 |
|
|
|||||
Imagine youre watching a basketball game. Youre not focused on the stat sheetyoure watching how the players read the court, pivot when a play breaks down, and celebrate their teammates. Those moments tell you a lot more about how someone performs under pressure than any metric ever could. I think about hiring the same way. Like a stat sheet, a résumé might list someones achievements, but it wont show how they adapt under pressure or support a team. Yet in the age of AI, companies often overlook that, prioritizing technical skills instead. According to a 2024 report from Microsoft and LinkedIn, 71% of employers said they would choose an AI-fluent candidate with less experience over someone more experienced but with limited AI knowledge. Technical ability matters, of course. But in a world where technology is evolving by the week, so are the skills needed to keep up. Thats why I dont screen for skillI scout for character. Because when everything else is changing, character is the one thing that cant be automated or learned from a prompt. Its the foundation for building a culture that wins together, not just works together. While tech keeps shifting, culture endures Were in what Goldman Sachs economists are calling a period of jobless growthan era where the economy is expanding but hiring lags behind. There are fewer openings, more applicants, and slower movement on both sides. At the same time, AI is reshaping the definition of work and what companies think they need. Everyones racing to hire the candidate who knows the latest model or has experience with the newest tools. But no one really knows what AI skills will mean six months from now. PwC found that requirements for AI-exposed roles are shifting 66% faster than in other jobsmore than twice the rate of change just a year ago. Whats cutting-edge today could be obsolete by next quarter. Even with a deeper pool of applicants, many companies are still hiring against moving targets, chasing technical standards that continue to evolve. And in a job-hugging economy where employees are staying put longer and hiring cycles have slowed, every decision carries more weight. The people you hire today will shape your company for years to come. Thats why culture matters more than ever. Too often its treated like an elusive vibesomething that magically appears when the right mix of people land in the same room. Or worse, its reduced to sameness: hiring people who share the same background, and likely talk and think the same way. Thats not culture, thats comfort. Real culture is chemistry. Its intentionally built on how people think, collaborate, and recover together when things go wrong. As technology keeps rewriting job descriptions, that chemistry is what helps teams move faster, grow stronger, and stay resilient through cycles of disruption and reinvention. Build a resilient culture one character interview at a time After years of conducting culture interviews, I know that one great hire can lift a team, and the wrong one can just as easily unravel it. Im looking for people who stay calm under pressure, think critically, and are driven by purpose, not titlestraits that endure long after roles, tools, and technologies change. Culture interviews are where you see that come to life; they strip away polish and show why someones really sitting across from you. These are a few ways I approach interviews to get a truer sense of the person behind the résumé. Be in the room As an HR executive, I make it a point to lead every culture interview I can, because who you hire shapes the culture, and culture shapes the business. Thats a responsibility no senior leader should be removed from. When senior leaders make time for interviews, it signals to candidates that culture isnt just talkits taken seriously and owned at every level. As an executive, being in the room gives you a better read on the energy, mindset, and values someone will bring to the team. Its also an opportunity to establish a mutual sense of respect and investment right out of the gate. If leaders expect candidates to show up with honesty and humility, we have to do the same. That starts with being fully present, making clear that their time matters as much as yours. Use consistency to reveal character In every culture interview, I ask the same core questionsnot because Im looking for perfect answers, but to see the level of energy behind them. When candidates are given the same starting point, you start to notice characteristics that cant be rehearsed, like thoughtfulness, curiosity, and excitement. Confidence can easily be mistaken for competence, especially when people have polished their right answers. But consistency helps surface patterns: Who takes a beat to reflect? Who connects ideas instead of reciting them? Who lights up when they talk about their career goals? In a time when ChatGPT and Copilot can write a résumé and coach candidates through mock interviews, a consistent framework helps cut through the performance and surface honesty and self-awareness. Remember that questions are a two-way street Some of the most revealing moments in a culture interview are when the questions go both ways. I pay close attention to what candidates ask, because their