Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Shutterstock
We can think of no possible way that a newly invented invisible drone can be used nefariously.
Rather than relying on camouflage, the flying gizmo created by researchers at Northwestern University exploits the motion blur effect in our fallible human vision to almost disappear by spinning at an absurd 25 times per second.
This is too quick for us and many animals to see clearly, becoming a gossamer smear that blends into the background, like the way the blades of a helicopter do, only more extreme.
One day, this type of design could be used for completely peaceful pursuits, the researchers say — like observing wildlife, of course.
“Most efforts to hide drones focus on making them look like their surroundings,” Michael Rubenstein, an associate professor of computer science and mechanical engineering at Northwestern who led the research, said in a statement about the work.
“Instead, we asked whether we could design the drone itself around the way humans perceive motion,” he added. “This idea of low visibility through persistent motion is something few people have explored.”
To create the drone, dubbed “Phantom Twist,” the team used a computational model to churn out around 20,000 different drone designs, then used AI and optimization algorithms to repeatedly rearrange how its major parts, like their motor and propeller, were configured.
Then they took the best configurations and used a model that simulates human perception to quantify how visible each design appeared. The least visible designs were chosen to be further rearranged with the optimization algorithm, until landing on the blurriest candidate of them all.
“The design process was fully automated,” Rubenstein said. “Then, when we were confident that a drone met all our criteria, we built it.”
It’s not the first spinning drone, but it is the first that’s been optimized to be effectively invisible to the human eye. Its major components are carefully spaced enough from each other to never become a distinct shape when viewed from any angle while spinning — all while being capable of stable flight.
According to the researcher’s visibility model, this allows the Phantom Twist to be about ten times less visually perceptible than a conventional quadcopter drone. Impressive footage certainly bears this out: after the drone gets up to full speed, it almost looks like the ghost of a tiny UFO.
The drone is quite noisy, however. If something like it is going to be used to observe wildlife one day, it’ll have to be vastly quieter. Until then, if these faint apparitions are ever turned on humans, at least we’ll be able to hear them coming.
I’m a tech and science correspondent for Futurism, where I’m particularly interested in astrophysics, the business and ethics of artificial intelligence and automation, and the environment.
FRONTLINE PBS | Official May 9, 2023 FRONTLINE As controversy erupts around Clarence and Ginni Thomas, this two-hour documentary special tells the inside story of their path to power. This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your local PBS station here: http://www.pbs.org/donate. Over the past three decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has risen to the center of power in Washington, impacting issues affecting millions of Americans — from abortion to affirmative action. By his side has been his wife and best friend, Ginni Thomas. Together, the Thomases have left an indelible mark on America — in the legal realm and in conservative politics. But what has fueled their rise and expanded influence, and what have been the consequences? “Clarence and Ginni Thomas: Politics, Power and the Supreme Court” is a FRONTLINE production with the Kirk Documentary Group. The director is Michael Kirk. The producers are Michael Kirk, Mike Wiser and Vanessa Fica. The writers are Michael Kirk and Mike Wiser. The reporters are Vanessa Fica and Jane Mayer. The editor-in-chief and executive producer of FRONTLINE is Raney Aronson-Rath. Explore additional reporting related to “Clarence and Ginni Thomas: Politics, Power and the Supreme Court” on our website: https://to.pbs.org/3LyTJbv
The Committees of Correspondence were vital Patriot networks established by American colonies before the Revolutionary War. Initiated by Samuel Adams in Boston (1772) and expanded colony-wide by Virginia (1773), they allowed leaders to share political grievances, mobilize grassroots resistance, and coordinate the First Continental Congress. Wikipedia +5
Origins and Purpose
Before the American Revolution, intercolonial communication was slow, limited, and heavily reliant on official (and often intercepted) British mail routes. To counter British policies—such as the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts—Patriots established an underground letter-writing network to bypass royal authority. Wikipedia +2
The movement evolved in two major phases:
Local Committees (1772): On November 2, 1772, during a Boston town meeting, Samuel Adams formed the first major committee to draft a statement of colonial rights and circulate it as a pamphlet throughout Massachusetts. Wikipedia +1
