Tech: What AI is doing to our brains
123rf
Technology commentator Mark Pesce looks at what studies are discovering about our brains as we use AI - and it probably won't surprise you.
Could pre-2022 human-produced information become more valuable than other data because it hasn't been touched by AI?
And what happens when someone takes everything you've ever written or posted and re-animated you as an 'AI ghost'?
Mark Pesce is a futurist, writer, educator and broadcaster.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Techday NZ
2 days ago
- Techday NZ
AI sparks new jobs as roles shift and evolve toward 2030
Artificial intelligence is not just changing job structures, but also giving rise to entirely new roles that could define the workforce in the coming decade. While recent headlines have highlighted job reductions driven by AI, such as the layoff of 9,000 employees at Microsoft, multiple industry observers suggest that the technology's long-term impact is equally about job transformation and creation. Debate on displacement Concerns about job loss due to AI-driven automation have dominated public discourse. A 2023 report from McKinsey projected that as many as 800 million workers worldwide may see their roles replaced or altered by automation by 2030. The same study noted, however, that artificial intelligence is also likely to generate more employment in areas where technology augments rather than replaces human effort, particularly in sectors involving complex problems, creativity, or decision-making. OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman, discussing the shifting landscape, commented on the emergence of new types of work: a shift towards jobs requiring AI supervision, creativity, and advanced problem-solving skills. In remarks on AI's impact in office settings, Ford Chief Executive Officer Jim Farley predicted that artificial intelligence could result in the reduction of half of all white-collar positions. Farley added that such changes are likely to spur the creation of new forms of work centred on partnership between people and machines. "We're watching an evolution, not an extinction. AI is changing what humans do, not eliminating the need for them. The future workforce will be more hybrid, combining machine intelligence with human judgment," says Gavin Yi, CEO of Yijin Hardware, a global leader in precision CNC manufacturing. New roles on the horizon Industry experts and employers have begun outlining specific roles that artificial intelligence is likely to spawn by the end of the decade, with some already being advertised and filled. One such job is the prompt engineer. This position is focused on constructing detailed prompts that guide generative AI tools — such as ChatGPT — to produce desired outputs. Prompt engineers require a combination of logical reasoning, linguistic skill, and creative thinking. Organisations across technology, law, and education have started seeking out candidates for these roles. "Prompt engineering is to AI what coding was to the early days of the internet," says Yi. Another role gaining traction is that of the AI ethics officer. With artificial intelligence now having far-reaching applications in areas like credit assessment and criminal justice, companies are expected to need specialists who develop and monitor guidelines for fairness, transparency, and compliance with evolving international regulations. The interface between healthcare and technology is also expected to yield new jobs. The AI-assisted healthcare technician is envisioned as a professional able to operate and manage AI diagnostic tools, interpret data, and work directly alongside medical practitioners and patients. Manufacturing and logistics sectors are investing in intelligent machinery, but those systems require oversight. The AI maintenance specialist is likely to merge traditional mechanical expertise with a strong understanding of AI system behaviours. "The factory worker of tomorrow won't just hold a wrench. They'll monitor dashboards and algorithms too," Yi explains. There is also growing recognition of AI's environmental impact. The sustainable AI analyst is projected to focus on ensuring that artificial intelligence systems are developed and operated using minimal energy, maximising efficiency and supporting broader corporate sustainability objectives. Creative industries stand to be reshaped by artificial intelligence as well. The position of AI-enhanced creative director would blend human creative leadership with the use of machine-generated content, enabling experimentation at greater scale and efficiency. Finally, with artificial intelligence being integrated into daily work tools and public sector processes, the need for AI literacy educators is expected to rise. These professionals would be dedicated to instructing colleagues, students, and government personnel in effective and ethical use of AI technologies. Workforce adaptation Yi cautions against planning for roles that may soon vanish, stating: "In 2010, nobody trained to be a social media manager. By 2020, it was a core role in nearly every company," he says. "In 2025, we're already seeing new jobs emerge. The smartest thing anyone can do is pay attention to where AI is creating opportunity, not just where it's causing fear." He recommends prioritising skills such as problem-solving, adaptability, communication, and at least a basic knowledge of how AI systems operate, as these are likely to remain relevant. "AI won't kill jobs," Yi says. "But it will make some jobs feel obsolete. People who learn how to work with AI instead of against it will come out ahead."