questions can say just as much as their answers. Are they trying to understand how decisions get made, how teams collaborate, what growth looks like? That tells me they care about more than a title or a paycheck. They are thinking about the environment they might step into. Curiosity signals investment. When a candidate asks me a tough questionthe kind that makes me pauseI respect it. It shows theyll bring that same honesty and initiative once theyre on the team, and thats what strengthens culture. Look for the same values, not the same story Great talent exists everywhere; the key is knowing what to look for. Whether Im interviewing in Milwaukee or Medellín, Im scouting the same core traits: curiosity, drive, honesty, and self-awareness. What changes is how people express those valueswhat ambition looks like to them, what stability means in their world, how they define success. Recognizing those nuances is how you build a culture that scales across borders, departments, and generations. The framework stays the same, but the conversation flexes. By knowing what to hold constant and what to adapt, you build and maintain a culture that lasts through technologies. Skills will change, but character is consant Technology will keep evolving faster than any job descriptionthats a given. But character doesnt run on an update cycle. Its what keeps companies steady when everything around them is in motion. Great hiring isnt about predicting the next trending skill. Great hiring means building teams that can adapt and problem-solve together, regardless of the new tools that come along. Whether or not your company has the shiniest or newest tech stack, organizations need people who can show up for each other and grow with the work. Skills will shift. Platforms will change. But your culture? Thats what gives you staying power.
Category:
E-Commerce
You might not know it from the headlines, but there is some good news about the global fight against climate change. A decade ago, the cheapest way to meet growing demand for electricity was to build more coal or natural gas power plants. Not anymore. Solar and wind power arent just better for the climate; theyre also less expensive today than fossil fuels at utility scale, and theyre less harmful to peoples health. Yet renewable energy projects face headwinds, including in the worlds fast-growing developing countries. I study energy and climate solutions and their impact on society, and I see ways to overcome those challenges and expand renewable energybut it will require international cooperation. Falling clean energy prices As their technologies have matured, solar power and wind power have become cheaper than coal and natural gas for utility-scale electricity generation in most areas, in large part because the fuel is free. The total global power generation from renewable sources saved $467 billion in avoided fuel costs in 2024 alone. As a result of falling prices, more than 90% of all electricity-generating capacity added worldwide in 2024 came from clean energy sources, according to data from the International Renewable Energy Agency. At the end of 2024, renewable energy accounted for 46% of global installed electric power capacity, with a record 585 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity added that yearabout three times the total generating capacity in Texas. window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); Health benefits of leaving fossil fuels Beyond affordability, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is healthier. Burning coal, oil, and natural gas releases tiny particles into the air along with toxic gases; these pollutants can make people sick. A recent study found air pollution from fossil fuels causes an estimated 5 million deaths worldwide a year, based on 2019 data. For example, using natural gas to fuel stoves and other appliances releases benzene, a known carcinogen. The health risks of this exposure in some homes has been found to be comparable to secondhand tobacco smoke. Natural gas combustion has also been linked to childhood asthma, with an estimated 12.7% of U.S. childhood asthma cases attributable to gas stoves, according to one study. Fossil fuels are also the leading sources of climate-warming greenhouse gases. When theyre burned to generate electricity or run factories, vehicles, and appliances, they release carbon dioxide and other gases that accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat near the Earths surface. That accumulation has been raising global temperatures and causing more heat stress, respiratory illnesses, and the spread of disease. Electrifying buildings, cars, and appliances, and powering them with renewable energy reduces these air pollutants while slowing climate change. So whats the problem? In spite of the demonstrated economic and health benefits of transitioning to renewable energy, regulatory inertia, political gridlock, and a lack of investment are holding back renewable energy deployment in much of the world. In the United States, for example, major energy projects take an average of 4.5 years to permit, and approval of new transmission lines can take a decade or longer. A large majority of planned new power projects in the U.S. use