Cambridge Dictionary has named its word of the year for 2025, alighting on “parasocial”, used to describe a connection that people feel with someone they don’t know – or even with an artificial intelligence.
The term was coined in 1956 by sociologists Donald Horton and Richard Wohl, who wanted to describe how television viewers formed “para-social” relationships with TV personalities, the dictionary said in a statement published Wednesday.
This phenomenon continues today, as social media users form parasocial relationships with celebrities, influencers and online personalities with whom they have no personal connection.
Lily Allen’s latest album sparked a “parasocial interest in her love life”, according to Cambridge Dictionary.
Chinese culture and New Zealand culture are like “two mutual friends who have heard of each other but never met”, says Auckland art historian Yang Fan.
A key example cited by Cambridge Dictionary is singer Taylor Swift, who announced her engagement to NFL star Travis Kelce this year, with many fans talking of their heartfelt feelings toward a couple that the vast majority had never met.
Another is British singer Lily Allen, whose latest album West End Girl tells the story of a breakup and sparked a “parasocial interest in her love life”, according to the statement.
And use of the term has surged this year, particularly as concerns over the connections that some people have started to develop with AI chatbots such as ChatGPT have come to the fore.
Colin McIntosh, a lexicographer at the Cambridge Dictionary, said the word “captures the 2025 zeitgeist” and demonstrates how language changes.
“What was once a specialist academic term has become mainstream,” he said in the statement.
“Millions of people are engaged in parasocial relationships; many more are simply intrigued by their rise,” McIntosh added.
“The language around parasocial phenomena is evolving fast, as technology, society and culture shift and mutate: from celebrities to chatbots, parasocial trends are fascinating for those who are interested in the development of language,” he said.
Simone Schnall, professor of experimental social psychology at the University of Cambridge, said in the statement that the word “is an inspired choice.”
“The rise of parasocial relationships has redefined fandom, celebrity and, with AI, how ordinary people interact online,” she said.
“We’ve entered an age where many people form unhealthy and intense parasocial relationships with influencers,” Schnall added.
“This leads to a sense that people ‘know’ those they form parasocial bonds with, can trust them and even to extreme forms of loyalty. Yet it’s completely one sided.”
Cambridge Dictionary also highlighted a number of other words that it said have had a “significant impact” this year.
Among their number is “slop”, defined as “content on the internet that is of very low quality, especially when it is created by artificial intelligence,” as well as “memeify,” or “to turn an event, image, person, etc. into a meme.”
And the dictionary added 6000 new words this year, with notable newbies including “delulu”, “skibidi” and “tradwife.”
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
A new displacement camp set up by the Egyptian Committee in Nuseirat, Gaza Strip on 11 November 2025.Photo: AFP / Eyad Baba
Resolution authorises transitional authority and international stabilisation force
Russia put forward rival resolution
Palestinian Authority has backed resolution, Hamas is opposed
The UN Security Council has passed a US-drafted resolution endorsing US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and authorising an international stabilisation force for the Palestinian enclave.
The 15-member council voted on the resolution at 5pm ET (11am NZT).
*This story is being updated. Earlier reporting below:
The UN Security Council is set to vote on a US-drafted resolution endorsing President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and authorising an international stabilisation force for the Palestinian enclave.
Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas agreed last month to the first phase of Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza – a ceasefire in their two-year war and a hostage-release deal – but a UN resolution is seen as vital to legitimise a transitional governance body and to reassure countries considering sending troops to Gaza.
The 15-member council is scheduled to vote on the resolution at 5pm ET (11am NZT).
The latest draft of the resolution, seen by Reuters, says member states can take part in the so-called Board of Peace envisioned as a transitional authority that would oversee reconstruction and economic recovery of Gaza. It also authorises the international stabilisation force, which would ensure a process of demilitarising Gaza, including by decommissioning weapons and destroying military infrastructure.
Trump’s 20-point plan is included as an annex to the resolution.
Israeli settlers walks at an illegal outpost built near the Jewish settlement of Metzad east of the Palestinian city of Sa’ir in the occupied West Bank after being demolished by Israeli security forces, on 17 November 2025.Photo: AFP / Menahem Kahana
Russia, which holds a veto on the Security Council, signaled potential opposition to the resolution last week when it presented a rival resolution that requests the UN explore options for an international force in Gaza.
But a statement on Friday from the Palestinian Authority backing the US-drafted resolution bolstered its chances of passing.
“We expect broad support for the resolution,” said one diplomat at the UN, requesting anonymity to discuss negotiations on the resolution. “Although Russia has at times hinted at a possible veto, it would be difficult to oppose a text backed by Palestine and the region.” That would likely also be the case for China, which also holds a veto, the diplomat said.
The resolution has proved controversial in Israel because it references a future possibility of statehood for the Palestinians.
The latest draft says the “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” once the Palestinian Authority has carried out a reform program and Gaza’s redevelopment has advanced.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under pressure from right-wing members of his government, said on Sunday that Israel remained opposed to a Palestinian state and pledged to demilitarise Gaza “the easy way or the hard way.”
Hamas has so far refused to disarm. An umbrella group of Hamas-led Palestinian factions issued a statement late on Sunday against the resolution, calling it a dangerous step toward imposing foreign guardianship over the territory, and said the proposed resolution serves Israeli interests.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Listening to Nirvana’s MTV Unplugged in New York, recorded 32 years ago today, remains a haunting experience.
Taped live in November 1993, and released as a Grammy-winning, chart-topping album a year later, the intimate, informal concert was captured just five months before frontman Kurt Cobain’s death by suicide, aged 27.
The performance has been inextricably linked to that tragic context. But it also risks overshadowing what makes MTV Unplugged so potent.
Released November 1, 1994, MTV Unplugged In New York debuted atop the US charts with the highest first-week sales of Nirvana’s career.
Christchurch writer and former Flying Nun bass player Rachael King hopes her new book series Violet and the Velvets will encourage preteen girls to join rock bands.
It’s a raw, remarkable showcase for Cobain’s gripping presence and singular songwriting talents, giving Nirvana’s noisy grunge rock a nuanced acoustic makeover to stellar results.
Widely hailed as one of the greatest live albums and performances ever, the gig nearly didn’t happen at all.
MTV had long courted Nirvana for its Unplugged series, which launched in 1989 and gained notoriety through artists Cobain would hate to be associated with, such as Eric Clapton, Mariah Carey, Sting, and Poison.
Once Nirvana relinquished, however, Cobain was meticulous about the band’s set list and presentation, including dressing the stage with black candles and stargazer lilies.
“Like a funeral?” MTV producer Alex Coletti remembers asking. “Yes, exactly,” was Cobain’s reply.
The network also allowed the frontman to bend the rules, permitting the use of his amplifier (disguised on stage as a fake monitor wedge) and plugging in his Martin D-18E semi-acoustic, which later became the most expensive guitar ever auctioned.
Nirvana had spent a month preparing by working acoustic numbers into their tour, with help from cellist Lori Goldstein and guitarist Pat Smear, but the band was still nervous about exposing its softer side on such a high-profile TV broadcast.
There were concerns it would “be a mistake to proceed with the show”, guitar tech Ernie Bailey told The Ringer in 2018. “The rehearsals were so loose, I don’t remember them making it through a full set.”
Then there was Cobain’s ailing health. “He was truly falling apart. Physically, mentally. He hadn’t been sleeping,” noted Cobain biographer Charles R Cross.
“And yet, on stage, once the tape starts running, it’s absolutely mesmerising.”
Miraculously, Nirvana nailed 14 songs in a single take, while Cobain rose to the occasion, lightening the mood with self-deprecating banter and bringing magnetic authenticity to each song.
MTV was anxious about the band’s insistence — with the exception of Nevermind single ‘Come As You Are’ — on avoiding recognisable hits.
“We knew we didn’t want to do an acoustic version of [Smells Like] Teen Spirit,” drummer Dave Grohl would later remark. “That would’ve been horrendously stupid.”
