AI from page 8

Nevertheless, I worry that for people who do not intrinsically believe in the importance of writing, AI’s path of least resistance may be far too tempting. This is to say that the same people who bemoaned having to write essays before AI will be quick to throw academic integrity out of the window—all to avoid engaging in the dull task of linking words together.

This would be a sad reality, for writing is essential regardless of your area of study. Writing is more than just linking words together— it is the manifested facilitation of thought. Good writers understand that to write is to solidify a thought in the world, where it can be contested by others. Because of this, good writing requires the consideration of more than just one’s own position—and in the process of discovering other perspectives, the writer begins to understand their own perspective better. Its worth is found just as much in its process as in its product. John Stewart Mills famously writes that “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Those that utilize AI to write essays are not only taking the path of least resistance and development, but are also depriving themselves of opportunities to understand others and themselves better.

Though a future where writing and subsequent critical thought done by AI is bleak, there is nevertheless cause for hope. Even before the birth of AI, there has been a decline in skilled writing that coincides with the shift in the job market from humanities to specialized majors—such as engineering. This is perhaps most visible at research and tech universities, including Case Western Reserve University, where the majority of students choose a STEM field to major in. While humanities departments have upheld the importance of writing, rigorous writing instruction seems to have been discarded in many other subjects. The soonto-be obsolete SAGES courses, a requirement for all students, cur- rently have both humanities and STEM students. This inherently leads to a mixture of students more passionate about writing and others who are frankly uninspired by their non-STEM classes. This results in classes spread thin, simultaneously trying to assist those with little basic writing skills and providing in-depth instruction for those with more advanced writing abilities. In an effort to keep grading consistent and fair, writing standards lower toward the worst student—which can often be the student putting in the least effort.

With this in mind, the rise of AI may in fact be a good thing—an opportunity to raise the bar again when it comes to writing. If AI can easily produce basic writing assignments that can pass as the writing of an uninspired student, perhaps grading will become more stringent. And if this happens, students will be forced to work on their writing ability to meet newly elevated standards. Furthermore, as a result of greater effort and better writ- ing, classes can foster a greater appreciation of writing for those who haven’t experienced satisfaction in the subject.

CWRU’s English department chair Dr. Walt Hunter recently published an article in The Atlantic about the shortcomings of AI poetry. Part of his argument is that a human’s lived and embodied experience in this world distinguishes a human’s writing from that of an AI. And it is true: AI—even the one ambitiously named Bard—cannot write in a rhetorically sound or literarily appealing manner. However, it is my cautious hope that with AI able to produce poor writing—which is nonetheless currently accepted as adequate—written language will become elevated by leaning into the lived experience that an AI can never have. In this way, perhaps AI will usher in an era of uniquely descriptive and literary writing across the board, as humans seek to differentiate their work from the manufactured writing of AI.

CWRU, what the “Heck” is your problem?

Heckling and why it’s obnoxious

Enya Eettickal Staff Writer

On March 24, I and evidently more than 1800 other Case Western Reserve students went to watch the Spring Comedian, Colin Jost. As a passive viewer of Saturday Night Live (SNL) but a big fan of “Weekend Update,” I was excited to see what Jost had in store. The show started wonderfully with openers Marcello Hernandez and Molly Kearney, who did a good job of warming up the crowd before the main act. When Jost first came on, the show’s trajectory seemed great.

But then, the heckling began. At first, there were just a few interruptions—one or two screams that caught Jost’s attention. However, they continued and seemed to be out of place and invasive. “What bar are you going to afterward?” “How does your wife feel about her portrayal in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?”

”How’d you bag Scarlet?” That’s only the half of it. There were a couple of other things that were yelled loud enough to create awkward pauses in the show, but quiet enough that no one could understand what was being said. However, it was more than enough to actively ruin the second half of the show for me and the rest of the audience.

I don’t know if what happened at the show was because some CWRU students don’t know what heckling is, or rather if they simply don’t care. Regardless, I’m here to put our student body on blast for it.

Heckling is the act of interrupting a public speaker by harassing them with “questions, challenges, or gibes,” according to Webster’s dictionary. More often than not, I’ve heard of, and even seen footage of, comedians being ruthlessly heckled by audiences. This may be because comedy exists on the premise of interaction—comedians using audience laughter and response during their performances. However, heckling goes beyond simple audience interaction and crowd work—it has the impact of inhibiting the performer or disrupting their set, as opposed to aiding them in the way they intend for audience interaction to be. Heckling is uninvited, hostile and uncomfortable. If the performer is not the one in control of the interaction, it’s probable that audience interaction is heckling.

The big question is why? Why the heck would anyone heckle? There are a couple of reasons, the obvious one being attention. If you’re trying to compete for the spotlight with a comedian who’s on stage with 1,800 eyes on them, you have to be interrupting either for the attention of the speaker or the audience—paired with a lack of self-awareness. Unsurprising to most, the average CWRU student isn’t on the cutting edge of comedy. While hecklers may find their interruptions hysterical, there’s a solid chance nobody else does. It’s just annoying. There’s also the possibility that someone isn’t interrupting with the purpose of being perceived as comedic but rather just for attention, following the “no press is bad press” mentality. Lastly, it’s also possible that someone may be heckling because they do not understand comedy etiquette. During the Spring Comedian event, Jost stopped to consult his notes, and someone asked “Do you have any advice for us?” I truly don’t think the question was malicious, but there are two things that ran through my mind when I heard it. One, a pause doesn’t mean that a comedian doesn’t know what to say, but rather needs a moment to think, and asking questions like that hurts more than it helps. Two, a comedian who does political satire is here to make us laugh, not give advice. But if I didn’t know those two things, I could see why someone may ask that question.

So the question becomes, how do we stop it? For the most part, as audi- ence members, our hands are tied— unless you’re a heckler, because then, please just stop. It’s embarrassing for you and (secondhand) for me. However, as a performer, there are two ways to deal with it. One is to embarrass or roast the heckler into silence, or at least discourage others from heckling—and Marcello did a good job of that and for an audience similar to CWRU, that may work well. On the other hand, the option is to not entertain them at all. If they’re looking for attention, don’t give it to them. Ignore them, and in most circumstances, they’ll ideally stop or go away—and that goes for any time in life when someone defers to harassment to gain attention. I have a sneaking suspicion that Jost was trying to be nice, and didn’t want to roast a bunch of college kids, but there was a trade-off involved where the heckling continued.

If you take away nothing else from this article, just remember that with performances, interaction is not an invitation for harassment. Comedians often have pre-planned sets, and the audience is there for them rather than for you. Although, if anyone has ideas on how an audience member can help diffuse a heckler situation, let me know. In the meantime, I will be watching “Weekend Update” if anyone wants to join along.

Are sports stars and celebrities really overpaid?

Catherine Choi Layout Designer

Athletes and celebrities earn a fortune each year for all the work they do. Although only the top 1% of athletes and actors enjoy such prosperity, the public often questions whether they deserve that much pay. It only takes a short period of time to earn a fortune that will take other people more than a lifetime. Does Tom Brady, despite his skill, deserve to earn more than 10 times what general surgeons make? Does Taylor Swift deserve to charge thousands of dollars for her concert tickets? According to the rules of capitalism, the answer is yes, and most celebrities and athletes deserve every cent they make. Under capitalism, the private sector and the individual hold power over the industry and the economy. It is up to the individual to evaluate a product or service’s worth and find the sweet spot on the supply and demand graph and the optimal price where both the supplier and the consumer are happy. In this case, the public decides how much famous celebrities and athletes will earn. The public will determine if the services people provide are worth their money. Football is highly popular in the United States, and the NFL makes billions of dollars each year with sponsorships, tickets, merchandise and broadcasting revenues. Players would like to get paid as much as possible—they are the ones who bring the money to the team. Further, teams will want to keep the players they need to make revenue, win trophies and attract sponsorships. They will negotiate a proper salary based on the monetary value that the player brings to the team so that both parties can be happy.

The same applies to Taylor Swift’s concert tickets. If the public determines that the cost of the tickets is outrageous to the point where they won’t purchase the tickets, Swift would potentially reduce the ticket prices to a generally acceptable point while still making profit. However, the public agreed that the prices are fair enough to buy tickets, which is shown by the number of tickets and albums she sells, and she gets to keep the prices the way they are. Another example is hiring a famous actor/actress for a film to elevate its quality, making it easier to attract sponsorships, ticket sales and views. Hiring a famous celebrity for an advertisement will increase sales by bringing more publicity and media exposure to the product. If the public didn’t care about celebrity appearances, then sales would stagnate and the value of their work would plunge, decreasing their own salary.

Continue reading on page 10

It is the same logic of a company trying to keep a skilled employee in their company instead of letting them leave for a better term, only the capital involved is much bigger. A more specific example is the case of FC Barcelona. FC Barcelona was the top team in European soccer for many years with its numerous titles. However, the team has been in financial ruin since 2017 due to poor management and failure to replace its retiring legends. In 2021, Lionel

Messi, a living legend and the most expensive player in the world, left the team to go to Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) because Barcelona could not afford his salary. Due to the transfer, Barcelona experienced a drop in sponsorships and wins. In contrast, PSG gained eight more sponsors and Nike and Coca-Cola extended their partnership with larger capital. Messi increased PSG’s revenue by 15-20% in his first season with his new team. Their social media platform also grew and attracted more people. In 2021, he was paid $75 million USD, but the revenue that he brought proved that he was worth the price. In this case, PSG is paying Messi not only to score goals and win matches; they are paying him to bring revenue and media exposure to the team.

Apparently, the world determined an athlete’s performance and a celebrity’s media appearance to be worth more than a surgeon’s life-saving surgery. Those people aren’t earning that high amount of money because they are “better than other people”; instead, it’s because of their ability to bring profit, and that profit is made by the public. If hospitals made more money than movie studios, record companies and sports clubs, doctors would be in a position to demand higher wages. The degree of contributions to society plays little work in determining the worth of a service. Supply and demand make the decisions in our world.