solar power, and these delays are slowing the deployment of renewable energy. The 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act introduced by Senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, to speed approvals failed to pass. Manchin called it just another example of politics getting in the way of doing whats best for the country. window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); An een bigger challenge faces developing countries whose economies are growing fast. These countries need to meet soaring energy demand. The International Energy Agency expects emerging economies to account for 85% of added electricity demand from 2025 through 2027. Yet renewable energy development lags in most of them. The main reason is the high price of financing renewable energy construction. Most of the cost of a renewable energy project is incurred up front in construction. Savings occur over its lifetime because it has no fuel costs. As a result, the levelized cost of energy for those projects varies depending on the cost of financing to build them. The chart shows what happens when borrowing costs are higher in developed countries. It illustrates the share of financing in each projects levelized cost of energy in 2024 versus the weighted average cost of capital. The yellow dots are solar projects; black and gray are offshore and onshore wind. [Chart: adapted from the International Renewable Energy Agencys Renewable power generation costs in 2024 report, CC BY 4.0] In many developing countries, wind and solar projects cost more to finance than coal or gas. Fossil projects have a longer history, and financial and policy mechanisms have been developed over decades to lower lender risk for those projects. These include government payment guarantees, stable fuel contracts, and long-term revenue deals that help guarantee the lender will be repaid. Both lenders and governments have less experience with renewable energy projects. As a result, these projects often come with weaker government guarantees. This raises the risk to lenders, so they charge higher interest rates, making renewable projects more expensive upfront, even if the projects have lower lifetime costs. To lower borrowing costs, governments and international development banks can take steps to make renewable projects a safer bet for investors. For example, they can keep energy policies stable and use public funds or insurance to cover part of the lenders investment risk. When investors trust theyll get paid, interest rates drop dramatically and renewable energy becomes the cheaper option. Without international cooperation to lower finance costs, developing economies could miss out on the renewable-energy revolution and lock in decades of growing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, making climate change worse. The path ahead To avoid the worst effects of climate change, countries have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. Achieving this goal wont be easy, but it is significantly less difficult now that renewable energy is more affordable over the long run than fossil fuels. Switching the worlds power supply to renewable energy and electrifying buildings and local transportation would cut about half of todays greenhouse-gas emissions. The other half comes from sectors where it is harder to cut emissionssteel, cement, and chemical production, aviation and shipping, and agriculture and land use. Solutions are being developed but need time to mature. Good governance, political support, and accessible finance will be critical for these sectors as well. The transition to renewable energy offers big economic and health benefits alongside lower climate risksif countries can overcome political obstacles at home and cooperate to expand financing for developing economies. Jay Gulledge is a visiting professor of practice in global affairs at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Tennessee. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Today marks a milestone: my 250th Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights series post. Back on October 5, 2020, when I published the first piece in this strategy series, “The Role of Management Systems in Strategy,” I was simply responding to a client’s question and trying to provide practical advice on the often-ignored fifth box of the Strategy Choice Cascade. I had no idea that first post would be the launch of a series that reaches 263,000 people (at last count) on a weekly basis. It feels fitting for this 250th post to return to the original topic in Revisiting Management Systems: The Nervous System of Strategy. And as always, you can find all the previous Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights here. Im delighted to be joined in coauthoring this post by Steve Goldbach and Geoff Tuff. Both are former colleagues I mentored at Monitor Group and are now senior partners at Deloitte. They are the coauthors of three books, and their latest, Hone: How Purposeful Leaders Defy Drift, is dedicated entirely to the power of enabling management systems (EMS) as a leadership tool. This represents the combined view of the three of us. That original piece noted that many treat EMS as a lesser choicea mere implementation detail tacked on at the end. It argued the opposite: that your strategy is not truly complete until you have specified the distinctive management systems (processes, structures, rules, and protocols) that will build, maintain, and reinforce the must-have capabilities that make your where to play/how to win (WTP/HTW) choice a reality. The emphasis in that first piece was distinctiveness, noting that generic management systems that simply replicate so-called best practices are a route to mediocrity. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his Substack at rogerlmartin.substack.com.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogerlmartin.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} Hone offers a critical and complementary observation. While it is vital to have distinctive management systems to enable a distinctive strategy, all management systemswhether they are distinctive or notmotivate human behavior. Marshaling the right kind of human motivation is the critical underpinning of any successful strategy. Management systems frame what good looks like from a behavioral perspective in the organization. We believe nearly everyone shows up to work wanting to be successful; your systems should tell them how. In this way, if the WTP/HTW choice is the heart of strategy, then MHC are the muscles and EMS its nervous systemthe network of signals, incentives, and feedback loops that translate strategic intent into coherent, day-to-day action. In biology, the nervous system is the bodys command center, regulating essential functions, processing inputs, and sending signals to muscles, allowing the body to react and control its functions. This is precisely what management systems do for an organization. They are the intricate web of formal rules and cultural norms that shape how people work together inside organizations. Formal systems might include how performance is evaluated, how financial targets are set, or promotion and hiring criteria. Cultural norms are the subtle cues and “unwritten rules” that dictate behavior, such as decision rightswho gets to make what choice, or even who is asked for an opinion. When all the management systems inside an organization are combined, they can either powerfully reinforce behavior consistent with what is necessary to support the strategy choices, or, all too often, hinder it entirely. The Barnacle Problem: Drift Erodes Distinctiveness A very common problem, particularly in large organizations, is that management systems tend to accumulate over time like barnacles on the hull of a ship. Barnacles create drag and can cause a ship to gradually drift off course. Layers of competing management systems have the same effect on organizations. The accumulation of management systems can happen for at least two core reasons: Many designers, narrow designs. Management systems are rarely designed as a setthey usually crop up to address a specific problem. A well-intentioned functional leader in finance creates a new budgeting process. HR adds a new performance metric. IT implements a new security protocol. Each system feels like a “good idea” in isolation, but they accumulate and often unintentionally conflict, sending mixed signals throughout the organization. Layering over, not uninstalling. Even when a company launches a “new strategy,” leaders rarely go back and remove or reshape the old systems. They just layer new ones on top while the old systems are still busiy motivating the old behaviors. This accumulation erodes distinctiveness. Your carefully chosen, distinctive EMS are drowned out by the cacophony of the other systems, all pulling people in various directions. Drift is often imperceptible in the moment, and each subsequent deviation is similarly hard to see from the new direction of travel. It is only when a company is way off course that alarm bells start to soundand by that time, subtle course correction is ineffective. A classic example of legacy management systems holding a company back happened at Sears decades ago. In the 1990s and early 2000s, leadership correctly identified e-commerce as a strategic imperative. They even had a massive advantage: a world-class catalog and fulfillment business. But the companys formal management systems were barnacles. Its P&L structure and incentive plans were built entirely around the profitability of individual brick-and-mortar stores. When Sears.com was set up as a separate, competing P&L (the conventional wisdom at that time), store managers were inadvertently punished for behaviors that supported the new strategy. For example, if a customer wanted to return an online purchase to a local store (which was considerably easier at that time relative to today), the return would show up on the stores P&L, reducing its profitability. This motivated store managers to resist taking online returns, something that might have presumably given Sears a leg up in the new online world. Drift tends to end badly. Organizations wake up and discover they are miles away from where they need to be to achieve their goals. They have no choice but to engage in so-called transformationmassive change at a rapid pace. These transformations are costly in terms of dollars, time, and