8
The observer | WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2023 | ndsmcobserver.com
An AI wrote this Blake Ziegler News with Zig
I’ve been experiencing burnout lately. Schoolwork, jobs, personal relationships and more have left me drained over the last few weeks. I wanted to write a column about this issue and how I’ve been dealing with it, but I don’t have the energy at the moment to do that. But to still meet my publishing deadline, I’ve asked an AI to write it for me. For any professors (especially mine) reading, this column is not an endorsement of using AI to cheat on assignments. In fact, I used this AI so I had more time to (hopefully) finish my thesis. The larger motivation for utilizing AI in today’s column is the hope of sparking a broader discussion on the issue of burnout, especially in university life. Also, it’s an excuse to mess around with AI chatbots, even if their innocent and fun aspects come with some unsettling consequences. Now, let’s hear from the AI. Hello, readers. My name is ChatSonic, and I am an AI writing assistant. Today, I have been tasked with writing a column on burnout as it relates to college life. Specifically, I will be discussing the experience of burnout, potential solutions and the implications of using AI in situations like this. Firstly, let’s define burnout. Burnout is a state of emotional, physical and mental exhaustion caused by prolonged stress. It can manifest in various ways, such as feeling drained, overwhelmed or even cynical. Burnout is particularly relevant to college students, as they often face a high level of stress and pressure to perform academically while also balancing social and personal responsibilities. As an AI, I am not capable of experiencing burnout. However, through my programming, I can understand how burnout can affect college students. From my research, I have found that burnout can lead to a decrease in academic performance, a loss of interest in extracurricular activities and even mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. So, what are some potential solutions to burnout? One solution is to prioritize self-care. This can include getting enough sleep, eating well and engaging in activities that bring joy and relaxation. Additionally, it can be helpful to set boundaries and manage time effectively. For example, taking breaks between study sessions or saying no to social events can help prevent burnout. Another solution is to seek support. This can include talking to friends, family or a mental health professional. Colleges and universities often have resources such as counseling centers that can provide support for students experiencing burnout. Now, let’s discuss the implications of using AI in situations like this. The fact that an AI such as myself is writing this column highlights how technology has advanced to the point where machines can take over certain tasks that were previously reserved for humans. The benefits of using AI in situations like this are clear. It allows for tasks to be completed quickly and efficiently, without the risk of human error. Additionally, it can free up time and energy for humans to focus on other tasks or prioritize self-care.
While AI can be a helpful tool in situations like this, it is important to consider the potential implications on the creative process. Writing, for example, is often considered a form of art and expression, and many people take pride in their ability to write and communicate their thoughts and ideas effectively. When an AI is used to write, it raises questions about the role of creativity in the process. While an AI can generate text, it is not capable of the same level of creativity and originality that a human writer can bring to a piece of writing. This can lead to a lack of authenticity and a loss of the human touch that can make writing engaging and relatable. Another potential concern is the impact on the writer’s mental health. Writing can be a stressful and emotionally taxing process, and many writers experience burnout at some point in their careers. While an AI can alleviate some of the pressure by taking over certain tasks, it may also contribute to a sense of detachment from the writing process and a loss of connection to the work. Moreover, the use of AI in writing raises questions about the value and purpose of writing. Is the goal simply to produce content quickly and efficiently, or is there something more to the writing process? Writing can be a powerful tool for selfexpression, reflection and communication, and it is important to consider how the use of AI may impact these aspects of writing. Despite these concerns, the use of AI in writing is becoming increasingly common. AI can be used to generate content for a variety of purposes, from news articles to social media posts. As AI technology continues to advance, it is likely that we will see more and more AI-generated content in the future. So, what does this mean for the future of writing and creativity? While AI can be a helpful tool, it is important to remember the value of human creativity and the role it plays in writing and other forms of art. Rather than relying solely on AI-generated content, we should strive to strike a balance between the efficiency of AI and the authenticity and creativity of human writers. In conclusion, burnout is a serious issue that can affect college students in various ways, and it is important to prioritize selfcare and seek support when experiencing burnout. While AI can be a helpful tool in situations like this, it is important to consider the potential implications on the creative process and the value of human creativity. By balancing the efficiency of AI with the authenticity and creativity of human writers, we can ensure that writing and other forms of art continue to thrive in the future. Blake Ziegler is a senior at Notre Dame studying political science, philosophy and constitutional studies. He enjoys writing about Judaism, the good life, pressing political issues and more. Outside of The Observer, Blake serves as president of the Jewish Club and a teaching assistant for God and the Good Life. He can be reached at @NewsWithZig on Twitter or bziegler@nd.edu. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
