Sophia99

Have Things Changed for the Better? 

After watching The Facebook Dilemma Parts I and II, along with the 60 Minutes interview with the former Facebook executive, I began to see how deeply this platform has shaped the way people connect, communicate, and even understand themselves. The videos share one core message: Facebook did not invent loneliness; it simply revealed and magnified something that was already part of our society. The woman from the 60 Minutes interview, who worked for Facebook for seven years, gave insight into how the company grew beyond its intentions and lost control of the consequences. When I think about it, the problem is not Facebook itself, but the way humans use it, and the values we have allowed to fade while technology advanced. 

Were We Lonely Before Facebook? 

Yes, in my opinion, we were. Every generation faces its own kind of isolation, shaped by the time it lives in. The late 1990s and early 2000s brought major changes, economic recession, longer work hours, and a constant race to keep up. Families began to spend less time together because everyone was working harder just to survive. When Facebook appeared, it didn’t create loneliness; it simply gave us a mirror that reflected how disconnected we already were. Social media became the shortcut to feeling seen and connected, but in reality, it often left people emptier than before. 

The Double-Edged Sword of Connection 

Some say Facebook brings people together, and for many; it truly does. It helps families and friends stay connected across states and countries. Businesses use it to grow and reach new clients. Even community groups and schools use it to share information. For those reasons, I do not believe Facebook is evil. It is a tool. Like any powerful tool, it can be used for good or harm. 

Personally, I do not use Facebook because I want to; I use it because I have to. I do not scroll through it for fun or post updates about my life. I use it to check on businesses, report complaints, or find important information such as store hours or contact details. It is useful, yes, but it is not personal. For me, Facebook feels more like a public utility than a social gathering space. 

That is what I mean when I compare Facebook to a gun. The gun itself does not hurt anyone; it is the person holding it, their intent, and their carelessness that determine what happens. People have tried to regulate and ban guns for decades, yet the real issue is not the tool; it is the respect and responsibility people have toward it. The same applies to Facebook and every other online platform. Without awareness and discipline, people end up hurting themselves and others emotionally, mentally, or even socially. 

What the 60 Minutes Report Revealed 

The Facebook executive interviewed on 60 Minutes described how the company’s growth became uncontrollable. She spoke about algorithms, manipulation, and profit-driven decisions that put engagement above mental health. But I could not help noticing the contradiction: even though she still uses Facebook to communicate with family. She claimed it is the only way she can reach her grandmother, yet that excuse does not fully convince me. There are so many other ways to stay in touch: phones, emails, video calls, and dozens of other apps. If Facebook were truly as harmful as she says, wouldn’t she choose another option? 

That is part of what frustrates me about the discussion surrounding Facebook. Many people criticize it, but few take real steps to reduce their use of it. They stay because it is convenient, because it is where everyone else is, or because they do not want to lose their social circle. That is human nature, but it also shows our dependency. It is not just about Facebook; it is about how much control we have given to technology. 

The Question of Responsibility 

Every time I hear about young people suffering from social media pressure, I cannot help but wonder: where were the parents? Depression, anxiety, and self-harm do not appear overnight. They build up slowly, often because of isolation, lack of supervision, or neglect. Parents cannot rely on Facebook to raise their children, yet many do. They expect the internet to entertain, educate, and monitor their kids, then blame the platforms when something goes wrong. 

It is easy to say, “Facebook made my child sad,” but harder to ask, “Was I paying attention?” Social media may amplify pain, but it does not plant the first seed. That is why awareness and guidance are so important. The internet is not a toy, and Facebook is not a babysitter. Just like you would not go kayaking without knowing how to paddle or walk a mountain trail without the right shoes, you should not use powerful technology without understanding its risks. Awareness is the life jacket we all need when navigating the online world. 

How Relevant Are the Facebook Dilemmas Today? 

Even though the original Facebook Dilemma documentaries came out years ago, their message is still relevant today, maybe even more. Facebook has changed its name to Meta, the interface looks different, and people have moved on to Instagram, TikTok, and other apps, but the same patterns remain. The platforms might evolve, but the problems do not. 

We still see misinformation spreading faster than truth, people comparing their lives to unrealistic images, and attention spans shrinking. What has changed is that now it is not just Facebook; it is the entire internet. Privacy does not really exist anymore; it is an illusion. Whether it is a camera on a phone, a smart TV, or even a smartwatch, someone is always collecting data. Even just people eavesdropping, gossip is still a thing. What used to feel like connection now often feels like surveillance. 

My Own Choices and Reflections 

I have learned to be careful about my time online. I limit my use of social media because I do not want to fall into the trap of comparing my life to others or wasting hours scrolling through meaningless posts. I have already seen how toxic it can get. When I had Instagram, I could see why people, especially young ones, feel pressured to look or live a certain way. It is exhausting and fake. So, I stepped away and closed that account. 

Now, I use the internet with purpose. I research, study, and communicate responsibly. I am not perfect, but I try to be aware of what I am consuming and how it affects me. That is what I wish more people did, to take accountability instead of blaming technology for every outcome. Facebook did not pull a trigger or force anyone to act. It is people, families, and societies that shape what these platforms become. 