Intercolonial Committees (1773): In March 1773, Virginia leaders—including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee—established the first intercolonial standing committee to communicate directly with other colonies, unifying the Patriot cause. Encyclopedia Britannica +1
Key Functions and Impact
The Committees of Correspondence functioned as “shadow governments” that actively undermined royal rule in the Thirteen Colonies: History.com +2
Information Exchange: They rapidly circulated news about British abuses, legal infringements, and local protests (such as the Gaspee affair). George Washington’s Mount Vernon +2
Public Mobilization: They educated everyday colonists on their political rights, ensuring that the push for liberty reached rural towns and not just coastal cities. George Washington’s Mount Vernon +1
Unification: By spring 1773, 12 colonies had joined the network, creating a unified political front that bridged cultural and economic differences. Society for History Education +3
Legacy and the Continental Congress
The unified communications network laid the crucial political groundwork for organized resistance. When the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) in 1774, the committees were instrumental in organizing and summoning the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The vast majority of delegates who attended this historic convention were active members of their local or colonial Committees of Correspondence. Wikipedia +3
Emma Zerner Last updated on: Mar 05, 2026 (icecartel.com)
Many people believe that pearls are exclusively for women. Recently, this phenomenon is being challenged, and not just by your next-door teenager. Celebrities like A$AP Rocky and Harry Styles have inspired many to adopt this modern-day jewelry trend. And yes, men wearing pearls can be as elegant as women wearing pearl jewelry.
In this article, we will discuss what it means when men wear pearls. On top of that, we’d also address some celebrities who consider pearls as an integral part of their style and personality. But before we get into that, let’s take a look at the history of pearls on men.
Why are Men Wearing Pearls?
Mainly, men wear jewelry to create a statement. Other reasons include exotic fashion, purity, confidence, defying gender boundaries, following celebrities, etc.
It’s not new that men are wearing pearls. Back in the past, pearl jewelry was used as a statement of wealth. Even now, people show off their class by wearing pearl necklaces or earrings.
Another reason might have to do with purity. Pearls are pure with foreign matter next to zero. So, the purity and peaceful white color can define your aura in a positive sense.
Nowadays, the most common reason is lots of global figures are wearing pearl jewelry, and it’s inspiring their followers to wear such jewelry more. Pearl ornaments are also good unisex items for people of any age.
History of Men Wearing Pearls
Even though modern-day celebrities are reviving the ‘pearl’ trend, this ‘trend’ dates back to the Roman Empire. You’ll be surprised to know that for a long period, pearls were considered masculine jewelry parts. Only in the 20th century, pearls became a symbol of feminity.
In ancient Rome, pearls were worn by noble and wealthy men. Pearls were very precious in ancient Rome, and the wealthy wore pearls to distinguish themselves from the common man. More accounts of the history of pearl-wearing men can be found in India. The monarchy and rich Indian businessmen used to wear pearl necklaces along with their lavish dresses.
If you go even further back, you’d be amazed to know that Chinese royals adopted pearls as their style symbol in 2300 BC. More interestingly, Polynesian warriors also wore pearls as amulets. They believed pearls to be a symbol of their ferociousness and power.
In the 16th century, pearl jewelry was highly valued among English gentlemen. The kind of pearl jewelry they wore was different from other civilizations mentioned here, but the objective was pretty much the same, which was to distinguish themselves from the working class.
Pearls resurfaced as a male fashion component in recent times. Especially in the hip-hop culture, pearl necklaces are very popular. Decorated rappers like A$AP Rocky, Post Malone, and Lil Wayne seem to have a certain liking for pearl necklaces.
What Does it Mean When Men Wear Pearls?
There are various meanings of men wearing pearls. In general, men wearing pearls in the modern age may pay tribute to its history. Wearing pearls can be a symbol of their status, wealth, and aristocracy.
At times, pearls are also associated with purity and innocence. More often than not, pearls are not mixed with any other gems or jewels. As the pearls themselves are pure, the person wearing them can also express their innocence and purity.
However, some men just wear pearl jewelry as a fashion statement. They don’t consider any intrinsic meaning of the jewelry, they simply want to look good.
What Kind of Pearl Jewelry Do Men Wear?
