 |
|
|
|||||
As a leader in technology for nearly 30 years, I have observed waves of innovation disrupt the global business landscape and trigger major shifts in the way we work. Now, as AI takes its place as the next big thing, the global workforce is facing an overwhelming demand for new skills and capabilities. In my new book, Artificial Intelligence For Business, I highlight the impact of AI on the future of work, specifically the skills gaps and job displacements, as well as future essential skills required in global organizations. Interestingly, there is a cautious instinct at play, specifically for women at work, as they weigh the promise of innovation with the risks of AI application. This hesitation may be deterring women from using AI at work, as worries about embracing AI could undermine their credibility or even invite harsher judgement, instead of highlighting their true potential. According to recent research conducted by Harvard Business School Associate Professor Rembrand Koning, women are adopting AI tools at a 25% lower rate than men, on average. Synthesizing data from 18 studies that cover over 140,000 individuals worldwide, combined with estimates of the gender share of the hundreds of millions of users of popular generative AI platforms, the research demonstrates the gender gap holds across all regions, sectors, and occupations. Although the study highlights that closing this gap is crucial for business and economic growth, and development of AI-based technologies that avoid bias, the reasons for the gap existing in the first place needs to be explored further. Lets unpack several ethical, reputational, and systemic hurdles that may lead women to be more reluctant to use AI at work and explore how companies can help bridge this gap. Ethical concerns First, ethical concerns of AI adoption tend to weigh heavily on womens minds. Studies indicate that women consistently rate hesitation about AI technology adoption higher than men do, placing greater weight on ethics, transparency, accountability, explainability, and fairness when evaluating AI tools. In one study that examines public perceptions of AI fairness across three societal U.S.-based contexts, personal life, work life, and public life, women consistently perceived AI as less beneficial and more harmful across all contexts. This caution may be evident as women hold themselves, and their teams, to strong ethical standards. These concerns are amplified by the rapid increase in “black box” AI tools adoption across key business decision points, where the inner workings are opaque and hidden behind proprietary algorithms. As more female ethicists and policy experts enter the global field, they raise high-impact questions about bias, data privacy, and harmful consequences, feeling a special responsibility to get answers before signing off on innovative technology solutions. Women all over the world watched in dismay as leading AI ethicists were penalized for raising valid concerns over ethical development and use of AI. Famously, Timnit Gebru, co-lead of Googles Ethical AI team, was forced out after pushing back on orders to withdraw her paper on the social risks of large language models. Subsequently, Margaret Mitchell was also fired while standing in solidarity with Gebru and raising similar concerns. This move, among others, has sent a stark message that calling out potential harm in AI could make you a target. Extra scrutiny Alongside ethics, there is may be a fear of being judged at work for leaning on AI tools. In my experience, women often face extra scrutiny over their skills, capabilities, and technical prowess. There may be a deep-rooted concern that leveraging AI tools may be perceived as cutting corners or reflect poorly on the users skill level. That reputational risk may be magnified when flaws or issues in the AI outputs are attributed to the users lack of competence or expertise. Layer onto this a host of ongoing systemic challenges inherent in the business environment and AI tools that are implemented. For example, training data can under-represent the experiences of women in the workplace and reinforce the perception that AI products were not built for them. Nondiverse AI teams also pose as a deterrent, creating additional barriers to participate and engage. The consequence of the gender gap in AI is more than a discomfort. It can result in AI systems that reinforce gender stereotypes and ignore inequities, issues that are augmented when AI tools are applied for decision-making across essential areas such as hiring, performance reviews, and career development. For example, a recruitment tool trained on historical data may limit female candidates from leadership roles, not due to lack of capabilities, but because historically there have been more male leaders. Blind spots like these further deepen the very gap that organizations are trying to close. To counter this and encourage more women to use AI at work, organizations should start by creating an environment that balances guardrails with exploration. Additionally, they should build psychological safety by encouraging dialogue that gives space for concerns, challenges, and feedback, without fears of being penalized. Open and transparent communication addresses any expected fears and uncertainty that accompany AI use in the workplace. Build fail-safe sandbox environments for exploration, where the goal is to learn through trial and error and develop skills through experiential learning. Policy changes Changing policy and guidelines in the organization can prove effective in encouraging more women to use AI at work. Apart from clear guidelines around responsible AI use, policies specifically allowing the use of AI can help close the gap. In a study conducted by the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH), male students were less likely to view using AI as “cheating.” Additionally, when policies forbid the use of AI, male students tended to use it anyway, while women adhered to the policy. When a policy explicitly allowing the use of AI was put in place, over 80% of both men and women used it, suggesting that policies encouraging the use of AI can help trigger more women to use it. Crucially, organizations should make a proactive effort to bring in more women into the AI conversation at every level. Diverse perspectives can prove effective in catching blind spots, and this approach sends a powerful message that representation matters. When women see their peers proactively shaping AI application in a safe, fair, and impactful way, they will feel more confident in participating as well.