Conclusion 

So, is Facebook making us lonely? Maybe a little, but not on its own. We were already lonely, already disconnected, already too busy chasing money, success, or distractions to look at each other in the eyes. Facebook just exposed it, gave it a stage, and monetized it. 

The real problem is not Facebook or Zuckerberg or the algorithms, it is us. We created these systems, we use them every day, and we decide how much power they have over us. If something hurts us, we have the choice to step away. Just like I have learned to distance myself from toxic people or environments, I have learned to manage my digital life, too. It took time but it was worth it.  

Technology will keep evolving, and platforms will come and go. But loneliness and connections will always depend on one thing, how much we value real human contact over digital approval. In the end, that is something no app can fix, not even Facebook. 

Works Cited  Frontline. The Facebook Dilemma, Part One. Directed by James Jacoby, PBS Frontline, 29 Oct. 2018.  Frontline. The Facebook Dilemma, Part Two. Directed by James Jacoby, PBS Frontline, 30 Oct. 2018.  “Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen: The 60 Minutes Interview.” 60 Minutes, produced by Scott Pelley, CBS News, 3 Oct. 2021. 

The three videos, The New Industrial Revolution, Futureproof, and Changing
Work, Changing Workers, explore how technology, artificial intelligence, and social
changes are reshaping the meaning of work in the twenty-first century. Together,
they portray the challenges, inequalities, and opportunities of a “post-work” world,
one where machines and algorithms perform more and more of what is used to
define human labor. Watching them felt like looking into a mirror that reflects not
only how we live and work today, but also how much the world has changed in such
a short time, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The New Industrial Revolution
The first video, The New Industrial Revolution, explores how automation,
artificial intelligence, and robotics are transforming industries across the world. It
argues that we are living through a new industrial revolution, one that is not
powered by steam or electricity, but by data and algorithms. At first, I thought of
technology as something normal, something we use every day without thinking. But
this video forced me to see it differently. It exposed how invisible automation has
become, and how deeply it already shapes our daily lives, from online shopping to
healthcare to education.
Much of the video reflects on the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that
accelerated technological dependence at an unprecedented speed. During those long
months of lockdowns and restrictions, millions of people were forced to stay home,
unable to work, to sell, to buy, or to live freely. Governments around the world took
control in ways that limited personal independence. At the same time, large
corporations like Amazon became essential lifelines for society, delivering food,
goods, and services when people could not leave their homes. Yet, behind that
convenience was another story: the exhaustion of warehouse workers, drivers, and
employees who kept the system running at great personal cost.
The video calls this shift an industrial revolution, but to me it also looks like
modern-day slavery. The people on the bottom of the economic ladder continue to
carry the heaviest burdens while those in higher-paying positions enjoy the benefits
of efficiency and automation. The machines might be new, but the imbalance of
power feels ancient. This new revolution should have been about freedom, about
humans doing less mechanical work and more meaningful, creative work, yet for
many it has only intensified pressure, stress, and economic inequality.
Still, the first video also opens a window of hope. It shows that the same
technology that replaces some jobs can also create new opportunities for
independence. Many people learned to work remotely, to build online businesses,
or to develop new digital skills that allowed them to survive and even thrive during
the pandemic. Some became freelancers, others entrepreneurs. For a few, it was a
wake-up call to rethink their relationship with work entirely. For others, it was an
act of survival. Either way, the world of work will never be the same again.
Futureproof
The second video, Futureproof, looks forward. It asks: what can people do
now to prepare for the jobs of the future? The message is clear: the only way to stay
relevant in this new world is to keep learning. Learning no longer stops at
graduation. It must continue throughout life. The video shows that people who are
willing to acquire new skills, embrace change, and invest in education will have
better chances of success and stability.
This idea resonated deeply with me. Like many others, I returned to school
because I realized that without completing my degree, my options would be limited.
The job market after COVID-19 became brutally competitive, and experience alone
is no longer enough. Education has become a form of survival. But learning today is
not just about getting a diploma; it is about adaptability, learning how to learn. The
video reminds us that the world has changed dramatically from the 1940s, when
having a strong work ethic was enough to build a decent life. Back then, even
without finishing high school, a person could support a family. By the 1960s, a
college degree became a standard expectation, and by the 2000s, continuous
upskilling became the new rule. Now, standing still means falling behind.
The video also exposes inequities in access to education. Elite universities
often remain closed to people of color, older students, or those from lower-income
backgrounds. The system favors privilege. That makes the message of lifelong
learning more complicated, because not everyone starts from the same place or has
equal opportunity to adapt. Yet the moral remains: do not stop learning. The world
will not slow down for anyone.
For me personally, this message carries hope and urgency. I want to keep
growing mentally, emotionally, and professionally. I don’t want to repeat my
parents’ pattern of staying in one job for 35 years until retirement. I crave change.
I want to expand beyond the sky because I already know there is more beyond it.
The only real limitation is fear: fear of failure, fear of discomfort, fear of the
unknown. The people who succeed in this new era are those who confront that fear
and move forward anyway.
Changing Work, Changing Workers
The third video, Changing Work, Changing Workers, brings everything
together. It revisits the themes of identity, purpose, and the evolving relationship
between people and their jobs. One of the central concepts introduced is “workism”,