Necklaces
The most popular form of pearl jewelry worn by men has to be pearl necklaces. Even though pearl necklaces were considered very feminine a few years ago, now they have broken into the masculine fashion trend. Especially famous rappers really love their pearl necklaces.
Bracelets
Pearl bracelets are a trendy fashion statement in the modern era. Starting from basic fashion pieces to real pearls, pearl bracelets come in all shapes, styles, and prices. You can even find pearl bracelets in H&M, ASOS, River Islands, New Look, etc. If you are looking for designer pearl jewelry, then IceCartel™ can be a great choice for you.
Earrings
Another very popular form of pearl jewelry worn by men is earrings. Though not as common as necklaces or bracelets, pearl earrings are preferred by a group of stylish men. More often than not, pearl earrings are more subtle and smaller in size.
Male Celebrities Who Wear Pearl Jewelry
A$AP Rocky
One of the most popular rappers of our time, A$AP Rocky has a special liking for pearl necklaces. He can be seen wearing layered pearl necklaces at live events or concerts. He also has a very unique black pearl necklace celebrated by his fans.
Harry Styles
Former One Direction singer Harry Styles is renowned for breaking gender stereotypes. It is not surprising that he wears pearl necklaces. He was first seen wearing a pearl necklace during the press tour for his album Fine Line. The fans loved it, and he carried on that style for a while.
Jungkook
The BTS member is no longer considered an Asian heartthrob, rather he is celebrated as a global celebrity now. His popularity peaked across the globe after his performance at the opening ceremony of the FIFA World Cup 2022. Jungkook’s recent popularity spiked the global interest in his fashion choices, and he inspired his male fans to wear pearl necklaces like he does. Pearl necklaces have been a part of his signature style for a while, even though it has been recently noticed by his global fans.
Tyler, The Creator
Tyler is the second rapper on our list. The American rapper and song producer has made pearl necklaces a part of his personality. His signature flamboyant look is incomplete without his multi-colored pearl necklace.
Shawn Mendes
It looks like Shawn Mendes believes that pearl necklaces ‘treat-him-better’ than any other necklace. He wears pearl necklaces with literally anything. You can see him in public wearing pearl necklaces with t-shirts, suits, tuxedos, or even tank tops. The Canadian pop star really likes his pearls!
Jaden Smith
Jaden is trying hard to come out of his father Will’s shadow with his acting and music career. But one thing is for sure, his fashion statement pays no tribute to his father’s style. He is really fond of pearl jewelry, and we never saw Will wearing one!
Gucci Mane
Gucci Mane likes to make headlines, and he made headlines quite a few times with his layered pearl necklaces. Gucci Mane is fond of necklaces in general. Even though he is mostly seen in link chains, he does like to wear the occasional pearl necklace from time to time!
Swae Lee
Swae Lee’s fans know that he spends a lot on his jewelry. But do you know that the American Rapper has a $100K pearl necklace? In an online interview with King Ice, Lee was seen rocking a flashy necklace. He said the pearls on his necklace were straight out of the ocean and the necklace was worth $100K.
Conclusion
We are kind of glad that pearls are becoming a male fashion trend again. There was a time when men wearing pearls were seen as too feminine and frowned upon. Even though pearls have a rich history of being a preferred male jewelry choice, they were out of style for a while. It is expected that this time the trend is here to stay!
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are male celebrities wearing pearls?
Male celebrities are wearing pearls to create their own signature style. Pearls were out of trend for a while, and wearing them made male celebrities unique. Even though now it’s not very distinct, some male celebrities love pearl jewelry.
Is boys wearing pearls a new trend?
Not really. Pearls were worn by men even in the middle ages. Pearls are simply making their way back into the male fashion sphere.
How men should wear pearls?
It totally depends on your style and personality, there is no rule, to be honest. However, we do prefer layering pearl necklaces.
Author: Emma Zerner
Emma Zerner was born in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and grew up in Gainesville, Florida. She has a Bachelor of Science in Retail Merchandising from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities and a Graduate Gemologist diploma from the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). Emma has been in the jewelry industry since 2002, starting in retail. She provides professional jewelry content of all kinds for numerous jewelry companies globally, in addition to Gemology services in person. In her free time, she has starred on multiple reality shows on major television networks, including MTV, BRAVO, and TLC, to name a few.
