Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Time Magazine
It may not surprise you that Time magazine has elected to highlight the AI industry in its annual “Person of the Year” issue. Or should we say persons: the collective billionaire “architects of AI,” it announced.
But what may surprise you is a new feature prominently displayed on Time‘s website: a window for an AI chatbot.
“Ask me anything,” it reads.
It does not go away. Instead, the chatbot window stays fixed to the bottom center of your screen, blocking any text that’s in the way. In fact, depending on the size and resolution of your device’s screen, it completely blots out the home page’s featured headline — including today’s much-discussed article, “Person of the Year 2025: The Architects of AI.”
There’s no x-button to close the AI window, and as far as we can tell, no other means of swatting it away. If you click in the text box, it expands to filling the entire page. Call it an ironic metaphor for the tech and AI’s industry capturing of news and media, if you want. It’s also just plain annoying.
Emily M. Bender, a computational linguistics expert at the University of Washington and author of the book “The AI Con,” complained about the intrusive AI feature on social media.
“Any journalistic outfit that values the work of their journalists wouldn’t offer to present it as papier-mâché,” Bender said of the AI chatbot, “and certainly wouldn’t put that offer in the way of the other bit of journalism their audience might be trying to read.”
Timeunveiled the AI in late November, though apparently without much fanfare. It’s not merely an AI chatbot, it insists, but an AI agent — meaning it’s supposed to be autonomous — and trained on the magazine’s 102-year-old archive of nearly 750,000 magazine issues, web articles, and other assets, generating summaries, audio rundowns, and answers to user questions. It was built in partnership with Scale AI, a controversial data annotation company whose services are essential to the generative AI industry.
“People spend hours and hours with agents, and hopefully this means that they will spend a lot more time with our journalism,” Time editor-in-chief Sam Jacobs told Axios after its unveiling.
The “TimeAI” agent wasn’t featured on the magazine’s homepage at launch, which is perhaps why it flew under the radar until now. This, however, is not Time‘s first stab at experimenting with AI.
When it crowned Donald Trump as Person of the Year in 2024, Time used the announcement to unveil what in retrospect seems a prototype of the AI we’re presented with today, also built with Scale AI. One sign of progress, or at least shifting industry trends? It merely called its predecessor an AI chatbot, and not an “agent.” It’s not yet clear how the new AI is supposed to be agentic.
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.
Queen Victoria wanted to have lots of children, hoping that her offspring would come to dominate the courts of Europe. But at the same time, she hated having to endure the pain of childbirth. For the impending birth of her eighth child, Victoria made a bold and controversial decision—she allowed herself to be anesthetized with chloroform. The queen faced widespread criticism for her decision from physicians who felt the use of anesthesia in childbirth was too dangerous, and from clergy who said that reducing a woman’s pain during childbirth was unbiblical. But, being the queen, Victoria was free to ignore the criticism. So, when her son Leopold made his royal entry into the world, Queen Victoria was blissfully unconscious. She was so pleased with the effect of the chloroform that she had it administered again in 1857 for the birth of her daughter Beatrice, the queen’s ninth and final child. Queen Victoria gave birth to Prince Leopold on April 7, 1853. Following the queen’s lead, the women of the British aristocracy, and later women of all social classes, began asking for chloroform during childbirth. The photo is Queen Victoria and 9-year-old Prince Leopold. Because he suffered from hemophilia and epilepsy, Leopold had a difficult childhood. Nevertheless, he grew up to marry a German princess, only to die at age 31 after falling down a flight of stairs in Cannes, just prior to the birth of his son Charles Edward, who went on to become a Nazi general.
Juan Zahir Naranjo CáceresPhD Candidate, Political Science, International Relations and Constitutional Law, University of the Sunshine Coast
Shannon Brincat Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast
Disclosure statement
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In 2013, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over”. It signalled a shift towards treating the region as partners rather than a sphere of influence.
Now, however, the National Security Strategy released last week by the Trump administration has formally revived that old doctrine.
It helps explain the administration’s interventionist actions in the region over the past couple months, from its deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean to its selective use of sanctions and pardons.
Why Latin America is so important
In typical hubristic fashion, the document openly announces a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, elevating the Western Hemisphere as the top US international priority. The days when the Middle East dominated American foreign policy are “thankfully over”, it says.
The document also ties US security and prosperity directly to maintaining US preeminence in Latin America. For example, it aims to deny China and other powers access to key strategic assets in the region, such as military installations, ports, critical minerals and cyber communications networks.
Crucially, it fuses the Trump administration’s harsh rhetoric on “narco-terrorists” with the US-China great power competition.
It frames a more robust US military presence and diplomatic pressure as necessary to confront Latin American drug cartels and protect sea lanes, ports and critical infrastructure from Chinese influence.
