PR in the Philippines

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, stated on Wednesday that AI could potentially wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar positions within the next five years. A senior executive at LinkedIn mentioned last week that AI has already begun to displace new graduates from their jobs. In April, individuals voiced concerns that AI is poised to take jobs, including their own. Even experts are cautioning about the significant potential of AI to transform the economy. What is the basis for these concerns? The primary goal of the leading AI companies is to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), defined as "a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work." This is not merely a hypothetical discussion; companies are investing over a substantial amount to progress towards AGI. Additionally, global entities are supporting these efforts to realize this goal. They are making considerable progress. Current AI models perform comparably to humans on various tests. They demonstrate superior code generation abilities compared to most programming professionals and excel in answering science-related questions. Consequently, AI industry leaders believe they could achieve AGI soon. It is a widely held belief among insiders at top AI companies that widespread technological unemployment, where AI replaces human jobs, is imminent. AGI is expected to impact every sector of the labor market, starting with white-collar jobs and eventually extending to blue-collar workplaces as robots improve. In a post-AGI world, AI is likely to perform tasks better and more affordably than humans. While developing a cutting-edge AI model is costly, replicating it is inexpensive, and these costs are rapidly decreasing. A frequently suggested solution to potential technological unemployment is government-provided universal basic income (UBI). However, this could drastically alter societal participation since work is the primary leverage for most individuals. The modern economy relies on a straightforward exchange: labor for financial compensation, based on the worker's time or skills. The economy depends on workers' skills, judgment, and spending habits. Therefore, workers have historically negotiated for better pay and shorter work weeks because of their importance to the economy. AGI is poised to change or even eliminate this dynamic. For the first time in history, human labor might become obsolete for wealth creation, as machines can perform tasks more efficiently and cheaply. Consequently, companies may no longer need human labor to increase profits, and governments may not depend on it for tax revenue. This could lead to what some call "resource curse for people," where powerful entities like governments and corporations develop AGI and subsequently lose the incentive to invest in human capital. Similar to oil-rich nations affected by the "resource curse," governments may not need to invest in their citizens to maintain power. In the worst-case scenario, they might disregard human welfare altogether. However, the technological path is not predetermined. Solutions can be developed to address this issue. Many who address the significant risks of AGI, such as it becoming uncontrollable or assisting terrorists, focus on centralized and regulatory solutions, like tracking AI chips and requiring permits for training AI models. They aim to prevent malicious actors from accessing powerful AI and to avoid the accidental creation of AI that could threaten global existence. However, AGI will not only be a tool for mass destruction but also a means of production. Centralizing the means of production is not merely a security concern but a fundamental decision regarding the distribution of power. Instead, security threats from AI should be averted by developing defensive technologies. AI itself could help secure the code that runs critical infrastructure. Investments in biosecurity could prevent engineered pandemics. A focused effort, like Operation Warp Speed, for AI alignment could ensure AGI remains under control. By protecting against the extreme threats posed by AGI, the technology can be broadly distributed, ensuring power remains in the hands of the people. Human-enhancing AI should be prioritized over human-automating AI. Steve Jobs famously described computers as "bicycles for the mind," because they enhance efficiency and speed. With AI, the goal should be to create a "motorcycle for the mind" rather than a complete replacement. The market for technologies that preserve and expand human power will be substantial. Currently, the fastest-growing AI startups focus on augmenting human capabilities rather than automating them, such as code editors. As AI becomes increasingly powerful and autonomous, developing human-enhancing tools today could pave the way for human-owned tools in the future. AI tools could capture knowledge and transform it into personal advantages. The labor of the masses could be replaced either by the AI and capital of a select few or by the AI and capital of everyone. Technologies should be developed that allow regular people to participate, run them on affordable hardware, and maintain control over their data, instead of relying on a few large corporations. Individuals could own businesses, using AI under their control to solve complex problems. The role in the economy could shift from direct labor to managing AI systems, similar to how a CEO manages employees, or to guiding AI systems working for them, like a company board setting long-term strategy. The economy could operate automatically and at superhuman speed. Even if AI performs tasks better, owning and controlling a piece of it would empower individuals, rather than depending on UBI that may not materialize. Paraphrasing , the problem with AI capitalism arises when there are too few capitalists. If everyone owns a share of the AI future, everyone can benefit. AGI will make effective institutions and governance more critical than ever. Democracy must be strengthened against corruption and economic pressures before AGI arrives, ensuring that regular people can succeed even if governments and large corporations no longer depend on them. Currently, an AGI race is underway, even if most of the world is unaware. AI labs have an advantage in AI, but to automate tasks, they need to train their AIs in the skills and knowledge necessary to run the economy and then outperform the people currently providing those goods and services. Can AI be used to empower people before AI labs train AIs to replace them? Can autonomy be maintained even as AI becomes superintelligent? Can a future be achieved where power still comes from the people? Answering these questions is everyone's responsibility.

