Category Archives: Freedom

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH THE INFORMATION AGE ARE WE HEADING FOR CYBEROCRACY.

30 Monday Dec 2019

Posted by in Cyberocracy., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Freedom, Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Populism., Reality., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute last post of the year read) 

 

Technology is not neutral or apolitical.

So information may very well come to succeed capital as a central theoretical concept for political and social philosophy.

The retrieval systems of the future are not going to retrieve facts but points of view. 

However, the weakness of databases is that they let you retrieve facts, while the strength of our culture over the past several hundred years has been our ability to take on multiple points of view.

The question is, will new technologies speed the collapse of closed societies and favour the spread of open ones. The information revolution empowers individuals, favours open societies, and portends a worldwide triumph for democracy—may not hold up as times change.

The revolution in global communications will forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.

We are witnessing this happing already with the rise of popularism – Election of Donal Trump and Boris Johnston, but the tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. However, mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channelling existing motivation.

The influence in the information age is indeed proving to revolve around symbolic politics and media-savvy — the ‘soft power’ aspects of influence.

The information revolution may well enable hybrid systems to take the form that does not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.  In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.

Technology with algorithms are leading to new hybrid amalgams of democratic and authoritarian tendencies, often in the same country, like China that is building a vast new sensory apparatus for watching what is happening in their own societies and around the world.

The new revolution in communications makes possible both an intense degree of centralization of power if the society decides to use it in that way, and large decentralization because of the multiplicity, diversity, and cheapness of the modes of communication.

Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.

So are we beginning to see the end of democracy and the beginning of Cyberocracy?   

Crime and terrorism are impelling new installations for watching cityscapes, monitoring communications, and mapping potential hotspots, but sensor networks are also being deployed for early warning and rapid response regarding many other concerns — disease outbreaks, forest protection.

However, the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil. 

The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.

To this end, far from favouring democracy or totalitarianism, Cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.

Citizens’ concerns about top-down surveillance may be countered by bottom-up “sousveillance” (or inverse surveillance), particularly if individuals wear personal devices for detecting and recording what is occurring in their vicinity.

One way or the other Cyberocracy will be a product of the information revolution, and it may slowly but radically affect who rules, how and why. That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.

Surplus information or monopoly information that is concentrated, guarded, and exploited for privileged economic and political purposes could and WILL most likely lead to Governance by social media platforms owned by Microsoft/ Apple/ Google/ Facebook/ Twitter.

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. 

The structure may be more open, the process more fluid, and the conventions redefined; but a hierarchy must still exist.

The history of previous technologies demonstrates that early in the life of new technology, people are likely to emphasize the efficiency effects and underestimate or overlook potential social system effects.

The information revolution is fostering more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.

The major impact will probably be felt in terms of the organization and behaviour of the modern bureaucratic state.

The hierarchical structuring of bureaucracies into offices, departments, and lines of authority may confound the flow of information that may be needed to deal with complex issues in today’s increasingly interconnected world.

Bureaucracy depends on going through channels and keeping the information in bounds; in contrast, Cyberocracy may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private. Technocracy emphasizes ‘hard’ quantitative and econometric skills, like programming and budgeting methodologies; in contrast, a Cyberocracy may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.

Why will any of this happen? 

Because the actual practice of freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association.

As Cyberocracy develops, will governments become flatter, less hierarchical, more decentralized, with different kinds of middle-level officials and offices? 

Some may, but many may not. Governments [particularly repressive regimes] may not have the organizational flexibility and options that corporations have.

So where are we? 

Future trends:

  1. The advanced societies are developing new sensory apparatuses that people have barely begun to understand and use;
  2. A network-based social sector is emerging, distinct from the traditional public and private sectors.  Consisting largely of NGOs and NPOs, its rise is leading to a re-balancing of state, market, and civil-society forces;
  3. New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring;
  4. This may lead to the emergence of the nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.
  5. We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
  6. Civil society stands to gain the most from the rise of networks since policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.

There is no doubt that the evolution of network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies will attract government policymakers, business leaders, and civil society actors to create myriad new mechanisms for communication, coordination, and collaboration spanning all levels of governance. 

However, states, not to mention societies as a whole, cannot endure without hierarchies. 

In the information-age government may well undergo ‘reinventing’ and be made flatter, more networked, decentralized, etc.—but it will still have a hierarchy at its core.” As the state relinquished the control of commercial activities to private companies, both the nation and the state became stronger.  Likewise, as the social sector expands and activities are transferred to it, the state should again emerge with a new kind of strength, even though it loses some scope in some areas.

A central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity is now needed more than ever. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FAR RIGHT AS A VOTING PROPOSITION.

07 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in 2019., Democracy, European Elections 2019, European Union., Freedom, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Post - truth politics., Reality., The common good., The far-right., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics, World Racism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Fourteen-minute read)

BEFORE YOU VOTE IN THE FORTHCOMING EUROPEAN ELECTION YOU SHOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY DO THE FAR RIGHT PARTIES STAND FOR.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The European far right represents a confluence of many ideologies: nationalism, socialism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism.

Given the significant variations that exist between these parties and groups, any term that groups them together and compares them will have limitations.

But the term “far right” is the least problematic precisely because it can be used, on the one hand, to identify the overarching similarities that make them comparable, and on the other to distinguish between different variants.

Though Europe’s far-right parties differ in important respects, they are motivated by a common sense of mission: to save their homelands from what they view as the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and globalization by creating a closed-off, ethnically homogeneous society.

Under the “far right” umbrella, we must distinguish between two sub-categories: extreme and radical right.

The extreme right includes both vigilante groups and political parties that are often openly racist, have clear ties to fascism and also employ violence and aggressive tactics. These groups may operate either outside or within the realm of electoral politics or both.

The term “right-wing populism”, however, is less appropriate.

Populism is an even broader umbrella that often includes disparate parties and groups.

