 |
|
|
|||||
If you enter a query into Quili.AI on January 31, your question wont be answered by a large language model, but instead by residents from the Chilean community of Quilicura. The project aims to replace artificial intelligence with analog intelligence, to both highlight the environmental impact of AI, and to get people thinking consciously about their AI use. Were inviting people to have a day without AI, Lorena Antiman from Corporación NGEN, an environmental organization focused in part on protecting Quilicuras wetlands, says while speaking through a translator. Corporación NGEN spearheaded the project. Instead of going through a data center, each prompt into the chatbot will be answered directly by Quilicura residents. Artists, teachers, and others in the community will all meet in one place on Saturday, ready to respond to the queries. Quilicura and data centers The people of Quilicura, Chile are directly living with the impact of AI data centers. The community is located on the edge of Santiago, which is becoming a data center hub: 16 such facilities have been approved for construction there since 2012. Data centers both use immense amounts of energy, and lots of water to cool the servers. Understanding AI water use can be complicated, but some experts have tried to quantify it. A 2024 Washington Post article says that generating a 100 word email with GPT-4 requires 519 milliliters of water, or just over a bottle. Google opened its first Latin American data center in Quilicura in 2015. That facility uses 50 liters of water a secondor the same as 8,000 Chilean householdsthe New York Times reported in 2025, based on environmental records filed with the government. (Google says the sites used less water the year prior, about the same water use as a golf course.) This data center boom from tech companies is happening as Chile experiences a 15-year megadrought. The country is expected to lead the world in terms of water stress by 2040. Community activists in Quilicura have highlighted the impact of these data centers by showing before and after photos of the regions wetlands, appearing dry even during the rainy season. [Photo: Quili.AI] How Quili.AI works Up to 50 community members will be participating in the day without AI, ready to respond to Quili.AI prompts over the 24 hours of January 31 only. Each of them will bring their unique skills to the task. Prompt Quili.Ai to make a certain image, and a local artist will draw it. Ask Quili.AI for a recipe, and someone will share their own. Or need something explained to you like youre 5? a community member says in a video promoting the action. Ask Mateo. Hes 5. Instead of servers and cloud computing, community members will use their own experiences, their cultural knowledge, and their human judgment. Responses may not be immediate, but Antiman says theyll do their best to reply to as many queries as they can. And though the humans powering this analog intelligence are local to Quilicara, the organizers say anyone can use the tool. Instilling better AI habits Antiman hopes the action helps people think more responsibly about what they turn to AI for, and if their prompts are worth the resources they require. Just like were taught to turn off lights when we leave a room, or to not run water while we brush their teeth, she hopes people can learn better AI habits. Many people may simply not be aware of the impacts of using AI. Antiman is a teacher, and she says her students are surprised when she highlights those effects. They dont know the consequences of the way theyre using AI, she says. The day without AI is also an invitation, she adds, for people to look to their own neighbors or communities for knowledge. Maybe your neighbor knows how to change a tire, or another already has a recipe for cupcakes, so you dont need to ask ChatGPT. This connection between real people is what makes the Quili.AI project so exciting to Antiman. The most magical thing about it is the community is the one working on it, she says. Theyre all coming together to make this happen.
