 |
|
|
|||||
In The Singularity is Nearer: When We Merge with AI, the futurist Ray Kurzweil imagines the point in 2045 when rapid technological progress crosses a threshold as humans merge with machines, an event he calls the singularity. Although Kurzweils predictions may sound more like science fiction than fact-based forecasting, his brand of thinking goes well beyond the usual sci-fi crowd. It has provided inspiration for American technology industry elites for some time, chief among them Elon Musk. With Neuralink, his company that is developing computer interfaces implanted in peoples brains, Musk says he intends to unlock new dimensions of human potential. This fusion of human and machine echoes Kurzweils singularity. Musk also cites apocalyptic scenarios and points to transformative technologies that can save humanity. Ideas like those of Kurzweil and Musk, among others, can seem as if they are charting paths into a brave new world. But as a humanities scholar who studies utopianism and dystopianism, Ive encountered this type of thinking in the futurist and techno-utopian art and writings of the early 20th century. Techno-utopianisms origins Techno-utopianism emerged in its modern form in the 1800s, when the Industrial Revolution ushered in a set of popular ideas that combined technological progress with social reform or transformation. Kurzweils singularity parallels ideas from Italian and Russian futurists amid the electrical and mechanical revolutions that took place at the turn of the 20th century. Enthralled by inventions like the telephone, automobile, airplane, and rocket, those futurists found inspiration in the concept of a New Human, a being who they imagined would be transformed by speed, power, and energy. A century ahead of Musk, Italian futurists imagined the destruction of one world, so that it might be replaced by a new one, reflecting a common Western techno-utopian belief in a coming apocalypse that would be followed by the rebirth of a changed society. One especially influential figure of the time was Filippo Marinetti, whose 1909 Founding and Manifesto of Futurism offered a nationalistic vision of a modern, urban Italy. It glorified the tumultuous transformation caused by the Industrial Revolution. The document describes workers becoming one with their fiery machines. It encourages aggressive action coupled with an eternal speed designed to break things and bring about a new world order. The overtly patriarchal text glorifies war as hygiene and promotes scorn for woman. The manifesto also calls for the destruction of museums, libraries, and universities and supports the power of the rioting crowd. Marinettis vision later drove him to support and even influence the early fascism of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. However, the relationship between the futurism movement and Mussolinis increasingly anti-modern regime was an uneasy one, as Italian studies scholar Katia Pizzi wrote in Italian Futurism and the Machine. Further east, the Russian revolutionaries of 1917 adopted a utopian faith in material progress and science. They combined a belief in the ease with which culture could be destroyed with the benefits of spreading scientific ideas to the masses of Russia, historian Richard Stites wrote in Revolutionary Dreams. For the Russian left, an immediate and complete remaking of the soul was taking place. This new proletarian culture was personified in the ideal of the New Soviet Man. This master of nature by means of machines and tools received a polytechnical education instead of the traditional middle-class pursuit of the liberal arts, humanities scholar George Young wrote in The Russian Cosmists. The first Soviet Peoples Commissar of Education, Anatoly Lunacharsky, supported these movements. Although their political ideologies took different forms, these 20th-century futurists all focused their efforts on technological advancement as an ultimate objective. Techno-utopians were convinced that the dirt and pollution of real-world factories would automatically lead to a future of perfect cleanliness, efficiency, quiet, and harmony, historian Howard Segal wrote in Technology and Utopia. Myths of efficiency and everyday tech Despite the remarkable technological advances of that time, and since, the vision of those techno-utopians largely has not come to pass. In the 21st century, it can seem as if we live in a world of near-perfect efficiency and plenitude thanks to the rapid development of technology and the proliferation of global supply chains. But the toll that these systems take on the natural environmentand on the people whose labor ensures their successpresents a dramatically different picture. Today, some of the people who espouse techno-utopian and apocalyptic visions have amassed the power to influence, if not determine, the future. At the start of 2025, through the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Musk introduced a fast-paced, tech-driven approach to government that has led to major cutbacks in federal agencies. Hes also influenced the administrations huge investments in artificial intelligence , a class of technological tools that public officials are only beginning to understand. The futurists of the 20th century influenced the political sphere, but their movements were ultimately artistic and literary. By contrast, contemporary techno-futurists like Musk lead powerful multinational corporations hat influence economies and cultures across the globe. Does this make Musks dreams of human transformation and societal apocalypse more likely to become reality? If not, these elements of Musks project are likely to remain more theoretical, just as the dreams of last centurys techno-utopians did. Sonja Fritzsche is a senior associate dean and professor of German studies at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
