The potential of artificial intelligence to change the facet of every industry is limitless. Already, we have applied AI tools to the health, manufacturing, transportation, and finance industries.

But can we trust AI or a robot to act in a way that we want it to act? And is that trust based on a good, solid foundation?

Discoveries in AI are moving at a warp speed that sometimes we trust it without knowing whether that trust is unfounded. Can we rely on robots and AI technology without knowing the consequences of that trust?

1. Do robots have integrity?

Or are they clumsy and error-prone?

If you’ve used chatbots such as ChatGPT, most likely you found that the results are varied and that there are limitations to their power to respond to prompts.

We expect robots to have integrity and to be right ninety-nine percent of the time, more so because we created it with the intention that it will serve us reliably.

But who is monitoring our use of AI and the truthfulness of its output? As a chatbot program collects and stores anything that you enter in the program, how do users know how the data is used? Moreover, can a third party spy on your use of a chatbot?

A chatbot doesn’t cite its sources or where it gathers information from, and can even make up references. Fact-checking is still in development. Without a human eye to intervene and check the work, using a chatbot can be the same as plagiarizing, even if the user is not lifting the words directly from a source. In fact, the New York Times sued OpenAI for using their content to train their software.

Academics are wary of plagiarism in AI-powered writing tools. There can be ways to detect plagiarism but it’s like cutting off the head of a hydra, the solution is only temporary before people find new ways to outsmart detection.

The type of information that is available through the power of AI also enables a breeding ground for criminal activity and misuse. So not only must there be rules to ensure public safety, there must be ways of monitoring the landscape of AI.

2. Do we expect too much from robots?

There are many great things that AI can do for society. But our unavoidable dependency on AI technology leaves us prone to trust them and expect more from them above real people.

Will we end up trusting robots more than humans? Their convenience would tempt us to integrate them increasingly in our everyday lives. Robots can make just about everything more efficient. Inventions such as self-driving cars and the ability of robots to write complex computer programs are just two examples.

They also have the capacity to synthesize information from large sets of data at breakneck speed. But even with its superhuman computational power, AI is just as flawed as humans.

Someone needs to be held accountable for the truthfulness and reliability of AI tools. If the creators of chatbots are not responsible, then who is?

3. Do robots have feelings?

The introduction of AI technology poses the question of just what it means to be human. Does a robot have reasoning and mental faculties?

Moreover, can robots outcompete humans? We are already seeing a lot of fear and worry that robots have made redundant the jobs that were originally done by humans. Not only that, the power of chatbots to mimic human language is astounding, and they can create masterful works of art in less than five seconds. In trying to match wits against a robot, who would win?

Chatbot users must be cautious and understand just because it is more powerful than humans, doesn’t mean that it’s perfect. There is a lot of work, research, policy creation for us to do before we can fully implement AI into our lives.

As with any new invention, people should consider it with a dose of skepticism before it gains widespread acceptance, and be cautious about how we would integrate AI into our everyday lives.

Predictions that robots will replace the human workforce are not unfounded. Disruptive technology can shut down businesses and make them obsolete but it also has the potential to create new ones.

4. The ethical use of AI

Policy makers have the onerous task of drafting the rules for the ethical use of AI. There is rampant potential for the misuse of AI. As AI overtakes mere human intelligence, we must structure responsibility and governance around the use of AI. From plagiarism to criminal activity, we can’t understate the seriousness of the misuse of AI.

There must be clear rules in the use of AI that everyone can abide by. Getting people to actually follow them is another feat. It will only work if there is consensus and mutual trust given to each other.

In addition, there must be fairness and equality so that everyone can benefit from it regardless of their background.

5. AI: friend or foe?

We shouldn’t fear AI but we have to consider AI to be both a threat and an asset to humanity.

With the speed of technology, there was no time to prepare for it and weigh the risks and benefits so we could put the brakes on it.

If there ever was a time to be guided by the principle to “do no harm”, the moment is now. Not playing by the rules leaves everyone vulnerable to wrongdoing.

Like Frankenstein, the power of what we are unleashing can catch us unawares. Horror stories and science fiction plots aside, it is up to the users of AI to monitor their own actions and find solutions to new problems caused by AI, of which there are many.

There is a lot of dialogue and ideas stemming from AI. The more we are vocal about the ethics that govern the use of AI, the more likely that we are able to benefit from it.

There’s a concept in game theory that we help others because ultimately, it helps ourselves.

