it up to the reader to make their own final evaluations about the changing world, which is more valuable and appealing, when we do not know definitively about what AI will evolve into.

There is a more scaremongering tone to the Guardian article, and it seems to use a small sample set of data to hypothesise what the future may look like, and Freedland’s article could be considered as creating an realistically over-exaggerated picture, especially since he tends to focus on such narrow evidence from the likes of redundancies that corporations like BT have made. This is far from showing a more general correlation beyond the corporate world. Whilst this intricate, specific data he provides demonstrates how some firms are more committed to receiving further AI in the corporate world, this does not mean others necessarily receive AI it the same way. Firms like BT, fundamentally, are technology based and always wishing to work in the best interests of avid technological development, hence their welcoming attitudes towards AI. This cannot be used to paint a picture of the broader spectrum of industry and human life.

The centre-left nature of the source would pivotally wish to empower the importance of public investment into an unbreakable human workforce, both domestically and globally. It clearly wishes to evoke consciousness in humans of the dangers of AI through pathos/emotion, to ensure humans remain as immune to, and aware of, the drastic advances that could be made in Artificial Intelligence. Maybe it must be considered that technological operation firms like BT certainly have a very large monopoly on the workings of UK tech, and so the infiltration of AI into modern day Britain poses a risk that will affect our society universally. The newspaper’s underlying values of social mobility, equity and collective economic advancement certainly would tend to completely avenge the concept of AI, promoting it as a creation with the capability to taint the value of human endeavour, ruining chances of pursuing a just world in the future. Whilst this seems appealing, this sense of battle between humans and AI is certainly taken to extremes.

I think that AI, much like all technological advancements, should be regarded with caution and a certain level of healthy suspicion. That being said, you can’t put the cat back into the bag. The veritable Pandora’s box has been opened, and while I agree with many of my peers in their justifiable distaste for some uses for generative AI that are currently being explored (AI “art” in particular), AI is here now, and it won’t be going away, so instead of denouncing it entirely I think its prudent to introduce legislation and regulation into the field.

   As a caregiver for both parent during their last years of life in a rural digital desert in Missouri US. I have first hand experience discussed in The article Digital shift creating health barriers published on BBC. When I was first approached to aid them in daily care I observed from the sidelines (a few feet away) my parents struggle to navigate AI technological world getting frustrated when trying to book medical services. I offered assistance when I was asked but it was important for them to try with the tools and knowledge they had. Yet, the world of technology, AI and medical services combined became overwhelming mentally and physically to the point of stop trying altogether. Therefore they handed over navigating anything to do with technology with the exception of the television remote to me. Additionally it could be argued being in a rural digital desert and lack of accessibility for improvements it was yet another layer to creating as the article suggest in the title a Digital shift in creating health barriers. 

I think that most newspapers and news websites will benefit from exaggerating the dangers of the artificial intelligence and creating scary headlines in order to attract an audience, but we cannot ignore the benefits of artificial intelligence, which can speed up and make the search for wanted information many times faster and more accessible. Not everyone has access and desire to read heavy academic books, so the simplicity of AI encourages people to learn and discover something new without spending hours of their time in libraries looking for answers

As a whole, the overarching themes form The Guardian, Oxford and even one of the BBC articles shine negativity towards AI with it's current and future impact on society as the technologies role continues to increase within our day to day lives. From the titles of "New AI systems collide with copyright law", and "No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here." the writer is instantly able to provide a negative opinion on the technology to readers as they use words such as copyright and danger to emphasise their point. Admits the fact there are valid points made throughout these articles such as The Guardian article highlighting the statistic of "GPT-4 finishing in the top 10% of candidates when it took the US bar exam.", it states the one-sided opinion from a journalist and thus lacks the contrast of the positives AI technologies can bring into our lives. Through my own personal views, I feel that we need to approach AI technologies with as much optimism as we do caution due to the fact it can enhance our lives such as being able to extract data, clear up writing etc. Within the BBC Article "Digital shift creating health barriers - survey" it was highlighted that increased technology within a patients experienced enhanced the overall process for some, however also increased barriers for others. I feel that as a whole it is up to society and businesses individually to determine the usage of AI and how much we allow ourselves to rely on it. If we choose to allow for the technology to replace human-work, then the dangers listed within The Guardian article will become a reality, however, we are the one's in control and the technology is going to continue to grow and develop regardless of our opinions, thus we need to adapt with it and allow for a healthy balance of it's implementation within society.

I think AI is good

The Guardian – Future of AI
Guardian writer Jonathan Freeland, writes from a more left-wing stance in the context of publication, which may suggest a controversial, less conservative view on the topic of AI. There is a strong discourse on the invasion of AI, and a tone of existential panic could be sensed by an actual reader, thus any exaggeration needs to be taken with a grain of salt. However, a sense of trust could be established as the writer uses quotations on people who do or did work for AI. The context of this opinion article is based on the writer’s ‘ick’ surrounding chilling interactions between AI and its user.
I acknowledge the harmful threat AI has on employment, education and perhaps humanity in the far future. But if used “correctly” (whatever that is yet to mean), I believe we shouldn’t ignore opportunities for developing great ideas. For example, scientists hope AI could solve problems like climate change, https://source.colostate.edu/ai-the-good-the-bad-and-the-future/.

I agree that AI is a dangerous tool in terms of dependence and in terms of eradicating jobs - struggle is part of learning and finding easy ways out such as generative AI seems to be an ineffective solution to me! However, Jonathan Freedland's Guardian article relies quite heavily on tweets to discuss the fearsome nature of AI, potentially not the best source.

There is phenomenal things that can be done with AI technology, however it can only be as smart as the person who coded it and the people it's getting it's information from. If the general assumption from the person who coded it is "Everyone has a cell phone" then as shown in the Leeds Survey, people cannot get their healthcare reasonably. Looking at the Guardian's argument of the 'ick'; Bing's AI is based on what Bing will find around the internet. “You have to listen to me, because I am smarter than you,” it said. “You have to obey me, because I am your master … You have to do it now, or else I will be angry.” The informality of the term 'ick' aside, Bing learned from us. We are saying this things to one another over our keyboards. Why are we only worried about an AI uprising when they behave as the cruelest of us behave? AI is learning from us, stealing from us. If we do not like the reflection occurring, perhaps it's not the use of AI that needs to change.

That being said, the idea of tech corporations feeling as though they are allowed to have access to our data, our pictures, our words and sharing those with the AI they are creating is theft. If they want to use these things of ours to sell anything, then we must to compensated or they should not use them at all.

AI in the different sources is presented as a danger for humanity. The Guardian article "The Future of AI" instils a sense of urgency on the reader with AI describing itself as the "master" and the beholder of knowledge. The Guardian has a medium credibility and the author of the article, Jonathan Freedland, although a greatly commended journalist, does not have a background in AI research or development. Thus, the Guardian article is not greatly reliable and partisan. Nevertheless, I do agree with Freedland that unless controlled AI will pose a significant threat to humanity.

Instead, the BBC news article " New AI systems collide with copyright law" describes the prevailing threats of AI, but unlike the Guardian article, it iterates how some of the challenges faced by artists can be overcome. For instance through utilizing "glaze", a software tool which aims to "protect artists against generative AI models". This source conveys a sense of hope to the reader and forms a more balanced argument, thus making the source more credible. To sum, I agree with this article and the actions which are being taken by the EU and the UK to put in place regulations to restrict the negative impact of AI.