The band’s caustic volume often obscured Cobain’s natural gift for melody and songcraft. However, when the group did wind down — as on brooding Nevermind cuts ‘Polly’ or ‘Something In The Way’ — it was clear that stripped-down Nirvana could work wonders. And work wonders they did.
Witness Cobain’s sensitive solo rendition of ‘Pennyroyal Tea’, or the rare sight of a young, pony-tailed Grohl — one of rock’s most muscular drummers — brandishing hot rod sticks (gifted to him by Coletti) on the stirring ‘All Apologies’.
Bassist Krist Novoselic breaks out an accordion — his first instrument — on a folksy rendition of ‘Jesus Doesn’t Want Me For A Sunbeam’ by Scottish band The Vaselines, one of several inspired cover choices since made famous by Nirvana’s unplugged outing.
They introduced David Bowie’s ‘The Man Who Sold The World’ to a new generation and played three Meat Puppets tunes alongside the country-punk group’s own siblings Curt and Cris Kirkwood, long cited among Cobain’s biggest inspirations.
Best of all is the howling hair-raising conclusion: ‘Where Did You Sleep Last Night’, a harrowing take on bluesman Lead Belly’s ‘In The Pines’.
Neil Young, whose lyrics Cobain quoted in his suicide note (“it’s better to burn out than fade away”), once described the tortured vocals as “unearthly, like a werewolf, unbelievable”.
It’s an intense, unnerving performance that inked Cobain’s legacy into the history books. But the musician walked away thinking he’d screwed up, unnerved as rapturous applause fell to eerie quiet as he approached fans in the front rows.
“The silence in the room in-between songs [was] a show of respect,” MTV executive Amy Finnerty remembers.
“That’s what Kurt misinterpreted: that the silence was disapproval. It was just respect.
“Kurt, [I said] they think you are Jesus Christ.
“You knew for sure that history was being made. No doubt about it. You’re lucky if you get to be at something like that once in your lifetime.”
Bringing a countercultural edge to a glossy, mainstream prospect, Nirvana changed the model — you need only look to MTV Australia’s rebooted Unplugged series with Courtney Barnett and Gang of Youths for its lingering influence.
As much as it’s been canonised as a poignant epitaph — gesturing at where Cobain, disillusioned by fame and frustrated by Nirvana’s limitations, could have gone artistically — MTV Unplugged In New York should be treasured for what it captured: the sound of a generational band transcending their roots and reputation in remarkable fashion.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
I’m a historian who has studied the roots of stand your ground laws. I published a book on the subject in 2017. My ongoing investigation of the laws suggests that, 20 years on, they have not made communities any safer, nor have they helped prevent crime. In fact, there is reliable evidence they have done just the opposite.
In the past 20 years, stand your ground has spread to 38 states.
Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, quickly announced that open carry is now “the law of the state,” directing law enforcement not to arrest people who display handguns in public.
In my view, this combination of stand your ground, open carry and permitless carry is likely to make the Sunshine State far less safe.
Let’s look at the evidence.
What ‘stand your ground’ means
Under traditional self-defense law, a person had a duty to retreat – to try to avoid a violent confrontation if they could safely do so – before resorting to deadly force.
The main exception to the duty to retreat was known as the castle doctrine, whereby people could defend themselves, with force if necessary, if they were attacked in their own homes.
Stand your ground laws effectively expand the boundaries of the castle doctrine to the wider world, removing the duty to retreat and allowing people to use lethal force anywhere they have a legal right to be, as long as they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or serious harm.
While supporters of these laws claim they mitigate crime and make people safer, evidence shows the opposite. The nonpartisan RAND Corp. discovered that states adopting stand your ground laws experienced significant increases in homicide, typically between 8% and 11% higher than before the laws took effect.
While the language of stand your ground laws is race-neutral, their enforcement is not. Data from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights show that in states with stand your ground laws, homicides are far more likely to be deemed “justified” when the shooter is white and the victim is Black.
I’ve found that these laws have redefined not only when force is justified but who is justified in using force.