It’s widely debated, and speculated, about why we are altruistic. The idea forms one of the principles in the theory of evolution. We help others because in some way, cooperation is better than antagonism. It ensures that our genes are passed onto future generations, making us more evolutionarily fit. But the problem is, altruism sometimes opposes our own self-interests.

1. Can we truly be altruistic?

Altruism is the act of being selfless, and looking out for the well-being of others above your own. It’s the willingness to help without any ulterior motive or expecting any rewards in return.

Is there such a thing as true altruism? It’s easy, when we’re our most cynical, to conclude that we help others because we have ulterior motives, or a hidden agenda.

I was thinking about this when I was at a networking event, introducing myself to the other networkers and finding out what they did for a living. As with any networking event, there’s a lot of requests for introductions to other people. Some people might not like networking because they are uncomfortable with asking strangers for favours, especially if they can’t return the favour. As someone who works for a large corporation,  I’ve had such requests from people I’ve just only met. Any introduction that I made would potentially open a lot of doors for anyone who asks.

If someone reaches out to me for a favour, and it’s within my power to help them, I’m happy to oblige. I’m always willing to do a good deed, but it made me think. I started questioning whether I do it because I expected something in return.

I thought about what kind of a person I would be if I set about doing good deeds without expecting anything in return, if I learned to pay it forward. So with this in mind, I agreed to introduce them to someone from my network.

2. No good deeds…

When we’re the recipient of the kindness of strangers, we’re compelled to act charitable to others in return. You feel good about yourself afterwards. And when we rely on kindness, and someone else’s good will and genuine interest to see us do well, we’re indebted to them.

Were these the same reactions I had after helping them? Was I glad to help, or resentful that I didn’t get anything in return besides their gratitude?

Is it true that no good deed goes unpunished? Let’s say I did something as inconsequential as giving up my seat on the bus to someone else. Will something bad happen to me if I am nice to others?

As someone who doesn’t feel as if I was often on the receiving end of good luck, or goodwill, what would happen if I freely gave away kindness without expecting anything in return?

In all honesty, it felt a little unfair that I should be helping people when I haven’t always been at the receiving end of an altruistic act of kindness. It’s not a pleasant feeling, especially when things are so competitive, to see someone that you help win, but feel like you’re left out when you’re not winning, too.

But I did this expecting nothing in return except for, possibly, their gratitude. If gratitude is all I will get, should that be enough?

3. A good samaritan

Through some convoluted karmic conspiracy, you may find yourself at the receiving end of a good deed. It could’ve probably been the consequence of something you did a few years ago, good or bad, that is now returned to you four-fold.

In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to work hard at being altruistic. In this ideal world, being altruistic, and in general a good samaritan, would be as easy to you as any other rational behaviour.

Maybe in the grand scheme of things, these small acts of kindness won’t have changed anything, and won’t have any lasting impact. I have to remember to put aside thoughts of only doing things for my own gain. After all, what’s the purpose of attending networking events if I wasn’t ready to help other people. What was I doing there in the first place?

4. What stops us from trying to be altruistic?

It could be that we don’t have time, energy or resources to do a good deed. Or we could be resistant to doing any good deeds because we have to look out for ourselves first and foremost.

In my opinion, altruism, or the lack thereof, has a lot to do with competition.

Society doesn’t allow us to be as altruistic as we might wish. We’re more cautious about where and how we expend our energy and resources. We’re taught to be selfish because it ensures our survival. How can we be altruistic when there is so much competition and helping others will actually hurt us in the end?

Nice people finish last, but it shouldn’t have to be this way. It’s time to change this. We shouldn’t have to worry that our good deeds will come back to haunt us. There are ways to be selfless and giving without sacrificing our well-being or personal success.

5. Why we should be more altruistic

My own small acts of kindness are just small waves in an ocean.

Last month, it was the season for giving and spreading good cheer. You would’ve surely seen many examples of this during the holidays. Doing things without expecting anything in return is the best thing you can do as an upstanding citizen, even when it’s not a holiday. Holidays are reminders that get you in the spirit of giving, but we could do much more than that. Your actions have a far greater impact than you can imagine.

We could do with more optimism and faith that people will behave kindly in return if we do something good and selfless.

1. Does human evolution shape our habits?

I was reading the bestseller Atomic Habits by James Clear, and it introduced some interesting concepts about human evolution to explain why we are resistant to changing our habits. The book isn’t about human evolution, but refers to the theory to get some of its points across.

