Category: Laptops

• President Joe Biden arrived in Ukraine’s capital on Monday in a surprise visit.
• His aides had denied that he would visit Kyiv while on a trip to neighboring Poland.
• Most aides were too worried about his safety to think the trip was worth it, Politico reported.

US President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Ukraine’s capital on Monday, even though most of his aides believed up until this month that making the trip would be too dangerous for him.

Biden arrived in Kyiv by train, in an unexpected trip when he was due to visit neighboring Poland. The visit, The New York Times reported, was kept secret over security concerns.

Many on Biden’s own team reportedly did not want him to make the trip over fears for his safety.

Politico reported on Sunday that a trip to Ukraine had been “all but ruled out” after aides looked into the feasibilty, because most felt that the risk to his safety meant the trip wouldn’t be worth it.

Air raid sirens sounded over the city as Biden visited on Monday, but there were no signs of any attacks, Reuters reported.

Zelenskyy told Biden that “Your visit is an extremely important sign of support for all Ukrainians,” according to Reuters.

Biden used the trip to affirm US committment to Ukraine as it approaches the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

He said in a statement that he was meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team “for an extended discussion on our support for Ukraine.”

He said he will “announce another delivery of critical equipment, including artillery ammunition, anti-armor systems, and air surveillance radars to help protect the Ukrainian people from aerial bombardments.”

Biden’s visit comes just four days before that one year-anniversary.

Ukraine, Western leaders and intelligence officials fear Russia could use the anniversary to launch a big new offensive, which increased the potential security risk in Kyiv for Biden.

Russia’s troops retreated from Kyiv last year after failing to take the city, and fighting has been concentrated in eastern Ukraine since then.

But Russia’s playbook includes sending drones and missiles across the country, far from the front lines, and Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said that Russia may try to take the city all over again. 

Biden said in his statement that “When Putin launched his invasion nearly one year ago, he thought Ukraine was weak and the West was divided. He thought he could outlast us. But he was dead wrong.”

He said he was in Kyiv to “reaffirm our unwavering and unflagging commitment to Ukraine’s democracy, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.”

Biden is due to meet with Poland’s president as well as the leaders of eastern European countries after his visit to Ukraine.

• The SEC has stepped up its campaign to reign in what its Chair has called the “Wild West” of crypto.
• Gary Gensler has gone after the Winklevoss twins and Kraken, the world’s third-biggest crypto exchange.
• But its targeting of unregistered assets has left some in the crypto sector with one response: it’s war.

After lots of calls to clean up the wild west of crypto, it looks like the SEC is finally getting stuck in.

It’s gone after big names like Gemini and Kraken – and it’s using rules on unregistered securities as its key hammer.

We explain what those are and what the industry makes of the regulatory crackdown.

What has been targeted?

The SEC has been swift in recent weeks in its push to reprimand crypto offerings it regards as breaking the rules, leaning on the argument that they are unregistered securities.

The highest-profile suit came against the crypto giant Genesis and the Winklevoss twins’ Gemini in January, after the SEC accused its disastrous “Gemini Earn” program of being an offering of unregistered securities.

Then Kraken, the world’s third biggest crypto exchange, last week paid a $30 million settlement to the SEC and agreed to stop its “staking” program, where investors lock in their holdings of digital assets for a interest-based reward.

And this week, crypto firm Paxos was forced by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to stop minting its Binance-branded stablecoin after a planned lawsuit from the SEC over the sale of unregistered securities. This differs from previous staking suits. 

A spokesperson told Insider it categorically disagreed with SEC staff, arguing its BUSD coin was not a security.

Why now?

The collapse of FTX in November, locking out billions of dollars in customer deposits, has undoubtedly increased the urgency to rein in potentially risky offerings, as did that event’s contagion effects on Genesis and Gemini.

But regulators’ discomfort with crypto stretches back years – as far as the asset has been popular. In October 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler referred to the crypto sector as “a bit of the Wild West.”

Emerging evidence suggests programs like staking have become a means for crypto firms to inflate the value of their assets using consumer funds. 

An investigation into now-bankrupt crypto giant Celsius found the company had used customer funds to prop up the value its native coin in a bid to return high yields to investors.

What is an unregistered security?