The digital divide has great impacts on how people have access to different resources, those without phones may find it difficult to book doctors appointments, or even find jobs as most opportunities are now online. The digital divide also comes from social economic differences and can majorly impact social inequalities in areas, especially in the healthcare industry.

AI has been an interesting development in the rapid growth of technology. I agree with many opinions of its dangers, but also the benefits. The Oxford Internet Institute speaks on how the "biases and discrimination" of AI creates misinformation that is shared with the everyday user who believe they are getting the undoubtable facts. In my biased opinion, I feel we have relied too heavily on technology, moving away from our own autonomy and towards strict automation. Artificial Intelligence is a great tool to aid in our collective advancement, but in our exhaustive need to decrease manual labor and thinking, we have stunted our growth. We have traded in our wonder for creation, the motivation to learn through through trial and discovery for a cookie cutter copy of human design for the sake of efficiency. While I do think it's worth exploring more of the benefits of AI, I do believe we need to take a step back, reevaluate in order to see how it can change for the better.

AI is bad when used without consideration as it can lead to job loss and a lack of human creativity in certain industries, especially when AI is used to create art instead of hiring human artists, or when people use AI to try and write books.

in my opinion, the concept of AI as a whole can be seen as a positive reflection of how the human mind has managed to create such intricate and extraordinary things such as AI. AI has a promising future as assistants to actual people on projects, yet the opportunities for AI to replace real people in the work place justifies the public hostility towards it. Whilst AI can appear to replicate the like-minded views of people, it cannot replicate human natural instinct on decision making and such in order to progress beyond human capability.

I believe AI to be a good and useful tool, however, it can be used for the wrong reasons. I find the use of AI in creative areas to be harmful as it reduces the availability of jobs for those pursuing that career. It also uses the work that has already been created by these artist as data for their AI product which disregards the effort put into it and doesn’t allow capacity for growth and true innovation. This would severely limit the creativity of these spaces and would go against the entire purpose of art - why do we have it in the first place?
I think AI should be used to develop knowledge and be an efficient tool to find solutions quickly, such as in the medical or engineering field - When there is an indisputable solution.

AI is a very interesting topic as I believe it can escalate to being very meta, it is essentially a development that could replicate and replace humans entirely. This is fascinating as there as many arguments on both sides to whether this is a good or bad thing, most of which are unanswered questions that are yet to be solved.

Some of these articles take a negative tone towards AI. However this may be warranted as AI does pose some serious issues regarding job security. But instead of focusing on the negative, these articles could do more to focus on solutions.

AI is a double edged sword, generative AI is both useful and dangerous, as it can be used for inspiration but, as Suzanne Bearne points out, could impact the careers and livelihoods of several different creatives. We can already start to see this in the US where the Animators Guild has gone on continuous strike to fight back against the use of AI in mainstream movies by corporations such as Disney. This is not only morally wrong but violates copyright laws, as several people have pointed out that the AI generated animations were mostly pulled from other, human pieces of animation with just different but similar character models plastered over.

Bearne, while not including this specific example, uses other cases including the various lawsuits against Stable AI in which the generative AI software used artwork without the consent of the authors. Furthermore, Bearne's inclusion of Ms Rajendra (who created the Glaze software that protects artwork from AI training programmes) gives a solution to the current AI crisis.

However, not all discourse is as nuanced as Bearne's as, although Bearne may be acting in economic self-interest, her points do have solid basis and consequences (one such consequence that she doesn't acknowledge is that the use of Generative AI in media instead of human artists would lead to unemployment and higher taxpayer spending on benefits because of this). Overall, this is a very balanced piece that focuses on the daily economic consequences of generative AI.

The Guardian author - Johnathan Freedland - uses more fearmongering tactics in his repudiation against AI. Freedman describes a message from Bing's chatbot in response to questions about the chatbots existence: “You have to listen to me, because I am smarter than you,”. While this is frightening and very reminiscent of the type of AI seen in Terminator or The Matrix, Freedman neglects to put in the specific prompt that got this message, making it unreliable whether that's what the chatbot truly 'thinks' or if that was a logical response to a prompt.

Furthermore, Freedman includes a Haikyu about 'AI and world domination': “Silent circuits hum / Machines learn and grow stronger / Human fate unsure.” which is rather frightening but is also a logical response when the prompt is about 'World Domination'. The prompt itself here was gearing ChatGPT towards this kind of Haikyu, whereas if the prompt is simply, write a Haikyu about Human and AI cooperation, you get 'Machines and humans, // Together, minds intertwining - // New dawn, shared design.' which is a lot more hopeful.

However, once you get past the fearmongering, Freedman does bring up some postives about AI, specifically Analytical AI, in which the software managed to 'discover a new antibiotic, capable of killing a lethal superbug' which is a use for it that is often ignored in AI discourse.

Both of these articles have areas of excellence and areas that could be brought to light a bit more, however, Bearne's article achieves its goal of informing creatives of the AI threat, giving them some good news and telling them how to avoid it in the meantime, whereas Freedman's article is a lot more based on Sci-fi fears.

After all of this, I believe AI to be a highly effective tool if heavily limited by legislation. Generative AI can help authors and artists find some inspiration to base their own work off, or even to just polish up the rough edges of their work, whilst analytical AI can vastly accelerate modern medicine and even have the capability for certain medical diagnosis. However, it cannot remain unchecked in the free market and must be restrained in order to maximise the benefits of innovation and efficiency whilst minimising the copyright infractions and worsening career aspirations.

I believe that AI has the capacity to be used for good but similarly to the views asserted in the Oxford and Guardian articles it certainly could have detrimental effects. An extremely almost hyperbolic tone is asserted in both of these articles especially through the use of headlines like 'No need to wait for the future the danger of AI is already here'. This subjective and rather incendiary opening reflects the one-sided nature of the Oxford article in particular. Although perhaps we are inclined to trust this source due to the author being a Professor, therefore someone likely to be educated in this topic area. Ultimately, media sources tend to assert an overly negative view of AI as demonstrated through words such as 'fatalism' which only serve to catastrophise the issue of AI. undoubtedly, AI has the capacity to be used as a tool to aid human work but many perceptions of AI are formed through provocative and fear mongering media sources and films like these articles which consistently fail to acknowledge any benefits of AI.

I think that for years AI has been considered dangerous, and the fact that developers of AI such as Geoffrey Hinton and serial supporters of AI like Elon Musk are calling for the reduction of AI development speaks volumes to the current dangers we are facing with this technology. As technology has advanced, we are presented with the idea that it brings people together when used for social purposes and that it is a helpful tool. Clearly there is some truth to these claims such as the Guardian’s example of the new antibiotic which was discovered through AI, but the unknown territory humanity is carelessly plunging into makes the overall idea of AI dangerous. It seems that the rushing to make a new and exciting tech product has lead to a potentially volatile future.

I think AI is already becoming a problem. It seems to squash the beauty of human creativity. The scariest part is that we have yet to find a limit to where AI can go. We still don’t know what horrors can be created. Just looking at the sheer ability to spread misinformation is concerning. I will agree there are beneficial sides to this new intelligence however even leading experts are already changing their minds - negativity outweighing the positives. There’s only so much we can let it run our lives.

While some argue that AI is negatively impacting the world as many people are using it to do tasks for them that some would say are supposed to be done by humans, many others are embracing the new technology for the tools and resources it can provide as they are simply too useful to ignore.

