You may have heard that the Oxford dictionary’s “word of the year” last year was “brain rot.”
I found that interesting for two reasons. The first is that it is clearly two words. The second is that unlike prior words of the year — like 2013’s “selfie” or last year’s “rizz” — “brain rot” is neither new nor changed from its original intended meaning. Its first use was recorded in 1854 and said to be “indicative of a general decline in mental and intellectual effort” — which, well, yeah.
Since the selection for Oxford’s yearly word is done by public poll, this leads me to my first prediction in this column of observations for tech this year: The brain rot economy would show signs of weakness as people grow more wary of what is being served up to them by algorithms as they scroll endlessly. In the past year, the flood of artificial intelligence (AI) slop content has made looking at Facebook even more pointless — and eyeballs would go elsewhere.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
Along the same lines, we can expect more anti-social media and anti-smartphone legislation from governments and local authorities around the world following the drastic action taken by Australia to ban users younger than 16 from social media and more and more bans on smartphones in US schools. Momentum is growing, and I expect more sweeping directives would follow — along with more spirited debate over whether such bans are justified or effective. See also: well-intentioned but poorly executed age verification efforts.
The biggest jolt to the social media landscape could come from a US ban on TikTok. The Jan. 19 deadline for its divestiture is fast-approaching. However, before then, the US Supreme Court would hear arguments next Friday from each side — TikTok and the US Department of Justice — on whether the ban is constitutional. Many legal observers have deemed it unlikely that the court would overturn the lower court’s ruling, which sided with the government on its somewhat vague concerns of national security. However, in recent days the pendulum has shown signs of a swing. Trump, after weeks of would-he, won’t-he, has sought to pause the law until he is in office. A delay would allow “breathing space for the court to consider the questions on a more measured schedule,” he argued in an amicus brief. Many on the left and right agree with him.
If the steady stream of tech CEOs visiting Mar-a-Lago is any indication, we can expect Silicon Valley to be more willing to do Trump’s bidding this year than it was in 2017, when we saw widespread condemnation of Trump and a pledge to not aid him in carrying out his policies. It would take several big tech partners to put in motion Trump’s mass deportation goals should he actually attempt to go through with them. Tech companies, more frugal these days and with employees on a much tighter leash, would jump at the chance — history books be damned. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza would continue to provide moral cover for Silicon Valley firms to enter military contracts they have previously shirked out of fear of upsetting their rank-and-file workers and customer base.
At the center of tech policymaking would be Elon Musk. The world’s richest man would be looking for a strong return on his investment in Trump. What exactly that looks like remains to be seen, though we have already seen him wield the force of his social network, X, to bend the US Congress to his will. However, his ownership of X, and his power over what is posted and amplified there, would likely make him a lightning rod for the warring factions in right wing politics. Last week’s bitter row over US H-1B visas shows how suspicions over Musk’s aims lie just beneath the surface, and the billionaire’s unwillingness to back down from a fight could prove damaging to his companies. This year, Musk needs to show real progress on his robotaxi vision, which requires more legislative support than it has now. Tesla’s share gains since Trump was elected suggest Wall Street thinks the plan is right on track, but I think Tesla investors would be sorely disappointed when Musk’s robotaxi plan reveals itself to be infeasible (some would argue that is apparent already).
Investors would also be keeping a close watch on chipmaker Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳), the so-called godfather of AI, would be a man under siege as rivals such as Amazon.com and Broadcom seek to provide bona fide alternatives to Nvidia’s AI chips and geopolitical tensions between the US and China put Nvidia on the front line. Beijing is looking for effective means of retaliation over US trade restrictions, and Nvidia is vulnerable.
Wall Street demands for meaningful return on investment from AI would get louder. Capital expenditures from data center construction and semiconductor hoarding would skyrocket, but the capabilities and revenue of AI would not match the pace of investment. In a political environment friendlier to large mergers and acquisitions, we can expect significant consolidation in the AI industry. The also-ran startups would go under. At the same time, politicians would increasingly find themselves caught between big tech interests and the fury of their constituents as AI companies seek to rapidly put data centers in towns that do not want them.
AI pushback would also come from news organizations that feel AI companies are stealing their work and putting their futures at risk. This year, newsrooms globally would need to contend with AI as friend and foe, recognizing its potential for arming journalists with incredibly powerful new reporting tools while wondering if multimillion-dollar deals with OpenAI and others are giving away the farm. Legislators and judges would get into the fine print of modernizing copyright law. One phrase we would be hearing a lot is “fair use” — which would hopefully receive a precedent-setting revised definition sooner rather than later.
Consolidation, or at least cooperation, might be in the air for streaming companies as consumers stare down serious subscription fatigue. We have recently seen price increases for YouTube TV, Disney+, Max and Paramount+, in addition to password crackdowns and the introduction of ads. The streaming market is too crowded and major streaming providers would look to bundle up their offerings in a way that would look suspiciously like traditional cable TV.
Elsewhere in entertainment, the 10-years-in-the-making Grand Theft Auto 6 would walk a culture war tightrope as it seeks to become the most popular entertainment product of all time. The game rose to prominence as an ultra-violent, no-holds-barred, over-the-top portrayal of the scummy criminal underworld. In the decade since its previous installment, sensibilities have changed, though something tells me developer Rockstar Games would err on the side of offensiveness. All publicity is good publicity, and it sure makes for fiery debate.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS