Let me share some thoughts with you. Let me be a source of encouragement and support. May you never forget your dreams and remember miracles happen every day. Let us laugh, have fun, and inspire one another.
Farm murders in South Africa refer to violent attacks, often involving torture or murder, that occur on farms and rural smallholdings. These crimes affect both white and black farmers, farmworkers, and their families. While the motives vary—from robbery to labor disputes—these attacks are often brutal and have sparked national and international concern. The issue is complex and highly politicized, with debates around race, land reform, crime, and rural safety. Data on the exact number and nature of these attacks can be inconsistent, but farm murders remain a significant rural security issue in South Africa.
A 2023 Gallup poll found that U.S. employees are generally unhappy at work. The number of those who feel angry and disconnected with their organization’s mission is climbing.
An analysis of data from 60,000 employees by BambooHR, an HR software platform, also found that workplace morale was getting worse: “Employees aren’t experiencing highs or lows — instead, they are expressing a sense of resignation or even apathy.”
As a scholar of South Asian religions, I argue that a mindfulness technique called “nishkama karma” – acting without desire – described in an ancient but popular Indian text called the “Bhagavad Gita,” may prove useful for navigating the contemporary world of work.
The Gita presents a variety of “yogas,” or disciplined religious paths. One such path suggests adopting an attitude of righteous resignation – a kind of Stoic equanimity or even-mindedness. In the workplace, this might mean performing one’s professional duties to the best of one’s ability – but without being overly concerned about the results for one’s personal advancement.
The Gita and action
The “Bhagavad Gita,” or “Song of the Lord,” is an 18-chapter dialogue between Krishna, the Lord of the Universe, and the warrior-hero Arjuna. Found in the sixth book of the world’s longest epic poem, the “Mahabharata,” the Gita was likely composed between the third century B.C.E. and the third century C.E.
The Gita opens on a battlefield where Arjuna, the beleaguered champion of the Pandavas, is set to fight his cousins, the Kauravas, along with his uncles and former teachers, for the rightful control of the ancestral kingdom.
Arjuna is faced with the moral ambiguity of internecine warfare. He is stuck in a dilemma between obligations to his kin and former teachers and obligations to his “dharma” – religious and social duty – as a warrior to fight against them. Arjuna is therefore understandably reluctant to act.
Krishna, who has assumed the humble guise of Arjuna’s charioteer in the story, advises Arjuna that it is impossible for anyone to refrain entirely from all action: “There is no one who can remain without action even for a moment. Indeed, all beings are compelled to act by their qualities born of material nature” (3.5).
Even choosing not to act is itself a kind of action. Krishna instructs Arjuna to perform his duties as a warrior regardless of how he feels about the prospect of fighting against family and friends: “Fight for the sake of duty, treating alike happiness and distress, loss and gain, victory and defeat. Fulfilling your responsibility in this way, you will never incur sin” (2.38).
Given the inevitability of action, Krishna advises Arjuna to cultivate an attitude of nonattached equanimity or even-mindedness toward the results of his actions. Unlike feeling detached from the work process itself, cultivating an attitude of detachment from the results of one’s work is presented in the Gita as a method for gaining a clear and stable mind.
‘Nishkama karma,’ or nonattached action
The term that the Gita uses, variously rendered as “work” or “action,” is “karma.” Derived from the Sanskrit root “kri” – to do, to act or to make, karma has a range of meanings in Hindu literature. In early Vedic thought, karma referred to the performance of a sacrifice and the results that followed.
By the time of the composition of the Gita, over a 1,000 years later, the concept of karma had expanded considerably. From the sixth century B.C.E. onward, Hindu texts typically describe karma as any thought, word or deed, and its consequences in this or a future lifetime.
Krishna explains to Arjuna that his actions or karma should follow dharma, the religious and social obligations inherent in his role as a warrior of the Pandavas. And the proper dharmic attitude toward the results of action is nonattachment.
The word that describes this nonattachment is “nishkama,” or without desire – the proper spirit in which karma is to be undertaken. From the perspective of the Gita – a perspective shared widely in traditional Indian thought – desire is inherently problematic due to its insistent preoccupation with the self. By reducing desire, however, one can perform one’s work or action without the constant distraction of seeking praise or avoiding blame.
Furthermore, since knowing the outcome of one’s actions is impossible, the Gita advises performing one’s duties without a sense of ego in a spirit of service to the world. “Therefore, without attachment, always do whatever action has to be done; for it is through acting without attachment that one attains the highest state,” as Krishna says to Arjuna (3.19).
The flow state
In his modern classic “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience,” psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi writes about the optimal mental state that may be experienced while performing an engaging task. Csikszentmihalyi describes “flow” as a mental state where one is fully immersed in the task at hand. In such a state, attention is focused on the work being done without any self-conscious concerns about performance or outcome.
By way of example, Csikszentmihalyi asked readers to consider downhill skiing. He noted that while one is fully engaged in the process itself, there is no place for distraction. For a skier, he said, “There is no room in your awareness for conflicts and contradictions; you know that distracting thought or emotion might get you buried face down in the snow.”
Csikszentmihalyi’s research suggests that problems like distraction, feeling detached from one’s work, and job dissatisfaction can arise when people lose sight of the action of work itself. As Csikszentmihalyi writes, “The problem arises when people are so fixated on what they want to achieve that they cease to derive pleasure from the present. When that happens, they forfeit their chance of contentment.”
Acting without attachment
A fragmented mind that approaches work or action with an agenda of gaining power, wealth or fame cannot perform at its best. The Gita suggests that the secret to success at work is cultivating a balanced state of mind that isn’t fixated on ego inflation and self-promotion.
It is impossible to be fully present during the performance of a task if one is speculating about unknowable future contingencies or ruminating about past outcomes. Likewise, for Csikszentmihalyi, cultivating the “flow state” means actively remaining present and engaged while performing a task.
Csikszentmihalyi’s writings about the “flow state” resonate with the advice of Krishna in the Gita: “As ignorant people perform their duties with attachment to the results, O scion of Bharat (an epithet for Arjuna), so should the wise act without attachment, for the sake of leading people on the right path” (3.25).
Nishkama karma and the “flow state” are not identical ideas. However, they share at least one fundamental assumption: Focusing on the task at hand, with no thought of gain or loss, is necessary for achieving our best, most satisfying work.
Over the past few years, researchers have been exploring whether it’s even possible to distinguish human writing from artificial intelligence-generated text. But the best strategies to distinguish between the two may come from the chatbots themselves.
Too good to be human?
Several recent studies have highlighted just how difficult it is to determine whether text was generated by a human or a chatbot.
Research participants recruited for a 2021 online study, for example, were unable to distinguish between human- and ChatGPT-generated stories, news articles and recipes.
Language experts fare no better. In a 2023 study, editorial board members for top linguistics journals were unable to determine which article abstracts had been written by humans and which were generated by ChatGPT. And a 2024 study found that 94% of undergraduate exams written by ChatGPT went undetected by graders at a British university.
Clearly, humans aren’t very good at this.
A commonly held belief is that rare or unusual words can serve as “tells” regarding authorship, just as a poker player might somehow give away that they hold a winning hand.
Researchers have, in fact, documented a dramatic increase in relatively uncommon words, such as “delves” or “crucial,” in articles published in scientific journals over the past couple of years. This suggests that unusual terms could serve as tells that generative AI has been used. It also implies that some researchers are actively using bots to write or edit parts of their submissions to academic journals. Whether this practice reflects wrongdoing is up for debate.
In another study, researchers asked people about characteristics they associate with chatbot-generated text. Many participants pointed to the excessive use of em dashes – an elongated dash used to set off text or serve as a break in thought – as one marker of computer-generated output. But even in this study, the participants’ rate of AI detection was only marginally better than chance.
