Campbell, Sinéad. “‘Our Assumptions Are Broken’: How Fraudulent Church Data Revealed AI’s Threat to Polling.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 Mar. 2026, www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/28/how-fraudulent-church-data-revealed-ais-threat-to-polling.

Summary: Sinead reminds readers of a previous controversy where survey polling data collected by the Christian Church in Britain that was used to generate popular news stories that Gen z was returning to church and religious practices more so than previous generations was re-evaluated and turned out to be wildly inaccurate. This is because many online accounts that were surveyed by the Church turned out to be ran by AI programs created to generate a more positive data set than what was predicted.

Why this matters: With the wide prevalence of AI, and it’s deep integration into online internet systems, and especially with how people can generate social media accounts using rudimentary AI LLM programing, it has become much harder to conduct research studies that utilize demographic polling. Internet-gathered data, especially if done anonymously has become much harder to prove if the collected data matches reality.

Michael Healey. “The Pros and Cons of AI in Education: Benefits, Risks, and Real Examples.” Discovery Education, December 9, 2025, https://www.discoveryeducation.com/blog/educational-leadership/ai-in-education/

This article lays out both the pros and cons of using AI in K-12 education, emphasizing that AI should support, not replace teachers. He explains that AI can help automate repetitive tasks and allow educators to spend more time working with students. The article also stresses the importance of responsible implementation, including attention to privacy, accuracy, and access.

I think thus article takes a balances but very optimistic approach to Ai in education. While it highlights real benefits, especially reducing teacher workload, it also makes it clear that Ai is not a solution on its own. There is an overall emphasis on intentional use, suggesting that problems with AI in schools are not just about the technology, but how its implemented.

Mary Burns and Rebecca Winthrop. “AI’s future for students is in our hands.” Brookings Institution, January 14 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ais-future-for-students-is-in-our-hands/

Burns and Winthrop examine both the potential benefits and serious risks of AI in education. They argue that the impact that it has on students ultimately depends on how its used. The article explains that AI can help learning with personalized instruction, immediate feedback, and greater access to educational resources especially for underserved students. It also warns that AI may undermine students cognitive, emotional, and social development if it is used without guidance.

This article does a good job of showing that the question if AI is “good” or “bad” isn’t so black and white. It argues that it is shaped by human decisions. “The future is in our hands” was the most perfect title, as it puts the responsibility on the educators and not the students.

Jennifer Vilcarino & Lauraine Langreo, “Rising Use of AI in Schools Comes With Big Downsides for Students.” Education Week, October 8 2025, https://www.edweek.org/technology/rising-use-of-ai-in-schools-comes-with-big-downsides-for-students/2025/10

Vilcarino and Langreo analyze the growing use and significant risks of using artificial intelligence in schools. The article highlights concerns like privacy, bullying, students being treated unfairly, and AI literacy. It also discusses how increased relience on AI may negatively impact student relationships and social development. Overall, this article says that AI offers some benefits, but schools must carefully manage its implementation to avoid harming students.

I think that this article is important because it shifts the conversation from what-ifs and hypotheticals, and uses real data to show the risks. The concern about weakened relationships stood out to me the most, since students being able to communicate with each other has declined since the pandemic, this might help narrow down the search to pinpoint why.

Azevedo, Mary Ann. “Exclusive: Juno, CPA-Founded Startup That Aims To Make Tax Returns Less Painful With AI, Raises $12M.” Crunchbase News, 9 Apr. 2026, https://news.crunchbase.com/fintech/cpa-founded-ai-tax-return-startup-juno-seed-funding/

Crunchbase writes this article based on a startup called Juno, which is an AI-powered tax preparation company. They raised $12 million in seed funding. The platform is designed to make tax filing easier and less stressful, particularly for small businesses and underserved populations. By using AI, Juno is trying to automate complex parts of the tax process while still addressing risks and accuracy concerns that are associated with AI. The article also places this startup within the much broader trend of increased investment in AI-driven companies.

AI is transforming everyday financial tasks like filing taxes more accessible and efficient for a wider range of people. The article is highlighting a major shift toward automating traditionally complicated and stressful processes. It could save time and reduce costs for individuals and small businesses. Yet, there are issues of trust, accuracy and relying on AI for sensitive financial information. There is a rapid growth of AI in the financial technology industry. The article shows how is it is affecting essential services people rely on every year.

“Scientists Uncover New Method to Generate Protein Datasets for Training AI.” Rice University News, 2026, https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/scientists-uncover-new-method-generate-protein-datasets-training-ai

Rice University has developed a new method for generating large protein datasets to train AI systems. Because AI models in biology require massive amounts of data, researchers are struggling with incomplete protein information. This new research allows scientists to create synthetic protein data that still reflects real biological patterns. It will help AI systems learn more effectively. The article explains that this could improve how AI is used in fields like disease research and biotechnology by making training data more accessible.

AI is becoming deeply integrated into scientific discovery. By improving the quality and availability of training data, scientists can accelerate breakthroughs in areas like new treatments or understanding complex diseases. At the same time, it could be criticized for how synthetic data is used and validated to ensure accuracy. The article is reflecting a growing trend where AI is actively affecting how new scientific knowledge is created. It carries major implications for the future of healthcare.

“Michigan Start-Up Launches AI Program Aimed at Helping More People Run for Office.” UpNorthLive, Sinclair Broadcast Group, n.d., https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/michigan-start-up-launches-ai-program-aimed-at-helping-more-people-run-for-office-politics-campaign-run-for-office-ballot-vote.