human energy, and have very high failure rates. We are not anti-transformation per se; we just believe that with a bit more attention to day-to-day steering of the ship, much of that waste could be avoided. The Antidote to Drift: Honing Hone uses the metaphor of a chefs knife. Good chefs don’t wait for their knives to become uselessly dull before fixing them. A dull knife is dangerous, so chefs hone it every single day before use. Honing is not sharpening. Sharpening grinds away metal to create a new edgea transformative, costly act. Honing is a gentle, daily maintenance that realigns the existing edge, keeping it fit for purpose. Honing, as one chef described, is a meditation and a maintenance both keeping the knife serviceable and an act that reminds the chef of whats needed in the forthcoming service. This is the antidote to drift. The external landscape any organization faces is constantly in motion: Customer preferences shift, competitors take new actions, technology advances, and regulation varies constantly. Leaders must respond by honing their organization with small changes to their EMS to steer behaviors consistent with the external shifts. Ideally this can happen by making small changes to existing management systems. But sometimes it might require creating a new distinctive system or uninstalling management systems that are no longer needed. The Four Seasons example from the first PTW/PI post impeccably illustrates honing. The “glitch reporting system”where any employee, at any level, is empowered and rewarded for identifying and reporting a service “glitch”is an EMS. But it’s not a static one. By its very design, it is a honing system, a feedback loop designed to identify and correct for small drifts (a slow room service order, a dirty light fixture, a slippery floor) in real time, long before they accumulate into a “bad service” barnacle. The Role: The CEO as Chief System Designer This leads to a final, critical point. If EMS are the nervous system of strategy, who is the brain? We have consistently argued that an organizations leadership must own its strategy, not outsource it. On this front, we believe that CEOs must own the overall design of their collection of EMS. The CEO must be the chief system designer because the CEO is the only person in the organization with both the authority and visibility to ensure coherence and congruence across all the organizational systems. While CEOs can (and should) delegate the detailed design of a sales incentive plan or a supply chain metric, they must own the theory of how all those systems interact to collectively motivate the desired behavior. Bel Groupe (maker of brands such as BabyBel, GoGo squeeZ, and the Laughing Cow) is a terrific example of its CEO, Cécile Béliot-Zind, acting as the chief systems designer. Bels ownership and management team believe they can create competitive advantage by promoting a more sustainable food system. Béliot-Zind is fond of saying that sustainability without profitability has no impact and profitability without sustainability has no future. Bel helps support farmers with whom it works to implement in necessary regenerative practices while enabling a better living. As a result, the company has access to a more resilient, long-term supply chain. To reinforce this commitment, Bel became a mission-led company by law (société mission) in France, formalizing this commitment in its company by-laws: a very strong management system creating consistency and a long-term commitment to this strategy. Béliot-Zind also knew there were other systems that needed to change to reduce the typical profit versus purpose friction that occurs in many organizations. Her solution was to redesign her finance department to fuse responsibility for both profit and societal impact into a single function. She created a chief impact officer role responsible simultaneously for profit and for societal impact, ensuring both are managed with the same rigor as a traditional P&L. That CEOs must be chief system designers doesn’t mean non-CEOs are powerless. On the contrary, all leaders can and should act as a chief system designer for their own team, honing the management systems within their control. And, just as important, they have a responsibility to identify and elevate the inconsistencies they see, making the case for why a particular system is causing drift. Practitioner Insights Here are four things you can do to put this into practice: Audit your management systems. At the start of every strategy process, we suggest uncovering your strategy-in-use, including identifying the key management systems that drive behavior today (whether they are distinctive or not). An easy way to find these is to ask why people behave the way they do inside the organization. Then ask: Do these systems, in their current form, support or conflict with our new WTP/HTW? Connect honing to your What Would Have to Be True (WWHTBT). Use the WWHTBT tool to assess your management systems. We are all fond of saying that strategy doesn’t come with an expiration date. It is good until one of its WWHTBTs is no longer true. This is your signal to hone. When a WWHTBT fails, or is being strained, identify the new behavior you need and then determine