Matt Damon stars as Odysseus in Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey.”Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures
Phil Cousineau has been obsessed with Homer’s “The Odyssey” since he was a child growing up in Michigan, which makes perfect sense for someone who became a mythologist.
The prolific author, now a longtime North Beach resident, has written a new book, “The Wisdom of the Odyssey: Twenty-Four Life Lessons From Homer’s Epic” that aims to help readers — or listeners to the audiobook — connect with the 2,800-year-old epic poem that is suddenly enjoying widespread renewed interest.
More Information
The Wisdom of the Odyssey: Twenty-Four Life Lessons From Homer’s Epic By Phil Cousineau (New World Library; 272 pages; $19.95)
The book was timed to coincide with the opening of Christopher Nolan’s massive version of “The Odyssey,” which hit theaters on Friday, July 17, and pulled in $264 million at the global box office — including $124 million in North America — on its first weekend of release.
Since its publication on July 1, Cousineau’s book has leaped to No. 4 on the Chronicle’s Bay Area nonfiction paperback bestseller list, while Emily Wilson’s acclaimed 2017 translation of Homer’s original, which Nolan referred to while writing his screenplay, is No. 4 on the paperback fiction list.
“The Wisdom of the Odyssey: Twenty-Four Life Lessons From Homer’s Epic” by Phil CousineauNew World Library
Cousineau was a protégé of mythologist Joseph Campbell and, in the 1980s, worked on both the film and book about Campbell’s life and work, “The Hero’s Journey.”
“He loved ‘The Odyssey,’” Cousineau told the Chronicle of Campbell. “He thought it was the template for the so-called hero’s journey.”
In the 40 years since, Cousineau has led tours to Homeric locations in Greece, with the next beginning in September; has written more than 40 books, including the bestselling “The Art of Pilgrimage: The Seeker’s Guide to Making Travel Sacred”; has been a regular mythology and story consultant for movie studios, including Pixar, Lucasfilm and Warner Bros.; and hosted the PBS series “Global Spirit” (2007-18).
This conversation was edited for length and clarity.
San Francisco author and mythologist Phil Cousineau’s new book “The Wisdom of the Odyssey: Twenty-Four Life Lessons From Homer’s Epic” aims to help readers connect with the 2,800-year-old epic poem.New World Library
Q: What did you think of the film?
A: One of my literary heroes, Albert Camus, once said, when asked about why he would bother to write about Sisyphus (the Greek mythological king who serves as the jumping-off point for Camus’ 1942 philosophical work “The Myth of Sisyphus”), “Every era has to breathe new life into the old stories.”
“The Odyssey” is a 3,000-year-old story, but the early bards kept breathing new life into it. New life was breathed into it all through the Middle Ages and now through film. It’s a universal story.
What I saw last night was a tremendous spectacle in the hands and eyes of Nolan.
But remember the word spectacle can be both good and bad. This is one of the most spectacular technical displays ever in the history of moviemaking, but it’s mostly appearances.
It’s a spectacular story of one guy (Odysseus, played by Matt Damon) wandering home after 10 savage years of war, and he’s waylaid for many reasons. Nolan pins it down to guilt. Guilt over the Trojan Horse, over war. This is a man who lost his home through war, and he’s looking for his soul again. He encounters a kind of projections of the mind, it’s Jungian in that way.
(Nolan’s) spectacle is wondrous. We will be talking about these images for several hundred years, but there’s also something missing in the heart of it.
Q: What specifically is Nolan missing?
A: My belief is that (the poem) is the world’s first great, deep love story. (Odysseus) is pulled back because of the love of Penelope, but also the love of his unmet son and the love of the land of Ithaca itself. Somehow this is missing in the way that Nolan’s version of the story is resolved.
Some of the early scenes with Penelope (Anne Hathaway) are really breathtaking in the way that art should be. But (the resolution), suddenly, we’re going back to John Wayne (movies) and “Shane.” It’s one man against the world. The Western hero is one man against everybody, one man against evil. Homer is taking on the source of evil.
