1 . ChatGPT, a new chatbot model developed by US-based AI research laboratory OpenAI, has quickly become a hit globally due to its advanced conversational capabilities,

It can write emails, computer codes, even academic papers and poems, and has passed a number of tests within seconds. Academicians worldwide are discussing whether AI should be used in education. Some universities have banned it. The New York City’s Department of Education, for example, banned the chatbot from its public school devices and networks, with some people warning that it could encourage more students to cheat, especially in exams.

Many more welcome this app, claiming that, like most technological advances and groundbreaking innovations in history, ChatGPT is a powerful tool for the development of higher education.

Embracing AI as early as possible is advisable. Higher education institutions should make preparations for including AI in their syllabus (教学大纲). They can start by offering related courses, because by understanding how it works, they can make better use of it. Besides, students with good knowledge of AI are more competitive when it comes to getting a good job, as an increasing number of jobs are being done by computer programmes-some in cooperation with humans, AI-powered education technologies can be adopted to make the learning experience more suitable for each student based on his or her strengths and weaknesses. As for professors, AI can free them from doing some dull tasks so they can concentrate on teaching and interacting with students.

Since we cannot avoid ChatGPT and other AI-powered applications from entering the field of higher education, we should make collective efforts to ensure they have a positive impact on society and the future of education Despite AI helping make learning much more interesting and enjoyable, humans need to work very hard to win the race with technology.

4 . It’s commonly acknowledged that our lives are ruled by algorithms (算法), but have we really collectively understood how they have transformed our culture and personality?

In Filterworld: How algorithms flattened culture, Kyle Chayka argues convincingly that the rise of algorithm-driven feeds, used everywhere online from Instagram to Spotify, has led to a more uniform culture. Our tastes and desires increasingly don’t belong to us, but to algorithms that are designed to keep people engaged at all costs. If the collection of our tastes truly shapes our entire personality, then this loss is more psychologically damaging than it first appears. Aimlessly scrolling (滚屏) through Netflix or TikTok may seem harmless, but over days, months or years, we lose touch with what we like and enjoy.

Taste-making algorithms are inescapable. Chayka shows this by working through all corners of life: what we wear(TikTok), where we eat(Google Maps), music we listen to(Spotify), even who we date or marry(Tinder). This universe of algorithm-driven decisions has society-wide implications: “It extends to influence our physical spaces, our cities, and the routes we move through…flattening them in turn.” No one gets out of the Filterworld untouched.

If you’re lucky enough not to need any sort of algorithm-based system for your work, then you have the option to step back from algorithms for a while. But if your friend suggests a film recommended on X/Twitter or you feel the need to buy those shoes suddenly everyone has started wearing after social media advertisements, what are you to do? It all feels fruitless.

This Filterworld may be inescapable, but there is hope. You can start by engaging more with the media you do choose to consume. This could mean reading up about a film you watched or paying artists you like directly. Even the thoughtful act of recommending an album (专辑) to a friend is more rewarding than a random TikTok feed. As Chayka says, resistance to algorithms “requires an act of willpower, a choice to move through the world in a different way.”

5 . There are few places on Earth that humans haven’t messed up. Now even Antarctica, the only continent with no permanent human inhabitants, is being altered by us. A study found that the increasing human presence in Antarctica is causing more snow melt-bad news for a frozen world already battling the effects of human-caused global warming.

Black carbon, the dark, dusty pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels has settled in locations where tourists and researchers spend a lot of time, scientists found. Even the smallest amount of the dark pollutant can have a significant impact on melting because of its very low reflectiveness: things that are light in color, like snow, reflect the sun's energy and stay cool; things that are dark, like black carbon, absorb the sun's energy and warm up.

“The snow albedo (反射率) effect is one of the largest uncertainties in regional and global climate modeling right now,” Alia Khan, a snow and ice scientist at Western Washington University, told CNN. “That’s one of the motivations for the study, to quantify the impact of black carbon on regional snowmelt, which is important for quantifying the role of black carbon in the global loss of snow and ice.”

“Antarctica is sitting there pretty much silently all year. But, if it weren’t there, in the state that it is meant to be, the balance that we have in the climate system will no longer be,” Marilyn Raphael, a geography professor said. “Antarctica’s sea ice is also important to maintain a balance in atmospheric circulation,” he added. As waters get warmer, some Antarctic creatures are finding their homes more and more unlivable.

“Everything we do has consequences,” Raphael said. “We need to educate ourselves about those consequences, especially in systems that we know relatively little about. We have to be careful that we don’t upset the climate balance.”

6 . Genetic testing companies have a long history of creative attempts to reach the mainstream. An early example was the sequencing of rock star Ozzy Osbourne’s genes in 2010, with accompanying guess about how they might have influenced his drug habits.

Lately, such projects have taken on a new, highly commercialized tendency. In 2017, we got the “Marmite (马麦酱) gene project,” run by London-based genetic testing start-up DNAfit. It claims to show that love or hate for Marmite was in our genes. The project turned into a full-blown marketing campaign, and even sold Marmite-branded DNA testing tools.

DNAfit is now working with Mercedes-Benz to find out whether specific genetic traits are associated with business wisdom. AncestryDNA, the world’s largest consumer genetic testing company, last year teamed up with Spotify to promote “music tailored to your DNA.” Just a few weeks ago, 23andMe, the second largest, announced a partnership with Airbnb to provide genetically tailored travel experiences, also inspired by ancestral DNA.