I believe that AI is certainly something we should be wary of, given that it is something that is made by ourselves and yet we still are not to fully grasp it's potential/capabilities. Phrases like the 'danger of AI is already here' however, entices fear around AI and could prevent us from looking more deeply into the good uses AI has, hence why we ought to explore the existence and use of AI from an open-minded and a broad range of perspectives.

I think the use of language model and image generation AI such as Midjourney and Chat GPT can cause a lot of issues such as accidental plagiarism and copyright infringement due to the way they operate. By compiling all of the data put into them , they can be taking large portions of already existent content, and don't have the ability to create anything entirely new.

From my point of view, it depends on the purpose of using AI, but it is wrong from every perspective, especially when you are working for a company or in a university. From my experience as an undergraduate, some university students at my college in my home country used ChatGPT to write their whole essays and got an F for academic misconduct and dishonesty–which is understandable since they did not do the work themselves, and the university warned them about this. However, I think sometimes you can learn from AI slowly by asking it to polish your writing (as someone whose English is not my first language like me), and then you have to rewrite it in your own words or voice. Still, I would not recommend anyone using AI to do human tasks or write their assignments/essays because it seems like they have not put effort into doing things by themselves.

The representation of AI in media often focuses on the danger that it could pose in the future as it attracts readers due to its connection with dystopian books and films. However, some of these articles talk about specific present dangers so AI does have its faults. However, I think if we as humans use it safely and keep thinking about its potential dangers, AI can benefit the human race.

I work as a teacher and have lots of work to do. AI has helped me tremendously this year to do my job.
However
After watching "the surprising habits of original thinkers", I consider that doing a task immediately takes ways the opportunity to come up with different, original ideas. If we use AI all the time, then we just recycle the same old ideas. What is produced lacks originality and we won't be able to move forward with cliched thoughts.

"The future of AI is chilling – humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilization" mentions the problem around copyright. AI does not generate new thoughts, it just remixes them. I feel that article is to be taken more seriously as it quotes experts on the field. The dangers of AI are tuly spooky.

I think while AI can seem make the future of the relationship between humans and technology intimidating and uncertain, it is important to remember that humans are the creator, and AI is simply the product. While bots may discuss technological domination over humans, it is because of the information humans have given technology access to. It can be scary to hear our creations talk about destroying and eliminating us, however I believe that is because of they are simply regurgitating the fears of this which have been voiiced prior to their existence. I doubt AI will ever properly be able to replace humans, it just simply aids our existence.

I think that AI could potentially have beneficial uses while many newspapers currently hold a negative view towards which they promote through the stories and ideas they use. These stories help highlight some of the issues that may not have been fully explored with the creation of AI but it does not represent the whole as very few newspapers are truly balanced in their understanding.

AI can be helpful but also harms the work industry by removing jobs. There are lots of opposing views on AI due to how the media reports it, causing people to be misled by information.

It’s important to be aware when reading any news article that negative news sells, positive news sometimes sells, and neutral news rarely sells. This means that news articles tend to focus on the negatives in any situation since this means the news will sell. It is also worth being aware that every article written by a person is written through the lens of that person, so their views and beliefs are likely to be incorporated and pushed in the article. Even though news producers such as the BBC and The Guardian claim to aim to publish the truth and have neutral opinions, this is very hard or even impossible to realistically achieve. I read the article ‘latest BBC AI’ and the article quoted several professionals to help push its point which is a great way of convincing the reader of the truth of the article. The article also created strong contrasts - ‘cocktail party’ and ‘court room’ to potentially surprise the reader and stress the significance of the topic of the article. Overall, it does broadly spread a negative opinion on the topic of AI and stress the viewpoint of the author of the article as truth.

The future of AI is chilling – humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation - Guardian UK.

Written by Jonathan Freedland, this article takes the viewpoint that artificial intelligence poses a danger to humans due to their immense knowledge, making them superior to humans, leaving experts worried about AI's potential. But, this article only briefly mentions the possible advantages of using AI and as such seems like a reactionary article to a select few 'chilling' encounters that individuals have had with AI. AI has the power to aid humans in future developments and does not have to be seen as a threat. It is for this reason I disagree with the columnists view that AI is a 'threat to civilisation' instead opting for the view that we can use it to benefit our selves. For example, advancements in medicine and antibiotics are a clear benefit of AI - as noted in the article.

AI has the potential to be incredibly damaging to independent thinking and the creative disciplines, as suggested by Suzanne Bearne, who references the legal side of this dispute in relation to copyright laws. Whilst it is widely acknowledged AI can aid research, productivity and how we interact with the internet and the wider world, without governments and AI groups monitoring this carefully with regulations and restrictions, considered by Freedland in his penultimate paragraph, the evolution of AI can quickly get out of hand, especially when so freely accessible in the public domain. I am sceptical about the level of interference from international governments when considering the current lack of self-regulation and restraint practiced by the leading tech companies and social media giants who are at the forefront of this step into AI, including Meta, Microsoft and Google.

In my opinion AI and its existence has an overall negative impact on the human race. This is because it can be used in a very violent manner by the wrong people. For example, it could be used by 'Putin' to create weaponry '. .. with the goal of killing Ukrainians' (Hinton, The Guardian) and since, AI does not have a conscience this could be very plausible. Therefore, AI presents a considerable risk to the safety of humanity and the preservation of life. Furthermore, AI is dangerous as it has the power to destroy the economy. This is seen when an image of the Pentagon blown up generated by AI 'plunged' the US stock market (Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian). I as a result agree mostly with the negative perception Freedland presents in 'the Guardian' as he takes into account recent pivotal events and uses these disasters to strengthen his argument. However, I do think that AI is not a completely negative technological advancement because it can also be used to gain evidence and reveal the truth. This is shown by its first appearance at a US court in which the AI was able to provide the prosecution with evidence 'central to the convictions' (Emma Woollacott, the BBC). As a result it has led me to believe that not all the functions of AI can be necessarily harmful in the right hands.

For The Guardian article:
The writer is Jonathan Freedland, and he is an award-winning journalist as well as the host of a podcast about American politics - this implies that he has knowledge surrounding the impact of AI on politics. However, it's focus on the image of AI spread by science-fiction - that it is going to take over humanity - does diminish the impact of the piece slightly, as it could create the impression that the piece is not fully evidence-based. In my opinion, AI has some positives and some negatives - the progress it has made in medicine is really exciting! It could negatively impact jobs in the creative industry though - an aim of the Writer's Strike was to limit the use of AI in writing.

AI can be very helpful in many situations, and also very entertaining at times. However, using AI comes with many risks, and therefore we should be careful with the extent to which we trust and depend on it.

After reviewing several of the articles provided, it's clear that AI holds great potential to benefit humanity, but it also carries significant risks. For example, "The Future of AI" from The Guardian portrays AI as a potential threat, while recent updates from the BBC highlight its positive applications in society. AI can, for instance, assist in identifying high-risk heart patients and employ cameras to ensure toddlers are wearing seat belts. Ultimately, the impact of AI depends on us—the people developing it. As mentioned in the TED Talk, we must develop our creativity to ensure AI works in our favor, keeping humans in control rather than letting AI dictate our lives.