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Princeton Consumer Research lab tested all eight sunscreens that failed SPF claims
By Echo Hui , Ninah Kopel and Rachel Carbonell , ABC Do you know how much protection your sunscreen is offering? Photo: Unsplash At least half the sunscreens that failed to meet their SPF claims in recent testing had their original SPF certification conducted at an overseas laboratory whose test results are now being called into question by senior industry experts. An ABC investigation can reveal that the lab, Princeton Consumer Research (PCR), is used by a wide range of sunscreen makers to verify their SPF claims before they are allowed on the Australian market. Consumer group Choice released test results from an Australian lab for 20 popular sunscreens last month and found that 16 of them did not meet their SPF 50 label claim, including one that returned an SPF result of just four. In response to the findings, the brands said they had their own original testing showing their SPF was compliant. The ABC can reveal that at least eight of those tests were performed by Princeton Consumer Research, which returned significantly higher SPF results than the Choice testing. A number of senior industry experts have raised concerns about PCR's testing methodology and calculations. Mathias Rohr, one of the world's top sunscreen testing experts, said he had never seen results like PCR's in his entire career, while another senior sunscreen scientist told the ABC the results warranted investigation. The ABC has confirmed that the underperforming sunscreens which used PCR for their initial SPF validation include three Cancer Council products, one Woolworths sunscreen, one Coles sunscreen, one Ultra Violette sunscreen, one Bondi Sands sunscreen and a Sun Bum product. Another two sunscreens that met their SPF 50 label in the Choice testing - a MECCA sunscreen and a Cancer Council Kids sunscreen - used PCR, with the PCR lab returning much higher SPF results. Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen returned the worst result in the Choice testing, with an SPF of just four. Ultra Violette rejected the Choice result and published two of its own tests conducted by PCR - one commissioned immediately after the Choice investigation, as well as its original testing. Both returned an SPF value above 60. But industry experts have raised serious concerns about the reliability of PCR's testing for Ultra Violette. In SPF testing, a panel of ten volunteers is exposed to UV rays with and without sunscreen applied. The readings are then used to calculate an SPF result for each volunteer. The mean of those results is the final SPF. Mathias Rohr, chief operating officer of the Germany-based Normec Schrader Institute, described the SPF results in PCR's original report as "quite surprising". In an email, Dr Rohr said there was very little variation in the SPF number recorded for each test subject. He said his lab had conducted SPF testing for decades, spanning more than 1,000 products a year, and that "a table of results including only two different numbers is quite surprising for me". "In my entire career, we have not [had] such homogeneous results in an in vivo [human] SPF test," Dr Rohr said. The institute was engaged by Choice to conduct a specific "validation" test on Ultra Violette's product, because the SPF results were so low compared to the other sunscreens. The validation test returned an SPF result of five, in line with Choice's original result of four. Ultra Violette criticised the validation test as it was performed on a smaller panel of people than the original. Two other experts not involved in Choice's testing agreed that the lack of variation in individual SPF test results was a red flag. One industry scientist who looked over a number of PCR's test results told the ABC it was "unusual to see this kind of spread of SPF results" and it "would never happen in real life". "All I could do would be to suggest, recommend that they investigate that data because it doesn't look realistic." While he said there may be a valid explanation for the uniformity of data, "I don't have any explanation for why that has happened like that". An expert scientific statistician who looked over the same PCR results agreed. He said this type of test procedure could generate identical values "more often than one might suspect" but he said, "it does seem odd that they're lining up that cleanly". "There is no obvious data manipulation as far as I can tell, however it is odd how frequently the same numbers appear for different individuals and in different tests," he said. "It seems unusual, and I would ask the lab people about why they're getting that." PCR technical director Barrie Drewitt, who is also one of the lab's principal investigators, defended the results. While conceding the uniformity of SPF values was "uncommon", he insisted it was "not inherently implausible, particularly with high-performing products and consistent application across a controlled test environment". A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said it had now "engaged another [separate] lab to re-test the SPF of the product". "That testing is currently underway." The spokesperson added that because PCR is an internationally accredited lab, "we've never had reason to doubt the accuracy of the lab's results". The Cancer Council's PCR reports released to the ABC display a similar lack of variability in their individual test subject results. Of the four Cancer Council products tested by Choice, three didn't meet