To narrow down this category, we often tend to conflate populism and nationalism, identifying a party as populist, not on the basis of its populist attributes – what party doesn’t claim to speak on behalf of the people in a democracy? – but on the basis of its nationalist attributes.

But despite the similarities between “populism” and “nationalism” – both emphasise conflict lines, focus on the collective, and put forward a vision of an ideal society – the two are conceptually different. While the former pits the people against the elites, the latter pits the in-group against the out-group.

In part, both can be seen as a backlash against the political establishment in the wake of the financial and migrant crises, but the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.

This civic nationalist rhetoric presents culture as a value issue, justifying exclusion on purported threats posed by those who do not share “our” liberal democratic values.

The justification is that certain cultures and religions are intolerant and inherently antithetical to democracy.

They tend to oppose procedural democracy with some common themes, such as hostility to immigration, anti-Islamic rhetoric and Euroscepticism.

The forthcoming elections are going to expose just who are they, where they are, what are their political programmes and why they have risen from the political fringes.

So where does this leave Europe’s political landscape?

Will the far right triumph in Europe in 2019?

Will the far right redraw the political map of Europe?

Is the European Union being pulled inexorably towards the agenda of the far

right? 

There is little point here in listing party after party, it is sufficient to say that they all to some degrees or other blame and want to get rid of migrants. While conveniently ignoring that their countries are for the most part made up of refugees in one form or another.

If the far right wins 100 seats in the new European parliament this year, and the EPP group’s drift to nationalism and xenophobia continues, it is safe to say the projects of integration and social liberalism will be on hold.

They believed in what Trump promised in the USA.

The reality is that the EU in the forthcoming elections needs to look at the next distribution of structural funds. It needs to redefine the allocation criteria to reflect the preparedness of regions and authorities to receive and integrate migrants.

What is the solution?

It is surely this:

For the centre-left and the radical left to seek tactical unity with as many green and liberal parties as possible to defend democracy, suppress fascism and end austerity.

At the moment it’s hard to get the leaders of the European radical left to occupy the same room, let alone persuade social democratic politicians to collaborate with them.

However, the migration issue is the starting point of a continental power struggle pitching two very different versions of the principles that should bind Europe together.

One is liberal democratic, and attuned to the notion of an open society; the other is fortress-minded, illiberal and intolerant.

These far-right leaders are now uniting to attempt a national-populist takeover of the EU as we’ve known it.

There is, however, one wild-card option with a non-negligible chance of happening:

Theresa May falls, a second referendum cancels Brexit, Article 50 is revoked, Britain elects new MEPs and a new, left-led British government appoints a commissioner to match its politics. A unilateral cancellation of Brexit would merely leave Britain with all its rights under the status quo: but it would alter the dynamics of Europe.

Because even at 40 per cent of the vote, a new raft of left-affiliated MEPs would shift the balance in the parliament, while a feisty, communicative left commissioner from the fifth-largest economy in the world would tilt the balance in the EU.

For the democratic-minded across Europe, Europe needs to get its priorities right before it’s too late.

We all need to ask ourselves why should we relive the pain and terror today of far-right policies?

Surely if we Europeans have learnt anything it is that we all must distance ourselves from fascism in order to appeal to broader electorates.

And so herein lies the problem.

If nationalism is always a feature of the far right, as most researchers agree, what is the added value of the term “populism”? To put it another way, what is the difference between a radical right-wing party and a populist radical right-wing party? While populism may or may not be an attribute of some far-right parties, it is not their defining feature. Rather, nationalism is.

But while these parties differ in many ways, their progressive entrenchment in their national political systems raises similar questions about out-group exclusion, anti-immigration narratives and mainstream responses.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a leading advocate of the alt-right in the United States, is hoping the movement can lead Europe’s nationalist and populist parties to a strong showing next May.

For me “Bannon is American and has no place in a European political party.

It is disrespectful and unnecessary!

Many of the themes of Bannonism/Trumpism do not translate well in Europe.

For far-right groups, the migrant issue is something of a zero-sum game:

One country’s “gain” (by refusing refugees) is necessarily another’s nation’s “loss”.

Ultimately, as national right-wing groups chart their paths forward, few will find their domestic legitimacy bolstered by linking up with other groups on the far right.

Allusions to transnational links complicate matters for most of them.

The history of far-right activism is replete with examples of efforts to develop international links, and their failure.

The reason why far-right populists in Europe do not coordinate more systematically is that most of them are profoundly different, both in policy and style.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The sad truth is that it does not take Steve Bannon to build a strong far right in Europe. The voters are doing his job perfectly well – by not voting, and by supporting nationalist, anti-EU forces in their home countries.

History repeats itself, sadly, so don’t vote with false news spread by social media.

There are more than 40 million Muslims and 1.6 million Jews in Europe.

Do they need our votes?

I don’t think they need our votes. They need our kosher stamp.

No country can be forced to take in refugees. Every country has the right to say, ‘We don’t want others coming here.’ But the moment we’re talking about [engaging with parties that talk of] restriction on freedom of religion and racism.

The old world order is going through a lot of turbulence and is in danger of collapsing.

Those who believe in social democratic, green or liberal agendas have become accustomed to viewing far-right populists as automatically anti-EU.

Faced with this ideological flexibility, pro-EU politicians will need to think long and hard about how to protect the EU from those who would misuse it to promote a darker vision of Europe. These right-wing parties should be ostracized.

Make an informed choice rather than a mere expression of frustration with the EU in May.

There’s no steady political weathervane pointing in only one direction.

FOR ME:

OVER THE NEXT TWELVE YEARS WITH ALL OF US TREATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE  THAT IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING IRREVELENT WHY WASTE A VOTE ON A FAR RIGHT OR INDEED FOR THAT MATTER ON A FAR LEFT PARTY WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS A VOTE THAT BRINGS US ALL TOGETHER TO ACT.

The far right has never had the slightest interest in the unknown.