How the strategy explains Trump’s actions
For months, the Trump administration has been striking suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing dozens of people.
International law experts and human rights officials say these attacks breach international law. The US Congress has not authorised any armed conflict in these waters, yet the strikes have been presented as necessary to protect the US from “narco‑terrorists”.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has also been branded a “narco‑dictator”, though Venezuela is a minor player in the flow of drugs to the US.
On December 2, President Donald Trump told reporters that any country he believes is manufacturing or transporting drugs to the US could face a military strike. This includes not just Venezuela, but also Mexico and Colombia.
On the same day, Trump also granted a pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, Honduras’ former president. He had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for helping move hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US.
Honduras’ President Juan Orlando Hernandez speaking at a climate conference in 2021. Andy Buchanan/AFP Pool/AP
The new National Security Strategy attempts to explain the logic behind these contradictory actions. It emphasises the need to protect US “core national interests”, and stresses:
President Trump’s foreign policy is […] not grounded in traditional, political ideology. It is motivated above all by what works for America — or, in two words, ‘America First’.
Within this logic, Hernández was pardoned because he can still serve US interests. As a former president with deep links to Honduran elites and security forces, he is exactly the kind of loyal, hard-right client Trump wants in a country that hosts US military personnel and can help police migration routes to the US.
The timing underlines this: Trump moved to free Hernández just days before Honduras’ elections, shoring up the conservative networks he once led to support Trump’s preferred candidate for president, Nasry Asfura.
In Trump’s “America First” calculus, pardoning Hernández also sends a couple clear signals. Obedient partners are rewarded. And power, not principle, determines US policy in the region.
The obsession with Venezuela
The new security strategy explains Trump’s obsession with Venezuela, in particular.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and a long coastline on the Caribbean Sea, which is a vital sea lane for US goods travelling through the Panama Canal.
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy makes clear this is unacceptable to the United States. Although Venezuela is not named anywhere in the document, the strategy alludes to the fact China has made inroads with like-minded leaders in the region:
Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse, given the political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors.
A recent report suggests the Maduro government is now attempting a dramatic geopolitical realignment. The New York Times says Maduro’s government offered the US a dominant stake in its oil and gold resources, diverting exports from China. If true, this would represent a clear attempt to court the Trump administration and end Venezuela’s international isolation.
But many believe the Trump administration is after regime change instead.
The Venezuelan opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is pitching a post‑Maduro future to US investors, describing a “US$1.7 trillion (A$2.5 trillion) opportunity” to privatise Venezuela’s oil, gas and infrastructure.
For US and European corporations, the message is clear: regime change could unlock vast wealth.
Latin America’s fragmented response
Regional organisations remain divided or weakened, and have yet to coordinate a response to the Trump administration. At a recent regional summit, leaders called for peace, but stopped short of condemning the US strikes off Latin America.
Governments are instead having to deal with Trump one by one. Some hope to be treated as friends; others fear being cast as “narco‑states”.
Two centuries after the Monroe Doctrine, Washington still views the hemisphere as its own backyard, in which it is “free to roam” and can meddle as it sees fit.
The Conversation meets a real need in the information ecosystem. Our authors are subject-matter experts who offer clarity and insight into the issues facing the world. An outlet where you can find real expertise from authors without axes to grind, published by an organisation with no agenda to push. Thousands of media organisations worldwide republish our content for their readers. But the same business model that has freed us from the influence of billionaire owners or big business advertisers comes with its own challenges. Universities are under enormous financial pressure, their income streams squeezed in every direction. Your support as our readers is crucial to securing The Conversation’s future. Donations are an essential bulwark against unexpected loss of income. Around 2,000 of our readers give monthly to support our work. If you’re not among them but value what we do, please consider giving today.
By following the rhythm of a conversation, the “proactive hearing assistant” headphones are able to determine which person the user is speaking to within a noisy environment, then isolate and boost that person’s voice
Hu et al./EMNLP
View 1 Images
Individuals with limited hearing struggle in situations where multiple people around them are speaking at once. New headphone tech could help, by boosting the voice of the person they’re talking to based on the rhythm of the conversation.
Conventional hearing aids are typically stymied by the “cocktail party” effect, wherein they can’t amplify one person’s voice without also boosting the voices of everyone else in the room. If you’re a hearing aid user in a group of several people who are simultaneously talking back and forth overtop of one another, this can make for a very frustrating experience.
In recent years, scientists at the University of Washington have set out to address that problem by developing headphones that isolate the voice of whoever the wearer is looking at, and that create a “sound bubble” which tunes out voices more than a few feet away.
The researchers’ latest innovation, however, doesn’t require the user to be looking at their conversational partner, nor is thwarted by other people who may be speaking within the sound bubble. It utilizes two AI systems, running on an off-the-shelf set of noise-cancelling headphones equipped with binaural microphones.