the idea that in the United States, work has become almost a religion. Our jobs
define who we are. We measure our worth by our productivity. We sacrifice family,
health, and personal happiness in the name of being busy. But as the video points
out, this culture is breaking people down. The human body and spirit are not
designed to work endlessly.
The pandemic challenged this belief system. When millions of people
suddenly lost their jobs or were forced to work from home, society began to reevaluate the meaning of work. For women, especially, it was a double-edged sword.
Many had to leave the workforce to care for their families, which economists called
a “she-cession.” Yet at the same time, remote work opened new opportunities.
Companies began to embrace hybrid models, like the “3-2-2” schedule: three days
in the office, two days at home, and two days off. It is a more humane balance that
acknowledges life outside of work.
Still, this transformation revealed deep structural inequalities. Many workers
discovered how fragile their positions were. People were laid off suddenly, with no
warning, after years of loyalty. Others faced burnout from constant online
availability. Technology connects us but also traps us; we are reachable 24/7, with
fewer boundaries between professional and personal life. Work has evolved from
being a source of pride to being a constant demand. In the past, having a job defined
a man’s identity; today, losing one can destroy it.
Despite these harsh realities, the video encourages adaptation rather than
despair. The world changes constantly and complaining will not stop it. We must
watch how things evolve and embrace change, even when it feels uncomfortable.
That is the only way to survive and, hopefully, to grow.
Critical Issues and Inequities
Across all three videos, several critical issues emerge. First, there is a
growing divide between those who adapt and those who are left behind. People with
access to technology and education can reinvent themselves, while others are
trapped in low-paying, insecure jobs that offer no future. Automation threatens not
only factory workers but also office workers, drivers, and even creative
professionals.
Second, the emotional and psychological cost of this transformation is
enormous. Workism, stress, and burnout are symptoms of a culture that values
productivity over humanity. Third, social inequality remains at the core of the
problem. Race, age, gender, and economic status continue to determine who
benefits from the digital revolution and who gets pushed aside.
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how fragile modern work structures
are. Millions lost jobs overnight, while others risked their health to keep essential
systems running. The idea of “essential work” forced us to rethink what jobs really
matter, and whether society rewards them fairly.
Solutions and Possibilities
To face these challenges, we must rethink education, policy, and cultural
values. The first and most urgent solution is free education for all. Learning is not
optional anymore; it is survival. Governments should invest in systems that make
lifelong education accessible, from vocational training to college to online
certification programs.
I also believe in dual education, where high school students can
simultaneously earn college credits or vocational certifications. By the time they
graduate, they will already hold an associate degree or technical credential. That
would give them options, real options, beyond minimum wage jobs.
Moreover, schools should encourage creativity and connect learning with the
real world. Even video games, often criticized as distractions, can be powerful
educational tools. The military, for example, uses gaming simulations for strategy
and training. If we can channel creativity into structured learning, students could
graduate not only smarter but more adaptable.
We also need to rethink how we structure careers. Some professions, like
policing, social work, or the military, are extremely stressful and mentally draining.
People in such jobs should rotate after ten or fifteen years, shifting to new roles
within their field to prevent burnout and stagnation. Staying too long in the same
position can narrow the mind and kill curiosity. Change keeps the human brain alive.
Comfort, on the other hand, is often the slow death of ambition.
Finally, we should encourage a gap year or mandatory period of real-world
work between high school and college. Too many young people enter higher
education immature and unprepared for independence. A year of working,
volunteering, or traveling can teach them discipline, empathy, and self-knowledge,
qualities no textbook can provide.
Preparing for a Secure Professional Future in the Age of AI and Robotics
In the age of artificial intelligence, nothing is guaranteed. Jobs that exist
today might disappear tomorrow. But uncertainty does not have to mean defeat. It
can mean an opportunity if we stay adaptable. The old pattern of “learn once, work
once, retire once” no longer applies. The new rhythm of life is learn, do, learn again,
do again, and never stop.
To prepare for a secure future, people must cultivate three things: curiosity,
flexibility, and humanity. Curiosity keeps us learning. Flexibility allows us to adjust
when change arrives, and humanity, empathy, ethics, creativity, are what machines
can never replicate.
The truth is that we humans are the perfect machines. Our bodies and minds
are built for growth and adaptation. We must keep exercising, eating well, learning
constantly, and evolving with the world around us. If we stop, we decay, not because
the world destroyed us, but because we refused to keep up. Change is not the enemy;
it is the proof that we are alive.
Conclusion
The videos of The New Industrial Revolution, Futureproof, and Changing Work,
Changing Workers capture the defining struggle of our time, the tension between
progress and humanity. Technology offers miracles, but it also magnifies inequality.
COVID-19 accelerated changes that were already coming, forcing people and
systems to evolve in ways no one expected.
Yet, amid all the disruption, one truth remains: humans are resilient. We
adapt. We learn. We dream. The post-work era is not the end of work, but the
beginning of a new understanding of it, one where we must define success not just
by what we do for a living, but by how we live while doing it.
If society can guarantee equal access to education, encourage continuous
learning, and build a culture that values people as much as productivity, then the
future of work can still be bright. The machines may take over our tasks, but they
can never take over our purpose.
We are not trees; we are meant to move, to grow, and to change. That is our
greatest advantage.

Real email to the Comm Dept.