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you need a fresh pack of stamps, be prepared to pay a little bit more. As of yesterday, the price of a Forever stamp is now 78 cents, an increase of roughly 7%. And it’s not just stamps. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is hiking rates for various domestic shipping services. Here’s everything you need to know: Which rates are going up? According to a notice from the USPS, rates for the following services are going up: Priority Mail service: 6.3% increase USPS Ground Advantage: 7.1% increase Parcel Select: 7.6% increase Which rates are staying the same? The post office says the following services will not increase: Priority Mail Express service Domestic Extra Services International Ancillary Services International Products Why are rates going up? The increases are going toward technological upgrades, the modernization of services, new staffing, and customer service improvements, according to the USPS notice. Why am I just hearing about these rate increases? Probably because there is a lot going on in the world, and it’s easy for this kind of news to get lost in our current flood-the-zone environment. The USPS did publish a notice about the proposed rate increases on May 9. Those increases have been approved and are now reflected on USPS.com. Why does this sound familiar? Rate hikes at the post office have become more frequent in recent years. The price of a stamp was last raised about a year ago, when the rate jumped from 68 cents to 73 cents, and that was already the second rate increase of 2024. The USPS has been working on a 10-year plan to achieve sustainability in the modern era, but it’s still losing money. The agency saw a net loss of $9.5 billion in 2024, compared to $6.5 billion the year before. Last year, the USPS attributed $1.4 billion of its $79.5 billion operating revenue to rate increases.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the mid-1990s, Hollywood began trying to envision the internet (sometimes called the information superhighway) and its implications for life and culture. Some of its attempts have aged better than others. Perhaps the most thoughtful is the 1995 film Johnny Mnemonic, the screenplay for which was written by cyberpunk pioneer William Gibson, based on his 1981 short story. The film tells the story of Johnny (played by Keanu Reeves), whose vocation is couriering large amounts of data uploaded to a digital memory bank installed in his brain. As Johnny is asked to carry more and more data, his memory bank crowds out or burns away his own organic memories. Desperate to earn enough for a brain operation to restore them, he agrees to a final, dangerously large data haul that may cost him his life. Johnny Mnemonic brought Gibsons projections of our online future to millions who might never have encountered them in his books. A fan of Gibsons books (especially Neuromancer), I remember watching the movie in the mid-2000s and thinking that its effort to visualize and expand the world of the short story felt plasticky and forced. Critics at the time saw something similar, with The New York Times calling it incomprehensible and visually garish, Variety condemning it as a confused mess of sci-fi clichés, and Roger Ebert awarding it just two out of four stars. But in 2025, Johnny Mnemonic hits me differently. The internet is 30-some years old, and many of Gibsons most prescient ideas have now been more fully realized. If Johnny Mnemonic got some of the details wrong, its larger metaphorical themes of tech addiction, transhumanism, and our drift toward digital spaces have only become more clear. I think Gibson was feeling the zeitgeist of a future moment when we all have to decide how much of our organic lives were willing to give away as our digital lives grow larger. This story is part of 1995 Week, where well revisit some of the most interesting, unexpected, and confounding developments in tech 30 years ago. This tension between digital and organic memory arguably began at the turn of the century, when Google established itself as the de facto directory of the information available online. Suddenly, we had access to a vast public store of shared knowledge, data, and content. Studies soon showed that people were forgoing committing information to (organic) memory because they knew it was readily available via Google. Researchers from Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Wisconsin discovered the “Google Effect in a 2011 study, which showed that people are far more likely to remember where data is stored than the actual data itself. Increasingly, the value of consumer tech products seems to be measured by their ability to addictby how much of the users time and brain space they can claim. Addiction hijacks the brain, reserving more and more time and attention for the object of desire. Every major technology wave in the last three decades has resulted in increased dependency on digital devices and content. Mobile phones proved remarkably addictive. A number of recent studies peg our daily use at between 3.5 and 4.5 hours per day. Pew Research found in early 2024 that 16- to 24-year-olds (tomorrows adults) often spend more than six hours a day looking at their smartphones. Numerous studies have shown strong correlations between smartphone addiction and mental and physical health problems, including anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and academic struggles. Mobile phone makers have been forced to add features to help people moderate their screen time, but usage continues to rise. The social media revolution in the 2010s introduced highly addictive digital spaces where almost three-fourths of Americans now spend an average of 2 hours and 10 minutes per day (and thats just a third of their total online time). The addictiveness was and is a feature, not a bug. The thought process that went into building these applications . . . was all about: How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible? Facebook founding president Sean Parker said at an Axios event in 2017. Congress has introduced several bills to restrict addictive design, but none have passed. In the mid-2010s, Facebook discovered that angry, hyperpartisan content was even more potent catnip for keeping people scrolling and posting. In the 2020s, TikToks AI algorithm set a new standard for