You are constantly getting feedback from others about your performance at work. A client may be happy with their interaction. A colleague may walk away from a meeting upset. You get comments on a report you have written, an email discussing a presentation, or thoughts on the way you interact with colleagues. In the best of worlds, the feedback you get is clear and easy to understand. Good feedback has three characteristics. It specifies the behavior you engaged in. It provides a clear and accurate assessment of the consequences of that behavior. It suggests actions you may take in the future that would be better suited to the occasion. The further that the feedback you get deviates from this formulation, the harder it may be to understand the feedback or to recognize how it applies to you and what you should do about it. When you get feedback you dont understand, it is often valuable to get more information in order to ensure that you are able to learn from the experience and improve. Ill dig into how to address the three components of good feedback in a moment, but first a word about asking questions related to feedback. It is important to start any questions by pointing out that you are asking for clarification. Do not argue that the feedback wasnt warranted. There is no easier way to ensure you never get feedback again than spending your time trying to convince someone that you did nothing wrong in the first place. 1. Ask about what went wrong Sometimes the feedback you get is difficult to process because it is not clear about what you did wrong. That can happen because someone assumes you already know. More often, though, it happens because someone criticizes your motivation rather than your actions. They will talk about your attitude or intent. Typically, when people try to assess your motivation or intent, they get it wrong, and so the description of the feedback doesnt ring true for you. Rather than arguing about your motivation or the situation, ask for a clearer description of what you did. To the extent that you believe your motivation or intent was different than what was described to you, it is okay to clarify your motivation, but you should start with a phrase like, I can see how you would think I was trying to . . . when discussing your motivation, so that youre not trying to make the other person feel like they completely misread the situation. 2. Ask about the impact At timesparticularly early in your careerunderstanding the consequences of an action can be the most important part of the feedback you get. You may have done something that you thought was going to lead to a different outcome, but you are getting feedback that was clearly not the case. In addition to understanding the consequences of your action, if youre talking to a more knowledgeable colleague, it can also be helpful to get their sense of why the action had the impact it did. In order to get better at predicting the impact of your actions, it is important to understand the relationship between what you do and what happens next. 3. Ask about the future You may have a clear sense of what you did and what happened as a result, and still feel like the feedback has not given you knowledge of what you should have done instead. Sometimes the person giving feedback simply hasnt been clear about their recommendations for future actions. Other times, the person giving you feedback also does not know what should have been done instead. When you are confused about what you should do differently in the future, you may go back to the person who gave you feedback for advice. However, you might also find a trusted mentor to review the situation and help you walk through other ways that you could have handled it. Often, someone further removed from the specifics (and perhaps someone with more experience than the individual who gave you feedback) can give you clearer advice on better alternatives for the future.
Category:
E-Commerce
Pharma stocks took a fresh hit on Friday following a report in The Washington Post that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reportedly plans to link COVID-19 vaccines with the deaths of 25 minors. Moderna shares fell 7.4% Friday to their lowest level since March 2020. The drop brought the drugmakers year-to-date slump to more than 44%. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company is one of two manufacturers of approved mRNA coronavirus vaccines. The other mRNA COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, saw its own shares fall 3.9% on Friday. Shares of its partner on the shot, BioNTech, tumbled 7.3%, while stocks in another vaccine maker, Novavax, were down 3.6%. The pharma companies stock slump stands in contrast to the market as a whole, with the S&P 500 rising more than 12% this year. FDA officials reportedly plan to present the data at an upcoming vaccine advisory panel meeting, according to the Post. The panel makes recommendations to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it sets vaccine schedules and guidance, and its recommendations have historically guided insurance coverage for vaccines and state policy. The data is apparently based on self-reported adverse events collected in a federal database called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The database contains unverified reports and is not designed to conclude that a vaccine caused a death. The FDA didnt immediately respond to Fast Companys request for comment. Vaccine policy in U.S. shifting under new administration U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all of the members of the vaccine advisory panel, which is known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Kennedy installed seven new members who have criticized vaccines in the past. Kennedy is reportedly considering appointing seven more members to the committee who share his skepticism of COVID vaccines or the pharmaceutical industry, Politico reported. And last month, the FDA imposed new eligibility restrictions on COVID-19 vaccines that critics say has severely limited who can get the shot. ACIP is due to meet on September 18 and September 19, and the committee is expected to discuss vaccines for COVID-19, as well as hold votes on recommendations for vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) and hepatitis B, as well as COVID-19. Pharma companies criticize restrictions on shots Modernas CEO Stéphane Bancel said at a WIRED health summit that recent changes in U.S. vaccine policy represented a step backward. Moderna, in a statement to Barrons on Friday, noted that the safety of its COVID-19 vaccine is rigorously monitored by the company, the FDA, and regulators in more than 90 countries. Those safety systems have not identified any new or undisclosed safety concerns in children or in pregnant women, the company said. And in a statement to Bloomberg, Pfizer said that extensive data supports the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine, and cited its successful administration to more than one billion adults, adolescents, and children. Both drugmakers didnt immediately respond to requests for comment from Fast Company.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||