In the book, there were at least two stubborn habits that Clear attributes to human evolution. They involve 1) our modern diet, and 2) delayed gratification.

One of our most common habits is to eat junk food instead of a nutritious meal. In the current obesity epidemic, we tend to crave calorie-rich food that is high in sugar, salt and fat. An explanation for this is that our ancestors needed to store energy and fuel up on food in order to survive. Since it was uncertain when they could find their next meal, it would be evolutionarily advantageous to hang onto the fat storage in their bodies. That’s why we crave calorie-rich food.

In the present day however, food sources are plentiful, and this is when our evolutionary history doesn’t serve us well, as modern humans.

Evolution is doing us a disservice by not catching up to our current way of life.

2. How can we beat human evolution at its own game?

Most likely you have heard of the paleo diet. This diet is high in fruit, vegetables, and nuts. The diet cuts back on dairy, carbohydrates and meat in order to lose weight. This might seem like a good plan. However, critics who say that the paleo diet is just a fad also say that if you eat less calories than you burn, you would lose weight. It doesn’t matter whether you follow a certain diet or not.

The second bad habit is favouring instant gratification rather than delayed gratification. Early humans were focused on survival. They hunted or scavenged food for today, and protected themselves from predators and immediate threat. Because our brain has evolved to favour living for the present rather than the future, we don’t act unless it’s to do something that will satisfy our cravings immediately.

For example, you want that burger right now. You’re not motivated to exercise because you won’t see immediate weight loss right away. The way around this habit is to build a reward system each time so that you are more motivated to exercise.

Both habits, that we crave calorie-rich foods, and opt for instant instead of delayed gratification, are examples of how evolution is doing modern humans a disservice.

3. The “mismatch” between life as a modern human and our evolutionary history

These are interesting concepts that I felt warrant further research and investigation. So I found the book Unfit for Purpose by Adam Hart at the local library. An interesting read, Hart termed it a “mismatch” between our evolutionary history and our present way of life in modern societies.

It should be noted that the book pokes several holes in the theory about how obesity evolved. For instance, it would make more sense that evolution would favor a lean body type so that humans would be faster at running away from predators. Also, obesity should be selected for if famine were to act as a selective pressure. Yet, famine does not occur at a high enough frequency, and the ones who are more likely to die from famine (children and the elderly) would have no effect on selection since they are not in the reproductive age.

Hart also gives several other examples of how evolution made us “unfit for purpose.” Celiac disease is linked to mutations in the HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 genes. These mutations cause inflammation in the small intestine, symptoms of gluten intolerance. The mutations are thought to be positively selected for because it protects against dental cavities. There is no cure for celiac disease, rather it is only possible to prevent rather than treat the diseases by avoiding gluten in the diet.

4. The evolutionary response to stress is misaligned with modern living

Our response to stress is another way that evolution is misaligned with modern living. The flight or fight response has allowed early humans to run away from predators. However, it is now causing us to have extreme reactions such as heart attacks. We no longer consider predators such as lions and leopards to be a constant threat, but our fight or flight response still kicks in when we are faced with stressful situations. We have learned that stress, both acute and chronic, can have debilitating effects on our well-being. Whole industries supply solutions on coping with stress, such as meditation, yoga, and exercise.

Another major stressor that has emerged in today’s society is our tendency to be plugged into large social networks. We constantly have our computers, laptops, phones, and televisions switched on. Humans were not evolved to have large social networks. Our ancestors lived in tribes for protection, but the magic number is 150 individuals, which is the optimal group size derived from statistics.

It’s true, people have an unhealthy preoccupation with social media. The speed at which technology is changing the modern world also makes it too fast for evolution to catch up and cope with it. The solution is to unplug and stop stressing out about Facebook posts, Instagram followers, and tweets.

5. We must use strategy to win the game

Experts love to refer to evolution to explain our faults as modern humans. It’s useful for understanding our compulsions and why we act the way we do, and possibly, what we can do about our bad habits. We can study human evolution and try to mitigate the effects of millenia of conditioning by finding ingenious ways to hack our way out of any problem. If only it can be as easy as changing the trajectory of our own evolution!

Further Reading

Clear, James. Atomic Habits. (2018)
Hart, Adam. Unfit for Purpose. (2020)

1. What is social currency?

The rise of social media allowed individuals to capitalize on all the ways that they can influence the behaviour of just about everyone. The influence of behaviour, when monetized, turns into social currency.

