Author: Gaute Gulliksen

  • Shutdown and Sombreros

    Shutdown and Sombreros

    I’ve lived in Mexico for some years now. In that time, I’ve seen maybe three sombreros worn by actual people: on a couple of mariachi musicians, possibly one on a tourist at Cancun airport (though I can’t be certain), and that’s it. Three sombreros. Total. I probably should get out more.

    Meanwhile, despite my best efforts to confuse whatever algorithm that is feeding me, I’ve watched 20+ American politicians get digitally crowned with sombreros this past week alone. The U.S. government has shut down again, and apparently, the height of political commentary is slapping a sombrero sticker on a politician’s head and calling it done.

    I see more sombrero content from the US than I’ve seen actual sombreros here in Mexico.

    This idea led me to verify my suspicion with an AI. After some back and forth, the AI estimated that roughly 0.08% of Mexico’s population wears sombreros with any regularity (obviously, I have not found any real statistics on this). That’s mariachi musicians, charros, folklórico dancers, and a handful of tourism workers. Meanwhile, American tourists arrive in hordes (an “invasion” of over 20 million in 2023), many purchasing sombreros twice the size of their torsos, declaring themselves honorary locals after two margaritas and a mariachi selfie.

    But back to the political commentary, which apparently has reached the sticker stage. Watching these modified clips made my thoughts drift to the Mexico I know. Not out of nostalgia, but because of the absurd symmetry. While the United States is stickering its democracy, Mexico exists as a cartoon in foreign imagination. And the Mexican government isn’t exactly rushing to correct this. Stereotypes sell vacation packages.

    Apart from the current misleading narrative about my home being a warzone, I believe the average American tourist views Mexico as a postcard from the 1950s: cacti, tequila, a burro resting between errands, and a man in a sombrero taking a siesta. The siesta was practical, the sombrero provided shade, and the burro was useful before pickup trucks. Practical tools became symbols of laziness. I’ve seen the same narrative in Europe about Italians and Greeks, but without the burro.

    These tourists arrive with that postcard in mind. They buy oversized sombreros, snap mariachi selfies, and go home convinced they’ve experienced “authentic Mexico.” Washington produces fake sombrero images of politicians. Cancun produces fake authentic culture for tourists. In both cases, what’s real gets edited out.

    Stereotypes are efficient “tools”. Why understand Mexico as a complex, modern country (the IMF’s 12th largest economy in the world, with tech start-ups, art collectives, environmental movements, and a dynamic cultural landscape) when a sombrero suffices? It’s the same logic behind U.S. politics: why grapple with complex policy when a ten-second clip of embarrassment will do?

    Here’s where it stops being “funny”.

    When a stereotype becomes the dominant lens, it does real damage. The “lazy Mexican,” the “romantic peasant,” the “dangerous migrant.” These aren’t just wildly inaccurate and old descriptions. They shape policies and justify border walls, trade barriers, discrimination, and countless acts of condescension disguised as help.

    It is a repetitive and familiar stereotype, a fiction that becomes the accepted reality. Most Americans buying those oversized hats don’t see the harm, nor do the local traders. It’s an inherited script of a cultural default that confuses recognition with caricature. Meanwhile, the same country that turns Mexico into a costume turns its own democracy into a costume drama.

    Advertisement

    A future historian piecing this together (the shutdowns, the edited videos, the deliberate cultural misunderstandings) might conclude that early 21st-century America was one big theme park. Every attraction is designed for maximum engagement, with minimal space for reflection.

    Most Americans are only looking for a better life, dignified and meaningful. They’re not getting it from established structures. Politics, media, corporations, and even community life have been reduced to entertainment, with real-world consequences that are anything but amusing. The spectacle continues, but the people living it must feel the fatigue.

    From here in Mexico, it’s both fascinating and absurd to observe. At least in Mexico, the sombrero still blocks the sun. In Washington, the only thing getting shaded is the truth.


    AI Transparency Statement
    AI tools (Claude/Anthropic, ChatGPT/OpenAI) assisted with drafting and editing this piece. All content has been thoroughly reviewed, edited, and verified by the author.

  • AI Transparency: Why Knowing When Content is Artificial Matters

    AI Transparency: Why Knowing When Content is Artificial Matters

    AI is a fantastic tool for my productivity. It helps me brainstorm, test ideas, and speed up tasks that would otherwise take hours. It has even opened up new possibilities in basic coding, something I never had the time to learn but always needed.

    The trick, however, is always the same: how do we manage the relationship with AI so that it remains a tool and not a mask?

    This question becomes even more urgent when AI content is published without disclosure. Deepfakes and AI-generated texts are already fooling millions. Politicians dismiss inconvenient truths by claiming, “That’s probably AI.” Meanwhile, fake articles and synthetic videos spread faster than fact-checkers can keep up.