A security, most simply, is a financial instrument traded for profit. They form the basis of investment contracts for thinks like equities, debt, and derivatives.

The SEC points to the Howey Test to determine if an asset can be classed as a security. This test has four prongs, all of which need to be passed to be determined a security: [1] An investment of money [2] in a common enterprise [3] with expectations of a profit [4] to be derived from the efforts of others.

In the US, if an asset is deemed to be a security it needs to be registered with the SEC. For example, an initial public offering (IPO) of a stock newly listed on the stock exchange represents the first offering of its freshly registered securities. 

Securities need to be registered as it gives the issuing company the relevant shareholder information to pay dividends and provide relevant stock-related information. It also helps reduce fraud by keeping on record the legitimate owner of the security.

According to the SEC, an unregistered security is simply one that hasn’t been rubber-stamped by the regulator. 

Unregistered securities have been the subject of several scams, with the SEC saying their hallmarks include the promise of high yields with no risk, aggressive sales tactics, and are backed by unqualified investment professionals. As such, their use is limited.

Only accredited investors, defined as those with a net worth higher than $1 million or an annual income exceeding $200,000, can trade unregistered securities, essentially locking out most retail investors. The threshold is seen as a gauge of financial sophistication and suggests a buffer for eligible investors against potential losses.

The debate in the crypto world, though, doesn’t fall on whether the assets should or shouldn’t be registered, but more fundamentally on whether they should be classed as securities at all.

So, what is the confusion?

There’s long been a debate whether a digital asset – essentially, software – is a commodity like gold, or a security like an ETF. To this end, crypto is typically regulated by the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission (CFTC), indicating its status as a commodity. 

Gensler though, has argued most cryptocurrencies meet the legal definition of a security, and should be registered with the SEC.

But the evolution of the crypto sector, namely through programs like staking and initial coin offerings (ICOs), are blurring the lines and giving the SEC ammunition to pursue a clampdown. 

The crackdown focuses on firms that promised returns to clients, whether for staking their crypto for a blockchain or for lending their crypto with a guaranteed percentage return, as with Kraken and Gemini’s Earn program respectively. These could be seen as investment contracts.

Crypto enthusiasts tend to argue that the asset doesn’t pass all four prongs of the Howey test to determine a security or investment contract, as it doesn’t generate value through the effort of others.

Meanwhile, last week Coinbase’s chief legal officer Paul Grewal also rebuffed the idea of staking being a security. In a note, he argued that staking failed all four prongs of the Howey Test, not just the fourth one of value creation.

“Trying to superimpose securities law onto a process like staking doesn’t help consumers at all,” Grewal wrote. “Instead, unnecessarily aggressive mandates will prevent US consumers from accessing basic crypto services in the US and push users to offshore, unregulated platforms.”

More fundamentally, the crypto industry’s bigwigs, from Brian Armstrong to Anthony Scaramucci, have piled in on the SEC’s ruling on Kraken’s “staking” program, describing it as an attack on economic freedoms.

What’s next?

Crypto firms and the SEC will have to wait on the outcome of various lawsuits to set a precedent. The outcome could mean crypto firms having to register offerings and assets as securities, but some argue this has left them in no man’s land.

“Regulation by enforcement is puzzling for crypto enthusiasts,” Globalblock Crypto, a digital asset brokerage, said in a note.

“The SEC claim that “all crypto projects have to do is come in and register,” yet when they do, they are just told “no”. People are desperately trying to figure out how to offer a product legally whilst getting zero guidance.”

Scott Melker, “The Wolf of All Streets” crypto trader, had more choice language.

“”It is clear that the US is going to war with the crypto industry,” he tweeted.

“If it’s war they want, it’s war they’ll get.”

• Warren Buffett’s $3 billion investment in General Electric saved the company, a new book reveals.
• GE Capital faced a potential default and bankruptcy in 2008, Bill Cohan writes in “Power Failure.”
• Buffett’s cash and vote of confidence enabled GE to survive the financial crisis, Cohan reported.

Warren Buffett plowed $3 billion into General Electric at the height of the financial crisis — and the famed investor’s support likely saved the industrial titan from melting down, author Bill Cohan reveals in his new book.