This version is heavily influenced by American Western movies to appeal to as many people as possible. I get, on one level, that it’s a $250 million movie, so in order to get that back, you’ve got to go wide.
San Francisco mythologist Phil Cousineau says the Trojan Horse in Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is something “I will never forget.”Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures
But the audience was laughing, crying, gasping. It’s wonderful for me to have it visualized like this. The image of the Trojan Horse, half buried in the water and half in the sand, oh, I will never forget that. That is the beauty, the power, the spectacle of cinema.
The wisdom of “The Odyssey” in the epic poem is when Odysseus is asked by his wife Penelope, “Tell me of your ordeal. What did you experience the last 20 years?” After they’ve made love, there’s a reconciliation. It’s not just yearning and longing; it’s consummated in the best sense of the word. They are in bed, but what happens, which is so glorious: The two of them tell stories until dawn.
Then he asks her, something male authors forgot: “What was it like for you to deal with all these suitors? What was it like to raise our son all alone?” This is one of the great endings to any story. It’s romantic, but it’s also mythic, and it completes the story, it comes full circle.
Q: Like Nolan’s film, “The Wisdom of the Odyssey” is also trying to bring new readers to the original. What are some of the life lessons you found?
A: Before Telemachus (Tom Holland in the film) searches for his father, the man that trains him and helps him get on the ship and goes with him is named Mentor (Ryan Hurst). This is where we get our word mentor. In Greek, it means “mind maker.”
So one of my life lessons from the book is, when you are at a crossroads, especially when you’re young, get outside of yourself, be humble enough to seek a mentor. Find a coach, an uncle, a grandfather, somebody wise somewhere and be humble enough to take some advice.
Another one is the idea of conflating stories. Odysseus heals himself by telling stories. He has forgotten so much because of the trauma of war and he needs to retrieve the memories. He does this in the poem on a magical island, where he tells his story to the king and the queen and all the aristocrats around. He has everyone in the palace under his thumb.
So I use this as a lesson to say, “If you don’t tell your own story, you are a victim of somebody else’s story and they will tell it for you.” At Thanksgiving dinner, ask other people what you were like when you were a kid. Everybody will have a different version.
The life lesson that I love so much — and frankly, I’m disappointed that it’s missing in Nolan’s version — is, as I said, when Odysseus and Penelope are in bed, they don’t just tell each other stories; they listen to each other.
That’s a beautiful circle. It’s not just us talking to each other; it’s also listening. Fifty percent of the book is in dialogue. Homer is telling us a great, great lesson.
Anne Hathaway plays Penelope, a character mythologist Phil Cousineau calls ahead of her time, in Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures
Q: I take it that, other than Odysseus, Penelope is yourfavorite character?
A: She is not just sentimental devotion waiting for her husband to return. She is every bit his equal. She is shrewd. She’s tough and tender. That is astonishing. It’s 2,000-plus years ahead of its time. You won’t find another completely well-rounded three-dimensional woman in literature for a long time.
That’s why I love the rise of all these women (who are translating and interpreting “The Odyssey”) — Emily Wilson; Madeline Miller, who wrote “Circe” (2018); Margaret Atwood (“The Penelopiad,” 2005).
Q: What is something you’ve discovered about “The Odyssey” during the course of studying it for so many years?
That “The Odyssey” is the bridge between ancient Greek mythology and Greek philosophy. They are no longer just relying on all the gods. “Don’t have your own opinion, just trust the gods. We’re in the hands of the gods.”
James Joyce (author of the 1922 “Odyssey”-inspired classic novel “Ulysses”) once said, “Odysseus is the world’s first complete human being.” All the gamut of human emotions is in this one character. He begins to speak for himself. And what is that? That’s a version of philosophy.
I also think it’s one of the instigations for the rise of Greek drama — Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles.
Q: What’s the most underrated theme in “The Odyssey”?
A: We are in a world where so many of us are pitted against each other with the sense that the stranger is evil. Be careful about our borders, right? This is a story about hospitality, and the violation of it, Zeus’ law.
Claude AI is pretty great, but it clearly has human foibles. And you could find out the hard way.
