Itineraries Without Insight: Traveling With an AI Planner

10

October

2025

No ratings yet.

On our family trip to Marrakech, I watched Generative AI slip from helpful starting point to unquestioned authority, and it happened through my Aunt. She let a chatbot stitch together every day: sunrise views, “authentic” lunches, and the exact minute we should haggle for rugs in the souks. The schedule looked airtight. It felt like certainty.

By day two, the cracks appeared. The café near our riad had a new owner and a different menu than the glowing reviews implied. Then the ‘can’t-miss’ garden closed mid-afternoon for maintenance, right when our plan said ‘quiet hour.’ Later during the day, our ‘highly-rated’ food tour collided with the simple truth that the extreme heat and constant walking would deplete our group’s energy after 19:00. So I found myself doing the unglamorous work: phoning ahead, double-checking hours, sifting reviews for patterns, and reshaping the day to match us. We chose fewer rooftop photo ops and more neighborhood bakeries and mint tea in the shade.

AI was great at breadth. It could name every museum, pull taxi estimates, and even generate a tidy map. What it missed were the frictions that make a trip real, such as uncertain opening times, family preferences, and the way Marrakech’s rhythm slows you down whether you plan for it or not.

If I could redesign these tools, I would ask for three things. First, transparent uncertainty: show last-verified dates, typical schedule volatility, and source links. Second, adaptive flow: replan around heat spikes and stamina, not just distances. Third, a “fit check” that flags misalignments before they become problems, including spice levels, noise tolerance, and budget drift.

My Aunt’s excitement is not the issue; unexamined confidence is. Marrakech taught me to let AI lay the scaffolding, and then to let the city, and our family, decide how the house actually stands. However, whenever I travel on my own or decide the schedule, I try to stay away from AI as much as possible and research ahead in a more traditional way.

What do you think about this? Do you use AI when traveling?

Please rate this

Russia’s CyberWarfare on Europe: Why Cybersecurity improvements are imperative

17

September

2025

5/5 (2)

Russian hackers breached a Norwegian dam earlier this April, taking control of its operation for over 4 hours before detection. They opened a floodgate, releasing water at over 500 liters per second. (Bryant, 2025)

Even though damage was limited, this cyberattack, like many others, serves as a tool to spread fear and chaos among populations. These aggressive operations have expanded from espionage or political coercion to vital infrastructures across industries. 

Norway’s dam was not energy-producing; it was used for fish farming. This matters because Europe’s lifeline infrastructure is based on dams, hydropower stations, and energy systems. By manipulating even a small dam, Russia exposed weakness, signaling: ‘We can reach your energy systems too.’ 

Just yesterday, hackers targeted hospitals and urban water supplies in one of Poland’s largest cities. Dariusz Standerski, deputy minister for digital affairs, confirmed that the government is allocating €80mn this month to strengthen the cyber defenses of water management systems (Milne, 2025).

Beyond physical damage, Russian cyberattacks also aim at eroding trust in government. Liverpool City Council has revealed that, for the past two years, its IT infrastructure has been under relentless attack from the Russian state-funded group Noname057(16). Several other UK councils have faced similar assaults during the same period. (Waddington, 2025)

These incidents highlight a broader truth: cyberwarfare represents digital disruption in its most dangerous form (Weill & Woerner, 2015). Europe’s safety is now threatened by its digital vulnerabilities, and thus the bloc needs a swift response. AI-driven monitoring and anomaly detection offer ways to anticipate and neutralize attacks in real time (Zhao et al., 2023; Li, 2023). Moreover, as Furr & Shipilov (2019) argue, building resilience does not require disruption; it can come from incremental adaptation. Europe should add layers of protective systems over its old infrastructure without crippling operations (Birkinshaw & Lancefield, 2023). 

In practice, Europe must move past reactive spending and focus on building a reliable, AI-integrated cybersecurity strategy across vital infrastructure. The battleground is no longer just physical or near the Russian border. It is increasingly digital and affects everyday lives across the continent. 

This raises the question: Should cybersecurity be treated as a matter of national defense, or as an EU-wide responsibility shared across borders?

Sources:

  • Bryant, M. (2025, August 15). Russian hackers seized control of Norwegian dam, spy chief says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/14/russian-hackers-control-norwegian-dam-norway
  • Birkinshaw, J., & Lancefield, D. (2023). How professional services firms dodged disruption. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(4), 34–39. 
  • Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2019). Digital doesn’t have to be disruptive: The best results can come from adaptation rather than reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 94–104. 
  • Milne, R. (2025, September 12). Russian hackers target Polish hospitals and city water supply. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3e7c7a96-09e7-407f-98d7-a29310743d28 
  • Waddington, M. (2025, September 17). Liverpool City Council under “increasing” Russian hack bot attack. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj18z99dx0o
  • Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 27–34. 
  • Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., & Du, Y. (2023). A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223

Please rate this