“Safeguarding Human Rights In The Era Of Artificial Intelligence” – (Council Of Europe)

Today I will explore yet another (hopefully) different angle on a topic that has grown very fascinating to me. How can human rights be safeguarded in the age of the sentient machines? An interesting question since I think it may also link back to technologies that are pre-AI.

Let’s begin.


The use of artificial intelligence in our everyday lives is on the increase, and it now covers many fields of activity. Something as seemingly banal as avoiding a traffic jam through the use of a smart navigation system, or receiving targeted offers from a trusted retailer is the result of big data analysis that AI systems may use. While these particular examples have obvious benefits, the ethical and legal implications of the data science behind them often go unnoticed by the public at large.

Artificial intelligence, and in particular its subfields of machine learning and deep learning, may only be neutral in appearance, if at all. Underneath the surface, it can become extremely personal. The benefits of grounding decisions on mathematical calculations can be enormous in many sectors of life, but relying too heavily on AI which inherently involves determining patterns beyond these calculations can also turn against users, perpetrate injustices and restrict people’s rights.

The way I see it, AI in fact touches on many aspects of my mandate, as its use can negatively affect a wide range of our human rights. The problem is compounded by the fact that decisions are taken on the basis of these systems, while there is no transparency, accountability or safeguards in how they are designed, how they work and how they may change over time.

One thing I would add to the author’s final statement would be the lack of safeguards in terms of what kind of data these various forms of AI are drawing their conclusions from. While not the only factor that could contribute to seemingly flawed results, I would think that bad data inputs are one of (if not THE) most important factor.

I base this off of observation of the many high profile cases of AI gone (seemingly) haywire. Whether it is emphasized in the media coverage or not, biased data inputs have almost always been mentioned as a factor.

If newly minted AI software is the mental equivalent to a child, then this data is the equivalent to religion, racism, sexism or other indoctrinated biases. Thus my rule of thumb is this . . . If the data could cause indoctrination of a child, then it’s unacceptable for a learning stage algorithm.

Encroaching on the right to privacy and the right to equality

The tension between advantages of AI technology and risks for our human rights becomes most evident in the field of privacy. Privacy is a fundamental human right, essential in order to live in dignity and security. But in the digital environment, including when we use apps and social media platforms, large amounts of personal data are collected – with or without our knowledge – and can be used to profile us, and produce predictions of our behaviours. We provide data on our health, political ideas and family life without knowing who is going to use this data, for what purposes and how.

Machines function on the basis of what humans tell them. If a system is fed with human biases (conscious or unconscious) the result will inevitably be biased. The lack of diversity and inclusion in the design of AI systems is therefore a key concern: instead of making our decisions more objective, they could reinforce discrimination and prejudices by giving them an appearance of objectivity. There is increasing evidence that women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and LGBTI persons particularly suffer from discrimination by biased algorithms.

Excellent. This angle was not overlooked.

Studies have shown, for example, that Google was more likely to display adverts for highly paid jobs to male job seekers than female. Last May, a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency also highlighted how AI can amplify discrimination. When data-based decision making reflects societal prejudices, it reproduces – and even reinforces – the biases of that society. This problem has often been raised by academia and NGOs too, who recently adopted the Toronto Declaration, calling for safeguards to prevent machine learning systems from contributing to discriminatory practices.

Decisions made without questioning the results of a flawed algorithm can have serious repercussions for human rights. For example, software used to inform decisions about healthcare and disability benefits has wrongfully excluded people who were entitled to them, with dire consequences for the individuals concerned. In the justice system too, AI can be a driver for improvement or an evil force. From policing to the prediction of crimes and recidivism, criminal justice systems around the world are increasingly looking into the opportunities that AI provides to prevent crime. At the same time, many experts are raising concerns about the objectivity of such models. To address this issue, the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe has put together a team of multidisciplinary experts who will “lead the drafting of guidelines for the ethical use of algorithms within justice systems, including predictive justice”.

Though this issue tends to be viewed as the Black Box angle (you can’t see what is going on inside the algorithms), I think it more reflects on the problem that is proprietary systems running independently, as they please.

It reminds me of the situation of corporations and large-scale data minors and online security. The EU sets the standard in this area by way of levying huge fines for data breaches, particularly those that cause consumer suffering (North America lags behind, in this regard).
I think that a similar statute to the GDPR could handle this issue nicely on a global scale. Just as California was/is the leader in terms of many forms of safety regulation due to its market size, the EU has now stepped into that role in terms of digital privacy. They can also do the same for regulating biased AI (at least for the largest of entities).

It won’t stop your local police department or courthouse (or even your government!) from running flawed systems. For that, mandated transparency in operations becomes a necessity for operation. Governing bodies (and international overseers) have to police the judicial systems of the world and take immediate action if necessary. For example, by cutting AI operations funding to a police organization that either refuses to follow the transparency requirements or refuses to fix diagnosed issues in their AI system.

Stifling freedom of expression and freedom of assembly

Another right at stake is freedom of expression. A recent Council of Europe publication on Algorithms and Human Rights noted for instance that Facebook and YouTube have adopted a filtering mechanism to detect violent extremist content. However, no information is available about the process or criteria adopted to establish which videos show “clearly illegal content”. Although one cannot but salute the initiative to stop the dissemination of such material, the lack of transparency around the content moderation raises concerns because it may be used to restrict legitimate free speech and to encroach on people’s ability to express themselves. Similar concerns have been raised with regard to automatic filtering of user-generated content, at the point of upload, supposedly infringing intellectual property rights, which came to the forefront with the proposed Directive on Copyright of the EU. In certain circumstances, the use of automated technologies for the dissemination of content can also have a significant impact on the right to freedom of expression and of privacy, when bots, troll armies, targeted spam or ads are used, in addition to algorithms defining the display of content.

The tension between technology and human rights also manifests itself in the field of facial recognition. While this can be a powerful tool for law enforcement officials for finding suspected terrorists, it can also turn into a weapon to control people. Today, it is all too easy for governments to permanently watch you and restrict the rights to privacy, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and press freedom.

1.) I don’t like the idea of private entities running black box proprietary algorithms with the aim of combatting things like copyright infringement or extremism either. It’s hard to quantify really because, in a way, we sold out our right to complain when we decided to use the service. The very public square that is many of the largest online platforms today have indeed become pillars of communication for millions, but this isn’t the problem of the platforms. This is what happens when governments stay hands off of emerging technologies.

My solution to this problem revolved around building an alternative. I knew this would not be easy or cheap, but it seemed that the only way to ensure truly free speech online was to ditch the primarily ad-supported infrastructure of the modern internet. This era of Patreon and crowdfunding has helped in this regard, but not without a set of its own consequences. In a nutshell, when you remove the need for everyday people to fact check (or otherwise verify) new information that they may not quite understand, you end up with the intellectual dark web.
A bunch of debunked or unimportant academics, a pseudo-science pedaling ex-psychiatrist made famous by an infamous legal battle with no one (well, but for those, he sued for using their free speech rights), and a couple dopey podcast hosts

Either way, while I STILL advocate for an (or many) alternatives in the online ecosystem, it seems to me that at least in the short term, regulations may need to come to the aid of the freedom of speech & expression rights of everyday people. Yet it is a delicate balance since we’re dealing with sovereign entities in themselves.

The answers may seem obvious at a glance. For example, companies should NOT have been allowed to up and boot Alex Jones off of their collective platforms just for the purpose of public image (particularly after cashing in on the phenomenon for YEARS). Yet in allowing for black and white actions such as that, I can’t help but wonder if it could ever come back to bite us. For example, someone caught using copyrighted content improperly having their entire Youtube library deleted forever.

2.) I don’t think there is a whole lot one can do to avoid being tracked in the digital world, short of moving far from cities (if not off the grid entirely). At this point, it has just become part of the background noise of life. Carrying around a GPS enabled smartphone and using plastic cards is convenient, and it’s almost impossible to generate some form of metadata in ones day to day life. So I don’t really worry about it, short of attempting to ensure that my search engine accessible breadcrumbs are as few as possible.

It’s all you really can do.

What can governments and the private sector do?

AI has the potential to help human beings maximise their time, freedom and happiness. At the same time, it can lead us towards a dystopian society. Finding the right balance between technological development and human rights protection is therefore an urgent matter – one on which the future of the society we want to live in depends.

To get it right, we need stronger co-operation between state actors – governments, parliaments, the judiciary, law enforcement agencies – private companies, academia, NGOs, international organisations and also the public at large. The task is daunting, but not impossible.

A number of standards already exist and should serve as a starting point. For example, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights sets clear boundaries for the respect for private life, liberty and security. It also underscores states’ obligations to provide an effective remedy to challenge intrusions into private life and to protect individuals from unlawful surveillance. In addition, the modernised Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data adopted this year addresses the challenges to privacy resulting from the use of new information and communication technologies.

States should also make sure that the private sector, which bears the responsibility for AI design, programing and implementation, upholds human rights standards. The Council of Europe Recommendations on human rights and business and on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries, the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and the report on content regulation by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, should all feed the efforts to develop AI technology which is able to improve our lives. There needs to be more transparency in the decision-making processes using algorithms, in order to understand the reasoning behind them, to ensure accountability and to be able to challenge these decisions in effective ways.

Nothing for me to add here. Looks like the EU (as usual) is well ahead of the curve in this area.

A third field of action should be to increase people’s “AI literacy”.


In an age where such revered individuals as Elon Musk are saying such profoundly stupid things as this, AI literacy is an absolute necessity.

States should invest more in public awareness and education initiatives to develop the competencies of all citizens, and in particular of the younger generations, to engage positively with AI technologies and better understand their implications for our lives. Finally, national human rights structures should be equipped to deal with new types of discrimination stemming from the use of AI.

1.) I don’t think that one has to worry so much about the younger generations as they do about the existing generations. Young people have grown up in the internet age so all of this will be natural. Guidance as to the proper use of this technology is all that should be necessary.

Older people are a harder sell. If resources were to be put anywhere, I think it should be in programs which attempt to making aging generations more comfortable with increasingly modernized technology. If someone is afraid to operate a smartphone or a self-checking, where do you even begin with explaining Alexa, Siri or Cortana?

2.) Organizations do need to be held accountable for their misbehaving AI software, particularly if it causes a life-altering problem. Up to and including the right to legal action, if necessary.

 It is encouraging to see that the private sector is ready to cooperate with the Council of Europe on these issues. As Commissioner for Human Rights, I intend to focus on AI during my mandate, to bring the core issues to the forefront and help member states to tackle them while respecting human rights. Recently, during my visit to Estonia, I had a promising discussion on issues related to artificial intelligence and human rights with the Prime Minister.

Artificial intelligence can greatly enhance our abilities to live the life we desire. But it can also destroy them. It therefore requires strict regulations to avoid morphing in a modern Frankenstein’s monster.

Dunja Mijatović, Commissioner for Human Rights

I don’t particularly like the darkened tone of this part of the piece. But I like that someone of influence is starting to ask questions, and getting the ball rolling.

It will be interesting to see where this all leads in the coming months, years and decades.

“Unboxing Google’s 7 New Principles Of Artificial Intelligence” – (aitrends)

Today, I am going to look into Google’s recent release of it’s 7 new principals of artificial intelligence. Though the release was made at the beginning of July, life happens, so I haven’t been able to get around to it until now.