Category:
E-Commerce
Federal prosecutors cant seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a federal judge ruled Friday, foiling the Trump administrations bid to see him executed for what it called a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America. Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed a federal murder charge that had enabled prosecutors to seek capital punishment, finding it technically flawed. She wrote that she did so to foreclose the death penalty as an available punishment to be considered by the jury” as it weighs whether to convict Mangione. Garnett also dismissed a gun charge but left in place stalking charges that carry a maximum punishment of life in prison. To seek the death penalty, prosecutors needed to show that Mangione killed Thompson while committing another “crime of violence.” Stalking doesn’t fit that definition, Garnett wrote in her opinion, citing case law and legal precedents. In a win for prosecutors, Garnett ruled they can use evidence collected from his backpack during his arrest, including a 9mm handgun and a notebook in which authorities say Mangione described his intent to wack an insurance executive. Mangiones lawyers had sought to exclude those items, arguing the search was illegal because police hadnt yet obtained a warrant. During a hearing Friday, Garnett gave prosecutors 30 days to update her on whether they’ll appeal her death penalty decision. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which is prosecuting the federal case, declined to comment. Garnett acknowledged that the decision may strike the average person and indeed many lawyers and judges as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law.” But, she said, it reflected her “committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case. The law must be the Courts only concern. Mangione, 27, appeared relaxed as he sat with his lawyers during the scheduled hearing, which took place about an hour after Garnett issued her written ruling. Prosecutors retained their right to appeal but said they were ready to proceed to trial. Outside court afterward, Mangione’s attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo said her client and his defense team were relieved by the incredible decision. Jury selection in the federal case is set for Sept. 8, followed by opening statements and testimony on Oct. 13. The state trial’s date hasnt been set. On Wednesday, the Manhattan district attorneys office urged the judge in that case to schedule a July 1 trial date. That case is none of my concern, Garnett said, adding that she would proceed as if the federal case is the only case unless she hears formally from parties involved in the state case. She also said the federal case will be paused if the government appeals her death penalty ruling. Thompson, 50, was killed on Dec. 4, 2024, as he walked to a midtown Manhattan hotel for UnitedHealth Groups annual investor conference. Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting him from behind. Police say delay, deny and depose were written on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase used by critics to describe how insurers avoid paying claims. Mangione, an Ivy League graduate from a wealthy Maryland family, was arrested five days later at a McDonalds in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) west of Manhattan. Following through on Trumps campaign promise to vigorously pursue capital punishment, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered Manhattan federal prosecutors last April to seek the death penalty against Mangione. It was the first time the Justice Department sought the death penalty in President Donald Trumps second term. He returned to office a year ago with a vow to resume federal executions after they were halted under his predecessor, President Joe Biden. Garnett, a Biden appointee and former Manhattan federal prosecutor, ruled after hearing oral arguments earlier this month. Besides seeking to have the death penalty rejected on the grounds Garnett cited, Mangiones lawyers argued that Bondis announcement flouted long-established Justice Department protocols and was based on politics, not merit. They said her remarks, followed by posts to her Instagram account and a TV appearance, indelibly prejudiced the grand jury process resulting in his indictment weeks later. Prosecutors urged Garnett to keep the death penalty on the table, arguing that the charges were legally sound and Bondis remarks werent prejudicial, as pretrial publicity, even when intense, is not itself a constitutional defect. Prosecutors argued that careful questioning of prospective jurors would alleviate the defenses concerns about their knowledge of the case and ensure Mangiones rights are respected at trial. What the defendant recasts as a constitutional crisis is merely a repackaging of arguments rejected in previous cases, prosecutors said. None warrants dismissal of the indictment or categorical preclusion of a congressionally authorized punishment. Michael R. Sisak and Larry Neumeister, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Relationships can feel like both a blessing and the bane of your existence, a source of joy and a source of frustration or resentment. At some point, each of us is faced with a clingy child, a dramatic friend, a partner who recoils at the first hint of intimacy, a volatile parent, or a controlling boss in short, a difficult relationship. As a psychology professor and relationship scientist, Ive spent countless hours observing human interactions, in the lab and in the real world, trying to understand what makes relationships work and what makes them feel utterly intractable. Recently, I teamed up with psychologist Rachel Samson, who helps individuals, couples and families