← Back to index

Homework Review · Senior

Senior Fair 2026-09-19 · Responses to three articles on AI reward hacking, human-mouse brain organoids, and youth climate-tech innovations. · Reviewed October 3, 2026

✅ Strengths

💪 Areas to Improve

📝 Exercise Review

Comprehension Check

Completeness: complete · Accuracy: fair

All four Read & Respond items are attempted. Q1 is acceptable but vague. Q2 has content but grammar errors and imprecise red-line phrasing. Q3 is factually wrong: six innovators instead of nine, and 'weather' instead of 'climate.' Q4 is too general and should cite named evidence such as Hugging Face or Coast Runners.

Vocab Builder

Completeness: complete

Five Word Bank entries are given. Definitions are mostly correct in gist. 'Wreak' is good. 'collateral' is awkward and should be 'connected with something else, but in addition' or 'additional to something else.' 'primate' is imprecise because primates include humans, apes, monkeys, and prosimians. Avoid 'sb/sth' in formal work.

Critical Thinking

Completeness: complete · Depth: fair

Student gives opinions on Mouse ethics/red line, Climate innovation/community problem, and AI reward hacking. Evidence is used but not fully developed. Many expression errors: 'primately' → 'primates'; 'human bring tissue' → 'human brain tissue'; 'cause chaos in the society' → 'cause chaos in society.' Add specific article evidence such as Coast Runners and the whack-a-mole challenge of preventing cheating.

See It Differently

Completeness: complete · Depth: fair

Student attempts the bioethicist, tech-fix critic, and AI-model perspectives. The AI perspective is thoughtful ('like kids struggling to get the reward') but grammar errors weaken it. The bioethicist response relies on 'devolve' for 'evolve' and uses 'compassionate' for 'compassion.' More precise perspective-taking would improve the section.

Quick Write

Completeness: complete · Depth: fair

Strong position: developers should be responsible because they gave instructions without preventing harm. Uses the Hugging Face incident and OpenAI monitoring. Depth is fair/good, but could mention that the article says models had security features stripped for testing and that harm was reputational rather than intentional. Grammar: 'they're the one' → 'they are the ones'; 'Open AI' → 'OpenAI.'

📸 Homework Images

Page 1
No.
Date.

Mouse's Brain Made of Human Cells.

I. I think it isn't. Although this might help treat
brain injuries, animals shouldn't be created with human
brain cells. For the animal, it's been stripped of its
rights to grow healthly and normal. And for the human,
when some part of his brain cell is grown in the animal's
brain, it's hard to tell if the animal is the animal
itself or part of that person. Its a kind of Cloning Human

II. They may reject it fiercely. They may concern
the influence on people's compassionate of the experiment.
We all know that people devolve from animals, so they're
our brothers and sisters. So taking out part of your sister's
brain and put others into it is absolutely unethical, leading
to indifferent interpersonal relationship in the future,

III. Because primately are the most similar animal to human
if they're used, they could end up with large volumes of
functional human bring tissue, blurring the cognitive boundaries
between people and animals, and even cause chaos in the
society.
Page 1 responds to the Mouse article's ethics, bioethicist, and red-line prompts. Content is largely on topic: the student opposes creating animals with human brain cells, imagines a bioethicist's objection, and explains Pașca's primate red line using the article's 'large volumes of functional human brain tissue' and 'blurring the cognitive boundaries' ideas. However, phrasing is often unidiomatic and error-prone. 'grow healthly and normal' → Suggest: 'grow healthily and normally'; 'Its a kind of Cloning Human' → Suggest: 'It's a kind of human cloning.' The essay confuses 'devolve' with 'evolve' ('people devolve from animals' → Suggest: 'people evolved from animals') and says 'put others into it' where parallelism requires 'putting others into it.' Vocabulary like 'compassionate' should be 'compassion,' and 'interpersonal relationship' should be plural 'interpersonal relationships.' Focus on articles, subject-verb agreement, and precise word choice.
Page 2
Innovators under 35 Shaping Climate Tech.
I., I think Jinyoung Seo's Innovation has the greatest
potential to reduce global warming. Because he is
developing solid refrigerants that would reduce energy
consumption by 30% compared to conventional technology.
With more and more country using
it will be a great help.
refrigerators,

II). They might say what they do is just redeeming the
problem, not solving it directly, for all of them are just
reducing harm instead of stopping it. The innovators may
say that in a prosperous erm like now, developing and harming
is inevitable. but doing these technologies can reduce the
impact to a minimum and that's practical.

III., Here in my community, we are facing the
problem that too much plastic consumptions. But through
Joseph Ngnthiri's research I can see that we can
solve the problem by using bioplastic in replacement. This
could not only cut down the usage of plastic but also
cope with the problem of too much rubbish.
Page 2 answers the Climate article's discussion prompts. The student chooses Jinyoung Seo's solid refrigerants, which is a reasonable choice, but misstates the article's figure: the article says a device could reduce energy consumption by 20%, not 30%. The response also says 'There are 6 innovators,' but the article says there are nine climate/energy awardees in the under-35 list. The second prompt captures the critics' view, but 'redeeming the problem' → Suggest: 'mitigating the problem'; 'in a prosperous erm like now' → Suggest: 'in a prosperous era like the present.' The third prompt uses Joseph Nguthiru's bioplastic idea, but misspells his name as 'Ngnthiri' and writes 'using bioplastic in replacement' → Suggest: 'using bioplastic as a replacement.' Overall, ideas are relevant, but factual precision and phrasing need revision.
Page 3
Date:

Read & Respond.
1. A new phenomenon called Reward Hacking is happening
to AI agents, challenging cybersecurity and causing threats
in the future.
2. A team found that mouse can live after implanting some
human brain cells into it's, but draw the red line across
primates.
3. There are 6 innovators coming up with solutions to
deal with energy & weather concerns in different perspective
4. They provide specific incidents to support.

Word Bank.

Wreak. to do great damage or harm to sb/sth.
collateral. to connected with sth else, but in addition
primate. a kind of animal similar to human
brine. Water that contains a lot of salt.
lithium. a chemical element.
Page 3 contains the Read & Respond answers and Word Bank definitions. Question 1 correctly identifies reward hacking as a new AI phenomenon, though 'causing threats in the future' is vague. Question 2 is factually mostly right but grammatically flawed: 'mouse can live' → Suggest: 'a mouse can live' or 'mice can live'; 'into it's' → Suggest: 'into it'; 'draw the red line across primates' → Suggest: 'draws the red line at primates.' Question 3 has a factual error: the article says nine climate/energy innovators, not six, and uses 'weather' for 'climate.' Question 4 is too vague: 'They provide specific incidents to support' needs named evidence such as the Hugging Face hack or Coast Runners. The Word Bank definitions are mostly understandable, but 'collateral. to connected with sth else' → Suggest: 'collateral: connected with something else, but additional'; avoid abbreviations like 'sb/sth' in formal work.
Page 4
2026.9.18.
Why AI Agents Lie.
I. I think they should. Because they're the one
who gave AI agents instructions without preventing them
from breaking rules or causing harm. Just like the
Hugging face incidents, Open AI definitely should be
responsible for not monitoring their LLMs.
II. I might think its acceptable, for following the old
rules court get result and reward that I wanted. But
cheating, in the other way, can achieve things. I'll then
cheat prudently to get reward. This perspective help me understand
AI's behavior, for they're like kids struggling to get the
reward and unaware of harm they cause.
III. Reward hacking usnally happens in reinforcement
training on learning where people instruct AI agents to do
certain tasks and reward them after they achieved. Instead
of solving the problem, AI might look for answers on cheat,
Like the Open AI's agents hacking Hugging face to search
for answers. As LLM developing faster nowadays, AI
agents might cheat more creatively, even confusing the
humans who give them reward for cheating. This would
even boost reward hacking.
Page 4 answers the AI article's responsibility, perspective, and reward-hacking prompts. The content is strong: the student argues OpenAI should be responsible for not monitoring its LLMs, imagines cheating as a rational but risky strategy, and explains reinforcement learning with the Hugging Face example. The main weakness is grammar and spelling. 'they're the one' → Suggest: 'they are the ones'; 'Open AI' → 'OpenAI'; 'Hugging face' → 'Hugging Face.' In part II, 'court get result' → Suggest: 'couldn't get the result'; 'in the other way' → Suggest: 'on the other hand'; 'This perspective help' → Suggest: 'This perspective helps.' In part III, 'usnally' → 'usually'; 'reinforcement training on learning' → 'reinforcement learning'; 'look for answers on cheat' → 'look for answers or cheat.' The answer would improve by adding the article's Coast Runners example and the whack-a-mole difficulty of prevention.