How many times have you heard that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is humanity’s biggest threat? Some people think that Google brought us a step closer to a dark future when Duplex was announced last month, a new capability of Google’s digital Assistant that enables it to make phone calls on your behalf to book appointments with small businesses.

The root of the controversy lied on the fact that the Assistant successfully pretended to be a real human, never disclosing its true identity to the other side of the call. Many tech experts wondered if this is an ethical practice or if it’s necessary to hide the digital nature of the voice.

Right off the bat, were into some interesting stuff. An assistant that can appear to do all of your phone call related chores FOR you.

On one hand, I can understand the ethical implications. Without confirming the nature of the caller, it could very well be seen as a form of fraud. It’s seen as such already when a person contacts a service provider on behalf of another person without making that part clear (even if they authorize the action!). Indeed, most of the time, no one on the other end will likely even notice. But you never know.

When it comes to disguising the digital nature of the voice of such an assistant, I don’t see any issue with this. While it could be seen as deceptive, I can also see many businesses hanging up on callers that come across as being too robotic. Consider, the first pizza ever ordered by a robot.

Okay, not quite. We are leaps and bounds ahead of that voice in terms of, well, sounding human. None the less, there is still an unmistakably automated feel to such digital assistants as Siri, Alexa, and Cortana.

In this case, I don’t think that Google (nor any other future developer or distributor of such technology) has to worry about any ethical issues surrounding this. Simply because it is the onus of the user to ensure the proper use of the product or service (to paraphrase every TOS agreement ever)

One big problem I see coming with the advent of this technology is, the art of deception of the worst kind is going to get a whole lot easier. One example that comes to mind are those OBVIOUSLY computer narrated voices belching out all manner of fake news to the youtube community. Now the fakes are fairly easy for the wise to pick up on because they haven’t quite learned the nuances of the English language (then again, have I?). In the future, this is likely to change drastically.
Another example of a problem posed by this technology would be in telephone scamming. Phishing scams originating in the third world are currently often hindered by the language barrier. It takes a lot of study to master enough English to fool most in English speaking nations. Enter this technology, that that barrier is gone.

And on the flip side of the coin, anything that is intelligent enough to make a call on your behalf can presumably also be programmed in the reverse. To take calls. Which would effectively eliminate the need for a good 95% of the call center industry. Though some issues may need to be dealt with by a human, most common sales, billing, or tech support problems can likely be dealt with autonomously.

So ends that career goal.

None the less, I could see myself having a use for such technology. I hate talking on the phone with strangers, even for a short time. To have the need for that eliminated would be VERY convenient. What can be fetched by a tap and a click IS, so eliminating what’s left . . . I’m in millennial heaven.

You heard it here first . . .

Millenials killed THE ECONOMY!

Google was also criticized last month by another sensitive topic: the company’s involvement in a Pentagon program that uses AI to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes. Thousands of employees signed a letter protesting the program and asking for change:

“We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.”

Time to ruffle some progressive feathers.

In interpreting this, I am very curious of what is meant by the word improve. What does it mean to improve the targeting of drone strikes? Improve the aiming accuracy of the weaponry? Or improve the quality of the targets (more actual terrorist hideouts, and fewer family homes)?

This has all become, very confusing to me. One could even say that I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth.
On one hand, when I think of this topic, my head starts spitting out common deliberately dehumanizing war language like terrorists, combatants, or the enemy. Yet, here I am, pondering if improved drone strikes are a good thing.

I suppose that it largely depends on where your interests are aligned. If you are more aligned nationalistically than humanisticly than this question is legitimate. If you work for or are a shareholder of a defense contractor, then this question is legitimate. Interestingly, this could include me, being a paying member of both a private and public pension plans (pension funds are generally invested in the market).

Even the use of drones alone COULD be seen as cowardly. On the other hand, that would entail that letting loose the troops onto the battlefields like the great wars of the past, would be the less cowardly approach. It is less cowardly for the death ratio to be more equal.
Such an equation would likely be completely asinine to most. The obvious answer is the method with the least bloodshed (at least for our team).Therefore, BOMBS AWAY!” from a control room somewhere in the desert.

For most, it likely boils down to a matter of if we HAVE to. If we HAVE to go to war, then this is the best way possible. Which then leads you to to the obvious question that is “Did we have to go to war?”. Though the answers are rarely clear, they almost always end up leaning towards the No side. And generally, the public never find this out until after the fact. Whoops!

The Google staff (as have other employee’s in silicon valley, no doubt) have made their stance perfectly clear. No warfare R & D, PERIOD. While the stance is enviable, I can’t help but also think that it comes off as naive. I won’t disagree that the humanistic position would not be to enable the current or future endeavors of the military-industrial complex (of which they are now a part of, unfortunately). But even if we take the humanist stance, many bad actors the world over have no such reservations.
Though the public is worried about a menace crossing the border disguised as a refugee, the REAL menace sits in a computer lab. Without leaving the comfort of a chair, they can cause more chaos and damage than one could even dream of.

The next war is going to be waged in cyberspace. And at the moment, a HUGE majority of the infrastructure we rely upon for life itself is in some stage of insecurity ranging from wide open to “Password:123456”.
If there is anyone who is in a good position to prepare for this new terrain of action, it’s the tech industry.

On one hand, as someone who leans in the direction of humanism, war is nonsense and the epitome of a lack of logic. But on the other hand, if there is one thing that our species has perfected, it’s the art of taking each other out.

I suspect this will be our undoing. If it’s AI gone bad, I will be very surprised. I suspect it will be either mutually assured destruction gone real, or climate change gone wild. Which I suppose is its own form of mutually assured destruction.

I need a beer.

Part of this exploration was based around a segment of the September 28, 2018 episode of Real Time where Bill has a conversation about the close relationship between Astrophysicists and the military (starts at 31:57). The man’s anti-philosophical views annoyed me when I learned of them 3 years ago. And it seems that he has culminated into a walking example of what you get when you put the philosophy textbooks out with the garbage.

A “clear policy” around AI is a bold ask because none of the big players have ever done it before, and for good reasons. It is such a new and powerful technology that it’s still unclear how many areas of our life will we dare to infuse with it, and it’s difficult to set rules around the unknown. Google Duplex is a good example of this, it’s a technological development that we would have considered “magical” 10 years ago, that today scares many people.

Regardless, Sundar Pichai not only complied with the request, but took it a step further by creating 7 principles that the company will promote and enforce as one of the industry drivers of AI.

When it comes to this sort of thing, I am not so much scared as I am nervous. Nervous of numerous entities (most of them private for profits, and therefore not obligated to share data) all working on this independently, and having to self-police. This was how the internet was allowed to develop, and that has not necessarily been a good thing. I need go no further than the 2016 election to showcase what can happen when a handful of entities has far to much influence on, say, setting the mood for an entire population. It’s not exactly mind control as dictated by Alex Jones, but for the purpose of messing with the internal sovereignty of nations, the technology is perfectly suitable.

Yet another thing that annoys me about those who think they are red-pilled because they can see a conspiracy around every corner.

I always hear about mind control and the mainstream media, even though the traditional mainstream media has shrinking influence with each passing year. It’s being replaced by preference tailored social media platforms that don’t just serve up what you love, but also often (and unknowingly) paint a false image of how the world looks. While facts and statistics say one thing, my Youtube suggestions and overall filter bubbles say another.

It’s not psi-ops and it doesn’t involve chemtrails, but it’s just as scary. Considering that most of the people developing this influential technology also don’t fully grasp what they have developed.

1. Be socially beneficial

For years, we have dealt with comfortable boundaries, creating increasingly intelligent entities in very focused areas. AI is now getting the ability to switch between different domain areas in a transparent way for the user. For example, having an AI that knows your habits at home is very convenient, especially when your home appliances are connected to the same network. When that same AI also knows your habits outside home, like your favorite restaurants, your friends, your calendar, etc., its influence in your life can become scary. It’s precisely this convenience that is pushing us out of our comfort zone.

This principle is the most important one since it bows to “respect cultural, social, and legal norms”. It’s a broad principle, but it’s intended to ease that uncomfortable feeling by adapting AI to our times and letting it evolve at the same pace as our social conventions do.

Truth be told, I am not sure I understand this one (at least the explanation). It seems like the argument is that the convenience of it all will help push people out of their comfort zone. But I am a bit perplexed as to what that entails.
Their comfort zone, as in their hesitation in allowing an advanced algorithm to take such a prominent role in their life? Or their comfort zone as in, helping to create opportunities for new interactions and experiences?

In the case of the former, it makes perfect sense. One need only look at the 10 deep line at the human run checkout and the zero deep line at the self-checkout to understand this hesitation.
As for the later, most would be likely to notice a trend in the opposite direction. An introvert’s dream could be seen as an extroverts worst nightmare. Granted, many of the people making comments (at least in my life) about how technology isolates the kids tend to be annoyingly pushy extroverts that see that way of being as the norm. Which can be annoying, in general.

Either way, I suspect that this is another case of the onus being on the user to define their own destiny. Granted, that is not always easy if the designers of this technology don’t fully understand what they are introducing to the marketplace.

If this proves anything, it’s that this technology HAS to have regulatory supervision from entities who’s wellbeing (be it reputation or currency wise) is not tied into the success or failure of the project. Time and time again, we have seen that when allowed to self-police, private for-profit entities are willing to bury information that raises concerns about profitable enterprises. In a nutshell, libertarianism doesn’t work.

In fact, with the way much of this new technology is often hijacking and otherwise finding ways to interact with us via out psychological flaws, it would be beneficial to mandate long-term real-world testing of these technologies. In the same ways that newer drugs must undergo trials before they can be released on the market.

Indeed, the industry will do all they can to fight this, because it will effectively bring the process of innovation to a standstill. But at the same time, most of the worst offenders for manipulating the psyche of their user base do it strictly because the attention economy is so cut throat.
Thus, would this be really stifling technology? Or would it just be forcing the cheaters to stop placing their own self-interests above their users?

2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias

AI can become racist if we allow it. A good example of this happened in March 2016, when Microsoft unveiled an AI with a Twitter interface and in less than a day people taught it the worst aspects of our humanity. AI learns by example, so ensuring that safeguards are in place to avoid this type of situations is critical. Our kids are going to grow in a world increasingly assisted by AI, so we need to educate the system before it’s exposed to internet trolls and other bad players.

The author illustrates a good point here, though I am unsure if they realize that they answered their own question with their explanation.
Machines are a blank slate. Not unlike children growing up to eventually become adults, they will be influenced by the data that they are presented. If they are exposed to only neutral data, they are likely less prone to coming to biased conclusions.

So far, almost all of the stories that I have come across about AI going racist, sexist, etc can be pinpointed to the data stream that it is based on. Since we understand that domineering ideologies of parents tend to also become reflected in their children, this finding should be fairly obvious. And unlike how difficult it is to reverse these biases in humans, AI can presumably be shut down and reprogrammed. A mistake that can be corrected.

Which highlights another interesting thing about this line of study. It forces one to seriously consider things like unconscious human bias. As opposed to the common anti-SJW faux-intellectual stance that is:

“Are you serious?! Sexism without being overtly sexist?! Liberal colleges are turning everyone into snowflakes!”

But then again, what is a filter bubble good for if not excluding nuance.

3. Be built and tested for safety

This point goes hand in hand with the previous one. In fact, Microsoft’s response to the Tai fiasco was to take it down and admit an oversight on the type of scenarios that the AI was tested against. Safety should always be one of the first considerations when designing an AI.

