Latest news with #Luddites
Spectator
6 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why going nuclear is humanity's only hope
There are three parties when it comes to global warming. First, the hard right, which says it isn't happening, and even if it is that we can do nothing about it. Then there are the far leftish Luddites who would smash all power generation systems, allowing only wind turbines, wave power etc. Finally there are the suave centrists who know perfectly well that only nuclear can save us. This book will become their bible. Tim Gregory is a nuclear scientist who works at Sellafield. He has a serious problem defending his conviction that nuclear is the answer: radiophobia, the terror people feel about radioactivity. Superficially, this terror seems well-founded. There have been some major nuclear power plant disasters: Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979; Chernobyl in the then Soviet Union in 1986; and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. Together they destroyed faith in nuclear as a safe generation system. The industry was stalled and still largely is. This, argues Gregory, is madness. After Fukushima, only one death can be directly related to radiation – a man who died from lung cancer seven years later. The remaining 20,000 casualties were caused by the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. Even the direct death count from the Chernobyl disaster only amounted to the 'low to mid thirties'. 'That's about the same number of people who die at work in the United Kingdom every three months,' writes Gregory. In contrast, a city of one million people using coal power would suffer 22 deaths per week; using gas would result in two or three deaths per week. Globally, some 8.8 million deaths a year are caused by air pollution.
Forbes
21-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
21st Century Luddites: Is The Consumer Backlash Against AI Real?
Illustration showing Luddites (English textile workers), in the 19th century as they destroy textile ... More machinery as a form of protest. Language learning pioneer Duolingo recently faced severe backlash after CEO Luis von Ahn announced in an all-hands email, later shared on LinkedIn, that the company is gradually phasing out human contractors, looking for AI use in hiring and in performance reviews, and that headcount will only be added if a team cannot automate more of their work. The reaction was so intense that the company temporarily deleted all of its content on TikTok and Instagram, where it had amassed 6.7 million and 4.1 million followers respectively, after both accounts were "flooded with negative feedback." This situation shows the fundamental tension facing modern business leaders: how to embrace AI's efficiency and cost benefits without alienating customers who may be concerned about job displacement. And, how can a company reassure its stakeholders that it's on top of AI without sparking a backlash? This isn't a new dilemma. Businesses have always sought to improve efficiency through technology, but the rapid advances in AI have intensified these concerns. Even many white collar workers are running scared. This isn't Duolingo's first AI controversy. The company faced criticism in 2023 for quietly reducing its contractor base and introducing some AI features. The difference today is the public nature of the company's AI-first declaration and the scale of the reaction. Unlike many leaders that view AI primarily as a way to increase efficiency, von Ahn believes that AI can not only improve the current services but can dramatically scale the firm's offerings in a way not achievable by humans. He compares AI to the mobile revolution that let Duolingo greatly extend its reach. von Ahn wants the company to completely rebuild its systems using AI. Most of von Ahn's letter focused on these plans, but critics seized on his hiring and headcount remarks to loudly demand the company employ humans, not AI. Business leaders face a difficult balancing act: Duolingo had been performing exceptionally well before this controversy, with strong revenue and user count metrics. The firm's share price was near a record high. The announcement by von Ahn wasn't a response to investor fears or competitive threats. Rather, it was meant to be an exciting new direction for the firm. While it's tempting to draw parallels to the original Luddites—19th century textile workers who destroyed machinery they believed threatened their livelihoods—today's situation is more nuanced. The backlash against Duolingo wasn't led by employees or contractors directly affected by the company's AI policies, but primarily by consumers and others concerned about the ethical implications. This suggests that modern resistance to AI isn't simply about protecting jobs, but reflects broader societal concerns about the pace and nature of technological change, including: Today's ubiquitous social media platforms lets people not connected to a particular company or situation weigh in, often in large numbers, increasing the pressure on leaders. For business leaders, the Duolingo situation offers several lessons: Duolingo isn't the first company to take heat for comments about AI use and hiring, and won't be the last. In April, Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke was criticized after saying hiring managers would have to justify new hires by showing AI couldn't handle the work. As AI becomes increasingly capable of performing tasks previously done by humans, all companies will need to navigate the complex interplay between technological advancement, business imperatives, and social responsibility. Rather than dismissing consumer concerns as irrational resistance to progress, forward-thinking companies will recognize these reactions as important signals about how they should approach AI integration—not necessarily to slow it down, but to ensure it happens in ways that maintain trust and align with broader social values.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Yahoo
My Coworkers Keep Taking This Stupid Shortcut. I Am Filled With Rage.