In my assessment, these laws don’t create racial bias. Rather, they magnify the biases already present in our criminal legal system. They give broader discretion to a legal system in which law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and juries often hold unacknowledged biases that associate Black men with criminality, while perceiving white people who say they were defending themselves as credible.
Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin was unarmed when George Zimmerman shot and killed him on March 20, 2012, in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman claimed he killed Martin in self-defense and was acquitted by a jury. Gerardo Mora/Getty Images News
Each instance illustrates how stand your ground transforms ordinary mistakes or misunderstandings into lethal outcomes, and how armed citizens’ claims of “reasonable fear” often reflect racial stereotypes more than objective threats.
Combined with the removal of licensing procedures and training requirements, laws that broaden the right to use deadly force create a permissive environment for opportunistic violence.
When everyone is visibly armed, every encounter can look like a potential threat. And when the law tells you that you don’t have to back down, that perception can turn lethal in seconds.
National implications: ‘Reciprocity’ and expansion
Two decades later, stand your ground laws have spread, in various forms, to 38 states. While 30 states have legislatively enacted stand your ground statutes like Florida’s, eight others implement stand your ground through case law and jury instructions that effectively remove the duty to retreat.
On top of this, 29 states have enacted laws allowing permitless carry, and 47 technically allow open carry, though restrictions vary across the states.
President Donald Trump has made clear he wants to take this deregulatory approach nationwide. While on the campaign trail, he promised to sign a “concealed-carry reciprocity” law, which would require all states to allow people from states with permissive laws to exercise those rights in all 50. “Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line,” he announced in a 2023 video.
If that vision becomes reality, it would mean the most permissive state laws will set the standard for the entire country. National reciprocity would allow Floridians, and other gun owners from permitless carry states, to carry their firearms – and potentially claim stand your ground immunity – in any other state, including those with stricter rules and lower rates of firearm death and injury.
This prospect raises deep questions about states’ rights, safety and justice. Research shows that stand your ground laws increase homicide and exacerbate racial disparities. National reciprocity would export those effects nationwide.
In my view, the convergence of stand your ground, open carry and national reciprocity marks the culmination of a 20-year experiment in armed citizenship. The results are clear: more people armed, more shootings and more deaths “justified.”
The question now is whether the rest of the nation will follow Florida’s lead.
Read more stories from The Conversation about Florida.
Caroline Light is affiliated with GVPedia and collaborates with Giffords.
The US president says he could sue the British national broadcaster for as much as $US5 billion after it spliced together two parts of his speech from January 6, 2021.
In an email to staff, the BBC’s chair Samir Shah says there is “no basis” for the defamation suit.
Two senior executives for the corporation last week resigned over the crisis.
Donald TrumpPhoto: ROBERTO SCHMIDT
Britain’s BBC is “determined to fight” any legal action filed by US President Donald Trump, saying on Monday there was no basis for a defamation case over its editing of one of his speeches.
Trump said last week he would likely sue the BBC for as much as $US5 billion ($7.6 billion) after the broadcaster spliced together separate excepts of one of his speeches, creating the impression he was inciting the 6 January 2021 riot.
The British national broadcaster’s chair Samir Shah then sent a personal letter to Trump to apologise for the edit, the BBC said, but the broadcaster said it strongly disagreed there was a basis for a defamation claim.
But that has done little to quell Trump’s displeasure, with the US president telling reporters on Friday he would sue for anywhere between $US1 billion and $US5 billion.
“I think I have to do that, I mean they’ve even admitted that they cheated,” he said.
In a further email sent to BBC staff on Monday, local time, Shah said there was a lot of speculation about the possibility of legal action, including potential costs or settlements.
“In all this we are, of course, acutely aware of the privilege of our funding and the need to protect our license fee payers, the British public,” he said in the email.
“I want to be very clear with you – our position has not changed.
“There is no basis for a defamation case and we are determined to fight this.”
The BBC issued a personal apology to Trump.Photo: Kin Cheung/AP via CNN Newsource
Broadcaster faces major challenge from saga
The edit to Trump’s 6 January speech has caused headaches for the BBC, which has already been struck by a number of high-profile scandals in recent years.