Social currency is the degree of influence that you, as an individual, have on your peers, friends, families, and even the wider community of people who don’t know you.

It was first coined by the marketing executive Erich Joachimsthaler to explain the influence that brands and businesses have on the behaviour of their customers. If you have a wide social media following, you could say that you have a great amount of “social currency.” This is because the number of followers you have can translate into a lot of value in the form of opportunities, partnerships, and sponsorships.

You can have a far greater reach if you expand your sphere of influence through building your following and community of people who know and listen to you.

That’s what makes you a valuable consumer to businesses and brands, because social currency translates into sales. You can find evidence for this in just about any billion dollar industry, where the average consumer acts like a brand ambassador without even knowing it.

Akin to “social proof“, you gain social currency when you make a purchase that heightens your status in society. When your friends see you with the latest tech gadget, your reputation is heightened in their opinion, and they have the desire to emulate you. You “spend” your social currency by making recommendations that further influence how your followers act, think, consume, and purchase.

2. How social currency can make you rich

Social media has multiplied the value of how much influence you can have.

Before social media, it would’ve been difficult or next to impossible for any one individual to have any great influence beyond their immediate circle of friends, families, and casual acquaintances. If you were a small business owner, you could buy ads in newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio.

But now social media allows a massive reach with a small percentage of the budget. Currently, with social media channels, you can influence millions of strangers who consume your content without meeting you face to face. They invite you into their home, their lives, and listen to your opinions and recommendations. The more people you know and follow you, the more chances you have to open doors to opportunities.

Your follower count can translate to money gained through brand partnerships and deals.

3. Safeguard your social currency

Like individuals, businesses need social currency to thrive. A business spends its social currency through branding and marketing, using these tools to influence the behaviour of its current and potential consumers. Brands and influencers wield power through the extent of their influence.

One of the pitfalls is that trust is that it is easy to lose their confidence in you. Social currency is built upon reputation because a good reputation leads to loyalty and returning engagement. People will find ways to strengthen that bond and build that trust.

Trust is not won easily. That’s why you can lose trust rapidly if a brand or influencer is caught up in a scandal that damages their reputation, losing sponsorships and followers. You’ve seen this happen a lot in the media, so that’s why trust is given with a degree of cynicism.

You can risk damaging that reputation, so choose wisely. This is one of the pitfalls of social currency.

4. Why is social currency valuable?

For social currency to have any value, the people must first believe that it is valuable in the first place. Social currency is also attained through the number of combined followers from your social media accounts, number of people who subscribe to your email lists, and the number of connections. The more authority that you build, the more social currency that you have to spend.

The influence of social media permeates just about everything that we do, shaping our decisions, behaviour, and everyday actions.

Individuals are incentivized to promote a particular brand and be their brand ambassador because it confers advantages such as raising their public persona. Companies love it when their products grant their users social currency.

5. What can you buy with social currency?

How much social currency do you have? Social currency can propel your rank and status into greater heights.

The idea of exclusivity, which some brands have successfully utilized in their marketing campaigns, is also a great factor in increasing your social currency.

But can social currency make you rich?

Yes, social currency can make you rich. Tools like affiliate marketing incentivize people to recommend products and services. If enough people buy a business’s products because of your recommendation, you can earn a commission.

But just like money, spend your social currency wisely. Personal or business branding is an extension of your reputation. Trust is not given blindly.

No one wants to be hoodwinked into buying a product that doesn’t work well just because you recommended it.

In summary, social media permits brands and individuals to influence buyer behaviour. The action of influencing behaviour is social currency. You, too, can use social currency to your own advantage. But use it cautiously, because you can easily forfeit social currency if your audience discovers that they’ve misplaced their trust in you.

Knowledge is valuable. But how valuable?

Institutions have monetized information in acceptable ways such as private education and intellectual property (IP). But is it right to put a price on knowledge? And who has the power to choose which types of information are acceptable to monetize?

One could argue that by putting a price on information, it benefits only those who are wealthy enough to be privileged to access that information. Does this mean that others are kept ignorant if they are not as lucky?

Do news channels have the right to monetize information?

One example of how information is monetized is the rise of online subscription services for news media. Many newspaper websites are now accessible only through a paid subscription.