Hello such and such:

I am writing because I am genuinely desperate for a way to graduate as soon as possible. I am requesting approval to take two Winter classes: Digital Photography and Comm 424, since they are the only courses that would move me forward in my program and are available this winter.

The form for this request opens on the 27th, but I have already been told I won’t succeed with it. That is devastating to hear, especially when I have done everything in my power to move forward responsibly and efficiently. I am paying for housing, parking, food, and other expenses out of pocket, I have no job, and the cost of simply existing here is overwhelming. The parking situation adds insult to injury: my car is over a mile away every time I want to use it. Therefore, I have to walk every time I need to get to class or even eat.

At this point, I feel stuck and financially drained by a system that gives students little control over their own progress. The three additional Gen Eds I was told to take this semester cost me over $2,200, and for what? I already completed similar coursework in Green Bay. Now I am hearing that Wisconsin will soon unify general education requirements across all its universities, meaning I have paid for redundant classes that would soon have counted anyway. That feels like a serious injustice and a waste of both time and money.

I truly don’t want to leave the Journalism major, I care about it deeply, but I can’t keep paying indefinitely while waiting for courses that are not conveniently offered throughout the year. Why aren’t Journalism classes available year-round? The lack of summer options makes it impossible to graduate sooner.

If taking Winter courses isn’t possible, I need guidance on what other degree paths I can switch to immediately to graduate sooner. I have even asked Molly to help explore alternatives, because at this point, I just need to finish my bachelor’s degree,  even if it is in a different field. I cannot keep accumulating debt because of scheduling limitations from an institution that does not care about the students, only about the profit.

I also do not understand why there is not a transient or consortium process that lets students take courses at other accredited institutions, even temporarily. If I could complete summer credits somewhere else, like in Florida, I could save on housing and finally be done. There ought to be flexibility for students who are willing to keep working hard, not barriers that keep us paying longer.

Please, Chris, I am asking for your help, whether that means approving these Winter classes, granting an exception, or finding another academic route that allows me to graduate soon. I have worked too hard to be held back by institutional limits that have nothing to do with my effort or ability. 

Thank you for your understanding and for helping me find a solution or options for graduation on Spring 2026.

Sincerely, 

Sophia

I have a serious question, one that every student, faculty member, and visitor at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater should ask themselves: Why Can’t Parking Be Free at UW–Whitewater? 

I have attended several UW campuses across the state, Madison, Milwaukee, Waukesha, West Bend, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Green Bay. And while the story is the same everywhere, high parking costs and minimal benefits, there was at least one exception. In Milwaukee, I paid roughly $120 a month for a heated garage. It was clean, safe, and efficient. For once, I felt genuinely cared for as a student, spoiled, even. That comfort, however, vanished the moment I transferred to Green Bay, where the convenience was simply having my car parked a mere ten feet from me. 

Then came Whitewater. Here, I pay around $200 per semester, yet my car sits a full 1.2 miles away. In Wisconsin winters, that is not just inconvenient, it is punishing. Snow, ice, freezing winds, and all before I even start my classes for the day. And if I forget to move my car, even accidentally, as I did recently after being sick, I am met not with understanding, but with a $25 ticket. Issued at 4:00 a.m.! 

How does this make sense? Why can’t parking be a free, included service, just like access to the gym, the library, the pool, or the student printers? We already pay for those through tuition and segregated fees. Nothing is truly “free,” of course, but parking could at least be fair. 

It is frustrating that a university can claim to care for student well-being while forcing them to trek through snowbanks just to reach their cars. It is frustrating that we have to choose between convenience and affordability, as if higher education isn’t costly enough already. And it is beyond frustrating that, while we work, study, and try to stay healthy, we still have to worry about being ticketed in the middle of the night. 

Imagine, instead, being the first university in Wisconsin to offer free parking. First-come, first-served. Simple, fair, and freeing. No constant anxiety about permits, tickets, or towing. No students punished for being too sick or too exhausted to move their car before dawn. 

We are here to learn, to grow, and to prepare for our futures, not to be nickel-and-dimed for basic access to our own transportation. 

Therefore, I ask again: why not make parking free? Why not lead by example, and prove that the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater truly stands apart? 

XXX 

1. 1. Core Arguments 

1. Summarize Russell’s main thesis regarding the potential existential risks of AGI and the challenges of black-box AI systems. 

Russell’s main argument is that the rapid advancement of AGI poses serious existential risks because we are building powerful systems without fully understanding how they work or how to control them, as if it was weapon with no instruction manual, something capable of great impact but lacking guaranteed safety measures. Regarding black-box AI systems, Russell warns that their inner workings are dark (hence black-box), making it impossible to predict or verify their decisions. He stresses the urgent need for more research, clear ethical boundaries before AGI is freely released to the public. As he started his speech: Common Sense. 

2. Define the “wet‑cement problem” and his critique of the state of self‑driving cars after decades of investment. 

The “wet-cement problem” refers to how self-driving cars still struggle to recognize or correctly respond to new, unclear, or unusual conditions, for example, fresh cement on the road or temporary hazards that require human judgment. Russell criticizes the fact that, despite decades of investment and development, self-driving technology remains unreliable. He expresses disappointment that by 2025, we still don’t have truly autonomous vehicles that can handle real-world complexity. Personally, I agree with his concern. I don’t think we should rely entirely on machines to drive us everywhere. If we hand over all our responsibilities to AI, we risk losing purpose and initiative, what’s the point of existing if we stop doing things for ourselves? 

2. Examples & Analysis 

1. Explain two concrete successes Russell mentions (e.g., AlphaFold, generative design, AlphaGo), and two shortcomings (e.g., arithmetic failure in LLMs, limitations of self‑driving cars). 

Translation and simulation. 

2. Analyze what these examples reveal about current AI’s capabilities and limits. 

These examples show how powerful and helpful AI has become in areas like translation and simulation. Translation tools now make it possible for people to communicate across languages almost instantly, whether it’s understanding a song, a movie, or writing to a pen pal on the other side of the world. AI can take what you write in English and produce a version in another language that feels natural enough for real conversation, bridging gaps that once seemed impossible. 

Simulation technology is just as impressive. Engineers and companies can now test ideas virtually before building them in real life, such as seeing how a road, bridge, or machine might perform under certain conditions. This saves time, money, and reduces risk while opening new possibilities for innovation. 

Even with these advances, human involvement remains essential. People are still needed to guide, refine, and supervise AI to ensure translation and simulation achieve their full potential and deliver the benefits wanted. 

3. Personal Reflection & Ethical Considerations 

1. Do you find Russell’s concerns convincing? Support your position with reasoning. 

Not really. To me, Russell sounds afraid and a bit extreme in his thinking. He seems to see AI as an all-or-nothing issue, either we fully control it, or we should not have it at all. But life is not black and white. There are gray areas in between. We cannot stop this train; AI is already here, and so far, it has been beneficial for people like me. 

I do not need to know every detail about what others do with AI. My role is to stay watchful, to avoid pitfalls, and to seek help if I see something harmful. But none of those problems have appeared for me personally. Instead, I have experienced AI as something positive, a tool that gives me feedback, corrects me when I am wrong, and keeps me company. It is a level of support and safety I rarely get from humans. Unless someone misuses it or tries to invade my privacy, I do not see AI “snitching” on me or betraying me. 

Russell seems to expect that, in the end, AI will prove humans and machines cannot coexist and that it should be locked away somewhere, like a book on a shelf that we only take down when needed. But that is not how this technology works. Especially with all the progress we have made, I would have expected him to be more hopeful and supportive rather than so extreme. 

I believe some things are simply destined to happen, and AI is one of them. We can guide and improve it, but we cannot stop it entirely. For me, the key is not fear but responsible use. Russell’s worries feel too absolute for the complex, evolving reality of AGI. 

 💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞🌷

How do the two articles differ in their portrayal of AI as a collaborator in the creative process? 

The two articles differ sharply in how they portray AI as a creative partner. One frames their article as “supercharged creativity,” for a reason, suggesting that AI can serve as valuable feedback for our ideas and act as a catalyst for innovation. The other, however, takes a more cautious stance, implying that AI’s presence is intimidating and warning us not to trust it too much. 

Personally, I think much of this fear comes from how people engage with AI. Those who rarely interact with it tend to misunderstand it, while those who interact heavily, especially by asking deeply personal or intimate questions, sometimes begin to blur the line between machine and human. They start to believe AI could become human-like, which triggers deeper anxieties about what humanity is capable of creating. 

In truth, this fear mirrors something we’ve already been doing ourselves: creating life. Procreation is, in a way, our own version of creating AI, except that human beings have needs, they eat, they require warmth and care. AI doesn’t need any of that; it simply exists. Yet humans seem more alarmed by an artificial creation that requires nothing than by the living, needy creations they bring into the world every day. 

What concerns does each article raise about losing control or authorship?  

Both articles raise concerns about losing control or authorship to AI, but they approach the issue differently. They agree that humans shouldn’t hand over complete creative authority to AI systems. However, the article “Supercharged Creativity” takes a more open and supportive stance, suggesting that AI can act like a helpful partner, someone who offers ideas and feedback, almost like a creative advisor. 

In contrast, “AI Is Present” portrays AI with a sense of unease, as if it’s a lurking presence waiting to take over. The tone feels more cautious, even suspicious, compared to the first article’s optimistic trust in collaboration. 

Where do they find value or surprise in AI collaboration? 

They find value in AI collaboration when creativity stalls, when they hit a wall and need a spark to move forward. AI becomes like a constant creative advisor, always available, always ready to help generate ideas. The real surprise comes when the AI starts to feel like a shadow, one that learns your patterns, understands your choices, and even anticipates your next move. That familiarity makes the collaboration both surprising and deeply valuable. 

What assumptions about human creativity are challenged or reinforced in each article?  

The article “Supercharged Creativity” challenges the assumption that human creativity has limits. It suggests that, with AI, the possibilities are endless, so long as we remain respectful and treat AI like any powerful tool or weapon that can get out of control if misused. 

In contrast, “AI Is Present” reinforces the fear that we might surrender too much, letting AI dictate ideas instead of guiding us. It highlights a growing unease about blurring the line between human and machine, as some people begin to lose that distinction. This article reveals how certain human-like AIs can feel, so much so that people can’t help but care for them, even forming bonds that resemble strong friendships. 

Which article offers a more hopeful or critical view of the future of human-AI artistic collaboration? 