their SPF label claims and one did. In one test, nine of the ten volunteers received exactly the same results, while in three other tests, the results of eight volunteers were identical. Another PCR technical director, Jack Donnelly, conceded that the lack of variability was not as common as more variation between subjects. "However, it is not rare to see. It just so happens the test results you are observing have a consistent SPF value between each subject," he said. In a statement, the Cancer Council said it was committed to providing high quality, reliable sunscreens. "The Choice findings have raised questions about the accuracy of SPF test results, and we are investigating the matter thoroughly." It said the organisation had already submitted all four products tested by Choice to a different independent international laboratory. "Princeton Consumer Research is a commonly used facility for SPF testing across the industry," it said. The Cancer Council spokesperson said that even sunscreens that scored lower than their SPF label claim still provided protection. "It is important to keep using sunscreen … What matters most is using any broad-spectrum sunscreen correctly and consistently." The ABC investigation has also discovered that in 2010, Drewitt was disqualified from being a company director in the UK for eight years, for financial mismanagement at a previous testing firm. Euroderm Research went into liquidation in 2008, owing creditors more than 500,000 British pounds ($1,037,307). Drewitt was also accused of fabricating clinical trial data in 2006 and 2007 at Euroderm Research. According to media reports, Drewitt and others at the company were charged with contravening the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations in 2011. However, the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) presented no evidence for these charges at the trial, and the charges were withdrawn. The judge ordered the jury to find Drewitt and his co-defendants not guilty. The ABC is not suggesting any wrongdoing by Drewitt in relation to the historical charges that were dismissed. Drewitt did not comment on his directorship disqualification, but said in a statement that the clinical trial charges were laid over a decade ago and "thrown out of court". "It is also worth noting that I was not an owner nor a director of that company. I was an employee. "The claims were not only dismissed but effectively proven to be without merit. "It is deeply misleading to suggest otherwise or to infer wrongdoing from a matter that was legally resolved in our favour." He added that the historical accusation had "no bearing on the company I currently am employed by [Princeton Consumer Research]". "Our methodologies, data integrity, and quality control processes are robust and verifiable," Mr Drewitt said. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates sunscreens in Australia, told the ABC it was recently made aware of Drewitt's previous business record. However, the TGA told the ABC it did not directly regulate SPF testing by third-party labs such as PCR. Instead, it relied on self-certification by sunscreen manufacturers that their products met all regulatory requirements. "As such, the TGA does not hold information regarding whether PCR is engaged by a majority of sunscreen sponsors," a spokesperson said. "The TGA is investigating the Choice findings and will take regulatory action as required," the spokesperson said. The Cancer Council told the ABC it was committed to working closely with the TGA as they progressed their investigation. Campbell Richards, chief executive of Baxter Laboratories, one of Australia's largest sunscreen manufacturers, which engages laboratories including PCR for testing, said the company took questions around the integrity of sunscreen testing seriously. "Confidence in SPF testing is a priority for us and for our partners. We recognise the significance of this moment for the category and are committed to contributing to clarity and trust across the sector," Richards said. "We are monitoring developments closely and remain focused on ensuring that the products we are responsible for meet the expected standards of safety, efficacy, and regulatory compliance," he said. A TGA spokesperson also reiterated that sunscreen was "an important measure to prevent harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, in addition to seeking shade, wearing a wide-brimmed hat, wearing protective clothing and using sunglasses". The ABC approached all the other companies that had products which underperformed in the Choice review and used PCR for their original SPF certification. A spokesperson for Woolworths said all its own brand sunscreens were regularly tested as per Australian regulations. A spokesperson for Coles said as soon as it became aware of Choice's query it conducted a review, and its product met the necessary requirements. The ABC has confirmed Bondi Sands's underperforming sunscreen in Choice's review, its SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen, also used PCR for its original testing. A spokesperson for Bondi Sands did not respond to specific questions about PCR's testing but said "we choose our manufacturing partners and testing laboratories carefully based on our high quality and safety standards". Sun Bum didn't reply to a series of questions, but the ABC has confirmed its product, which received an SPF rating of 39.5 in the Choice review, also had its validation SPF testing conducted by PCR. Aldi, Banana Boat, and Nivea also returned SPF results lower than their advertised claims in Choice's investigation, but would not disclose which labs conducted their testing. Neutrogena had one product that didn't meet its label claim, and told the ABC it didn't use PCR for its SPF testing for that product. In a statement from Invisible Zinc, which also didn't meet its label claim, said its testing was performed at an Australian lab, and not PCR. The MECCA sunscreen met its SPF claim according to the Choice review. A spokesperson for the company said it used PCR. "We are incredibly passionate about SPF and we take the formulation and testing of our sunscreen protection products extremely seriously," the MECCA spokesperson said. La Roche Posay's product also met its label claim but the company did not respond to the ABC's questions about which sunscreen lab it used. - ABC