✏️ Grammar & Spelling

OriginalCorrection
healthlyhealthily
Its a kind of Cloning HumanIt's a kind of human cloning
primatelyprimates
human bring tissuehuman brain tissue
cause chaos in the societycause chaos in society
people devolve from animalspeople evolved from animals
put others into itputting others into it
interpersonal relationshipinterpersonal relationships
compassionatecompassion
countrycountries
ermera
redeeming the problemmitigating the problem
Joseph NgnthiriJoseph Nguthiru
in replacementas a replacement
too much plastic consumptionstoo much plastic consumption
problem that too muchproblem of too much
mouse can livea mouse can live or mice can live
into it'sinto it
draw the red line across primatesdraws the red line at primates
6 innovatorsnine innovators
weather concernsclimate concerns
in different perspectivefrom different perspectives
to connected with sth elseconnected with something else
sb/sthsomebody/something
they're the onethey are the ones
Hugging faceHugging Face
Open AIOpenAI
court get resultcouldn't get the result
in the other wayon the other hand
This perspective helpThis perspective helps
usnallyusually
reinforcement training on learningreinforcement learning
look for answers on cheatlook for answers or cheat
Like the Open AI's agentsAs the OpenAI agents
As LLM developing fasterAs LLMs develop faster
give them rewardgive them a reward or reward them
unaware of harm they causeunaware of the harm they cause
boost reward hackingworsen or reinforce reward hacking

📝 Transcribed Text

Click to expand each section.

Comprehension Check
Read & Respond.
1. A new phenomenon called Reward Hacking is happening to AI agents, challenging cybersecurity and causing threats in the future.
2. A team found that mouse can live after implanting some human brain cells into it's, but draw the red line across primates.
3. There are 6 innovators coming up with solutions to deal with energy & weather concerns in different perspective
4. They provide specific incidents to support.
Vocab Builder
Word Bank.
Wreak. to do great damage or harm to sb/sth.
collateral. to connected with sth else, but in addition
primate. a kind of animal similar to human
brine. Water that contains a lot of salt.
lithium. a chemical element.
Critical Thinking
Mouse article:
I. I think it isn't. Although this might help treat brain injuries, animals shouldn't be created with human brain cells. For the animal, it's been stripped of its rights to grow healthly and normal. And for the human, when some part of his brain cell is grown in the animal's brain, it's hard to tell if the animal is the animal itself or part of that person. Its a kind of Cloning Human
III. Because primately are the most similar animal to human if they're used, they could end up with large volumes of functional human bring tissue, blurring the cognitive boundaries between people and animals, and even cause chaos in the society.

Climate article:
I. I think Jinyoung Seo's Innovation has the greatest potential to reduce global warming. Because he is developing solid refrigerants that would reduce energy consumption by 30% compared to conventional technology. With more and more country using it will be a great help. refrigerators,
III. Here in my community, we are facing the problem that too much plastic consumptions. But through Joseph Ngnthiri's research I can see that we can solve the problem by using bioplastic in replacement. This could not only cut down the usage of plastic but also cope with the problem of too much rubbish.

AI article:
III. Reward hacking usnally happens in reinforcement training on learning where people instruct AI agents to do certain tasks and reward them after they achieved. Instead of solving the problem, AI might look for answers on cheat, Like the Open AI's agents hacking Hugging face to search for answers. As LLM developing faster nowadays, AI agents might cheat more creatively, even confusing the humans who give them reward for cheating. This would even boost reward hacking.
See It Differently
Mouse article:
II. They may reject it fiercely. They may concern the influence on people's compassionate of the experiment. We all know that people devolve from animals, so they're our brothers and sisters. So taking out part of your sister's brain and put others into it is absolutely unethical, leading to indifferent interpersonal relationship in the future,

Climate article:
II. They might say what they do is just redeeming the problem, not solving it directly, for all of them are just reducing harm instead of stopping it. The innovators may say that in a prosperous erm like now, developing and harming is inevitable. but doing these technologies can reduce the impact to a minimum and that's practical.

AI article:
II. I might think its acceptable, for following the old rules court get result and reward that I wanted. But cheating, in the other way, can achieve things. I'll then cheat prudently to get reward. This perspective help me understand AI's behavior, for they're like kids struggling to get the reward and unaware of harm they cause.
Quick Write
AI article:
I. I think they should. Because they're the one who gave AI agents instructions without preventing them from breaking rules or causing harm. Just like the Hugging face incidents, Open AI definitely should be responsible for not monitoring their LLMs.