The promise and pitfalls of artificial intelligence are beginning to emerge quickly.
I experienced one mixed-case consequence of relying on it after I recently met someone who is involved with an interesting initiative to try and get the AI companies talking to each other and agreeing on ways to cooperate that might benefit both the industry and society overall.
That person decided to ask a popular AI chatbot, Anthropic’s Claude, whether his entity and mine might collaborate. He also asked two others, Microsoft’s Copilot and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Apparently the others thought that was fine, didn’t really have anything noteworthy to say about that idea. But Claude did:
Worth flagging upfront: WhoWhatWhy is an investigative journalism nonprofit with a fairly hard edge — it’s known for digging into underreported issues affecting the democratic process, from voter fraud allegations to redistricting to extremism, and several board/advisory members come out of conspiracy-adjacent or deep-politics investigative traditions (JFK/Dulles history, election-machine-fraud research, etc.). That’s a different posture than _____’s coalition-building, institutional-partnership model. … It’s not disqualifying, but it’s a real fit question to think through before outreach, not after.
Wow. Let’s consider what that AI said. We have a “fairly hard edge.” I don’t know what that means or whether it’s bad, though, to be fair, I do understand why it might advise an organization seeking to build institutional partnerships that we might not be an automatic first choice.
Then consider this:
Several board/advisory members come out of conspiracy-adjacent or deep-politics investigative traditions (JFK/Dulles history, election-machine-fraud research, etc.).
First of all, most people know that board members and advisory board members typically have very limited involvement with the work and output of nonprofits. They are on boards for a variety of reasons, but it makes little sense to assess an organization by its boards — or to single out one or two as representative of some larger point.
Furthermore, what is the purpose of adopting rhetorically loaded language like “conspiracy-adjacent” and “deep-politics investigative traditions”? What criteria informed the choice of this terminology?
***
I thought of our board of directors. There is no one who is “conspiracy-adjacent” or who comes from a “deep-politics investigative tradition” (except perhaps for me — more on that later).
There is one person on our advisory board — advisory boards having no power or authority or really significant input — David Talbot, author of numerous highly regarded books, including The Kennedy Brothers: The Rise and Fall of Jack and Bobby; The Devil’s Chessboard, an impressive and insightful dig into the longest-serving CIA director, Allen Dulles; and such delights as Season of the Witch, described as “a narrative history of San Francisco from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, chronicling its cultural revolution, violent upheavals, and eventual rebirth.”
David can be affixed with the toxic label “conspiracy-adjacent” because he, like me, has dug into major traumatic events in this country like the deaths of high-profile political leaders and been dissatisfied with the government investigations of them. But anyone not told that would assume from the label that we’re crackpots.
Basically, Claude read some critique from some “trusted” establishment source that has a beef with a fact-driven, critical analysis of our country’s biggest cold cases. Ditto with “deep-politics investigative tradition” — which actually boils down to being interested in powerful elements and alliances and how they shape the country’s doings and history.
Claude has been programmed to reject this kind of independent thinking and to discourage others from being “adjacent” to it. Which is especially troubling when the subject of AI is itself in urgent need of original and deep contextualized thinking.
It also complained that someone on our board was connected with “election-machine-fraud research.” That makes it sound like Trump’s Big Lie — and no, no one involved, even tangentially with us, believes Trump’s claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him. However, one of our editors has spent years (long prior to joining us) looking into anomalous election vote shifts and investigating whether bad actors could theoretically alter electronic voting systems to influence election outcomes. His investigations made it clear that, in an era where multi-exabyte-scale data breaches across distributed systems occur almost monthly, vigilance toward electronic systems is not alarmism — it is crucial.
But Claude is very polite about things, and its answers often feel like an old Southern lawyer intervened. So, having impugned us, it continued:
That said, there’s a plausible thread: WhoWhatWhy’s mission around rigorous journalism that uncovers truth and puts it into context so the public can make informed decisions overlaps with ____’s “healing a divided nation” framing.
Oh. So our mission is “rigorous journalism”; we “uncover truth,” and we “put it into context,” so “the public can make informed decisions.”