I have skin in this game. I run a genetic-testing start-up that connects people who want their genome sequenced with researchers who want data to improve their understanding of genetic disease. I believe that broadening access to DNA testing can be a powerful force for good, providing safer, more effective medicines and giving people more power over their healthcare. But these campaigns risk discrediting the industry, by giving a misleading impression of what genetics can and can't say and its role in determining behaviours and personal preferences.

Take the Marmite study. It covered 261 people — tiny, by the standards of the field. It was published not in a journal, but online on bioRxiv, a server where scientists typically put results before peer-review. Shortly after, researchers looked at the genetic data of more than 500 times as many people in the UK Biobank and found no such correlation. A large peer-reviewed study in 2013 found no significant link between genes and business common sense.

We need to inform the public about what this is all about: that is, the gathering of large amounts of genetic data. We need better regulation to ensure that consumers are clear that this may happen with this sensitive personal information. A checkbox on a 20-page web document full of legal terms should not be enough.

Scientists too, need to start asking hard questions about whether the information they are using has been sourced ethically. DNA testing has a great future, but we can't build this future with data acquired by any means.

7 . Want to know what is coming soon to a cinema near you? Probably not a 1.5-hour-long movie, as in the old days. On October 20th comes Killers of the Flower Moon. At nearly three and a half hours, its length is nearly double that of the average film last year. Even movie fans struggle to concentrate for that long and some viewers even nod off. Afterwards there is a mad dash for the toilets. When does watching a film become such a slog?

The Economist analyzed over 100,000 feature films released internationally since the 1930s, the start of Hollywood’s golden age, using data from IMDb, a movie database. The average length of productions rose by around 24%, from one hour and 21 minutes in the 1930s to one hour and 47 minutes in 2022. For the ten most-popular titles, the average length grew to around two and a half hours in 2022, nearly 50% higher than in the 1930s.

One driver of this trend is that studios want to squeeze the most out of their costly intellectual property (知识产权), but they are competing with streaming platforms for eyeballs. The hope is that a spectacular, drawn-out “event” movie will draw audiences away from the small screen and into cinemas. This approach has often paid off: Avengers: Endgame Marvel’s three-hour superhero masterpieces, was the highest-grossing (票房最高的) film in 2019. Last year long movies series made up most of the highest-grossing films in America.

Another explanation for longer films has to do with directors’ growing influence. Who would dare tell the likes of Mr. Nolan to cut out his masterpieces? Moreover, streaming platforms, which do not have to worry as much about the length because viewers can pause whenever they like, may attract big names by promising them sufficient fund and creative freedom. Netflix funded and released three-hour The Irishman in 2019, a film that would have benefited from a decisive editor, Irish or otherwise.

8 . Talking to your children about the misinformation they may find online is a great idea. Children don’t always have the judgment or critical thinking skills to test what they read or watch, but they’ll develop these abilities quickly if you help them figure out how to separate fact from fiction. We’re here to help you do just that!

Don’t wait for your kids to approach you with questions——instead, take a few minutes to sit down with them. Let them know that there’s a lot of content out there on the Internet, and not all o£ it is true. With everything going on in the world, remind your kids that they might be seeing a lot of confusing, false information going around on social media and other parts of the web.

It’s a good idea to turn news reports and TV shows into teachable moments. Look for small opportunities to start helpful conversations about misinformation with your kids. Take a TV show or newspaper article and transform it into a helpful, easy way to understand what misinformation is₉ and how to avoid it.

Misinformation can be really upsetting and stressful for your kids to think about. Let them know that you’re always available to listen and answer their questions if they’re feeling confused. Reassure your kids that there are no stupid questions, and that you’re always willing to explain something for them.

Teach your kids a few tricks to fact-check misinformation online. Remind your kids to be on the lookout for strange-looking website like those ending with co. Tell them to read through the headline. If it has a lot of mistakes, or if it’s written in all capital letters, there’s a good chance that it might be misinformation. Additionally, introduce your kids to official websites, which are quick and easy ways to fact-check information.

10 . If you’ve got more than one kid, you’re showing favoritism, whether you know it or not.

“Parents may favor one child over another, for a lot of reasons. The child may have an easy temperament (性情) or might behave particularly well or may look like you,” says Susan Newman, a psychologist. “But regardless of the reason, every child must be made to feel loved and special, in order to fully develop.” Newman warns that favoring one child over their siblings (兄弟姐妹) publicly can have a significantly negative effect.

“The unfavored child can feel defeated, and unmotivated, as a result of working hard to get parental support, with no success,” says Yelena Gidenko, a licensed counselor. “He orshe may also suffer from depression and become angry, bitter, or jealous,” she adds Children feeling this way may act out, in an effort to get their parent’s attention, making matters worse. They may also behave inappropriately, becoming the black sheep, which they believe their parents already see. “Unfavored children may have a hard time accepting who they are, since they do not feel accepted by their parents,” adds Gidenko.

Favoritism is not exactly a boon for the favored child, either. Kids who feel that they are their parent’s favorite sometimes translate that into a go pass for their behavior in future relationships. “Favored children may feel a sense of entitlement, and that rules do not apply to them,” says Gidenko. This can negatively affect the way they act in school, at work, and in their friendships.

It may seem absurd, but the opposite can also occur. Favored children may experience anxiety and insecurity, resulting from their favorite child status. “Children are observant. They know when they are getting praise for things they have not earned, such as being your favorite. For this reason, they know, and fear, that these things might be taken away fromthem at any time, for any reason,” says Gidenko

Newman urges parents to remember that it’s not possible to treat children equally because they are all different. What parents can, and should do is talk to their kids about how, and why, they treat them the way they do. “According to research, parents don’t talkabout this. They don’t say why one child gets more time than another. If they do, they are preserving their bond with each child,” says Newman