It wants to be told the news it wants to hear, and the atmosphere of mystery it cultivates—like the pseudo-science to which it often gives rise—only exists to provide obvious lies with a vague cover of authority, a comfortably blurred prestige.

The tinder is dry, waiting for a lighted match.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL LOST OUR HEADS OR IS IT THAT VERY FEW OF US GIVE A SHIT ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

28 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, Facebook, Fake News., Freedom, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

This post has many contradictions, as I am delving into an area with so many unknowns that are developing as we read.

You could say that there many more pressing problems in the world than technological development which will always be far beyond our ability to respond to it in any democratic manner.    Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

If we are to place our trust in artificial intelligence, it is going to require a high degree of transparency.

As citizens, we must know how and in which context our data is used, and we must feel confident that data storage is carried out in a safe and secure manner.

We should also have insight into the basis on which artificial intelligence acts, so that we may better understand the implications and dilemmas we will have to relate to in the future. Here, it is crucial that we handle the ethical dilemmas jointly – and contribute to the creation of the common framework for a world not owned by Apple. Microsoft etc.

But how do we create a wide interest in contributing?

How do we ensure that it is not just the technologically initiated who create the framework on behalf of society as a whole?

The next century beginning on January 1, 2101.

It might seem miles away and most if not all of us will have departed this world, long before it arrives, however – if we want Liberal democracy to survive or for that matter, the earth itself we need to put aside our smartphones and start defending our common values.

To do this it is important to remember the past and to keep it in mind so that as individuals and as a society we can grow and flourish.

As Emersons said:

“Society is a joint stock company in which the members agree for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. ”

The current age with its AI technology is far from achieving this rather with Machine learning and Data mining and algorithms it is just the beginning of undermining our own social foundation.

The problem is the opacity of the power of the algorithms, which means that it isn’t easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of the powers that are creating a parallel form of governing alongside the more familiar tools of legislation and policy- setting.

In the coming years, vast fields of human life will be governed by digital code both invisible and unintelligible to human beings with significant political power placed beyond individual resistance and legal challenge.

Soon it will not be easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of greed and inequality.

Once we all have digital ID numbers, it will become impossible to challenge one’s designation.

We are starting to see the use algorithms not only in the assisting of the election of idiots like D Trump but we are allowing Social media platforms to rip apart the institutions that are supposed to stabilise our political volatile world.

Why is this happing?  Because our current democratic world is not working.

It seems unwilling to deal with the problems facing earth while its citizens are being gerrymandered by technology into populist short-term thinking.

As we watch the decline of mainstream parties the role of money in politics that once shaped government is no longer effective. For the last few decades, we see countries driven by growth at all costs with parties and governments responsive primarily to elites or narrow groups of voters rather than broad cross-sections of the population.

If we stopped and properly analyzed that past we would realize that our economy was strongest not when untethered free market capitalism was free to reign but when our government had pushed for massive social reforms which “artificially” (as some would say) supported the lower and middle class.

It was this, not the free market which allowed for Capitalism for profit to reign supreme in the past and if we are to ignore that then we can never hope to move forwards for we will forever be stuck solving the problems of the past not to mention the future.

The result is that citizens feel disregarded and disempowered with little or no respect for politicians that show a tumbling and marked deterioration in their capacity to inspire or the power they can exert in a shrinking sphere of influence due to social media.

I say: by ignoring the past we pass up valuable opportunities to learn more about what should be done to solve problems now.

This is the basis for historic achievements such as human rights and the rule of law, however, we on the threshold of not be able to reconcile these rights with the revolution promised by the fourth Industrial revolution.

Due to lack of access to data and any world regulations as to what can be done with data, there is a high probability that data collection collected on one pretext will be used entirely for a different purpose.

Take Denmark which is now distributing benefits by using algorithms that are undermining its democracy. They don’t fully appreciate the risks involved in enhancing the welfare state through AI applications.

Liberalism is the premise of the belief that coercive powers of public authorities should use in service of individuals freedom and that they should be constrained by laws controlling their scope, limits, and discretion.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Therefore, new systemic set-ups are required that can support the agility needed in a digital age.

The fourth industrial revolution does not stop just because we are not ready
to support it.

We must instead get ready. Get ready for a time of driverless cars and artificial intelligence that complements us as human beings, and augmented reality that connects the digital world with our physical one.

But actual legislation is difficult to imagine at the present time because we
simply cannot regulate something of which we do not know the extent… The fear is that we are doing something wrong because the market is so volatile and immature.

So for the moment instead of legislation, we should be putting in place policy frameworks and certifications as a means of regulating the area:

Accountability is a basic aspect when working on new technology of which we do not yet know the extent, the consequences or the full potential.

Accountability for technological development implies that we discuss solutions,
opportunities and engage in the conflicts and disagreements that will naturally follow in the aftermath – even if we do not know the destination of our train.

Others emphasize the fact that the accountability consists of people having control of the technology, and technology acts on the data fed to it. In other words, people are very much responsible for data being of the right quality to avoid so-called bias (distortions) in data and, thus, in the recommendations that artificial intelligence may contribute in what potentials may be released and of what challenges we should be aware of.

Thus, the goal has not been to identify a final result or a single truth that everyone may rally around.

Because the truth is that there are many attitudes toward artificial intelligence.

From how the area should be anchored politically to how to ensure that everyone enjoys the benefits of the technological development and what barriers may exist to this development.

From how the savings arising from increased automation and increased use of artificial intelligence are used to create value for the citizens:

From how to quickly decide on specific projects and ensuring rapid implementation?

Although EU legislation may be relevant, technology is a cross-border issue so international guidelines are equally important as many global companies are located in the US and China.

Finally, we have the problem of engagement.

None of us like our forefathers and all that came before them have any idea what the world is going to be like in the future but addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mind space of the youngest generation will formulate its foundations. 

The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults.

All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being. People’s cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, creativity, reflection, and mental resilience.