The Justice Department has announced it will limit the American Bar Association's (ABA) ability to evaluate candidates for federal judicial positions, impacting its ability to vet President Donald Trump's nominees. In a letter dated Thursday, May 29, Attorney General Pam Bondi informed ABA President William Bay that the association's access to confidential information regarding Trump's nominees would be restricted. Bondi described the non-partisan organization as an "activist" group. Bondi stated, "Unfortunately, the ABA no longer acts as an impartial judge of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings consistently favor those nominated by Democratic administrations," accusing the ABA of "bias" in its evaluation process. "There is no reason to treat the ABA differently from other activist organizations, and the Department of Justice will not do so." Bondi added that judicial nominees would no longer be required to provide waivers granting the ABA access to private information, complete questionnaires, or participate in interviews with the association. In a subsequent social media post, Bondi reinforced her position, stating, "The American Bar Association has strayed from its purpose, and we no longer believe it fairly assesses judicial nominees. The Justice Department will no longer grant the ABA the access it has come to expect." This action against the ABA follows Trump's announcement of six new judicial nominees the previous day, including top Justice Department official Emil Bove, who is nominated to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Bove, according to Trump, "will end the weaponization of Justice, restore the rule of law, and do anything else that is necessary to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” Bove defended Trump during his hush-money trial, Trump also nominated , , , and to serve as Judges on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and to serve as a Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The President previously threatened to withdraw the ABA's status as the federally recognized accreditor of law schools in an . As part of his broader crackdown on , Trump stated that the ABA has required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion, which he considers a "discriminatory requirement" and believes "similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated." Critics have recently voiced concerns about the current practices within the Department of Justice. “I think what’s happening in the Department of Justice right now is that it’s being transformed into Donald Trump’s personal law firm,” , the DOJ’s former pardon attorney. “The Attorney General has made it clear that directions are coming from the very top, from the President, and she is there to do his bidding.” What is the American Bar Association and what does it do? Founded in 1878, the is committed to "setting the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation," according to its website. Its primary focuses are advocating for the legal profession, eliminating bias and promoting diversity, and advancing the rule of law. The typically oversees and conducts the judicial nominee vetting process, a role it has held since 1953. According to the ABA, the committee "makes a unique contribution to the vetting process by conducting a thorough peer assessment of each nominee's professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament." The organization maintains that these assessments are non-partisan, providing the Senate and the current administration with "confidential assessments of the nominee's professional qualifications." ```

Climate change is not only causing droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, but also creating contradictions, especially concerning what are known as "hundred-year" weather events. Long-term weather predictions, which forecast conditions months, years, or even decades in advance, rely on probabilities, considering current conditions, trends, and historical data. Regions with past instances of unusually rainy springs or intense tropical storms are likely to experience them again under similar conditions, particularly when the atmosphere is moisture-rich and oceans are unusually warm. Environmental scientists can now analyze weather history to estimate the likelihood of severe storms or floods occurring in a specific area, such as once every 100, 500, or 1,000 years. However, climate change-induced meteorological volatility is causing these rare events to occur more frequently. Since 1999, North Carolina's coast has seen multiple storms classified as hundred- or thousand-year events. From 2015 to 2019, a St. Louis suburb experienced repeated severe flooding, with two events meeting the criteria for hundred-year occurrences. The carbon removal project Deep Sky estimates a 300% increase in deadly hurricanes, with 100-year storms now predicted to occur every 25 years. Climate change is also altering the definition of these rare events. According to climate scientist Andrew Pershing, an extreme rainfall event in the Mississippi Valley in April was classified as a 100-year event under current climate conditions, but would have been considered a 500-year event without climate change. These calculations require significant data