It’s understandable that the consumption of news has changed dramatically these past decades. With the decrease in sales of print copies, and the shift towards distribution of news through internet channels, news outlets must pivot and find ways to reach their audience. If readers want news from the internet, news agencies must sell ad space and charge subscriptions, or lose revenue and go out of business. Nowadays, it’s not sustainable for news agencies to give away their news for free.

There must be a way to make a profit from knowledge and information, but without guarding it from people who have a right to know. As citizens, we have the right to be informed about the world, but it must be made possible in the first place for news agencies to run their business.

To be equitable, there must be a way to fund a new sources’ operations without overcharging readers.

Should education be free?

Is private education better than public education? Is a degree from an Ivy League college more valuable than any other college?

Some Ivy League graduates will spend half their lives paying off their tuition fees. But an impressive degree next to their name will sometimes give them an edge over the competition in the job market.

In a private education system, only the very wealthy can benefit from the information. And in a lot of cases, only the very wealthy can choose who can benefit from it, for example, by selecting those who can receive scholarships and academic grants.

Higher education generates more knowledgeable citizens, which spurs economic development, and boosts the economy. Countries that invest the most in both public and private education have a higher GDP and economic output.

It’s easy to believe that the most expensive college degree leads to careers with the highest salaries. This is why professors and experts are highly paid. They have the knowledge that they can teach, which in most societies are highly valued.

Yes, education should be free up to a certain point. At the same time, institutions have the right to charge fees in exchange for knowledge. Education is like any other investment, you have to put in the money to reap the benefits.

Should knowledge be affordable?

So far, we’ve seen news agencies and educational institutions charge fees for their services. The reality is that people must capitalize on knowledge to make a living that they desire for themselves.

To keep a business running, you must have the information in the first place by investing in research and development. This is how your business is sustainable and is able to continue offering your products and services.

Information, especially when it’s valuable, permits competition. And when you get competition, you also get a resulting increase in price. In this way, information can become very expensive.

Can there be a system where those who can afford knowledge, do so, but in a way that allows them to spread that information to others? The dissemination of knowledge is a step towards creating a situation where everyone wins.

Knowledge is more valuable if there is a price on it. Knowledge that you can later use to improve your financial situation, health and well being is highly sought after. It follows that there is inequality because not everyone can afford it. Is there a better solution than saying that it’s just the reality and we have to accept it?

One can argue that information should be readily available for anyone’s consumption, especially if it’s information that could save your life. Imagine what could happen if we were kept in ignorance, or those with power are selective over what we can know and what we can’t know.

Should the elite have all the power to make decisions over what is permissible to know and what isn’t? This is one of the reasons why laws such as the freedom of information act serve its purpose. These laws guard our right to know and deter those in power from corruption.

Can what we know hurt us?

Are we better off being in the dark, because ignorance is bliss?

Sometimes we are kept ignorant for political reasons. There are some types of information that are kept secret for reasons of national security. However, when that information is kept secret only to allow others to continue fueling corruption, that is when information leaks lead to scandal and controversy.

When information is bartered and sold to the highest bidder, it encourages a breeding ground for spies and criminals. Selling state or trade secrets is a crime that leads to lawsuits, fines, and jail time.

So yes, knowledge has a great, and sometimes criminal, value, especially if it’s illegal knowledge.

There are laws against stealing information and trade secrets. There are laws to protect IP. IP permits the right to make a profit out of knowledge, and to protect that right.

Being entrusted with knowledge means being responsible for equal opportunity

People have the right to monetize information, but should be responsible for spreading some of that information freely. We have realized that it is a disadvantage for society to safeguard information only for those who are wealthy enough to afford it. However, there are some strides towards making access to knowledge equitable. For example, open access journals provide research articles at no cost to readers.

It is idealistic to believe that information should be free for everyone to benefit from, regardless of their income and economic status. But maybe it’s fair to say that knowledge is available to those who know how to look for it.

In an ideal world, the selling of knowledge is done with the understanding that it will be used for good and for improving societal conditions.

In an ideal world, there would be no fees to access knowledge. Those who wish to would be able to benefit from it, without restrictions.

We have to strike a balance between releasing and safeguarding information in these three situations: 1) business owners must be able to capitalize on their discoveries, which can include products and services; 2) safety, security and privacy must be upheld with regards to confidential information, and 3) knowledge is for everyone, especially when it is knowledge that will increase quality of life and health.

People who are entrusted with knowledge must be the first ones to uphold equal opportunity and fairness. Only when this standard is set can people have the right to monetize information.