 |
|
|
|||||
After writing more than one article a day for the last 23 years, Ive accumulated a body of text large enough to train an AI model that could convincingly write like me. With todays technology, it would not be difficult to build a system capable of generating opinions that sound as if they came from Enrique Dansan algorithmic professor that keeps publishing long after Im gone. That, apparently, is the next frontier of productivity: the digital twin. Startups such as Viven and tools like Synthesia are building AI clones of employees and executivestrained on their voices, writing, decisions, and habits. The idea is seductive. Imagine scaling yourself infinitely: answering emails, recording videos, writing updates, etc., while you do something else, or nothing at all. But seductive doesnt mean sensible. A world full of digital ghosts We are entering an era where professionals will not just automate tasks; they will replicate their personas. A company might build a digital copy of its best salesperson or customer service agent. A CEO might train a virtual twin to respond to inquiries. A university might deploy an AI version of a popular lecturer to deliver courses at scale. In theory, this sounds efficient. In practice, it invites a form of existential confusion: If the replica is convincing enough, what happens to the person? What does it mean to be productive when your digital version is the one doing the work? The fascination with cloning ourselves digitally reflects the same temptation that has driven automation for centuries: outsourcing not just labor, but also identity. The difference is that AI can now replicate the voice of that identity, both literally and metaphorically. What I would look like as an algorithm I could easily do it. Feed a large language model the millions of words Ive written since 2003every article, every post, every commentand youd get a fairly accurate simulation of me. It would probably have the right tone, vocabulary, and rhythm. It could write plausible articles, maybe even publish them at the same pace. But it would just miss the point. I dont write to fill a schedule or a database. I write to think or to teach. Writing, for me, is not an act of production, but of reflection. Thats why, as I explained recently in Why I let AI help me thinkbut never think for me, I never let AI write my articles for me. It makes no sense. Asking a model to think for me would defeat the very reason I sit down every morning to write. Of course, I use AI constantly: summarizing sources, checking facts, exploring counterarguments, and finding references. But I never let it finish my sentences. Thats the boundary that keeps my work mine. The illusion of scaling yourself The promise of digital clones is rooted in the same misconception: that replicating output equals replicating value. Companies now talk about bottling expertise or scaling human capital as if personality were a production line. But cloning output is not the same as extending competence. A persons professional value is not their words or gestures. Its their judgment, built over time through context and curiosity. A model trained on your past decisions may imitate your tone, but it cannot anticipate your evolution. Its a fossil, not a future. An AI clone of me could mimic my writing style from 2025. But if I let it publish, it would freeze me in that year forever, a museum piece updated daily. From productivity to presence Executives, entrepreneurs, and creators should be careful what they wish for. A digital twin may handle the inbox or record video briefings, but it also dilutes what makes leadership or creativity meaningful: presence. In Axioss coverage of CEO clones, many executives confessed that they liked their AI doubles but didnt fully trust them. The clone could handle repetitive interactions, but not empathy, timing, or nuancethe qualities that define credibility. Delegating those things to an algorithm is like sending a mannequin to a meeting: technically present, emotionally vacant. Corporate immortality and the ethics of legacy Theres also the question of what happens when your digital twin outlives you. Some companies already treat employee data as assets, so why wouldnt they treat their digital clones the same way? Imagine a firm continuing to deploy the AI version of a beloved leader or educator after theyve passed away. It might seem like a tribute, but its really a form of corporate necromancy: using a persons intellectual remains to perpetuate a brand. Its not hard to picture universities selling virtual professors or corporations reusing former CEOs as permanent avatars. In a recent academic paper on digital twins, researchers warned that the boundary between representation and possession is getting blurry. Who owns the clone? Who profits from it? When we replicate people as data objects, we risk turning identity into infrastructure, into something that can be licensed, monetized, or rebranded at will. The right way to use AI for personal scale There is, however, a rational way to use AI for scale: as augmentation, not imitation. I use AI every day as a thinking partner. It reads drafts, proposes structures, suggests sources, and critiques my logic. Its like having a tireless research assistant, one that never gets offended when I ignore its advice. But the act of reasoning, the decision of what to say and how to say it, remains mine. Thats the key difference between using artificial intelligence and becoming it. When we outsource thinking, we lose the feedback loop that makes us human: the constant process of reflection, revision, and growth. Professionals who embrace AI responsibly will amplify their reach without diluting their essence. Those who dont will eventually find their own voices indistinguishable from their machines. What businesses should learn from this For companies flirting with employee clones or AI avatars, heres a checklist worth remembering: Define purpose, not imitation. Dont build AI twins to replicate people. Build systems that free them to do higher-value work. Keep the human in the authorship loop. AI can assist in drafting, coding, and summarizing, but final judgment must remain human. Treat data as legacy, not property. Respect employee and creator autonomy. No one should become a perpetual digital asset without consent. Focus on augmentation, not automation. Use AI to enhance collective intelligence, not to eliminate the need for it. AI is not here to replace human expertise; its here to challenge how we apply it. The paradox of self-replication Soon, anyone with enough data will be able to build a digital version of themselves. Some will see it as immortality; others, as redundancy. I see it as a mirror, a test of what truly matters in human work. When my own digital twin can write a decent article about AI, I wont be impressed. The question isnt whether it can write. Its whether it can care, and whether it serves me for the purpose Im trying to achieve. And until algorithms can care about truth, nuance, curiosity, or purpose, Ill keep doing what Ive done for the last 23 years: Sit down, think, and write. Not because I have to, but because I still can.
