The Economist is carbon-neutralized. The magazine decided that for its 16 page 'Green' section it would make a difference, not just in words, but in actions.
The idea sprang to life in the latest edition of The Economist, with a special environment section called "A survey of climate change". The latest issue of the magazine has been carbon-neutralized. The Economist calculated the impact on the environment that the process of publishing this month's issue would have, "so Carbon Neutral could trap the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (118 tons) in a U.S. mine as a way of neutralizing the emissions created by producing the magazine -- cost about $1,200." (Ad Age)
When interviewed, Emma Duncan, Deputy Editor of The Economist, explained that advertisers were quick to jump on the idea of participating in this month's issue, especially companies that are keen on getting an environmentally friendly message across. They even got ads from companies that rarely advertise !
However the Economist not only took a bold step on this issue, the whole section was nearly all produced by Ms Duncan. Her work spanned over a four month period, travelling around the world to write the various stories that appear in this special section. The Economist found a novel and highly appropriate way of getting the message across. Savvy to on-line trends, they have a podcast interview of Emma Duncan that you can download or play directly from the site.
“We need to think about climate change maybe as individuals think about insuring their houses: you spend maybe 1% of your annual income insuring your house not because you think it's going to burn down, but because if by any chance it did burn down, the consequences for you would be disastrous.â€
Emma Duncan, Deputy Editor of The Economist
So it's an all round thumbs up for this prestigious magazine that will hopefully provide full access to their content soon.
I question the reliability and accuracy of Generative AI (GenAI) in enterprise scenarios, particularly when faced with adversarial questions, highlighting that current Large Language Models (LLMs) may be data-rich but lack in reasoning and causality. I would call for a more balanced approach to AI adoption in cases of assisting users, requiring supervision, and the need for better LLM models that can be trusted, learn, and reason.
I discuss my experience with chatbots, contrasting older rules-based systems with newer GenAI (General Artificial Intelligence) chatbots. We cannot dismiss the creative capabilities of GenAI-based chatbots, but these systems lack reliability, especially in customer-facing applications, and improvements in the way AI is structured could lead to a "software renaissance," potentially reducing society's technical debt.
The article discusses the contrasting debate on how AI safety is and should be managed, its impact on technical debt, and its societal implications.
It notes the Center for AI Safety's call for a worldwide focus on the risks of AI, and Meredith Whittaker's criticism that such warnings preserve the status quo, strengthening tech giants' dominance. The piece also highlights AI's potential to decrease societal and technical debt by making software production cheaper, simpler, and resulting in far more innovation. It provides examples of cost-effective open-source models that perform well and emphasizes the rapid pace of AI innovation. Last, the article emphasises the need for adaptive legislation to match the pace of AI innovation, empowering suitable government entities for oversight, defining appropriate scopes for legislation and regulation, addressing ethical issues and biases in AI, and promoting public engagement in AI regulatory decisions.
Japan has made its ruling on the situation between Content creators and Businesses. Japanese companies that use AI have the freedom to use content for training purposes without the burden of copyright laws. This news about the copyright laws in Japan reported over at Technomancers is seen as Businesses: 1 / Content Creators: 0 The […]