This is good, but coming from a private for-profit entity, it really means nothing. One has to have faith (hello Apistevists!) that Alphabet / Google won’t bury any negative finding made with the technology, particularly if it is found to be profitable. A responsibility that I would entrust to no human with billions of dollars of revenue at stake.

Safety should always be the first consideration when designing ANYTHING. But we know how this plays out when an industry is allowed free rein.
In some cases, airplane cargo doors fly off or fuel tanks puncture and catch fire and people die. And in others, sovereign national elections get hijacked and culminate in a candidate in which many question the legitimacy of.

4. Be accountable to people

The biggest criticism Google Duplex received was whether or not it was ethical to mimic a real human without letting other humans know. I’m glad that this principle just states that “technologies will be subject to appropriate human direction and control”, since it doesn’t discount the possibility of building human-like AIs in the future.

An AI that makes a phone call on our behalf must sound as human as possible, since it’s the best way of ensuring a smooth interaction with the person on the other side. Human-like AIs shall be designed with respect, patience and empathy in mind, but also with human monitoring and control capabilities.

Indeed. But we must not forget the reverse. People must be accountable for what they do with their AI tools.

Maybe I am playing the part of captain obvious. None the less, it has to be said. No one blames the manufacturer of bolt cutters if one of its customers uses them to cut a bike lock.

5. Incorporate privacy design principles

When the convenience created by AI intersects with our personal feelings or private data, a new concern is revealed: our personal data can be used against us. Cambridge Analytica’s incident, where personal data was shared with unauthorized third parties, magnified the problem by jeopardizing user’s trust in technology.

Google didn’t use many words on this principle, probably because it’s the most difficult one to clarify without directly impacting their business model. However, it represents the biggest tech challenge of the decade, to find the balance between giving up your privacy and getting a reasonable benefit in return. Providing “appropriate transparency and control over the use of data” is the right mitigation, but it won’t make us less uncomfortable when an AI knows the most intimate details about our lives.

I used to get quite annoyed with people that were seemingly SHOCKED about how various platforms used their data, but ignorant to the fact that they themselves volunteered the lions share of it openly.
Data protection has always been on my radar, particularly in terms of what I openly share with the world at large. Over the years, I have taken control of my online past, removing most breadcrumbs left over from my childhood and teenage years from search queries. However, I understand that taking control within one platform ALONE can be a daunting task. Even for those that choose to review these things in Facebook, it’s certainly not easy.

There is an onus on both parties.

Users themselves should, in fact, be more informed about what they are divulging (and to who) if they are truly privacy-conscious. Which makes me think of another question . . . what is the age of consent for privacy disclosure?

Facebook defaults this age to 18, though it’s easy to game (my own family has members that allowed their kids to join at 14 or 15!). Parents allowing this is one thing, but consider the new parent who constantly uploads and shares photographs of their children. Since many people don’t bother (worry about?) their privacy settings, these photos are often in the public domain. Thus, by the time the child reaches a stage when they can make a decision on whether or not they agree with this use of their data, it’s too late.

Most children (and later, adults) will never think twice about this, but for those who do, what is the recourse?
Asking the parent to take them out of the public domain is an option. But consider the issue if the horse is already out of the barn.

One of my cousins (or one of their friends) once posted a picture of themselves on some social media site drinking a whole lot of alcohol (not sure if it was staged or not). Years later, they would come across this image on a website labeled “DAMN, they can drink!”.
After the admin was contacted, they agreed to take down the image for my cousin. But in reality, they didn’t have to. It was in the public domain, to begin with, so it’s up for grabs.

How would this play out if the image was of a young child or baby of whom was too young to consent to waive their right to privacy, and the person putting the photo in the public domain was a parent/ guardian or another family member?

I have taken to highlighting this seemingly minuscule possibility of issue recently because it may someday become an issue. Maybe one that the criminal justice systems of the world will have to try and figure out how to deal with. And without any planning as to how that will play out, the end result is almost certain to be bad. Just as it is in many cases where judges and politicians have been thrust the responsibility of blindly legislating shiny new technological innovation.

To conclude, privacy is a 2-way street. People ought to give the issue more attention than they give to a post that they scroll past because future events could depend on it. But at the same time, platforms REALLY need to be more forward in terms of exactly WHAT they are collecting, and how they are using this data. Making changes to these settings should also be made into a task of relative ease.

But first and foremost, the key to this is education. Though we teach the basics of how to operate technology in schools, most of the exposure to the main aspects of this technology (interaction) is self-taught. People learn how to use Facebook, Snapchat and MMS services on their phone, but they often have little guidance on what NOT to do.

What pictures NOT to send in the spur of the moment. How not to behave in a given context. Behaviors with consequences ranging from regret to dealing with law enforcement.

While Artificial Intelligence does, in fact, give us a lot to think about and plan for, it is important to note that the same goes for many technologies available today. Compared to what AI is predicted to become, this tech is often seen as less intelligent than it is mechanical. None the less, modern technology plays an ever-growing role in the day to day lives of connected citizens of the world of all ages and demographics. And as internet speeds keep increasing and high-speed broadband keeps getting more accessible (particularly in rural areas of the first world, and in the global south), only more people will join the cloud. If not adequately prepared for the experience that follows, the result could be VERY interesting. For example, Fake news tends to mean ignorance for most westerners, but in the right cultural context, it could entail death and genocide. In fact, in some nations, this is no longer theoretical. People HAVE died because of viral and inciteful memes propagated on various social media platforms.


Before we even begin to ponder the ramifications of what does not yet exist, one has to get our ducks in a row in terms of our current technological context. It will NOT be easy and will involve partnerships of surprising bed fellows. But it will also help smooth the transition into an increasingly AI dominated future.

Like it or not, it is coming.

Flying Cars – The Future? Or Future Disaster?

This article revives an interesting topic that I have not seen recently, amidst the noise generated by autonomous vehicles, AI, social media aimed backlash and everything else in the public discourse lately. That topic, being flying cars.

In exploring this topic, I will use an article published on Wired by Eric Adams as a place to start.


To Solve Flying Cars’ Biggest Problem, Tie Them to Power Lines

Of the many challenges facing the nascent flying car industry, few turn more hairs gray than power. A heavier aircraft needs more power, which requires a bigger battery, which weighs more, thus making a heavier aircraft. You see the dilemma. So how do you step out of that cycle and strike a balance that lets you fly useful distances at useful speeds without stopping to recharge?

One startup thinks the answer lies in another question: Who needs a big battery, anyway?

San Francisco-based Karman Electric proposes dividing the need for power from the need to carry that power through the air. It wants to connect passenger-carrying electric air taxis to dedicated power lines on the ground, like an upside-down streetcar setup. The aircraft will carry small batteries so they can detach from the lines when necessary, but they’ll get most of their juice from their cords, allowing them to cover long distances at high speeds.

A few more questions, then. What happens if the cable gets jammed, or a bird flies in its path, or a helicopter wanders by? What if there’s a power loss on the ground, or if two vehicles get their cords tangled? How can you traverse bodies of water or rugged terrain? And doesn’t tying a flying car to the ground defeat the whole purpose?

I am going to stop here. Because frankly, the author planted a perfectly good segway.

In short, no, I don’t absolutely think that this defeats the whole purpose of the flying car. For one, in and around areas where they would be utilized most (probably urban and suburban areas), one will have freedom. And when one is traveling outside of areas where tethering is an issue just on account the landscape alone, it wouldn’t be much of a problem anyway. Since most commuters will likely have a common destination in mind, what does it matter if the trip requires tethering to a fixed power source?

In fact, if you are traversing the skies in the dark of night (or in bad visibility conditions), tethering may be a good thing. Spacial disorientation has killed many people before.

Having made that argument, I have to admit that I just don’t see flying cars as being the future of transportation. The problem of powering them without fossil fuels plays a big part in this, at least in the short term. Can long-range (I’m talking intercontinental) high-speed transportation of people and freight ever be made carbon neutral?

But what are far more important factors than this are the problems posed both by the operation of this technology, and other factors unique to aviation. The term flying car alone makes me begin to ponder things. One of them being “What is a car?”. What constitutes a car, and how does this differ from a plane or a drone?

Indeed, most of this is just linguistics to be left to the manufacturers and marketers to figure out. Of which car will likely win just because it’s got so much cool factor.

Personal transportation pod? Nah.
Transport drone? *yawn*

Blurred lines in our understanding of what separates one vehicle from another is the least important issue in this matter, however. I mentioned before the operation of these vehicles as an area of concern. At very least, the necessity of a pilot’s license would be a bare minimum requirement. And the training ought to be just as intensive as for a genuine pilots license.

This is not a popular sentiment in the public eye (imagine THAT!). But there are many more considerations that come to play when you are in the air that one may not even consider when they are on the ground. While it may be possible to automate the process enough to allow even novices to operate these systems on a perfect day, the typical can be counted on as being less than ideal for most areas of the world. Not only do you have atmospheric considerations like wind shear and icing, you also have the issue of dealing with mechanical problems showing up 30 to 300 feet in the air. While not all drastic mechanical faults or failures occurring to an earth-bound vehicle in a risky situation end in tragedy (like losing a wheel on the interstate), any issue that destabilizes a flying car in flight becomes a potentially VERY bad situation. A panicked or incorrect reaction to the problem (common in the realm of traffic accidents) could not only endanger those in the vehicle itself, but also both people on the ground OR in nearby vehicles.

Indeed, this comes across as barely more substantive than “people make terrible drivers, therefore, NO FLYING CAR FOR YOU!“. None the less, one trip out onto the road in pretty much any place in the world shows us just how flawed we can be (how much damage we can do?) when were earthbound. Or if anecdote is an issue (I agree), consider traffic fatalities. Or more accurately, traffic-related injuries and fatalities Vs Air travel-related injuries and fatalities. Though aviation related accidents tend to get more coverage (the stakes are higher just due to the volume of passengers involved), overall, the whole system has gotten safer as people have been increasingly removed from it. Indeed, automation HAS had a hand in more accidents than none. However, more often than not, these are attributable to human error. The problem posed by having to take control and/or diagnose a suddenly uncontrollable juggernaut that has flown itself perfectly for the past 99.9% of your previous flights.

Indeed, a fairly small flying personal vehicle is much different than a 747. None the less, even a flying smart car can cause a heck of a disruption should it crash in the wrong place. Like, say, the upper inner workings of an electricity substation. As opposed to its ground-bound cousins, who may hit a pole, or knock down the fence.

If we are to go this route, then automation is key. Most (if not ALL) aircraft functions of these vehicles NEED to be automated, period. And it wouldn’t hurt to require the presence of a trained and frequently refreshed operator at all times in aircraft mode (for accident mitigation). These vehicles would also benefit for a mandated self-reacting variant of TCAS. Something that would have to take into consideration both traffic AND ground hazards (since these vehicles will be operating in much more built up airspace than other aircraft).

While these are just off the top of my head, there are likely more considerations that will become evident later. Because that is how progress works (not all problems become visible in the paperwork). When it comes to most average consumers, I seriously question if this is in their future (at least as a personal vehicle they own). In terms of a business opportunity (flying taxi’s?), this will also depend on the costs involved. And with the increased amount of research and testing of semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles in realistic traffic situations, even this is looking less promising. If I am a business and I have the choice between a vehicle that can operate itself and generate pure profit almost indefinitely, and a far more expensive flying vehicle that costs more money to maintain AND insure (think liability coverage), what seems the smarter option?