The spliced-together speech was aired in a Panorama documentary which aired before the 2024 US Presidential election, but only came to light in recent weeks.
The BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and news chief executive Deborah Turness both resigned in the aftermath, plunging the broadcaster into one of its biggest crises in decades.
The BBC also issued a personal apology to Trump, vowing not to rebroadcast the Panorama documentary but rejecting the president’s claims he had been defamed by it.
It also rejected the US president’s demands for financial compensation.
British culture minister Lisa Nandy said on Friday it was right that the BBC had apologised to Trump.
“They’ve rightly accepted that they didn’t meet the highest standards and that’s the basis on which the chairman of the board has offered this apology to the President of the United States,” she told the UK’s Times Radio.
The scandal and subsequent leadership resignations come at a sensitive time for the BBC, which is funded largely by a licence fee paid by any Briton owning a television.
The broadcaster, which has been on air since 1922, is currently navigating the next round of its funding negotiations with the UK government.
– ABC
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
A new displacement camp set up by the Egyptian Committee in Nuseirat, Gaza Strip on 11 November 2025.Photo: AFP / Eyad Baba
Resolution authorises transitional authority and international stabilisation force
Russia put forward rival resolution
Palestinian Authority has backed resolution, Hamas is opposed
The UN Security Council is set to vote on a US-drafted resolution endorsing President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and authorising an international stabilisation force for the Palestinian enclave.
Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas agreed last month to the first phase of Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza – a ceasefire in their two-year war and a hostage-release deal – but a UN resolution is seen as vital to legitimise a transitional governance body and to reassure countries considering sending troops to Gaza.
The 15-member council is scheduled to vote on the resolution at 5pm ET (11am NZT).
The latest draft of the resolution, seen by Reuters, says member states can take part in the so-called Board of Peace envisioned as a transitional authority that would oversee reconstruction and economic recovery of Gaza. It also authorises the international stabilisation force, which would ensure a process of demilitarising Gaza, including by decommissioning weapons and destroying military infrastructure.
Trump’s 20-point plan is included as an annex to the resolution.
Israeli settlers walks at an illegal outpost built near the Jewish settlement of Metzad east of the Palestinian city of Sa’ir in the occupied West Bank after being demolished by Israeli security forces, on 17 November 2025.Photo: AFP / Menahem Kahana
Russia, which holds a veto on the Security Council, signaled potential opposition to the resolution last week when it presented a rival resolution that requests the UN explore options for an international force in Gaza.
But a statement on Friday from the Palestinian Authority backing the US-drafted resolution bolstered its chances of passing.
“We expect broad support for the resolution,” said one diplomat at the UN, requesting anonymity to discuss negotiations on the resolution. “Although Russia has at times hinted at a possible veto, it would be difficult to oppose a text backed by Palestine and the region.” That would likely also be the case for China, which also holds a veto, the diplomat said.
The resolution has proved controversial in Israel because it references a future possibility of statehood for the Palestinians.
The latest draft says the “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” once the Palestinian Authority has carried out a reform program and Gaza’s redevelopment has advanced.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under pressure from right-wing members of his government, said on Sunday that Israel remained opposed to a Palestinian state and pledged to demilitarise Gaza “the easy way or the hard way.”
Hamas has so far refused to disarm. An umbrella group of Hamas-led Palestinian factions issued a statement late on Sunday against the resolution, calling it a dangerous step toward imposing foreign guardianship over the territory, and said the proposed resolution serves Israeli interests.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicolas Chartier-Edwards, PhD student, Politics, Science and Technology, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has tabled its first official budget, entitled Canada Strong. It frames itself as a road map of investments being made to strengthen national sovereignty via economic productivity and national defence. Central to those efforts is artificial intelligence.
AI-heavy technologies have been identified by eight federal agencies in the 2025 budget as a way to reduce operational expenditures while fuelling productivity.
Many of the investments in the budget are aimed at developing the defence industry through the creation and commercialization of what’s known as dual-use technology — goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications — which can also include AI.
But is Canada Strong actually weak on AI?