The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps.

The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness.

We’ve reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people’s real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries – energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership.

Some of these technologies are already operating without a person’s knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms.

So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further. Facebook and Twitter have become heavily ingrained in the process of democracy their digital footprint is not limited to a readership or viewing area.

We will see a reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices.

The society-wide effects of ‘continuous partial attention’ and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs.

Digital life will take people’s privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds.

Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes.

Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing – which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships – it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being.

This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms.

You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them.

At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface – owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she’s designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being.

It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies will be beneficial to mankind other than profit for profit sake. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people’s well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design.

Proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that it is not being switched off – not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.

The technological path we’re on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans has to be challenged NOW not in the future.

Technology will be needed if we are to develop beyond a one plant species.

Conditions of modern life could be driving changes in the makeup of our genes. Our bodies and our brains may not be the same as those of our descendants.

Technology may well put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection with evolution becoming purely cultural.

This gives us good grounds for thinking that evolution (whether biological, memetic or technological) will continue to lead in desirable directions.

There is no genetic or evolutionary reason that we could not still be around to watch the sun die. Unlike ageing, extinction does not appear to be genetically programmed into any species.

Meanwhile there is gradual progress in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and eventually, it will become possible to isolate individual cognitive modules and connect them up to modules from other uploaded minds…

Modules that conform to a common standard would be better able to communicate and cooperate with other modules and would, therefore, be economically more productive, creating pressure for standardization…

I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience.

The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound.

There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a ‘crack-phone.

There might be no niche for mental architectures of humankind.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: BEFORE WE ARE ALL HACKED – WHAT IF.

03 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Capitalism, Evolution, Fake News., Freedom, Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Politics., Populism., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Two-minute read)

I have posted many articles concerning Algorithms that are plundering our lives and the world for profit.

Although governments and world organisations are only just waking up to the power of these algorithms giving the changes we are witnessing to society there are little, or no conscientious efforts as to how to introduce regulations to limit the damage they are doing.

With every click, power is shifting to the Google’s, the Microsofts, the Apple, the Amazon, the eBay’s, the Netflix’s, to machine learning recommendations, to Social Media rhetoric, to right-wing politics disguised as populism nationalism.

ALL CREATING A PLANET IN CRISES.

So In this post, I am hoping to create an online pressure group to lobby the relevant powers to effect change.

Life is not only trade, consumption and markets.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "photo of question marks"

THE SUGGESTED NAME FOR THE GROUP IS # WHAT IF.COM

SO IF THERE IS ANYONE READING THIS THAT KNOWS HOW TO GO ABOUT SETTING UP SUCH A WEBSITE I AM ALL EARS.

WHY SET UP SUCH A GROUP.

BECAUSE:

Markets are not faceless forces.

All markets have some sort of morality.

Buyers and sellers need to consider the consequences which their actions and decisions may have on the environment and on society itself.

Today a simple one-dollar-one-vote principle dominates the world economy.

International organizations ought to impose sanctions upon countries which condone immoral practices, such as the use of child labour, environmental destruction, the selling of arms or the persecution of trade unionists.

The detrimental effects of international money markets and the crises caused by speculation can be alleviated by international legislation such as levying taxes on international currency exchange.

Free markets do not guarantee adequate conditions of life to all people. Therefore we need states and organisations that protect the weak and defends social justice.

The eradication of poverty presupposes equalization of income. This means, for example, that the strong and well to do must assume a proportionally greater burden of taxes than the weak and the poor.

We need services which citizens themselves initiate and generate, and the new potential, which they can contribute to the life of our congregations and local communities.

The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that local communities have the resources to guarantee basic security for all their members use to rests with the national governments.

Basic security must, in the future, also include healthcare and adequate, living standards, so that all people are reasonably covered regardless of their wealth and position in society.

All contributions and comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : Is it time for liquid democracy or what some like to call Direct Democracy.

30 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Communication., Democracy, Facebook, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Freedom, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Privatization, Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

( A six-minute read)

I AM NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT DEMOCRACY THAT IS FOUND AT THE

BOTTOM OF A BOTTLE OF WHISKY BUT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THAT

MAY HAVE RUN ITS COURSE.

Technology is fundamentally shifting how government works and how it relates to the citizens it ostensibly represents. In the wake of fake news, algorithms operated by business are shaping a world in which earthly government is becoming less and less functional.

Smartphones with their ease of use and constant accessibility are changing our social networks and reshaping our political world.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of direct democracy"

Because Social Media companies, not Governments are launching new policies. We need to take a more critical look at the role of social media in society.

The biggest challenge is technology that could potentially help end corruption and lobbying, allow people to delegate votes to trusted friends rather than politicians, and empower experts in a field to meaningfully impact policy cannot be achieved while the content of social media has no legal means of ensuring transparency or verification of authenticity prior to any posting.

WHILE THIS STATE REMAINS  Representative democracy may have run its course.

Social Media companies like Facebook, Twitter, U Tube and their like are now shaping a world in which earthly government is becoming inoperative. 

SO HOW MIGHT SOCIAL MEDIA – ALGORITHMS – AI – MACHINE LEARNING – ALTER THE CAPACITY OF CITIZENS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES?

As unprecedented numbers of people channel their political energy through this medium, it’s now being used in unforeseen ways with societal repercussions that were never anticipated.

We should all be very wary news feeds which are being personalized.

ONE OF THE GREATEST PROBLEMS for the future is the worldwide existing inequality in access to new communication technologies. It threatens to aggravate existing social inequalities.

How does social media influence a democratic society? 

By allowing us to create our very own feeds and essentially live in them.

By allowing algorithms to design communication packages just for individuals with each component full chosen in advance.

By allowing advertising without checking their source of purchase.

By allowing petitions to be voted on.

By allowing algorithms to create what’s called polarization, or an information cocoon.

By allowing another communication channel between voters and politicians.

