We do well when we refuse to accept with eyes tight shut all that we hear about what is going on in the nation's economic and political life. The perspectives given in all the news that gets to us are mainly subjective, influenced by the interests of the political parties, the government departments, the economic sectors and the communications media that send us their messages. Before reaching us, these get diffracted not only through the glass-half-full-half-empty dichotomy that prevails everywhere, but also by way of the priorities that determine the agendas of influencers.

A sceptical attitude works to help one come closer to all the facts as they really are (let's not say, the truth).

However, it would be wrong to take scepticisim to an extreme, by which one sees everything as all black and gray. For to be sure, there would be areas where issues are being tackled well.

This has become a crucial approach to adopt in today's society, for while there is a not negligible number of issues which are being badly handled, there are as well a substantial number of other matters where things are being done well to very well. It helps to maintain a sense of proportion.

***

CARICATURE

It is natural for political parties to strive to project their adversaries in ways that render them a caricature. Effectively, for their hardcore, that's how adversaries get considered all the time - in caricatural terms. One only needs to read the contributions featured at the end of the ongoing news stories or political comments in online papers, to understand how this happens.                    

In a way, the caricature of one's adversary helps to keep a political message focussed and comprehensible to supporters of a given side. But then, problems arise when one needs to assess how in practice decision makers who have been submitted to a caricatural portrayal are going to develop their initiatives. A case in point as of now, is how one could forecast what Donald Trump really intends doing when he enters the White House. To what extent is what we "know" about him just the reflection of a caricature?

***

ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE

It gets mentioned repeatedly not least because it is driving outcomes in the communications and digital sectors that only a short while ago would have been considered miraculous. Actually, artificial inteligence has even entered the realms of languages, literature and the arts, and seems ready to compete with the best artists of the human species.

One can only agree that it constitutes a major modern asset for humanity, for it takes up work that requires huge, repetitive physical and intellectual efforts. These cover ninety nine percent of work output: what Thomas Edison labelled as the perspiration needed for every invention. In his view, the remaining one percent consists of inspiration. Will AI be able to penetrate as well into this one per cent? Because if so, given the ease with which it can carry out what is covered by "perspiration", then it will have much more than 1 percent to dedicate to "inspiration". Given the advances that AI inspiration could then achieve,  would we eventually reach the point at which humans end up dominated by AI?