Given the current legislative landscape and the new budget, we argue that Canada Strong’s AI plan downplays regulation and guardrail development, since funding is geared chiefly toward adoption. It overlooks the risks, impacts and potential weaknesses that come with an over-reliance on these technologies.
Between 2006 and 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government invested more than $13 billion in science, technology and innovation during its mandate.
Justin Trudeau’s government changed how AI was marketed to Canadians and how it was funded. The 2017 budget, entitled Building a Strong Middle Class, made the first explicit references to AI in a federal budget, describing it as representing a transformative force for the Canadian economy.
The government emphasized “Canada’s advantage in artificial intelligence,” which it said could translate into “a more innovative economy, stronger economic growth, and an improved quality of life for Canadians.”
This commitment to AI was reaffirmed in the 2021 budget, when the technology was presented as “one of the most significant technological transformations of our time.” The federal government’s investments in the sector were portrayed as essential to ensure the economy benefited, and that Canada’s position of strength enabled the “integration of Canadian values into global platforms.”
The government renewed the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy with another $368 million. An additional $2.4 billion was committed in the 2024 budget, which emphasized the “safe and responsible use” of AI, notably through the creation of new standards and the establishment of a Canadian AI Safety Institute
Sovereignty focus
The 2025 budget marks another substantial shift in Canada’s approach to AI. This third phase of funding focuses on adoption, productivity, sovereignty and the fundamental principle of dual use, both civilian and military.
But we don’t believe it fosters research and projects addressing the key issues tied to AI, and instead amplifies promotional language.
Promoting rapid regulatory design and AI adoption within a budget focused on stimulating dual-use research, development, commercialization and implementation risks overlooking many of AI’s pitfalls, including:
Promotion AI as an economic boon — through public administration automation and military dual use — within an unregulated environment, and without dedicated funding for oversight, risks disrupting key sectors and services that sustain Canadian democracy, the very foundation of “Canada Strong.”
Nicolas Chartier-Edwards receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
François-Olivier Picard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Understanding worker attitudes toward automation is a crucial part of studying AI’s broader impact on work and society. If large segments of the workforce feel threatened or left behind by AI, we risk not just economic disruption but a loss of trust in institutions and technological progress.
To explore these attitudes, we fielded a nationally representative survey of 2,519 working Canadians from Sept. 8 to 18 with the support of the Angus Reid Forum. The survey was designed to assess public attitudes and perceptions about the AI-related threat of job displacement.
We found Canadians’ responses were far from uniform, reflecting a mix of concern, skepticism and cautious optimism.
Mixed reactions to job loss
We asked respondents:
“A CEO of a major AI company recently made this statement: ‘AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10 to 20 per cent in the next one to five years.’ How likely do you think this is?”
The quote came from Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, who was interviewed in an Axios article in May. The central thrust of the article was the imminent AI-related turbulence in the world of work.
In our survey, however, Canadian workers expressed mixed reactions to that dismal scenario: 16 per cent felt it was “very likely,” while another 48 per cent said it was only “somewhat likely.” The remaining 36 per cent said it was “not too likely” or “not at all likely.”
We then asked open-ended followup questions to gather qualitative insights about the ways that people are thinking and feeling about the AI threat. Most respondents expressed a pessimistic outlook, but a significant minority contrasted their view with optimism.
Concerns about corporate greed and job loss
A common thread among pessimistic responses was concern over corporate greed and profit. “Companies are greedy,” a 63-year-old writer said. “They want to get rid of as many jobs as possible.”
A 66-year-old clinical manager echoed the sentiment: “Companies are always looking to reduce cost and improve efficacies, so there is a strong probability this is going to happen in many organizations over the next 5 to 10 years as AI continues to be used.”
Some respondents felt these trends were happening already. “The trends and increases in speed of which AI has begun dominating the business world,” a 30-year-old engineer said. “I believe that whether or not society approves, companies will attempt to replace their entry level-jobs with AI.”
A 32-year-old real estate legal assistant said: “AI has already advanced so much in a short space of time. Combined with our society’s prioritization of profit, I doubt many companies will have any scruples about replacing people with machines.”
