- A report warns about big technology and farming tools.
- Large companies make digital farming tools hard to afford.
- Many small farmers cannot pay subscription fees for tools.
- These tools need constant internet connection and electricity supply.
- Control of farm data helps only a few companies.
- Local knowledge and genetic resources can be commercialised unfairly.
- Some farmer groups protect seeds and crop diversity locally.
- They need more public funding and rules.
Difficult words
- subscription — regular payment to use a servicesubscription fees
- electricity — power from the grid for machineselectricity supply
- control — power to decide or use somethingControl of farm data
- commercialise — sell or make money from local resourcescommercialised
- diversity — many different types of plants or crops
- public funding — money from government for public use
Tip: hover, focus or tap highlighted words in the article to see quick definitions while you read or listen.
Discussion questions
- Would you pay subscription fees for a farming tool?
- Should farmer groups protect seeds locally?
- Who should control farm data — companies or farmers?
Related articles
Dubioza Kolektiv’s new song 'Yebiga' questions AI
Bosnian band Dubioza Kolektiv released the song "Yebiga," which satirises society’s growing trust in AI and algorithmic decisions. The Bosnian video, with English and Spanish subtitles, shows tech leaders as symbols and uses dark humour to warn about technocracy.
AI expands sexual and reproductive health information in Peru and Argentina
Health groups in Peru and Argentina use artificial intelligence to give sexual and reproductive health information to young and marginalised people. Projects include a Quechua chatbot and a WhatsApp platform, but experts warn of bias and access problems.
AI tool helps local autism diagnosis in Missouri
Researchers at the University of Missouri tested the FDA-approved CanvasDx, an AI device, to help primary care evaluate autism where specialty centres are far away. In a study it gave determinate results for 52% of 80 children and matched clinicians' diagnoses.