I get it, future tech is cool (there is a reason why it has increasingly become a focus of mine in the past year or so). And with the drastic changes that will be forced upon humanity due to a few factors coming in the mid to near future, we need people to be thinking outside the box. That said, however, some ideas just don’t have a future. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of a flying car is cool, creative, even freeing (one is no longer bound to designated road infrastructure). But given the competition that already exists, I have serious doubts that I will be flying to work or the supermarket in the future.

Having said that, while the technology may be redundant in most cases and geographical situations, one context that comes to mind wherein this technology may be beneficial is any situation in which highway access is restricted. For example, communities in Northern Canada which are hard to access with traditional infrastructure. Small-scale is questionable in its necessity, but figuring out how to reduce the cost of large-scale passenger and freight access would have many benefits.

The most obvious would be an improvement in both the standard AND cost of living. Moving more freight cheap means necessities cost less, and luxuries have a place in the market. It also means lower taxes for Canadian citizens in the long run because, with a lower cost of living, there would be less need to subsidize the consumers AND the freight transporter.

Another use that comes to mind would be in the case of disasters. Hurricanes like Maria and Katrina have hammered home the need for advanced preparation if you are sheltering in place. Unfortunately, that is a very naive view to take since many people who can’t afford to adequately prepare ALSO can’t afford to evacuate. Thus, you get what transpired in New Orleans and San Juan after the storm. Even without the clusterfuck that was the response to both storms, access is inherently limited by blocked, damaged and destroyed road infrastructure.

Enter, small to medium-sized flying transporters (at this point, you have probably figured out that I am not sure what to call them). Situations like large hurricanes can allow for the early preparation and rapid deployment of supplies and essentials to residents just hours after the storm. And once accommodations are set up, they can be easily and safely evacuated, with no rescuers put in harm’s way.

Amazon and other delivery oriented businesses are increasingly experimenting with drones to deliver freight on a small scale (flying a pizza or a shower cap directly to your home). However, I’m not sure if this scales up at all.

To conclude, I don’t see money and time devoted to the research and development of flying cars as being the best (or even a GOOD) use of that money. While there are possible uses for the technology in the area of both commercial AND humanitarianism, focusing on the personal is to waste time and resources when we don’t have any more to spare.

“Autonomous Vehicles Might Drive Cities to Financial Ruin” – (Wired)

In a recent post exploring the rise of AI and the dramatic effects, it will have on contemporary society as we know it, one of the issues it (I) covered was the soon to arrive issue of unemployment on a MASSIVE scale. Comparisons are made to past transitions, but really, there is no precedent.  Not just on account of the percentages, but also due to our population alone. There are WAY more of us making tracks now than during any past transition. The stakes could not be higher.

I explored some possible solutions to make the transition less drastic, my favorite being universal basic income. Though I explored that in enough depth to be satisfied, Wired has highlighted a new and equally important problem with this transition.  The issue of local budgets becoming EXTREMELY tight on account to autonomous vehicles more than likely operating outside the traditional confines of must city revenue streams (gas taxes, parking tickets, etc).

If we go into these situations unprepared, the conclusion seems altogether terrifying. Cities that were already structurally deficient in many ways in THIS paradigm now fall apart, filled with aimless and angry people, automated out of existence.

Then there is the now past peak of worldwide oil production, a wall we will also begin to increasingly hit in the coming years. Then again, one terrifyingly dystopian issue at a time.


In Ann Arbor, Michigan, last week, 125 mostly white, mostly male, business-card-bearing attendees crowded into a brightly lit ballroom to consider “mobility.” That’s the buzzword for a hazy vision of how tech in all forms—including smartphones, credit cards, and autonomous vehicles— will combine with the remains of traditional public transit to get urbanites where they need to go.

There was a fizz in the air at the Meeting of the Minds session, advertised as a summit to prepare cities for the “autonomous revolution.” In the US, most automotive research happens within an hour of that ballroom, and attendees knew that development of “level 4” autonomous vehicles—designed to operate in limited locations, but without a human driver intervening—is accelerating.

The session raised profound questions for American cities. Namely, how to follow the money to ensure that autonomous vehicles don’t drive cities to financial ruin. The advent of driverless cars will likely mean that municipalities will have to make do with much, much less. Driverless cars, left to their own devices, will be fundamentally predatory: taking a lot, giving little, and shifting burdens to beleaguered local governments. It would be a good idea to slam on the brakes while cities work through their priorities. Otherwise, we risk creating municipalities that are utterly incapable of assisting almost anyone with anything—a series of sprawling relics where American cities used to be.

A series of sprawling relics where American cities used to be.

Like this?

The fact that Detroit blight jumps right to the forefront of the mind when the topic of urban wastelands is broached, is unfortunate. I don’t live anywhere near the city (nor have I ever visited), but even I know that the remeaning residents are often doing anything in their power to improve their environment. The evidence is scattered all over Youtube and social media in general.

I decided to use the example, frankly, because I didn’t like the way the author seemed to gloss over the notion of the deterioration of cities using the term relics. A relic to me is something old and with former purpose, but now obsolete.
Cities (like Detroit) will likely never be obsolete.  They will just continue to suffer the continued effects of entropy, while still being necessary for the survival of their inhabitants.

It may just be a linguistic critique, but it still doesn’t sit well with me.

Moving on, the other reason why Detroit (and really, many similar cities all over the US) come to mind is that it’s not the first time innovation has left locales in the lurch.  Detroit (and the others as well) have other factors at play as well (white flight being one), but a big one lies in the hands of private entities. Automation itself requires fewer positions, and when combined with an interconnected global economy, the results can be tragic.
As much as I am fascinated by technology (and view it as being the new societal stasis from now on), it’s hard not to see it as one of the largest drivers of income inequality.
Workplace innovations are almost as a rule, NOT good for anything but the bottom line. As you need fewer workers (and can employ them in places with inhumanly low wages), it’s almost inevitable that inequality will only balloon.

In the past, one could balance this out somewhat with the service sector, an industry that is a necessity everywhere and can reliably create cash flow from essentially nothing. It has served as somewhat of a crutch for some unemployed people. These jobs are by no means on par with previous positions (something many slanted commentators overlook either ignorantly or deliberately), but none the less, they serve a purpose.

Or, at least they do for the time being.

The first big round of automation and economic shifts hit the manufacturing sector hard, leaving in its wake the many examples of civil and urban decay. Though the new economic realities of free trade were not really an issue for the service industry (generally, the opposite actually), that paradigm may well be starting to shift.
Already, automation is slowly making its presence seen in the world of service. On top of this, online retailers are gradually rendering once absolutely necessary brick and mortar retail stores and complexes obsolete. While I can see some areas of the service sector as being permanent, local retail is not one of them. At least not in the numbers it generates today.

Hot or cold food is a challenge from a logistics perspective (when the lengthy supply chains of your average online retailer are considered). This, coupled with people wanting to eat out every so often, will hold a place for the family restaurant (or possibly even the fast food outlet) in the local landscape for the time being. Stores on the other hand (particularly larger retailers) are a different matter.

There will exist local shops, I have no doubt there. But I doubt that the selection (or prices) would come anywhere close to what consumers can now get in big box retailers, or will then be able to get with big online retailers. This, combined with the increased automation of future service encounters, could make things very challenging for anyone with any hesitation towards technology. I suspect that many such people will move (or be pushed out) of larger cities and towns, far from the machine.

The demise of big-box retail is, on one hand, a good thing. They tended to be notoriously toxic when it came to local economies to begin with, not beyond many types of bullying tactics in order to maintain such perks as tax-free status. Consider the case of the big box retailer that relocates a couple miles over to another country in order to break a union, skip out on a local tax, or whatever action they deemed punitive. Therein the county ends up reaping all the negatives of such an enterprise without having any of the positives.

The world can do with less big boxes sucking up energy and contributing to an EXTREMELY energy inefficient way of life that we can no longer afford for a number of reasons. But having said that, economically, this will only succeed in turning almost the whole of most countries into the loser county to the big boxes relocation. One or 2 cities that are home to the distribution facilities will see some benefit, but that is it. The rest see nothing but the infrastructural wear and tear, and the trash.
And things probably won’t be rosy even for the seemingly lucky host cities of these distribution centers, because of the power these entities now have. Take the case of Seattle.

It would seem that I am now miles from where I started off (autonomous vehicles & city budgets). But it all plays into the very same thing. Just as I suspect that the majority of future retail distribution will be based out of a small number of warehouses and based around a largely autonymous transportation (be it truck, plane or drone), I can also see such a model for autonomous vehicle distribution.
When the time comes when rented autonomous vehicles are reliable enough to allow the majority of people to ditch one of the largest expenses in their lives (a vehicle), it will become increasingly financially feasible to own and maintain large fleets of always ready autonomous vehicles. Like how self-hauling rental services operate almost ubiquitously on the North American continent with one control center, I can see an alike entity operating huge fleets of self-driving vehicles.

Though these vehicles will utilize some local services (mechanics, cleaners, maybe electricity), as the article states, I doubt it will ever come close to covering the costs of maintaining the infrastructure on which they depend on for their operation. Which more than likely means that consumers will be footing the bill, be it through taxes or user fees.

The problem, as speaker Nico Larco, director of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon, explained, is that many cities balance their budgets using money brought in by cars: gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, traffic tickets, and billions of dollars in parking revenue. But driverless cars don’t need these things: Many will be electric, will never get a ticket, and can circle the block endlessly rather than park. Because these sources account for somewhere between 15 and 50 percent of city transportation revenue in America, as autonomous vehicles become more common, huge deficits are ahead.

Cities know this: They’re beginning to look at fees that could be charged for accessing pickup and dropoff zones, taxes for empty seats, fees for parking fleets of cars, and other creative assessments that might make up the difference.

But many states, urged on by auto manufacturers, won’t let cities take these steps. Several have already acted to block local policies regulating self-driving cars. Michigan, for example, does not allow Detroit, a short drive away from that Ann Arbor ballroom, to make any rules about driverless cars.

A preemptive strike.

Not that such surprises me. Auto companies already are blurring the line that once separated them from tech companies. I say this due to a bit of exposure to the computers that drive today’s vehicles, having helped a self-taught mechanic tinker with the tune of his 2013 Ford F150. The internet is a limitless resource for this sort of thing. I taught him the basics of how to use this tool, and he ran with it.

It’s not surprising that automobile manufacturers are greasing the gears in statehouses all over the country already. I wouldn’t be surprised that other tech entities are also doing the same thing.

This loss of city revenue comes at a harrowing time. Thousands of local public entities are already struggling financially following the Great Recession. Dozens are stuck with enormous debt loads—usually pension overhangs—that force them to devote unsustainable portions of their incoming revenue to servicing debt. Cities serve as the front lines of every pressing social problem the country is battling: homelessness, illiteracy, inadequate health care, you name it. They don’t have any resources to lose.

The rise of autonomous vehicles will put struggling sections of cities at a particular disadvantage. Unemployment may be low as a national matter, but it is far higher in isolated, majority-minority parts of cities. In those sharply-segregated areas, where educational and health outcomes are routinely far worse than in majority white areas, the main barrier to employment is access to transport. Social mobility depends on being able to get from point A to point B at a low cost.