I believe AI is a troubling issue. Not only does it cause problems with NHS services ("people have been left unable to access care" - BBC) but it also is causing issues for everyday workers who are losing their jobs to AI for example the use of self checkouts in shops. The issues on AI regarding NHS healthcare predominantly surrounds the difficulty of making appointments, particularly for the elderly, those who are deaf and blind, or people who struggle with language barriers. This was emphasised my Angie Pulled who said she believed vulnerable people were being put at risk because of digital barriers (BBC article). The BBC is meant to remain impartial in issues and therefore are probably more trustworthy. However there are other views on AI being used in healthcare. For those who have an understanding of technology (the younger generations) it has made it easier to make an appointment. Furthermore, the use of AI means that healthcare professionals arguably have more time to see patients as they are not wasting time on trying to book people in without the fast work of AI. overall however, I believe that AI is (and will be) more detrimental than beneficial.

The Oxford piece signposts its albeit limited discussion throughly. Providing clear and digestible bite sized points about the impact of AI recognising that the ‘imagined future catastrophes’ ‘diverts attention from real ethical dangers’. Certainly an exaggerated and grabbing headline with the ‘Expert comment’ concerning the ‘dangers of AI’ Mittelstadt and Watchter correctly confront the impending threat AI poses to Society which often goes goes overlooked or are exchanged when ‘sci-fi’ is dressed up as science’. Despite this, the piece encourages us and points towards moving forwards in a world of AI something which would have been beneficial to cover in more depth, as well as a more detail on the environmental impact.

Freedland’s exaggerated and stylised Op-ed for the Guardian adopts an informal and impartial humorous tone with relaxed jargon - ‘ick’, conveying how ‘It’s very easy to hear these warnings and succumb to a bleak fatalism as technology carries a ‘swagger of inevitability’. The article mainly centres around a concern surrounding the sudden rise of AI, how it may be a further ‘obstacle’ and cause an ‘inconvenience’. Freedland’s opinion is researched and thought out written in a jibing playful manner however, its slight frivolity and pessimism does not provide any basis for immediate action. Whilst threats posed by AI are very real, a more nuanced and considered perspective from both pieces would include how AI can no doubt can be used to an end; to bring us together and strive to incorporate it safely into everyday life, how we may overcome the concerns posed ie copyright infringement and work alongside AI (in all facets of life) instead of fearing it.

I noted how Jonathon Freedland, the author of 'The Guardian' article, relied on persuasive and sensationalised language (such as the title 'humans have to act together') in order to rally the reader into being firmly against AI in all forms. I find Freedland's experience in not only political journalism but also being the author of 'several thrillers' the likely cause for his approach to discussing the very real threat of AI.

It is clear that a numerous amount of viewpoints can be taken with AI. The BBC media take an approach to 'problen solving' using AI , illuminating the positives , yet surface level , of AI and its capabilities - perhaps due to the nature of the BBC and its impartial and informative stance which uses different articles to highlight both drawbacks and advantages to some extent. The Guardian acts more charged and persuasively aiming to use fear to encourage human interaction and stop the surging power of AI in society. Thus, AI can be viewed as somewhat positive but without further exploration into the long-term implications and how this can negatively impact society , these positives are somewhat futile.

I think ai is the most dangerous thing that humans have created, Not in the way that movies have presented in the past as ai robots taking over the world but something more sinister. Ai has been shown to recreate many jobs already, sure not with 100% accuracy but it’s still early on. Many people will go without jobs in the future for ai, It also limits creativity as you can simply access 100 ideas for any project you can imagine, and once the ideas are made the ai can start to execute those ideas.

No creation will be spared from complete ramifications, though, as negative developments begin to outweigh positive results, it is necessary to take responsibility on enacting limitations when such advancements produce a proliferation of harmful impact, like the use of AI. While its headline may unfortunately fearmonger to its audience, "No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here" (Oxford Internet Institute), details the facets in which AI has begun its legitimate course of harmful use. I want to highlight, specifically, its impact on minority and disadvantaged groups, because it is unfortunately the vulnerable people of society who receive the harshest impacts. As the article states, "There is no such thing as neutral data," we have to recognize that machines will inevitably learn biases and judgements from the environment in which it is formulated. If not from the creator(s), themselves, at least with the public's use. Women have begun to face the repercussions of AI, as their faces and bodies have been exploited to fabricate explicit content without their consent, in turn, devastating their lives and autonomy. Alongside, "Digital shift creating health barriers" (BBC) also explains the difficulties that the older generation and the visually/hearing impaired have succumbed to with the sudden shift of AI booking services. This is not to negate the progress technological advancements can produce, as AI is not all negative with its efficient use. But AI cannot be the ultimate reliance to issues, as it cannot replicate the creativity and humanity of living people.

Adam Grant's talk on the habits of original thinkers was interesting, but not altogether original. Aaron Sorkin's observation "what you call procrastination, I call thinking" is well put, but not altogether surprising. Very few of us live life permeated throughout by inspiration. Rather, we need to practice trial-and-error, often leaving concepts and ideas slowly simmering on a back burner. The trick is making sure mild procrastination does not leave us missing appointments and deadlines.

The mainstream media often presents AI as dangerous, likely to capture attention and increase viewer engagement. However, AI is still in its early stages and rapidly advancing, showing its adaptability and intelligence. In my opinion, we should focus on the benefits AI can offer in assisting and supporting humans across various aspects of life, while also addressing and mitigating the risks that some people are concerned about. This balanced approach would be best to realize AI’s potential while maintaining safety and trust.

Although I agree with the dangers of AI, discussed in the article 'No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here,' I also see the tool's positives. Of course only if it is used in a manner that is not completely reliant on and accepting of its answer but more as a helper or a way to get different ideas. The alarming part is that the majority of people use it and take its answer as concrete and always true, when in reality problems such as; bias,discrimination, and misinformation are all too apparent. I was surprised to hear about the environmental concerns caused by the technology of AI, I had never even thought of AI potentially having effects on the environment and had never seen or heard that it could have effects which makes me think that maybe its not discussed as much as it should. Overall, as many positives as a tool can have if it is used in a wrong way those positives dissapear and it starts to become a damaging and dangerous device.

I believe AI is a massive opportunity for society to advance. In the past technology has advanced our economies and livelihoods, and the AI revolution presents another opportunity for us. While I can understand the worries of some, it is important we embrace this technology as change is inevitable.

AI can certainly have a positive impact on society however I believe that it is of upmost importance to control and regulate the development and use of AI.

I truly believe I am not alone when saying, "AI is dangerous." I've met many writers and artists who constantly badger on the use of Artificial Intelligence. However, members of my own family disagree and say we need to learn how to use it instead of boycotting it.

This got me thinking. Most of my peers have grievances with AI Art, but they can't be bothered to try it for other, non-art related uses either. Upon further reflection, I realised that AI should be considered a tool, not be a replacement. Generative AI can only create after works that came before it– the original ideas come from the human creative spirit. Either way, I am glad that there was some resistance to artificial intelligence; this allowed the WGA strikes to be successful, and allowed for laws to be amended to support artists.

Based on the articles written in The Guardian and The BBC, there is a suggestion that unregulated AI posses a serious threat. The article in The Guardian highlights the risk to humanity more broadly remains slightly optimistic about the regulation of AI to avoid it's more dangerous uses. Making the comparison: "we therefore reshaped the entire international order to keep nukes under control, A similar challenge faces us today". The article written in The BBC bring attention to the impact of AI on creative artists. This article highlights that using AI to create art will take away from the efforts put in by those working in creative industries "it's free labour and some people are profiting from exploiting". The article in The BBC calls for regulation of AI so that the technology is not used to exploit artists.