modeling, as climate patterns evolve over millennia, while modern weather records only span about a century. Scientists analyze 30 to 50 years of data to determine event frequency. However, this data reflects a climate that was approximately two degrees cooler than today. When calculations are adjusted for the current climate, events expected to occur once every hundred years may now occur once every 20 years. The math is relatively straightforward: a hundred-year storm has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, while a 500-year storm has a 0.2% chance, and a thousand-year storm has a 0.1% chance. However, the probability resets each year. Even if a hundred-year storm occurs in a location like the Carolina coast in 2025, the area still has a 1% chance the following year, and climate change is increasing this likelihood. Therefore, these events cannot be precisely scheduled, according to Pershing. The increased frequency is driven by a "thirstier" atmosphere that holds more moisture due to higher temperatures. This supercharged water cycle increases the likelihood of larger rain events, according to Pershing. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) anticipates a potentially severe 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, running from June 1 to November 30. While NOAA doesn't predict specific 100-, 500-, or 1,000-year events, they foresee a 60% chance of an above-average season, a 30% chance of an average season, and only a 10% chance of a below-average season. They project 13 to 19 named storms, with winds of 39 mph or higher, and up to 10 developing into hurricanes with winds of 74 mph or more. Up to five could become major hurricanes (Category 3, 4, or 5, with winds of 111 mph or more). The impact could extend beyond coastal regions. Acting NOAA administrator Laura Grimm noted that the impacts of hurricanes can extend far inland, as seen with significant flooding from hurricanes Helene and Debby last year. The Pacific region may also face challenges. Tropical Storm Adrian formed off the southwest coast of Mexico, two weeks before the start of the eastern Pacific hurricane season. Besides hurricanes, floods, and storms, projections can be made for heat waves, droughts, and wildfires. Pershing explains that a hotter atmosphere holds more water, but when that moisture is released over mountain ranges, it results in drier air masses that draw moisture from the ground, intensifying droughts. There is no simple solution for a warming atmosphere. Adaptation measures like dikes, levees, and relocation can offer short-term relief for flood-prone cities and eroding coasts. However, the most effective long-term strategy is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate and limit the frequency of extreme weather events. Pershing urges a rapid shift away from fossil fuels to allow the climate to stabilize and provide an opportunity for adjustment. ```

The United States is facing a critical decision. We can attempt to resolve a potential financial crisis by cutting services and reducing spending, which would negatively impact the American Dream. Alternatively, we can choose a path of growth, inclusivity, and opportunity. This approach, called “Raising the Third,” focuses on economically empowering the bottom third of Americans, regardless of race, background, or location, by enabling them to become stakeholders, owners, and beneficiaries of the country's promise. For decades, America's economic growth has been driven by building from the middle and top down. However, the middle class is shrinking, and the top is not broad enough to sustain our collective goals. Meanwhile, approximately 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, including about 50% of those earning $100,000 a year and a third of those earning $250,000. The primary reason for those at the bottom is not laziness or lack of talent, but limited access to capital, opportunity, and confidence. Consider the possibilities if we shifted our focus. If we empowered the 100 million Americans who are often overlooked to start businesses, own homes, increase their income, and participate in the market as producers, not just consumers. Instead of closing the U.S. Department of Education, we should give it a new objective: preparing the bottom third of Americans for the AI, technology, skills-based, and information-age jobs of the future. This new economic growth could increase GDP by 2% to 3% annually, alleviate the fiscal crisis, reduce the deficit, and strengthen America. Following World War II, America expanded rather than retreated. The sent millions to college and into the middle class. Infrastructure projects like the interstate highway system connected communities and commerce. The moonshot also invested billions in high-tech research and development, creating entire industries. We grew our way into leadership by embracing investment rather than fearing it. However, that prosperity was incomplete. Black and brown Americans were largely excluded from many of those opportunities, and white Americans in poor rural areas were left behind by globalization. Consequently, our economy was built on an incomplete foundation. If the bottom third of Americans were included in the economic mainstream—with a credit score of 700 or