AI could give us our lives back – if we don’t blow it

The other day I pulled into the parking lot of a client’s offices and in the spot next to me was a woman sitting in her car blasting music. She caught me looking and rolled down her window and said, “I’ll be inside in a minute … Just enjoying my last few moments of freedom!”Is this way we want to live? No, it’s not.Elon Musk recently predicted work will be optional. “It’ll be like playing sports or a video game or something like that,” he said. Sounds nice

‘Cruel hoax’ or ‘work-life balance nirvana’: whatever happened to the four-day work week?

It has been years since the four-day work week was floated as a solution to everything from traffic congestion to burnout. So why aren’t we all doing it now?Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our weekend culture and lifestyle emailDuring the global soul-searching that followed the rupture of Covid-19 lockdowns, one idea for how we might live better suddenly seemed plausible: the four-day work week.The model is simple but somewhat counterintuitive. Employees work fewer hours for the same salary while getting the same amount of (or even more) work done. Advocates say this is made possible by reducing meeting times, streamlining workflows and prioritising work more efficiently

Meta and Google trial: are infinite scroll and autoplay creating addicts?

It was as “easy as ABC”, claimed the lawyer prosecuting a landmark social media harm case against Meta and Google which heard closing arguments this week. The defendants were guilty, said Mark Lanier, of “addicting the brains of children”. Not true, replied the tech companies. Meta insisted providing young people with a “safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work”.Features such as autoplay videos, infinite scrolling and constantly chirruping alerts woven into the fabric of online platforms were central to the six-week trial in Los Angeles, which has been compared to the cases against tobacco companies in the 1990s

New study raises concerns about AI chatbots fueling delusional thinking

A new scientific review raises concerns about how chatbots powered by artificial intelligence may encourage delusional thinking, especially in vulnerable people.A summary of existing evidence on artificial intelligence-induced psychosis was published last week in the Lancet Psychiatry, highlighting how chatbots can encourage delusional thinking – though possibly only in people who are already vulnerable to psychotic symptoms. The authors advocate for clinical testing of AI chatbots in conjunction with trained mental health professionals.For his paper, Dr Hamilton Morrin, a psychiatrist and researcher at King’s College in London, analyzed 20 media reports on so-called “AI psychosis”, which describes current theories as to how chatbots might induce or exacerbate delusions.“Emerging evidence indicates that agential AI might validate or amplify delusional or grandiose content, particularly in users already vulnerable to psychosis, although it is not clear whether these interactions can result in the emergence of de novo psychosis in the absence of pre-existing vulnerability,” he wrote

More countries, bigger audience but controversy lingered in Milano Cortina

The theme of the closing ceremony of the Winter Paralympics, held at the Olympic curling arena in Cortina D’Ampezzo, was “Italian Souvenir”. It followed, through dance and music, the ambitions of a young girl, played by Sofia Tansella who has spinal muscular atrophy, to see her dreams represented in the world. It was of course a metaphor for the Paralympic movement more broadly, a movement that has been boosted by a successful two weeks in Milano Cortina.The International Paralympic Committee has been able to boast a number of striking milestones at these Games, on the 50th anniversary of the first. Milano Cortina has had the most countries in competition, 55, and the most to win medals, 27

Paris paradox: did Borthwick liberate England or was it down to player power? | Gerard Meagher

Did England play like that because of Steve Borthwick or in spite of him? For all that the Rugby Football Union will deep dive, look under the bonnet, get into the weeds – pick your own favourite bit of corporate speak – it is the fundamental question that Bill Sweeney and his review panel must ask in the coming weeks. Did Borthwick liberate his players against France, or did they take matters into their own hands?As usual, the panel will include input from Sweeney and Conor O’Shea as well as those from outside the building who insist on anonymity. It is said that despite the huge upswing in performance in defeat against France, the RFU is still determined to establish what went wrong during this Six Nations. That is a positive sign because when the dust settles, this still goes down as their worst-ever championship. The noises coming from the RFU suggest that they will not be blinded by the razzle-dazzle in Paris, that Borthwick still has a case to answer