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad. At its best, it allows us to express ourselves and take action. At its worst, it allows people to spread misinformation and corrode democracy.

One way or the other we are arriving rapidly to a crossroads whether we want true freedom of choice or short-term data-driven decisions to rule the roost.

If we can bank online, we can vote online.

We can now publish online, shout online, share music and ideas online, expose new knowledge online, regroup and connect online, bank online. The only thing we still can’t do online is voting on our own laws. No, instead we’re still living under a bizarre psycho-political industrial-era system that wants us to believe we’re represented by elected officials.

The structure of a direct democracy government is simple, and yet profound, giving rise to several questions that need a wide-reaching topic for debate.

SUCH AS.

The people have the final say in every decision that the government makes. That is because, in this government structure, the people are the government.

This can only work if everyone is involved in the voting process in some way. WHICH IS TOTALLY UNWORKABLE. 

WHO WANTS MOB RULE.

Voters cannot authentically decide a course of action to take if they are not presented with complete and accurate information. This structure of government requires that all citizens be given the same information and shared within an equal time frame.

It could also allow a majority of people to oppress certain groups in a harmful manner.

IT CAN ONLY WORK IN THE VILLAGE HALL.

Once we count on AI to decide what we do our concept of life will have to change.

Democratic elections and free markets might cease to make any sense, as with most art and religions.

Can parliaments and political parties overcome the challenges?

At the moment it does not seem so. Technological disruption is not even a leading item on the political agenda.

Google and Twitter are attention merchants. They capture our attention and resell it to advertisers. We are becoming their product.

Governments need to nationalize our data.

It is now or never that regulate the ownership of data if we don’t want to end up living in a digital dictatorship.

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of direct democracy"

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. WE ARE ALL SO GROSSLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE.

15 Wednesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, Facebook, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Freedom, Google, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A six-minute read)

Are we all stupid?

This is the door which Artificial intelligence is walking through –  human stupidity, not ignorance.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of ignorance"

Why?

Because stupidity is not wanting to acquire knowledge but to Google it.

Intelligence may well be primarily biological property. Wisdom, however, is knowing and recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge which is disappearing into the Google cloud.

IT TAKES CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE JUST TO REALIZE THE EXTENT OF YOUR OWN IGNORANCE.

So it’s reasonable to say that most of us are grossly ignorant about the world in which we live but why are we in such a rush to sacrifice our humanistic qualities such as navigation, long-term planning, working out the solutions, finding a partner, protecting our privacy.

Perhaps it, because we are all so naive, about our ignorance that we are allowing algorithms to feed on this new uninformed and unaware stupidity.

MASS STUPIDITY HAS UNDERMINED DEMOCRACY SINCE ITS INCEPTION WITH THE MISGUIDED MEANDERING AND THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

This is not going to change soon however if democracy is to survive the electorate need to be informed to make evidence-based decisions. Not by Facebook, Twitter, and Social Media that are creating mass delusion overwhelming good sense.

Deliberation requires intelligence and knowledge.

IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND A TOPIC THEN YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE ON IT AS IT MORE THAN LIKELY THAT YOU HAVE LITTLE COMPREHENSION OF THE CONSEQUENCES, AS THERE IS NO TRUE MEANING IN WHATEVER COURSE OF ACTION YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE – TAKE BREXIT FOR EXAMPLE.

The electorate is now voting on sound bits, on one line twits, on the sensationalist of false news, and anecdotal evidence.

The result is post-truth direct politics driven by a media that is more interested in promoting trash as it sells.

The arguments are that free requires knowledge but the mere fact of having a choice is not a basis on which to judge the influence of Algorithms run by platforms that have no culture base, and are void of any knowledge of the consequences.

WE NOW IN A CATCH-22 SITUATION.

THE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN DEMOCRACY MUST KEEP PEOPLE VOTING.

CAMPAIGNS ARE SHALLOW AND DUMPED-DOWN FOR THE MASSES SO THAT THE ISSUES ACTUALLY BEING VOTE FOR ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT THE POLITICIANS WANT TO DO.  ONLY A SHALLOW, ALMOST FAKE, DEMOCRACY IS UPHELD.

RESULTING IN A FORM OF POPULISM GOVERNED BY SMARTPHONE/SOCIAL MEDIA ALGORITHMS.

ALL CREATING A FORM OF POLLUTION OR MALIGNANT INFECTION OF THE HUMAN MIND. SUPPORTED BY MULTINATIONAL PLATFORMS PENETRATED BY PROFIT AND FALSE NEWS.

Elizabeth Warren D -Mass is endeavoring to introduce legislation in the USA to make the largest the USA accountable to employees and their local communities, not just shareholders. THE ACCOUNTABLE CAPITALISM ACT.

She rightly says, that in the twenty-century companies started operating in a way that made them slaves to shareholders.

Between 2007 and 2016, large companies dedicated 93% OF THEIR EARNINGS TO SHAREHOLDERS.

IF WE WANT TO SAVE DEMOCRACY WE SHOULD ALSO DO THE SAME ON THIS SIDE OF THE POND, ALONG WITH AN ACCOUNTABLE PLATFORM ACT. THAT LEGALLY REQUIRES GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, WHATS IT AND ANY OTHER PLATFORM TO VET ANY CONTENT PRIOR TO ALLOWING IT BE POSTED. 

ALSO, IT WOULD NOT GO AMISS TO PASS A  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS ACCOUNTABLE ACT AND TO INTRODUCE STRATIFIED VOTING WHEN IT COMES TO GENERAL ELECTIONS.

It all shows how little we really know about what we imagine an ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE. NOSEDIVING INTO RASH POPULARISM.

IF WE DONT SOON START VOTING WITH DELIBERATION THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PROJECT RUNS THE RISK OF FAILURE.