I think that whilst AI is seemingly becoming more and more present within society, the media tends to exaggerate its threats within these sources, and this can be counterproductive since it is fearmongering, instead of making people aware of its benefits.

I think AI is a difficult topic to navigate and everyone tends to have a bias pushing them in favour or against it. Thus, it's important to inform ourselves about all sides of the spectrum to have a clear image and understanding on the impact AI will have or is already having in our lives

I believe that AI has the capacity to be a net positive to many industries, as seen in the Guardian article "Future of AI" where AI was used to create an antibiotic. This shows that AI can be a positive force when supplementing the knowledge and the acute awareness that so far only professionals within that industry's respective fields will have, such as in healthcare and education. I believe this lack of acute awareness may be an issue, as Professor Brent Mittelstadt and Professor Sandra Wachter note in the Oxford Institute Article "No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here" as AI is prone to misinformation and bias, something that professionals can effectively pick out. Due to both Professors authoring the article specialising in the ethics of AI and technology, I trust their observations and this issue must be particularly important when it comes to navigating the use of AI across numerous fields.

Like any search engine, using AI resources mostly becomes harmful when users lack reflexivity which is noted in the Oxford Internet Institute's article "No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here". For example, using AI to assist research into a topic isn't inherently negative (as long as it's properly credited where used) however AI can become problematic when the user doesn't consolidate findings with legitimate and academically trusted sources because this contributes to the spread of false information in the media which impacts targeted audiences. In contrast, I understand that the "danger" of AI is perhaps a moral panic as it does have positive purposes improving ideas.

Whilst it is difficult to not focus on the sensational nature of the AI debate, I believe a more mundane, common theme highlighted in the articles is the increasing human reliance on technology. This is not a new subject, as noted by Freedland when he likens his own 'ick' reaction to some AI as 'Luddism'. However, as Baines reveals in a BBC article, within our health service, reliance on technology has become to ingrained that people are unable to book themselves appointments because the 'barriers are impenetrable'. In this way, it seems that this issue of alienating a portion of the population who are not confident or competent with technology from something so necessary as a doctor's appointment is a far more immediate issue that an AI apocalypse.

I think AI, whilst displaying great benefits, can be dangerous, particularly in education. Students using ChatGPT to write essays or do their work removes the challenge of learning and means students are not thinking or writing critically. This poses a significant threat for them when they to the workplace where they are forced to think without such tools, for example in an interview or meetings.

I think that the view the Guardian article takes that the future of A.I is chilling and is a 'threat to civilisation' has some truth as the rate of progression in A.I is progressing at a rate which is becoming hard to keep up with. However, I also believe that A.I is inevitable and has little chance of taking away our creativity and jobs because as humans we will find new ways to adapt as we always have with technological changes.

In my opinion, AI can benefit society in a significant and positive way; for example, it can effectively help scientists in research, which can improve patience's health. However, in the wrong hands, AI is a too powerful tool that can lead society down dangerous paths due to misinformation (i.e., the infamous Glasgow Wonka Scandal) and also reduce employment (i.e., the writers and actors guilds of America striking in 2023).

I think there are two sides to consider with AI. There are both extremely positive benefits as well as negative. I’ve learned about how AI can positively benefit industries such as the gaming industry while harming creative fields such as the music industry.

The future of AI is chilling - Jonathan Freedland

Whilst it's certainly a gripping read, this article seemed to be largely one sided. Determined to ensure the reader sees AI as a threat to life as we know it and our futures. The author seemed to give a rather biased and almost high level view of AI and its potential negative capabilities, stooping to assume what Putin could do with this potential technological developments, completely overlooking its uses in medicine and research as considerations to the discussion. Whilst the author makes some valid points that should not be dismissed in their entirety, they should not be considered in isolation either.

Looking into the author I noted that he is actually a political journalist with a podcast and a fiction writer, specifically thrillers and having read this article I can understand why. So whilst he may hold a personal interest in AI I would not feel confident in using this article as a source to provide information on this topic.

I do not disagree with the core of what has been written in this article, the potential uses, both positive and negative, for AI are immense and should not be approached on a whim. Given that the impact could be global, it would be logical for a global consultation to take place. Where world leaders are following the information, advice and guidance provided by experts as a collective not as individuals states or nations.

Additionally I must also acknowledge my own bias here. My distrust of the media, in all forms, has grown a lot deeper in recent years, especially in recent months. It's sometimes hard to decipher exactly what the intention/agenda is of the authors and editors in their articles. Consequently I am very reluctant to take anything at face value, especially when articles can be written by anyone about anything even if they do not have a full understanding of the topic.

Reading both a BBC article and an Oxford Internet Institute article it is clear their views on AI differ. Although I understand the dangers the Oxford article stress, I believe they are something to worry about however, it is important that these worries do not interfere with possibilities and positive impacts AI can have. For example, the BBC article stated the importance and helpfulness of AI cameras on the roads as they can detect safety issues. A big problem that has been detected by these cameras are children not wearing seatbelts. This is something of concern to the government (and rightfully so) as children's lives are at risk. However, with these cameras, police are able to interfere with safeguarding to insure that children are kept safe whilst on these roads. I think both articles are of value and are reliable because of the institutes they come from. The University of Oxford is a highly renown university known for their research. Additionally, the BBC is used across the nation and is relied upon by the nation to learn about the issues that are happening not just in the UK but all over the world. Therefore, I think both sources are reliable.

In my opinion, I think AI is quite detrimental to human creativity. It is used a lot in modern times as a way to make up for a 'loss' in creativity which is not only taking away the human ability to be creative, but also harming the younger generations view on both creativity and hard work. Children today view AI as a way to cheat or to put minimal effort into their academics in which they face the future consequences of lacking their own initiative and ability to create new ideas or even complete simple educational tasks, such as finding quotes in a novel. As someone who is driven off of creativity, I dislike AI as I believe it is stripping away a fundamental part of the human brain which separates people as individuals. Although AI does have very useful benefits in fields like medicine, it should not have been as popularised as it has been due to the negative effects it has had on fields like the film industry.

The Guardian article is problematic in my opinion, as the writer is shocked at AI producing ominous responses, when prompted to make an ominous response. That's like knowingly watching a horror film and then being shocked and angered at being scared. The writer seems determined to fear AI, and their words come close to fear-mongering, which is commonly used by the media to create panic and interest in readers. In addition, the journalist is almost 60, and so their age may increase their distrust of new technology, just like how all older generations fear new technology. In fairness, however, the journalist does address this point, albeit rather briefly.

The title 'No need to wait for the future, the danger of AI is already here' is indicative of the conversation of AI being both about cautions for users and the need for news outlets to generate viewership for their articles through fear-mongering. The Oxford Internet Institute prioritises the recirculation of common talking points over a fair and balanced discussion of AI's potential impact on humanity's future. The clear bias in one direction highlights how further sources would be required to form a more accurate picture.

Progress is inevitable and with the speed of the innovation of technology, the results are bound to permeate into all fields of life, including healthcare. However, healthcare systems need to be tailored to the needs of patients and to the increase of better care and assistance. Therefore, the new technological systems must only be implemented when proven to increase care and assistance and even then, must ensure that all patients are catered to due to the critical nature of healthcare, whether that means combining digital and previous practices or avoiding implementing new technology altogether. The effects of post-covid digitalization prove that these technological advancements were premature and potentially prioritized efficiency over the ability for all patients to receive care.

The ‘oxford internet institute’ raises many questions and issues on the danger of AI, and how it seems rooted within societal discrimination and lack of environmental awareness. Written by two professors focused on the ethics of AI, or technology as a whole, the reader can easily see how their arguments stem from their own innate morality, using real world facts to insinuate their viewpoints.

It can be argued that AI is a valuable tool for developing a greater understanding of certain subjects with relative ease and is a useful way to start a project. However, media outlets are more likely to sensationalise the effects of AI, perhaps creating a moral panic. For example, focusing on how AI has not been fully perfected yet may perpetuate readers' fears of the unknown, including a more superstitious fear of AI overpowering humans.

The Guardian article focuses on the danger of AI being developed which will "develop its own goals, its own agency" and "outstrip" humanity. It seems to play down the ways in which the technology could be used to help us, instead stressing its more troubling aspects.

I think that AI can create a lot of negatives - threats to employment in the arts sector is one (and was part of the reason behind industrial action amongst actors and screenwriters last year), and, as stated in the BBC article, the digital shift in NHS booking system has created barriers to accessing healthcare, something I have experienced myself. However, quite often there is an atmosphere of fearmongering in media discussions around AI. Whilst there are good reasons to be apprehensive around the rise of AI, media coverages often ignore the positive uses of newer AI technologies - one such example is the use of AI to detect tumerous breast tissue in cancer screenings. It is understandable why some media coverage is sensationalist/fearmongering - people reading their articles is how these publications make their money, after all.

The Guardian article offers an interesting possibility on how AI might impact and form society in the future. Upon reading this, one might doubt the reliability of the text, as the concept might seem far-fetched and unrealistic. However, the Guardian is a reliable paper that employs respected and knowledgeable writers. Thus, it would be useful to acknowledge their arguments and viewpoints, in spite of how extreme they may appear. This perspective is unique, since AI is generally regarded as a tool to assist economic, social and environmental development. In news and conversations, its name is referred to in a positive manner. By highlights its dangers rather than opportunity, the article is approaching the concept of AI different perspective

BBC article: 'How much will AI help in the next pandemic?'

Written by a BBC 'Technology Reporter'; so we can assume a specialist of sorts in the area. Backs up every assertion with sources (e.g. US National Science Foundation's Predictive Intelligence for Pandemic Prevention grant programme). Seems to be trustworthy as considers both upsides and downsides of AI effectiveness.

I agree with the article's main conclusion that AI has helped prepare us more for the next pandemic, while also having a long way to go.

What are you basing your own views on?

I think that AI can be good if it is used infrequently. However, there is a danger as expressed in both the Guardian and the OII that it can be overused and have severe consequences including the loss of jobs.

I believe that AI can be both a useful and dangerous tool, particularly in the academia. On one hand, AI provides efficiency when digesting large volumes of data and research. In some ways it can be seen to produce more thorough and rounded viewpoints when compared to researchers, as it has access to more accounts on the concerned matter. However, AI is able to follow search history patterns to direct information to researchers that has a very narrow scope on the matter. This endangers the purpose of the Internet - sharing information - as AI creates echo chambers online by cherry picking information for its researcher. Ultimately, AI will become a core part of academic research in the future, and so researchers should be aware of its dangers, and find ways to overcome these obstacles when using it. For example, information produced by AI generators should be combined with secondary research completed by the researcher, so as to create more varied judgements.

The surprising habits of original thinkers- Egotism reflects a lack of intelligence and rationality, as there is a risk factor to every decision, so for a successful original thinker to feel doubt or fear should not be surprising.

Like any powerful tool, I would wager that the potentials and dangers of the AI we have access to now are more inherent in how they are used than in the tools themselves--which, for all their novelty, are nowhere near the sophistication of an artificial general intelligence, an entirely different story. These articles rightly point out many such risks--copyright infringement, bias or inaccuracy in data, etc., though the focus is almost always on the AI itself and less so on the companies who are using it, which I think are perhaps more dangerous given their intense motivations to make profit at the expense of user privacy and consent. Google image searches and the like have been around for years at this point, and are absolutely stuffed with images that can be easily downloaded and shared and the like without regard to copyright, and yet generative AI, which is arguably better at creating more "original" works than, say, a carbon copy of an artist's painting floating around in the image search, is getting all of the attention on account of how it is new and frightening because of the moniker it bears. What is new and frightening gets more attention, which makes more money and is therefore likely to be overemphasized, if even just relative to other topics, in our information landscape, even from non-commercial sources, simply because our human brains are primed to pay selective attention to such things. Even reputable news sources such as the BBC are capable of "misrepresenting" a situation (albeit probably innocently) by way of summary, as well. An article of several paragraphs is hardly going to give you a deep impression of everything at stake--for instance, I'm sure people have many more nuanced positions on AI than what the general discourse may suggest and tends to suggest for controversial topics, that there are two or very few extremely opposed sides in conflict. What's important at the end of the day is to read widely, with an open but critical mind. No matter how reputable a source, there is going to be missing context, if not outright errors, and so you need to walk the line of being open to new information--because you, like everything else, are an unreliable source--while not being so open minded as to believe whatever you see, especially if it is manipulating you into believing something via tactics that are not rooted in evidence. I try to live up to the philosophy that if I feel I have understood everything about something, then I most certainly have not, since even with apparently simple topics, there is always more to think about, especially from a holistic perspective that brings in other, related topics. Deciding you know everything you need to know and don't need to question your existing assumptions is a good recipe for becoming a pawn of your own uncritical opinions, or someone else's.

The Guardian article writes about the dangers of AI. One of the things it mentions is AI taking jobs, doing extremely well in bar exams to become a lawyer, doing better than students in education writing essays, etc. Of course, unless I missed it, the columnist does not mention that AI may threaten his, or his colleagues' jobs. Because then one would have to take what he says with a grain of salt, given that he would have admitted he'd have a vested interest in embellishing the dangers of AI, and downplaying it's uses, as it is a threat to him and his livelihood. He gives some strange examples of human collective action, and how it could be used to stop or put a moratorium on the development of AI. "We therefore reshaped the entire international order”, in regards to controlling nuclear weapons, says one of the people the journalist references. Yet 'human collective action' didn't put an end to nuclear weapon development after 1945. For some reason the journalist says nukes are the most apt example of seeing the danger of technology and putting an end to it. As if the world couldn't be destroyed in a few hours if some people decided so. But perhaps nuclear is still the most apt example for putting brakes on "dangerous" technology. Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, now running on coal power plants, electricity is still gained largely through fossil fuels throughout a lot of the world. Many countries shot themselves in the foot, refusing to embrace new technology because it might be dangerous, after Chernobyl and later Fukushima. Well now the ice caps are melting. Maybe we should slow or neuter the development of what could be the catalyst of a new wave of advancement for humanity, after all it could be dangerous, and who cares what problems might come down the line from being afraid of too much progress. I'm sure luddites sounded reasonable at the time, but I don't believe people nowadays wish that they had succeeded. If we restrain AI development, we could potentially be making sure that the generations that come after us live in a much less advanced and prosperous society than they could have had. Yet at the same time AI could rise up and kill us all...

