Home/News/Page 12

Qaskme Latest Questions

mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

the next wave of trade barriers

companynews
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows: Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut. By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in priceRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers

    • Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows:
    • Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut.
    • By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in price.
    • This should give local industries a chance to keep going — and keeping paying wages.
    • Politically, tariffs are typically framed as “protecting our workers” from low-wage undercutting by foreign workers.

    The reality: varied job outcomes

    1. Temporary job protection

    Tariffs can slow down layoffs in specific industries (steel, textiles, or ag). Workers in those sectors do typically see temporary job protection.

    As an example, American steel tariffs in the 2000s did protect some steel jobs in the short run.

    2. But jobs relocate, not just save

    When tariffs raise the price of imports, industries that use the imports as inputs are negatively affected. Automakers or construction firms that rely on steel are more costly to make.

    That can lead to employment decreases in downstream industries — typically of greater size than jobs saved. A classic analysis of American steel tariffs found that greater numbers of jobs were lost in steel-using industries than jobs saved in steel production.

    3. Long-term competitiveness

    If tariffs become permanent, domestic businesses lose the incentive to innovate or become modernized. That can lock in inefficiency and end up costing jobs anyway, as the international market continues to move forward.

    The hidden sticker shock: shoppers cover the cost

    • That’s where the human story becomes a big part: tariffs don’t just affect business — they show up in everyday prices.
    • An import tariff on washing machines? Consumers pay more at the store.
    • An import tax on fertilizer? Consumers pay more at the farm gate, which subsequently means higher grocery bills.
    • A tax on appliances and computers? Small retailers attempting to modernize equipment are slapped with bigger bills.
    • The ripple effect spreads throughout the economy. Even if only a few jobs are preserved, millions of customers pay a little bit more each day. For poorer households, those extra pennies on staples feel like an oppressive burden.

    The paradox

    • And tariffs stand at the middle of a paradox:
    • Virtually visible gain: Preserving a few thousand jobs in a factory town — easy to see, compelling in politics.
    • Hidden cost: Millions of consumers quietly paying more, and small businesses growing less competitive — less obvious, but ubiquitous.
    • Economists prefer to point out that the cost per job saved with tariffs is extremely high if you include the price increases spread out through the population.

    The bigger picture: security vs. efficiency

    • It’s worth noting that tariffs aren’t always just about jobs or prices. Sometimes they’re about:
    • National security (i.e., protecting domestic semiconductor production).
    • Strategic resilience (i.e., making a country able to produce its own food or medical supplies).
    • Bargaining leverage in trade negotiations.
    • In those cases, governments would gleefully pay increased consumer prices as the cost of protecting “strategic” employment and industries.

    Human impact — who gains, who loses?

    • Winners: Workers in directly protected industries (at least in the short run). Politicians who can stand and deliver preserved jobs.

    Losers:

    • Higher-priced consumers for common goods.
    • Workers in industries that use the tariffed products as inputs (e.g., auto industry workers hit by steel tariffs).
    • Small businesses that have thin margins and cannot absorb new costs.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs generate some jobs at home, but they tend to do so at a collective expense to consumers and the economy in general. They’re akin to putting a bandage on one part of the economy while quietly sapping the strength of the rest of the body.

    If the intention is actually to protect workers, tariffs alone are not enough. They would need to be followed by retraining programs, innovation policy, and competitiveness investment — or otherwise, they are expensive band-aids that shift suffering around rather than curing it.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 02/09/2025In: , ,

small businesses and farmers

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The level playing field Tariffs don't hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget. For lRead more

    The level playing field

    Tariffs don’t hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget.

    For large companies, tariffs are often a problem they can handle. For farmers and small businesses, tariffs tend to be a storm they cannot weather.

    1. The cost to small businesses

     Increased cost of inputs, fewer buffer

    Small businesses tend to buy raw materials, components, or finished products in smaller quantities. When tariffs increase the cost of such imports, small businesses cannot always obtain rebates or easily change suppliers.

    In contrast to big companies, they lack treasury staff and global supplier networks. That leaves tariffs directly squeezing margins — and occasionally forcing price increases customers resist.

    Paperwork and red tape

    Tariffs impose burdens of compliance: paperwork, customs clearance, and codes of classification. For a large multinational, that is managed by legal and logistics functions. For a small company, the owner may be doing the accounting at midnight, so trade bureaucracy is a significant hidden expense.

     Survival vs. strategy

    Lots of small businesses operate on wafer-thin margins. Even a small tariff shock can determine if a café ordering specialty coffee beans keeps going, or if a craft producer who depends on imported steel goes under.

    While giants can afford to take losses for the sake of long-term strategy — their survival timescale often being years or even decades — they can’t.

    2. The special squeeze for farmers

    Farmers, particularly in emerging economies, exist at the interface of trade policy.

    When they purchase inputs

    Seeds, fertilizer, feed, and machinery tend to be imported. Tariffs on inputs translate into increased costs at planting time, with no guarantee of improved selling prices at harvest.

    Small farmers have less negotiating power and less credit availability to absorb those spikes.

    When they sell crops

    If another nation strikes back with tariffs on their exports, farmers are directly impacted. For instance, during the U.S.–China trade war, American soybean farmers lost billions when China put retaliatory tariffs on their products, resulting in oversupply and crashing prices at home. Large agribusinesses might hedge or switch markets — but small to mid-size family farms suffered.

    Market volatility

    Agriculture is already unpredictable with weather and bugs. Throw in trade wars, and small farmers have yet another risk they cannot control. A large agribusiness may diversify internationally; a farmer bound to a local co-op has no one else to sell to.

    3. How large corporations manage better

     Diversification

    Large firms diversify by nations. If one export market imposes tariffs, they switch to another. If one supplier becomes expensive, they have five others in trouble.

    Economies of scale

    Large operators can buffer tariff expense, negotiate with suppliers, or mechanize operations to lower unit cost. They may even transmit some of the tariff expense to smaller suppliers — solidifying their grip.

    Political leverage

    Large companies influence governments, set terms for trade negotiations, or even get exemptions. Small farmers and businesses hardly enjoy the same access or clout.

    4. The ripple effect on communities

    When small businesses and farms get hurt by tariffs, the hurt spreads quickly. Local economies established on family farms and small shops can crumble, causing job losses and rural vitality in decline.

    Meanwhile, large corporations tend to recover more quickly, displacing smaller competitors in the process — which threatens further industry consolidation (fewer, larger competitors controlling markets).

    5. The human factor — resilience and inventiveness

    • In spite of all these, however, small business and farmers tend to react in clever ways:
    • Farmers organize cooperatives to share resources and export together.
    • Small enterprises rebrand as “local and genuine,” turning to domestic sources when imports become expensive.
    • Others shift to specialty markets less exposed to tariff price battles.
    • Yet these options take time, coordination, and chance — high-end luxuries not available to all small players.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs don’t fall evenly.

    • Large companies tend to have means of weathering or even taking advantage of tariff changes.
    • Farmers and small businesses are more sharply, more directly at risk — increased costs, lost markets, survival squeeze with fewer buffers.

    Policymakers tend to market tariffs as a means of “protecting domestic industries,” but in the absence of support schemes (credit lines, adjustment aid, cooperative arrangements, or exemptions for critical farm inputs), the very people they intend to shield — rural communities, family farms, and small shops — can end up bearing the brunt.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

tariffs as a tool for industrial grow

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors: They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologieRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries

    Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors:

    • They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologies (the classic “infant-industry” argument). Policymakers like tariffs because they’re politically visible and act fast. 

    • When paired with smart export promotion and learning policies, tariffs can be part of a sequence that helps firms become competitive on the global stage (some East Asian economies used protective measures early while pushing firms toward exports).

    So: tariffs can create the space for industrial development — but only if everything else lines up.

    The risks: how tariffs can trap a country into long-term isolation

    The historical record and modern analysis warn of numerous failure modes:

    1. Chronic protection → low productivity and complacency. If protection becomes permanent, firms stop innovating because they can survive behind a tariff wall. That creates inefficient industries that never scale internationally. Many accounts of import-substitution in Latin America document this pattern.

    2. Rent-seeking and political capture. Tariffs create clear winners — and lobbying pressure to keep protection in place even when it hurts the broader economy. That’s a political economy trap that turns temporary help into permanent privilege.

    3. Higher consumer prices and inequality. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imported goods; consumers — often lower-income households for whom imported essentials are a bigger share of spending — pay the bill. That can worsen poverty and political backlashes.

    4. Trade diversion and retaliation. Other countries can retaliate or shift trade patterns, which reduces market access for exporters and can shrink the size of markets domestic firms rely on. Over time that weakens integration into global value chains.

    5. Legal and reputational costs at the WTO and with partners. WTO disciplines allow some flexibility for developing countries, but persistent, broad protection can trigger disputes or reduce the willingness of investors to engage.

    A real-world illustration: many Latin American ISI experiments created protected domestic industries but delivered slow productivity growth, corruption, and a failure to integrate into competitive export markets — the very outcomes policymakers were trying to avoid.

    What distinguishes successful from failing tariff strategies?

    Look for a combination of policy design features:

    1. Temporary & time-bound protection. Protection should have a clear exit and be conditional on performance (e.g., productivity gains, export targets, cost reductions). Permanent tariffs usually signal failure.

    2. Targeted, narrow scope. Protect specific activities that have credible learning spillovers (e.g., complex manufacturing stages) rather than blanket tariffs across the economy. Broad, uniform tariffs encourage rent-seeking. 

    3. Complementary policies. Tariffs alone don’t make firms globally competitive. They must be paired with industrial credit, skills training, R&D support, good infrastructure, competition policy and export incentives. East Asian successes combined protection with export discipline and government capacity to pick and prune industries. 

    4. Clear performance metrics and sunset clauses. Tie protection to measurable outcomes (unit costs, product quality, export market share) and remove it automatically if goals are unmet. That reduces regulatory capture. 