higher, access to prime capital, and the chance to own assets—we could unlock trillions of dollars in untapped GDP. This is not a redistribution plan, but an inclusion plan. At Operation HOPE, we have witnessed the positive impact of investing in people’s financial well-being. We have helped improve credit scores, start businesses, and launch careers. When people believe the system is working for them, they become more engaged. They buy homes, create jobs, and build wealth for future generations. They move beyond survival and begin to thrive. Gradually, struggling towns and cities across America begin to recover. Some policymakers argue that America’s debt is too high to invest in ambitious economic strategies. However, debt is only harmful if it does not lead to growth. There is a significant difference between unproductive debt and smart investments that foster growth and appreciation. Investing in people’s education, small businesses, and financial literacy yields returns. The right kind of debt can pave the way to prosperity. Furthermore, America’s demographics are shifting towards a younger and more diverse population. If we fail to invest in the bottom third, we risk a future where many feel excluded and disengaged. This is not only detrimental to the economy but also to our democracy. We can expand the pie instead of fighting over slices by making financial inclusion the civil rights issue of this generation. We can make capitalism work for everyone by expanding its reach, not changing its core principles.

Reza Khandan, an activist and the husband of prominent Iranian women's rights advocate Nasrin Sotoudeh, details his experiences in Evin Prison and his collaboration with his wife in opposing compulsory hijab laws.

Recent court decisions have created uncertainty around Donald Trump's key economic policy, initially suspending his tariffs before allowing them to be reinstated, at least for now. Here's a breakdown of the current legal situation and possible future developments. What have the courts ruled?  Trump secured a victory on Thursday when a federal appeals court sided with his administration, temporarily overturning a Wednesday night ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade. This allows his tariffs to remain in effect for the time being. The trade court's three-judge panel had previously determined that the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is not unlimited. This 1977 law, which Trump used to justify tariffs on nearly all countries due to national emergencies related to fentanyl and trade deficits, permits the President to manage economic transactions during national emergencies, such as "unusual and extraordinary threats" to the economy, foreign policy, or national security. The initial ruling had stopped a 30% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% tariff on specific items from Mexico and Canada, and a standard 10% tariff on goods from most other countries. However, it did not affect import taxes on steel, aluminum, or automobiles, which Trump had implemented under a different legal provision. The Administration quickly appealed, and the subsequent decision on Thursday to grant their emergency request has temporarily restored the suspended tariffs while the appeals court reviews the case. Adding to the complex situation, a federal judge issued a separate ruling earlier on Thursday, preventing the Trump Administration from collecting tariffs imposed under IEEPA from two educational toy companies based in Illinois. However, this injunction has been temporarily paused for two weeks, and the Administration has appealed this decision as well. What comes next?  The future of Trump’s tariffs remains uncertain. The appeals court has instructed the plaintiffs, a group of U.S. businesses impacted by the tariffs, to respond to the federal government's request to halt the trade court's ruling by June 5. The federal government must then provide its response by June 9. The appeals process could potentially escalate to the Supreme Court, where the Trump Administration had previously indicated it would seek "emergency relief" if the lower court did not reinstate the President's tariff powers. Several other lawsuits have also challenged the tariffs Trump imposed under IEEPA. Prior to the reinstatement of the blocked tariffs, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt informed reporters at a press briefing on Thursday that the President has "other legal authorities" at his disposal to impose import taxes on foreign nations. While Leavitt did not elaborate, the U.S. Court of International Trade itself cited another law in its ruling that grants the President limited tariff-imposing authority. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, it noted, permits the President to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days in response to "fundamental international payment problems," including "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits" and unfair trade practices. Trump has previously utilized other laws to implement import taxes during both of his terms. For example, his steel, aluminum, and auto tariffs are based on his authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the President to impose tariffs in response to national security threats. ```