Good Job is Slate's advice column on work. Have a workplace problem big or small? Send it to Laura Helmuth and Doree Shafrir here. It's anonymous! Dear Good Job, I am a hard-line hater of generative AI (ChatGPT, Midjourney, etc.). I think it's bad for the environment and bad for society. It burns water resources, exploits workers in the global south, plagiarizes art and writing, and eliminates badly needed entry-level jobs. In my ideal world, generative AI would be regulated out of existence. Unfortunately, I work for an office that has completely embraced generative AI as both an efficiency tool and a 'fun' teambuilding thing. I worked as a temp at this company for 8 months in a position where AI was less prevalent, but now in my new permanent position, it's everywhere. As I write this, I'm watching a Teams chat where my new boss and coworkers are merrily generating and re-generating an AI logo graphic for a new department they want me to run (the department was also named based on AI suggestions). It's driving me insane with rage. As much as I would love to bring everyone over to my way of thinking about AI, right now I would settle for them just keeping it away from me. Is there a script I can use to convey my not wanting to engage with it without accusing them of being bad people for using it? A few months ago, I jokingly mentioned my distaste to a coworker, and her response after was to tell me every time she used ChatGPT as a fun 'teasing' thing. I'd like to avoid that result this time if I can. —The Luddites Were Right Too Dear The Luddites Were Right Too, I'm also not a huge fan of AI, and I think that a lot of the people who are embracing it so wholeheartedly are going to embrace themselves out of a job in the next few years. Not to mention, as you point out, that the use of AI comes with a whole host of ethical and moral issues. TL;DR: AI, not great! That said, while I'm not going to urge you to start using AI yourself, I do think we are a bit past the point of no return. AI is here whether we like it or not, and although the Luddites may have been right, they also probably aren't working in 21st century corporate America. So what is a principled, AI-hating person like yourself to do? Here is a clear, forceful script you can use whenever you're encouraged to use AI in your own work: 'I respect that the team is using AI, but I'd like to not use it if at all possible.' I would avoid going into your philosophical objections, because your team has already made it clear that they're not receptive to them, so now it's just a matter of a boundary that you're setting. If your colleague continues to tease you about your distaste for ChatGPT, practice not reacting to her provocations. She'll soon get bored and move on. Laura Helmuth and Doree Shafrir want to help you navigate your social dynamics at work. Does your colleague constantly bug you after hours? Has an ill-advised work romance gone awry? Ask us your question here! Dear Good Job, I teach third grade, and a common problem I run into is that the kids I teach think nothing of using profanity in class. Often, they learn this from their parents and are permitted to engage in it at home, and in turn bring it to school. I have tried explaining that certain standards are expected at school. I tell the kids they should view school as their workplace, and at workplaces a certain level of professionalism is required. The trouble is, many kids are so accustomed to cursing at home that it inevitably slips out casually or in moments of frustration. I find that punishment does little to curb it. One child pointed out that 'everybody cusses' so I shouldn't make a big deal over it. And I grudgingly have to admit she is correct. It's not as if cursing isn't everywhere in society. Should I just ignore it when one of my students swears, or should I continue to try and dissuade them from using profane language? —Aw, Fuck It! Dear Aw, Fuck It!, I commend you for trying to uphold some modicum of decorum in your classroom! I would continue to emphasize that swearing is not allowed in your classroom, and that—as you point out—there can be different rules for home and school. I do wonder whether you could take a bit more control of the situation here, though. I would start by working together with the kids to come up with a set of classroom agreements—and including 'no swearing' on it. By bringing them into the creation of this code, they'll feel more ownership over it. My son's kindergarten class does this, and each child has to sign it (well, to the extent that a kindergartener can sign their name!). The kids take them really seriously! I know that your students are a little older, but this could be a good place to start. Once that's in place, I would not be shy about pointing to the classroom agreements. You're not shaming them or instituting harsh punishments here; you're just letting them