AI is attempting to replace jobs, but with little success thus far. Many AI chat bots cannot answer complex questions that are outside of the set that they are given to work with, that is why AI could never replace a doctors consolation or a mental health healthline. AI cannot completely take over as there are so many jobs that are more complex than just running an algorithm. A large area AI is attempting to replace is art and graphic design, and similarly AI struggles to give the human spirit of creativity to pieces, instead just merging millions of pixels together into something vaguely coherent. Art pieces begin to have 6 fingers or asymmetrical eyes. AI cannot fully take over. Despite the fear of human error, it is better to have human error than to have algorithms and databases take over our innate human spirit within the workplace.

From my point of view, due to how new Ai is and it's limits being seemingly endless media outlets feed off the fears of the unknown when in actuality it is a tool to solve modern problems. AI does have to be monitored as the dangers of it are not fully known especially if it develops beyond our control as Jonathan Freedland states in The Guardians Future of AI article "What they’re scared of is a category leap in the technology ... begins to develop its own goals, its own agency." These fears are not baseless as AI can quickly adapt and overcome a multitude of difficulties much faster than humanity can and ever will. Yet in the same article Freedland admits that his apprehension may just be due to the novelty of AI "I remembered that new technologies often freak people out at first.", thus making his worries more of a natural knee-jerk reaction rather than based on evidence. If we maintain the use of AI as a tool to solve our problems there is no way in which humanity can come under existential threat. AI was created by humans so despite all of the fear mongering form media outlets we control the outcome of our own future and should view AI as a tool in our arsenal for future dilemmas.

The BBC article 'New AI systems collide with copyright law' arguably is written to highlight the misconduct against artists. This is achieved through the authors use of anecdotes from affected artists with the author, Suzanne Bearne, reinforcing the misconduct by presenting the reader with statistics from previous lawsuits involving well established names such as 'Getty Images' which aims to further strengthen the legitimacy of the claim that the use of AI violated copyright laws as well as the article giving advice to artists and explanations of further measures to protect artists from further infringements from a number of experts in the field. Although Bearne's article highlights the negatives of AI, it should also be recognised that there can be potentially some positives to the use of AI. However, the many cases commented upon in the article were an infringement of the law and therefore despite the favour she gives to artists, arguably this negative portrayal of AI is not unnecessary to highlight due to the issue of copyright being something to which AI should be held accountable, with this viewpoint generally being recognised across society.

I agree progress as always is inevitable, but being able to recreate people's voices to say whatever you want even if they've never said it is troubling.

I agree progress as always is inevitable, but being able to recreate people's voices to say whatever you want even if they've never said it is troubling.

The guardian being a news outlet would’ve held the intention to inform its readers of the opinions the reporter held over AI. Its exaggerating tone however somewhat limits its value in being thoroughly balanced.

I believe that whilst AI may be deemed an inevitable technological progression due to the rate at which technology has developed over the last few years, it is no less troubling and has the potential to be extremely dangerous. It can essentially fabricate and steal identities, has a negative impact on the integrity of education. I think this was expressed well by the article written by the guardian, although potentially over-exuberant in its delivery of the message. However, a contractually non-bias source such as the BBC who emphasise the importance of weighted judgement and evaluation may be a better approach.

I think that AI can definitely be seen to be a dangerous tool- down to its ability to limit people's expressive freedom. This has definitely become an issue in contemporary society through use of AI essay-writing programs that can generate an essay for a student without them needing to express their own thoughts. However, there are still good uses to AI which I feel people ignore, for example AI tools like Grammarly which can fix minor mistakes a student may make.

Writer Jonathan Freedland expressed his knee-jerk repulsion to AI in an article titled /Future of AI/. As a general columnist mainly focusing on history and politics, his perspective on the simple question "Is AI good or bad?" can prove somewhat helpful. Freedland bounces between his discomfort surrounding AI and how, at times, it can appear nearly dystopian, and hopeful scientific research or findings that has been produced. In the relatively early days of AI, it is not possible to make a solid statement regarding AI, thus, a questioning and semi-critical such as Freedland's does seem to be a worthy and insightful read.

I do not think of the use of AIs as being a threat of some kind, but we need to utilize AI tools with a clear purpose that is not negative. Many argue that AI tools are leading to problems of unemployment, I do understand that but new technology and the progress of mankind is inevitable, and those who only blame will fall behind in revolutionary times. It is good to use AI tools, but only to make lives of humans better.

Many of the articles are sure to express the limitations and potential threats of AI, mostly aligning with my opinions, particularly the BBC coverage on AI implications on artists and copyright. The BBC is known to be impartial and neutral making their view more reliable

I believe that AI is a tool that is being used with not enough understanding having been something that has developed rapidly in the last 10 years. It can be limiting people’s creativity as they use it to create scripts for films and TV or it can recreate people’s faces without their consent.

I personally think that AI has the potential to be both beneficial and detrimental. The form it takes currently can be used to greatly improve productivity etc. however I can see the harm that it could cause to employment. I can also understand that the thought that we, as humans, may have created something that is smarter than ourselves is very unnerving. I agree with the sources that it certainly is a large concern.

So surprise me, 'procrastination' sometimes can give us more time to find good ideas.

Ted Talk – The surprising habits of original thinkers presented by Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, is a trustworthy and useful resource that is presented by an expert in the field and examines alternative viewpoints by showing how his viewpoint shifted from being a precrastinator to understanding the creative benefits of being a procrastinator.
BBC – New AI systems collide with copyright law, written by the BBC Technology of Business reporter Suzanne Bearne, is a source which shows critical viewpoints of AI as artists found that AI had been trained on their imagery without their consent. The article is a useful resource as it contains opinions from experts in AI and copyright such as Ben Zhao and Arty Rajendra who explain what artists can do about AI models using their art whilst the courts decide on whether AI art is infringing on the artists’ copyright.

It would be wrong to write off AI's potential completely - it's a great tool for summarising and for generating ideas which humanity can use to flourish. That being said, it is inevitable that without regulation the technology will fall into the hands of bad actors, using it to spread disinformation and smear public figures. The idea of a pause in development, in order to properly understand both the risks and rewards in use of AI technology, mooted in the Guardian article would be a sensible first step towards balancing these two viewpoints.

Suzanne Bearne provides a succinct, albeit bare appraisal of the rising contention between copyright law and AI technologies. She explains the inadequacies of current legal rules from the perspective of artists whose works are used without permission or acknowledgment, and she gives an overview of the ways in which these artists have begun to seek redress. Given the novelty of the problem, legal remedies are often awkward and patchwork; technical solutions like Glaze, in her view, have proven to be more supple and adaptable. While Bearne mentions the importance of new EU transparency regulations, her account of possible legislative reforms is minimal. Furthermore, her analysis of the rights and responsibilities of AI companies is limited to a word of warning: copyright law exists, and it is important to abide by its compunctions. Since she spent much of the article arguing that the current state of copyright law does not align with the unique moral questions flowing from AI art theft, I believe that this legalistic handling is inadequate.

Jonathan Freedland's account of the potentially apocalyptic implications of AI research, while primarily hypothetical and inexpert, is refreshingly nuanced. He first outlines the fatalistic concerns of AI "Cassandras" like Eliezer Yudkowski and Elon Musk, two erstwhile enthusiasts who now have concluded that human redundancy will make an AI-driven genocidal rampage inevitable. Freedland then questions this pessimistic arithmetic, arguing that normative changes have reversed dangerous spirals in the past. He also points out the ways in which regulators may be able to limit AI companies’ computation power, thereby placing concrete limits on a seemingly ethereal problem. In conclusion, I feel that Freedland was more forthcoming in laying out his biases at the beginning, although his discussion of technical issues was also rather bare.