untangle difficult dynamics in the therapy room. In our new book, Beyond Difficult: An attachment-based guide for dealing with challenging people, we explore the roots of difficult behavior and evidence-based strategies for making difficult relationships more bearable. So whats really going on beneath the surface of difficult behavior? And more to the point, what can you do about it? Difficult interactions can have deep roots When a conversation with a co-worker goes sideways or a phone call with a friend goes off the rails, its easy to assume the issue stems from the situation at hand. But sometimes, big emotions and reactions have deeper roots. Difficult interactions often result from differences in temperament: your biologically based style of emotional and behavioral responses to the world around you. People with a sensitive temperament react more strongly to stress and sensory experiences. When overwhelmed, they may seem volatile, moody or rigid but these reactions are often more about sensory or emotional overload than malice. Importantly, when sensitive children and adults are in a supportive environment that fits their temperament, they can thrive socially and emotionally. Beyond neurobiology, one of the most common threads underlying difficult relationships is what psychologists call insecure attachment. Early experiences with caregivers shape the way people connect with others later in life. Experiences of inconsistent or insensitive care can lead you to expect the worst of other people, a core feature of insecure attachment. People with insecure attachment may cling, withdraw, lash out or try to control others not because they want to make others miserable, but because they feel unsafe in close relationships. By addressing the underlying need for emotional safety, you can work toward more secure relationships. Managing difficult emotions In challenging interactions, emotions can run high and how you deal with those emotions can make or break a relationship. Research has shown that people with sensitive temperament, insecure attachment or a history of trauma often struggle with emotion regulation. In fact, difficulty managing emotions is one of the strongest predictors of mental illness, relationship breakups and even aggression and violence. Its easy to label someone as too emotional, but in reality, emotion is a social event. Our nervous systems constantly respond to one another which means our ability to stay regulated affects not only how we feel, but how others react to us. The good news is that there are evidence-based strategies to calm yourself when tensions rise: Take a breath. Slow, deep breathing helps signal safety to the nervous system. Take a break. Relationship researchers John and Julie Gottman found that taking a 20-minute break during conflict helps reduce physiological stress and prevent escalation. Move your body. Exercise particularly walking, dancing or yoga has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety, sometimes even more effectively than medication. Movement before or after a difficult interaction can help work out the tension. Reframe the situation. This strategy, called cognitive reappraisal, involves changing the way you interpret a situation or your goals within it. Instead of trying to fix a difficult family member, for example, you might focus on appreciating the time you have with them. Reappraisal helps the brain regulate emotion before it escalates, lowering activity in stress-related areas like the amygdala. Giving better feedback Difficult people are usually unaware of how their behavior affects you unless you tell them. One of the most powerful things you can do in a difficult relationship is give feedback. But not all feedback is created equal. Feedback, at its core, is a tool for learning. Without it, you would never have learned to write, drive or function socially. But when feedback is poorly delivered, it can backfire: People become defensive, shut down or dig in their heels. Feedback is most effective when it stays focused on the task rather than the individual; in other words, dont make it personal. Research points to four keys to effective feedback, based in learning theory: Mutuality: Approach the conversation as a two-way exchange. Be open to the needs and ideas of both parties. Specificity: Be clear about what behaviors youre referring to. Citing particular interactions is often better than You always . Goal-directedness: Connect the feedback to a shared goal. Work together to find a constructive solution to the problem. Timing: Give feedback close to the event, when its still fresh but emotions have settled. Also, skip the so-called compliment sandwich of a critique between two pieces of positive feedback. It doesnt actually improve outcomes or change behavior. Interestingly, the most effective sequence is actually to start with a corrective, followed by positive affirmation of whats going well. Leading with honesty shows respect. Plus, the corrective is more likely to be remembered. Following up with warmth builds connection and shows that you value te person. The bottom line Difficult relationships are part of being human; they dont mean someone is broken or toxic. Often, they reflect deeper patterns of attachment, temperament and differences in how our brains work. When you understand whats underneath the behavior and take steps to regulate yourself, communicate clearly, and give compassionate feedback you can shift even the most stuck relationship into something more bearable, perhaps even meaningful. Strengthening relationships isnt always easy. But the science shows that it is possible and can be rewarding. Jessica A. Stern is an assistant professor of psychology at Pomona College. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||