Not sure why but I thought it would be fun to pull together a few short video clips of famous users of the humble typewriter, in action.
Sadly the video of Sir Patrick Moore typing is no longer available online but here’s a couple.
Woody Allen.
And of course, Bob Dylan.
A recent news report revealed that an international law firm has blocked general access to AI tools after noticing a significant increase in usage among its staff. This decision raises important concerns about the broader impact of artificial intelligence in the workplace, particularly in professional settings where confidentiality and independent thinking are crucial.
One of the most worrying aspects of AI’s growing presence is its potential to erode individual skills. With tools like ChatGPT assisting with writing and Grammarly correcting grammar and spelling, workers may become over-reliant on artificial support. Over time, this could lead to a decline in independent writing ability, just as excessive reliance on spellcheckers has reduced the need for people to memorise correct spellings. If professionals no longer develop or maintain strong writing skills, the quality of independent thought and communication may suffer significantly.
Another alarming issue is the business model behind AI tools. Many of these services are currently free, encouraging widespread adoption. However, there is a real danger that once users become dependent, companies will introduce high fees for access. This strategy is reminiscent of how drug dealers operate—offering free samples to create dependency before imposing a cost. If businesses and professionals rely too heavily on AI, they may find themselves trapped in a costly cycle where they are forced to pay for a service they once took for granted.
Perhaps the most significant risk is the potential for privacy breaches. AI tools process and store vast amounts of user input, raising concerns about confidential data being exposed or misused. In legal, medical, or financial professions, this could have devastating consequences. Clients may not even realise that information about them is being uploaded to external AI systems. Transparency and regulation are essential to ensure that individuals understand when and how their data is being processed by AI.
The law firm’s decision to restrict access to AI tools highlights the urgent need for businesses and regulators to consider these risks seriously. While AI has the potential to enhance productivity, it must not come at the expense of skill development, ethical business practices, or personal privacy. As AI continues to evolve, organisations and individuals must remain vigilant to ensure they do not become unwittingly dependent or exposed to exploitation.
Should more companies follow this law firm’s example and restrict access, or is the battle already lost?
I really am starting to despair about the National Health Service and how difficult it now seems to access it. There seems to have been a massive and very rapid shift over to digital access to services and it now seems just so difficult to get to speak to, let alone see, a doctor.
I find the whole experience very off-putting as the whole thing seems to have now been designed to prevent people accessing services rather than helping them to access services. We are both (currently) reasonably au-fait with the use of technology for many of the things we now access and generally things run smoothly where they have been designed for digital access from the ground up. The NHS is different, it just seems to have had technology forced upon it and things just seem to be bolted on without real consideration for the users of the service.
If we consider my sister who had a learning disability as well as many other problems. It was impossible for her to use even telephone services and she would simply put the telephone down if she was faced with a system where she has to choose between various options. If the option exists, which it doesn’t always, to wait to speak to someone she would give up if nothing happened, even if she could hear properly. Faced with a twenty minute wait for someone to speak to her my sister would simply give up, there are many thousands like her.
It seems to be forgotten that there are many people who cannot and do not want to deal with largely mechanised and digitised service provision. There are still many who cannot use and access online services and these people are becoming the forgotten members of society when it comes to accessing today’s health services.
I think far more thought, care and planning needs to be given to the introduction of automated and online access to health and social care services. The needs of the struggling and the vulnerable need to be at the front of the minds of the systems designers. If the vulnerable groups can use services and access them conveniently then the able will have no problem, the reverse is not true.