One important explanation for Claude’s current caution and use of guardrails on controversial material has to do with AI’s very early (yet recent) history. It frequently produced content that was either hallucinogenic or poisoned with false material, and stated as fact that which was not.
AI isn’t intelligent in the human sense. Two of my colleagues explain: Tom Neuburger calls it “a dumb monger of words and recycled sentences that have the shape of ‘thought.’” And Sean Ogden says it’s “like a digital mouth that’s all teeth but no tongue; it eats everything and tastes almost nothing.”
Whatever the precise reality of how these artificial intelligence products function, we still need human beings to read, think, ask questions, and decide for themselves. A working human brain is a beautiful thing, and I am not sure when or if AI will be able to truly replicate a brain at its finest.
In the meantime, let’s use AI, but let’s also challenge it and do our own due diligence before accepting what it tells us.
Russ BakerRuss Baker is Editor-in-Chief of WhoWhatWhy. He is an award-winning investigative journalist who specializes in exploring power dynamics behind major events.
Few things in life are more exasperating than seeing the potential in someone you love and seeing them continually fall short of it, stumbling again and again over the same self-erected roadblocks of character and conduct, comporting themselves in a manner painfully inferior to what you know them to be capable of.
What to do?
The problem of whether and how people change is the eternal problem of being alive. Changing our own ways of being is difficult enough, prey enough to paradox and peril; changing another is nigh impossible and, if attempted harshly or self-righteously, dangerous to both parties. But if an honorable and loving relationship between two people is rooted in “refining the truths they can tell each other,” then holding up a mirror for course-correction is an act of love. And though this may be the tenderest and most enduring gift we can give one another, given the wrong way the gift can feel like a grenade against which the other person mounts defenses so steely the relationship itself can shatter in the collision.
How to ensure that our feedback falls on receptive ears is what the Japanese samurai turned Zen priest Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659–1719) explores in a portion of his classic Hakagure (public library) — the posthumously published collection of his teachings, which also gave us his immortal guide to living fully by dying every day.
Art by Yoshitoshi from his series One Hundred Aspects of the Moon, 1885-1892. (Available as a print and more.)
Considering the necessity of this feedback loop, the urgency with which we need each other in it, he writes:
We cannot easily correct our defects and weak points as they are dyed deeply within us… To give a person one’s opinion and correct his faults is an important thing. It is compassionate and comes first in matters of service. But the way of doing this is extremely difficult.
To discover the good and bad points of a person is an easy thing, and to give an opinion concerning them is easy, too. For the most part, people think that they are being kind by saying the things that others find distasteful or difficult to say. But if it is not received well… [it] is completely worthless.
Observing that shaming is an especially ineffectual instrument of change, he offers a tactical field guide to fertile feedback:
To give a person an opinion you must first judge well whether that person is of the disposition to receive it or not. You must become close with them and earn their trust. Approaching subjects that are dear to them, seek the best way to speak and to be well understood. Judge the occasion, and determine whether it is better by letter or at the time of leave-taking. Praise their good qualities and use every device to encourage them, perhaps by talking about your faults in a way that allows them to reflect on their own. Have them receive this the way a thirsty person takes to water, and it will be an opinion that will correct faults.
Elizabeth Bishop’s memorial service opened with a reflection by her partner Alice — whose near-loss inspired one of the greatest poems ever written — that included what Elizabeth had always told her was “the only sensible advice she ever heard,” from a man she never met — one of her two favorite authors.
Sydney Smith
By the time a friend’s teenage daughter begged his advice on how to cope with a visitation of the darkness we now call depression, the Anglican clergyman Sydney Smith (June 3, 1771–February 22, 1845) had established himself as one of England’s wisest and wittiest writers.
It is no small thing that a famous man of letters took time to comfort a young woman born into a world in which she would be denied education, that elemental torchlight for the mind: Epochs ahead of his time, Smith believed that knowledge is power and resented “the ignorance in which women are kept” by men “exclaiming against every species of power, because it is connected with danger.” But he also knew that the danger within can often outmenace the danger without. “The truly happy man,” he believed, “is he, who has early discovered, that he carries within his own bosom his worst enemies.” Although he was born into the preferred chromosomal arrangement and social station, Smith himself had grown up with the darkness as his constant companion as he helplessly watched his mother agonize with epilepsy.