which management system must be adjusted (or created, or uninstalled) to motivate it. Stop Blaming Culture. Culture isnt some immutable bogeyman. As has been pointed out in this series, you can hone it to support your strategy through changes to leadership behavior and careful modification of management systems. Find the specific management systems that are rewarding the behavior that creates cultural defects and change them. Culture is, in the end, a strategy choice. Be aware of your “tells.” Leaders at all levels: Recognize that you are a powerful informal management system. Your attention, your questions, and your emotional reactions in meetings send the clearest signals of all about “what good looks like.” Make sure your personal cues are in alignment with your stated goals. A full 249 PTW/PI later, the core message remains consistent. EMS is a critical element of strategyits nervous system. Leverage it and hone it, and you will be generously rewarded. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his Substack at rogerlmartin.substack.com.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogerlmartin.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
On November 14, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, screwdriver in hand, helped Pentagon facilities personnel install two new signs that read “Department of War.” After affixing the sign to the outside of the building, he turned toward onlookers and said, “Here we go.” Hegseth’s handyman moment was more than a symbolic gesture: It was the first act of what he and the Trump administration hope will eventually be a wholesale rebrand of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This rebrandwhich would require updating 700,000 buildings and facilities worldwide (not to mention all of the other places the DOD would become the DOW)could reportedly cost as much as $2 billion. Switching signage, letterhead, placards, and more President Donald Trump signed an executive order in September giving the DOD a secondary “War” name, but to make it official will require an act of Congress, and it won’t come cheap, according to figures shared by four senior congressional staffers and two others briefed on the cost to NBC News. The estimated price tag would cover switching signage and letterhead, which together could cost about $1 billion alone, along with placards, badges, software, and code. Rebrands can be tricky for any brand, but they’re especially hard when dealing with public agencies and taxpayer dollars. The public and lawmakers have taken issue with Trump’s plan to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, a name the U.S. used before its military agencies were consolidated following World War II. This isn’t just adding a few letters to a building, like Trump has done at the White House. The DOD, the executive-level federal agency that oversees the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, has more than 3 million personnel and both inward-facing and outward-facing brand assets at facilities in the U.S. and 80 countries around the world. For comparison, Walmart counts 2.1 million associates and stores in 19 countries. Opposition to the rebrand Hegseth said on November 14 that the DOD sign at the Pentagon was replaced “because we want everybody who comes through this door to know that we are deadly serious about the name change of this organization,” according to a press release. But YouGov polling in September found a 58% majority of U.S. adults oppose renaming the DOD, and there’s bipartisan opposition to making the secondary name formal. In a letter to the Congressional Budget Office in October, Senate Democrats on the Budget Committee cited both brand and budget concerns, writing that the new name “risks confusion, redundancy, and unnecessary cost expenditure.” “Given the Trump administrations repeated emphasis on fiscal restraintparticularly its aggressive use of illegal impoundments and now, unconstitutional pocket rescissionsthis symbolic renaming is both wasteful and hypocritical,” Democrats wrote. “It appears to prioritize political theater over responsible governance, while diverting resources from core national security functions.” Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, told CNN that he believes calling the DOD the Department of War “sends a bad signal to the world.” “In a world with nuclear weapons, I think glorifying war . . . is not something I’m in favor of,” Paul said. Republicans have introduced legislation in the House and Senate to rename the DOD, and Paul said he would “lead opposition” to it if it came before the Senate. Hidden costs Trump has sought to cast himself as a peacemaker this year, which a war-themed rebrand is at odds with. It’s also at odds with his campaign promises. Trump took office pledging to lower costs and rein in government spending, but coming up on a year back in office, persistent inflation and conspicuous government spending like his White House remodel project have taken a political toll. Trump’s net approval rating is sagging, and a pricey rebrand project viewed by many as vanity might not help. Rebranding the DOD could cost taxpayers as much as $2 billion. Its political costs for Trump could be even higher.
