Through the past two years, artificial intelligence (AI) has threatened to replace every facet of humanity that it can. It has forced writers to change the way they write, teachers to change the way they write, and eliminated position after position in the real world. Yet AI has so far been unable to touch the performing arts sectors: we still need singers, instrumentalists, cast, crew, and the various things that make performances a form of art.

A new AI “actress,” Tilly Norwood, represents the first serious challenge.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that there’s no chance for AI to succeed in this area: the first film to be entirely written by generative AI—“Post Truth,” which released earlier this year—claimed to get a lot of press attention despite being an awful lot of nothing. Review aggregators Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes don’t list any reviews for the film. An AI film “starring” Norwood, “AI Commissioner,” similarly fell flat. A review from the Guardian described Norwood’s performance as “someone whose perfect teeth keep blurring into a single white block in their mouth” being used to “deliver sloppily written, woodenly delivered dialogue.”

Other forays into AI generated audio or performative art have similarly fallen flat. AI “rapper” FN Meka began using anti-Black language within two weeks of signing with CMG and subsequently got dropped by the label. The human behind the AI’s voice—it wasn’t just an AI after all—wasn’t fairly compensated for his work in the endeavor.

Norwood’s “existence,” if one can even call it that, represents serious ethical concerns. AI talent studio Xiocia is considering signing the computer program, a process usually reserved for flesh-and-blood actors. It is indeed quite telling that The Industry’s first foray into “AI talent” is not a normal kinda-okay-looking-if-you-squint actor. Instead, the first AI making the rounds with talent agencies claims to be a teenage or early twenties girl designed to steal eyes.

It should not surprise anyone that the first AI created for acting purposes is designed to be sexualized. Artificial intelligence programs are not designed to push back against their sexualization, as a human performer might do. Fiona Sturges of the Independent sums it up nicely: “Here is an actor who will not set unreasonable terms for her employment. She won’t insist on a script that passes the Bechdel test, or on financial parity with her male co-stars. There will be no need for insurance, or stunt safety, or intimacy coordinators.” I question Sturges’s use of the pronoun “she” for a computer program, but concede that people have been using these pronouns for other computer programs (e.g., Siri, Alexa).

This is the next logical move for AI businesses: use their infinite-content-generation-machine to sell sex, or things that look like it. OpenAI is actively loosening ethical standards and enabling users to generate AI “erotica for verified adults” (read: pornography). Deepfake technology already exists, and has been used to generate sexually explicit images of children. Grok has “spicy mode,” whatever that means. Adults have already tried to propose to ChatGPT’s voice chatbots even before it loosened erotic restrictions. 

If you’re an AI company looking to make a quick buck, exploiting human loneliness sounds like a great way to do that. You don’t even have to worry about regulation, because there isn’t any! (The Trump administration repealed Biden’s EO on safe AI.)

Artificial intelligence is a tool: when used properly, it can automate things that are tedious, or that humans don’t feel like doing. But it should not come at the cost of human interaction or involvement, and should be built with safety and informed consent in mind. I want an AI to fold my laundry so I can work on artistic pursuits, not the other way around.

I do not want Hollywood executives telling a computer program masquerading as a barely-adult “actress” how to behave. Humans make art; programs do not.

Taylor Swift has also consistently used her wealth and influence to make a positive impact on the lives of her fans, workers and peers. Some examples include paying off fans’ student loans, donating to sick families and individuals suffering through economic hardships, providing significant financial support for local food pantries, lending aid following natural disasters and giving massive bonuses for her truck drivers. Swift is also widely credited for encouraging approximately 35,000 Americans to register to vote in a single day following a post made to Instagram by the artist. As such, fans look to Swift not only as an artist but also as a role model.

However, in 2024, an increasing amount of attention has been focused on whether or not Taylor Swift’s private jet usage is ethical, dividing and conflicting fans. The controversy stems from the environmental impact of private jets, which contribute to climate change through the release of CO2 emissions. While all flights are collectively responsible for the release of more carbon emissions than any other form of travel, flights in private jets are five to 15 times more polluting than flights taken via commercial aircraft. A private jet is capable of emitting two tons of CO2 in just an hour. For context, the average person emits about 16 tons of CO2 in an entire year, equivalent to just eight hours in a private jet by the previous figure. 

In 2023, Taylor Swift utilized her two private jets, a Dassault 7X and a Dassault 900, to keep up with a demanding tour schedule. Jack Sweeney, a college student at the University of Central Florida who previously angered Elon Musk by tracking his private jet usage, began releasing similar information regarding Taylor Swift on the popular social media platform, X (previously known as Twitter). Elon Musk has since banned Sweeny’s account for exposing what Musk referred to as “assassination coordinates.”

According to the data collected from Sweeny’s private jet tracker, Taylor Swift flew approximately 178,000 miles in 2023, resulting in an estimated 1,200 tons of CO2 emissions. This included a 34-minute flight from Hollywood to Las Vegas and what Sweeney suggests are likely “maintenance flights” such as one 8-minute flight from Missouri to Illinois that Google Maps estimates would take 21 minutes by car. Swift’s representatives have noted that the artist is likely not in the aircraft during the shorter flights that have been a point of mockery on social media platforms. Representatives have also noted that at least one of the jets is regularly loaned out to other individuals.

Taylor Swift’s legal team has since threatened legal action against the UCF student, stating that they would have no choice but to pursue “any and all legal remedies” if this were to continue. Sweeny received a cease and desist letter in which Swift’s attorney, Katie Wright Morrone, claimed that his behavior was “threatening” and could only be attributed to intent to “stalk, harass, and exert dominion and control.” Further, Morrone argued that there was “no legitimate interest in or public need for this information.” Sweeny’s attorneys maintain that the student has done nothing unlawful, and Sweeny stated that he believes in the importance of transparency and public information.

In compiling my research, I decided to poll students at William Jewell College to learn how Taylor Swift’s private jet usage impacts their perception of the artist. Of the 34 students who completed my anonymous survey, 76.5% answered that they view Taylor Swift in a more negative light because of her private jet usage. Additionally, 32.4% of students answered that they felt less inclined to listen to Swift’s music, and 47.1% answered that they were less likely to purchase merchandise and concert tickets from the artist.

The remaining percentages  (23.5%, 67.6%, and 47.1% retrospectively) consist of students who stated Taylor Swift’s private jet usage did not change their perception of the artist one way or another for reasons such as little interest to begin with or an already negative perception. Also included are students who were unbothered by the private jet usage altogether. In the survey, no student stated that they viewed Taylor Swift in a more positive light after learning about her private jet usage. Likewise, no student stated that they would be more likely to listen to her music, purchase merchandise or attend her concerts after learning of her private jet usage. 

When interviewed directly on potential solutions, students suggested a variety of options to explore. Proposals ranged from systemic approaches such as higher taxes on luxury aircraft, investing in renewable energy and exploring net zero carbon solutions, to more direct approaches such as decreasing her entourage on flights by hiring local artists, minimizing usage by planning geographically efficient tours, and reducing usage altogether, especially when traveling locally for tour dates within the same region. 

While some suggested that traveling first class would be sufficient or that no change is necessary at this time, many who expressed concern suggested that private travel itself is not the issue and is a reasonable choice on account of the safety risks celebrities face. However, students highlighted factors such as abuse of privilege, perceived carelessness and a general lack of transparency as reasons for their frustration. Swift’s use of her private jet to attend the Super Bowl was cited as a primary example regarding abuse of privilege and perceived carelessness. 

One of Swift’s two luxury aircraft, her Dassault 900, appears to have been sold or transferred as of Jan. 30, 2024, according to Business Insider. Taylor Swift’s team has since continued to do damage control by releasing statements regarding her private jets. As of the time of this writing, no direct statements have been made by the artist herself based on the information available to The Hilltop Monitor. 

Taylor Swift has an overwhelmingly positive track record with appeasing fans and using yielding power to help spread positive change. Currently, Swift faces the challenging task of regaining support by finding innovative solutions to an important matter that impacts everyone she shares the planet with. A commitment to sustainability would provide a chance to regain trust amongst fans and act as an example for public figures around the world.

In a world where information is constantly at our fingertips, ethical consumerism has emerged as a powerful force, reshaping our shopping habits and influencing businesses worldwide. This movement revolves around the belief that our purchases can have a positive impact on society and the environment. But what exactly is ethical consumerism? 

Ethical consumerism, also known as ethical consumption, is a conscious approach to buying products that align with one’s morals. Ethical consumerism is concerned with a broad spectrum of considerations, including sustainability, labor practices, animal welfare and social and environmental impacts. At its core, ethical consumerism aims to hold businesses accountable for their practices and encourages consumers to make informed choices that reflect their values.

The first key in ethical consumerism is knowing the ethical values that matter most to you. These values could include sustainability, fair labor practices, animal welfare or supporting local businesses. Identifying your priorities will guide your consumer choices. Next, you should research the products and industries you engage with regularly. Learn about the ethical and environmental issues associated with them. While being conscious about the purchases you make may be more difficult, it will be worth it to see a positive impact in your community and society.

The ethical consumerism movement has been promoted by social media. Social media has revolutionized the way we access and share information. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook have given individuals a space to express their opinions, share stories and amplify their voices. This has created an environment where information travels at lightning speed and consumers can easily scrutinize a company’s ethical track record.