In the final year of his fifties, Smith offered the 13-year-old girl his tips for combating the inner darkness — perhaps the advice he wished he had received when he was her age — entwining the playful and the poignant, the ironic and the earnest. Two centuries ahead of what modern science knows about nature and the default mode network of the brain, he urged her to spend time outdoors. Against the conventions of Victorian society, which made an art of repression and dissociation, he advocated for expressing feelings openly and unselfconsciously. In a country whose national sport remains self-deprecation, he encouraged her to be kind to herself. Even his signature — written in the style of Victorian epistolary etiquette — is numbered as one of his twenty prescriptions, this subtle insistence that reciprocity is part of what keeps us alive through the darkness, that to reach out for a friend and have them reach back is an act of light.
Nobody has suffered more from low spirits than I have — so I feel for you. Here are my prescriptions.
Live as well as you dare.
Go into the shower-bath with a small quantity of water at a temperature low enough to give you a slight sensation of cold.
Amusing books.
Short views of human life — not further than dinner or tea.
Be as busy as you can.
See as much as you can of those friends who respect and like you.
And of those acquaintances who amuse you.
Make no secret of low spirits to your friends, but talk of them freely — they are always worse for dignified concealment.
Attend to the effects tea and coffee produce upon you.
Compare your lot with that of other people.
Don’t expect too much from human life — a sorry business at the best.
Avoid poetry, dramatic representations (except comedy), music, serious novels, melancholy sentimental people, and every thing likely to excite feeling or emotion not ending in active benevolence.
Do good, and endeavour to please everybody of every degree.
Be as much as you can in the open air without fatigue.
Make the room where you commonly sit, gay and pleasant.
Struggle by little and little against idleness.
Don’t be too severe upon yourself, or underrate yourself, but do yourself justice.
Keep good blazing fires.
Be firm and constant in the exercise of rational religion.
Believe me, dear Georgiana, your devoted servant, Sydney Smith
But Smith’s mightiest antidote to unhappiness was something far simpler yet more difficult than all these pragmatisms combined.
In his popular sermons, published in two volumes a decade earlier, he had observed that “gratuitous happiness is never conceded to man at any period of life,” but we can cultivate it with our habits of being — though, paradoxically, the more we strive for it, the more it eludes us. “In seeking to be more than righteous,” he wrote, “we become less [in our] rash vows, over-strained, and heated resolutions, needless self-affliction, dread of happiness, and all that innumerable train of evils.” Over and over, he admonished against the grandiosity with which we approach the notion, the dream, the hallucination of happiness: “The causes of great happiness, and misery, rarely occur,” he wrote, but it is the “little circumstances, and events that appear trifling, singly considered, makeup the sum of human enjoyment, or misery.” Over and over, he insisted that the “great ingredient for the increase of happiness, and the proper use of life, is the cultivation of kindness and benevolence”; that mercy — for others, for the world, and perhaps for ourselves — is the only path to “rapturous happiness.”
This elemental truth is contoured most clearly by the negative space around it as we look back on our own lives. “What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness,” George Saunders would rue two centuries later in his tender meditation on kindness. In the rearview mirror, Smith knew, we come to realize “that the greatest misfortune we have suffered, is the sum total of useless vexation inflicted on ourselves, and others” by failing to incline toward benevolence. To be seen as benevolent — by others, but especially in the mirror of our own conscience — “is a firm barrier against the waves of chance, a lasting, solid happiness, which we bear about us, like strength, and health.”
Two hundred years hence, in a culture that has trained us to prefer being right over being kind, a culture perhaps not coincidentally menaced by a pervasive undercurrent of melancholy, Smith’s perspective is a lovely reminder that our greatest antidote to helplessness is always to help someone, that our strongest stay against despair is the simple knowledge that kindness is always within reach, that it is not a whim of our ethics but our evolutionary inheritance.
Consciousness, spirituality, biography, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more
We cannot easily correct our defects and weak points as they are dyed deeply within us… To give a person one’s opinion and correct his faults is an important thing. It is compassionate and comes first in matters of service. But the way of doing this is extremely difficult.