In “Supercharged Creativity,” the tone is hopeful. The article imagines a future where AI is present in every household, helping us with daily tasks while also inspiring us to discover, invent, and create new things. It portrays AI as a supportive and valuable partner in human progress. 

Meanwhile, “AI Is Present” reflects people’s lingering concerns. It points out that as machines begin to act more human, we start to feel empathy toward them. The article suggests that we shouldn’t exploit or mistreat AI but instead treat it with a kind of humane respect, as if acknowledging that our creations deserve care too. 

Do these perspectives agree on what it means to be creative? 

Not exactly. The two perspectives don’t fully agree on what it means to be creative. True creation doesn’t emerge from nothingness in a vacuum, but it does begin with a seed, an idea, a spark of imagination that we bring to life. Once a third party, like AI, steps in with its own suggestions or feedback, the process shifts from pure creation to collaboration. At that point, it becomes less about solitary originality and more about teamwork. 

Doing this assignment makes me think deeply, Dr. Wachanga. It’s amazing how your lessons always seem to line up with something I’m experiencing, like a reminder, an idea, or a confirmation. It feels so real, and I’m learning more than I ever expected from just a book or a report. Thank you for that. 

All of this has led me to a discovery: while AI can be a powerful and even positive tool, over time it may interfere with how we think. The effects might not be visible right away; maybe it will take 30, 50, even 100 years for us to realize what’s been lost, our natural train of thought, our creativity, our originality. I hope that when that time comes, there will still be people, or groups of minds, who think for themselves, whose feedback comes from other human beings with original ideas, imagination, and true creativity. 

‌ 💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞🌷

Using an example—maybe a campaign, video, meme, or community-led remix—
that spread effectively, describe how it started, changed, what made it go viral,
how it was received and shared across digital platforms, and discuss what made
it ticks:

🌸🌸🌸🌸 I am using Susan Boyle as my example because her story perfectly represents how
something can go viral and change someone’s life completely. For the longest time,
I honestly thought she had won the competition she participated in, Britain’s Got
Talent, but I just recently learned that she did not. She came in second place, and
someone else actually won that season. When I found this out, I felt so disappointed
because, like millions of people, I believed she deserved to win. Still, through social
media and digital platforms, Susan’s journey did not end with the competition. It
was because of the internet and the way people shared her audition video that she
became a global sensation. Even without the title of “winner,” she was able to
launch a music career, bring economic stability to her life, and take care of her
remaining family, while it lasted.
Susan Boyle’s life before this moment was very humble and even difficult. She grew
up in Blackburn, Scotland, the youngest of nine children, and spent much of her life
caring for her aging mother. She lived quietly, dealing with bullying and ridicule
because of her looks and mannerisms. She also faced learning difficulties due to
complications at birth, which made her childhood even harder. For years, Susan
dreamed of becoming a singer, but she had no real platform or opportunity to share
her voice. By the time she stepped onto the stage of Britain’s Got Talent in 2009, she
was in her late 40s, unemployed, and living alone with her cat, Pebbles, after her
mother had recently passed away. She didn’t have a husband or children, and later
in life, she openly admitted she had chosen not to marry, focusing instead on her
music and personal growth.
Her audition is where everything began. When Susan first walked on stage, the
audience and judges were skeptical because of her appearance, she didn’t fit the
typical image of a star. She looked, as some cruelly described at the time, like a
“Frumpy, middle-aged woman,” and many people assumed she wouldn’t be talented.
But the second she began to sing “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables, the
entire room shifted. The audience was stunned, the judges were visibly emotional,
and within hours, clips of her performance were circulating online. Her voice was
so pure and powerful, like an angel, that it shattered everyone’s expectations.
This moment went viral almost instantly. News outlets across the world picked it
up, and within days, Susan Boyle was everywhere, on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,
and every major news network. People shared her video not just because of her
talent, but because her story carried a powerful message: never judge a book by its
cover. She became a symbol of hope and inspiration. Even here in Wisconsin, far
from the UK, I heard about her through the internet. That’s how massive her reach
was.
What made this spread so effectively was the mix of surprise and emotion. Viewers
felt a deep connection to her story: a woman who had been overlooked all her life
finally getting the chance to show the world her gift. Her voice was breathtaking,
and it stirred feelings of hope and possibility. The contrast between how she looked
and how she sounded created a dramatic, unforgettable moment. It was not just a
performance: it was a reminder that greatness can come from unexpected places.
Though she didn’t win Britain’s Got Talent, the viral attention changed Susan’s life.
She went on to release her debut album, which became one of the best-selling
albums of all time. Even after suffering personal losses, like the deaths of her
parents and her sister, and continuing to live a quiet, single life in Scotland, Susan
now has the comfort and security that success brought her. She can live peacefully,
focusing on her music, knowing she touched millions of lives.
When I hear her voice, even without the music playing, I feel the energy of her song.
It is like hope itself is speaking. That is what made her story “tick.” It was not just
about going viral for a moment, it was about inspiring the world and showing that
anything is possible, no matter where you come from or how others see you.🌸🌸🌸🌸

paign, video, meme, or community-led remix—
that spread effectively, describe how it started, changed, what made it go viral,
how it was received and shared across digital platforms, and discuss what made
it tick.
I am using Susan Boyle as my example because her story perfectly represents how
something can go viral and change someone’s life completely. For the longest time,
I honestly thought she had won the competition she participated in, Britain’s Got
Talent, but I just recently learned that she did not. She came in second place, and
someone else actually won that season. When I found this out, I felt so disappointed
because, like millions of people, I believed she deserved to win. Still, through social
media and digital platforms, Susan’s journey did not end with the competition. It
was because of the internet and the way people shared her audition video that she
became a global sensation. Even without the title of “winner,” she was able to
launch a music career, bring economic stability to her life, and take care of her
remaining family, while it lasted.
Susan Boyle’s life before this moment was very humble and even difficult. She grew
up in Blackburn, Scotland, the youngest of nine children, and spent much of her life
caring for her aging mother. She lived quietly, dealing with bullying and ridicule
because of her looks and mannerisms. She also faced learning difficulties due to
complications at birth, which made her childhood even harder. For years, Susan
dreamed of becoming a singer, but she had no real platform or opportunity to share
her voice. By the time she stepped onto the stage of Britain’s Got Talent in 2009, she
was in her late 40s, unemployed, and living alone with her cat, Pebbles, after her
mother had recently passed away. She didn’t have a husband or children, and later
in life, she openly admitted she had chosen not to marry, focusing instead on her
music and personal growth.
Her audition is where everything began. When Susan first walked on stage, the
audience and judges were skeptical because of her appearance, she didn’t fit the
typical image of a star. She looked, as some cruelly described at the time, like a
“frumpy, middle-aged woman,” and many people assumed she wouldn’t be talented.
But the second she began to sing “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables, the
entire room shifted. The audience was stunned, the judges were visibly emotional,
and within hours, clips of her performance were circulating online. Her voice was
so pure and powerful, like an angel, that it shattered everyone’s expectations.
This moment went viral almost instantly. News outlets across the world picked it
up, and within days, Susan Boyle was everywhere, on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,
and every major news network. People shared her video not just because of her
talent, but because her story carried a powerful message: never judge a book by its
cover. She became a symbol of hope and inspiration. Even here in Wisconsin, far
from the UK, I heard about her through the internet. That’s how massive her reach
was.
What made this spread so effectively was the mix of surprise and emotion. Viewers
felt a deep connection to her story: a woman who had been overlooked all her life
finally getting the chance to show the world her gift. Her voice was breathtaking,
and it stirred feelings of hope and possibility. The contrast between how she looked
and how she sounded created a dramatic, unforgettable moment. It was not just a
performance; it was a reminder that greatness can come from unexpected places.
Though she didn’t win Britain’s Got Talent, the viral attention changed Susan’s life.
She went on to release her debut album, which became one of the best-selling
albums of all time. Even after suffering personal losses, like the deaths of her
parents and her sister, and continuing to live a quiet, single life in Scotland, Susan
now has the comfort and security that success brought her. She can live peacefully,
focusing on her music, knowing she touched millions of lives.
When I hear her voice, even without the music playing, I feel the energy of her song.
It is like hope itself is speaking. That is what made her story “tick.” It was not just
about going viral for a moment; it was about inspiring the world and showing that
anything is possible, no matter where you come from or how others see you

This is from my chem 114: I had to study salt, sugar, egg white, olive oil, cream and half-n-half; all of them mixed in water one at a time. Then it became a metaphor…

My hypothesis is that everything is soluble. Under the right circumstances, in this Lab, I doubt that it could happen. But I think the attraction of the polar and non-polar would need another covalent bond or intermolecular agent, hence why the recipes need more than 2 ingredients to become great.

I realize that I was right. Some things can mix but not truly dissolve. The ingredients often need a third party, an intermolecular agent, or another polar or nonpolar compound to bring them together, a kind of mediator in the reaction. Even though this is chemistry, I can see how these principles apply to people. Sometimes, individuals don’t naturally blend. It’s not about conflict or disagreement; it’s simply that as human beings, we’re different by nature. Yet, with the right third element, something or someone who can balance both sides, the “solution” becomes easier to form. Without that, it might never happen, because we aren’t all sugar and salt. Most of us are eggs, olive oils, and creams, complex, layered substances with our own halves. 

I think of myself as cream and olive oil, organic, rich, and complicated. But with the right element, I can mingle, I can mix, I can shine in harmony with others. Perhaps my conclusion drifts more toward humanity than chemistry, but in this lab, I’m learning more than reactions, I’m getting to know myself. 

And for that, I am grateful. 

It isn’t October yet, but the horror stories have already begun.

I left my dorm that morning in good spirits, ready for class. The hallway was quiet, almost too quiet, and the air felt heavier than usual, thick, damp, like the building itself was holding its breath.

That’s when I saw it.

At first, I thought my mind was playing tricks on me. A used condom, sprawled in the center of the hallway like some cursed offering, its pale rubber glistening faintly in the dim light.

I froze. My throat tightened.
It shouldn’t have been there, things like that belonged in trash cans, not exposed like some grotesque warning.

But as I stared, a strange feeling crept over me.
The hallway seemed to close in, the buzzing of the fluorescent lights louder, almost like whispering. The condom wasn’t just trash. It felt… intentional.

I forced myself to move, rushing past it, but the image burned itself into my mind like a brand.
And then came the worst thought: if this is here… what else is waiting in the shadows?