Take Detroit, a city where auto insurance is prohibitively expensive and transit has been cut back, making it hard for many people to get around. “The bus is just not coming,” Mark de la Vergne, Detroit’s Chief of Mobility Innovation, told the gathering last week, adding that most people in the City of Detroit make less than $57,000 a year and can’t afford a car. De la Vergne told the group in the Ann Arbor ballroom about a low-income Detroit resident who wanted a job but couldn’t even get to the interview without assistance in the form of a very expensive Lyft ride.

As explored before, I suspect that the scaled economies of owning and operating massive fleets of self-driving vehicles may help with this problem. But with the shrunken job market and other local problems coming down the pipe, this hardly even seems a benefit worth mentioning.

That story is, in a nutshell, the problem for America. We have systematically underinvested in public transit: less than 1 percent of our GDP goes to transit. Private services are marketed as complements to public ways of getting around, but in reality these services are competitive. Although economic growth is usually accompanied by an uptick in public transit use, ridership is down in San Francisco, where half the residents use Uber or Lyft. Where ridership goes down, already-low levels of investment in public transit will inevitably get even lower.

When driverless cars take the place of Uber or Lyft, cities will be asked to take on the burden of paying for low-income residents to travel, with whatever quarters they can find lying around in city couches. Result: Cities will be even less able to serve all their residents with public spaces and high-quality services. Even rich people won’t like that.

America has been under-funding essential services across the board for decades. The fact that this is likely to REALLY bite the nation in the ass when they are least prepared to deal with it, is just the cherry on top.

Also, I don’t know that Uber and Lyft will necessarily get replaced. I suspect that they may still exist, but just with much fewer employees. Who knows, one (or both) may become one of the autonomous vehicle behemoths I see existing down the road.

As for the comment about rich people . . . get real. Nothing matters outside the confines of the gated communities in which they reside. Even when the results of their actions are seemingly negative to them in the long term.

Money is a powerful blinder.

It will take great power and great leadership to head off this grim future. Here’s an idea, from France: There, the government charges 3 percent on the total gross salaries of all employees of companies with more than 11 employees, and the proceeds fund a local transport authority. (The tax is levied on the employer not the employee, and in return, employees receive subsidized or free travel on public transport.)

This helps the public transportation angle, indeed. But it doesn’t even touch the infrastructure spending shortfall, a far more massive asteroid to most localities.

At the Ann Arbor meeting, Andreas Mai, vice president of market development at Keolis, said that the Bordeaux transit authority charges a flat fee of about $50 per month for unlimited access to all forms of transit (trams, trains, buses, bikes, ferries, park and ride). The hard-boiled US crowd listening to him audibly gasped at that figure. Ridership is way up, the authority has brought many more buses into service, and it is recovering far more of its expenditures than any comparable US entity. Mai said it required a very strong leader to pull together 28 separate transit systems and convince them to hand over their budgets to the local authority. But it happened.

It’s all just money. We have it; we just need to allocate it better. That will mean viewing public transit as a crucial element of well-being in America. And, in the meantime, we need to press Pause on aggressive plans to deploy driverless cars in cities across the United States.

Public transit is just a part of the problem. I suspect a very small part, at that. And likely the easiest to deal with.
You can not have a public transportation system (or at least not a good one) without addressing infrastructure deficits. And this is just the transportation angle. You also have to contend with water & sewage, solid waste removal,  seasonal maintenance and other ongoing expenses.

Indeed, it is a matter of money and funding allocation. However, the majority of the allocation HAS to start in Washington, in the form of taxation on wealth. As bitter of a pill as that is to swallow, the failure of that course of actions may well make us nostalgic of post-2016 turmoil. Pretty much every leader post-Regan added a little more fuel to the powderkeg, but failure to prepare for coming changes adequately may well set the whole damn thing off.

As for pressing pause on the deployment of driverless vehicles in the cities of the world, we already know that such a plan won’t work. The levers of power are being greased as we speak. Thus, the only option is preparation. Exploration. Brainstorming.

There likely is not going to be a paradigm that fits all contexts, and there will be no utopias. But there is bound to be something between the extremes of absolute privatization and dystopia.

“How Tech Companies Conquered America’s Cities” – (The New York Times)

A good followup to yesterdays piece exploring future tech seems to be present tech. How the innovations of today are being deployed against the once formidable structures of local political influence.

Part of my interest in this article comes from it resurrecting an old observation I had 3 or 4 years back but completely forgot about (until now). Following one of our local elections, a columnist for a local publication wrote an article showcasing the declining participation in local elections in the past decade or so. He outlined the participation numbers in decline as noted by the campaigns in 2006, 2010 and then 2014. Though he did not mention it, I realized that those years coincided with the rise of social media as an embedded part of the day to day life of most people.
Media consumption habits were (are) changing, the internet was (is) becoming ever more prominent in this area (compared to traditional mediums, such as television). People were becoming more intertwined with platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and less so with local papers and newscasts. So beaten down are the mediums here that we don’t have a local paper printed our cities boundaries. If not for our local cable operator being a regional co-operative, the city would have no local media presence (short of a local discussion forum). The two corporate-owned radio stations air prerecorded weather during the evening and night (the co-operative owned stations are staffed 24/7).
Imagine hearing “possibility for the development of thundershowers this evening” after a severe storm has wrecked havoc and flooded half the city. I don’t have to. I HAVE heard this.

Moving on, when it comes to smaller markets, I suspect that this is not all that uncommon these days. As we move online, local media is increasingly crippled or forced to play catch-up. Which is not always possible.

Replacing these local pillars, are the international tech platforms. Since money and attention is not garnered from niches, they tend to focus people more on the national and the international levels (as opposed to the local). If local news makes the algorithm, it tends to be for salacious reasons. Think of Rob Ford’s unfortunate rise to infamy (respectfully left out in this write-up), or my cities former mayor’s past gaffes.

I came to realize this problem because I saw it in my own life. As a millennial at the head of the group, I grew up in the internet age and was just exiting high school as social media was getting established. I have always been connected and politically active, never missing a single vote since reaching voting age. Despite this, the regional and local campaigns had a habit of sneaking up on me (“Holy crap, the election is this week!?”).

Call me ignorant, call me a typical millennial. My focus was elsewhere.
I am not a newspaper reader, my television is off around 70% of the time (I could easily live without cable television). My focus is just generally geared towards the national and the international. I have attempted to remedy this from time to time, but as The Stones once sang, old habits die hard (I hate that song).

Having read the slumping local participation numbers for our local election, it occurred to me that I was not the only one in this boat. Electoral participation is notoriously low to begin with, let alone when one is barely better off than flying blind.
At the time, I shared my observations with the author of that article VIA email, along with my plans to explore it in a future letter to the editor (it’s been awhile since I wrote one of those). But over time, I forgot about it and moved onto other things.

That is until the Times brought it back to the forefront of my mind (albeit in a different context).

Let’s begin.

I’m not saying America’s cities are turning into dystopian technocapitalist hellscapes in which corporations operate every essential service and pull every civic string.

But let’s take a tour of recent news from the metropolises.

■ In Seattle, the City Council decided last week to undo its plan to impose a $275-per-employee tax on local businesses, a measure it had approved unanimously last month as a way to address the city’s homelessness and housing-affordability crisis. Why the retreat? Many of the city’s businesses balked at the tax, including Amazon — and no one needed to remind Seattleites that Amazon is very publicly looking for a second city to plant its glass balls. So, the Council caved.

■ The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, announced that he had tapped the Boring Company, Elon Musk’s second side-hustle, to build a high-speed transportation tunnel from O’Hare International Airport to the city center. Boring said it would fully pay for the tunnel, using no public funds, but it is also very likely to hold a long-term lease to the project, capturing all revenue from the private system.

■ You’ve heard of the app-powered electric scooters that descended like locusts on some American cities last spring. The start-ups that run them made a bold bet: Deploy now; worry about legal niceties later. The bet is paying off. Officials in San Francisco, Austin, Tex., and Santa Monica, Calif., have rushed plans for legalization. Bird, the most ambitious of the scooter start-ups, is now raising money at a $2 billion valuation, just weeks after raising money at a $1 billion valuation.

■ Finally, Domino’s Pizza announced a plan to pave America’s potholes. I wish I were kidding. As part of the program, Domino’s — which has been fashioning itself as a tech company now that it’s battling food-delivery start-ups for mind share — will imprint its logo into the roadway, because apparently Domino’s is the government now, and he who pays the paver gets to choose the toppings. (A Domino’s spokeswoman told that me cities could forgo the logo.)

O.K., so maybe I am saying that America’s cities are turning into dystopian technocapitalist hellscapes.

When I look at all of this, a couple things come to mind.

The first is questioning how much Domino’s contributes to the tax pool, given that they have to make a national advertising campaign out of putting a band-aid on chronic infrastructure issues.  And the second being, this is starting to look VERY similar to the economic landscape that did in Puerto Rico decades before Maria was a tropical storm. Just a new set of players.

How did tech companies become America’s most-powerful local power brokers?

This, along with the bit about techies being averse to politics, are both solved by the very same equation. Or more accurately, commodity.

Money. And lots of it.

Technology is the future, so this industry will increasingly become the new lynchpin of stability as time goes on. With monetary riches and reward comes an inherent need to play politics, because that is how you both carve out an edge for yourself AND keep as much of the take in your hands as is possible.

It’s the classic story of the growth of an industry, and of a handful of corporations cashing in on most of the riches. Same plot, a different cast of characters.

Only national issues matter now

One reason tech companies can command greater say in local issues is that many other local institutions, from small businesses to local newspapers, have lost much of their influence — thanks, in large part, to the internet.

In his new book, “The Increasingly United States,” Daniel Hopkins, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, points out that social networks and digital media created a media ecosystem that is increasingly obsessed with national issues, and a political-finance system that allows donations to flow nationally. As a result, local issues are sidelined.

“When the framers of the Constitution designed the American political system, they assumed that people would care a lot more about local issues that were tangible and concrete than they would care about the distant ways of Washington,“ Mr. Hopkins said. “Contemporary American politics is exactly the opposite — we are focused on the spectacle far away.”

This is the part that stuck out for me when skimming the article earlier today. My conclusions of a few years back, in an article within the New York Times. How’s THAT for being on to something?

In this increasing vaccum of information, many speculate that corruption will become much more common than it has in the past. A hypothesis that I can understand because it stands to reason . . . what is there to lose when no one is watching?

John Oliver touches on it in this clip:

No, the irony isn’t lost on me.

Mr. Hopkins argues that this has turned local politics sclerotic. For instance, in California, where I live, there’s a huge political disagreement between people who favor building more housing and those who argue that development is itself the problem (that is, Yimbys versus Nimbys). Yet among politically connected elites here, I noticed more interest in various faraway congressional special elections than the race we just had for San Francisco mayor.

The “key question for voters is always their national loyalties,” Mr. Hopkins said. There’s much less room for voting based on what’s happening nearby.

Interesting. And somewhat concerning. If this is the case in a big market like San Francisco, what hope does literally ANY OTHER MARKET have?

‘Travis’s Law’

What does this have to do with tech companies? While the fall of local media undermined interest in local issues, tech companies began to notice that their platforms gave them direct access to new levers of local influence. And they began to deploy those levers to withering effect.

Uber wrote the script. Travis Kalanick, the ride-hailing company’s founder and now-ousted chief executive, pushed into dozens of cities without asking permission. In many cities, the pushback was intense — Uber was disrupting local taxi cartels that had spent decades building their own political power base.

