One of the readings that we worked on earlier was “Disclosing Generative AI Use in Digital Humanities Research.” A large portion of the reading was discussing the positives and negatives of AI when it comes to Humanities and overall academics. When the article was talking about how scholars are debating it’s worth because of how heavily involved it is with out everyday lives, I put my two cents into it and said that AI has done more harm than good when it comes to digital humanities and academics as a whole because it has almost destroyed critical thinking entirely. It’s gotten to the point now where not only do people refuse to do a single assignment without ChatGPT, but they also now rely on ChatGPT for common sense knowledge during their everyday lives. And that’s super harmful because if a student refuses to do a simple math worksheet without AI, how do you expect them to care about a much more complicated academic topic like digital humanities? You can talk about how it’s helped as a reliable source or it makes some tasks easier, but at the end of the day, what does an easier task even matter if people can’t do a task on their own period? That’s why AI has done more harm than good. AI has made people lazier, made them less passionate, made them not as smart, and made them not truly care about any academics, including digital humanities.