Trust issues at Davos

According to a piece by Martha Gill in the Observer, Gen Z folk – that’s those born around the turn of the millennium, so young adults now – are the group recently found to be most likely to feel ‘hopeful’ that a gathering like Davos might change the world.  This might come as a surprise to my fellow Gen Xers, who have been side-eyeing the event for ages.  Most years at this time, I have taken up my pen to report on how the meeting is yet again failing to close the gender gap in attendees, and to question the likelihood of the gathering attaining its lofty aims.  I am hardly alone in this – in the last couple of years Davos has been described undergoing a crisis of relevance, even as being ‘a referendum on itself’.  This year, the FT suggested that FOMO was a major impetus for people showing up.  

In 2024, the great and the ‘good’ collected around a theme of ‘Rebuilding Trust’ – the latest in a line of more soul-searching themes, which at least acknowledge that there is work to be done to meet today’s challenges and to persuade that Davos still might have some contribution to make. The waspish might point out that ‘trust’ is a kind of kryptonite in corporate sloganeering – its presence in Post-Office-Scandal-embroiled Fujitsu’s mission statement is mentioned here. 

Strikingly, in a year where over half the world’s population will go to the polls, global leaders were thin on the ground in Switzerland.  The large Chinese delegation came without Xi Jinping, and Emmanuel Macron was the only representative of the G7.  Maybe that’s because France will not be holding national elections this year.  Our own Rishi Sunak, who in another life could perhaps be Davos Man and tech bro par excellence, avoided the Swiss event – perhaps not wishing to be seen among a crowd which would remind the electorate of his multimillionaire status and distance from the average Brit enduring a cost-of-living crisis.  Unfortunately for the PM, a camera caught him on walkabout this weekend, in an encounter with a member of the public which proved to many that he could demonstrate his lack of everyday relatability quite well enough on his own.  Meanwhile, a relative lack of heavy political hitters seemed to highlight a reluctance among politicians to be associated with Davos when votes are on the line.  I couldn’t help wondering – maybe cynically – if fewer world leaders was part of the reason that the proportion of women attending went up – at 28% it was the highest proportion ever, a figure which is still far from ideal.

So why might younger people have more faith than the rest of us that Davos might be effective? Perhaps as digital natives they are more persuaded by the idea of the worlds of Big Tech, business and politics engaging in productive dialogue; perhaps, as Martha Gill contends, they find the Davos concept of positive globalism more novel, having grown up amidst increasing populism, and in the aftermath of financial crisis, and with climate change as an existential threat.  Against this, comes the perennial charge that the private jet crew may not be best-placed to solve such things. Furthermore, the news site Semafor reported in a scoop that oil-rich funders of the World Economic Forum (the Davos host organisation) have grumbled about the persistent criticism of fossil fuels at the summit.  This may help explain why there was greater emphasis on AI and disinformation this year, and less on global warming and circular economies.

Elsewhere it’s been suggested that Davos was haunted by those who were not there – from a disgraced Putin, to Donald Trump.  The latter, according to Davos consensus, will win the American Presidential race.  Maybe those of us not so keen on his brand of global domination should welcome this, as the Davos consensus has so often proved to be wrong.  This gives the cynics another reason to doubt the point of Davos. But perhaps we should salute a youthful optimism that bringing people together has a power to change things for the better. After all, to paraphrase Margaret Mead, it is the only thing that ever has.

 

What’s in the word of the year?

As the year draws to a close, the dictionaries have nominated their choices of the word of 2023. These are picked each year to highlight spikes in usage, and to reflect high-profile discussion points in online and traditional media.  Unsurprisingly, Collins Dictionary named ‘AI’ as its word of 2023.  This was the year when ChatGPT revolutionised public understanding, and use, of Artificial Intelligence to answer queries, and generate content.  I guess some pedants might quarrel with calling an abbreviation a ‘word’, but there can be little doubt about its currency in 2023.

Perhaps more obscurely, the Cambridge Dictionary announced that the word of the year was ‘hallucinate’ – but this was also a choice about the hype around AI.  Rather than its conventional meaning, of sensing or experiencing something that is not actually present, the 2023 usage of ‘hallucinate’ refers to the phenomenon whereby AI systems produce false information in the content they generate.  These ‘hallucinations’ are often plausible, but incorrect.  By predicting the most likely words to follow from previous ones, AI tools can slip up factually.  In its citation, the Cambridge Dictionary team said that ‘the new meaning gets to the heart of why people are talking about AI. Generative AI is a powerful tool but one we’re still learning how to interact with safely and effectively’.  You could also say that the word humanises AI products, labelling missteps as an impression of mind, rather than a bug in coding.

Over at Merriam Webster, the preoccupation with perception of reality continued, with its nomination of ‘authentic’ as the word of 2023.  This was supported by its consistent high ranking among words people looked up this year.  Again, the backdrop of discussion around AI and disinformation contributed to this choice, with issues around trusting what we see in a time of deepfakes and AI content, identified by the dictionary.  A lexicographer at the dictionary went so far as to say ‘We see in 2023 a kind of crisis of authenticity’.  There was also a more human inspiration for the crowning of the term, found in appeals by celebrities from Taylor Swift to Elon Musk, for people to pursue ‘authenticity’ in their actions in real life and on social media. 

Among Merriam Webster’s also-rans was the Oxford Dictionary’s outlier choice for word of the year: ‘rizz’.  This choice may have baffled many over 35 years old, but it refers to a new coinage, based on ‘charisma’, to mean ‘attractiveness, style or charm’.  It can also be used as a verb, ‘rizz up’ meaning to charm, or seduce, someone.  This most human of terms at first looks out of place amongst the tech-dominated choices of other dictionaries. But it occurred to me that ‘rizz’, or charisma, is very much part of what works in claiming ‘authenticity’ these days, and in gaining followers online and in real life.  Just this morning on Radio 4, Cambridge academic, David Runciman, was discussing his new book which puts forward the idea that states and corporations are kind of machines, analogous to AI, which process information, and on which we rely to run functions which underpin much of daily life.  When frustrated with politics and monolithic bureaucracies, he argued, we often turn to charismatic, empathetic politicians who appear to embody our hopes and fears, and who humanise our struggles.  They often do this, of course, by defining a ‘them’ as well as an ’us’, making for turbulent, polarising political battles.

As we contemplate a new year when over 40 countries will hold General Elections, perhaps we should be as wary of ‘rizz’ as we often are of AI. 2024 will likely see a re-run of a Biden vs Trump contest in the USA. Here in the UK, we may face an Election without much ‘rizz’ on the menu, but with plenty of scope for division and disinformation.  Even AI might struggle to predict whether the contest will actually happen in 2024, or if the ‘tetchy/snippy/peevish’ Mr Sunak will hang on to the bitter end of January 2025.  The one certainty is that no-one will be calling him ‘Rizz-i’.