But what Uber lacked in political support it made up for in local popularity. Through its app, the company had a direct connection to thousands of riders and drivers who were making a living from its service.

They became the basis for “Travis’s Law”: When regulators tried to shut Uber down, the company could “turn its riders into advocates and use grass-roots political pressure to ensure Uber’s continued existence,” as Bradley Tusk, the political operative whom Mr. Kalanick hired to fight local battles, writes in his coming book, “The Fixer: Saving Startups From Death by Politics.”

The plan worked beautifully. In New York in 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio floated a proposal to cap Uber’s growth. The mayor had the support of most of the City Council; Uber’s fight looked impossible.

But Mr. Tusk mobilized Uber’s constituency, framing the issue in stark racial terms — if Uber failed, black and Latino drivers would lose an economic opportunity, and riders would be stuck with taxis that had long discriminated against them. Uber won and, by following its example, so would the rest of the industry.

Very interesting and eye-opening. I only had half the picture. It wasn’t just circumstance, it was malice. Malice that no locality on this earth is immune from if even metro New York City can fall victim to these tactics.

I wouldn’t be being honest if I didn’t see the possible silver lining of new technology helping to bast up long-standing taxi monopolies in many markets. The fact that they call them cartels is telling. But having said that, not if the result is going to be just another version of the VERY SAME GAME, just with different players.

I’m starting to see a theme, here.

Is tech power so bad?

You might argue that this is all to the good: Cities are drowning in red tape, local leaders are naturally averse to change, and tech companies are doing exactly what innovative companies should do. Shouldn’t we be celebrating these innovators?

If this is you . . . go to the nearest mirror and give yourself a nice big slap in the face. After such an amount of slaps has elapsed that you feel that your head is completely and totally removed from the confines of your rectal cavity, come back and rejoin the conversation.

But tech power, at the local level, feels increasingly indomitable. With the mere threat of halting growth, Amazon can send shudders through cities across the country. Even Mr. De Blasio, once seen as a critic of tech, now swoons for Amazon; he lit up New York’s landmarks in “Amazon orange” to woo Jeff Bezos to open the company’s second headquarters there.

Or, consider the scooters. Some people love our new e-scooter overlords, and others hate them. But whatever your position, the real problem is that they just appeared out of nowhere one day, suddenly seizing the sidewalks, and many citizens felt they had no real agency in the decision. They were here to stay, whatever nonusers felt about them.

Which was all by design. The scooter companies were just following Travis’s Law. In Santa Monica, Bird’s scooters appeared on city streets in September. Lawmakers balked; in December, the city filed a nine-count criminal complaint against Bird.

Bird responded with a button in its app to flood local lawmakers with emails of support. The city yielded: Bird signed a $300,000 settlement with Santa Monica, a pittance of its funding haul, and lawmakers authorized its operations.

If you love the scooters, you see nothing wrong with this. But there was a time, in America, when the government paid for infrastructure and the public had a say in important local services. With Ubers ruling the roads, Birds ruling the sidewalks, Elon Musk running our subways and Domino’s paving our roads, that age is gone.

Ride-sharing has been proposed (and promptly, opposed) by many in my locality, of which keeps a fairly tight rein on the cities taxi industry (though not as tight as other nearby cities, as there is no cap on the number of registered taxies in service at any one time). Though there is fairly minimal push into this market at the moment, I will have to keep an eye on it.

As do us all.



Ethics Of Artificial Intelligence – An Exploration

Today’s topic has been on the backburner since April when I came across the top 9 ethical issues in artificial intelligence as explored by The World Economic Forum.

It seem’s that I can’t log into any platform without coming across Ethics or AI these days. That is unsurprising, given the microtargeted nature of our online world (past behavior dictates future content). What did surprise me, however, was having the Twitter account associated with this blog get followed by an Ethics in AI oriented NGO (very likely the source of the blog post that spawned this piece, actually).

In truth, it’s all very . . . questionable. It seems that everyone and their dog is chiming into the Ethics in AI conversation, but I am not even sure that the rest of us have mastered the topic yet. Particularly, heads of tech-based companies with known histories of unethical behavior behind the shiny facade of silicon valley grandeur.

None the less, let’s get on with the questions.


1. Unemployment. What happens after the end of jobs?

The hierarchy of labour is concerned primarily with automation. As we’ve invented ways to automate jobs, we could create room for people to assume more complex roles, moving from the physical work that dominated the pre-industrial globe to the cognitive labour that characterizes strategic and administrative work in our globalized society.

Look at trucking: it currently employs millions of individuals in the United States alone. What will happen to them if the self-driving trucks promised by Tesla’s Elon Musk become widely available in the next decade? But on the other hand, if we consider the lower risk of accidents, self-driving trucks seem like an ethical choice. The same scenario could happen to office workers, as well as to the majority of the workforce in developed countries.

This is where we come to the question of how we are going to spend our time. Most people still rely on selling their time to have enough income to sustain themselves and their families. We can only hope that this opportunity will enable people to find meaning in non-labour activities, such as caring for their families, engaging with their communities and learning new ways to contribute to human society.

If we succeed with the transition, one day we might look back and think that it was barbaric that human beings were required to sell the majority of their waking time just to be able to live.

That is certainly a rosy way to look at things. If we succeed in the transition, one day we may look at the full-time employment of a human over a lifetime as inhumane. There is just the matter of GETTING there first.  Will society survive?

In exploring the seeming hyperbole of my last sentence, I think we have to define what we mean as a successful transition. If the transition is regulated in the typical almost libertarian manner that many world governing entities (in particular, the United States) tend to follow, then not much will change. Like the last technological revolutions of our time, most gains will stay with the shareholders and the CEOs.
The biggest difference will be that the vast majority of all workers may well find themselves in dire straits. As opposed to just workers in regions once supported primarily by vibrant (yet niche, and inevitably redundant) industries.  Or workers displaced by money-saving decisions (such as outsourcing) made by companies.

One potential method of dealing with this potential time bomb (as some experts are calling it) would be some form of Universal Basic Income. Everyone (below a given income bracket?) would receive some regular given amount of money to do with as they please. Presumably, it would be enough to cover living expenses (or at least make a substantial dent in them, anyway).

Though this concept is fairly new to me, I rather like the idea. Aside from helping to avoid a civil collapse into unrest and possible martial law (or in some cases, fascism), you will have a healthier and more vibrant economy. Sitting on riches (or sheltering them in international tax havens) doesn’t do anything but increasingly undermine an economy. However, distribution to lower brackets does tend to be beneficial to all economies of scale. Food stamps are a good example of this.

To go with the last example (food stamps), economies do see benefits from even basic social safety nets. But when people have more than is required just for the basics (what the boomers called disposable income), they spend more.  They buy all manner of items that help to enrich all economies.

Of course, there is the question of how one is going to pay for this. In that respect, I am a lot like Bernie Sanders in saying “TAX THE RICH!”.

It is more than a slogan, however. It is (or it SHOULD BE!) a consequence to make up for the huge impact that their decisions have on the societies and nations in which they do business. In some senses, one could almost say “the societies and nations in which they plunder”.
Up to now, companies (for the most part) have been able to get away with washing their hands of the many consequences of their existence on local areas.
And not just unemployment either!
Consider things like obesity, or the ever growing problem of plastic waste (and garbage in general). To date, the food industry has faced Zero consequences for either epidemic, despite being the single largest contributors to both issues worldwide.

Universal basic income seems not just the logical solution to a coming asteroid, but also a much-deserved form of corporate reparations. Oh yes . . . I went there.

To conclude, people like Elon Musk and the late Stephan Hawking typically cite fears of AI gone rogue as their main concern for the technology going forward. What is far more concerning to me, are angry mass populations once they find themselves redundant. In a sense, we already have had a bit of a taste of what it looks like when angry (and somewhat ignorant) people find themselves without purpose in the world. Should we do nothing to prepare going forward . . .

There is also much to be said about the pitfalls of the current status quo. Millions of cogs in a giant machine, spending day after day just toiling. Working. Doing something, for some reason.

Well, at least you have a job! That is all we can hope for, right?

Boomers, in particular, love to use this line. Just shut up and do what you are told. Don’t think, just work.

It makes you wonder . . . how many people with various gifts that would be beneficial to society, spend their lives toiling in menial labor, whilst the whole machine inches ever closer it’s seemingly inevitable march off a cliff?

At this crossroad, where the species is soon to face running smack dab into more than one wall, isn’t it just logical to have all hands on deck? After all, it’s not just the economy, or life as we know it . . . it’s life itself.

Which will we choose?

Another milestone for the species? Or the evolutionary cul-de-sac?

2. Inequality. How do we distribute the wealth created by machines?

Our economic system is based on compensation for contribution to the economy, often assessed using an hourly wage. The majority of companies are still dependent on hourly work when it comes to products and services. But by using artificial intelligence, a company can drastically cut down on relying on the human workforce, and this means that revenues will go to fewer people. Consequently, individuals who have ownership in AI-driven companies will make all the money.

We are already seeing a widening wealth gap, where start-up founders take home a large portion of the economic surplus they create. In 2014, roughly the same revenues were generated by the three biggest companies in Detroit and the three biggest companies in Silicon Valley … only in Silicon Valley there were 10 times fewer employees.

If we’re truly imagining a post-work society, how do we structure a fair post-labour economy?

I think I have delved into most of the negatives in enough depth already. But it’s worth exploring the positives a little more.

Right now, the habit seems to be to call this the post work era. I’m not sure that will necessarily be the case. As explored before, without so-called gainful employment taking up so much of peoples time, their energy is available for whatever they want to focus it on. I suspect that this will include new business ventures. Ventures potentially shelved previously because the entrepreneur or customers (if not both) may not have had the time to devote to such an endeavor.

To put it in hopeful economist terms, who’s dreams could become a reality in this new paradigm?

This will of course largely depend on the availability of capital to fund such ventures. Though a big issue in a paradigm of mass unemployment, it is possible that recent innovations like micro-financing and crowdfunding could help clear this hurdle. Either way, the possibility is there for this be become (or more accurately, revert back to) an era of small business.

The future could be bright if one plays the cards right.

3. Humanity. How do machines affect our behaviour and interaction?

Artificially intelligent bots are becoming better and better at modelling human conversation and relationships. In 2015, a bot named Eugene Goostman won the Turing Challenge for the first time. In this challenge, human raters used text input to chat with an unknown entity, then guessed whether they had been chatting with a human or a machine. Eugene Goostman fooled more than half of the human raters into thinking they had been talking to a human being.

This milestone is only the start of an age where we will frequently interact with machines as if they are humans; whether in customer service or sales. While humans are limited in the attention and kindness that they can expend on another person, artificial bots can channel virtually unlimited resources into building relationships.

In a sense, I would personally welcome this. Assuming they are user-friendly, I prefer dealing with machines to humans generally (be it a self-checkout or on the phone with some company). Part of this is due to my introverted nature (leaning towards the extreme end of that spectrum, if I am honest. It’s a bit ironic that my menial labor is in customer service). And part of this reaction is because service-oriented jobs tend to be hell for most but a few brave souls. Having worked my entire career in various segments of the service industry, I’ve learned to hate people. To be fair, my high school experience helped pave the way to this conclusion, but HAVING SAID THAT . . . the general public didn’t do much to correct my misconceptions.
Amusingly, this is a somewhat subdued expression of these feelings. Maturity has tempered me somewhat, even in comparison to some of the earliest posts on this blog.

I understand, however, that personal anecdote is not always a good barometer to go by.

Even outside of my paradigm, I still see this transition as being mostly a good thing. One way I can think of is in helping the socially challenged such as myself practice some social skills in an unjudgemental environment.

It is also possible that it could go the other way. Less interaction could entail more isolation. Having said that, I suspect that these traits are more associated with the individual (not to mention their finances) than they are with macro technological innovations. It makes me curious if those many studies and observations that find many in the post-boomer generations to be socially isolated (in comparison) also take financial restraints into account.

In conclusion, I suspect that the overall impact will likely range somewhere from benign to positive.

Even though not many of us are aware of this, we are already witnesses to how machines can trigger the reward centres in the human brain. Just look at click-bait headlines and video games. These headlines are often optimized with A/B testing, a rudimentary form of algorithmic optimization for content to capture our attention. This and other methods are used to make numerous video and mobile games become addictive. Tech addiction is the new frontier of human dependency.

This is actually a very much overlooked fact of modern existence that needs more attention. Tech addiction. Not only is it a real thing, it is often times being encouraged due to the nature of the industry. Though the human attention span is finite, the options within the software world are infinite. And as such, some developers are not beyond employing less than questionable means to keep people hooked on their platform.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that some of the most desirable users of these apps are also the least equipped to combat their habit influencing nature . . . children. In today’s world, seeing a teen or anyone else addicted to their phone is seen as little more than a joke, but really, there is something to this allegation. Even the heaviest users know it isn’t rational to devote hours of attention to a seemingly benign app used to share photos.

For those that have never considered this before, consider why slot machines in Vegas don’t just stay silent when you win big (or win at all, really). They flash bright lights, they make a ruckus of noise, they sometimes dump shiny coinage all over the place. They get the dopamine pumping and make you feel good.

I likely don’t need to elaborate on the dark side of this psychological trickery in the context of gambling venues. I suspect that we all know (or know of) a person that has fallen into this trap.

But have you ever considered why many of those apps on your device are so pesky? They beep, ping, flash the screen, pop up constantly. If they are not showing personal interactions, then they are showing notifications about what activities friends have recently engaged in on the platform.

Anything to get your attention back on the app.

the other hand, maybe we can think of a different use for software, which has already become effective at directing human attention and triggering certain actions. When used right, this could evolve into an opportunity to nudge society towards more beneficial behavior. However, in the wrong hands it could prove detrimental.

To comment on the last point, it already is proving detrimental. Noting that, I am not even sure that one could say that the software is even in the wrong hands. After all, it was not inherently designed to be nefarious. It was designed to serve a purpose that benefited the agendas of the designers of said software. Even they more than likely overlooked many of the flaws that have since become apparent.

If it’s an indictment of anything, it’s what you get when you allow the market too much control over these things. It’s the emerging tech industries symptoms of a problem that has persisted American companies for decades . . . lack of regulatory control.
To anyone that disputes that seemingly arbitrary point, I encourage them to show me just ONE instance where an industry has put the well-being of the commons over short-term gains.

I am at a bit of a crossroads. On one hand, all of these tactics of psychological manipulation are more than likely here to stay. As noted by my gambling comparison, they long predated social media. So the author may be correct in seeing a possible positive use for such technologies.

None the less, manipulation is manipulation. No matter who is pulling the strings, there exists an air of dishonesty.

4. Artificial stupidity. How can we guard against mistakes?

Intelligence comes from learning, whether you’re human or machine. Systems usually have a training phase in which they “learn” to detect the right patterns and act according to their input. Once a system is fully trained, it can then go into test phase, where it is hit with more examples and we see how it performs.

Obviously, the training phase cannot cover all possible examples that a system may deal with in the real world. These systems can be fooled in ways that humans wouldn’t be. For example, random dot patterns can lead a machine to “see” things that aren’t there. If we rely on AI to bring us into a new world of labour, security and efficiency, we need to ensure that the machine performs as planned, and that people can’t overpower it to use it for their own ends.

5. Racist robots. How do we eliminate AI bias?

Though artificial intelligence is capable of a speed and capacity of processing that’s far beyond that of humans, it cannot always be trusted to be fair and neutral. Google and its parent company Alphabet are one of the leaders when it comes to artificial intelligence, as seen in Google’s Photos service, where AI is used to identify people, objects and scenes. But it can go wrong, such as when a camera missed the mark on racial sensitivity, or when a software used to predict future criminals showed bias against black people.

We shouldn’t forget that AI systems are created by humans, who can be biased and judgemental. Once again, if used right, or if used by those who strive for social progress, artificial intelligence can become a catalyst for positive change.

I decided to group these 2 as one because I have come to see both symptoms as roots from the same branch . . . bad data inputs.

Having done a bit of looking into this stuff, despite the bad AI result’s getting a lot of coverage, one often doesn’t see much attempt to diagnose. For example, that AI handing out harsher (seemingly, racist) sentences to differing nationalities was also drawing from a far larger data set than any jury or judge would (such as the person’s home neighborhood, and other seemingly irrelevant information). It’s less a matter of nefarious machines than it is data contamination.

Of course, this doesn’t make for as splashy of a headline. Or as gripping an article.

Things could take a wrong turn, as far as these machines are concerned. But with clean data, I suspect they may outperform their current human competition in MANY contexts. Bias is somewhat controllable when it comes to inputting data (for example, switching out names for identification numbers when it comes to entering criminals into these systems). However, it is NOT in the context of the human. Nor is it necessarily apparent even to the person themselves, that they may well be acting on their biases. Or possibly even some other seemingly unrelated trigger (“I’m hungry/ gotta pee! Can this just be over with already!?”).

6. Security. How do we keep AI safe from adversaries?

The more powerful a technology becomes, the more can it be used for nefarious reasons as well as good. This applies not only to robots produced to replace human soldiers, or autonomous weapons, but to AI systems that can cause damage if used maliciously. Because these fights won’t be fought on the battleground only, cybersecurity will become even more important. After all, we’re dealing with a system that is faster and more capable than us by orders of magnitude.

The author says a system. I feel that it will be more many systems. We may get to that Star Trek-like future someday, but not in my lifetime.

To start, even our CURRENT public and private data infrastructure systems tend to be woefully unprotected. Judging by the sheer number of companies seemingly caught with their pants down upon finding data breaches, it’s like digital security is an afterthought. When you sign up for everything from a bank account to a retail store loyalty card, you have to hope that digital security is a priority. And even if it is, there are no guarantees!

A good start that can happen TODAY, is drafting legislation on the protection of data under an organizations care. Losing the equivalent to the intimate details of a person’s life (and in some cases, those very details!) has to be more than a “WHOOPSY! We will do better!” type situation. Identity theft can cause a lot of stress and cost a lot of money, so companies that fail to protect consumer data in every way possible (particularly in cases of negligence) should pay dearly for this breach of trust. A fine large enough to not just be a slap on the wrist. Cover the potential expenses of every potential victim, and then some. Make a statement.

What say you, Elizibeth Warren?

When it comes to private companies under control of public infrastructure, the same should apply. When an attack happens, the horse is out of the barn already. Which is why one has to be proactive.
Employ some white hats to test the resiliency of our private and public infrastructure. Issue warnings and set deadlines whilst demanding regular updates on progress made. Then keep at it.
Hit those that miss the deadline without reasonable explanation, with fines. And keep on top of things, issuing warnings (and hopefully less frequently, fines) as issues are found.

As technology progresses both for the public and the private sector, only a staunchly proactive atmosphere such as this can help prevent the hijacking of far more powerful technologies for nefarious purposes.

Being that most of the world is nowhere even close to this . . .

7. Evil genies. How do we protect against unintended consequences?

It’s not just adversaries we have to worry about. What if artificial intelligence itself turned against us? This doesn’t mean by turning “evil” in the way a human might, or the way AI disasters are depicted in Hollywood movies. Rather, we can imagine an advanced AI system as a “genie in a bottle” that can fulfill wishes, but with terrible unforeseen consequences.

In the case of a machine, there is unlikely to be malice at play, only a lack of understanding of the full context in which the wish was made. Imagine an AI system that is asked to eradicate cancer in the world. After a lot of computing, it spits out a formula that does, in fact, bring about the end of cancer – by killing everyone on the planet. The computer would have achieved its goal of “no more cancer” very efficiently, but not in the way humans intended it.

To be fair, the computer doesn’t have to kill all humans on earth, just all the ones with cancer. That would take care of the problem (well, at least temporarily). Call it the most effective health and fitness campaign in the history of the human race.

Move over Joanne & Hal!

Moving on, this is one of the more played up possibilities of this new technological age. Fear of the Machine, of the tables turning. But it’s hard to see this as much more than Hollywood driven fear mongering.

Consider the eradicate cancer request that in this hypothetical, went very wrong. What if instead of becoming the digital adaptation of Adolf Hitler, the machine dug into its massive database of information and spit out a laundry list of both lifestyle changes and possible environmental improvements that would dramatically lessen the instances of cancer. Hell, any big problem known to our species.
Strip away the bias, emotion and other deadweight of the human cognitive ability, and add exponentially more computation power in the process, and who knows what can be accomplished.

For a while now, I’ve been tossing around the idea of UFO’s and extraterrestrial visitors as some form of inter-steller Artificial Intelligence, possibly linked to some past (or present!) life form from who knows where. Who knows . . . AI could be our ticket to depths beyond the observable universe!

8. Singularity. How do we stay in control of a complex intelligent system?

The reason humans are on top of the food chain is not down to sharp teeth or strong muscles. Human dominance is almost entirely due to our ingenuity and intelligence. We can get the better of bigger, faster, stronger animals because we can create and use tools to control them: both physical tools such as cages and weapons, and cognitive tools like training and conditioning.

This poses a serious question about artificial intelligence: will it, one day, have the same advantage over us? We can’t rely on just “pulling the plug” either, because a sufficiently advanced machine may anticipate this move and defend itself. This is what some call the “singularity”: the point in time when human beings are no longer the most intelligent beings on earth.

I can’t help but wonder if that ship has already long since sailed into the sunset. I suppose it lies in how one defines intelligence. For example, there are 3 devices within my reach that leave my brain in the dust (8 in the whole of the apartment). My brain doesn’t hold a candle to a calculator, let alone a modem or a smart TV.
But at the same time, these things are not beings (to borrow from the article). They are just objects with purposes ranging to the simplistic, to the complex. Be it crunching data, or helping move it from my computer to the WordPress server, both machines are far from autonomous.
The closest examples we have at the moment are the autopilot systems of both jetliners and autonomous vehicles, and even these default to human intervention when in doubt.

So I guess we’re not quite there . . . yet?

If I recall, the last time I explored this question, I concluded that we would most likely not ever see this revelation because I have serious doubts in the continued flourishing of the species as a whole. This culmination may not be like life after people (everyone here one day, gone the next), but no matter what, whoever is left is more than likely to have bigger concerns than furthering AI research.
Rather than the matrix, you may have The Colonie. Mad Max. The Book of Elie. The Road.

Pick your poison.

If I am wrong and am proven a dumbass by Elon Musk and everyone else sounding alarm bells, as Chef Ramsay would say . . . Fuck me. We done got ourselves into a pickle now, didn’t we?