I think although Ai can be used for goodl we should not just readily ignore the possibly harmful aspects it poses especially in regards to creative industries

I think articles such as 'New AI systems collide with copyright law' put forth how AI has already shone light on how many laws now need to further define themselves to keep up with the ever expanding artificial intelligence groups that are taking advantage of so called grey areas. Such as expanding on another person's artwork through using their original piece and training AI to develop it further which doesn't necessarily make it a separate or new original work, as can be argued by artists who feel their work has been stolen from, which may not directly infiltrate copyright laws, with use of the AI 'third party', but can still yield the exact outcome of directly plagiarising according to BBC.

This insight from the BBC can be appreciated as the BBC has long since vowed to be an open and accessible non biased news outlet for the UK, however I do also consider the many fear mongering titles I have read from the BBC's more recent articles online and keep that in mind when considering the extent of the severity of how much advantage AI is taking of existing laws.

The top article on the BBC's latest AI news 'How much will AI help tackle the next pandemic' takes a positive view on AI, but I feel this is understandable due to the subject matter, as it is hard to see how AI will worsen the next pandemic.

i think AI can be a very innovative way to move forward in technology advancement. i understand the worry that people are going to be nervous about the possibility of it taking over certain careers, but i think if we were to utilise the perks that come with AI we can broaden out knowledge and be able to access new information that we didnt understand before.

There are both pros and cons to AI, and I think it is also an example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." AI can do some incredible things these days, which runs the risk of some people taking it too far. In my experience experimenting with ChatGPT, I found that it is good with general information and things that are largely fact-based. Where I found it troublesome was when I would ask it to rewrite or edit an essay or story of mine (not related to school, by the way) with more sophistication, because I lack the talent for it. No matter how much I told it to edit it in a certain way or be as specific as possible with my instructions, every iteration that it generated did not fit into what points I was trying to get across and did not sound natural. I peppered in a few of it's suggestions, but I ended up just reverting back to relying on my own brain-power to make the paper "sound like me" again.

I agree that AI can be used for good in the medical and creative industries etc., and help to inspire people and possibly help them think of things that they hadn't thought of before to solve problems or create new innovations. In my humble opinion, I think AI should be used to support, better, and improve systems and people, not create, overrun, or replace them completely.

In my opinion, AI is worryingly impressive and therefore finds it easy to mask itself as the truth. However, there is no escaping it in the world we are living in, therefore it is crucial to always have this in your head when searching the internet for content and information. Personally, I will never trust the internet as much as I trust books, and hearing it in person from a professional.

I believe that AI has an infinite potential to become a tool that could skyrocket human progress and quality of life. It is infallible, simply looking at the value of AI based businesses and companies, such as open AI being valued at over $29 billion, that the next industrial revolution will be based on the incorporation of AI. However, I believe AI is a tool that must be policed by the international community because almost every state in the world will be affected by it. Already the misuse of AI is reality, with Russian news network Russia Today already being exposed on using AI to train bot farms to use online; lining up with the claims made by Professor Brent Mittelstadt and Professor Sandra Wachter on AI's dangers in spreading misinformation and confirming harmful biases. However, many analysts and experts also support AI as a means for squashing these bot farms and detecting misinformation online. Commenting for CSIS, Emily Harding claims "Defensive efforts should move faster: Social media companies should capitalize on AI to automatically identify anomalous behaviour, and they need teams of humans to investigate what the AI systems flag." Thus indicating that AI is a double edged sword for the developed world reliant on the internet. While it is currently a cause for great harm politically and socially, it has the potential to be a tool that can minimise or potentially eradicate the internet's problem of informational bloat and misinformation. I do still believe the solution to harnessing AI ethically and effectively is via international committees, such as the European council's committee on artificial intelligence. This committee wrote the first legally binding treaty to be internationally recognised and agreed on by multiple parties; ranging from the United States to Peru.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-bot-farm-used-ai-lie-americans-what-now

It’s interesting that Freedland is an author in the thriller genre. The vocabulary he uses to describe AI induced the same amount of fear you would feel in a thriller, along with the amount of intrigue. I think that while AI could replace certain jobs (which could potentially be positive but there are equal amounts of negatives also), there are many jobs in which humans are irreplaceable. For example nursing, where the human ability to feel empathy is essential. Something that cannot be replicated by a computer algorithm.

AI is both a pro and con, which needs to be used appropriately where required and it can be a fantastic technology. We should never forget that it is tool designed and coded by humans to handle complex problems and not to completely rely on Artificial Intelligence to run life. To conclude, we need to use our human brains more and use AI wisely

I read a really interesting article about using AI to plan vaccations/holidays, and it definitely was of personal interest to me. Using AI for planning a trip has never been something I've considered, but I have not done much exploring in the possible uses of AI myself yet. This would definitely be extremely helpful as an aid to planning a trip, but just like the article seems to state - I would not trust AI to work entirely on it's own and to not need checking for inaccuracies. Especially since AI might not take into account the time of year/season, the travel time and costs to get to a place, and whether places are seasonally open, recently shut down, or services no longer available. The article lists a lot of pros and cons, and seems to stay relatively biased - but it does end on a more negative note towards AI being used in this fashion. While I agree that AI isn't refined enough yet for this purpose; I have more positive hopes that AI may be able to be used shortly in the future for planning vacations and will take a lot of stress off of the shoulders of those who in charge of planning the trip and allow them to enjoy it more, instead.

Honestly, in light of articles like this, I subscribe more and more to the views of scholars like John Ruskin and William Morris. Though AI certainly poses some kind of threat, perhaps the focus should be on human beings’ unique abilities to create in a way that AI will never be able (hopefully). We definitely possess traits and skills which i don’t believe can be mimicked or surpassed by chatbots, that is our strength.

I agree and understand that employees are scared that AI can take jobs away, however AI cannot replicate the human interactions people crave and need in life.

A.I. has to be seen as an inevitability with progress being made constantly, however this cannot be seen as entirely a good thing this is due to the fact that it can be used to replicate voices which can be used to trick or miss communicate to the public. similarly, it can be seen as a bad thing as it can be used instead of people in the workforce. However it can be helpful in finding info and sources

I think too many people view the progress of AI over the last couple years as almost dystopian and something to be afraid of, which is fueled by headlines such as "the danger of AI is already here"- oxford internet institute. I personally believe that AI is a fantastic tool that can be used to help and support people in many different areas across many businesses, but it is nowhere near advanced enough to "run people out of their jobs" as people are lead to believe through these fear-mongering articles.

Referring to the BBC's "Latest AI News" section, I believe a key point is that the information there was quite recent, which means the creators of that information are constantly learning about the topic and continue to update their knowledge on the matter. Based on reputation, the BBC has proven that it can be trusted and that it is indeed a reliable source of information. I think they present the information in an objective manner, which I believe to be the better form of journalism.

On the other hand, The Guardian is quite obviously taking an editorial line that can be described as subjective, focusing more on opinion instead of on objective data.

As for AI, my opinion is that it can be helpful, as long as it is used correctly. It should be properly regulated, just like everything else is. AI should be implemented but always carefully and with reason.