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Nvidia briefly on track to become world's most valuable company ever
By Noel Randewich and Shashwat Chauhan , Reuters The Nvidia logo on a mobile phone, on 31 January, 2025. Photo: AFP/ Beata Zawrzel Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab hit a market value of US$3.92 trillion, briefly putting it on track to become the most valuable company in history, as Wall Street doubled down on optimism about AI. Shares of the leading designer of high-end AI chips rose as much as 2.4 percent to US$160.98 in morning trading, giving the company a higher market capitalization than Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab record closing value of US$3.915 trillion on 26 December, 2024. The shares were last up 1.5 percent at $159.60, leaving Nvidia's stock market value at $3.89 trillion, just short of Apple's record. Nvidia's newest chips have made gains in training the largest artificial-intelligence models, fueling demand for products by the Santa Clara, California, company. Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab is currently the second-most valuable company on Wall Street, with a market capitalisation of $3.7 trillion as its shares rose 1.7 percent to $499.56. Apple rose 0.8 percent, giving it a market value of $3.19 trillion, in third place. A race among Microsoft, (AMZN.O), opens new tab, Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab, Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab and Tesla (TSLA.O), opens new tab to build AI data centers and dominate the emerging technology has fueled insatiable demand for Nvidia's high-end processors. "When the first company crossed a trillion dollars, it was amazing. And now you're talking four trillion, which is just incredible. It tells you that there's this huge rush with AI spending and everybody's chasing it right now," said Joe Saluzzi, co-manager of trading at Themis Trading. The stock market value of Nvidia, whose core technology was developed to power video games, has increased nearly eight-fold over the past four years, from $500 billion in 2021 to now near $4 trillion. Nvidia is now worth more than the combined value of the Canadian and Mexican stock markets, according to LSEG data. The tech company also exceeds the total value of all publicly listed companies in the United Kingdom. Nvidia recently traded at about 32 times analysts' expected earnings for the next 12 months, below its average of about 41 over the past five years, according to LSEG data. That relatively modest price-to-earnings valuation reflects steadily increasing earnings estimates that have outpaced Nvidia's sizable stock gains. The company's stock has now rebounded more than 68 percent from its recent closing low on 4 April, when Wall Street was reeling from President Donald Trump's global tariff announcements. US stocks, including Nvidia, have recovered on expectations that the White House will cement trade deals to soften Trump's tariffs. Nvidia's swelling market capitalization underscores Wall Street's big bets on the proliferation of generative AI technology, with the chipmaker's hardware serving as the foundation. The sharp increases in the shares of Nvidia and other Wall Street heavyweights have left people who save for their retirements through widely used S&P 500 index funds heavily exposed to the future of AI technology. Nvidia now accounts for 7 percent of the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab. Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Alphabet together make up 28 percent of the index. "I strongly believe that AI is a greatly productive tool, but I am fairly sure that the current delivery of AI via large language models and large reasoning models are unlikely to live up to the hype," cautioned Kim Forrest, chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners. Co-founded in 1993 by CEO Jensen Huang, Nvidia has evolved from a niche company popular among video game enthusiasts into Wall Street's barometer for the AI industry. The stock's recent rally comes after a slow first half of the year, when investor optimism about AI took a back seat to worries about tariffs and Trump's trade dispute with Beijing. Chinese startup DeepSeek in January triggered a selloff in global equities markets with a cut-price AI model that outperformed many Western competitors and sparked speculation that companies might spend less on high-end processors. In November of last year, Nvidia took over the spot on the Dow Jones Industrial Average formerly occupied by chipmaker Intel (INTC.O), opens new tab, reflecting a major shift in the semiconductor industry toward AI-linked development and the graphics processing hardware pioneered by Nvidia. - Reuters