addictiveness. It processes thousands of signals indicating a users tastes and beliefs to serve a tailor-fit stream of short videos designed to keep them swiping. The app reached 2.05 billion users worldwide in 2024, with users averaging around an hour per day. A 2024 Pew Research report found that about 58% of U.S. teens use TikTok daily, including 17% who said they use it almost constantly. These tech waves build on each other. Internet usage increased with mobile devices; mobile usage increased with the social web. Generative AI apps may prove even more addictive and intrusive. OpenAIs ChatGPT is the fastest-growing consumer app in history, amassing 100 million users just two months after launching in late November 2022, and 500 million weekly active users by March 2025. ChatGPT generates everything from computer code and companionship to custom images and video. Internet sites and social platforms no loner rely strictly on human-created contenttheyll soon generate much of it using AI. This might be a personalized companion, a business coach, or even a version of a loved one whos gone, like the ghostly AI character who advises Johnny in the film. This is likely to further increase the share of our time spent in digital spaces. These technologies capture our brains by capturing our attention, but the tech industry is already developing devices that capture space in our physical bodiesjust like Johnnys memory bank. Neuralinks braincomputer interface (BCI) is implanted in the brain and can translate brain activity to communicate with external tech devices. In the near future, we may choose to use such interfaces to augment our brains with specialized knowledge bases or connect memory prosthetics that allow us to store, retrieve, or even offload memories digitally. Some in AI circles even believe the only way humans can stay relevant in the age of AI is by integrating AI models with their brains. Humancomputer fusion is a major theme in Gibsons work. In Neuromancer (arguably Gibsons most revered book), the protagonist Case has a bodyguard/sidekick named Molly who has implanted cybernetic eyes that see in the dark, display data to her, and improve her spatial vision during fights. His characters often use dermal sockets in the skull behind the ear to gain new skills (like operating weapons or vehicles). Case and Johnny use these neural interfaces to plug their brains and nervous systems into an alternative, digital world referred to as cyberspace or the matrix. The best-known description of this realm comes from Neuromancer: A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation . . . A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding. In the decades after Johnny Mnemonic, tech companies would invest heavily in developing virtual reality spaces for both consumers and businesses. Companies like Second Life, Microsoft, Magic Leap, Oculus Rift, and more recently Meta and Apple, have taken up the chase. But so far, the tech industrys attempts at creating entertaining, social, and functional digital spaces have failed to go mainstream. After Facebook sunk billions into building the metaverseeven appropriating part of the term as its company namemainstream consumers decided it wasnt the new digital town square and not a place they wanted to spend their time. But that was mainly due to shortcomings in the hardware and software, not a cultural rejection (like with video phones or Google Glass). As extended reality (XR) hardware gets smaller, more powerful, and more comfortable, and digital experiences become more believable, XR could yet go mainstream. It could still become another wave of addictive technology that traps users in digital space. Gibsons presentation of technology in Johnny Mnemonic betrays an awareness of its addictive qualities. Johnnys last and biggest courier job looks like a drug deal. He meets a crew of Chinese underworld figures in a Beijing hotel room to pick up the data. The upload procedure itself, with its careful assortment of digital paraphernalia, smacks of an allegory to administering a dangerous drug like heroin. Because Johnny lacked enough space in his memory bank for the data, his post-upload reaction looks like an overdose. His body shakes. He grinds his teeth. He perspires heavily. After staggering to the bathroom, hes physically jolted by hallucinatory flashes of the data as it bursts through the limits of his memory bank and into his brain. Staring into the mirror, he discovers his nose is bleeding. Later, Johnnys love interest, Jane (Dina Meyer) is shown to suffer from a tech-related disease. She has a system of interconnected contact points on her inner forearmlike the track marks of a junkie. She suffers from a condition called NAS (nerve attenuation syndrome), or the black shakes, a neurological disorder caused by overexposure to computers and other electronics. Asked for the cause of NAS, Henry Rollinss Spider character (an anti-corporate activist and underground cybernetic doctor) gestures around at all the electronic equipment in his lab and huffs: All this . . . technological civilization, but we still have all this shit ‘cuz we cant live without it! Later in the film, an associate named J-Bone (Ice-T) informs Johnny that the data hes carrying is actually the cure for NAS, complete with clinical trials data, and the property of a big pharma multinational. The company, Pharmakom Industries, had been hiding the cure from the public to continue selling drug treatments for the diseases symptoms. That too has a prophetic ring. In 2025, I already reserve a large part of my cognitive capacity for my online, digital life. Most of us do, and were already shouldering a heavy cognitive load of digital informationand paying for it. Were more stressed, depressed, isolated, and lonely. As digital devices like Neuralink bring the digital world even closer to our brains, the side effects may become more visceral. By giving up part of his brain to someone elses data, Johnny gave up part of his memories. He gave up part of his identitypart of himself. At times, as data burst from the limits of his memory bank, pieces of it flashed in his mind like broken images and mingled with flashes of his own, real memories. One day, an AI implant may introduce a foreign intelligence into our brains that mixes with our organic, earned knowledge and experience. Did Johnny ever wonder where the digital part of him ended and his real self began? Will we?
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||