 |
|
|
|||||
In a prescient tweet, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman noted that AI will become persuasive long before it becomes intelligent. A scintillating study conducted by researchers at the University of Zurich just proved him right. In the study, researchers used AI to challenge Redditors perspectives in the sites /changemyview subreddit, where users share an opinion on a topic and challenge others to present counter arguments in a civilized manner. Unbeknownst to users, researchers used AI to produce arguments on everything from dangerous dog breeds to the housing crisis. The AI-generated comments proved extremely effective at changing Redditors minds. The universitys ethics committee frowned upon the study, as its generally unethical to subject people to experimentation without their knowledge. Reddits legal team seems to be pursuing legal action against the university. Unfortunately, the Zurich researchers decided not to publish their full findings, but what we do know about the study points to glaring dangers in the online ecosystemmanipulation, misinformation, and a degradation of human connection. The power of persuasion The internet has become a weapon of mass deception. In the AI era, this persuasion power becomes even more drastic. AI avatars resembling financial advisors, therapists, girlfriends, and spiritual mentors can become a channel for ideological manipulation. The University of Zurich study underscores this risk. If manipulation is unacceptable when researchers do it, why is it okay for tech giants to do it? Large language models (LLMs) are the latest products of algorithmically driven content. Algorithmically curated social media and streaming platforms have already proven manipulative. Facebook experimented with manipulating users moodswithout their consent through their newsfeeds as early as 2012. The Rabbit Hole podcast shows how YouTubes algorithm created a pipeline for radicalizing young men. Cambridge Analytica and Russiagate showed how social media influences elections at home and abroad. TikToks algorithm has been shown to create harmful echo chambers that produce division. Foundational LLMs like Claude and ChatGPT are like a big internet hive mind. The premise of these models holds that they know more than you. Their inhumanness makes users assume their outputs are unbiased. Algorithmic creation of content is even more dangerous than algorithmic curation of content via the feed. This content speaks directly to you, coddles you, champions and reinforcing your viewpoint. Look no farther than Grok, the LLM produced by Elon Musks company xAI. From the beginning, Musk was blatant about engineering Grok to support his worldview. Earlier this year, Grok fell under scrutiny for doubting the number of Jews killed in the holocaust and for promoting the falsehood of white genocide in South Africa. Human vs. machine Reddit users felt hostile toward the study because the AI responses were presented as human responses. It’s an intrusion. The subreddit’s rules protect and incentivize real human discussion, dictating that the view in question must be yours and that AI-generated posts must be disclosed. Reddit is a microcosm of what the internet used to be: a constellation of niche interests and communities largely governing themselves, encouraging exploration. Through this digital meandering, a whole generation found likeminded cohorts and evolved with the help of those relationships. Since the early 2010s, bots have taken over the internet. On social media, they are deployed en masse to manipulate public perception. For example, a group of bots in 2016 posed as Black Trump supporters, ostensibly to normalize Trumpism for minority voters. Bots played a pivotal role in Brexit, for another. I believe it matters deeply that online interaction remains human and genuine. If covert, AI-powered content is unethical in research, its proliferation within social media platforms should send up a red flag, too. The thirst for authenticity The third ethical offense of the Zurich study: it’s inauthentic. The researchers using AI to advocate a viewpoint did not hold that viewpoint themselves. Why does this matter? Because the point of the internet is not to argue with robots all day. If bots are arguing with bots over the merits of DEI, if students are using AI to write and teachers are using AI to grade then, seriously, what are we doing? I worry about the near-term consequences of outsourcing our thinking to LLMs. For now, the experience of most working adults lies in a pre-AI world, allowing us to employ AI jdiciously (mostly, for now). But what happens when the workforce is full of adults who have never known anything but AI and who never had an unassisted thought? LLMs cant rival the human mind in creativity, problem-solving, feeling, and ingenuity. LLMs are an echo of us. What do we become if we lose our original voice to cacophony? The Zurich study treads on this holy human space. That’s what makes it so distasteful, and, by extension, so impactful. The bottom line The reasons this study is scandalous are the same reasons its worthwhile. It highlights whats already wrong with a bot-infested internet, and how much more wrong it could get with AI. Its trespasses bring the degradation of the online ecosystem into stark relief. This degradation has been happening for over a decadeyet incrementally, so that we haven’t felt it. A predatory, manipulative internet is a foregone conclusion. It’s the water we’re swimming in, folks. This study shows how murky the water’s become, and how much worse it might get. I hope it will fuel meaningful legislation or at least a thoughtful, broad-based personal opting out. In the absence of rules against AI bots, Big Tech is happy to cash in on their largess. Lindsey Witmer Collins is CEO of WLCM App Studio and Scribbly Books.