One of those systems initially sets the user’s voice as an “anchor,” then detects the voices of other people in the immediate area. It’s soon able to determine which of those people the user is talking to, as there will be very little overlap between the speech of that person and the user – after all, they’re taking turns speaking back and forth.
At that point, the other AI system takes over. It isolates the person’s voice from the others and amplifies it, playing it back through the headphones for the user. There is a slight lag in playback, but it’s reportedly minimal. In fact, the system can handle a conversation with up to four people (plus the user) at once.
Although the technology is currently being demonstrated in a set of over-the-ear headphones, the scientists hope that it could ultimately be incorporated into earbuds or a hearing aid. It has so far been tested on English, Mandarin and Japanese dialog – its effectiveness on other languages has yet to be determined.
“Everything we’ve done previously requires the user to manually select a specific speaker or a distance within which to listen, which is not great for user experience,” said doctoral student Guilin Hu, lead author of the study. “What we’ve demonstrated is a technology that’s proactive – something that infers human intent non-invasively and automatically.”
A paper on the research, which was led by Prof. Shyam Gollakota, was recently presented at the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing in Suzhou, China. You can see and hear a demo of the technology in a video via the link below.
The book The Secret Court-Martial Records of the Easter Rising (also published under the title From Behind a Closed Door: Secret Court Martial Records of the 1916 Easter Rising), authored by historian Brian Barton and first released in 2002, compiles and analyzes the previously classified British military trial transcripts from the aftermath of Ireland’s 1916 Easter Rising.
barnesandnoble.com These records, kept secret by the British government until their declassification in 1999, detail the field general court-martial proceedings against nearly 200 Irish rebels involved in the failed uprising against British rule.
abebooks.com
Historical Context of the Easter Rising and Trials
The Easter Rising was a six-day armed insurrection beginning on April 24, 1916, primarily in Dublin, led by Irish republicans aiming to end British governance and establish an independent Irish Republic. Key figures included Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, Thomas MacDonagh, and others who proclaimed an Irish Republic from the General Post Office (GPO). The rebellion was suppressed by British forces, resulting in over 450 deaths (mostly civilians) and thousands wounded. On April 29, Pearse issued an unconditional surrender to prevent further bloodshed.
thehistorypress.co.uk
Following the surrender, martial law was declared across Ireland on April 26, suspending civilian courts. British authorities, under Major General Sir John Maxwell (appointed commander-in-chief on April 28), swiftly court-martialed suspects in closed sessions at Richmond Barracks in Dublin and other locations. These trials, conducted by panels of three military officers without legal qualifications, were held in camera (secretly), a decision later criticized as potentially illegal under the British Army Act.
thehistorypress.co.uk
Prime Minister Herbert Asquith pushed for transparency, but Maxwell resisted, fearing it would expose weak evidence in some cases. High-ranking officials later admitted that evidence was “extremely thin” or “far from conclusive” in certain trials, suggesting secrecy allowed for predetermined outcomes against key leaders.
thehistorypress.co.uk
In total, around 161 people were tried in Dublin alone, with charges typically including “taking part in armed rebellion” to aid the enemy (Germany, amid World War I) and, in some cases, attempting to cause disaffection among civilians. Trials were often brief—some lasting just 5-10 minutes—and relied on witness statements from captured British soldiers, officers, and seized rebel documents. Nationwide, about 200 court-martials occurred, but only 15 death sentences were carried out: 14 in Dublin (executed by firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol between May 3 and 12) and one in Cork (Thomas Kent, executed on May 9 after a separate skirmish).
thehistorypress.co.uk
Maxwell commuted 84% of the death sentences, limiting executions to prominent leaders, commanders, or those linked to significant violence.
Key Figures and Trial Details from the Records
Barton’s book reproduces the trial transcripts verbatim, interspersed with his historical analysis. Highlights include:
Patrick Pearse: As president of the provisional government, he exaggerated his role during his trial to protect others, delivering an impassioned speech affirming the rebellion’s righteousness. thehistorypress.co.uk
James Connolly: Tried while wounded and deemed medically fit, he emphasized his socialist motivations and the fight for Irish freedom in a defiant address. thehistorypress.co.uk
Thomas MacDonagh: Commandant at Jacob’s Biscuit Factory; his trial lacked evidence of a defiant final speech, contrary to later myths. thehistorypress.co.uk
John MacBride: A Boer War veteran, tried for his role at Jacob’s; evidence focused on his active participation, though Barton notes the case was dubious. thehistorypress.co.uk
Other executed leaders: Included the seven signatories of the Irish Proclamation (Pearse, MacDonagh, Thomas Clarke, Seán MacDiarmada, Joseph Plunkett, Éamonn Ceannt, and Connolly), plus commandants like Edward Daly, Michael Mallin, Con Colbert, and Seán Heuston. William Pearse (Patrick’s brother) and Michael O’Hanrahan had particularly weak cases, with outcomes appearing arbitrary due to rushed proceedings and poor intelligence. thehistorypress.co.uk
Defendants’ responses varied: Some, like Ceannt, mounted strong defenses; others remained silent or understated their involvement. All faced execution with composure, viewing it as martyrdom for Irish independence.
thehistorypress.co.uk
Notably, figures like Éamon de Valera escaped execution despite commanding at Boland’s Bakery, where British casualties were high, highlighting inconsistencies.