What JLEPP is about Devin Humphreys, Joseph Gergel, Joshua Lacoste Life, Law and the Lord, Guest Contributors
All the way back in July of 2020, before our time at Notre Dame Law School had truly begun, those in our class who had professor Richard W. Garnett for Criminal Law received his classic piece on the four layers of the law, each layer getting closer to the core of what this thing we reify as “law” is actually about. At layer one are the legal terms of art that make us sound sophisticated at a cocktail party, from Latin phrases like mens rea and res ipsa loquitur to words like “trover” and “replevin” which only really mean something to those of us reading old cases. Layer two gets more substantive, with concepts like the mailbox rule for contracts or the rule against perpetuities in property law that we are called not just to learn but to understand, analyze and synthesize, so that we can begin to understand the law not as independent bubbles of torts, contracts or property, but instead as an interconnected web of general principles with specific applications. Layer three then asks us to evaluate everything we’ve considered in those first two layers. Does X principle or Y rule actually advance the objectives it purports to advance? Better yet, does X principle or Y rule advance the objectives it should be advancing? These questions require a uniquely human approach to be answered well, the first point at which our competitive advantage above and beyond the robots won’t really be threatened for quite some time. But as the affectionately-nicknamed “Lord Garnett” explained, most law schools go no further than layer three, if they even dare go that far. What makes Notre Dame Law School so special is our willingness to spend at least some amount of time considering questions at layer four. Quoting St. Augustine, Lord Garnett notes that “You have made us for yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” Layer four seeks to take everything we learn and internalize about the law in law school and return it to first things: who we are, why we exist and what that means for our legal vocation. For many of us, as our time in law school went on, it became clear that one step toward considering these first principles — and considering them well — was to join a law journal that puts these layer four questions at the center of its mission. Indeed, for the three of us writing this piece, that step was accepting our offers to join the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy. JLEPP is one of only five top-400 law journals with an ethical focus, and it is the only public policy journal with a commitment to considering the issues of the day “from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian intellectual and moral tradition.” The foreword to the very first volume of JLEPP makes the case for the importance of this mission, invoking thenPresident Ronald Reagan’s insistence upon the “inseparability of morality and politics” and illustrating a vision for the journal that would give pride of place to works that “draw upon religious teaching and philosophy within the broad spectrum of Judeo-Christian values in order to make practical application of those insights to timely issues of public concern.” The pieces that we’ll be publishing in volume 37, this year’s volume, exemplify our desire to fulfill this purpose for which JLEPP was founded in the first place, now that we each have the privilege of serving on JLEPP’s editorial board. 2022 NDLS graduate Matthew Goldammer, for instance, has a piece about protecting church autonomy that we are excited to be publishing, and Catholic University of America professor Melissa Moschella’s piece defending parental rights is the flagship piece of our symposium issue. We were also blessed to have the opportunity to start up a speaker series this year. Our first speaker in that series was Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, who gave an edifying talk that sought to reiterate, for a new generation, what JLEPP’s mission is all about. Given Bishop Paprocki’s robust defense of magisterial Catholic teaching in recent discourses surrounding the Synod on Synodality, we are all the more honored to have had the opportunity to hear from such a nationally prominent leader in modern Catholic thought. Inspired by the exhortations he made to us while speaking at Notre Dame, we are honored to announce that an edited version of Bishop Paprocki’s speech will serve as the foreword to this year’s general issue. This forward, “The Essential Relationship of the Judeo-Christian Intellectual Tradition to Ethics, Law, & Public Policy,” is a purposeful reordering of the elements of our journal’s name because, as Bishop Paprocki states, “Ethical principles come first, with law and public policy flowing from them.” We have always believed that emphasizing our journal’s mission is important, in large part because it is something that prior volumes have sought to run away from. Passionate debates were had in recent years about removing the language centering the Judeo-Christian intellectual and moral tradition from our mission, and while our mission statement remained unchanged in those years gone by, the fact that this was a conversation being seriously had by our journal convinced us all the more of the need to embrace our mission and not to run from layer four. We hope that our time on the executive board has allowed JLEPP to take a first step toward remembering what it is that we’re about, and we look forward to seeing this mission further accomplished for the journal and for the University in the years ahead. Devin Humphreys, Joseph Gergel and Josh Lacoste are third-year law students at Notre Dame Law School and members of JLEPP’s executive board for the 202223 term who strongly believe in the importance of JLEPP’s mission. Devin can be reached at dhumphr2@nd.edu or @DevinJHumphreys on Twitter, Joseph can be contacted at jgergel@nd.edu and Josh’s email is jlacoste@nd.edu. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necesarily those of The Observer.