TO GOVERN WELL, LONG TERM STRATEGIES NEED TO BE ADOPTED BEYOND THE NEXT ELECTION THE NEXT GENERATION  – CLIMATE CHANGE,

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of ignorance"

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S HAVE WE ALL LOST OUR MARBLES WHEN IT COMES TO AI . .

29 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Evolution., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Freedom, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Our Common Values., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(Five-minute read)

This may be the reason why AI is able to add fuel to the fire of other technologies such as analytical tools that monitor our behavior online, what we buy, who we talk to, where we have been, where we might go, with whom, and why.

All for a competitive advantage to make a profit.

AI’s use is rising exponentially with volumes of free data flooding every nook and nanny of our existence.

You might believe that this all harmless leading to the smarter handling of big data but we need to wake up if we think so.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of ai"

Siri and Alexa are not machines with just catchy names nor are they AI assistants. Bring one into your life and you will be inviting general AI to take over your decisions. Aping the nuances of the human brain they will adapt to their environment demonstrating empathy and perception whether you are an idiot or not, inevitably it’s the former element that they are after. The blurring of the lines between man and machine.

The ramifications of which remain an elusive shadow on the digital horizon.

So what potential does artificial intelligence really have to change our lives.?

THE ANSWER IS VAST.

THE DIFFICULTY IS HOW DO YOU GET A BALANCED VIEW OF DATA AS ALL DATA IS BIAS.

Very often, when talking about AI, we like to automatically couple it with other terms such as Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Neural Networks. This makes it sound like over 90% of AI is this kind of statistical algorithm that only PhDs can understand.

This is where we are dead wrong about AI.

In order for AI to have a significant impact on our society, it must understand not only how to act like a human, but also how to think like us.

Unfortunately, while the information revolution has enabled us to collect petabytes of data on how we act in a certain situation, not much data has been collected on how we think. This makes it impossible to properly train an AI system.

Machines need to start learning how we conceptualize the world.

What this means for AI researchers and companies, is that the true future of AI lies in design, in an AI’s ability to interact with and learn from humans, and in understanding human contexts — not in more powerful CPUs and algorithms.

This also means technical prowess will become less and less important in building a great AI, relative to deep empathy toward the needs and challenges of the end users who will be interacting with these AI systems.

We must fully align the AI’s goals with ours, which is going to be strikingly difficult.

We must also ensure that every AI program has a surefire way of predicting how it will behave.

All AI’s programmes must have a shutdown button.

Human level AI may be centuries away however we are already witnessing the effects of both the good and bad they are bringing to societies.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

What will it mean to be human in the age of AI?

THERE IS ONE THING FOR CERTAIN:

IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW MONOPOLY PLATFORMS TO RULE THE ROOST WITH PROFIT SEEKING ALGORITHMS WE WILL SEE INEQUALITIES ON GLOBAL SCALE.

SLAVE OR FREEDOM.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks dumped in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. EUREKA! ARE WE ALL FOOLS TO THINK THAT A PLATFORM IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS USERS.

22 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Facebook, Freedom, Google, Modern Day Democracy., Social Media, Technology, The Internet., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( A six-minute read)

Facebook is simply a platform and will never be held responsible for its users.

We can’t blame tech makers for making their products so good we want to use them. We are in control. But are we?

Facebook like all other platforms has been distorted by the fortunes they have been able to earn through advertising.

Why?

Because the techniques these companies use are not always generic: they are algorithmically tailored to each person.

There can be no ethics when it comes to technological manipulation that can be sold to the highest bidder.

The problem is that there is nothing the companies can do to address the harm unless they abandon their current advertising models. Thay have little incentive to deviate from the mantra that their companies are making the world a better place.

But how can Google and Facebook or ANY PLATFORM for that matter be forced to abandon the business models that have transformed them into the most profitable companies on the planet?

Notification technology enables hundred unsolicited interruptions into millions of lives, accelerating the arms race for people’s attention. Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California. The company’s famous ‘likes’ feature has been described by its creator as ‘bright dings of pseudo-pleasure’.

When you consider that the total size of all global data hit 20 zettabytes in 2017.

This probably means nothing so picture this: If every 64 – gigabyte I Phone were a brick, we could build 80 Great walls of China with the I Phones needed to store all the above data.

It’s growing every second and completely out of any control.

All of our minds are being hijacked.

Our choices are not as free as we think they are. The technologies we use have turned into compulsions, if not full-fledged addictions.

Billions of people have little choice over whether they use these now ubiquitous technologies, and are largely unaware of the invisible ways in which a small number of people in Silicon Valley are shaping their lives.

We now have an internet-shaped around the demands of an advertising economy with technology platforms contributing toward so-called “continuous partial attention.

Manipulating people into habitual use of their products or platforms with rewards or short-term social affirmations, while harvested valuable data about the preferences of users that could be sold to advertisers.

So what if anything can be done.

It is very common, for humans to develop things with the best of intentions and for them to have unintended, negative consequences.

We’ve truly reached a new level of technological time wasting, with the young generation unable to communicate.

If we the adult world cannot wean ourselves free a good starting point would be if we are to exercise our freedom by banning,  iPhones, iPads, laptops and mobile phones from places of education.

They will become a real problem if you don’t, as they are ridiculous thing to be addicted to. It just something to use when you’re procrastinating or is it a procrastination-trap, a slate of tools destined to get you addicted.

We have to learn to deal more effectively with our emotions if we want to procrastinate less.

Such as varying the rewards people receive to create a craving, or exploiting negative emotions that can act as triggers. It makes them look like they have a life.

Social media and other addictive technologies have and are creating an attention economy, which is severely limiting people’s ability to focus, and is possibly lowering IQ.

One reason I think it is particularly important for us to talk about this now is that we may be the last generation that can remember life before the Internet.

Drawing a straight line between addiction to social media and political earthquakes like Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump, digital forces have completely upended the political system and, left unchecked, could even render democracy as we know it obsolete.

The mere presence of smartphones damages cognitive capacity – even when the device is turned off. Everyone is distracted, all of the time.

