Research Questions

Q1. What are the cognitive effects of relying on AI for written communication?

Person #1: I think that relying on AI too much for written communication may make our critical thinking skills worse/weaker. If we rely on AI too frequently and use it for constantly for our daily tasks or for school work, such as to refine our language in essays or even to generate ideas or brainstorm, we can risk losing the ability to articulate thoughts by ourselves. And possibly over time, this could lead to our creativity skills and problem-solving capabilites declining, because we are no longer encouraged to required to develop and express ideas independently.

Person #2: I actually feel more positive about AI than most. I think it can enhance your cognitive abilities and make it easier to streamline the process of writing, studying, creating -- and can overall start saving us valuable time. I don't think it needs to necessarily replace human thought, nor do I think it actually can. Humans are smarter than that! I think that AI can help refine ideas and maybe focus on the deeper aspects of communication, and therefore actually support intellectual engagement rather than dismiss it.

Person #3: The cognitive impacts of AI depend more on how it is actually used. I believe that, if it is used too passively, it could reduce the effort that people use into forming their own opinions and ideas, which makes their independent/critical thinking skills worse. But, maybe when it is used in conjunction with their own resources (ie. as an aid to structure arguments or suggest improvements), it can actually benefit us by bettering our work.

Q2. What role do algorithms play in shaping public narratives (in journalism)?

Person #1: If these algorithms are designed/created in a responsible way with little to no bias associated with them, then I think they can help improve our access to important information. They can surface the relevant resources and material, which helps us develop new perspectives on the world. The fact that algorithms are also personalized makes the process easier to find newsand stories that align with your interests. At the same time, people can be exposed to diverse sources, and this can help enhance public discourse.

Person #2: I'm personally not a big fan of the algorithms we encounter on a daily basis because I think they can create echo chambers where we are constantly fed information that already aligns with our existing beliefs, rather than be exposed to anything new. This makes it more difficult to have balanced, informed discussions. I do think they play a huge role in shaping public narratives because they essentially determine which news stories people see when. However, since these platforms do prioritize engagement/views/clicks/likes over anything, they tend to just show you what you want to see or what they know you already like, limiting your exposure to new, diverse viewpoints.

Person #3: Since algorithms curate our social media pages and Google searches based on the behavior of the user and their preferences, they become gatekeepers in contemporary journalism. Although this means that the content we see online is directly tailored to our personal tastes, it also means that the stories the public is able to watch/view are heavily filtered. Because of this, we're never truly getting a non-biased on anything we see online.

Q3. How has the rise of digital note-taking tools changed the way people organize and process information?

Person #1: I personally use digital note-taking tools in my daily life constantly, including Notion, Quizlet, and GoodNotes. These apps have made organizing my information way more efficient -- I can search up a key word that I learnt in one of my classes and it directs me to the exact page I wrote it down in, which would be so much harder to do if I wrote my work down in a physical notebook. This helps a lot with multi-tasking and productivity, and with AI tools being in a lot of these apps, my notes can be automatically enhanced as I write.

Person #2: While I can recognize that these digital tools may be more convenient to take notes in, it's possible that they may also change the way we process information. I'm fairly certain studies show that hand-written notes help you retain your memory longer and allow you to process the facts quicker. But, if all of our notes are typed out or AI-generated, this would reduce our deep engagement with the material at hand, and in turn weaken long-term comprehension skills that are very important when it comes to media literacy.

Person #3: Balance is key in situations like these. I agree with both of these arguments. Maybe a hybrid approach could be better -- take the notes by hand first, and digitize them later. This way, you can retain better long-term memory comprehension, but also find whichever part of the work you wanted to find with the click of a button. I think the most important thing to avoid is just copy-pasting everything into these digital tools, having it do all of the work for you. AI is not really the problem; rather, how you utilize it is.

Reflection

Through exploring a variety of research questions related to writing, AI, technology, and the media, I noticed a clear relationship between the type of question versus the depth of engagement. Typcially, open-ended, conceptual questions (such as Q2) allowed for more multi-faceted, analytical responses that went past the prompt. These types of questions required deeper consideration, which lead to discussions about cognitive shifts and linguistic biases. The responses were more structured and often broke the ideas into distinct categories by exploring potential longer-term impacts.

Contrastingly, the more close-ended questions (such as Q3) recieved more personally-framed responses, with anecdotes being used to support key points. This question elicited answers that seemed to be more immediate and experiential. I partly believe that this is due to the fact that we are on a college campus, where people take digital notes on a daily basis and hence have likely given the process a lot of thought, discussing each of the pros and cons present in order to maintain a successful studying routine. The answers to this question were all structured, but I realized that each of the people I asked found it easier to understand eachother's perspectives -- it was not a very divisive question.

Additionally, questions related more to AI had stronger opinions and reactions, as the topic can be highly polarizing. The responses sparked related more to the ethical implications of them, as well as their futures. Broader, theoretical questions were more engaging than the technical ones, which leaned towards explanations of functionality. Overall, I found that the more speculative and open-ended the questions were, the deeper the engagement was. On the other hand, practical, experience-based questions invited answers that were much more relatable, but perhaps less interesting.