Category:
E-Commerce
Creativitys value to business success cant be overstated. Not only do 70% of employers say that creative thinking is the most in-demand skill, but studies show that companies prioritizing design outperform those that dont by two to one. And as the rise of AI, social media, and creators continues to quickly transform both business and culture, it will likely be the creative industryand those working within itthat will help others navigate that change. Things are evolving quickly and creativity is essential to that evolution. So then, why is it that creative educationthe backbone of creativity is largely standing still while others are embracing change? For decades, the current creative education landscape in the U.S. is largely private, expensive, and increasingly out of sync with the industrys real needs. Most accredited creative programs follow a similar structure: multi-year degrees with high tuition costs, studio-based courses, and portfolio development as the primary measure of progress. While these programs can offer technical training and creative rigor, they often produce similar outcomes: predictable ideas in an industry that thrives on surprise. Also, creative tools and thinking are changing every day, necessitating constant learning not facilitated by current models. Of course, creativity can thrive outside of formal education. Especially now, creative tools are increasingly accessible, and thats a good thing. Also, platforms like TikTok, Canva, and AI-driven products have lowered the barrier to entry, and todays creators are proving that you dont need a degree to have a voice, or an audience. But access to creative tools isnt the same as understanding how to use them wellor how to achieve a level of craft in execution that not only produces results but is worthy of being celebrated. Structured education still matters. So, instead of abandoning creative education altogether, the answer may be in forcing it to evolveembracing new models that acknowledge the real-world needs of business and culture. When education fails, everybody loses In my work with creative organization and educational nonprofit D&AD, I’ve seen the lack of innovations impact in creative education in the U.S., especially as expensive tuitions and employers reliance on traditional talent pipelines leads to creative homogeneity: Business growth suffers when companies pull from the same narrow talent pools. Diverse perspectives drive cultural relevance and resonance. And for Gen Z in particulardemanding cultural alignment from the brands they supportthe cost of getting it wrong is higher than ever. Diversity of thought suffers when teams are filled with people whove had the same training, same references, and same industry touchpoints. Surprising ideas dont arise from predictable inputs. Across marketing, branding, and beyond, were seeing the effectsideas that feel increasingly familiarcreated by teams that look increasingly alike. Entry-level, mid-level and even leadership demographics stagnate because if the pipeline into the creative industry is closed, the pipeline up stays closed too. Studies show that this kind of lack of leadership diversity hurts business innovation as well. The current U.S. traditional creative educational model only perpetuates these issues, excluding not only the same groups often left out of higher educationlow-income students, first-generation college students, Black, brown, Indigenous, neurodivergent, and rural creativesbut also a growing cohort of social media creators as well as creatives with raw talent who never had access to training, mentorship, or even the vocabulary to describe what theyre good at. Strengthen creative education Fortunately, theres been a major shift in how alternative creative programs are viewed, not just by talent, but by the industry itself. What once felt like a plan B is now seen as a fast, relevant, and often more inclusive way to surface new voices and ideas. Alternative programs dont need to be a threat to traditional creative education. In fact, organizations like ours can provide insights into how to evolve to provide what talent needs. Commit to low cost or even free: More urgently, access remains a major barrier. If you cant afford tuition, unpaid internships, or the time it takes to build a portfolio, youre often locked outnot because you lack talent, but because you lack the means to invest or even awareness that this path even exists. Thats why, at D&AD, our night school Shift is fully-funded with no cost to the student, while still delivering a 74% industry placement rate. Other educational institutions need to follow suit, offering ways to dramatically decrease the financial barrier to entry. With the right access, the right talent will show up. Stress real world skills: Most creative programs do a good job teaching skills, but rarely offer the context students need to thrive in the real world. Students learn how to ideate, design, and critique. But they are often not educated on the other important aspects essential to success: understanding the pace, context and nuance, mastering the soft skills essential to conversation and collaboration, as well as how to function productively as part of a team. Weve found that by taking on live briefs from brands like Spotify, Adidas, Diageo, and Airbnbpresenting ideas, fielding feedback, and navigating ambiguity in real timeweve been able to nurture creatives to hit the ground running in a workplace. Nurture a learning mindset: The only constant is change, so it’s critical to embrace an approach that prioritizes discovery and experimentation. The simple fact is that you cant expect relevant creative work from teams running on outdated approaches. Iterative training isnt just about tools. Its about staying connected to cultural shifts, industry changes, evolving platformsand most importantly, changing audience expectations. The most impactful creative work comes from teams that are learning continuously, not just about craft, but about context. More traditional creative colleges and schools need to build iterative offerings that reflect this reality. The truth is that the best creative education doesnt just teach craft; it nurtures curiosity, builds confidence, provides context, and fosters community. These arent immutable qualities but ones that evolve and change, especially now that social and technological factors have radically altered the creative industry and the businesses relying on it. We have to invest in creative people, not just the creativity. And it starts by giving creatives the right education. p>Kwame Taylor-Hayford is the cofounder of Kin and president of D&AD.