    5. Open to trade and FDI where it matters. Even when protecting a sector, keep links to foreign suppliers, technology licensing, and export markets. Openness to investment and knowledge flows prevents isolation. 

    Practical alternatives and complements to tariffs

    If the aim is industrial growth, countries should consider a menu that includes — but is not limited to — modest, well-designed tariffs:

    • Active industrial policy tools: targeted subsidies, public procurement preferences, matched R&D grants, clusters/industrial parks, and export credit. These can be more transparent and conditional than tariffs. 

    • Trade facilitation & regulatory reform: cut costs for exporters (ports, customs, standards), so firms can reach global markets faster.

    • Skills and infrastructure investment: human capital and power/transport often matter more for competitiveness than tariffs.

    • Smart tariff design: temporary tariffs on intermediate goods only when there’s a clear domestic value-added strategy — and with exceptions for inputs that domestic producers can’t source. 

    Governance checklist — questions policymakers should ask before imposing tariffs

    (If you can’t answer “yes” to most of these, don’t go broad with tariffs.)

    • Do we have an explicit, time-bound plan (with milestones) for the industry?

    • Are the protections conditional on measurable productivity or export targets?

    • Do we have institutions that can enforce sunset clauses and prevent capture?

    • Are we maintaining openness in ways that keep technology and investment flowing?

    • Have we modeled the distributional costs (who pays) and have a mitigation plan for poor households?

    • How will partners or global value-chain buyers react — could we lose critical market access?

    Bottom line — a human take

    Tariffs are neither a silver bullet nor an automatic trap. They are a blunt instrument that can help buy time for learning if used sparingly, temporarily, and within a broader industrial strategy that pushes firms toward export competitiveness and innovation. But if tariffs are broad, permanent, or unaccompanied by investment in skills, competition, and market discipline, they tend to produce the opposite of what leaders want: stagnation, higher prices, and political capture that isolates the country.

    If you’re advising a government, don’t treat tariffs as the first lever — treat them as one temporary tool inside a tightly governed industrial policy playbook. The good news is that modern policy design (and the recent revival of evidence-based industrial policy) gives developing countries smarter options than the blunt ISI experiments of the past — but only if political leaders commit to transparency, metrics, and a sunset.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

tariff wars

news
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    Why tariffs are recessionary (the transmission channels) More expensive → intransigent inflation → tighter money Tariffs are import taxes, so they generally raise input and consumption prices. If inflation re-accelerates, central banks might keep rates up for longer, cooling investment and high-tickRead more

    Why tariffs are recessionary (the transmission channels)


    More expensive → intransigent inflation → tighter money
    Tariffs are import taxes, so they generally raise input and consumption prices.     If inflation re-accelerates, central banks might keep rates up for longer, cooling investment and high-ticket spending. IMF research connects tariff shocks and policy uncertainty with reduced output, exactly through these channels.

    Capex and hiring freeze due to uncertainty
    When companies can’t forecast future tariff levels or access to markets, they slow the opening of factories, hiring, and R&D.     The IMF cautioned that a prolonged rise in tariffs and uncertainty can sharply dampen global growth—not only through increased costs, but because managers hold back on the sidelines

    Supply-chain jams and re-routing expenses

    The 2018–19 U.S.–China episode did not only compress bilateral trade but diverted it, with expensive rewiring of value chains in Asia. That diversion is costly and takes time, which depresses productivity and margins. WTO analysis records substantial trade diversion and recurring high bilateral tariff levels even after “Phase One.

    Confidence shock to markets and consumers

    Markets discount future profits when world trade volumes totter. Consumers facing price surges and gloomy headlines might rein back discretionary expenditures—precisely the type of demand shock that has the potential to transform a slowdown into a slump. Leading forecasts (OECD/IMF) have identified tariff escalation as a primary source of downside risk to already tepid world growth.

    What recent evidence tells us

    2018–19 US-China trade war: Studies identify significant growth expenses, with tariffs landing mostly on US consumers and importers; IMF analysis points to U.S. GDP’s negative contribution from tariff shocks in 2018–19. The WTO reported steep bilateral trade drops and expensive diversion.

    Today’s baseline is ailing: The OECD’s June 2025 forecast puts world growth at ~2.9% in 2025–26, basing that on the assumption existing tariffs remain—in place, not rising. That means the threshold to fall into recession in some parts isn’t high in the event of a tariff shock.

    History’s blaring warning siren: The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was accompanied by a trade collapse on the scale of ~65% during 1929-1934, as nations retaliated—a notorious demonstration of how protectionist spirals may intensify slumps. Contemporary economists habitually invoke it as an example of a policy mistake not to be emulated.


    When does a tariff war go recession-grade?

    Imagine a three-ingredient recipe for disaster:

    Scale: Across-the-board hikes (not just narrow sectors) among multiple large economies—especially if they hit consumer staples, intermediate inputs, and capital goods simultaneously.

    Speed: Rapid implementation gives firms and consumers no time to adjust; inventories drain and price spikes bite before supply chains can re-route.

