Unit 3 Reflection

 Unit 3 Reflection

I knew going into Unit 3 that I had to challenge myself more than I did in Unit 2. My thesis wasn't explicit enough, I wasn't thoroughly analyzing my quotes, and I wasn't properly utilizing the tone and personality that a blog format permits, according to the frank and impartial criticism I got. I approached this unit's visualized argument with all of that in mind, and I made an effort to use each assignment as a real step toward a better end product rather than just a box to be checked.

It seemed appropriate to write a visual essay on this subject. I created a more conventional research-style post in Unit 2, and although it conveyed my thoughts, it kept me distant from the reader. Although the writing was educational, it didn't captivate readers as a blog post ought to do. This time, I wanted to write directly to those who are most impacted by AI dependence: young adults and students who use it on a daily basis without thinking twice. I was able to integrate data and reasoning in a visual essay with a tone more akin to a discussion than a lecture. It also made me consider how pictures and other visuals are more than just decoration; they are an integral element of the argument and may sometimes support statements in ways that words alone cannot.

Creating a thesis that was truly detailed and included a true call to action was the most challenging aspect of this class. My argument in Unit 2 was rather general: AI is changing things. Here are some viewpoints. I gave several perspectives without ever really settling on one. I learned from my professor's criticism that expressing viewpoints and constructing an argument are two different things. I forced myself to craft a claim for Unit 3 that truly took a stance: that AI reliance is occurring passively and unknowingly, and that the remedy is to make deliberate personal decisions now rather than waiting for governments or academic institutions to develop policies. That felt more honest, more urgent, and more useful to the audience I was trying to reach.

Creating a thesis that was truly detailed and included a true call to action was the most challenging aspect of this class. My argument in Unit 2 was rather general: AI is changing things. Here are some viewpoints. I gave several perspectives without ever really settling on one. I learned from my professor's criticism that expressing viewpoints and constructing an argument are two different things. I forced myself to craft a claim for Unit 3 that truly took a stance: that AI reliance is occurring passively and unknowingly, and that the remedy is to make deliberate personal decisions now rather than waiting for governments or academic institutions to develop policies. My entire thesis on AI is based on the idea that we are developing habits and depending on systems without fully understanding it, and by the time we realize it, those habits may already be deeply embedded. Although the podcast didn't specifically address AI, it provided me with a historical perspective that helped me comprehend the pattern I was writing about.

The Reddit episode of Endless Thread also caused me to think in a different way. Fundamentally, Reddit is a platform based on crowdsourced knowledge, where users ask questions and receive responses from complete strangers. AI is, in a sense, the next step up from that: you ask a machine rather than a community. However, Reddit maintains the messiness and humanity of genuine responses, which AI frequently eliminates. I found that people's responses were flawed, intimate, and occasionally conflicting when I browsed through r/relationships for my Reddit piece, and that's precisely what made them worthwhile. They originated from personal experience. In contrast, AI responses are averaged, smoothed down, and coherence optimized. That distinction is more significant than most people realize, and it strengthened the case I was already making about the losses associated with outsourcing our thought processes. 

For the graphic novel assignment, reading Maus served as a reminder of something distinct but no less significant: the meaning is shaped by the medium. In addition to writing about the Holocaust, Art Spiegelman chose to illustrate it, which changed how readers perceived the gravity of the events he was portraying. The black and white color scheme, the usage of animals, and the way panels accelerated or decelerated time were all intentional. Everything was contentious. I intended my visual essay to work in a similar way. Not only did I establish a point, but I also made the reader feel directly involved in the issue I was discussing by employing the blog style, which includes photos, direct address, section headings, and a conversational pace. When someone reads my piece and concludes that "that's about other people," I haven't done my job. The intention was for each reader to identify with it.

If I'm being completely honest, the comments I got in Unit 2 on unpacking quotes was the most difficult. It is really challenging. It's simple to incorporate someone else's words and proceed as though the quotation speaks for itself. Asking why it matters, what it shows, what it complicates, and how it relates to the bigger argument you're developing is far more difficult to stick with. Using the comments I gathered from my Unit 2 primary research, I attempted to accomplish that in this essay. When Reese Prater stated that AI "encourages people to look for quick answers rather than working through problems themselves," I didn't simply nod in agreement. I extended the implication by relating it to cognitive science studies on skill atrophy, which suggests that the threat is not only efficiency but also the gradual deterioration of the patience needed for genuine thought. That seemed to be a more sincere response to what she was truly expressing.

During the 4/16 class discussion, I also reframed my conclusion by considering stakeholders. I have a stake in this dispute. I make use of AI. I've used it to verify my work, organize materials, and come up with ideas. I had to be honest about that when writing this article since my reader would sense it if I claimed to be outside the issue I was discussing. That self-reflection led me to my call to action, which is to select one AI-free practice and safeguard it. I'm not making a distant call to action. I'm giving myself one as well. 

Additionally, the individual conferences proved to be more beneficial than I had expected. I was able to see where my reasoning was flawed and where I was depending more on conjecture than proof by having the opportunity to discuss my case before the peer review. Some of those gaps were confirmed by peer review, which also highlighted instances in which I reverted to the more formal, detached style from Unit 2 rather than maintaining the conversational register I was trying to achieve. I went back and made particular revisions to certain parts, making an effort to keep the text straightforward and grounded throughout. 

Besides that, the individual conferences proved to be more beneficial than I had expected. I was able to see where my reasoning was flawed and where I was depending more on conjecture than proof by having the opportunity to discuss my case before the peer review. Some of those gaps were confirmed by peer review, which also highlighted instances in which I reverted to the more formal, detached style from Unit 2 rather than maintaining the conversational register I was trying to achieve. I went back and made particular revisions to certain parts, making an effort to keep the text straightforward and grounded throughout. Everything must point in the same direction, including the thesis, tone, images, call to action, and response to counterarguments. I had the parts in Unit 2, but they weren't quite cohesive. I made an effort to make everything work together in Unit 3, and I believe the outcome is a more sincere, concentrated, and intentional piece of writing than anything I've ever written.