Depending upon your line of work, this question can only be answered by the end result of sales numbers on an upward trend.
If you are fortunate enough to be selling, you have an objective form of feedback from the marketplace: the beautiful and true signal that other humans value your work enough to pay for it with money.
For the business-phobic among us, this is the symmetry found within business, sales, and production. You make something or generate an idea that has value for other people, and other people exchange their money for your wares.
Along the journey from idea to increasing commas in the total of your net worth are a million points at which we may become stuck.
What does the entrepreneur with the glimmer of a product, buttressed mainly by the wings of an idea yet to take flight, do in times of blocked momentum?
How does the solo studio artist learn a new path to explore that will excite their existing collectors and new ones, too?
What about the musician laboring over their composition, seeking depth, connection, and conclusion to their masterwork?
How do we know if we are on the right track, improving or missing obvious connections when our world is deeply isolated despite the glut of connectivity?
It might sound strange to some, but the use of technology has long played a part in the feedback cycle, be it analog or digital; tools that capture, assess, and allow sharing of our in-progress creations are embedded in the process of many a creator, and all domains and disciplines.
I personally use my voice memo app to capture fleeting lines of a poem or a pitch; when these ideas come, they don’t ask if you are ready with your pencil. The voice memo app is an evolution of the tape recorder, a tiny analog companion to reporters and private detectives of yore. Sometimes, it sports such a stylish design that even the analog-phobic might be tempted to purchase a pocket-sized memo taker just for the simple, accessible elegance.
Of course, the convenience of the smartphone app is a game-changer, and within your phone, you have installed (by default and/or by selection from an app store) a plethora of tools and utilities to save your ideas, images, and half-baked concepts.
image credit - @coconnor
Enter AI
The game changed when a confusingly structured company, not sure if they were born for the good of society or the good of capitalism, deployed a simple chat interface to the open internet.
OpenAI was not looking to create the next wave of transformational products when they glued ChatGPT onto the first LLM ready for public testing.
The team at OpenAI thought the chat would be an easy way to get feedback on the technology they were building that definitely, or most likely they thought, would be a transformative product, but how exactly would people use it?
That was yet to be determined...
Continue reading online and visit our new sitehere.
AI-driven surveillance tools are increasingly being deployed in policing and intelligence work – from social media bots impersonating activists to software that tracks smartphones. Yet these powerful systems often operate with minimal oversight or transparency, raising alarms about privacy, free speech, and the balance of power between citizens and the state. Below is a structured overview of how these technologies are used, the oversight gaps, and the implications for civil liberties and regulation.
Targeting Activists and Protesters Alike
AI-powered surveillance, once reserved for serious crime, is now being turned on by political activists and student protesters. Law enforcement agencies (especially in states like Texas and Arizona) are buying cutting-edge tools that mine social media, messages, and phone data to monitor people engaged in lawful protest or activism. This trend raises First Amendment concerns as peaceful demonstrators find themselves treated as potential threats.
Key examples include:
“Overwatch” Social Media Bots (Massive Blue): Massive Blue sells an AI system that deploys virtual undercover agents online. These AI personas pose as real people – for example, a fictitious “college protester” or “radicalized” activist – and engage suspects via texts or social media. Police near the U.S.–Mexico border have contracted this tool to collect intelligence on “vaguely defined ‘protesters’” and political activists, not just criminals. Civil liberties experts warn that impersonating and surveilling protest organizers in this way is effectively “violating protesters’ First Amendment rights.”
“Tangles” OSINT Platform (PenLink): Another tool, Tangles, is an AI-powered web intelligence platform that scrapes data from social media and the open, deep, and dark web. Its most controversial feature (WebLoc) lets police geofence and track cell phone locations without a warrant or subpoena. By buying bulk location data from data brokers (harvested via smartphone apps), Tangles gives authorities a sweeping view of people’s movements and associations in a given area – for example, who was present at a protest – all outside the court warrant process. Privacy advocates note that with such tools, police can instantly find out “who [people] are, what they’re doing, where they’ve been, and who they associate with — all without a warrant."
These AI-driven tactics blur the line between legitimate investigations and surveillance overreach. Political dissent and ordinary civil activity are increasingly caught in the dragnet as tools built for fighting terrorism or trafficking are redirected to monitor social movements. This expansion of digital surveillance into First Amendment-protected arenas (speech, assembly) has prompted warnings that such practices will chill free expressionwithout safeguards.
Case Study: Texas Surveillance of Citizens
Nowhere are the tensions more evident than in Texas. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has rapidly expanded AI-powered surveillance with scant oversight. Fueled by Governor Greg Abbott’s $11 billion “Operation Lone Star” border initiative, DPS has acquired a bevy of AI-powered surveillance tools – including social media monitoring software, facial recognition, phone-hacking tools, and platforms like Tangles – often via emergency contracts and without robust public disclosure.
Legislative and public oversight has lagged far behind this expansion:
Minimal Legislative Restraints: Texas lawmakers only recently created an AI advisory council to inventory state agencies’ use of AI, but no laws currently limit or transparently govern DPS’s policing AI. It’s unclear if any proposed bills would put “meaningful transparency or oversight” on DPS’s use of these tools. In practice, DPS has been able to adopt powerful surveillance tech first and ask permission later (if at all).
