The explosive growth of textual data over time presents a significant challenge in uncovering evolving themes and trends. Existing dynamic topic modeling techniques, while powerful, often exist in fragmented pipelines that lack robust support for interpretation and user-friendly exploration. We introduce DTECT (Dynamic Topic Explorer & Context Tracker), an end-to-end system that bridges the gap between raw textual data and meaningful temporal insights. DTECT provides a unified workflow that supports data preprocessing, multiple model architectures, and dedicated evaluation metrics to analyze the topic quality of temporal topic models. It significantly enhances interpretability by introducing LLM-driven automatic topic labeling, trend analysis via temporally salient words, interactive visualizations with document-level summarization, and a natural language chat interface for intuitive data querying. By integrating these features into a single, cohesive platform, DTECT empowers users to more effectively track and understand thematic dynamics. DTECT is open-source and available at https://github.com/AdhyaSuman/DTECT.

Vice President JD Vance joined the American Dynamism Summit in Washington, D.C., March 18 to discuss the future of AI. WASHINGTON -- Vice President JD Vance knocked recent globalization efforts that use "cheap labor as a crutch" while simultaneously hampering innovation on the global scale during a Tuesday tech and artificial intelligence speech. "Our workers, the populists, on the one hand, the tech optimists on the other, have been failed by this government," he said. "Not just the government of the last administration, but the government in some ways of the last 40 years, because there were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization." Vance explained that recent globalization efforts falsely assumed that world leaders could "separate the making of things from the design of things," citing the belief was that poorer nations would create goods such as cellphones, while wealthier nations would move "further up the value change."

It's September 2023, and markets have become battlefields, as economics and geopolitics become ever more closely intertwined. Many think that we are returning to the Cold War, but we're not. Back then, the military had the materiel and commanded the view of war. Whether the U.S. fulfills its national security ambitions doesn't just depend on its armed forces, but its relationship with firms. The recent revelation that Elon Musk used his control of the Starlink satellite system to unilaterally decide the limits on a Ukrainian offensive is just one example of how business can, quite literally, call the shots.

Three years ago, I stood in a high-tech lab at a technical university and stared at the giant flat screen monitor. The professor asked me, "Can you tell me which of these samples was generated via Artificial Intelligence?" At the top, a student had asked a complex question related an application of calculus for calculating fluid flow and heat transfer. Below, a graduate student and an AI chat bot had both answered the question. I studied both answers over and over again. I looked for clues in the syntax. I tried to find the humanity within the the answers. Finally, I shook my head. I couldn't tell the difference. Both options were clear and concise with just a touch of colloquial friendliness while still remaining slightly cold and objective.

The ongoing Russian-Ukraine war and the unprecedented sanctions the United States and its allies have imposed on Russia could bring the world economy back to 1914, which signaled the end of early globalization and the revival of national and regional conflicts. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes," Mark Twain is rightly or wrongly quoted as saying, which is as timely today as it was in his time. At the turn of the 20th century, capitalism was on track to conquer the global economy, creating a global market without borders, a trade regime where commodities and resources could flow freely within and across borders. But unfortunately for the world community, it didn't happen. By the beginning of the second decade, this trend of early globalization stalled and, in some cases, forestalled by the rise of nationalism and trade protectionism, not to mention the destruction of the two World Wars. For instance, increased trade protectionism limited the flow of resources and commodities across national borders.

The global impact of artificial intelligence is vast. To some extent, it has been completed, and more development is needed. International business growth, AI and global expansion are usually inseparable. The McKinsey Global Institute recently analyzed economic data from the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank. The report claims that by 2030, artificial intelligence can increase the global economy by 16% or about $13 trillion. It can also increase the global gross domestic product by as much as 26%.

During his recent keynote address to the National Conservative Conference, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri brought attention to the crisis of a marginalized and long-forgotten group: men. "Over the last 30 years and more, government policy has helped destroy the kind of economy that gave meaning to generations of men," he said, describing low wages and corporate consolidation brought on by globalization. The result, he said, is "more and more men are withdrawing into the enclaves of idleness, and pornography, and video games." Hawley's remarks were immediately met with derision, criticism, and exasperation: Here was another conversative--a presidential hopeful no less--hand-wringing over pornography, another traditionalist subscribing to outdated gender norms by saying "a man is a father, a man is a husband, a man is someone who takes responsibility," and another male politician cautioning that a supposed liberal attack on manhood was at the root of this rot. Here's the issue: Hawley is partially right.

Silicon Valley is not a milieu known for glamour and charisma. Still, Peter Thiel has cultivated a mystique. A billionaire several times over, Thiel was the first outside investor in Facebook; he went on to co-found PayPal, the digital-payment service, and Palantir, the data-intelligence company that has worked with the U.S. government. He has co-written a business best-seller, "Zero to One," and launched a hedge fund; he now runs three venture-capital firms. In 2018, citing a regional intolerance of conservative perspectives, he moved from Silicon Valley to Los Angeles; he recently purchased a mansion in Miami Beach.

The plurality of information accessible to internet users from all generations provides a sense of digital connection, a transcendent relationship that is perhaps considered unprecedented in human history. Within our society, there are precedents of specific industries and companies that have failed to scale into the world of digital transformation. For example, Canada's own Blackberry (formerly known as Research in Motion), transitioned from a smartphone manufacturer to artificial intelligence (AI) based cyber-security solution software company. The lessons showcased that because the world is changing so quickly, various fields are inherently forced to adapt to the technological advancements of processes and methods. The cruel reality is that industries that fail to transition successfully into an era of digital transformation may cease to exist. The legal industry has been quite consistent with its traditional values of the law, and so its methods of teaching have not changed in comparison with other highly regulated professions like medicine.

Do mass media influence people's opinion of other countries? Using BERT, a deep neural network-based natural language processing model, we analyze a large corpus of 267,907 China-related articles published by The New York Times since 1970. We then compare our output from The New York Times to a longitudinal data set constructed from 101 cross-sectional surveys of the American public's views on China. We find that the reporting of The New York Times on China in one year explains 54% of the variance in American public opinion on China in the next. Our result confirms hypothesized links between media and public opinion and helps shed light on how mass media can influence public opinion of foreign countries.