    We are entering a time when it is genuinely hard to know what is real and what is artificial.

    The Problem Is Growing

    We have already seen the risks:

    • AI-generated images spreading false disaster reports
    • Synthetic audio of public figures “saying” things they never said
    • Entirely fabricated news articles presented as legitimate journalism
    • Deepfake videos used to sway political opinion

    The usual response has been to build better AI detectors. But that is an arms race we are not winning. Detection that works today often fails a few months later as generative AI advances.

    A Different Approach: Transparency at the Source

    Instead of chasing AI after the fact, why not make transparency part of content creation itself?

    That means disclosing when AI has been used, whether it is drafting, editing, or generating full pieces of content. Ideas already on the table include:

    • Mandatory labeling of AI-generated content
    • Platform policies that require disclosure
    • Technical standards like watermarking or metadata tracking
    • Professional guidelines for journalists and creators

    It sounds simple, but in practice it is complicated.

    The Challenges

    AI transparency is not easy to implement:

    • Technical complexity: Each AI tool works differently and may require its own method of disclosure
    • Enforcement issues: Bad actors have every incentive to hide their AI use
    • Global coordination: Content moves across borders, but laws do not
    • Balance: Transparency requirements must be practical, without suffocating legitimate creativity

    And of course, there is the profit motive. Transparency makes manipulation harder, and that is not good for business models built on maximizing reach and revenue.

    Experimenting With Tools

    To move beyond talk, I have built a first draft of a simple AI Transparency Tool with AI help from ChatGPT and Claude.ai.

    This tool is not built for big corporations or grand systems. It is designed for individuals: consultants, writers, and content creators who want to be open about their use of AI. The tool helps add a clear statement about AI use directly into your work.

    It is experimental and will need further development, especially when it comes to integration. But the principle is simple: transparency should be accessible to everyone, not just enforced from the top down. It is a way to put responsibility back where it belongs, with content creators themselves.

    AI Transparency Disclosure (Example)

    This summary provides transparency regarding the use of AI in “blog post about AI transparency” using data from personal experience, my own content and tools published online, and online research. AI assistance was employed in the following sections: Data Analysis, Drafting Recommendations. The implementation of AI tools was conducted to enhance efficiency while maintaining the quality and integrity of the work product.

    The AI tools utilized included ChatGPT (OpenAI GPT) and Claude (Anthropic), assisting with drafting initial text, editing and improving text, research, and fact-checking. All AI-generated content was subject to human oversight to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.

    Review status: Yes – Thoroughly reviewed and verified. This disclosure follows best practices for AI transparency.

    What Is at Stake

    The trust we place in digital information depends on choices being made now. If we embrace transparency, AI can remain a powerful tool that enhances productivity and opens up new opportunities, from writing to coding, without undermining authenticity.

    If we do not, we risk entering an information environment where nothing can be trusted, and everything can be dismissed.

  • Oslo Airport, Cold Efficiency

    Oslo Airport, Cold Efficiency

    Oslo Airport, Gardermoen (OSL) is sleek, modern, and efficient, the kind of place travel guides like to praise. On paper, it has everything an international airport should offer. In practice, it rarely feels welcoming.

    The first thing that strikes me is the cost. Even by Norwegian standards, food and drinks inside the airport are excessive. I sometimes buy at duty-free, since Norway itself is expensive, but otherwise, the inflated charges make OSL feel less like a gateway to the world and more like a trap for your wallet.

    On the public side of the terminal, before security when departing and after exiting customs on arrival, the halls are barren and offer little encouragement for conversation or comfort. It feels deliberate, as if passengers are discouraged from lingering. This is a sad contrast to the old Fornebu Airport, which, at least in my memory, had a more social and human feel. As a child, I could watch planes taxi, take off, and land. At OSL, aircraft are hidden, reserved only for those past security, as if flight itself were a secret. The magic is gone and has been replaced by the cold efficiency of a processing center.

    Security checks can be frustrating, although I usually travel at less busy times and avoid the worst queues. More noticeable is how the airport shuts down at night. Late or delayed flights leave the terminal silent. Shops and restaurants close, and passengers sit in empty halls with nothing to do but wait. I have spent hours in that kind of silence, restless, frustrated, and resentful that the airport seems indifferent to travelers who arrive late, miss connections, or are simply stranded.

    Advertisement

    Immigration adds another layer of stress. Norway is part of the Schengen area, yet on a few occasions, especially when transferring from Africa, I have seen officers board the plane before passengers even disembark, even on Schengen flights. While meant as an intelligence-led procedure, it feels invasive and targeted. It does little to make the airport, or the country, feel welcoming.