Since these machines are influenced by input data, then I guess . . . hopefully, the technology will ignore the whole parasitic nature of the spread of the human species. And hopefully it will overlook the way that humans tend to consume and destroy damn near everything we have ever come into contact with.

God help us all if this singularity decides to side with Gaia.

Then again, what if it flips the script and turns mother to the species, acting as nurturer instead of the destroyer?  We conceived of it with our limited facilities, so it shall now keep us healthy. A good outcome, it would seem.

But wait. There are only enough resources to support X amount of humans, but there is currently Y number alive. If there isn’t a cull of this number (along with a possible lifestyle change), all will perish.
Still a good result?
The great fall is inevitable. In one circumstance, few recognize the truth and mass calamity ensues in the aftermath. In the other, the warning allows at least SOME preparations to be made (and difficult decisions to be decided) in staving off the worst possible scenario.

One can play with the singularity principal all they like. If it is to be, there is not all that much to be said or done. Though, I suspect we won’t have to worry, anyway.

9. Robot rights. How do we define the humane treatment of AI?

While neuroscientists are still working on unlocking the secrets of conscious experience, we understand more about the basic mechanisms of reward and aversion. We share these mechanisms with even simple animals. In a way, we are building similar mechanisms of reward and aversion in systems of artificial intelligence. For example, reinforcement learning is similar to training a dog: improved performance is reinforced with a virtual reward.

*raises eyebrow*

I have heard virtual cookies spoken of many times in my years of contributing to online forums, offered to people of opposing viewpoints as a gesture of goodwill. I never thought there would be a day when such a cookie would exist, however.

Is it like, a bitcoin?

Call me ignorant, but I haven’t the FAINTEST idea how one rewards something that, last I checked, was neither sentient or conscious.

Right now, these systems are fairly superficial, but they are becoming more complex and life-like. Could we consider a system to be suffering when its reward functions give it negative input? What’s more, so-called genetic algorithms work by creating many instances of a system at once, of which only the most successful “survive” and combine to form the next generation of instances. This happens over many generations and is a way of improving a system. The unsuccessful instances are deleted. At what point might we consider genetic algorithms a form of mass murder?

How about, never?

I view this as not being identical to the processes of evolution or obsolescence, but similar enough to render it as being ethically benign. It would be asinine to consider the ethicacy of the process of evolution spanning the ages. And humans regularly throw away and destroy the old and obsolescent technologies that once populated their lives.

Consider the following video’s. Are the actions you see within either video unethical?

To be fair, a great many people do display emotional distress at the sight of this type of thing. But this is less murder than it is . . . progeress. To have shiny new things, we have to sacrafice much of the old things to The Claw.

Once we consider machines as entities that can perceive, feel and act, it’s not a huge leap to ponder their legal status. Should they be treated like animals of comparable intelligence? Will we consider the suffering of “feeling” machines?

Some ethical questions are about mitigating suffering, some about risking negative outcomes. While we consider these risks, we should also keep in mind that, on the whole, this technological progress means better lives for everyone. Artificial intelligence has vast potential, and its responsible implementation is up to us.

Looking at this question in a strictly pragmatic way, then no. We will not take the suffering of the machines into consideration. I draw this conclusion from the way that our species tends to treat lesser animals that are sacrificed for the sake of our stomachs.

Should animals be given respect for the beings that they are? I suppose that it depends on what that entails.
The argument can be made that being humans have the emotional intelligence to understand suffering, then consumption of meat is unethical. Actually, put in this way, one could even say barbaric.
Bloody hell, The militant vegan’s are getting to me.

Either way, since I am not Ingrid Newkirk and less prone to emotional manipulation than the average psychopath, this does not drive me straight to veganism. First, because humans have been omnivores boardering on carnivorous for pretty much the entirety of our existence.

The ancestors of Homo sapiens cooked their food, cooking has been around for approximately a million year (that is around 500 000 years longer than the human species has existed) (Berna et al., 2012; Organ, Nunn, Machanda, & Wrangham, 2011). Traces of humans eating meat is also ancient and seems to have been around for as long as our species existed (Pobiner, 2013). One of our closest relatives the chimpanzee also eats an omnivorus diet with mainly fruits, but occasionally eats animals (McGrew, 1983).


Though meat does seem to be a necessity in our diet, being that its components can fairly easily be replaced by vegan alternatives,  I wouldn’t use that argument. Which brings us back to ethical implications. Since it would be asinine to label a lion unethical for doing what it must to survive, I also feel no such ethical conundrum.
To be fair, while I am pro-meat, I am not blind. It would a benefit in every way for the species to severely curb it’s met consumption. It’s simply unsustainable in the long term (even without taking inhumane conditions into consideration). If everyone relaxed their meat consumption to even once or twice a week, resource-intensive factory farming would quickly become redundant. Meat eaters can enjoy their choice, whilst animals also get a bit of a lift (in terms of overall treatment).

The argument can still be made that there is no humane way to slaughter meat for food, period. Full stop.

I hate dichotomies. If you are one of the people of this persuasion, I encourage you to go over to National Geographic or Discovery’s channel and watch a lion eat it’s pray. Eat it’s sometimes sick and injured (and therefore, easy to catch) pray.

The phrase “put it out of its misery” exists for a reason.

Having delved into all of that, I still can’t bring myself to view these so-called Intelligent Designs (a proper usage for the term?) as anything beyond abiotic objects. Which raises a new question . . . when do abiotic factors become biotic?
From what I can tell, the divide seems to be between the living and the dead. Recently living things that are part of a food chain are generally considered biotic until fully broken down.

I think one can understand where I am going with this, by now. Does life need to fit into this spectrum? Or could we have just stumbled into a new categorization?

For the time being, i’ll settle into the non-commital conclusion that is “Not sure”. If this ever becomes a reality, I will likely revisit this topic. However, until then, this can go on the shelf along side gods existence, extra terrestrial phenomena ans other supernatural lore.

“Tesla’s Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million In Four Months” – (Ecowatch)

Today we will be analyzing another Ecowatch piece. This time, however, the issue is not solely (or mainly) based on the source or the presentation of the information as published. The problem is more in a macro issue surrounding the emergence of this new technology that is often overlooked in its coverage. And not just Ecowatch either, almost all media platforms are prone to fall into this trap. Traditional, mainstream, independent and ideological. By ideological, I am mostly referencing niche oriented outlets such as Ecowatch, but one can also swap that out for political leanings.

It is not all bad news, however. Let’s go through some of the positive, and work towards the criticism.

Since switching on in December, Tesla’s massive battery in South Australia has already drastically lowered prices in the region’s frequency and ancillary services market (FCAS) and has taken a major share of that market, Renew Economy reported.

During Australian Energy Week, McKinsey and Co. partner Godart van Gendt boasted about the stunning efficiency of the 100-megawatt Powerpack system, which is connected to Neoen’s Hornsdale wind farm.

For the purpose of the ignorant (me included), frequency and ancillary services market (FCAS) refers to mechanisms and infrastructure tasked with ensuring constant power grid reliability. To quote Wikipedia:

The term ancillary services is used to refer to a variety of operations beyond generation and transmission that are required to maintain grid stability and security. These services generally include, frequency control, spinning reserves and operating reserves. Traditionally ancillary services have been provided by generators, however, the integration of intermittent generation and the development of smart grid technologies have prompted a shift in the equipment that can be used to provide ancillary services.


In this case, the Tesla setup replaces traditional natural gas (or other) backup options.

“In the first four months of operations of the Hornsdale Power Reserve, the frequency ancillary services prices went down by 90 percent, so that’s 9-0 per cent,” van Gendt said Thursday, as quoted by Renew Economy.

“And the 100 megawatt battery has achieved over 55 percent of the FCAS revenues in South Australia. So it’s 2 percent of the capacity in South Australia achieving 55 percent of the revenues in South Australia.”

The Australian Energy Market Operator calls upon the FCAS to provide back-up energy whenever generators fail or fall short. This service has typically relied upon costly gas generators and steam turbines, with electricity rates up to $14,000 per megawatt during these outages.

But Tesla’s big battery, which was designed to feed South Australia’s unstable power grid, has changed the game. Whenever it has needed to discharge its power to the grid, costs have hovered as low as $270 per megawatt, as The Guardian noted.

As Renew Economy noted, “various estimates have put the cost savings to consumers from the FCAS market alone at around $35 million, just in the first four months of its operation.”

What’s more, the Powerpack system has responded much quicker to power outages (within milliseconds), with the benefit of no greenhouse gas emissions.

There is no doubt that the North American and European markets would benefit from the mass implementation of such a service. A great way to help gloss over the problems associated with the operational capacity of carbon neutral generation methods like solar and wind. And with wide enough development, one could likely expand beyond just covering shortfalls and go right to helping to feed peak demand. Rather than having to rely on fossil energy to keep up with peak demand hours, one could just release from a reservoir instead.
Indeed, it takes a lot of energy to power the macro North American or European grids. But presumably, this power pack technology will go down in price with mass adoption (as is the case with new innovations). As such, which is cheaper in the long haul?

Feeding 12 gas/coal/nuclear plants indefinitely? Or making a big purchase (likely in stages over time, a gradual transition) but also saving money by not needing to have as many generation plants operating at any one time?

For the sake of interest (at least to me), here are the macro grids of both North America and Europe.

Being those enormously vast power grids are both vulnerable to all manner of human and nature induced disaster and inefficient, this new technology can possibly help in that regard as well. Huge grids are necessary when New York City or Montreal are far from Niagra Falls or James Bay (and other sources of electricity).  But in combination with new alternative energy sources, these power packs should help eliminate the need for these huge grids. If not entirely, then they should reduce overall reliance on them. Helping to keep technological outages hopefully isolated locally or regionally. As opposed to limited to 2 or 3 entire interchanges that happen to be running close to maximum capacity. Something that has happened at least twice in North America and once in Europe (if memory serves).

The only real issue that I see here (at least so far) is the source. At least at the moment, Tesla seems to be the only entity doing the legwork in terms of the research and manufacturing of this technology. Which seems to be working successfully both in central Australia and in Putro Rico. While that is alright at this early juncture (well, maybe not the Putro Rico part, if I am interpreting it correctly. As explored HERE), not so much with the further prevalence of the technology. Complete monopolies are not good for anyone (well, besides their beneficiaries), and this is no different.

This piece may come across as paranoid. But at this early time, long before any of this has become ubiquitous enough to be essential to smooth economic operations of societies worldwide, it’s good to at least attempt to find a new frontier than the previous. Though I come across many articles articulating a mid to long-term where future wherein the technology of renewables crushes old fossil fuel interests, one has to ensure that were not just trading one nemesis for another.

For example, by going all in on just one profit-driven entity just because their leader is held in high regard by many people. Or due to old interests starting to realize the way the winds are blowing, and buying their way into a seat at the table.




Big oil is dabbling in emerging energy markets because this is where the market is headed. Though their current forms may paint a different picture in the mind, the purpose of these companies is (and always has been) to make money. In the past, that revenue has mostly been based around petrochemicals. But we are headed in a different direction in coming decades. There is no better example than China to see this theory of mine, in action.
Only one country is betting on fossil fuels (possibly 2, considering Canada’s asinine desire to unload hard to prepare bitumen on a world that is moving away from petroleum).

In short, though the future is indeed bright, one has to stay vigilant. Where there is money to be made, the old ways of capitalism are bound to make an appearance if no attempt is made to keep them at bay.