The collapse of GE, the second-most valuable public US company after Exxon at the time, would have sent shockwaves through the American economy. Cohan provides a look inside the the crisis-stricken conglomerate in “Power Failure: The Rise and Fall of an American Icon.”

GE’s troubles stemmed from GE Capital, its financial-services arm. The division capitalized on GE’s AAA credit rating to borrow cheaply from commercial-paper markets, then lend money out at much higher interest rates. 

Over the years, GE Capital expanded from financing household purchases of fridges and dishwashers, to executing leveraged buyouts and overseeing a $90 billion commercial real estate portfolio.

By October 2008, GE Capital commanded $650 billion of assets, owed $550 billion of debt, and generated around 50% of its parent company’s profits.

When the housing bubble burst and credit markets froze up, GE Capital faced a liquidity crunch that threatened to force it into default and bankruptcy.

Despite being one of the largest financial institutions in the country, it wasn’t classified as a bank. As a result, it wasn’t regulated by the Federal Reserve, which could have helped it to access emergency capital, and it was excluded from the US government’s bank bailouts.

That raised the prospect of a catastrophic meltdown.

“The implications for corporate America were astonishing,” a top lawyer advising GE at the time told Cohan. He was referring to the risk of GE Capital folding, and the financial sector’s woes cascading through the wider economy.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt hoped to avoid that grim outcome by raising $15 billion via an equity offering, but widespread fear in markets threatened to scupper the plan.

He decided to invite Buffett to be an anchor investor, a role the Berkshire Hathaway CEO had served in a deal with Goldman Sachs a week earlier.

“If Buffett says no, we’re fucked,” CFO Keith Sherin told Immelt at the time.

“They were freaking out, because had they not got the stock issued, they were probably toast,” a senior Goldman banker involved in the offering told Cohan about GE’s leadership team.

Fortunately for GE, Buffett agreed to invest $3 billion in return for preferred stock paying a 10% annual dividend, and warrants allowing him to buy common stock at a fixed price during the next five years. He also required Immelt and Sherin to retain 90% of their GE stock until his preferred shares were redeemed, Cohan reported.

Immelt told Cohan that Buffett’s backing was “like having an underwriter in a sea of shit.”

Berkshire ultimately made about $1.5 billion — a 50% return — from the deal. Buffett could have squeezed harder, but he cut GE some slack given its dire situation, he noted during Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting in 2018.

“They were going to take the terms we offered,” Buffett said. “But we actually didn’t push it to the limit because there really wasn’t anybody else around.”

Buffett may have left some money on the table, but it seems his cash and vote of confidence saved one of America’s largest companies from collapsing, and stopped the beaten-down US economy from suffering another devastating blow.

• Shares in Beijing-based investment bank China Renaissance plunged more than 20% after its founder and CEO went missing. 
• China clamped down on the country’s tech CEOs last year largely to create stronger protection for consumers. 
• The top tech dealmaker’s disappearance combined with China’s crackdown suggests the country is “uninvestible,” according to Muddy Waters Research. 

Shares in a leading Chinese investment bank plunged more than 20% after its billionaire founder vanished from public sight. 

China Renaissance’s stock nosedived 28.2% in Hong Kong trading on Friday. 

The company noted it “has been unable to contact” its founder and CEO Bao Fan. “The Board is not aware of any information that indicates that Mr. Bao’s unavailability is or might be related to the business and/or operations of the Group which is continuing normally,” according to a filing with the Hong Kong stock exchange. 

The Beijing-based investment bank’s day-to-day operations will be spearheaded by the executive committee of the company in Fan’s absence, the statement added. 

Fan’s disappearance follows an investigation of Cong Lin, the former chairman of China Renaissance’s subsidiary firm Huajing Securities, according to a Chinese financial news outlet, cited by CNBC. 

Chinese authorities found that Huajing breached the securities law pertaining to corporate governance last September. 

Since last fall, China has clamped down on the country’s tech industry, and announced plans to restrict how companies use algorithms. The crackdown shook investors and added risks to Chinese tech stocks like Alibaba and Ant Group. It’s also deterred many from holding Chinese tech stocks because of the heightened uncertainty. 

Muddy Waters Research, a US-based due-diligence firm that conducts investigative research on Chinese companies, has suggested that Fan’s vanishing and China’s new tech regulations are creating an image for the country that’s not investor-friendly.