Feelings of boredom, loneliness, frustration, confusion, and indecisiveness often instigate a slight pain or irritation and prompt an almost instantaneous and often mindless action to quell the negative sensation by looking at your I Phone, I Pad

If the people who built these technologies are taking such radical steps to wean themselves free, can the rest of us reasonably be expected to

”Chrome extension, called DF YouTube, “which scrubs out a lot of those external triggers” an app called Pocket Points that “rewards you for staying off your phone when you need to focus”

Get a life and use one.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

https://embed.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE WORLD OF WORK IS IN A STATE OF FLUX.

14 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Capitalism, Democracy, Freedom, Happiness., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Wealth., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( A Sixteen minute read)

How much stuff do we really need to lead a normal life?

Not as much as you might think.

Automation, digital platforms, and other innovations are changing the fundamental nature of work.

You could say that: The world of work is in a state of flux.Humanoid robots work side by side with employees in the assembly line at a factory in Kazo, Japan.

There is growing polarization of labor-market opportunities between high- and low-skill jobs, unemployment and underemployment especially among young people, stagnating incomes for a large proportion of households, and income inequality.

However the field of robotics promises to be the most profoundly disruptive technological shift since the industrial revolution.

The development of automation enabled by technologies including robotics and artificial intelligence brings the promise of higher productivity (and with productivity, economic growth), increased efficiencies, safety, and convenience. But these technologies also raise difficult questions about the broader impact of automation on jobs, skills, wages, and the nature of work itself.

Somehow, we believe our livelihoods will be safe. They’re not:

Every commercial sector will be affected by robotic automation in the next several years. We have yet to reach the full potential of digitization across the global economy.

More than half the world’s population is still offline.

Greater interaction will raise productivity but require different and often higher skills, new technology interfaces, different wage models in some cases, and different types of investments by businesses and workers to acquire skills.

In a recent report, the World Economic Forum predicted that robotic automation will result in the net loss of more than 5m jobs across 15 developed nations by 2020, a conservative estimate. 40–50% of all jobs will be taken by robots in the next twenty years.

By 2025, average salaries in the robotics sector will increase by at least 60% – yet more than one-third of the available jobs in robotics will remain vacant due to shortages of skilled workers.

Developments in motion control, sensor technologies, and artificial intelligence will inevitably give rise to an entirely new class of robots aimed primarily at consumer markets. For example  “Create Your Taste” kiosk – an automated touch-screen system that allows customers to create their own burgers without interacting with another human being.

The thing is: we’ve heard this all before. Time and time again, we underestimate capitalism’s extraordinary ability to come up with new meaningless jobs. (It’s 37% in the UK right now, but it could be 50%, 60% or even 100% in the future.)

Unless we update our ideas about what ‘work’ even is. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson’s Law, and much the same whether the volume of work, were to increase, diminish or even disappear.

Labor which was once the capital of working men will be longer true.

Again: it’s not about the technology, it’s about the choices we make as a society.

When it comes to universal basic income: we don’t have to wait for the robots. We are more than rich enough to do it right now – in fact, we should have done it forty years ago!

Technology is not destiny, education is.

Everything depends on the choices that we make as a society.

If history is any precedent, we already know the answer.

MOST OF US ARE NOW SURROUNDED WITH A PORTION- DISTORTED EMBARRASSMENT OF NOT JUST FOOD BUT GOVERNMENT SIZE.

Guest Blog: Downsizing for Public Health

It’s time for taxpayers to remind themselves just how much the cost of government to run us is..

Let’s take the cost of running the UK as an example.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of house of parliament in london"

The House of Commons with 650 Mbps at £76,000 pa costing the tax payer £156 million a year.

Add in the £6.4m pa given to opposition parties (Short Money), and support items like IT, and the overall total for each MP goes up to £242,000 pa.

But that’s only part of the bill: we also need to add in the costs of running the Commons itself.  According to the HoC Administration Resource Accounts 2006-07, those costs total £210m, which is a further £325,000 per MP.

Oops I nearly forgot the gold-plated final salary pension guaranteed by taxpayers.

The official cost of MPs’ pensions is under 12 per cent of their salary, after 11 per cent contributions from MPs themselves. This adds up to total pay and pension for an MP of £85,000 (their £76,000 salary and £9,000 pension).

So with 650 MPs, that means each one costs us £85,000 pa in salary, pension contributions and employment taxes. Those troublesome “staffing allowances” cost us an additional £57.9m pa- £90,000 for each MP. Then there’s incidental expenses, additional cost allowances, and travel expenses, totaling a further £30.7m (£48,000 each).

Then you have 814 unelected Peers in the House of Lords at £83,000 pa. Costing the tax payer £67,932,000 a year plus £462,510 in tax-free expenses. Members can claim £300 or £150 for every day they attend the House and undertake parliamentary work. The dining rooms and bars are all subsidised by the taxpayer.

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, who has claimed £220,000 of expenses over her 27 year career on the red benches, has never spoken in a debate.

The total cost of members’ allowances and travel is around £20 million per annum.

So reducing the size of the House by about 250 members would represent a significant saving to the taxpayer.

Then you have the Civil Service 418,343, (316,792 full-time and 101,551 part-time.)  Gross annual earnings (excluding overtime or one-off bonuses) for Civil Service employees is around £25,350, pa.

You dont have to ask why people are lying on the floors of hospital corridors.

————————————————————————————————-

‘What do you do when there is nothing left to do?’

What should a government faced with an unmanageable level of unemployment do when conventional policy has failed to resolve the issue?’

Perhaps then a seemingly radical solution, such as universal basic income (UBI), becomes plausible. Universal Basic Income (UBI), a form of social security paid to individuals, not households. It is paid to everyone.

It would give individuals the freedom to say ‘yes’ to jobs. Individuals will not have to do that which they do not wish to do. Fewer people will engage in menial and unsatisfying work. Employers may be forced to increase the wages for underpaid or unpaid jobs.