    Passenger traffic at OSL has steadily recovered, approaching pre-pandemic levels. International flights lead the rebound, often fully booked on busy days. OSL connects Norway to destinations including New York (JFK) and seasonal U.S. cities via SAS and Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Bangkok (BKK), Phuket (HKT), Doha (DOH), Dubai (DXB), and Addis Ababa (ADD). For real-time departures and arrivals, I usually check:

    Transfers at OSL can be straightforward or confusing. Schengen connections are seamless, with baggage moved automatically and no extra screening. International-to-domestic or Schengen transfers are more complicated: you collect baggage, exit security, re-check bags, and clear security again. International-to-international non-Schengen transfers can be messy too, as the airport is not designed for them, and passengers often need border control guidance. Some airlines offer bypass programs, but these are inconsistent.

    Getting to and from OSL is another mixed experience. The Flytoget airport train is fast but overpriced, clearly aimed at business travelers with expense accounts. It is ironic to see such class-based separation in a country once built on egalitarian ideals. I prefer the regular Vy train: only four minutes slower, far more affordable, and with a free transfer in town for an hour after arrival. Comfort is similar on both, depending on how crowded they are.

    If staying in Oslo, it is worth downloading the Ruter app and purchasing a period ticket for Zone 1 (Oslo city center). Activate it, then buy an add-on for the airport trip. The learning curve is steep, but public transport in Oslo is otherwise excellent. A Vy ticket also provides enough time to change transport in the city center on the way to a final destination in Oslo (zone 1).

    Buses connect OSL with several places, but if you are heading into Oslo, the train is usually the best option. If your destination is outside the city, however, a bus may be worth checking.

    Ultimately, OSL is Norway’s global gateway, and in many ways, it fulfills that role. One contrast that I find striking about the airport is the design. It nods to nature with wood and natural light, yet it manages to strip away the warmth and vitality that nature should provide. Additionally, high prices, sterile halls, and a lack of late-evening services overshadow its strengths. Transfers can be confusing, and immigration procedures sometimes feel intrusive. OSL moves people efficiently, but rarely makes them feel welcome.

  • The Real Difference Between Expats and Immigrants (And Why It Matters)

    The Real Difference Between Expats and Immigrants (And Why It Matters)

    Picture this: Two people move to Germany for work. One is a British software engineer on a two-year contract. The other is a Syrian teacher planning to build a new life there permanently. Yet somehow, only one gets called an “expat” while the other is labeled an “immigrant.” What’s going on here?

    It Should Be Simple: Intent Makes the Difference

    The distinction between expatriate and immigrant should be straightforward: intent. Are you planning to return home eventually? You’re an expat. Are you putting down permanent roots? You’re an immigrant.

    With 304 million people now living outside their birth countries, nearly 4% of the world’s population, getting these terms right actually matters (United Nations, 2024).

    The Reality Check: It’s Not About Job Titles

    If we applied the intent-based definition consistently, a construction worker from Guatemala on a seasonal contract would be an expat, just like the Canadian marketing manager on assignment in Tokyo. Both plan to return home; both are temporarily abroad.

    Yet in common usage, the term “expat” has become an exclusive label for certain demographics. Research shows that Western professionals are far more likely to be described as expats, while people from the Global South are categorized as immigrants or migrants, regardless of their plans (Fechter & Walsh, 2010). These word choices are not neutral—they reflect deeper social hierarchies about who is seen as mobile talent and who is seen as a burden.

    The Plot Twist: Status Can Change, But Privilege Doesn’t

    Life rarely fits neat categories. My own journey illustrates the blur: after a decade as a permanent resident in Mexico—making me, by definition, an immigrant—I still take short-term humanitarian assignments abroad. That makes me both an immigrant in my home base and an expat in my work destinations.

    But here’s the key: my European passport smooths my path in ways others don’t experience. Whether I’m labeled an immigrant or an expat, my documents open doors, my professional networks remain intact, and I navigate bureaucracy with confidence born from privilege. The terminology may shift; the structural advantages don’t.

    Beyond Choice: When “Voluntary” Gets Complicated

    The expat-versus-immigrant distinction also assumes freedom of choice, but the reality is more complex. Some people move abroad for adventure or career growth, while others leave because staying isn’t viable—due to war, economic necessity, or family obligations.

    And language shapes how we perceive these journeys. For instance, the term “illegal immigrant” has no basis in international law, yet its use erases the human story behind movement and stigmatizes people whose situations are often anything but voluntary (De Genova, 2002).

    The Bigger Picture

    Words carry weight. When “expat” is reserved for white-collar professionals from wealthy countries and “immigrant” for everyone else, we reinforce a hierarchy that values some border-crossers over others.

    The good news? We can do better. If we use these terms based on intent instead of prejudice, we create room for more honest conversations about the diversity of global mobility. Getting the words right isn’t just semantics. It is about dismantling the invisible hierarchies that shape how we see people on the move.


    References

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.