“Again, China = Uninvestible”, it said in a tweet accompanied by the news of Fan. 

• “Citadel,” Amazon Studios’ ambitious spy series, is on track to be one of the costliest series ever made.
• It’s the kind of show Amazon hopes will set it apart from Netflix and other streamers.
• But the series has been dogged by cost overruns and creative clashes, and some ask if the risk will pay off.

“Citadel” is an example of the kind of programming Amazon hopes will set it apart — tentpole entertainment that can attract a global audience. Since the project was announced in 2018, it has become one of the most expensive TV series ever made.

Pitched as “Mission Impossible”-meets-“This Is Us,” “Citadel” is an ambitious spy drama that attempts to replicate the universe-storytelling pioneered by Marvel, with local language spinoffs being produced in places like India and Italy. 

There’s no shortage of talent attached to the project — it involved star directors Joe and Anthony Russo of “Avengers” fame as producers, along with writers Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec, known for “Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” “Game of Thrones” actor Richard Madden and India-born actress Priyanka Chopra Jonas would star.

Amazon Studios early on was known for prestige shows like “Transparent” and “Maisel” as well as action hits like “Jack Ryan.” Like the $1 billion “Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power” before it, “Citadel” is widely seen as a show that will be a defining moment for Amazon Studios as well as for its head, Jennifer Salke.  

But “Citadel” has been plagued by cost overruns, partly due to pandemic-related travel restrictions, and creative clashes that led to the firing of Appelbaum and exit of others, according to a report in the Hollywood Reporter.

Costs ballooned from an estimated $165 million for 10 30-minute episodes to $300 million for six, a person with knowledge of the production told Insider, though a source familiar with company thinking said the total was under $200 million. 

Amazon also spent big on “Rings of Power” and said it found 100 million viewers. But that series was based on beloved IP, which laid a foundation for its success (while also bringing criticism from J.R.R. Tolkien purists and others).

Some insiders wonder if the “Citadel” risk will pay off.

“‘Citadel’ never should’ve been made when it was made — it’s a $300 million spy show based on zero IP when the tail that’s wagging every dog in Hollywood right now is IP,” a second source with knowledge of the production said. 

Amazon Studios’ Head of Global Television, Vernon Sanders, told Insider that “Citadel” is new territory for the company. He added that Amazon Studios’ biggest swings have generally been the titles that bring the most people to the service, so it wouldn’t back away from ambitious projects.

“We’ve made big series before, but what we haven’t done is create a universe that spans multiple series and multiple countries with different creators,” he said. “It is ambitious on another scale. We are so grateful to everyone that has contributed to the vision that has grown and evolved over time, and yes, we needed to course-correct a bit, but that’s to be expected for something this significant.” 

The “Citadel” episode speaks to how Amazon is trying to forge an entertainment brand that stands out from Netflix, Disney+, and others — an effort that’s been fraught with challenges as all players now face increasing competition and obstacles in making streaming as profitable as the legacy television business it has largely supplanted.

Inside and outside of Amazon Studios, there are concerns about a lack of clear creative direction as well as the division’s future role in the larger Amazon ecosystem.

Insider spoke to 21 current and recently departed Amazon Studios executives, Hollywood agents, and other industry insiders about the opportunities and challenges.

• Tracey Price was couch surfing when she took a training contract for long-haul trucking in 2012.
• She told Insider she has a “healthy fear” of the 80,000-pound truck she drives and sleeps in. 
• Her favorite thing about long-haul truck driving is all the different places she gets to see. 

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with 39-year-old Tracey Price, a long-haul truck driver for aifleet based in Texas. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I was couch surfing when I took on a training contract with CRST, a transport company, as a long-haul truck driver in 2012. I wanted to do something different with my life. 

CRST paid for me to become a licensed truck driver with a Hazmat Endorsement in exchange for an eight-month work contract. It was a great way to get into a career when I had no money for training. I worked there until the beginning of 2022.

I had very little training before I was out on the roads. We learned to drive manual trucks. Trainers taught us how to shift gears and handle a vehicle that big on the roads. I was in the school for two-and-½ weeks and had about two hours of practice behind the wheel before the trainers tested us.

I ended up learning most of it as I did the job. The company I first started with was a team-based setup, so I was driving with a trainer for a while. 

I was terrified when I first got into the truck because it was huge

I drive solo in a truck that weighs 80,000 pounds. I still have what I call a healthy fear of trucks. I can maneuver the truck just fine, but I can’t control how other people are driving around me, so I’m always cautious.

My usual day driving starts between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. I wake up and get some coffee, then I check that the truck is in good working order. 

When I get to the drop-off or pick-up stop, I’ll speak to the people at the warehouse and figure out what stock I’m delivering or picking up. I wait for them to either load or unload my truck, then I’m back on the road. I deliver all types of dry-van commodities, or anything non-perishable. 

We’re only allowed to drive for 11 hours in a 14-hour shift. So, I normally drive for about 10 hours a shift. 

At the end of my shift, I find somewhere to park where I can sleep. I sleep in my truck while I’m on the road. 

I try to avoid the main truck stops at night because they get crowded, and someone hitting your truck or someone asking for money can interrupt you while you’re sleeping. I normally stop at rest areas or mom-and-pop truck stops that aren’t as busy. 

I feel safe traveling by myself in the truck. But if I’m in a sketchy area, I’ll try to stop early or park under lights.

When I was driving with a trainer, I would sleep on a bed at the back of the truck while they were driving. It was a little unusual, and the truck would bounce me around in bed, even with a safety net.

I can shape my driving schedule around when I have visitation with my daughter. I’ll drive for three weeks, have the weekend off, drive for another week, another weekend off, then three weeks on again. I love being on the road, but I do get homesick occasionally. 

Why I enjoy being a long-haul truck driver

Truck driving is the best way that I can provide for my kid. I like being my own boss. I tell myself when to get up, and I tell myself the route I’m taking. 

My favorite part about the job is everything I get to see. 

I’m very big on scenery, sunsets, and sunrises. I’ve driven watching the sunset in Arizona one day and seen it rise in Tennessee the next. I love watching the seasons change as I’m driving. I live in Texas, but I mainly drive through the Midwest and the Northeast. 

Drawbacks of long-haul truck driving 

There are weather drawbacks to long-haul driving. I choose not to go where it’s snowy and icy, and avoid certain states that don’t take care of the roads.

The job gets lonely, especially with the hours I drive — there are only a few hours a day that I can talk to people. I’ll sometimes go three or four days without talking to another human I know in my life. I’ve found that I need to touch base with friends and family while I’m driving. A two-minute conversation with the shippers or receivers consisting of, “I’m here to pick up,” or, “I’m here to deliver,” is not enough. 

I ask friends to let me know if they’re going to be awake early or staying up late for phone calls 

When I’m driving at night, I distract myself by listening to music and audiobooks. 

I have a few friends who are truck drivers, and I sometimes meet up with them when we’re on the road. Sometimes I’ll have lunch with a friend who works at AI Fleet if we’re both in the same area.

Men are less helpful to women drivers 

I’ve struggled to get into a parking spot and seen five guys watch me struggle, then seen a male driver pull up and all of them run over to help him. I learned within the first two months of driving that guys probably weren’t going to be as helpful to a female driver as they would with other men.

I’ve been called various names by male drivers. They don’t think that women should be driving, but I just think to myself, “It’s your opinion, and I can probably back the truck into a spot that you can’t.” 

The gender split at my company is 11% female drivers and 89% male drivers. 

I’m planning to come off the road for a little while 

My daughter is 5, so I want to spend more time with her. But I will most likely get back into a truck when she’s a little older.

When she’s older, I’m hoping she can come with me to see different states. It’s one thing to talk about a place, but it’s another thing to actually be able to go see it. I want to share that with her.

My advice to other women who want to get into long-haul trucking is to just do it. Don’t let people tell you that you can’t, or that you don’t belong in a truck. Get in a truck, handle it, and prove everyone wrong.

• Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch were spotted sitting next to each other at the Super Bowl on Sunday.
• Guesswork erupted on Twitter after a user asked what these two could be discussing and wanted “wrong answers only.”
• Musk joined in on the joke and said they were discussing Dogecoin. It sent the meme coin surging about 5% on Monday. 