Given such poor performance, why do so many people believe that em dashes are a clear tell for chatbots? Perhaps it’s because this form of punctuation is primarily employed by experienced writers. In other words, people may believe that writing that is “too good” must be artificially generated.
But if people can’t intuitively tell the difference, perhaps there are other methods for determining human versus artificial authorship.
Stylometry to the rescue?
Some answers may be found in the field of stylometry, in which researchers employ statistical methods to detect variations in the writing styles of authors.
I’m a cognitive scientist who authored a book on the history of stylometric techniques. In it, I document how researchers developed methods to establish authorship in contested cases, or to determine who may have written anonymous texts.
One tool for determining authorship was proposed by the Australian scholar John Burrows. He developed Burrows’ Delta, a computerized technique that examines the relative frequency of common words, as opposed to rare ones, that appear in different texts.
It may seem counterintuitive to think that someone’s use of words like “the,” “and” or “to” can determine authorship, but the technique has been impressively effective.
A stylometric technique called Burrow’s Delta was used to identify LaSalle Corbell Pickett as the author of love letters attributed to her deceased husband, Confederate Gen. George Pickett.Encyclopedia Virginia
Burrows’ Delta, for example, was used to establish that Ruth Plumly Thompson, L. Frank Baum’s successor, was the author of a disputed book in the “Wizard of Oz” series. It was also used to determine that love letters attributed to Confederate Gen. George Pickett were actually the inventions of his widow, LaSalle Corbell Pickett.
A major drawback of Burrows’ Delta and similar techniques is that they require a fairly large amount of text to reliably distinguish between authors. A 2016 study found that at least 1,000 words from each author may be required. A relatively short student essay, therefore, wouldn’t provide enough input for a statistical technique to work its attribution magic.
More recent work has made use of what are known as BERT language models, which are trained on large amounts of human- and chatbot-generated text. The models learn the patterns that are common in each type of writing, and they can be much more discriminating than people: The best ones are between 80% and 98% accurate.
However, these machine-learning models are “black boxes” – that is, we don’t really know which features of texts are responsible for their impressive abilities. Researchers are actively trying to find ways to make sense of them, but for now, it isn’t clear whether the models are detecting specific, reliable signals that humans can look for on their own.
A moving target
Another challenge for identifying bot-generated text is that the models themselves are constantly changing – sometimes in major ways.
Early in 2025, for example, users began to express concerns that ChatGPT had become overly obsequious, with mundane queries deemed “amazing” or “fantastic.” OpenAI addressed the issue by rolling back some changes it had made.
Of course, the writing style of a human author may change over time as well, but it typically does so more gradually.
At some point, I wondered what the bots had to say for themselves. I asked ChatGPT-4o: “How can I tell if some prose was generated by ChatGPT? Does it have any ‘tells,’ such as characteristic word choice or punctuation?”
The bot admitted that distinguishing human from nonhuman prose “can be tricky.” Nevertheless, it did provide me with a 10-item list, replete with examples.
These included the use of hedges – words like “often” and “generally” – as well as redundancy, an overreliance on lists and a “polished, neutral tone.” It did mention “predictable vocabulary,” which included certain adjectives such as “significant” and “notable,” along with academic terms like “implication” and “complexity.” However, though it noted that these features of chatbot-generated text are common, it concluded that “none are definitive on their own.”
Imagine this: You’re at your doctor’s office with a sore throat. The nurse asks, “Any allergies?” And without hesitation you reply, “Penicillin.” It’s something you’ve said for years – maybe since childhood, maybe because a parent told you so. The nurse nods, makes a note and moves on.
But here’s the kicker: There’s a good chance you’re not actually allergic to penicillin. About 10% to 20% of Americans report that they have a penicillin allergy, yet fewer than 1% actually do.
I know from my research that incorrectly being labeled as allergic to penicillin can prevent you from getting the most appropriate, safest treatment for an infection. It can also put you at an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance, which is when an antibiotic no longer works against bacteria.
The good news? It’s gotten a lot easier in recent years to pin down the truth of the matter. More and more clinicians now recognize that many penicillin allergy labels are incorrect – and there are safe, simple ways to find out your actual allergy status.
A steadfast lifesaver
Penicillin, the first antibiotic drug, was discovered in 1928 when a physician named Alexander Fleming extracted it from a type of mold called penicillium. It became widely used to treat infections in the 1940s. Penicillin and closely related antibiotics such as amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, which goes by the brand name Augmentin, are frequently prescribed to treat common infections such as ear infections, strep throat, urinary tract infections, pneumonia and dental infections.
Penicillin antibiotics are a class of narrow-spectrum antibiotics, which means they target specific types of bacteria. People who report having a penicillin allergy are more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics. Broad-spectrum antibiotics kill many types of bacteria, including helpful ones, making it easier for resistant bacteria to survive and spread. This overuse speeds up the development of antibiotic resistance. Broad-spectrum antibiotics can also be less effective and are often costlier.
Figuring out whether you’re really allergic to penicillin is easier than it used to be.
Why the mismatch?
People often get labeled as allergic to antibiotics as children when they have a reaction such as a rash after taking one. But skin rashes frequently occur alongside infections in childhood, with many viruses and infections actually causing rashes. If a child is taking an antibiotic at the time, they may be labeled as allergic even though the rash may have been caused by the illness itself.
Some side effects such as nausea, diarrhea or headaches can happen with antibiotics, but they don’t always mean you are allergic. These common reactions usually go away on their own or can be managed. A doctor or pharmacist can talk to you about ways to reduce these side effects.
People also often assume penicillin allergies run in families, but having a relative with an allergy doesn’t mean you’re allergic – it’s not hereditary.
Finally, about 80% of patients with a true penicillin allergy will lose the allergy after about 10 years. That means even if you used to be allergic to this antibiotic, you might not be anymore, depending on the timing of your reaction.
Why does it matter if I have a penicillin allergy?
Believing you’re allergic to penicillin when you’re not can negatively affect your health. For one thing, you are more likely to receive stronger, broad-spectrum antibiotics that aren’t always the best fit and can have more side effects. You may also be more likely to get an infection after surgery and to spend longer in the hospital when hospitalized for an infection. What’s more, your medical bills could end up higher due to using more expensive drugs.
Penicillin and its close cousins are often the best tools doctors have to treat many infections. If you’re not truly allergic, figuring that out can open the door to safer, more effective and more affordable treatment options.
A penicillin skin test can safely determine whether you have a penicillin allergy, but a health care professional may also be able to tell by asking you some specific questions.BSIP/Collection Mix: Subjects via Getty Images
How can I tell if I am really allergic to penicillin?
Start by talking to a health care professional such as a doctor or pharmacist. Allergy symptoms can range from a mild, self-limiting rash to severe facial swelling and trouble breathing. A health care professional may ask you several questions about your allergies, such as what happened, how soon after starting the antibiotic did the reaction occur, whether treatment was needed, and whether you’ve taken similar medications since then.
These questions can help distinguish between a true allergy and a nonallergic reaction. In many cases, this interview is enough to determine you aren’t allergic. But sometimes, further testing may be recommended.
One way to find out whether you’re really allergic to penicillin is through penicillin skin testing, which includes tiny skin pricks and small injections under the skin. These tests use components related to penicillin to safely check for a true allergy. If skin testing doesn’t cause a reaction, the next step is usually to take a small dose of amoxicillin while being monitored at your doctor’s office, just to be sure it’s safe.
A study published in 2023 showed that in many cases, skipping the skin test and going straight to the small test dose can also be a safe way to check for a true allergy. In this method, patients take a low dose of amoxicillin and are observed for about 30 minutes to see whether any reaction occurs.
With the right questions, testing and expertise, many people can safely reclaim penicillin as an option for treating common infections.