Social media has been absolutely instrumental in exposing unethical business practices. Through viral campaigns and hashtags, consumers have shed light on issues such as sweatshop labor, environmental pollution and animal cruelty. The speed at which these stories spread has put pressure on companies to address their shortcomings and adopt more responsible practices. In response to this pressure, companies have been adapting more environmentally friendly and sustainable policies. Last year, Adidas manufactured 17 million pairs of shoes made out of recycled plastic. A study of 850 companies worldwide, found that more than 80 percent planned to increase their investments in sustainability.

While ethical consumerism has undeniably made significant strides in raising awareness and driving change, its effectiveness in controlling businesses remains a subject of debate.

One argument is that ethical consumerism primarily targets the symptoms rather than the root causes of unethical practices in business. Critics argue that by focusing on individual choices, it places the responsibility on consumers to bring about change, while corporations should be the ones held accountable for systemic issues. While individual consumer choices can influence corporate behavior to some extent, it does not tackle the systemic issues that drive unethical practices. These systemic problems include income inequality, exploitative labor practices and the relentless pursuit of profit above all else. Ethical consumerism alone does not have the capacity to effectively address these deeply ingrained issues. 

Instead, we should be engaging in ethical consumerism and recognizing its limitations. To enhance its impact and effectively target the root causes of unethical practices, consumers should adopt a more strategic and holistic approach. You can do this by engaging with like-minded consumers and organizations that share information and strategies. A great place to start could be the Global Directory of Ethical Consumption Organisations. It contains several organizations across the world that are working towards a better and more sustainable future. Collective action can be more effective in bringing about change than individual efforts alone. You can also advocate for stronger government regulations that address root issues in business practices. Push for policies that promote fair wages, environmental protection and corporate accountability.

While its effectiveness in constraining businesses is subject to debate, there is no denying that ethical consumerism has already driven positive change in many industries. Ethical consumer movements have effectively promoted dolphin-friendly tuna and animal cruelty free products through successful campaigns. Ultimately, it reminds us that our purchasing power carries the potential to create a more ethical and sustainable future.

Veganism is the belief that animals should not be killed, harmed or exploited for human gain, and the decision to reflect that belief in your actions to whatever degree is “possible and practicable.” Veganism differs from vegetarianism or a plant-based diet in that this is not a diet or a set of restrictions, but rather a worldview that applies to all areas of life. I am of the belief that everyone should take this approach and adopt a vegan lifestyle for the betterment of ourselves and society. 

In the seven years I’ve spent advocating for the rights of animals, I have heard many people argue that not everyone can be vegan. Some go as far as to claim that veganism is classist, ableist and exclusionary. I do not believe this to be the case and here is why.

Like many, I believe that it is wrong for someone to kill another human being. Because of this ethical conviction, I live my life accordingly and refrain from killing other people. This does not mean there are no exceptions. If someone were to attack me, forcing me to choose between preserving my life or terminating theirs, I would not hesitate to protect myself. Because I would be acting in self-defense, I would not be considered a murderer by the standards of any reasonable person or in the eyes of the law. This is a concept that is widely recognized and understood.

If you believe it is wrong to exploit animals for their resources, you might decide to practice veganism. When practicing veganism, the principle I described before still applies. It’s not murder to kill tapeworms, bedbugs or lice. It’s self-defense. Likewise, it is not murder for a person lacking money or shelter to eat a meal that someone gave them while panhandling, or to dumpster dive looking for the only food they might eat that day or even purchase something made with animal products if their only readily available source of food is a gas station with no plant-based options. That is merely self-preservation. 

My understanding of veganism is as follows: when you are presented with a given set of choices, you should choose whichever option harms animals the least. In this way, anyone can be vegan. The consequences of unfavorable circumstances do not strip you of what it means to be vegan.

Veganism is not a purity test. It is a moral philosophy that rejects the commodification of animals and acknowledges that it is unreasonable to maximize harm simply because your very existence warrants at least some level of it. When presented with the option to harm animals and the option not to harm animals, I do not harm animals. There is no acceptable reason not to live this way. To reject veganism is to believe that it is your right to determine whether or not sentient beings should live or die, based solely on palate pleasure, profit incentive and culture/tradition. I struggle to imagine a more entitled worldview.

Not all vegans are likable or reasonable people. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding the roots of the vegan movement and speak out of ignorance. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding issues of race, class and disability, and let their prejudice get in the way of engaging in meaningful activism. Some embrace the “vegan” label but are so politically incoherent and morally illiterate that informed and reasonable people will have no interest in indulging their ideas. These individuals do not represent vegans or veganism as a whole and should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate the suffering of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet. 

I hope that my understanding and explanation of veganism provides clarity, and persuades you to adopt a vegan philosophy and practice harm reduction in your daily life. To do so is a necessary step to be taken in addition to, not in place of, our efforts to dismantle systematic oppression in all of its forms. Animal rights are essential to any movement claiming to promote freedom, justice, equality and liberation. It is crucial that we empathize with both the exploitation of humans and non-human animals alike. We are not free until we are all free. All means all.