    Staying power + revenge: If tariffs appear to be long-lasting and prompt tit-for-tat, uncertainty becomes endemic; capex, employment, and trade levels shrink in sync. IMF and OECD projections invariably signal that this combination is what converts a growth headwind into a threat of recession.

    Who gets hurt—and how


    Households: Shell out more for imported products (and locally made products with imported components).     Poor households are hit worst because necessity items command a larger portion of their budget. Data from the 2018–19 episode indicate that consumers paid a large share of the bill.

    Manufacturers & SMEs: Endure higher costs of inputs and order uncertainty; small firms exporting struggle to make the transition to alternative markets or reengineer supply chains.

    Commodity & logistics players: Fluctuating volumes and re-routing can whipsaw shipping rates and port activity—well for some lanes, painful for others.

    Emerging markets in supply chains: Nations connected to East Asian or North American value chains might have trade diversion produce winners and losers—some gain from “friendshoring”, some lose as assembly lines relocate.
    World Trade Organization


    Would the world be able to prevent a recession even with increased tariffs?


    Perhaps—buffers count:

    Targeted, temporary, and open measures are less harmful than across-the-board increases.

    Countervailing macro policy (e.g., fiscal relief, clearer monetary direction) can counteract some drag if inflation permits. Recent IMF projections observe that improved financial conditions and policy assistance can buffer trade shocks.

    Resilient supply chains can diversify quicker today than in the past, dampening the effect—but not removing it.     WTO evidence indicates diversion does occur, but at a cost.

    However, if large economies ramp up widely and maintain high tariffs, the chances of synchronized slowdown materialize.

    Upcoming watchlist (applied dashboard)


    Policy announcements → actual legislated text: Are suggested tariffs broad or narrow?     Definitive or temporary?

    Business investment & PMIs: Sudden declines in new orders and capex tend to presage output declines.

    Global trade flows (services and goods): WTO/IMF reports on trade expansion—particularly if they downgrade fast following policy shocks.

    Inflation or rate path: If inflation that is tariff-caused maintains policy rates elevated, the risk for growth increases.

    Scorecard of retaliation: After tit-for-tat sets in, uncertainty compounds.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs are an appropriate tool for targeted, short-term purposes (e.g., anti-dumping, national security). But wide, quick, and persistent tariff wars by giants are a guaranteed method for draining global expansion—and, if coupled with stuck inflation and lost confidence, could induce a world recession. History’s lesson and current modeling both aim in the same direction: the larger and the more prolonged the tariff spiral, the greater the recession probability.
    Encyclopedia Britannica

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 01/09/2025In: ,

DNA and microbiome

healthnews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Promise: Science Meets Individuality As with our fingerprints, every human being has a distinct body composition. Whenever two people are served the same dish, their bodies may react to it in contrasting ways. Some can metabolize carbs with ease, while others struggle with it. Some thrive on daiRead more

    The Promise: Science Meets Individuality

    As with our fingerprints, every human being has a distinct body composition. Whenever two people are served the same dish, their bodies may react to it in contrasting ways. Some can metabolize carbs with ease, while others struggle with it. Some thrive on dairy products whereas others bloat. These issues are solved using personalized nutrition modes, which are constructed utilizing:

    • DNA markers (Genetic markers that alter metabolism, nutrient absorption, food intolerances, and sensitivities. etc).
    • Microbiome Composition (The hundreds of trillion gut bacteria that influence digestion, the immune system, and even mood).
    • Lifestyle behavior data from wearables (sleep, movement, physical, and emotional stress).

    With these factors, the suggest a weight loss program, with added benefits such as balance in digestion and energy levels, and reduced risk of a host of diseases. It would be similar to being accompanied by an every-dimension nutritionist.

    The Potential Benefits

    • Instead of going on a keto diet, a vegan diet, then intermittent fasting, you can now have a biological plan.
    • If your DNA is predicated to have a high risk of diabetes and heart diseases, you may stand a chance to have customized suggestions and plan for it earlier in your life.
    • Optimizing food choices to sustain the “good bacteria” is a sure way to sharpen digestion, mental clarity, and even elevate immunity.
    • Better compliance – People seem to work harder when they know a strategy is designed specifically to help them achieve a goal.
    • In this regard, personalized nutrition can be an unrivalled advantage when addressing illnesses that come with lifestyle changes.

    The Skepticism: Where the Science Falls Short

    • So far, the enthusiasm seems totally justified, but many are cautious with praise, as this still seems to be a young field.
    • Genetics isn’t destiny – Of course your DNA can indicate what your tendencies are, but the surrounding environment and the lifestyle choices you make have a stronger impact on your overall health.
    • Microbiome is ever-changing – the composition of your gut is different today than it was last month, and will be different in the future, depending on a range of factors like stress, antibiotics or the intake of certain foods depending on the season.
    • Limited clinical evidence – the majority of companies that developed DNA/microbiome based diet plans have surpassed the evidence based on science. Comprehensive, longitudinal research that can attest to the health benefits brought forth from these diets is exceedingly limited.
    • Commercial overreach – some of these wellness startups are selling their promotional material as “scientific findings” and in the process, are making promises that are far removed from reality.
    • The idea is amazing, but the practical relevance of it needs to be explored in detail.

    Why People are drawn to Debates & Personalizing Nutrition Modes

    Feeling recognized as a human being is one of the many desires that this movement attempts to showcase. Nutrition goes beyond calories and macros; it involves culture, emotions, and identity. This is the very reason why modes of personalized nutrition exist:

    • They guarantee that our health is a personalized affair.
    • They promise to crack the body’s “secret code.”
    • They take the hassle out of dieting and the frustration that comes with trial and error.
    • The psychological effects of having a plan that seems tailored to you are greatly positive, and rational, and can encourage you to adopt healthier habits.

    A Critical Perspective

    • So, the personalized modes of nutrition, do they unlock the door to improved wellness. The answer is both Yes and No.
    • Yes, they do advance nutrition and wellness in the direction of more tailored and preventative services.
    • No, the nutrition science is still too young to make such promises without embellishments.

    For the time being, they must be treated as suggestions. The best strategy is to combine the insights with old habits: wholesome derived foods, movement, sleep, stress management, and well balanced restorative meals.

    Final Thought

    While personalized nutrition modes may not represent the holy grail of nutrition just yet, they do represent a valuable paradigm shift in health: from one-size-fits-all approaches to self-guided nutrition strategies. If and when the science catches up, these modes may truly enable us to eat not just to live, but to flourish according to our unique blueprint. Until that time, such modes ought to be embraced with a sense of curiosity, tempered optimism and a healthy reserve of skepticism.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 01/09/2025In: , ,

democratize machine learning or  intr ...

aitechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Hope Behind Decentralization Throughout most of AI history, its dominance has been guarded by a number of tech elitists companies. Owning the servers, data, and the expertise to train massive models, these AI companies monopolized the industry. For small businesses, individuals, or even academicRead more

    The Hope Behind Decentralization

    Throughout most of AI history, its dominance has been guarded by a number of tech elitists companies. Owning the servers, data, and the expertise to train massive models, these AI companies monopolized the industry. For small businesses, individuals, or even academic institutions, the cost of entry is prohibitively expensive.

    Decentralized AI modes serves as a potential breakthrough. Rather than having central servers, models, and data sets, they use distributed networks, where individuals, organizations, and communities can all provide computing power and data. The goal is to remove corporate dominance by placing the AI in the hands of the general public.

    The Practical Side of Democratization

    Should decentralized AI become a reality, the above scenarios are likely to play out:

    • Community-driven AI models: Picture rural farmers training AI to predict the most suitable crops to plant by analyzing local soil data and weather patterns.
    • Localized representation: Smaller AI developers can build decentralized models tailored to specific languages, cultures, and community customs, as opposed to the global one-size-fits-all models.
    • Improved funding opportunities: Young developers will no longer be required to source billions in funding in order to build a decentralized AI.
    • Shared benefits: Rather than the profits being confined to a handful of companies, value might be allocated to all the participants.

    In this scenario, AI stops being just another product to be purchased from the Big Tech and starts becoming a commons that we all collaboratively construct.

    The Shadows, However, Are Full of Risks

    The vision is beautiful; however, decentralization is not a panacea. It has its problems:

    • Quality control: The absence of a central authority makes it very difficult to figure out how we can ascertain that the models are accurate, unbiased, and don’t pose safety risks.
    • Malicious use: The flip side of unrestricted access is that it also allows malevolent individuals to construct dangerous models; models designed for disinformation, hacking, and even use in weapons systems.
    • Privacy issues: The dismantling of a centralized network poses a huge risk in that sensitive data might be vulnerable unless the security is automatically uniform and very robust.
    • Accountability gaps: Who is to blame in a decentralized structure if an AI system makes a harmful decision? the developers, the contributors, or the entire network?

    To put it differently, while centralization runs the risk of a monopoly, decentralization runs the risk of disorder and abuse.

    The Balance is Needed

    Finding a solution for this might not necessitate an all or nothing answer. It may be that the best model is some form of compromise. A hybrid structure which fosters participation, diversity, and innovation, but is not held to a high standard of ethical control and open management.

    This way, both extremes are avoided:
    The corporate AI monopoly problem.
    The relapsed anarchy problem of full, unregulated decentralization.

    The People Principle

    More than just a technology, this discussion is also about trust. Do we trust that a small number of powerful organizations will be responsible enough to guide AI development, or do we trust the open collaborations, with all its risk? History tells us that both extremes of power concentration and unregulated openness tend to let us down. The only question that remains is whether we have the ability to develop the necessary culture and values to enough make decentralized AI a benefit to all, and not a privilege to a few.

    Final Comment

    “AI and Machine Learning are powerful technologies that could empower people with unprecedented control and autonomy over their lives. However, they also possess the ability to unleash chaos. The impact of these technologies will not be determined by their existence alone, but rather by the frameworks that are put in place in relation to them concerning responsibility, transparency, and governance.