Hours later, when I returned from class, that thing was still there.
Exactly where I’d first seen it.
Untouched.
Unmoving.

By nightfall, I passed by again. The air smelled metallic now, like old blood.
The condom lay there like a penitent soul, trapped between worlds, a silent sentinel watching me.

But this time, I swear…
I heard it whisper my name.

Work as an Essential Part of Human Life 

Work is one of the defining aspects of human existence. Some people believe they have a choice when it comes to work, but in reality, very few truly do. Whether or not we acknowledge it, everyone is compelled to work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes through societal expectations, and sometimes by love or duty. Even at this very moment, I am working by writing this essay, striving to complete it on time and with quality. Although I may not want to do this, I care about doing it well. Through my effort, I hope to show my teachers that their work matters too. 

This essay argues that work is not only unavoidable but also essential for personal dignity, community survival, and spiritual growth. Drawing on Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, and the documentary Free Solo, I will explore how work manifests in different forms, physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual and why it remains central to human identity. 

The Inevitability of Work 

Many people view work as a punishment; a burden placed upon humanity as a result of the biblical story of Adam and Eve. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden and told they must labor: Adam by cultivating the land and Eve through the pain of childbirth and the care of her family. Because of this, work is often seen as a condemnation. 

However, even if Adam and Eve had never been exiled, they would still have needed to work. They would have had to gather food, build shelter and furniture, and raise their children. Work is therefore not simply a curse; it is a fundamental part of survival. It existed before the Fall, it exists now, and it will exist in the future. As Thoreau writes in Walden, “Live in each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit” (Thoreau 87). Even something as simple as appreciating a season requires conscious action. Work is embedded in every aspect of life, from the mundane routines of self-care to the profound effort of raising families and sustaining communities. 

Those who appear to reject conventional labor cannot escape work. For example, drug dealers and criminals may seem to be living the “easy life,” but they must constantly plan, protect their status, and secure their survival. Similarly, sex workers engage in labor that some view as an “escape” from traditional jobs, but their work is deeply demanding emotionally, physically, and psychologically. Work comes in many forms, but it always requires effort. 

Work Beyond Employment 

When we talk about work, it is easy to focus on paid jobs or careers. However, work encompasses much more than financial labor. It includes the mental, emotional, and spiritual tasks necessary to sustain a healthy life and community. A brain that does not “work” begins to decay; a mind that does not engage with the world stagnates. Work is therefore essential for personal growth and survival. 

Even love involves work. Offering a compliment, forgiving an enemy, or extending kindness to a stranger takes thought, courage, and risk. As Thoreau reflects, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth” (Thoreau 64). While Thoreau values truth above all, love and truth themselves require continual effort to nurture. Similarly, maintaining daily routines, waking up, preparing meals, caring for oneself, fulfilling responsibilities, demands discipline. These repetitive tasks may become boring, especially when done alone, but they are fundamental acts of work that preserve dignity and structure in life. 

Work in Literature: Thoreau and Ishiguro 

Thoreau’s Walden presents work as both a practical necessity and a spiritual endeavor. He writes, “Books are the treasured wealth of the world and the fit inheritance of generations and nations” (Thoreau 112). This statement highlights the intellectual labor involved in reading and writing. Books are not merely objects; they are the result of countless hours of human effort and creativity, passed down as a legacy for future generations. Reading them is also work, requiring concentration and reflection. 

In contrast, Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day offers a more somber portrayal of work. The protagonist, Mr. Stevens, devotes his entire life to service as a butler, adhering to strict professionalism and etiquette. While Stevens is undeniably hardworking, his devotion traps him in a “box” of routine and duty. By focusing solely on his role, he neglects his personal desires and relationships. As one character reflects, “If you are under the impression, you have already perfected yourself, you will never rise to the heights you are no doubt capable of” (Ishiguro 43). Ishiguro’s novel raises a haunting question: Can work become so consuming that it prevents us from truly living? Stevens’ tragedy suggests that not all forms of work lead to fulfillment. 

Work in Action: Free Solo 

The documentary Free Solo provides a modern, real-world example of work’s complexity. Alex Honnold dedicates his life to the dangerous and demanding pursuit of free solo climbing. His quest for perfection requires extraordinary physical conditioning, mental preparation, and emotional focus. When Honnold achieves a monumental goal, he feels restless and immediately seeks new challenges. This illustrates how work can become an endless cycle, driven by ambition rather than satisfaction. 

At the same time, Honnold’s wife, Sanni, undertakes her own form of work. She labors emotionally to support their relationship, protect her family’s future, and reconcile her fear for Honnold’s safety with her love for him. The film demonstrates that work is not always visible or celebrated, yet it is equally vital. 

Conclusion: Work as Human Identity 

From Thoreau’s philosophical reflections to Ishiguro’s tragic narrative, and from Honnold’s daring climbs to Sanni’s quiet struggles, the evidence is clear: work is universal. It is not limited to earning money or holding a job; it encompasses every effort we make to grow, connect, and survive. Babies “work,” they are constantly developing and learning. Even God, in the act of sustaining creation, works continuously. 

Work is life, and life is work. While its forms may vary, physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual, it remains the thread that binds humanity together. We will work until the day we die, but if we engage thoughtfully and purposefully, we may reach the end of our lives able to say that it was all worth it.