Elon Musk, the CEO of Twitter, Tesla, and SpaceX, was spotted sitting next to Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp, at the Super Bowl on Sunday.

Pictures of the billionaires — watching the Philadelphia Eagles versus Kansas City Chiefs game that saw the latter team take home the trophy — went viral on social media and ignited a discussion of what these two could be chatting about.

On Monday, a Twitter user posted a picture of the duo seated next to each other, asking “what are they talking about?” and wanting “wrong answers only.” The tweet had been viewed 19.7 million times as of 5 a.m. EST on Tuesday and had accrued more than 7,600 responses.

—Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) February 13, 2023

People on Twitter chimed in with everything from jabs about the price of buying a verified check mark on Twitter to taunts about swapping dress shirts instead of jerseys to commemorate the game.

One user replied saying he believes Musk is offering to buy Murdoch’s Fox News.

—Farshid Hakimyar (@FarshidHakimyar) February 13, 2023

 

Another user tweeted that Musk and Murdoch are discussing how to replace Donald Trump with Ron DeSantis so they can continue non-stop wars. “Oops you said wrong answers,” the poster added.

—Charles (@Dakaronn) February 13, 2023

DeSantis has not launched a 2024 bid yet, though various recent media reports indicate he is gearing up to run for president. And back in November, Musk really did say that he would support DeSantis in 2024 if the latter were to run for president, per Reuters. CNN reported on November 9 that Murdoch appeared to prefer DeSantis as the leader of the Republican party over former President Donald Trump.

Another user joked that Musk was offering Murdoch a ride to Mars if he fires Paul Ryan. Ryan, the 54th Speaker of the US House of Representatives, has been on the board of Fox News since 2019.

—The Real ExtraInnings (@Extra_Inningz) February 13, 2023

 

One user responded to the thread, saying that he thinks Murdoch and Musk were discussing new ways to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

—Waz (@skytrailer) February 13, 2023

Musk himself chimed in on the thread, too, and joked he was talking to Murdoch about meme cryptocurrency Dogecoin. Musk response sent Dogecoin immediately surging as much as 5% on Monday. It has since retraced back to wipe out most of its earlier gains, per Coindesk.

To be clear, these are all all speculations on Twitter, and none of the guesses have been confirmed or substantiated.

Representatives for Musk and Murdoch did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

• Writers across industries have expressed concerns that ChatGPT will take their jobs one day.
• But experts say that sites publishing AI-written content are penalized by Google’s spam policies. 
• They offered three reasons why it’s unlikely that ChatGPT will replace them in the future.

Since OpenAI’s ChatGPT was launched in November, writers across industries like copywriting, marketing, and journalism have been worried that it might take their jobs.

ChatGPT’s ability to read, write, and absorb vast amounts of information has raised concerns about the risk of losing one’s job to AI. The chatbot reached 100 million users in just two months — faster than TikTok and Instagram — as people experiment with it to probe its wide-ranging skills. 

The media industry has been particularly receptive to the tool. After Buzzfeed laid off 12% of its workforce in December, it announced that it will use ChatGPT to generate quizzes and other types of content. Tech news site CNET also said it was using a ChatGPT-like tool to produce its articles. 

One copywriter wrote in the Guardian that he was horrified it “took ChatGPT 30 seconds to create, for free, an article that would take me hours to write.” 

Experts, however, say the likelihood of ChatGPT actually replacing jobs in writing-based industries is low.

Alan Jacobson, chief data and analytics officer at software firm Alteryx said people are “intimidated” by ChatGPT because of the perception that: “It’s going to replace me, it’s a competitor.”

Such tools will actually “help humans go further on their journey than before,” he told Insider.

He said: “In quite some time we haven’t really seen a technology breakthrough really displacing workers from the workforce, but it could change the type of work that people are doing.” 

Although ChatGPT might bring some changes to the workplace, here are three reasons why it’s unlikely to replace you. 

ChatGPT can’t replicate human creativity or empathy 

Sheeta Verma, a marketing consultant for startups based in California, said she’s not convinced that ChatGPT is going to replace her because AI-generated content has telltale signs. 

She said that some founders had reached out to her because they had been spammed by agencies sending them content written by ChatGPT. They requested that Verma redo the work submitted by the agencies and create better copy. 