    Decentralization, if done correctly, has the potential to be more than just a technological restructuring of society. It could also be a transformative shift in social structure, changing the people who control the access to information in the age of technology.”

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 01/09/2025In: ,

emotional intelligence ever cross the ...

aitechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Affects of Emotional AI When interacting with machines, concerns tend to focus on effectiveness. People want a reminder or suggestion and would like to have it provided efficiently. However, the other side of the dream would be machines responding to people in a more sensitive way, such as an AIRead more

    The Affects of Emotional AI

    When interacting with machines, concerns tend to focus on effectiveness. People want a reminder or suggestion and would like to have it provided efficiently. However, the other side of the dream would be machines responding to people in a more sensitive way, such as an AI that when a person is anxious calms them, praises when they achieve something, or for that matter, recognizes the realist of a person even when it not conscious on their part. The more complexity to this vision is the AI, would have the capacity to empathize with the person or it would be an imitation of that?

    AI Ability

    Understanding the modern AI, it is able to interpret and distinguish emotions through tone of voice, facial expression, or even the sentiment of a text. For example:

    • AI in customer service is able to identify the aggravation in a caller and as a result, the AI routes the call to a person.
    • There are chatbots who identify themselves as a therapist who, to some degree, pulls themselves out of their struggles to be able to offer consolation.
    • Companionship AI’s are able to mimic the tone that a person would use to speak to them.

    AI’s that possess such capabilities are, in a sense, able to exhibit such human abilities. However, they are an AI pattern in the sense that there is no actual emotion from the AI.

    The Difference between Mimicry and Empathy

    When it comes head to another being, the empathic ability in people is what attachment and emotional bonding is felt.

    Machines do not have feelings other than simulating them. With that being said, there is no emotional connection to “I’m sorry you are going through this,” other than a robotic response to something caring.

    The deeper question is: does the difference matter? If a person feels comforted and supported or less alone because of AI, is there no empathy being applied?

    Humans face certain risks when adopting the belief in the illusion.

    • In many aspects, emotionally intelligent AI is beneficial, such as in mental health, caring for the elderly, or in education, but the risks are worrisome:
    • Emotional dependency: AI “friends” are unable to reciprocate, which leaves users in emotional bonds that are unbalanced.
    • Exploitation: Biased decisions made by users are disguised as manipulation, which an AI utilized shopping assistant could do to users.
    • Encapsulation: Users may replace actual reality with a simulated depiction.

    It is like seeing an actor crying on stage. While their display may evoke an emotional response, we all realize at the end of the day, there is no actual suffering. With AI, there is the potential to forget all of that, which isn’t a good thing.

    Do AI have feelings is the question?

    Some scientists argue that in the more advanced evolutionary stages of AI, empathy will be exhibited when the require sentience.

    Emotions are indeed part of the human condition because they pertain to biology and life experience, and biological vulnerability is the linchpin of existence. At what level the technology is now, AI does not feel and only responds.

    But here comes the twist; if to empathize is to empathize as to effect (how one feels after an action is done) and not as to cause (why an action is expressed), then perhaps AI does not need to feel to “be sufficiently empathetic.”

    The Middle Ground: Augmented Empathy

    • Perhaps the true potential of emotional AI is not to replace human empathy, but to augment it. For example:
    • An educator using AI to understand particular concept students are struggling with.
    • A physician with AI that knows the moment to intervene, and is able to detect, and mitigate, poor prognostic chances of anxiety that may not be apparent until much later.
    • An isolated person able to connect with an AI does not dispense with the obligation to attempt to connect with others.
    • AI is not overstepping boundaries; it is facilitating the appreciation and attainment of greater levels of empathic concern.

    Final Thought

    An example of emotional intelligent AI will never “feel empathy” as human beings do, and also, no matter how convincing it will likely be. But that does not mean it has no meaning. Emotional AI, if designed in intelligent ways, may serve also as a mirror, and a bridge, and a base that enables feeling of being cared for and listened to.

    The answer is not in whether AI can feel. What may base our utopia is how we choose to apply the artificial phenomenon it emulates.

    Will it help us strengthen connections with people, or replace them and leave us lonelier?

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 01/09/2025In: ,

learn, work, and create, or just make ...

aitechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Future of AI Co-Pilot Modes   Consider it as a useful friend by your side. Perhaps it's an AI that deconstructs a difficult math equation into smaller steps or presents fresh approaches to writing an essay. To business executives, it could be writing an email, condensing a 50-page report, oRead more

    The Future of AI Co-Pilot Modes

     

    Consider it as a useful friend by your side. Perhaps it’s an AI that deconstructs a difficult math equation into smaller steps or presents fresh approaches to writing an essay. To business executives, it could be writing an email, condensing a 50-page report, or generating ideas for marketing campaigns. It can help an artist with painting or designing and assist in writing a tune.

    In all these situations, the co-pilot does not need to act. It liberates the mind to attend to greater things. That’s the objective: AI co-pilots liberate mental effort and time so that learning, working and creating is much simpler.


    The Threat of Over-Dependence


    But there is a catch.     The more we are dependent on AI, the less practice we will have for being able to do things on our own. If a student utilizes their co-pilot to define difficult ideas instead of trying to learn them on their own, they won’t develop academically as much as they might. If an employee always has AI generate reports rather than doing it himself, his writing ability will deteriorate. And if a creator is consistently basing themselves on AI ideas, they may lose their creative voice.

    It is not just forgetting but also trusting. Do we get so used to accepting AI’s response at face value even when it’s incorrect? If we always go to the co-pilot first and last, we lose critical thinking, curiosity and the pleasure of “doing it ourselves.”


    Finding the Middle Ground

     

    The most effective way to view AI co-pilot modes is as a helper, not a substitute. Just as the calculator did not make math obsolete and the spellcheck did not assassinate writing, co-pilots will only shift where we spend our time. The trick is to employ them well—to offload mundane tasks while retaining interest in the things that count.

    It’s not dependency, it’s balance. We must create a culture where AI is employed as an accelerator, not an autopilot. It means demonstrating how to pose better questions, scrutinize outputs, and leverage AI as a springboard for their original work.


    Human Factor


    In the end, what makes learning, working and creating meaningful is the process, not just the outcome.     Struggling through a lesson, drafting and revising an idea, or being inspired in the middle of the night are all a part of the human experience. An AI co-pilot can assist, but it cannot replace the satisfaction derived from the hard work.

    So, will these modes of learning transform us? Yes. Whether they will make us more able or more needy will depend not on the tools themselves but on how we choose to use them.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 31/08/2025In: ,

hallucinations in legal or medical co ...

health
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    So, First, What Is an "AI Hallucination"? With artificial intelligence, an "hallucination" is when a model confidently generates information that's false, fabricated, or deceptive, yet sounds entirely reasonable. For example: In the law, the model might cite a bogus court decision. In medicine, it mRead more

    So, First, What Is an “AI Hallucination”?

    With artificial intelligence, an “hallucination” is when a model confidently generates information that’s false, fabricated, or deceptive, yet sounds entirely reasonable.

    For example:

    • In the law, the model might cite a bogus court decision.
    • In medicine, it might suggest an intervention from flawed symptoms or faulty studies.

    These aren’t typos. These are errors of factual truth, and when it comes to life and liberty, they’re unacceptable.

    Why Do LLMs Hallucinate?

    LLMs aren’t databases—They don’t “know” things like us.
    They generate text by predicting what comes next, based on patterns in the data they’ve been trained on.

    So when you ask:

    “What are the key points from Smith v. Johnson, 2011?”

    If no such case exists, the LLM can:
    Create a spurious summary
    Make up quotes
    Even generate a fake citation
    Since it’s not cheating—it’s filling in the blanks based on best guess based on patterns.

     In Legal Contexts: The Hazard of Authoritative Ridiculousness

    Attorneys rely on precedent, statutes, and accurate citations. But LLMs can:

    Make up fictional cases (already occurs in real courtrooms, actually!)
    Misquote real legal text
    Get jurisdictions confused (e.g., confusing US federal and UK law)
    Apply laws out of context

    Actual-Life Scenario:

    In 2023, a New York attorney employed ChatGPT to write a brief. The AI drew on a set of fake court cases. The judge discovered—and penalized the attorney. It was an international headline and a warning story.

    Why did it occur?

    • The attorney took it on faith that the AI was trustworthy.
    • The model sounded credible.
    • No one fact-checked until it was too late.

    In Medical Settings: Even Greater Risks

    • In medicine, a hallucination could be:
    • Prescribing the wrong medication
    • Interpreting test results in an incorrect manner
    • Omitting significant side effects
    • Mentioning non-existent studies or guidelines

    Think of a model that recommends a drug interaction between two drugs that does not occur—or worse, not recommending one that does. That’s terrible, but more terrible, it’s unsafe.

    And Yet.

    LLMs can perform some medical tasks:

    Abstracting patient records

    De-jargonizing jargonese

    Generating clinical reports
    Helping medical students learn
    But these are not decision-making roles.

     How Are We Tackling Hallucinations in These Fields?

    This is how researchers, developers, and professionals are pushing back:

     Human-in-the-loop

    • There should not be a single AI system deciding in law or medicine.
    • Judgment always needs to be from experts after they have been trained.

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

    • LLMs are paired with databases (libraries of legal precedents or medical publications).
    • Instead of “guessing,” the model pulls in real documents and cites them properly.

    Example: An AI lawyer program using actual Westlaw or LexisNexis material.

    Model Fine-Tuning

    • Good-quality, domain-specific data are fine-tuned over domain-specific models.
    • E.g., a medical GPT fine-tuned on only peer-reviewed journals, up-to-date clinical guidelines, etc.
    • This reduces—but doesn’t eliminate—hallucinations.