UBI creates a floor (minimum level) on the income distribution curve, alleviates poverty, and gives bargaining power to the ones who have it least.

Forgetting about work for a moment (if you can), think about what you should do when your physiological needs are no longer a concern. If you’ve had a passion at the back of your mind then you might finally pursue it. If, on the other hand, you’ve passed life going from one kind of busy to another, then you might have missed opportunities to reflect and figure out what you would like to be doing. The cost of failure may have been too high if it meant putting you or your family’s livelihood at risk.

Assuming UBI ensures a basic livelihood for everyone in a community, do these citizens have a duty to give back by working? Do individuals have a duty to accept paid, available employment?

I would say Yes: Individuals should have a duty to do something, providing it is socially beneficial. There was something about people helping each other for its own sake that makes for a good society. A society is not well-functioning if it’s members are not interested in actively improving each other’s well-being.

Caring for the those who cannot care for themselves (such as the elderly, children and disabled). One could volunteer for various causes they care about, whether they be social, environmental, tech-related or so on.

Your recognition that you have alleviated the suffering of others might make you feel like you have done something meaningful.

UBI provides the opportunity for you to try contributing to your community in different ways. This freedom lets you find a way to contribute that is most satisfying for yourself.

It would remove fear replacing it with dignity.

UBI would also reduce the cost of citizens relying on the state for assistance.

There are many pending environmental crises hanging over us, but human wastefulness can be avoided. Can you imagine a world of 7.6 billion people no longer struggling for food or shelter and now focused on bettering the world for their children? That’s universal basic income. That’s a legacy we can all leave.

So why is it not being done?

Because it would downsize our consumerism lifestyle and remove inequality.

There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

I can hear you saying where will the money come from?

Vat, Negative Interest rates, Earnings from investments, Decreasing militry spending, Sovereign wealth funds, etc.

It would ensure that the distribution of the fruits of technology advancement are distributed fairly. 

As Jeremy Howard said: ” In a post-scarcity world , why hold back wealth from people just because they can’t provide labor inputs just to create wealth.”

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENC AND ITS ALGORITHMS SHOULD BE REGULATED

15 Sunday Oct 2017

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Freedom, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Our Common Values., Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( THREE MINUTE READ) Image associée

Can it be regulated?

I have addressed this subject in several previous posts.

You would think that we should learn from previous regulations, like those on the food, pharmaceutical, automobile etc all typically applied after something bad had happened, not in anticipation.

WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO LEARN FROM THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES, with the –  possible of impacting on the full spectrum of benefits and risks to humanity ― from the possible development of a more utopic society to the potential extinction of human civilization.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE SOME FORM OF CONTROL.

Without unnecessary constraints on AI researchers and developers, fundamental research fields or technologies should not be regulated.

Aspirational principles alone are not enough, if they are not put into practice, and a question remains: is government regulation and oversight necessary to guarantee that AI scientists and companies follow these principles and others like them?

Even today, we’re seeing signs of narrow AI exacerbating problems of discrimination and job loss, and if we don’t take proper precautions, we can expect problems to worsen, affecting more people as AI grows smarter and more complex.

The recently founded Partnership on AI  founding document states that:

“Where AI tools are used to supplement or replace human decision-making, we must be sure that they are safe, trustworthy and aligned with the ethics and preferences of people who are influenced by their actions.”

Because these problems threaten society as a whole, they can’t be left to a small group of researchers to address. At the very least, government officials need to learn about and understand how AI could impact us all.

YOU WOULD WONDER WHY, the topic rarely comes up in political discussion.

Let’s ask ourselves: how can we ensure that AI remains beneficial for all, and who needs to be involved in that effort?

THE PROBLEM IS TO DAY THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHAT TO REGULATE, OR AT WHAT LEVEL WOULD WE DO THIS?

This question to me is pointless.

We will never get enough international support lay the foundations for constructive regulation.

CONTROL SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED LIKE AN LEGALLY REQUIRED  MOT.

EVERY ALGORITHM THAT IS INVASIVE OR PROFIT PRODUCING SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO LOGE A COPY ITS SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR PROGRAM’S IN A AI BANK.

WHERE IT IS HELD JUST IN CASE OF MALFUNCTION.

THIS NEEDS TO START- soon to have any chance of keeping up with innovation in the field.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of computer algorithms"

WHY?

Because:  Algorithms will dominate the coming centuries.

Because:  Ascribing human qualities to non-human entities is a minefield.

Because: Algorithms are becoming the single most important concept in our world.

Because: Algorithms are connected to our emotions.

Because: Algorithms are not just particular calculation, but a method followed when making the calculation.

Because: What we call sensations and emotions are all algorithms.

Because: Electronic Algorithms will out perform biochemical Algorithms.

Because: Humans can no longer cope with the immense flows of data.

Because: Algorithms will completely transform the very nature of life transforming the world beyond recognition.

Because: Free –market capitalism and controlled communism are competing data-processing systems.

Because:  The Stock Exchange, the economy of the world  is already run by high frequency algorithms for profit only.

Because: Algorithms structures will run hospitals. then your faith will be in the hands of the system. What is true of hospitals will be true of armies, wars, prisons, schools, and corporations.

Because: We will need to decide which is a computer and which is the human.

Because: It follows that external algorithms will know you better than yourself. 

I am sure you can add to the list.

Algorithms are decoupling us for shared values, with life becoming just data processing.

If this is the sort of world you want to live in stay silent and your wish will come true.

If you can think it, there’s most likely an algorithm for it.

While computer scientists may not be specifically finding better ways to manage your love life, you’d be surprised at how math can play a role as matchmaker. Let’s keep in mind that, during a search, you reach a point when you’ve gathered enough data and a continued search can be seen as both redundant as well as confirming what you know.

Well, how about when finding a parking space?

All human comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin of data.