Resistance to Public Disclosure: When journalists and civil rights groups seek information, DPS often obstructs. The Texas Observer’s open records requests about DPS’s use of Clearview AI (a facial recognition system available to government agencies), and Tangles were “met with obfuscation” – DPS responded that no responsive records existed. Even when records are released, they are heavily redacted, concealing how and against whom these tools are used. This shroud of secrecy makes it difficult for the public or even lawmakers to grasp the true scope of DPS surveillance.
Unchecked Procurement and Funding: With backing from the state’s budget, DPS has spent millions on these technologies (e.g., $5.3 million for Tangles licenses over five years). Much of it was justified under broad mandates like border security or prevention of mass attacks.No independent audit was required for DPS to equip itself with these tools.
Watchdogs Underpowered: Investigative journalists and advocates—often with limited resources—must expose DPS’s activities through tedious public records battles. This creates a power imbalance: a well-funded agency operates largely in the dark, while those trying to hold it accountable must play catch-up. “Secrecy breeds abuse,” as the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned in another context. Indeed, without transparency or oversight, there is little to prevent DPS from overstepping its bounds and infringing on Texans’ rights.
Sacrifice for Safety or Authoritarian Tendencies?
The use of AI to preemptively monitor civilians has blurred the boundary between targeted criminal investigations and broad dragnet surveillance.
Traditional law enforcement methods require specific cause and judicial approval to surveil individuals, whereas AI tools enable continuous, suspicion-less monitoring of entire communities (especially during times of political unrest).
The contrast is stark:
Traditional Investigation
AI-Powered Surveillance
Initiated after evidence of a crime or specific threat, focusing on identified suspects.
Initiated proactively, monitoring broad groups to detect “potential” threats before any crime is evident (e.g. scanning all protest organizers).
Requires probable cause and a warrant for most searches or wiretaps, providing judicial oversight.
Often exploits open-source or commercial data to bypass warrants – e.g., buying location data instead of getting a court order.
Targets criminal activity and known suspects (e.g., tracking a wanted person).
Encompasses lawful activity – activists and bystanders get swept up as data “hits,” effectively treating peaceful dissent as suspect.
Operates with some transparency (court records, legal standards) and clearer boundaries.
Operates in secrecy, with few public disclosures or clear limits; agencies can surveil with little accountability.
Blurred lines between legal protection and legal rights in a regulation-phobic environment means measures originally meant to protect security can easily become political surveillance tools. For instance, during the 2020 racial justice protests in D.C., federal and local police mined social media posts and flagged protest organizers as threats despite no evidence of violence.
Similarly, DPS in Texas has been reported to surveil peaceful demonstrations and gather intel on individuals not involved in crimes. Such practices risk transforming public spaces (and online forums) into zones of constant surveillance, where exercising one’s right to free speech or assembly could trigger monitoring.
The guardrails between legitimate policing and overreach have weakened, while we simultaneously forget the fundamental democratic principle: the government must work for the people, not the other way around.
The global art market, as outlined in the latest Art Basel and UBS report, is undergoing a quiet transformation. While total sales fell by 12% in 2024—with high-end auctions taking the hardest hit—the number of art transactions continues to rise.
Even though the art market looks stagnant, if not in decline, it is becoming more dynamic at the grassroots level. Small galleries and independent artists, previously overshadowed by institutional giants, are now capturing a larger share of both attention and revenue.
The art world isn't shrinking—it's diversifying.
In this climate, artists must not wait for legacy systems to recover—they must lead the way forward. Future-proofing isn't a corporate buzzword; but a necessary act of resilience.
Today's artists must think strategically and creatively. This means cultivating a strong digital presence, connecting with audiences directly, and developing multiple revenue streams while maintaining artistic integrity.
The share of e-commerce in total art market sales was stable at 18% in 2024, double the amount in 2019. Expanding their digital footprint is a key path to diversification for artists.
Becoming dynamic and resilient to change means embracing new technologies like AI not as threats to authenticity but as tools for growth.
Artists who stay adaptable, curious, and community-minded will do more than survive— they'll thrive.
image credit - @coconnor
But beyond market metrics, we face a crucial question: what kind of world are we building if we do not protect the conditions for art to flourish?
At a time when global uncertainty looms large—economically, politically, environmentally— it is artists who help us reflect, reimagine, and reconnect. Creative voices aren't luxuries but the lifeblood of a democratic, humane, and forward-looking society.
Life imitates art, and supporting artists means investing in more than creativity—it means investing in pluralism, empathy, and critical thought. These qualities separate thriving societies from stagnant ones.
Artistic freedom serves as a bellwether of social well-being. The ability for diverse voices to express themselves freely signals collective strength, not vulnerability. We ignore this truth at our peril; creative expression is the first victim of autocratic regimes.
As we look ahead, one truth stands out: the nations that cultivate creativity and critical thinking—through education, funding, policy, and cultural infrastructure—will be the ones that flourish most fully.
These countries will lead not through force but through vision. Their influence will flow not from dominance but from their power to inspire, imagine, and innovate.
In uncertain times, creativity isn't a side note. It is strategy.
In an era defined by artificial intelligence and uncertainty, understanding and leveraging AI is essential to staying at the forefront of academic innovation.
As a professor, your research and teaching shape the future of knowledge. Learn AI Tools and Strategies to Advance Your Scholarly Work.
My friend and fellow podcast host Esther makes the most beautiful smelling products for your face and body. Check out this small batch goddess at Ujjayi and enjoy a special discount on your favorite new self-care addition!
Best products on the market. Especially love the deodorant and men’s facial serum —Dice