    Prompt Engineering & Chain-of-Thought

    • Asking the model to “explain its thinking” in step-by-step fashion.
    • Helps humans catch fallacies of logic or fact errors before relying on it.

     Confirmation Layers

    • Models these days come with provisions to verify their own responses against official sources.
    • Tools in certain instances identify potential hallucinations or return confidence ratings.

     Anchoring the Effect

    Come on: It is easy to take the word of the AI when it talks as if it has years of experience. Particularly when it saves time, reduces expense, and appears to “know it all.”
    That certainty is a double-edged sword.

    Think:

    • A patient notified by a chatbot that their symptoms are “nothing to worry about,” when in fact, it is an emergent symptom of a stroke.
    • A defense attorney employing AI precedent, only to have it challenged because the model made up the cases.
    • An insurance company making robo-denials based on misread policies drafted by AI.
    • They are not science fiction stories. They’re actual issues.

    So, Where Does That Leave Us?

    • LLMs are fantastic assistants—but terrible counselors if not governed in medicine or law.
    • They don’t deliberately hallucinate, but they don’t discriminate and don’t know what they don’t know.

    That is:

    • We need transparency in AI, not performance alone.
    • We need auditability, such that we can check every assertion an AI makes.
    • And we need experts to employ AI as a tool—super tool—not magic tablet.

    Closing Thought

    LLMs can do some very impressive things. But not in medicine and law. “Impressive” just isn’t sufficient there.
    And they must be demonstrable, safe, andatable as well.

    Meanwhile, consider AI to be a very good intern—smart, speedy, and never fatigued…
    But not one you’d have perform surgery on you or present a case before a judge without your close guidance.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 30/08/2025In: ,

AI-generated content

aitechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

     What Do We Mean by "Creative"? Before we put words in our mouth, let us stop and ask: what is creativity? To human beings, it is most widely understood as the fusion of imagination, feeling, and lived experience to create something new and meaningful — a poem, a painting, a song, or maybe even a scRead more

     What Do We Mean by “Creative”?

    Before we put words in our mouth, let us stop and ask: what is creativity? To human beings, it is most widely understood as the fusion of imagination, feeling, and lived experience to create something new and meaningful — a poem, a painting, a song, or maybe even a scientific discovery.

    AI-generated content, meanwhile, is based on patterns. It learns from massive amounts of existing data — books, art, music, code — and produces outputs that look fresh, but are essentially recombinations of what already exists. So the big question is: if creativity is about “newness” and “meaning,” can something built on patterns ever be considered truly creative?

     AI’s Strength in Creativity

    • In so many ways, AI does surprise us with what it produces. Consider:
    • It can produce beautiful works of art in mere seconds.
    • It can produce music that sounds eerily beautiful.
    • It can produce stories or poems that sound emotionally authentic
    • .Occasionally, AI actually creates something that would not have been created by human beings — because it can recombine inspiration from one field, or one time period, or one culture in ways we would not even have thought of attempting to do. That level of recombinability really is indistinguishable from creativity, and it is a kind of it.

    The Human Element That’s Hard to Replicate

    But that is where it varies: human imagination is not disentangled from our experiences, our feelings, and our sufferings. When the painter paints with heartbreak, when the novelist writes a novel out of loss, or when the singer sings a song out of happiness — there’s much lived reality that is impressed upon the work and gives it life.

    AI does not experience heartbreak, joy, or sadness. AI identifies patterns in images and words relating to heartbreak, joy, or sadness. It does not equate the result cannot move us, but it says that the reason behind them is different. A human makes something out of purpose; an AI makes something out of replication.

     Cooperation vs. Substitution

    Perhaps the more important question is not “Is AI creative?” but rather: “Can AI augment human creativity?” Already, many artists are employing AI as a tool — to generate ideas, overcome writer’s block, or discover what’s new and feasible. By doing so, AI is not substituting for creativity but augmenting it.

    Put it like this: when individuals learned of photography, everybody worried that photography would destroy painting. No such luck — painting changed — impressionism, surrealism, and abstract painting all emerged in part because photography was there. So too could AI make folks think differently, just because we’ll have to learn what specifically we can do.

     The Redefinition of Creativity

    Maybe our definition of what is creative is changing. If being novel and meaningful equals creativity, maybe works of art generated by AI that amuse, bring us to tears, or enrage us are, in fact, creative — despite the “artist” being a machine. Isn’t that the point of art and expression, to stir something within the masses?

    Conversely, if creativity is assumed to be uniquely human — a product of consciousness, emotion, and subjectivity — then AI is always short of being “truly” creative.

     Final Thought

    And then is content ever really creative when created by AI? The response maybe lies in the manner in which we finally define creativity. Indeed, one thing is certain: AI forces us to think differently. It reminds us that imagination is not wholly original but recombination, perspective, and expression too.

    Ultimately, perhaps the sorcery is not in AI replacing the work of human imagination, but in how human and AI can collectively generate more than is possible today. Creativity perhaps won’t be so much a question of who made it — but a question of what it does to those that view it.

    See less
Load More Questions