Aiden Jacob - WRT 205

Research Questions For my Unit 2 project, I want to focus on AI in sports, especially the tension between data and the human side of the game. Here are three potential research questions: Question 1:  If AI can evaluate talent and predict outcomes better than humans, does that improve sports or take away part of the identity of the game? Question 2:  Would fans actually trust AI to make major decisions like draft picks or trades, or do we still need a human making those calls? Question 3:  When does AI stop being a helpful tool in sports and start changing what makes sports feel real and emotional? I asked three people for each question, including friends, classmates, and one teammate, for a total of nine responses. Here are summaries of their responses: Question 1 Responses: AI makes sports smarter and more efficient. It helps teams win but might remove tradition. It depends on how much control it has. Question 2 Responses: Fans would not fully trust AI with big...

     When I first started this unit, my research question was honestly broad. I knew I was interested in writing and technology, but I did not yet understand what specifically I wanted to argue. Looking back at my Curated Source Collection, I can see how much more focused my thinking became. At the end of my project, I wrote that “technology does not replace writing. Instead, it amplifies it.” That sentence clearly shows how my thinking shifted. I moved from simply asking how technology changes writing to asking how it increases the power and consequences of writing.      One of the biggest changes in my process was moving from summary to analysis. Early in the unit, I found myself explaining what each source said instead of explaining how it worked. For example, in my final version of Source 2, I focused on the quote “We created a new product category.” Instead of just repeating that idea, I explained that creating a category requires explanation, branding...

Source 1: A Pencil Shop, for Texting the Old-Fashioned Way – The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/fashion/a-pencil-shop-for-texting-the-old-fashioned-way.htm      In Molly Young’s article for The New York Times, she writes about a small pencil shop in Manhattan to explore why analog tools still hold meaning in a digital world. The article was written at a time when texting and email had already become the primary forms of communication, which makes her opening question, “Who uses a pencil anymore?” especially important. That question reflects the assumption that older tools disappear once something more efficient is invented. Young’s project is not to argue that pencils are better than digital devices, but to show why people are still drawn to physical writing.      Her method is observational. She spends time inside the shop and focuses on the owner, Caroline Weaver, rather than using statistics or research. One line that stood out to me ...