Verma said the difference between content written by AI and marketers is like “night and day.” 

“You will see that it’s lacking that sort of human touch,” she said. “A marketer is 100% a professional who has been doing this for years, who knows exactly how to make it fun, quirky, and to completely appeal to the audience.” 

Empathy is another skill ChatGPT doesn’t have because we have “a higher order way of thinking about things,” Jacobson said.

“We have beliefs about equality and justice, aspects of what is in our belief system that come out in our products and services as companies in the way we write, that the computer doesn’t have.” 

ChatGPT can’t beat Google’s spam policies 

Companies that publish content written by ChatGPT or other AI tools are likely to be penalized by Google’s unbeatable spam policies. 

“AI-written content has been against Google guidelines for over a decade,” Edward Coram, the CEO of marketing agency Go Up said to Insider. “The spam guidelines are the main offenders where Google says this isn’t really open to interpretation: ‘If you break any of these rules and we catch you, we will penalize you.’ 

“There are less than 20 such rules and one of them is don’t use AI-written content on your website. Just don’t do it.” 

If users break Google’s spam policies, their websites “may rank lower in results or not appear in results at all,” the guidelines state. 

The policies dedicate a section to “spammy automatically generated content” which includes text generated by automated processes without regard to quality or “text generated from scraping feeds or search results,” — all things ChatGPT does. 

ChatGPT will change the way we work, but it won’t displace us 

Businesses will “absolutely” use ChatGPT to help automate certain processes, but is unlikely to displace humans, Jacobson said. 

Humans are needed to do “higher value stuff” and not just “mundane repetitive things” that can be automated. 

“What makes businesses highly profitable is using humans to do these higher order things, these creative strategic thinking things that still are a long way from anything I’ve seen the computers able to really do. “

When Insider decided ask ChatGPT if it will replace people’s jobs, it said that roles requiring “creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence” are less likely to be replaced by AI. 

When specifically asked about content writing roles, it said: “While AI language models can generate basic content quickly and efficiently, they still lack the creativity, emotional intelligence, and human understanding that is required to produce high-quality content that truly resonates with people.

“Additionally, AI models require human supervision and oversight to ensure that the content generated is accurate and appropriate.

“For now, the role of ChatGPT and other AI models in content creation is to augment and assist human content creators, rather than to replace them.”

• Job searching online can be discouraging — all the roles you want already have tons of applicants.
• But Claudia Garcia, a recruiter, said that the ease of online applications inflates the numbers.
• So while getting the job might look like a long shot, your odds are better than you think. 

Spend an hour or two trawling job listings on LinkedIn and it’s easy to get discouraged.

Every role that looks interesting already has a multitude of applicants. Throwing your résumé into the mix seems like a massive waste of time and a recipe for disappointment. 

You should apply anyway.

That’s according to Claudia Garcia, a senior specialty recruiter for Pontoon Solutions, which is part of the staffing company The Adecco Group. “The numbers look scary sometimes,” she told Insider. “But numbers can be deceiving.”

Garcia said that the convenience of online job portals means that it’s “almost too easy to apply.” Many candidates upload their profiles for positions they’re neither qualified for, nor particularly suited to based on their past work experience. And even ones who make it past the initial screen often fall out of the process for all sorts of reasons. 

Put simply: The numbers are inflated. Garcia illustrated the point in a recent LinkedIn post where she described how her advertisement for a remote-recruiter job garnered more than 1,200 applications, but in actuality, yielded only 15 candidates. 

It looks like a long shot, but your odds aren’t that bad

To be clear: 1,200 applications for a single job posting on LinkedIn is usually high, but remote positions are more competitive, she said. According to a recent LinkedIn report on the state of the labor market, there were two active applicants for every one remote opportunity available in the US as of October 2022. 

Claudia Garcia

Garcia received more than 400 applications within the first day of posting the job; that number more than tripled by the end of the week. Garcia reviewed every application and narrowed down a “short list” of 100 top candidates.

Her winnowing criterion was simple: She rejected all applicants without previous staffing-agency experience; the hiring manager explicitly required at least one year. This expectation was in the job description, too.

