Week 3 blog - Future of Beauty: 2025 Cosmetic Industry Trends Shaping the New Era
This
article was hard to read and follow along with. It was very disorganised and there
was a lack of a clear focus. This made it increasingly difficult to follow
along when reading the article. As the article caused these problems, it was
difficult to follow the author's chosen argument. Although the article
attempted to discuss the potential effects of chemicals in beauty products and
their link to hormone imbalances, it felt forced. The article was saying that
if a certain chemical were used, it would have caused effects on the body. The article
failed to show one main theme. This article was a perfect example of what not
to do because just by reading the article and looking at the overall layout, it
was easy to tell that it had been generated by AI. The use of excessive
headings, subheadings, emojis, and drop-down sections is what made this
assumption. These are features commonly used with AI-generated work rather than
academic or professional writing.
The
article's content was lengthy but lacked information. It often jumped between
unrelated topics, making it hard to explore the topics it was talking about.
The language was repetitive and overly complicated. The article used advanced
vocabulary to express simple points, which added to the confusion. After realizing
that this was AI generated, to see if it was true, we researched the author. The
author claimed to hold a PhD, but there was no verifiable academic record,
published thesis, or professional background that could be found. This, along
with the lack of references or citations, weakened the article's reliability as
a credible source. The claims were based solely on personal opinion, without
supporting evidence from scientific studies or multiple viewpoints.
While the
article did have several interesting points regarding the environmental impact
of ingredients in beauty products, these ideas were not suitably developed or
backed by data. The suggestion that businesses should prioritise recyclable and
sustainable materials is valuable because eco-friendly practices can appeal
to consumers and boost sales. However, the article did not consider the
challenges that smaller brands might face in adopting such practices, including
financial strain and the risk of bankruptcy. This created an important question
about whether the beauty industry can realistically strike a balance between
economic growth and environmental responsibility.
The article
shows an awareness of environmental and ethical issues in the cosmetics
industry but lacks academic language, coherence, and reliable sourcing. The article
shows that using AI to write an article is not the best approach. It lacks a
clear point to discuss, the layout is unreadable and does not make sense and it
shows the need for references to support the points. The article talks about
the ongoing tension within the beauty sector between producing sustainable,
high-quality products and maintaining customers. The discussion was about how
balance remains challenging to achieve, even for well-intentioned brands such
as Lush, whose shift towards vegan and cruelty-free products has reportedly
impacted product quality.
The article
created a feeling that if someone were to use a particular product with a
certain chemical in it, it would cause problems, whether that be an illness,
reaction or something else. It felt like the article had an alternative motive
behind what they were actually talking about. This was created because the
article didn't actually have a main point to talk about. As it was written by
AI, it was all over the place and didn't actually make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment