Category Archives: The common good.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHY IS THE OBVIOUS SO DIFFICULT TO RECOGNIZE?

20 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Digital age., Facebook, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Nanotechnology, Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read) 

We live in a world where the obvious cannot be addressed.

Each and every aspect of our daily lives, work, relationships are somehow influenced or mediated by technology today, not only as individuals but collectives.

It makes one wonder about the sheer volume of ignorance which not only allows the same problems to persist decade after decade but to even get worse.

It is obvious that our very sustainability is under threat but we remain “Oblivious”

Why? 

Consider the paradoxical and strategic implications of the fact that people do not perceive things being too small or too big, too far away or too close, too wide or too narrow, too unimportant or too important for us, too slow and gradual or too sudden and fast, always present or usually absent, too often repeated or not often enough to be remarked, too general, complicated and abstract or too simple, too respectable or too unworthy, too familiar or too alien, too similar or too different too few or too many… Imagine the practical implications of such blindness!

Some of the biggest things around us dissolve into background scene, too huge to count and seemingly too big to fail.

To defeat this blindness we must ask what exactly is obvious? Why? obvious to whom? To me? to you? To everybody? Everywhere? All the time? 

Decisions about technology should not be irreversibly delegated to technocrats, corporations and tech monopolies. 

We think unknowingly with other people’s thoughts.

The conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

It is self-evident that basic assumptions are the riverbeds of our thoughts, the compass of our judgment and choices and our actions; most of them we inherited from trusted people and from authorities, they look inherent, seem to be there from eternity, as if out of sight, so that we would not question them.

This is now leading to a ready-made thinking world of algorithms used by Facebook- Utube – Google – Smartphones -Twitter -and Social media. An invisible prison of social media where it is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours; particularly when they are dissimilar with yours; then, other people have not yet grown into your culture may be useful to detect your unquestionable beliefs; especially very different people coming from somewhere else; or you, visiting somewhere else.

I do not see much good in convincing people not to trust their own mind; we must instead accept and work around this “blindness” without moving our life into monasteries at the feet of gurus or into laboratories at the feet of the experts of the day.

After a while, you don’t notice. They become references.

The Right to an Algorithmic Opt-Out…

How to notice, by ourselves, the obvious turned imperceptible? How to detect it, how to discern it from the merely neutral “obvious” background? How to evaluate the importance and potential of change of something so evident that it escapes your attention?  How to wake up to it? How to seek and get help? How to help other people to do the same? What to do when people cannot or do not want to see the obvious? How to awaken people?

The question is still “How to open my eyes when they are open already?”

The intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

Our worst enemy in discerning the obvious is a certainty, to be convinced that we know it all and that the obvious is obvious for us.

The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hide another.

How banal to say that the obvious is that which is right in front of us, readily accessible to our observation, to our senses or being credible knowledge we have!

With commercial profit-seeking algorithms, this hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished.

if you repeat slogans endlessly they will become obvious for you (even some false ones), and you will end up believing them.

The most amazing for me is to observe how we only apprehend things fit to our size and relative to us. We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions.

Because of compression, we have become an incredibly stupid species.

The obvious known comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into a personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise, we stay paralysed and dumb. 

Perhaps it because our body believes that big things don’t move and unmoving things are harmless. 

Perhaps its because we are weak, unable to face them and we allow our judgment to slumber; we do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself.

Perhaps only when understood does the evidence become awareness, we are able to respond to, so that we would do something because of what it means. 

Perhaps figuring out that the elusive 20th-century social contract is gone, is too enormous for us. Therefore we will go on like cattle to the slaughterhouse. 

Why is this becoming true? 

Because as Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations states. 

“The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something because it is always before one’s eyes.) The real foundations of their inquiry do not strike people at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck them. And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful.”

Only by understanding how and when common sense fails can we improve how we plan for the future. 

Then, question and challenge the obvious at the root: “Why exactly it must be so? Why it is impossible? Who says so? Where is it necessary or impossible? Only here or everywhere? Really?! For whom; for you or for the entire humanity? With what means? At what size? Within what frame of time? Forever? Which pieces in this puzzle would, if changed, make the impossible possible and the necessary less so? Maybe you or somebody else, somewhere else, with different means have other self-evidence. 

Where it will end?

Either there will be a technological or psychological breakthrough or we will see worldwide degradation like we’ve never seen before.

Old labels often obscure the obvious. 


 

I’d like to state the obvious:

Problem-solving is the only thing in life that holds value. Anything that isn’t a solution to a problem is pure excess.

The truth is that the world is not a democracy. We don’t all decide what is best – only a select few do.

We are egocentric through and through – but creating a lasting, meaningful change feeds our egos like nothing else.

Unfortunately, creating change takes time, patience and perseverance.

It appears that for every one step we take forward as a global community, we end up taking two steps backwards.

Every problem in the world is a function that is processed in an environment, on a platform with certain bounds, certain rules, and certain major players.

As far as I can see, life has little certain purpose. If there is a real reason for it, then we have to accept that we simply don’t know the reason.

However, don’t give up until you have to – until there is a better, more logical option.

Big ideas can change the world, can’t they?

Of course, we don’t know. Nobody does. It is really about what we want to happen and whether we go out there and make it happen.

Will we be able to shift direction to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

Yes.

We face risks, called existential risks, that threaten to wipe out humanity.

These risks are not just for big disasters, but for the disasters that could end history.

Nuclear war.

Climate Change.

Bioengineered pandemic.

Superintelligence.

Nanotechnology.

Inequality. 

Unknown unknowns.

Anyone of them might mean that value itself becomes absent from the universe.

In doing so we will get the economy back on its feet again and re-orientate our financial institutions so that they cannot place the world in a similar situation to what we experienced in 2008.

In the daily hubbub of current “crises” facing humanity, we forget about the many generations we hope are yet to come.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. APART FROM THE FINANCIAL COST WHAT ARE THE UNSEEING COST OF THE UK LEAVING THE EU.

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit., European Union., Political Trust, Politics., The common good., The Obvious., Trade Agreements., Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

The UK is set to leave the EU on January 31.

The article 50 process will have been completed and the country will no longer be legal in the EU.

With speculation now playing a part in almost every claim for or against the EU, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between legitimate risks and doom-mongering however the implications of becoming the first nation to leave the 28-state bloc are much clearer.

The term Global Britain is the moment Britain chose to step back from the world.

Confused.

Well here is the picture as I understand it.

The UK will not get a free choice on its future relationship with the EU.

It will not be quick or straightforward to establish a new relationship.

Obviously, there are two ways that Britain can leave the EU:

With a deal, or Without a deal.

A no-deal Brexit would result in a rigid position on all the issues.

If Mr Johnson’s government chooses to change course he has to so before December 31, 2022, if not then Britain will fall back on to basic World Trade Organization terms.

Under WTO rules, this would not include any preferential access to the Single Market, or to any of the 53 markets with which the EU has negotiated Free Trade Agreements.

Or

What is called a soft Brexit which would aim to keep the relationship between the UK and the EU intact?

This could be done by keeping Britain in the single market or, at the very least, arranging the terms of some sort of free-trade agreement before the 31 October deadline arrives.  However, by staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders.

Therefore if the UK gets a deal as is the case with Norway and Iceland it could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations.

A Norway or Iceland model would give the UK considerable but not complete access to
the free-trade Single Market. We would be outside the EU Customs Union, and we
would lose access to all of the EU’s trade agreements with 53 other markets around
the world. Re-negotiating these would take years. Combined with the 27 other countries in the Single Market, and the countries in the EU Customs Union and EFTA, this is effectively more than 80 trade deals – covering over a third of the world’s economy.

No existing bilateral trade agreement will deliver the same level of access that the UK currently enjoys to the EU Single Market. In particular, none provide an equivalent
access for services, which accounts for almost 80 per cent of the UK economy.

It involves accepting most EU rules, but with little influence over the creation of those rules.

Under any of the alternative models, there is no guaranteed access to the current measures for police and security cooperation, which allow our law-enforcement agencies to work with their EU counterparts.

It is possible to fully replace the UK bilateral agreements outside the EU in these areas or demand a right to choose which to participate in will not replicate the reach and influence that is currently enjoy.

Mr Johnson has ruled out any form of an extension to the transition period.

Then both sides would need to make preparations for how they cope with the economic fallout in 2021.

After Britain leaves, its people will still have certain rights – at least for another 11 months. Freedom of movement is likely to end on 31 December next year.

The key rights that have yet to be negotiated include the continued right of British settled in the EU to move for work, leisure or retirement within the EU.

Erasmus will continue after Brexit but this depends on negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

British citizens will still be able to apply for funding in Horizon2020 programmes during the transition period.

The EU’s Creative Europe funding stream will remain open to British applications.

Also promising a call for applications in 2020 is IPortunus, a new EU mobility fund for artists.

Little is written about cross-border healthcare or the processes involved but it is still available during the transition period,

So far, discussions of the gains and losses of Brexit have, understandably, tended to focus on the most obvious costs.

It may soon cost the UK more than its combined total of payments to the European Union budget over the past 47 years

The UK’s total projected contribution to the EU budget from 1973 to 2020 at £215 billion after adjusting for inflation is likely to keep increasing.

On leaving the Uk will be operating in a vacuum till there is a deal or not.

This comes with huge hidden dangers.

In adopting the government’s proposed model for close customs cooperation and a common rulebook, it runs the risk of finding themselves with little scope to diverge from EU regulations on goods, and unable in practice to strike new trade deals with the rest of the world.

The EU cannot change the rules of a customs union for the UK. If it does the trading bloc will fall asunder. When you’re in a customs union for goods, you become part of a common trade policy — you don’t have autonomy anymore.

Agreement with the EU, under which the UK would continue to levy EU tariffs on goods destined for the single market, but would apply a rebate on those that remain in the UK does not work and will not work.

As for a special mutual recognition arrangement in financial services, this might work.

Politicians often praise the visible benefits of public spending, e.g. the number of jobs “created”, without considering whether the funds could have been spent more wisely elsewhere – or even how the taxpayer might have spent the cash, had it remained in his or her pocket

There are a number of countries which have negotiated trade agreements with the
EU. Switzerland has a complex set of bilateral agreements with the EU. Turkey is part of the EU Customs Union and has a long-term aspiration to join the EU. Canada has agreed a Free Trade Agreement with the EU.

The status quo, or anything close to it, carries huge opportunity costs of its own.

So let’s have a look

WTO rules represent a minimum threshold.

It would be the most definitive break with the EU, offering no preferential access to the Single Market, no wider co-operation on crime or terrorism, no obligations for budgetary contributions or free movement of people.

It would, be hard even to come close to replicating the level of access and
influence from which the UK currently benefits.

Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following it departure the UK will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect the country.

So far, the European Union has made only tentative steps towards regulating genetically modified crops and artificial intelligence and robotics.

There are of course important cultural differences between the Uk and the European continent and these may seem like small concerns in the grand scheme of things.

The free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy … the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible’.

Each possible approach will involve a balance between securing access to the EU’s Single Market, accepting costs and obligations and maintaining the UK’s influence.

The UK will, therefore, have to make some difficult decisions about its priorities and the voting public will be holding it very directly responsible. 

It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

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

Underneath is a long list of everyday EU Common day terms that might help.

Ankara Agreement The Association Agreement signed between the European
Community and Turkey in 1963 and the Additional Protocol added
in 1970. They set out basic agreed objectives for relations between
the EU and Turkey, such as the strengthening of trade and economic
relations and the establishment of a Customs Union.

Banking Union The Banking Union is an EU-level supervision and resolution system
for the banking sector in the euro area, and participating member
states. It aims to ensure that banks in the euro area are safe and
reliable and that non-viable banks are resolved without recourse to
taxpayers’ money and with minimal impact on the real economy.

The Capital Markets Union (CMU) is a plan of the European
Commission to create a true single market for capital in Europe. It
will channel increased capital to all companies, including Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs), and infrastructure projects.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of
the European Union. It implements a system of agricultural support
through direct income payments to farmers and guaranteed prices.

Common External Tariff A common external tariff must be introduced when a group of countries forms a customs union. The same customs duties, import
quotas, preferences or other non-tariff barriers to trade apply to all
goods entering the area, regardless of which country within the area
they are entering.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a set of EU rules for managing
European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks.

Common Travel Area
A travel zone comprising Ireland and the UK. It allows for the nationals of
both countries to travel and live in each country without immigration
controls.

Council of the European Union(also known as Council of Ministers)
The Council of the EU brings together the representatives of the EU
Member States’ governments. It is the EU’s main decision-making
body and agrees EU laws, usually together with the European
Parliament.

Customs Union An agreement between two or more countries to remove customs
barriers and reduce or eliminate external customs duties on mutual
trade. Customs unions generally impose a common external tariff
(CET) on imports from non-member countries.

Dublin Regulation An established set of criteria for identifying the Member State
responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. Under
Dublin, the claim for asylum must be made in the first EU country
entered.

EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a
trade agreement negotiated between the EU and Canada. Once
implemented, it will remove customs duties, end limitations in access
to public contracts, open up services markets, and help prevent
illegal copying of EU innovations and traditional products.
Eurojust is an agency of the European Union dealing with judicial
cooperation in criminal matters.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
A legal framework that facilitates the extradition of individuals between
The EU Member States to face prosecution or to serve a prison sentence
for an existing conviction.

European Commission (the Commission)
The European Commission is responsible for proposing draft
legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU Treaties and
managing the day-to-day business of the EU.
European Council The European Council is the body in which the Heads of State
or Government of the EU’s 28 Member States, together with an
appointed President and the President of the European Commission,
take strategic decisions about the direction of the EU.

European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a supranational court based in
Luxembourg and made up of one judge from each of the EU Member
States. The Court deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EU Treaties.

European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
A system for criminal records held by the Member States to be
exchanged with the authorities of other Member States.

European Economic Area (EEA)
The EEA is an internal market providing for the free movement of
persons, goods, services and capital. It is made up of 31 countries:
the EU’s 28 Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It
is governed by a common set of rules.

EEA Joint Committee
An institution of the European Economic Area (EEA), in which
decisions are taken by consensus to incorporate EU legislation into
the EEA Agreement.

European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community (EC)
The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional
cooperation organisation and precursor to the EU, as one of the
European Communities. It was founded in 1957 to promote economic
integration between its member states. When the Maastricht Treaty
created the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated
and renamed the European Community (EC). In 2009 the Lisbon
Treaty provided for the EC to be fully incorporated into the European Union.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) has four members:
the three non-EU EEA member states – Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein – plus Switzerland. It has the right to conclude Free
Trade Agreements with the rest of the world on behalf of its four
members.

EFTA Court The EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court is a supranational
judicial body that deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EEA Agreement. It is essentially the equivalent of
the ECJ for the EFTA countries that are also members of the EEA
(Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland).

European Parliament
The European Parliament was established in 1979 in order to
represent the views of citizens directly in EU decision-making. It
shares responsibility with the Council for passing EU laws and for
agreeing the EU’s budget, although the Council enjoys broader
decision-making powers. The Parliament is made up of 751 members
(MEPs) who are directly elected across the 28 Member States and
serve a five-year term. The UK has 73 MEPs.

European Union (EU)
The European Union is an international organisation made up of 28
European countries, including the UK. The EU has its origins in the
European Coal and Steel Community, founded by six European states
after the Second World War. However, its remit has evolved and
is much broader today. The EU facilitates cooperation between its
Member States on a wide range of objectives, from facilitating trade to
protecting the environment, and security and development overseas.
The EU has created the world’s largest Single Market, enabling the
free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Europol is an EU agency that assists Member States’ law
enforcement agencies in tackling cross-border crime. It carries out
over 18,000 cross-border investigations a year to tackle security
threats such as terrorism, international drug trafficking and money
laundering, organised fraud, counterfeiting and people smuggling.

Europol Information System
The Europol Information System (EIS) is a central criminal information
and intelligence database covering the areas under Europol’s remit.
Europol and all EU Member States can use the EIS to store and look
up to data on serious international crime and terrorism.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is a treaty between two or more
countries or trading blocs that reduces but does not eliminate,
barriers to trade and investment. WTO rules allow its member states
to sign FTAs granting each other preferential market access, subject
to certain conditions. FTAs usually cover agreements to reduce tariffs
and other restrictions to trade on goods and, to a lesser extent,
services.

Frontex is the EU’s Borders Agency, which manages cooperation
between national border guards to secure the EU’s external borders.
G20 The Group of Twenty (G20) is a forum for international economic
cooperation and decision-making. It comprises 19 of the world’s
leading economies, including the UK, plus the European Union.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) that came into force in January
1995. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system
to the service sector, in the same way, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a system for merchandise
trade. All members of the WTO are parties to the GATS. The basic
WTO principle of most favoured nation (MFN) applies to GATS as
well. However, upon accession, members may introduce temporary
exemptions to this rule.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organisation
of 188 countries. It works to foster global monetary cooperation,
secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high
employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty
around the world. The UK is a member.

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) refers to EU cooperation on asylum and
immigration, judicial matters, civil protection and the fight against
serious and organised crime and terrorism, as well as the Schengen
Border-free area. The UK has secured a set of exemptions that mean
it is not required to participate in JHA matters, but can choose to do
so if it wishes.

Lugano Convention The Lugano Convention facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil law cases in the EU and EFTA countries.

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
Under WTO rules, countries cannot normally discriminate between
trading partners that are members of the WTO. So a country or
trading bloc cannot grant another a preferential arrangement (such as
a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) without doing so
for all other WTO members. This principle is known as Most Favoured
Nation (MFN) treatment. Non-tariff barriers A non-tariff barrier is a form of trade barrier other than a tariff. Nontariff barriers include quotas, levies, embargoes, sanctions and other restrictions. They are frequently used by large and developed
economies.

Passporting entitles a financial services firm authorised in a European
Economic Area (EEA) state to carry on permitted activities in any other
EEA state by either exercising the right of establishment (i.e. setting up
a branch and/or agents), or providing cross-border services. These
rights are subject to the fulfilment of conditions under the relevant
Single Market directive.

Preferential market access
A country or trading bloc grants preferential market access to another
when it grants it better terms of trade than as standard, for instance
by reducing tariffs or providing access to public tenders. The WTO
sets a number of rules about how countries and blocs can grant
each other preferential access. Between developed economies, this is
usually granted through Free Trade Agreements, through which each
side agrees to reduce trade barriers.

The Prüm Decisions are EU Council Decisions which embed into
EU law a pre-existing Convention between several European Union
States. They provide mechanisms to exchange information between
Member States on DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data for
the prevention and investigation of cross-border crime and terrorism.
The UK has recently decided to apply to re-join the regime.

Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)
Qualified Majority Voting is the principal method of reaching decisions
in the Council of Ministers. It allocates votes to the different Member
States according to an agreed formula, based partly on population
size. Under Lisbon Treaty rules, a decision or law is passed by
a qualified majority when 55% of Member States vote in favour (in
practice this means 16 out of 28) and the Member States supporting
represent at least 65% of the total EU population.

Rules of Origin are the criteria needed to determine the national
source of a product. They matter because duties and restrictions
often depend upon the source of imports. The complex supply chains
of the global economy mean that this is not always straightforward to
determine. The bureaucracy involved is a cost for businesses.

The Schengen border-free area comprises the 26 European countries
(22 EU member states and four others) that have abolished passport
and any other type of controls at their common borders. It also has a
common visa policy.

The Schengen Information System II (SIS II) is a large-scale
database that supports external border control and law enforcement
cooperation within the Schengen States. SIS II enables competent
authorities, such as police and border guards, to enter and consult
alerts on certain categories of wanted or missing persons and
objects. An SIS II alert contains not only information about a particular
person or object but also clear instructions on what to do when the
person or object has been found.

Single Market a common trade area that extends beyond the
deepest and most comprehensive Free Trade Agreements. It works
to remove all regulatory obstacles to the free movement of capital,
people, goods and services. It stimulates competition and trade,
improves economic efficiency and helps to lower prices. The EU’s
Single Market is the largest in the world.

Stabilisation and Association Agreements are bilateral agreements
between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans designed
to promote regional peace, stability and eventual accession to the EU.
As well as establishing a Free Trade Area with the EU, the agreements
pledge the parties to work towards common political and economic
objectives and encourage regional cooperation.

State Aid refers to any advantage or subsidy granted by public
authorities through state resources on a selective basis to any
organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade
in the EU. The definition of state aid is very broad because ‘an
advantage’ can take many forms.

A tariff is a tax or duty imposed on a particular class of imports or
exports.

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and
services than it exports. The deficit equals the value of goods and
services being imported minus the value of goods and services being
exported.

United Nations (UN) is an international organisation formed in
1945 to increase international cooperation and uphold peace and
security. It has 193 members.

The WTO is the international organisation that regulates global
trade between nations. It was established in 1995 as the successor
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO
enables participating member states to agree on trade rules, negotiate
trade agreements, and resolve disputes. A total of 162 countries are
members, including the UK.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS; SO YOU ARE NOW 30 BY THE TIME YOU ARE 70 HERE IS WHAT A DAY IN YOUR LIFE WILL LOOK LIKE.

10 Friday Jan 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Digital Friendship., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

(Twenty-minute read)

The Dead Sea will be almost completely dried up, nearly half of the Amazon rainforest will have been deforested, wildfires will spread like, umm, wildfire, and the polar ice caps will be only 60 per cent the size they are now.

Wars will involve not only land and sea but space. Superhurricanes will become a regular occurrence.

Should you be worried, of course not AI/Algorithms are here to guide you.

AI-related advancements have grown from strength to strength in the last decade.

Right now there are people coming up with new algorithms by applying evolutionary techniques to the vast amounts of big data via genetic programming to find optimisations and improve your life in different fields.

The amount of data we have available to us now means that we can no longer think in discrete terms. This is what big data forces us to do.

It forces us to take a step back, an abstract step back to find a way to cope with the tidal wave of data flooding our systems. With big data, we are looking for patterns that match the data and algorithms are enabling us to find patterns via clustering, classification, machine learning and any other number of new techniques.

To find the patterns you or I cannot see. They create the code we need to do this and give birth to learner algorithms that can be used to create new algorithms.

So do you remember a time, initially, when it was possible to pass on all knowledge through the form of dialogue from generation to generation, parent to child, teacher to student?  Indeed, the character of Socrates in Plato’s “Phaedrus” worried that this technological shift to writing and books was a much poorer medium than dialogue and would diminish our ability to develop true wisdom and knowledge.

Needless to say that I don’t think Socrates would have been a fan of Social Media or TV.

The machine learning algorithms have become like a hammer at the hands of data scientists. Everything looks like a nail to be hit upon.

In due process, the wrong application or overkill of machine learning will cause disenchantment among people when it does not deliver value.

It will be a self-inflicted  ‘AI Winter’.

So here is what your day at 70th might be.

Welcome to the world of permanent change—a world defined not by heavy industrial machines that are modified infrequently, but by software that is always in flux.

Algorithms are everywhere. They decide what results you see in an internet search, and what adverts appear next to them. They choose which friends you hear from on social networks. They fix prices for air tickets and home loans. They may decide if you’re a valid target for the intelligence services. They may even decide if you have the right to vote.

7.30 am 

Personalised Health Algorithm report.

Sleep pattern good. Anxiety normal, deficient in vitamin C. Sperm count normal.

Results of body scan sent health network.

7.35 am

House Management Algorithm Report.

Temperature 65c. House secure. Windows/ Doors closed Catflap open. Heating off. Green Energy usage 2.3 Kwh per minute. (Advertisement to change provider.) Shower running, Water flow and temperature adjusted, shower head hight adjusted. House Natural light adjusted. Confirmation that smartphone and I pad fully charges. Robotic housemaid programmed.

8 am.

Personalised Shopping/Provisions Algorithm report.

Refrigerators will be seamlessly integrated with online supermarkets, so a new tub of peanut butter will be on its way to your door by drone delivery before you even finish the last one.

8.45 am. Appointments Algorithm.

Virtual reality appointment with a local doctor.

Voice mails and emails and the calendar check.

A device in your head might eliminate the need for a computer screen by projecting images (from a Skype meeting, a video game, or whatever) directly into your field of vision from within. It checks

9 am.

Personalised Financial Algorithm.

Balance of credit cards and bank accounts including citizen credit /loyalty points. Value of shares/ pension fund updated.

10 am. Still in your Dressing gown.

11 am.  The self-drive car starts. Seats automatically shift and rearrange themselves to provide maximum comfort. Personalised News and Weather Algorithm gives a report. The car books parking spot places order for coffee. Over coffee, you rent out a robot in Dublin and have it do the legwork for your forthcoming visiting – hotels.

12 pm.

Hologram of your boss in your living room.

1 pm.

Virtual work meeting to discuss the solitary nature of remote work.

Face-to-face meeting arranged.

 

2 pm. Home. Lunch delivered.

3 pm. Sporting activity with a virtual coach.

5 pm. Home

7 30 pm.

Discuss and view the Dubin robot walk around containing video and audio report. 

Dinner delivered. Six quests. The home management algorithm rearranges the furniture.

8 30 pm

Virtual helmets on for some after-dinner entertainment.

10 pm 

Ask Alixia to shut the house down not before you answer Alixia question to score points and a chance to win — Cash- Holiday- Dinner for two- a discount on Amazon- e bay- or a spot of online gambling.

                                                       ———

The fourth industrial revolution is not simply an opportunity. It matters what kind of opportunity is for whom and under what terms.

We need to start thinking about algorithms.

The core issue here is of course who will own the basic infrastructure of our future which is going to be effect all sectors of society.

They are not just for mathematicians or academics. There are algorithms all around us and you don’t need to know how to code to use them or understand them.

We need to better understand them to better understand, and control, our own futures. To achieve this we need to better understand how these algorithms work and how to tailor them to suit our needs. Otherwise, we will be unable to fully unlock the potential of this abstract transition because machine learning automates automation itself.

The new digital economy, akin to learning to read, has obscured our view of algorithms. Algorithms are increasingly part of our everyday lives, from recommending our films to filtering our news and finding our partners.

Building a solid foundation now for governance for AI the need to use AI responsibly
and to consider the broader reaching implications of this transformational technology’s use.

The world population will be over 9 billion with the majority of people will live in cities.

So here are a few questions at 30 you might want to consider.

How does the software we use influence what we express and imagine?

Shall we continue to accept the decisions made for us by algorithms if we don’t know how they operate?

What does it mean to be a citizen of a software society?

These and many other important questions are waiting to be analyzed.

If we reduce each complex system to a one-page description of its algorithm, will we capture enough of software behaviour?

Or will the nuances of particular decisions made by software in every particular case be lost?

You don’t need a therapist; they need an algorithm.

We may never really grasp the alienness of algorithms. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn to live with them.

Unfortunately, their decisions can run counter to our ideas of fairness. Algorithms don’t see humans the same way other humans do.

What are we doing about confronting any of this –  Nothing much.

So its no wonder that people start to worry about what’s left for human beings to do.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WILL 2020 BE THE YEAR OF THE BIG MELT OR THE BIG FRY.

02 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., Climate Change., Evolution, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Purchasing Power., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., 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 Aid., World Leaders, World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

 

(Fifteen-minute read) 

 

It looks like being both.

We are the first generation to know we’re destroying the world, and we could be the last that can do anything about it.

SO AS IF YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  

We need to recognize that everything we do, every step we take, every sentence we write, every word we speak—or don’t speak—counts. Nothing is trivial.

Take personal responsibility.

We need to use social media – this is one of the most effective ways to get brands to listen to you, so tell them that you want a change.

Why?

Because, unfortunately, the politicians who dominate the world stage are, depressingly, mostly cut from the old cloth, and the leadership challenges they face, are particularly complex and will require different skills — notably a clearer vision among leaders of organisation’s shared purpose.

Because the digital revolution is far from over the pace of change only seems to be quickening when in fact it is causing isolation. 

Because, we are allowing non-regulated large technology platforms to become too powerful, using their size to dominate markets and we are not paying enough attention to how the tools they create can be used for ill –  like device addictions, as we drown in notifications and false news feed posts.

Because there is an increasing imperative for all of us to respond to climate change.  Which will and is challenging our lives developing on a daily bases right in front of our eyes into our biggest need to act as one.

How can any of this be achieved? 

How will the changing political, economic and environmental landscapes shape the world?

Don’t get caught up in the how of things. Don’t wait for things to be right in order to begin.

Because in our age of tectonic geopolitical shifts, “alternative facts,” and conflicting narratives, our routine everyday life is losing sight of our true goals and aspirations.

Because with the rise of short-sighted populism we will solve nothing, other than feeding the great unwashed with short term gratification.

We need to write a piece of software that eliminated malware, viruses and all of that crap. 

We need to show our political leaders that they want to change, to understand our common humanity.

We need to try to put yourself into another person’s headspace and accept people for who they are and what their beliefs are.

We need to collaborate and push for policies that complement both sides of the political spectrum.

We need to make wasting our resources unacceptable in all aspects of our life.  Every product we buy has an environmental footprint and could end up in a landfill. The impact of plastic pollution on our oceans is becoming increasingly clear, having drastic impacts on marine life.

We need to be more conscious about what we buy, and where we buy it from. Living a less consumerist lifestyle can benefit you and our planet.

We need to use our purchasing power and make sure our money is going towards positive change.

We need to realize that what we eat contributes around a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for almost 60% of global biodiversity loss.

We need to be supporting eco-friendly products.

We need to try to waste as little food as possible, and compost the organic waste we can’t eat.

We need to make education free for all.  Start educating not for profit but for a better understanding of what is the common values of life.

We need to stop asking the world’s smartest scientists to find us more time and to reverse gravity’s effect on our lives.

We need to stop killing each other. Countries start wars and people die and more people are in poverty.

We need to create out of profit for profit sake a World Aid fund with perpetual funding. (See previous posts) A new nonprofit called Carbon Offsets to alleviate address Climate change and Poverty. 

We need to realize that all significant change throughout history has occurred not because of nations, armies, governments and certainly not committees. They happened as a result of the courage and commitment of individuals. Believe that you can and will make a difference. 

The genesis for change is awareness so I need to stop. 

This year will not only be another opportunity for the leading minds in media in all its forms to highlight consumption for consumption sake.

However, if they wanted to spread a message that helps us all they would ban advertising that promotes consumption for consumption sake/profit. 

Feel free to add your priorities. With rapid innovations in technology and open access to data its no longer “wait and see.” We need to stop the huge feeling of apathy. 

The coming year, let alone the next decade looks unpredictable.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 ASK’S: Thinking ahead to 5 years from now, do you think Britain’s decision to leave the EU will have had a positive or negative impact on the UK?

08 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Digital age., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English General Election., European Union., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Modern day life., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Of course, as with all hypothetical questions, there is no correct answer.

Whether it will be a liberal One Nation Tory party, ongoing coalition governments or the Labour party that will be the political beneficiary is not yet sure.

However, looking at the present state of England against the problems facing the world one would have to say the horizon is far from looking bright.

The longer-term questions about the UK’s relationship with the EU will still need to be addressed no matter what the result of the current general election.

This very question itself will pale in comparison to the coming nexus environmental and energy problems facing us all.

Even if one was to ignore climate change it is truly impossible to overstate the havoc—financial, social, cultural—that could be brought about by peak oil if sufficient renewable energy is not in place to make up for declines in fossil fuels.

By the middle of the next decade or so, we will either all be starving, and fighting wars over resources, or our global food supply will have changed radically.

The bitter reality is that it will probably be a mixture of both.

The one thing we can be sure of is this:

No matter how wacky the predictions we make today, they will look tame in the strange light of the future. From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, will see technological change on an astonishing scale.

All this assumes that environmental catastrophe doesn’t drive us into caves.

With over 60% of global GDP will be digitized by 2022 it is a total waste of time for countries such as the UK to attempted to pull up the drawbridge, to increase national production and reducing reliance on imports. These world-changing technologies are already creating more interconnected, interdependent and rapid business networks.

How far beggar-my-neighbour competitive devaluations and protection will develop due to a hard Brexit is hard to predict, but protectionist trends are there for all to see.

The question is, will Britain outside the EU be a more global, more deregulated, more free-trading country five years from now.

Presently nearly half of the UK’s total trade is with EU countries.

Leaving the biggest free trade area with over 500 million consumers won’t be cheap no matter what the divorce bill is. The EU has 53 trade deals worldwide the UK has zero. Political Map of Europe

The consequent rebalancing of the British economy will therefore take years and more than likely create a food underclass.

WHY?

Because it is as yet unclear when the UK will have the legal authority to begin negotiations; when the UK will leave the EU customs union; and what the trade arrangements between the UK and the EU will be after that point.

It is therefore difficult to see how third countries could engage seriously with the UK until these decisions have been taken. In addition, there are significant obstacles to meaningful trade deals with most of the countries.

The world will be more complicated even if these projections assume an orderly exit from the EU.

Only when we stand together can we secure our prosperity in a competitive world as the distinction between the country, town, will blur, with Artifical intelligence not to mention sea levels rising.

Why?

Because if I’d been writing this five years ago, it would have been all about technology: the internet, the fragmentation of media, mobile phones, social tools allowing consumers to regain power at the expense of corporations, all that sort of stuff but artificial intelligence is proving itself an unexpectedly difficult problem.

To describe EXACTLY what they will be doing in 1,820 days never mind that a second financial crisis in the 2010s – probably sooner than later – that will prove not just to be the remaking of Britain but the whole of the EU.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WITH LAWS.

25 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Democracy, Digital Friendship., Elections/ Voting, Facebook., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

 

(Ten-minute read) 

The beady eye is far from the first voice to ask this question and it certainly will not be the last.

We might even come to “question whether we still have free will.

There is no doubting that the social web has created amazing opportunities to learn, discover, connect, but its downside as it penetrates our daily lives is becoming more and more prevalent in the creation of our future lives and the societies we live in.

If the public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over democracy it becomes increasingly important to apply principles to them. 

Honest political debate is essential for the health of a democracy.  

If discussions of import move into space where they can be readily censored, then we will simply no longer live in a society with a free exchange of ideas, because the playing field will always be tilted.

One only has to look at how social media platforms are amplifying what is wrong with the world.  

While we all reveal a huge amount of personal information online we are losing the ability to determine honest facts that democracy depends.

Basically, companies that run social media platforms are monopolies or near-monopolies in their areas of operation, and the only way we can achieve the desired outcomes is through clear, effective legal regulations. 

We can’t always control how others use their platforms but we can apply the same regulations that govern all other forms of Media.

The public cannot rely on these company’s self-regulation, because self-regulation raises more questions than it answers.

The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. 

If we take companies like Facebook and Google they both derive most of their revenue from advertising. They essentially constitute a duopoly because they have access to the best data about individuals. Every memory, picture, emoji, song, video, link, gripe, fear, hope, want, dream and bad political opinion posted is mined and monetized as data.

As a result of their algorithms, they are creating and reinforcing divided and insular online communities that do not interact with people or information with which they disagreed.

At the end of the day, how Facebook and Google conduct their businesses undermines privacy and raises questions about ethical behaviour in the uses of our information and their role in society.

The Internet is a “utility” like water or electricity. It is essential to modern life, not an optional subscription service.

Determining how to regulate Facebook or any other platform may first require some kind of definition of what it is.

Facebook brags about connecting us to our family and friends — but it also about directly influencing the outcomes of elections across the globe.

It sits on top of industries including journalism, where it, together with Google, essentially controls the distribution channels for online news and, in effect, the way people discover information about politics, government and society.

They ( Google, Facebook, Twitter,etc) have figured out how to take advantage of this dynamic to distribute false information about political candidates and hot-button political issues in order to drive up traffic and advertising revenue.

Protecting our community is more important than maximizing their profits.

They are given protections that no one can sue them for any reason — that is Google and Facebook nither are responsible for the fake news that appears on their sites.

They are completely shielded from any responsibility for the content that appears on their service.

Changes to legal protection (which has been interpreted by judges to provide a safe harbour for online platforms even when they pay to distribute others’ content and decline the option to impose editorial oversight) would likely be devastating to online platforms like Google and Facebook and would transform the way people interact across the entire internet.

However, with legal protection, sites like these could be held responsible for libellous comments posted by readers, Google could lose lawsuits over potentially false or defamatory information surfacing in search results, and Facebook could be sued for any potentially libellous comment made by anyone on its platform against any other person.

The legal bills to defend against libel and defamation claims would be enormous.

We all need protection and the ability to request platforms to provide us with control over online information by making it accessible and removable at an individual’s request.

The government, on the other hand, has a regulatory intent to protect citizens from content that is obscene or violent.

Should Facebook and their like be regulated?

A question that is never going to end. 

However, until we recognize that there is no fool-proof safeguard to keep horrific content away from the eyes of children we rely on huge fines to the detriment of us all. 

Till then with all internet platforms deflecting criticism, social media will be more psychologically damaging than anyone expected. 

We need a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people.

It is beyond comprehension that we tolerate the present position.

Or is it? When you see the below.   

Would you ever be prepared to use a nuclear weapon?

This question is increasingly put to politicians as some kind of virility test.

The subtext is that to be a credible political leader, you must be willing to use an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.

We should be baulking at the casual way in which political discourse on this topic has developed which is politically unacceptable and morally despicable. 

If a mainstream politician unblinkingly said that they would use chemical weapons against civilians there would be uproar. If a self-proclaimed candidate for prime minister boasted that they would commit war crimes, it would be a national scandal. Nuclear weapons should be seen no differently. 

It’s time that nuclear advocates spelt out the reality of what their position means.

The human race is so good at speaking, it’s lost the art of listening.

It might be easy to brush away the febrile atmosphere online as a nasty byproduct of free expression: I don’t want Facebook having everyone’s verified identities. I do want their platform and other platforms to be held responsible legally for content that is false, racest, hateful, rightwing fascist propaganda.  

I do know that if the big platforms, as they already do in part, forced some verifiable information to back up use, we could tame this wild west with legal requirements

I’ll give up on the consensus-building when I can open a platform knowing who to hold legally responsible.  


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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WITH THE SATURATION OF THE WEB BY GREEDY ALGORITHMS ARE WE SEEING THE END OF CHOICE.

20 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Dehumanization., Democracy., Digital Friendship., Education, Elections/ Voting, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read) 

The degree of choice on the web can be overwhelming, but who, exactly, is making the “Choice”

Has The web has been highjacked by Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Social Media and their like?

Why?

Besause they are absorbing their users’ personal data and feeding greedy algrithms who in the end are disempowered by isolation from the wider web. 

(By clicking continue below and using our sites or applications, you agree that we and our third party advertisers can:)

Greedy algorithms can be characterized as being ‘short-sighted’, and also as ‘non-recoverable’. The choice made by a greedy algorithm may depend on choices made so far, but not on future choices or all the solutions to the subproblem.

It is important, however, to note that the greedy algorithm can be used as a selection algorithm to prioritize options within a search, or branch-and-bound algorithm. They iteratively make one greedy choice after another, reducing each given problem into a smaller one.