Garcia then emailed the top 100 with a link to apply directly on the company’s site. “Some might say that having to apply on our site is an extra hurdle, but this is the way we track candidates,” she said. “And it’s an easy application that takes a maximum of four minutes to complete.”

Only 36 submitted applications on the company’s site. There could be all sorts of reasons for this, Garcia said. “Maybe they got another offer. Maybe they’re applying to so many jobs, my message got lost. Maybe they read the job description again, and realized they weren’t interested,” she said. “There are lots of possibilities.”

She emailed the remaining 36 candidates asking them to sign up on her calendar for 15-minute screening interviews. Only 18 candidates signed up for the interviews.

Next, she conducted the interviews, which are more akin to conversations, she said. Unless candidates bomb, they automatically advance to the next round.

But only 15 bothered to show up at all. Garcia sent their applications along with her notes to the hiring manager for further consideration.

The lesson for job seekers is clear: While getting the job might look like a long shot based on the sheer number of applicants, your odds are better than you think. 

“Don’t be intimidated because a job post has hundreds of applications,” she said. “If you want it, apply.”

• An anti-vax social-media campaign has targeted the family of a 6-year-old girl who died suddenly.
• A photo of the child posted on the “Died Suddenly” Twitter blamed her parents for vaccinating her.
• #DiedSuddenly is a recent iteration of an online conspiracy spreading disinformation about vaccines.

After the unexpected death of a young girl with long-time health issues in Ohio, online conspiracy theorists took the opportunity to blame the COVID-19 vaccine for her passing.

Just hours after the funeral of six-year-old Anastasia Weaver, who died in January, strangers online were quick to contact grieving family members to further their anti-vaccination agenda. One Facebook user messaged the child’s mother, according to AP, calling her a “murderer.”

Anastasia’s obituary said that the kindergartener died unexpectedly at the Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio on January 25. She had previously experienced health problems, including epilepsy, asthma, and frequent hospitalizations resulting from respiratory viruses, her obituary said.

While the results of her autopsy are not yet public, doctors “haven’t given us any information other than it was due to all of her chronic conditions,” Jessica Day-Weaver, Anastasia’s mother, told AP. 

Even so, the “Died Suddenly” Twitter page — and, more widely, the anti-vaccination movement — has co-opted and exploited the death of a young girl after the account posted a photograph of Anastasia on Twitter with a syringe emoji as a kind of “warning” against COVID vaccines.

“Her mother is a nurse, and she heavily pushed the vaccine on Facebook,” the post said, falsely indicating that her mother and the vaccine were in some way responsible for her death. 

The “Died Suddenly” hashtag is centered around a video by the same name, which labels itself as a “documentary film of a generation.”

Produced late last year by the far-right online commentator Stew Peters, the film misrepresents the stories of health crises and frames them as vaccine-related deaths. The hour-long movie claims, among other things, that COVID vaccines cause blood clots that cause unexpected deaths — an idea that health experts have repeatedly debunked as misinformation.  

Anastasia and her family are only one of the latest targets of the “Died Suddenly” Twitter account, which began posting in October 2022 and has nearly 300,000 followers. Other Twitter accounts are also pushing this line and trawling for death stories.

The anti-vaccination movement latches on to and exploits the medical emergencies and deaths of many other children, teenagers, and high-profile celebrities — like the sudden collapse of the Buffalo Bills’ player Damar Hamlin after a cardiac arrest on the field — to “prove” their anti-vaccination theories. 

Some of those whose lives the movie has used for anti-vaccination propaganda, as Matt Shuham reported in the HuffPost, are fighting to take their stories back. 

Traffic to the #DiedSuddenly hashtag has increased by 740% on Twitter over the past two months compared to the previous two, according to an analysis conducted for the Associated Press, and searches for the term on Google spiked around the time the video was released. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also tweeted in support of the video a few days after it came out. 

While the film “premiered” on the site Rumble — a video-sharing site popular within the alt-right community — the entire video is also available to watch on Twitter after the site removed its COVID-misinformation label, when billionaire Elon Musk took over the platform, according to The Atlantic. 

“Twitter under Elon Musk has been giving signals to the communities of conspiracy theorists that Twitter’s door might be open to them again,” Jing Zeng, a researcher on Twitter and conspiracy theories, told The Atlantic.