Category:
E-Commerce
Inspired by the ongoing auction of Bob Ross paintings to raise money for public television, Last Week Tonight With John Oliver is putting some of its own TV artifacts up for auction for a good cause. Host John Oliver dedicated the close of Sunday’s season finale to local public television, which is facing an unprecedented crisis. Federal budget cuts could by next year close as many as 115 public television and radio stations in the U.S. serving 43 million Americans, according to the Public Media Bridge Fund, a philanthropic initiative. “These stations can fill a vital community role,” Oliver said during Sunday’s show. [Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com] Bob Ross Inc. said in October that it was putting 30 paintings by the late artist up for auction to pay for public station licensing fees. The first three paintings sold last week in Los Angeles for more than $600,000 total. Oliver said Last Week Tonight originally tried bidding on one of the recently auctioned Ross paintings in hopes of flipping it to raise even more money for public television. “Sadly, those prices were outside of our budget,” Oliver said. So instead, the show is tapping its own archives with the auction site johnoliversjunk.com. [Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com] Items like the giant Reese’s mug that made its first appearance during a 2017 episode about net neutrality are now up for auction alongside Oliver’s “on-screen wife,” Mrs. Cabbage, and a quintet of bad wax replicas of presidents originally purchased by the show from the now-closed Hall of Presidents and First Ladies in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. All the proceeds from the auctions will go to the Public Media Bridge Fund. [Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com] Though Last Week Tonight didn’t have the budget to drop six figures on an original Bob Ross painting at last week’s auction, Bob Ross Inc. did donate one to Oliver’s auction. “Cabin at Sunset” was created during an 1987 episode of Ross’s PBS show The Joy of Painting, and it’s presently the first item shown on Oliver’s auction site. The painting currently has a bid of more than a million dollars. The top bid for a sculpture titled “LBJ’s Balls” is over $25,000, and the top bid for a trip to New York City to meet Oliver is higher than $50,000 at the time of this writing. So far, the leading bid to appear in a photo over Oliver’s shoulder during a future episode has just passed $100,000 after 45 bids. [Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com] The show found some lower-priced ways to raise money, too, like signed merchandise from the Moon Mammoths, the minor league baseball team Last Week Tonight temporarily rebranded in July, and a Mr. Bean DVD signed by Joel McHale. The auction closes on November 24. Oliver also promoted Adopt A Station, a nonprofit for people who want to help out and donate to public media stations but aren’t able to participate in his auction. Trump administration budget cuts meant an end to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which said in August that it is winding down operations. The Public Media Bridge Fund says the end of CPB funding will destabilize the public media system. It’s seeking to raise $100 million over two years to help the most at-risk communities.
Category:
E-Commerce
The influence of the AI industry is becoming a major topic in New Yorks 12th congressional district, where a crowded Democratic primary packed with millennial and Gen Z candidates is heating up. The seat represents one of the wealthiest communities in the country — and is a liberal stronghold — so whoever wins could eventually become a major player in the fight to limit the most noxious impacts of large language model (LLM) technology. On Tuesday, Cameron Kasky, a political activist and Parkland shooting survivor who lives in the district (which includes the Upper West Side and Upper East Side) announced he was running. His campaign is making fighting the AI oligarchs a pivotal focus, adapting the rally cry used by progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for the ChatGPT age. Generative AI is undoubtedly one of the most societally damaging innovations that humanity has ever created, and people do not understand the toll it will be taking on us, says Kaskys new campaign site. This damage includes the fresh water supplies it is depleting, a media literacy crisis that has already gotten out of control in this country over recent years, and the degree to which children are leaning on AI for therapy, companionship, and more — at the cost of their critical thinking skills and cognitive development. Kasky says his legislative priorities will include holding AI companies accountable for their environmental impact, preventing mass layoffs, and better regulating the influence of tech companies on child safety. I have no sympathy for AI, and no tolerance for what it has done to our population. It will only get worse if we do not get in the way as aggressively as possible, he says. Hes not the only person planning to take on AI in the primary. Alex Bores, a Palantir alum who has proposed state legislation the RAISE Act that would rein in the industry, has also made clear that one of his focuses would be regulating artificial intelligence. Earlier this week, he was targeted by ads funded by Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC funded by OpenAI executive Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz thats intent on blunting the influence of tech critics in the upcoming congressional primaries. The group has called Bores’ legislation a clear example of the patchwork, uninformed, and bureaucratic state laws that would slow American progress and open the door for China to win the global race for AI leadership. Bores, in turn, has started fundraising off the ads. This AI super PAC’s first target? Me, said Bores in a tweet. Why? They’re scared of leaders who understand their business regulating their business. They want unchecked power at your expenseand I’m the guy standing in their way. It is a crowded race, with about ten people running for the Democratic nomination in total. Most of the other candidates, who include Nadler favorite Micah Lasher, community organizer Liam Elkind, and attorney Jami Floyd, have yet to issue strong positions on artificial intelligence but that could change. Meanwhile, Kennedy family heir and social media provocateur Jack Schlossberg, who also announced his campaign this month, has at least some thoughts on the tech. Last year, he tweeted his reflections: Question about AI Is it sexual ? Were are ALL sexual beings, thats just a fact. If AI is non-sexual, does that limit its potential ? or make it unstoppable ?
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||