They can make commitments to certain choices too early which prevent them from finding the best overall solution later.

Without any accountability, they are drastically changing the ways we conduct our daily lives.

There are a few variations to the greedy algorithm:

  • Pure greedy algorithms.
  • Orthogonal greedy algorithms.
  • Relaxed greedy algorithms.
  • It’s no wonder that Berners-Lee isn’t particularly pleased with the way things have gone with his creation.

With Social networks, slowly algorithms are growing more and more powerful and their predictions growing more accurate. It won’t be long before we could see living, breathing, as the choices of a greedy algorithm.  

In other words, a greedy algorithm never reconsiders its choices. 

The web is cleaving into the haves and have-nots of news readership. Wealthy readers will pay to opt-out of advertising; less privileged readers will have to stick with news that’s ad-supported.

For example, take Google, one of the leaders in using big data and algorithms to support human decision-making. Google has developed both a hiring algorithm and a retention algorithm it analyzes candidates against this profile to make hiring decisions.

Algorithms to develop lists of “flight risks” — that is, people who are likely to leave their jobs soon. 

Amazon’s Choice” algorithm, which leverages a machine learning model to discern what products a customer most likely wants. Amazon Alexa and other voice assistants are drastically changing the ways consumers encounter products.

Customers are no longer putting themselves in front of physical products before purchasing them.

As more users are turning to voice ordering through the Amazon Alexa platform and its competitors we are losing control over our personal data. 

Hopefully, Amazon’s algorithms are capable of remaining unbiased.

(We can make whatever choice seems best at the moment and then solve the subproblems that arise later.) 

On top of all of this, we have all become blind to the damage that the internet can do to even a well-functioning democracy. Brexit/ USA.

It might be true that around the world, social media is making it easier for people to have a voice in government — to discuss issues, organize around causes, and hold leaders accountable, but these governments are winning elections by false news, echo chambers where people only see viewpoints they agree with — further driving us apart.

Social media can distort policymakers’ perception of public opinion.

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad.

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

So it is inevitable that Facebook to influence public sentiment — essentially using social media as an information weapon.

Some 87% of governments around the world have a presence on Facebook.

And they’re listening — and responding — to what they hear.

Misinformation campaigns are not amateur operations.

Increasingly the web will become profoundly useless unless we demand the Web we want from Governments and the Monomorphic platforms that dominate it today. 

We are all part of the web so what we endorse must be questioned as to the transparency as to where the information comes from in the first place.

Today the bulk of people who are or not doing this are isolated from each other by Apps.

The like button is not a public metric for the popularity of content. It is a flattener of credibility.

There is no point waking in the morning with Alexa telling you what to do, where to go and what it has bought and who to vote for.  

Even if social media could be cured of its outrage -enhancing effects it is undermining democracy.

Even though we have unprecedented access to all that was ever written and digitized we are less familiar with the accumulated wisdom of humanity becoming more and more misguided. 

The Web is now a global experiment that will test the very foundation of our global communities

There can not be self -governance for the web.

Fake news, Racism, Pornographic content and unfounded crap should be removed by not allowing anything to be posted without a traceable verified name or source.  

Are you sure you want to post this? It is your choice and your choice alone.

Perhaps its time we all franchise our data as we are entering into a continuous partnership so both parties need to be confident it’s the right fit. It’s all a choice. Just do something about it- YOU CAN, what is true technology integration? 

How we are going to learn content is one of the ways forward.

In fact, everywhere we look we are starting to be presented with more choices.

Resolve to avoid false comparisons on the web is not possible so the future of the web is all about choice but it is important to understand the paradox of choice.

Choice without education or choice with education.

you ultimately do have to choose. so be the difference that

makes the difference. 

 

Events change our perception and our perspective changes

with experience but at least let our choices about Our lives

which are constantly in flux be our choices. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS THIS THE WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN NEVER MIND LIVE ON.

14 Thursday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019., Artificial Intelligence., Humanity., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read) 

Never mind standing on the moon here are some depressing reality about your planet Earth.

We live in a world of trillions of living organisms and billions of humans and few millions of other species.

There are over 35 major conflicts going on in the world today.

There are nearly 210 million orphans in the world.

More than 500 million small arms and light weapons are in circulation around the world.

There are approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads in the world today.

Current global military spending is approximately $800 billion per year; more than the total annual income of the poorest 45% of the global population.

Genocide and other mass murders killed more people in the 20th century than all wars combined.

AND THAT JUST FOR OPENERS. 

35% of the world’s people live in countries in which basic political rights and civil liberties are denied (such as freedom of speech, religion, press, fair trials, democratic political processes, etc).

Over 100 million people live in slums.

1 billion people – 1/3rd of the world’s labour force, are unemployed or underemployed.

Cows earns more than 1.2 billion of the world’s poorest people.

An estimated 27 million people are enslaved around the world, including an estimated 20 million people held in bonded labour (forced to work in order to pay off a debt, also known as ‘debt bondage’). 

At least 700,000 people annually, and up to 2 million, mostly women and children, are victims of human trafficking worldwide (a modern form of slavery — bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions)..

About 246 million, or 1 out of 6, children ages 5 to 17 worldwide are involved in child labor

3 billion of the world’s people (one-half) live in ‘poverty’ (living on less than $2 per day). 1.3 billion people live in ‘absolute’ or ‘extreme poverty’ (living on less than $1 per day). Both in rich countries and poor, a staggering 30-50% of all food produced rots away uneaten.homeless

By 2025, at least 3.5 billion people or nearly 2/3rd’s of the world’s population will face water scarcity. More than 2.2 million people, mostly children, die each year from water related diseases.

The richest 1% of the world’s people earned as much income as the bottom 57% (2.7 billion people) The top 5% of the world’s people earn more income than the bottom 80%. One fourth of humanity lives without electricity.

The wealth of the world’s 7.1 million millionaires ($27 trillion) equals the total combined annual income of the entire planet.

The combined wealth of the world’s richest 300 individuals is equal to the total annual income of 45% of the world’s population. 

The world’s 3 wealthiest families have a combined wealth equal to the annual income of 600 million of the world’s people.  The wealthiest one-fifth of the world’s population receive an average income that is 75 times greater than the poorest one-fifth.

Half of the forests that originally covered 46% of the Earth’s land surface are gone.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all species will be driven to extinction in the next 20 to 50 years.

Almost a quarter of the world’s mammal species will face extinction within 30 years. Up to 47% of the world’s plant species are at risk of extinction.

60% of the world’s coral reefs, which contain up to one-fourth of all marine species, could be lost in the next 20-40 years.

Land degradation threaten nearly one-quarter of the land surface of the globe.

An estimated 40-80 million people have been forcibly evicted and displaced from their lands to make way for the construction of large dams,

Global warming is expected to increase the Earth’s temperature by 3C (5.4F) in the next 100 years.

While we witness the horrific events that are occurring within our society and world today now with a blink of an eye, our world is constantly changing, for the good, but also for the worst.

With technology, we are losing sight of what is important.

We have begun to categorize people based on how they act, what they wear, their political party, their skin color, where they live and so many other factors. 

We are always forgetting ourselves until someone wakes up to remind us of who we really are.  Humans?

The world was always beautiful. It’s only becoming lesser and lesser.

There is only this world, only this single reality, and its shared by everybody, everyday… Not created.

 Were economically and morally bankrupt.

THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.

The world has no one society. Surely its time we started to vote with our eyes not our ears. 

All human comments appreciated

. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF NON REGULATED FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.

11 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Facial Recognition., Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Advanced technology no longer stands apart from society; it is becoming deeply infused in our personal and professional lives.

Perhaps as much as any advance, facial recognition raises a critical question: what role do we want this type of technology to play in everyday society?

The issues relating to facial recognition go well beyond questions of bias themselves, raising critical questions about our fundamental freedoms.

You might not think it but we are in the midst of a facial recognition technology race.

Imagine a government tracking everywhere you walked over the past month without your permission or knowledge.

Imagine a database of everyone who attended a political rally that constitutes the very essence of free speech.

Imagine the stores of a shopping mall using facial recognition to share information with each other about each shelf that you browse and the product you buy, without asking you first.

Imagine an inability to protest your government.  What if health insurance providers can track how often you eat at Burger King.

There is no shortage of tragic scenarios when such technology becomes ingrained in our society. It has vast potential to enslave society.

There could be dire consequences for citizens around the world.

So will facial recognition become part of everyday life?

This technology is actively being tested all around the world and it will only keep improving.

Presently smartphones utilize sensors and accelerometers to track our every behaviour, understanding exactly when we wake up in the morning, where our offices are, where we shop for groceries, what our interests are and how we spend our time.

We are willingly giving up our personal information that these “free” services offer, then turn around and sell for profit, all for a split-second hit of dopamine when someone “likes” a picture we post on Facebook.

Facial recognition surveillance is powerful not only because it is highly accurate, but also because of how discreet the set up is. You don’t realize when it’s surveilling you or your family. It runs in the shadows creating no noises, you don’t’ walk through any detectors, you don’t sign anything, and you don’t press your fingertips against a pad.

It just happens.

Increasingly it will define the decade ahead.

It can’t be left to tech companies to limit the way government agencies use facial recognition and other technology. Facial recognition technology raises issues that go to the heart of fundamental human rights.

Protections like privacy and freedom of expression.

So let me ask you.

  • Should law enforcement use of facial recognition be subject to human oversight and controls, including restrictions on the use of unaided facial recognition technology as evidence of an individual’s guilt or innocence of a crime?
  • Similarly, should we ensure there are civilian oversight and accountability for the use of facial recognition as part of governmental national security technology practices?
  • What types of legal measures can prevent the use of facial recognition for racial profiling and other violations of rights while still permitting the beneficial uses of the technology?
  • Should the use of facial recognition by public authorities or others be subject to minimum performance levels on accuracy?
  • Should the law require that retailers post visible notice of their use of facial recognition technology in public spaces?
  • Should the law require that companies obtain prior consent before collecting individuals’ images for facial recognition? If so, in what situations and places should this apply? And what is the appropriate way to ask for and obtain such consent?
  • Should we ensure that individuals have the right to know what photos have been collected and stored that have been identified with their names and faces?
  • Should we create processes that afford legal rights to individuals who believe they have been misidentified by a facial recognition system?

The questions listed above – and no doubt others – will become important public policy issues around the world, requiring active engagement by governments, academics, tech companies and civil society internationally.

Issues relating to facial recognition go well beyond the borders of Countries.

Given the global nature of the technology itself, there likely will also be a growing need for interaction and even coordination between national regulators across borders.

  • The need for government leadership does not absolve technology companies of our own ethical responsibilities.
  • The future is not simple. We, therefore, need a principled approach for facial recognition technology, embodied in law, that outlasts a single administration or the important political issues of a moment.
  • As in so many times in the past, we need to ensure that new inventions serve our democratic freedoms pursuant to the rule of law. Given the global sweep of this technology, we’ll need to address these issues internationally, in no small part by working with and relying upon many other respected voices. We will all need to work together, and we look forward to doing our part.

It’s apparent that other new technologies will raise similar issues in the future.

This makes it even more important that we use this moment to get the direction right.

Public authorities may rely on flawed or biased technological approaches to decide who to track, investigate or even arrest for a crime.

Governments may monitor the exercise of political and other public activities in ways that conflict with longstanding expectations in democratic societies, chilling citizens’ willingness to turn out for political events and undermining our core freedoms of assembly and expression.

Similarly, companies may use facial recognition to make decisions without human intervention that affect our eligibility for credit, jobs or purchases.

All these scenarios raise important questions of privacy, free speech, freedom of association and even life and liberty.

If we don’t stop or regulate it now, it will be more difficult to reel in after it’s already deployed on every lamppost.

The government needs to play an important role in regulating facial recognition technology.

As a general principle, it seems more sensible to ask an elected government to regulate companies than to ask unelected companies to regulate such a government.

After all, even if one or several tech companies alter their practices, problems will remain if others do not. There will always be debates about the details, and the details matter greatly.

The surveillance data can be deeper and more extensive than any of us understand, “trade a little of your privacy and we’ll keep you safer” motto.

You could say that education is the crux to this resistance and once society recognizes the overwhelming benefits offered as a result of facial recognition we will be able to move past the mental hurdles.

But the ability to use the cloud to connect all this data and facial recognition technology with live cameras that capture images of people’s faces and seek to identify them – in more places and in real-time will lead to a gender and racial bias developing because some facial recognition technology will not like you at the moment of recognition.

Facial recognition will require the public and private sectors alike to step up – and to act as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union.

It seems especially important to pursue thoughtful government regulation of facial recognition technology, given its broad societal ramifications and potential for abuse.

Today’s advanced facial recognition in the 21st century comes along with deep learning.

The algorithm compares different facial features as against an image encompassed within a database. It calculates facial parameters such as mouth, nose, eyes, lips and their relative intensity.

So smile.  You might see what is under the  – A human.

We’re Being Blinded to the Danger of Facial Recognition. A perpetual lineup.

If we don’t implement legal restrictions on face recognition, the future looks

like a Chinese-style surveillance state, one that violates our right to privacy,

our right to anonymity in public, and our right to free speech.

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