WRIT201-B03_ Discussion Thread: Microsoft CoPilot Reflections

Discussion Thread: Microsoft CoPilot Reflections

• Which aspect of Copilot’s feedback felt most useful to you—content suggestions, clarity improvements, stylistic advice, or something else? Why?

  • The overall use of the Copilot tool is, nonetheless, useful when used appropriately, of course. It can be a great foundational tool for measuring a student’s work and provide them with a scope of directional criticisms to expand their skills and writing ability.

  • However, since this is an artificial substitute, it very much poses many issues that I would have to conduct an essay in order to just address them all. We should still not rely wholly on this tool for both students and instructors alike. It can create both good and bad habits for students, staff, the educational administration, etc.

• Did Copilot’s suggestions align with your artistic vision, or did you find yourself resisting some of its feedback? How do you decide when to accept or reject AI suggestions?

  • When AI comes across as to show some possibilities for noticeable bias towards what material is being presented to it; and then attempts to correct something based on what would be perceived as such— bias, pre-calculated assertions, the possibility for pre-emptive conclusions without further understanding and examination on the author's intentions for the material presented like quality exchange of communication from that of an actual person— this can be a bit unnerving. I, too, understand some bias can be constructive but much of the time it may not always display itself in a constructive manner.

  • There is still much room for error given that it is an overload of quantitative- algorithmic-generated database for collecting prompted and suggestive information.

• How might AI impact the development of your own writing voice? How can writers maintain authenticity while still benefiting from AI support?

  • Well, unless one has been so conditioned by the use of AI instruments and it becomes the norm to them it may be difficult to separate our feelings and experiences to it. We have to be very mindful and approach it with some doubt if we are going to be able to pinpoint much of its errors whether than be from a casual or more professional approach. I suppose I would approach it as I try to do in any other exchange of communication with someone to my best ability, as is to briefly and mentally prepare for the communication I am about to receive when it is being transmitted to me. In turn, I am able to reach optimal understanding without being impulsively bias and having the capability to exclude that from my rationale. However, this is not always the case because we are human. Furthermore, I am not stating that our emotional input cannot be beneficial but rather for us to achieve some sort of harmonious revival with one another.

  • What suddenly comes to mind is actually the passage of scripture that was implemented in my most recent assignment for my UNIV104-B28 class that I just finished. It left with these scriptures as follows:

¹¹ Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. ¹² And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; ¹³ And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. ¹⁴ Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. ¹⁵ See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. ¹⁶ Rejoice evermore. ¹⁷ Pray without ceasing. ¹⁸ In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. ¹⁹ Quench not the Spirit. ²⁰ Despise not prophesyings. ²¹ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. ²² Abstain from all appearance of evil. ²³ And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁴ Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. ²⁵ Brethren, pray for us. ²⁶ Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. ²⁷ I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. ²⁸ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. ( I Thess. 5.11-28 )

In conclusion, the inspiration for developing this current manifesto now has me inclined to utter the matter and has compelled me to lay forth the things I find strange with humanity, myself included, of course. My brief deduction I have observed just now, if I had not done so before as I am most sure that this matter has been brought forth upon many occasions, more prominently, by that of, perhaps, the more “traditional” followers of Christ, though I could be wrong. With that said, I am attempting to illustrate the irony and peculiar comparison from the utilization that Christian communities implement all translations of God's Word.

Undoubtedly and as to be expected, Christian education systems heavily place the emphasis on the warnings and dangers of, none other than, plagiarism itself. Yet, isn't this the misuse of interpreting God's Word for the betterment of ourselves rather than He that be in us? Why is it that taking His Word as literal in the entirety of its form, at the least, in the most original and authentic way that we can humanly fathom repels us to do so that now we may quarrel amongst our brethren because man has incited his greedy heart to flourish the earth with an “ungodly” amount of translations of His Word? Or, perhaps, they are “mistranslations." This I believe is plagiarism at its finest if not disguised as such.

What is wrong with us?

No, we all do not have the time to understand and learn the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin language or even begin a fraction of the fractions of the many idioms for each major language. So, yes, quite easily this is to be understood. However, this does not dismiss nor discredit the evidence laid forth that we have omitted and “paraphrased,” the Word of God. What we can, at best, get our hands on and wrap our minds around as close to authentic as possible to “God’s Word,” are we not ultimately plagiarizing the divine agent that breathed life into the Scripture and altering the authorship of His personally ordained servants such as Moses did, such as Paul did, such as David did, and so on? Yet, we want to teach about plagiarism?

Thus, now we have the use of AI at our disposal. Quite laughably, it has been given its name. It is artificial. Why would a seeker of truth wish to participate in a world that collects its data and intelligence from a something that is “artificial" or be predicated on its development as “artificial?” It is in the name itself.  Lest it be no closer parallel to the authenticity of God? As if humanity isn’t bad off enough we have to duplicate ourselves in the likes of this psuedo-intellegent development for we cannot merely just use what God inherited to us to begin with?

Oh, but the inextinguishable irony and the unforeseen hypocrisy we inflict upon ourselves in exchange for the distraction to be amongst the world and not living our utmost through Him.

Strange world it is— indeed.

Works Cited:

The Scofield Study Bible. King James Version, edited by C.I. Scofield,  Oxford University

Press, 2003