know that everyone has collectively decided that the classroom is not the place for this kind of language. That said, I don't think that you need to raise an alarm every single time you hear a 'dammit' slip out. Kids are going to mess up, and there's a big difference between someone muttering 'shit' under their breath and yelling 'fuck you!' at someone. After you have the classroom agreements in place, I would also take note of whether it's the whole class, or just one or two students who regularly cursing. If it's just a couple of kids who can't seem to stop, it might be worth having a conversation with their parents to let them know they might want to cool it with the swearing at home, too. Slate Plus members get more Good Job every week. Sign up now to read Doree Shafrir's additional column this week. Dear Good Job,I shared a marketing idea of mine with a co-worker. They then proceeded to immediately go to our boss and pitch it. Our boss loved it, and my sleazebag co-worker is claiming credit! I hadn't told anyone else about my idea, and I didn't have anything on my computer or written down. It was just an idea kicking around in my head, so I don't have any proof I came up with it first. Is there anything I can do to get the credit I deserve that won't make me come off looking like a jealous asshole? —Purloined Proposal Dear Purloined Proposal, Oh, I am shaking with rage over the nerve of your co-worker! I can't imagine being so underhanded that I would stoop so low as to steal an idea from a colleague. That's true slimeball behavior. You have a few options here. One is to speak to your boss in as neutral and objective a manner as possible. If not too much time has passed, you could say something like, 'So great that you liked the marketing idea. I'd love to be involved in any next steps, as it was something I'd been mulling over for awhile and had just mentioned it to [Slimeball] in casual conversation—I didn't realize they were going to be pitching it formally!' You're not exactly accusing Slimeball of stealing your idea, but you're making it clear that you had come up with it first, and staking a claim to be involved with its development. In the meantime, I might send Slimeball a note (so it's documented in writing) that says, 'So glad my marketing idea is being used, but would love to chat beforehand the next time you're thinking about pitching something we've talked about!' Now you've covered all your bases with both your co-worker and your boss, and hopefully this won't be an issue in the future. — Doree
Los Angeles Times
10-05-2025
- Los Angeles Times
AI chatbots have already completely upended schools. Your world will be next
Good morning. Here's what you need to know to start your weekend: If you are part of the shrinking population that still hasn't tried ChatGPT, it's time. My first experiments with an AI chatbot shook me. I asked it questions related my job and the memo it offered was, at least at first glance, convincing. My mind raced, fear overtook me, I slammed my computer shut and went on a long walk. Since then I've tried to avoid AI and chatbots. But this week I was shaken out of complacency. Two stories offered a strange and colorful view into skyrocketing AI use Students from high schools and colleges around America made it clear in James D. Walsh's New York magazine story: AI chatbots are as ubiquitous in schools as iPhones. In interview after interview, students explain how they use AI to outline, write and edit essays, develop computer code, conduct research and, in one egregious case, build tools to help one another blatantly cheat. [Read more: Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College, via New York Magazine] And then Harvard economist David Deming shared stunning facts about AI adoption on the excellent Podcast Plain English with Derek Thompson. According to Deming's research, '39 percent of the U.S. population age 18-64 used generative AI. More than 24 percent of workers used it at least once in the week prior to being surveyed, and nearly one in nine used it every workday.' This technology is becoming common-place faster than the personal computer or internet did, his research shows. [Listen here: The Job Market for Young Grads Is Flashing Red via The Ringer] A lesson from the Luddites: New technology will offer a new deal In the early 1800s when industrialized machinery first developed, a group known as the Luddites broke into the world's first factories and smashed the machines. Former L.A. Times tech reporter Brian Merchant tells their story (and its lessons for the AI age) in his incredible book Blood in the Machine. The Luddites were maligned as resisting progress. But put yourself in their shoes. For generations their bargain was to weave fabrics at home 3-5 days a week and sell their wares on the market. Suddenly, somebody invented a machine and offered them a new deal: Work in this stinky dark factory or starve. Like the industrial revolution, there's no stopping AI — only making the best of it You'll find AI-driven work everywhere now. In your text messages, your email, across dating apps, supercharging medical research, revolutionizing a doctor's ability to diagnose disease, speaking for the dead and giving you a pretty good answer to any question you pose in Google search. And with a large part of its development coming from right here in Silicon Valley, Californians will have to lead the charge developing the regulations, norms and usage that prevent AI from ushering in a dystopia of inequality. It's going to require standing up to the tech giants and their money while also accepting that AI is the future whether we like it or not. Figuring out how we can use (and not be used by) this tool is still something only humans can do, together. More on AI from the L.A. Times Toxins in the soil where the fires burned The LAFD union president who was suspended speaks out A threat to the new Chuckwalla monument The Menendez brothers More big stories Get unlimited access to the Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here. ADUs made of shipping containers and robot-built bungalows are a growing trend as L.A. rebuilds post-fire. Prefab housing is poised to push forward as residents in fire-ravaged neighborhoods seek to rebuild — fast. Is L.A. ready for a robot-built bungalow? More great reads How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Going out Staying in Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team Karim Doumar, head of newsletters Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Telegraph
07-04-2025
- Automotive
- Telegraph
Labour's drive for growth can't rely on EVs – and its leadership knows it
Mourning in America. The bell rang on Wall Street and a hundred traders jumped out of a window. Meanwhile, at a car plant in the West Midlands, our Prime Minister and Chancellor tried to rally the nation in front of what looked like a funeral cortège. As they spoke of courage and resilience, guiding us through the Trump tariffs, behind them rolled a convoy of freshly-built Land Rovers, at the deathly speed of rush hour traffic. One in particular caught the eye. A white vehicle with the hazard lights flashing: a symbol for the economy. Driven by a chap in a hi-vis vest, picking his nose: a symbol for the great British worker upon whom our futures depend. All that was missing was a blue-haired activist glued to the conveyor belt to bring the parade to a halt. His/her/their name? Ed Milliband. If only one could short-sell against the Labour Party, we'd all make a killing. It's the political equivalent of a Robin Reliant. For this nerve-calming address, Keir and Rachel assembled a group of factory workers who appeared depressed and nervous, held against their will. As the Chancellor Dalek delivered her speech from the lectern – 'BRITAIN MUST GROW!' – I expected her to add that one of these unfortunates will die every hour that her demands are not met. She glided into the car queue – 'might as well get a paint job while I'm here' – and the PM took her place, pumped-up to deliver some of that Churchillian rhetoric we know and love. 'Now... Look... Let me be you look at what is rolling off here, that is engineering brilliance!' The white car man slowly trundled around again, up to his elbow in a nostril. 'There are people who love to talk down our manufacturing,' said the PM – who? The Luddites? – but if they 'come here and see what you're doing in this factory, they wouldn't say it again.' Then he dropped a bombshell: 'My dad worked in a factory' – really? Why didn't he say so before?! – 'and he worked with his hands.' Well, it beats using your feet. Manufacturing, he observed, 'gets in your blood.' They call this sepsis, Prime Minister, and it's why one wears gloves. As Mr Picky cruised by for the 12th time – clearly thinking 'Ooh that bloke with the Bostik on 'is 'air? I'm sure I've seen him before' – the event descended into a metaphor for a country stuck in decline without the ideas to escape. Keir and Rachel announced a tweak to targets for cars turning electric, targets that probably shouldn't have been set in the first place – all part of the Government's panicked fire-sale of its own socialist principles. Benefits cut, aid cut: we'll have conscription and hanging by the end of the year. The interesting question is when will Ed Miliband resign in protest? He's lost on airport expansion, he's losing on EVs. His plan to replace the combustion engine with pedals cannot survive Britain's rush to growth. The Dow briefly rallied on Starmer's words, then – hearing that Trump had woken up – it plummeted again. The graph resembled a Swiss mountain range. They call this a bear market, and hopefully the ensuing chaos will finally put an end to the macabre cult of Paddington.
