1 . In early 2023, OpenAI’s ChatGPT brought a new age—one in which artificial intelligence (AI) went from a dream to an issue for workers. Many workers may have believed that burger-flipping (翻汉堡包的) robots in fast food restaurants would be the first to be replaced by AI tools. Yet the light-speed use of AI tools may now mean knowledge-work jobs that were long considered “safe” could be endangered even faster than workers expected.

Robots that act like AI coworkers are on the way—and in some cases, they’re already here. In early December 2023, Artisan AI—a startup founded by Jaspar Carmichae-Jack—showed its first “Artisan”, an AI-powered digital worker called “Ava” who will work as a saleswoman. “She can make suggestions, edit campaigns, join meetings and take notes,” Carmichael-Jack says. “Our goal is to have Artisans working alongside humans directly and have cohesion (凝聚力), and we want the boring work to be moved onto the Artisan, which doesn’t have feelings about whether something is boring or difficult.”

Although AI technology is already shaking the workforce, “we’re still at the beginning” when it comes to AI fully combined into the workplace, says Erik Brynjolfsson, a Stanford University professor. He says as AI plays a more important role in economical fields, it should increase output and money for businesses. The question, however, is what the human toll of that growth will be, particularly in terms of job losses.

Whether the workers are reduced by AI technologies will be a choice. Workers will need to have the right to decide how AI is introduced and used in some industries. One example of this is the agreement between the Screen Actors Guild and Hollywood studios that sets limits on the use of AI in film and television production. The question is whether other industries will follow the example to protect their workers’ living.

2 . A new study by a team of researchers shows that searching to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing misinformation, not the opposite.

The reason for this outcome may be explained by search-engine outputs in the study. The researchers found that this phenomenon is concentrated among individuals for whom search engines return lower-quality information.

“This points to the danger that ‘data voids’ — areas of the information ecosystem that are dominated by low quality, or even outright false, news and information — may be playing a resulting role in the online search process, leading to low return of credible information or, more alarming, the appearance of non-credible information at the top of search results,” observes lead author Kevin Aslett, an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida.

To study the impact, they recruited participants through both Qualtrics and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for a series of five experiments and with the aim of measuring the impact of a common behavior: searching online to evaluate news (SOTEN).

The first four studies tested the following aspects of online search behavior and impact:

◎ The effect of SOTEN on belief in both false or misleading and true news directly within two days an article’s publication

◎ Whether the effect of SOTEN can change an individual’s evaluation after they had already assessed the truthfulness of a news story

◎ The effect of SOTEN months after publication

◎ The effect of SOTEN on recent news about a key topic with significant news coverage

A fifth study combined a survey with web-tracking data in order to identify the effect of exposure to both low- and high-quality search-engine results on belief in misinformation.

Across the five studies, the authors found that the act of searching online to evaluate news led to a statistically significant increase in belief in misinformation. This occurred whether it was shortly after the publication of misinformation or months later. This finding suggests that the passage of time does not lessen the impact of SOTEN on increasing the likelihood of believing false news stories to be true. Moreover, the fifth study showed that this phenomenon is concentrated among individuals for whom search engines return lower-quality information.

“The findings highlight the need for media literacy programs to ground recommendations in search engines to invest in solutions to the challenges identified by this research,” concludes Joshua A Tucker, professor of politics.

5 . Recently, after I gave a virtual presentation on my book Indistractable, a listener wrote something in the Zoom chat that drove me crazy, “This is great but wouldn’t work for me. I’m a Gemini (双子星座的人).”

Ironically, the Zoom listener is right. If she thinks she’s incapable, she’ll prove it correct — whether it has anything to do with the stars and moon or not. Her inflexible self-identification denies her the chance to improve her life. It’s incredibly self-limiting.

That’s why we should stop defining ourselves as fixed identities and nouns, and instead start describing ourselves using verbs.

Words are powerful. Linguistic research shows that language shapes people and culture; it can also give us insight into ourselves and our behavior. In a well-known study, researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen had all students in the same elementary school take a standard IQ test. Then they randomly selected a group of students, regardless of their test results, and told teachers the group would show “dramatic intellectual growth”. Eight months later, those students scored significantly higher on an IQ test. The study concluded that teachers’ positive perception of students correlated to those students’ high performance on intellectual and academic tests. The labels the children received became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy (预言).

That’s because language shapes expectations, which shape our reality. If we have experiences that lead us to label ourselves with specific nouns during our life, then we are likely to stick with those labels and the behaviors that go with them.

Using verbs to identify ourselves is an effective method for releasing “trapped priors”—a term in psychology for a perception of reality that’s affected or trapped by past experiences. Verbs are action words well suited to describing short-lived behaviors that can and do change. They don’t lay claim to our entire identity, but they acknowledge that we are people first and foremost, not whatever a singular noun may say we are. So, instead of saying, “I am a procrastinator (拖拉者)”, you should say, “I am a person who often procrastinates.”

By focusing on our behaviors, not fixed characteristics, we can release harmful perceptions of ourselves that hold us back from trying methods that might improve our lives — like those that can help us achieve the critical skill of being indistractable.

6 . In recent years, much of my life as a consumer has shifted to what I like to call background. As I’ve subscribed to more apps and streaming platforms, significant sums of my money tend to slip away each month without my ever thinking about it.

Think of it as an automated trade. Spending without the trouble of spending. Acquaint ion without action. Or thought.

But while this flood of subscriptions was sold to me on the condition that it would make my life more trouble-free, there was a certain shock I felt upon discovering how much I was spending without realizing each month ($179.45).

You see, the thing about background spending is that it tends to happen, well, in the background without your full attention. And there lies the point.

“Hand over your credit card details and let us take care of the rest,” these companies promote. But by again sing their name, we’ve become lazy, positive consumers. And this laziness breeds (导致) more laziness because most of us can’t be bothered with conducting regular reviews of our subscription spending. We’re too lazy to even notice or cancel it!

I know it’s not just me who is suddenly living life as a smart-braised subscriber. The average consumer spends $273 per month on subscriptions, according to a 2021 study of 2,500 by digital services firm West Morose. Not a single person surveyed knew what his actually monthly spending was.

It’s understandable why this model is so attractive to businesses. As companies questioned traditional advertising models, subscription offered the promise of “selling once and earning forever.” And while subscription services have been around for decades (think Wine of the Month Club), more customers have been willing to sign up thanks to the widespread availability of smartphones and the increasing ease of home delivery.

While these subscription promise ease and happiness, not all of us are satisfied. Last year, the Kameny Institute found 40 percent of consumer believe they have too many subscriptions. Almost half of us also think we pay too much for streaming video-on-demand subscriptions.

In today’s world, technology has become a necessary part of our lives. However, with the increasing     1     (present) of technology, we also face challenges     2     arise from its use.

One of the concerns that technology poses (造成)     3     (be) the use of persuasive design techniques. Today, many apps and platforms     4     (design) to keep us engaged for as long as possible, often leading to addictive behavior. To navigate this dilemma (窘境), we need to be aware     5     these techniques and take intentional steps     6     (limit) our usage. Setting time limits for app usage, disabling unnecessary notifications (通知), and     7     (practise) mindfulness when using technology can help us break free from the grip of persuasive design.

Another concern comes from balancing our virtual and real relationships. We can     8     (easy) get caught up in the virtual world while ignoring our face-to-face interactions. To address this, we must set aside time for real-life connections and prioritize (优先考虑)     9     (meaning) interactions with those around us.

Navigating responsible technology use is     10     ongoing journey in our ever-changing digital landscape. We should use technology for the greater good while looking out for its potential traps. Together, we can shape a more responsible technological future.