Barton’s Commentary and Insights
Barton, an expert on Irish history, provides contextual analysis throughout, explaining the political pressures on Maxwell (including Asquith’s warnings against excessive executions) and the trials’ flaws: haste, generalized testimony, and single-witness reliance. He argues the secrecy was deliberate to enable executions of symbolic leaders, fueling anti-British sentiment and boosting support for Sinn Féin and the Irish Republican Army in subsequent years.
goodreads.com +1
Barton also contrasts cases: Justifiable executions targeted clear ringleaders, while others (e.g., Kent’s for a minor incident) seemed disproportionate compared to unpunished larger battles like Ashbourne.The executions backfired politically, transforming the rebels into martyrs and contributing to the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921).
Availability and Further Reading
The book is available in print and digital formats from retailers like Barnes & Noble, AbeBooks, and eBay. ebay.com +2 A full scan is accessible for borrowing on Archive.org.
archive.org
For primary sources, the original records are now public via the UK National Archives. If you’re seeking a specific excerpt or aspect (e.g., a particular trial), provide more details for deeper exploration.
Reform UK Councillor Laila Cunningham slams Labour Councillor Stewart Fawcett over Labour’s green energy policy, as a report suggests that Ed Miliband’s plan to reach Net Zero by 2050 could cost £350 billion. pic.twitter.com/JCuw8zPkLB
Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
Ask just about any job seeker in the US how the labor market is doing, and you’re liable to get an earful. Months upon months of stale job growth have led to a “low-hire economy,” a situation where workers have little leverage over companies, resulting in low wage growth, a rise in freelance hires compared to full-time, and ever-worsening benefit packages.
At the same time, AI has never been buzzier. Even as real-world efficiency gains seem to be slowing to a crawl, the amount of money being spent on AI is only going up, as evidenced by mammoth data center investments and a booming stock market.
As a result, many are wondering what the relationship is between AI’s rise and labor’s stagnation. While economists like Daron Acemoglu argue that any impact AI has on workers won’t be felt for a decade — if it comes at all — tech CEOs are telling a different story: that AI is about to flip our whole world upside down.
One of the tech execs joining the chorus of AI proselytizers is Alphabet (Google) CEO Sundar Pichai, who recently pined that no job is safe — not even his own.
In a recent BBC interview, Pichai said that “AI is the most profound technology humanity is ever working on, and it has potential for extraordinary benefits, and we will have to work through societal disruption.”
Though he’s careful not to be too giddy about it — as some other tech execs have been — the Alphabet CEO is peddling a well-worn brand of AI fatalism. Basically, AI is inevitable, and it’s coming for all of our jobs whether we like it or not. Pichai, who recently became a billionaire, even believes that his role as CEO will be “one of the easier things” for AI to take over, which makes it all the more odd that he’s decided to forge ahead with the tech anyway.
“It will evolve and transition certain jobs,” he continued. “People will need to adapt, and then there will be areas where it will impact some jobs. So, as a society, I think we need to be having those conversations.”
Of course, unless you’ve been hiding out in the woods since the pandemic, you’re probably aware that AI is one of the only conversations we seem to be having at any scale. The issue isn’t so much that we’re not talking about AI, but how we’re talking about AI, and who’s framing the conversation.
Pichai, for example, as chief executive of one of the largest companies working on AI right now, has a material stake in pushing the narrative that AI is coming for everyone’s jobs. While AI surely is helping companies “gigify” some jobs like translation or software development, it’s not automating many jobs outright — an important distinction the AI boosters hope you don’t make.
A recent Business Insider analysis found that the jobs most exposed to AI automation aren’t really being impacted, though anxiety about tariffs, political uncertainty, and pandemic-era overhiring have led to “recessionary levels of job creation” throughout the economy.
So while we might have to live with the consequences of the tech industry’s brain rotting slop, AI’s effects on work aren’t a foregone conclusion. The idea that AI will destroy life as we know it is a horrible thought, of course — but with so much information assaulting us from all angles, our best bet is to trust the evidence, not the CEOs.
I’m a tech and transit correspondent for Futurism, where my beat includes transportation, infrastructure, and the role of emerging technologies in governance, surveillance, and labor.
canisgallicus 