Category:
E-Commerce
AI has a writing style, or, at least, an alleged style. Tools like ChatGPT and Claude seem to communicate with a tendency toward formalism. The chatbots are earnest, sometimes too evenhanded or overly complimentary. Theres a noticeable lack of personal flair, and no deeply held opinions. According to Grammarly, AI language tends to evoke “repetitive phrasing and robotic tone. Now, there are even AI buzzwords and phrases like pivotal and delve into and underscore. Its the verbiage of instruction booklets for middle schoolers writing their first essays. In the age of AI, these helpful crutch words are now verbata non grata. Some people are now trying to avoid using these terms, because they sound like a lowly bot God forbid. But the problem is bigger than simply sounding like an AI. Human speech is a time-tested neologism supply chain; people have a natural inventiveness when talking and writing. But as we increasingly communicate with chatbots and rely on AI agents to dissect concepts, summarize research reports, and synthesize internet searches, we’re filtering a wide array of content through the stilted and bounded syntax of LLMs. Its even changing how we communicate. Researchers have suggested some AI-based writing assistance models can whittle away the overall diversity of human writing, shrinking the size of our collective vocabulary. AI may literally be putting words into our mouths, as repeated exposure leads people to internalize and reuse buzzwords they might not have chosen naturally, Tom Juzek, a professor at Florida State University, told Fast Company earlier this year. With colleagues, he recently identified a vocabulary list of AI-speak, including words like intricate, strategically, and garner. He also found that these words are now more likely to show up in unscripted podcasts, a strong sign of whats called lexical seepage. Can we plug the leak? AI companies are aware that off-the-self AI isnt always appealing. And theyre increasingly promising customization and tailoring that can bend these bots to our will and preference. You can tell ChatGPT the traits you want it to have, how you want it to talk to you, and any rules you want it to follow, OpenAI explained earlier this year upon the release of a new feature allowing users to choose preferred traits and personality features for their bots. If youre a scientist using ChatGPT to do research, youll want it to engage with you like a lab assistant. If youre caring for an elderly family member and need tips or companionship ideas, you might want ChatGPT to adopt a supportive tone. AI what I am In a perhaps-futile attempt to protect myself from AI speak, I told my ChatGPT agent to be more expansive with its vocabulary. Think widely-read, I told it. Also, try to use new words all the time! I want you to be varying up your vocabulary constantly. I banned the chatbot from ever using the phrases outlined by Juzeks research. Thus far, ChatGPT seems to have improved. I think, at least. Its avoiding the banned words, and seems to be making a good-faith effort to communicate less formulaically. Its reaching for verbs that reflect better understanding of what its actually talking about. But AI diction is a wormhole. The problem, Juzek explains, is that the nature of AI writing is about more than just our words, and extends to sentence structure and functional words like that, may, can, and should. “Asking your assistant to avoid buzzwords will probably make your writing look less AI-like to humans and reduce the chance that someone fires up a detector, he tells me. What it means for the bigger question of whether AI is homogenizing or flattening language, there — I think the jury is still out. The great homogening Some believe that a different approach could make AI a less rote communicator. Nathan Lambert writes in the newsletter Interconnects that the current LLMs arent trained to be good writers. These AIs are trying to be something for everyone, not platforms with voice and positionality, and are inclined to be succinct and neutral. The next step would be solving the problem of how models arent trained with a narrow enough experience. Specific points of view nurture voice, he writes. The target should be a model that can output tokens in any area or request that is clear, compelling, and entertaining. Well need to wait for that technology, though. In the meantime, we cannot AI our way out of this AI conundrum. These companies are advertising tools to make AI extensions of ourselves, and outsource chunks of our individuality into a machine designed by finding correlations and inputting meaning from the webs surfeit. The fear is that as we increasingly communicate with AI, well flatten human culture and speech in the process. Of course, this homogenization isnt new. Literature, radio, and television, and their linguistic evolutions, all had transnational reach. Social media created global slang. But AI is different. While it is a new technology, its not a new platform for our thoughts — its a new way of synthesizing them. This makes sense: Large language models are built by consolidating a vast trove of information into reasoning models that communicate like a digital common man. Meanwhile, we’re just here trying to be ourselves.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] next »