This news piece explains how one Michigan startup has created an AI program to help more people run for political office, focusing on the local level. The tool aims to simplify the campaign process by guiding users through key steps, such as managing outreach and organizing messaging. The goal is to lower barriers that prevent everyday people from entering politics. The article spotlights how elected positions in the U.S. are local, yet many go uncontested. The technology could help increase participation and competition in those races.

The importance of this article is that it shows that AI is beginning to shape democracy. By making it easier for people to run for office, this technology could increase representation and give more individuals a voice in government. However, it raises questions about how much influence AI should have in politics and whether it could raise ethical concerns, such as an over-reliance on automated messaging. To conclude, it reflects a broader change where AI is becoming a powerful tool in civic engagement.

Bonifield, Stevie. “Grammarly’s Sloppelganger Saga.” The Verge, 5 Apr. 2026, www.theverge.com/column/906606/grammarly-expert-review-ai-saga. 

This article by Stevie Bonifield for The Verge is talking about the relatively quick rise and fall of Grammarly’s “Expert Review” feature. Grammarly, which rebranded as Superhuman in late 2025 after acquiring the AI email platform Superhuman Mail, launched Expert Review in August 2025. Expert Review was a feature that generated AI writing suggestions under the names of real academics and authors like Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan and presenting them with a verified-style checkmark icon. None of these individuals gave consent, and the feature only came under scrutiny in March 2026 when Wired reported it was using the names of deceased professors, and Verge reporters discovered their own colleagues’ names attached to AI-generated advice they never gave. Superhuman’s initial response was to launch an opt-out email inbox, but after mounting backlash, the company disabled the feature entirely. Investigative journalist Julia Angwin simultaneously filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of privacy, publicity rights, and likeness protection laws in New York and California. In an interview, Superhuman’s CEO Shishir Mehrotra repeatedly called Expert Review a “bad feature,” yet also floated the idea of eventually relaunching a consent-based version where experts could train AI agents to represent them commercially.

I chose this article to share because Grammarly feels like one of the most familiar AI-adjacent tools in both college and professional life (at least for me!). I also thought that with our recent exploration of copyright and AI, this felt prevalent! But I feel like nearly every student has encountered it in a browser extension or a Google Docs recommendation from Grammarly. This is a tool many of us have trusted, and this article reveals how the company was monetizing real people’s identities without their knowledge as part of that “helpful” experience. Personally, I did not encounter the “Expert Review” feature at all because I ended up disabling Grammarly on everything about a year ago. I disabled Grammarly when it started rewriting my sentences and just going a little too far, although I do love a good spell-check! But in this article specifically, The Decoder podcast exchange between Patel and Mehrotra, where Patel pushes back on the CEO’s claim that fabricated suggestions constituted mere “attribution,” is especially interesting. It really showed how this AI-generated content blurs the line between referencing someone’s work and putting words in their mouth. It just made me think about the importance of CHECKING YOUR SOURCES! If you are using AI for work or school, don’t just let it hallucinate. Take AI with a grain of salt.

Urbain, Thomas. “Life with AI Causing Human Brain ‘Fry.’”, AOL, 29 Mar. 2026, www.aol.com/articles/life-ai-causing-human-brain-013231280.html.

This article, published on AOL (via AFP) this past Sunday explores a growing phenomenon called “AI brain fry.” The basic idea is that the people most deeply embedded in AI (developers, startup founders, consultants) are burning out not because AI is making their jobs harder in the traditional sense, but because managing AI tools creates a whole new kind of mental exhaustion. Consultants at Boston Consulting Group coined the term to describe the mental fatigue that comes from pushing AI supervision beyond our cognitive limits. The article interviews several people in the tech space who describe staying up for 15-hour coding sessions, constantly babysitting AI agents to make sure they don’t go off the rails, and feeling dopamine-depleted afterward. A BCG study of about 1,500 professionals actually found that burnout decreased when AI took over repetitive tasks, so “brain fry” seems to be a problem specific to power users who are deeply managing AI, not casual users (yet). Despite all of this, everyone interviewed still said they had a positive view of AI overall.

I chose this article because it caught my eye with the term “brain fry”. I couldn’t help but think of the term “brain rot” (which I think we are a bit more familiar with). I felt like the article was an interesting and unique perspective of the human cost of AI adoption and rather than focusing on AI’s capabilities, this piece zooms a little closer in on how developers at AI companies are actually experiencing it which was a take I have yet to see. It feels telling that the people most harmed by “AI burnout” aren’t just the people whose jobs AI is replacing, but the ones incentivizing it.

Rick Hess, “Can AI Support Student Learning? Depends Who You Ask.” Education Week, March 32, 2026, https://www.edweek.org/technology/opinion-can-ai-support-student-learning-depends-who-you-ask/2026/03

Hess explores the debate over whether AI can actually improve student learning, in an optimistic and skeptical tone. The article explains that AI can be useful in classrooms as a tool for things like efficiency, brainstorming, and some additional support. However it also brings up concerns that AI might not support deeper learning skills like collaboration, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement. Teacher also play a crucial role as “coaches,” to help students decide how and when AI should be used.

I think this article does a great job of playing for both “teams.” Rick Hess doesn’t take a super clear stance and highlights both the pros and cons. Along with the consequences of both. The part about teachers being “coaches” really stood out, how teachers should guide students using Ai instead of it replacing instruction.