Others were concerned about the looming loss of dignity and respect for workers. “Executives do not see the value of the human mind compared to a machine,” a 53-year-old senior government policy analyst told us. “It shows they have no concern for employees, just profits.”
A 70-year-old civil construction inspector similarly said: “Worker productivity is low, immigration has overwhelmed services and housing, corporations have no respect for workers no matter where or what the task. There will simply be too many people competing for jobs.”
“Companies see AI as a cheap way to lay off many workers and maximize their own profits — even though doing so will make their products worse,” said a 22-year-old barista. “Companies only care about money, not the workers that generate their revenue.”
Optimism about human adaptability
Not everyone was so gloomy. Many expressed optimism about AI and the human capacity to adapt and evolve.
“AI is not a replacement for humans,” said a 54-year-old community television producer, while emphasizing that rather than replace humans, AI “should allow humans to accomplish more at their jobs.”
Others shared this confidence, drawing parallels to other historical changes in technology. “The job market will adapt as needed,” speculated a 34-year-old service officer, “switching to different roles that match the current technology, just as we have done in the past.”
A 33-year-old project co-ordinator said: “I think people and jobs will adapt to utilize technology in the same way we adapted to the internet. I think the job market will change, but overall, we’re more likely to adapt than have high unemployment.”
Some reinforced the human relevance of work. “Regardless of the nature of the job, individuals will still need to train the younger generation” said a 32-year-old economist. “While we might not need data entry people anymore, we still need to understand how data entry works to hold upper-level positions — it can’t just be taken away from people completely.”
It’s clear that the emotional landscape of work is filled with frustrations about corporate priorities and skepticism about whether workers will be protected. And yet, our survey found traces of resilience in the belief in the essential humanness of work.
Over the next one to five years, we’ll continue to track how this all plays out, and the ways that Canadian workers, business leaders and policymakers adapt and evolve to the ongoing changes brought by AI.
Scott Schieman receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Alexander Wilson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Investigators examine the railways damaged in an explosion on the rail line in Mika, next to Garwolin, central Poland on 17 November, 2025, after the line presumably was targeted in a sabotage act.Photo: AFP
Railway explosion ‘unprecedented act of sabotage’, says PM Tusk
Warsaw-Lublin line connects capital to Ukrainian border
Warsaw has said Poland is one of Moscow’s biggest targets
An explosion that damaged a Polish railway track on a route to Ukraine was an “unprecedented act of sabotage”, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said as he vowed to catch those responsible for an incident he said could have ended in tragedy.
The blast on the Warsaw-Lublin line that connects the capital to the Ukrainian border followed a wave of arson, sabotage and cyberattacks in Poland and other European countries since the start of the war in Ukraine.
Warsaw has in the past held Russia responsible, saying Poland has become one of Moscow’s biggest targets due to its role as a hub for aid to Kyiv. Russia has repeatedly denied being responsible for acts of sabotage.
“The blowing up of the railway track on the Warsaw-Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage aimed at the security of the Polish state and its citizens,” Tusk wrote on X.
“An investigation is underway. Just like in previous cases of this kind, we will catch the perpetrators, regardless of who their backers are.”
‘Highly probable’ act of sabotage
Four government ministers told a press conference there was one confirmed and one “highly probable” act of sabotage, referring to an incident on another part of the route where railway traction was damaged.
Warsaw said in October that Poland and Romania had detained eight people suspected of planning sabotage on behalf of Russia.
Local police said on Sunday (local time) that a train driver had reported damage on the railway line, but authorities were not able to immediately confirm that it was a result of sabotage.
“This route is also used to transport weapons to Ukraine,” Tusk said in a video address. “Fortunately, no tragedy occurred, but the legal implications are very serious.”
Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said the military was inspecting a 120km stretch of track leading to the Ukrainian border.
Interior Minister Marcin Kierwinski said that abundant evidence was collected at the site that should allow for the perpetrators to be quickly identified.
The damaged route that passes through the eastern city of Lublin is used by 115 trains daily, the infrastructure minister said.
– Reuters
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