Category:
E-Commerce
Theres a power shift underfoot at Apple. And for the first time since 2023, the Apple design team will report directly to the companys CEO. The news comes as Apple announced COO Jeff Williams will be retiring by the end of the year. While Williams will be handing the role over to Sabih Khan, oversight of the design team will not come along with the title. Instead, it will be handled by Tim Cook. Since 2023, the Apple design team has reported Williams in what seemed like a prioritization of global logistics over design excellence. Williams was an engineer by trade who oversaw the logistics of building Apple productsa most important expertise in running a company the size of Apple. Its the same expertise that led Tim Cook to rise to the role of CEO of the company. This move went alongside a deprioritization of design at Apple. Consider that Apple defined itself through a cozy relationship between design and the c-suite, and nowhere was the value of that relationship more historically articulated than in the partnership between Steve Jobs and Jony Ivewhich drove Apples unprecedented run of inventions, from the iMac to the iPod to the iPhone. After Jobss passing, Ive continued his role as VP of industrial design, where he reported directly to Tim Cook. Rumors point to this relationship being fraught. Ive left Apple in 2019 to form LoveFrom, and Evans Hanky took over the position. But when Hanky left in 2022 (she now works at io, the firm building out OpenAIs hardware initiatives), design was demoted in the process. Williams stepped in, creating a layer between the CEO and the design team. This timing coincided with a disastrous launch (and subsequent suspension) of Apples Vision Pro headset, along with Apples lagging strategy reconciling the role of AI in its products. Truth be told, Apple was not alone in demoting its design team within its greater corporate structure. Roughly 39% of Fortune 500 companies that were part of a recent survey had cut one or two of the top levels of design at their organization, deprioritizing designs voice within business. Of course, it stung more when Apple would make such a decision, given that it defined the power of design in corporate strategy. From what we can tell, this all means that Apples design lead Alan Dye, its VP of Human Interface Design, now reports directly to Cook alongside the design team. Apple did not respond to a request for clarification on that point. But in any case, Apple has subtly shifted its organization in what, on paper, seems to put a greater emphasis on design. Time will tell if this move improves Apples challenged product strategy.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trumps plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs. The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency. The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this Presidents legally dubious actions in an emergency posture. Jackson warned of enormous real-world consequences. This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it,” she wrote. The high court action continued a remarkable winning streak for Trump, who the justices have allowed to move forward with significant parts of his plan to remake the federal government. The Supreme Court’s intervention so far has been on the frequent emergency appeals the Justice Department has filed objecting to lower-court rulings as improperly intruding on presidential authority. The Republican president has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate for the work, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk recently left his role. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trumps administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illstons order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nations food-safety system and health care for veterans. Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the presidents workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton. The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among cities that also sued. Todays decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the parties that sued said in a joint statement. Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. The case now continues in Illston’s court. Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
The “No Tax on Tips” provision, passed and signed into law on July 4 as part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, allows eligible tipped workers to deduct a portion of their income from tips on their federal income taxes. There is a catch: It’s only a temporary provision, expiring in 2028 when Trump leaves office at the end of his second term. But the good news is that eligible workers can start deducting up to $25,000 of reported tip income for their upcoming 2025 tax year. Here’s what else to know. How ‘No Tax on Tips’ affects tax filing and paychecks This is a deduction, not an exemption, which means tipped workers will still need to report their tips when filing their taxes, instead of having the tips automatically taken out of taxable income, per Kiplinger. The No Tax on Tips provision also does not eliminate payroll taxes (like Social Security and Medicare) on tips, so you’ll still need to pay those. Who qualifies for ‘No Tax on Tips’? The No Tax on Tips deduction applies for those earning income up to $150,000 a year, or $300,000 for joint filers, which will be adjusted each year for inflation. Furthermore, it applies for “customarily tipped” workers. The U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have yet to issue guidance on which jobs and occupations qualify, so stay tuned. However, the bill is likely to apply to workers that rely on tips, such as hair stylists, nail techs, restaurant servers, and bartenders, per Kiplinger. As Fast Company previously reported, No Tax on Tips also expands the business tax credit for the portion of payroll taxes that an employer pays on certain tips, to include payroll taxes paid on tips received in connection with certain beauty services, just like for restaurants. No tax on overtime pay Finally, the No Tax on Tips provision also applies to overtime pay, and a deduction will be available to eligible taxpayers regardless of whether they itemize. However, filers will have to provide their Social Security number on their 1040 form (or that of their spouse when filing jointly) in order to claim the deduction.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »