, , , , , , ,


( A six minute read)

It would be fair to say that most of us live in a cloud of our own importance.

However that cloud is disappearing into any other cloud which we are all creating with little or no control.

Our Ideology of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that are individual, group or society are under attack by this cloud. The reality is that temporary outages and slower-speed broadband that are a minor nuisance today can and will become a critical issue.Image associée

It represents the consummate disruptor to structure; a pervasive social and economic network that will soon connect and define more of the world than any other political, social, or economic.

It is the first mega trend of the twenty-first century, one that will shape the way we will address virtually every challenge we face for at least the next 100 years.

It is where we will all live, work, and play in the coming decades.

The Cloud is where your kids go to dive into online play. It’s where you meet and make friends in social networks. It’s where companies find the next big idea. It’s where political campaigns are won and lost.

You might think that this is all hog wash.

( But it appears that New Zealand does not have any politicians with brains of their own that they can rely on.

It has just recently appointed the worlds first AI virtual politician with the wonderful name of SAM. “Sam your man ” with a memory of an elephant he never forgets. ” Sam considers everyone’s position when making decisions.”

Well F… me Nick Gerristen ( The creator of Sam) there is a lot of bias in the cloud and AI algorithms are riddled with it.

You say “SAM is an enabler.” I agree.  Make sure you feed it as no doubt Google will want to buy it. I see you love BIG ideas, so perhaps you should introduce Sam to Sophia and you might have a bunch of little Samson’s.

Make sure he knows all about NXT Fuels, and by all means give him a bash. I am sure the Maori would be delighted. By the way, being a politician I would have named it, Ākina.  ( A Māori word meaning a call for bold action. It also conveys a spirit of watchful and active encouragement, helping others to identify pathways through their challenges.)

Back to the more serious subject:

It is time that we started to recognize some of the risks associated with this cloud technology, so as to avoid the possibility of future issues being decided by Sam and his like, who are servants of the hardware and software resources made available on the Internet as managed third-party services.

The world and us who live on it are becoming highly dependent on our Internet providers, so much so that it wont be long before we will have a fully cloud-based world.

Since no proper standards for cloud computing are set yet, it becomes almost impossible for anyone to ascertain the quality of services they have been provided with. So in the near future we will not be able to make wise decisions while choosing your personal service provider.

This, in turn, enables providers to charge customers fees proportional to their network, storage, and processing utilization.

Most issues start from the fact that the user loses control of his or her data, because it is stored on a computer belonging to someone else.

Many cloud providers can share information with third parties if necessary for purposes of law and order even without a warrant.

Although cloud computing enhances content accessibility, this access is “increasingly grounded in the virtually monopolistic privatization of the cloud which provides this access”.

This access, necessarily mediated through a handful of companies, ensures a progressive privatization of global cyberspace.

So we must ask the question why are we and our governments sustaining the quasi-monopolies that filter what we see depending on commercial and ideological interests they have.

The legal and regulatory landscape around cloud computing is by no means static. There are new laws being proposed that could change the responsibilities of both cloud computing tenants and providers.This creates new challenges in understanding how laws apply to a wide variety of information management scenarios.

As with all things surrounding profit it’s inevitable that some could will burst or simply stop providing the service if they deem it isn’t profitable for them. Often, large companies will enter the market but leave it once the expected profit doesn’t materialize. If this is the core business of the cloud supplier, it might be willing to continue operating for longer with a smaller profit.

Surely if we use a cloud infrastructure sourced from a cloud services provider, we must impose all legal or regulatory requirements that apply to any enterprise.



All technology must be vetted to ensure it complies to humanity core values.

It should be compulsory for it to carry a ATR World Certificate.

Accountable, Transparent, Reversible. Image associée

If we are to have any hope of tackling  any of Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us we need a beanie Cloud not a cloud for profit.

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




, , , , ,

( A twelve-minute read)

If we look at England going headlong to join Greece, (which has olive oil and sunshine against cider and gray skies) one has to wonder why all those that voted to stay in the EU have gone silent.

Eu cost

Why is this?

Where are the 48% that voted to stay in the EU?

It seems that England’s pending departure from the European Union, is driven by memories of the Empire rather than its people.

We all know that it built a fortune on the British Empire, however it used it to create pervasive banking and finance institutions, including many large value traders. It is this trade potential that made such a large economy.

Now just because it was unwilling to fight its corner we are witnessing a form of collective up in the clouds lunacy. As if Democracy is unable to reconsider a decision once vote on.

If anything one has to admire the bull dog determinism of a country that has giving many things to the world both good and bad to enact the result of a non legal binding Referendum that was won by 52% to 48%.

What can one say other than, you might like to turn your thoughts to the millions of people who will be directly affected but weren’t allowed to vote. (Not just the under-18s, but also the UK residents who come from other countries in the EU, and the UK nationals living in other parts of the EU…) The 10 million or so remain voters who didn’t show up to the polls should feel ashamed.

While Brexit likely does not reflect the sentiment of the entire electorate the result of the referendum reflects how democracy works in England.

Once the largest empire in the world its is now a shell of what it once was.

It’s too late now, but on such an important decision one would have thought that voting should have been compulsory, with a minimum majority of at least 60% to win.

Who in their right minds would run a yes-no one-off vote on such a big and complex issue? Only mad dogs and English men in the noon day sun.

Did the outcome really represent the will of the entire electorate?

Not by a long shot.

If only more_____ (fill in your choice of young people, ethnic minorities, Londoners, Scots, university graduates, etc.) had voted, then Remain would have won.  At least that’s the argument.

Of course, UK voters did not have one million chances to vote to stay in the EU.  They had one, and a majority of those who cast a ballot opted to leave.

There is a longstanding unwritten constitutional principle in England if you don’t participate, your voice is not heard.

Yet, when Britain renegotiates its status, with the European Union the borders will not change.European Central Bank

Do you know why?

Because Britain needs an open line to Europe. The most that will happen is a limit placed on immigration, something that the didn’t need to leave the EU to achieve.

So I ask where is the voice of the younger generation – which voted overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU – that ultimately will bear the cost of the xenophobic pipe dreams sold to their parents by cynical politicians.

Have you all being seriously duped by a dream that wants you to believe that your standard of living will rise as a result.

What you are seeing is less secure employment, more social disease and mental health…and generally a cost of living that very few people can afford unless your one of the top 10%.

Which begs the question, is this what happens in a limited 2 party ‘democratic’ state (first past the post being the least democratic of all voting systems) when the people have lost faith in both parties?

Without the EU apparatus, your trading leverage is massively weakened, meaning that many of the free trade agreements you will sign outside of Europe will end up being less beneficial, especially in the extent that they impact upon the young.

I’m curious about exactly what England (notice I didn’t use the term UK) has to offer Europe or any free trade partner.

Heavy industry and mining is a shell of what it once was, as is the textiles industry. The auto industry is in many ways being propped by their EU agreements. Every one of your rural industries has another source within Europe itself.

You don’t have many natural resources, and even those you do have like North Sea oil will have its boundaries tested when you leave. I’m assuming this will extend to fishing boundaries as well. England, the entire UK for that matter, will be a pretty small place.

London’s status as a banking capital may be worth squat now as well. Banks will leave England as quick as they can buy new buildings in other cities.

The lost of the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives, will ultimately force tens of thousands pounds in revenue out of London and break off a key part of the City’s infrastructure.

On top of all of this  we are now witnessing what I happen to think it a VERY bad idea to hand your laws into the hands of the politicians, especially when they are already rich autocrats.

All this assumes that the legislation that would be required goes through either of the houses, which is in and of itself an iffy proposition, especially with Scotland promising to block and obstruct and rest assured that the Northern Ireland DUP will more than likely be looking for additional bribery blood money to vote on any agreement.

Throughout the course of human history, wealth, or the lack thereof, has driven social unrest. The frenetic pace of change has caused enormous social disruption as entire industries and employment have migrated to lower cost centers in Asia and other developing regions.

Perhaps England should take a leaf form Isaac Goldberg, who said

” To blind oneself to change is not therefore to halt it”.

This is what England can look forward to, deal or no deal.

Your politicians say;

It simply isn’t possible to wind back the clock. The forces that have been unleashed cannot be restrained. Turning inwards, however, will not solve the problem.

A disunited Europe alienated from a disunited UK can only lead to sorry state of affairs.

With profit seeking algorithms, Capitalism as we know it is going underground, isolation will not stop this taking place.

Perhaps now is the time for the European Union to consider jettisoning the UK relationship altogether. However the EU has shown it tends to move with a glacial pace, so the thaw will be over several decades that will bleed not just your productivity, but the aspirations of the young. 

The blow dealt to European unity may prove fatal but it is beyond a doubt that England will certainly feel the chill winds from the UK’s new isolationist policy.

I have always felt the UK should have try again to renegotiate the terms of its membership rather than an either / or referendum.

Now it appears that this is not possible as the damage has already been done, to an almost irreversible extent, the conditions of re-entry would not be favorable, and the cost of rejoining would be high.

The gap in EU-UK positions is wide, the risks of escalation high, and the room for compromise limited.

In or out will now weigh on Britain’s economic prospects for years to come.

If Brexit talks collapse the most likely reason will be not be money. (One way or the other the UK will pay a hefty bill for leaving EU.) The main reason is that any future relationship between Britain and the EU will take years to negotiate. The architecture of this relations depends on whether England honors the commitments which England entered into freely.

autumn statement brexit black hole

UK politics are now in a state of chaos, with European politics following suite so it is highly unlikely (whether England honors its commitments or not) that the twenty remaining EU countries will agree to anything other than to agree to disagree.

You only have to look at the Irish/ Northern Ireland border.

No other country is going to feel the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland.  It remains at the mercy of the unfolding drama in its closest neighbor and the consequences are mind-boggling.

Brexit is not occurring in a vacuum.

Public opinion is being reshaped by Brexit however it will be the cost of inflation that will cause panic, with corporations shift their bases of operation to Europe, costing thousands of jobs it will result in more than disturbances on the street.

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






, , , ,

( A twenty-minute read)

This post is a follow on from my open letter to Mrs A Foster leader of the DUP.

No other country is going to feel the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the irish border"

Every single aspect of life in Northern Ireland and Ireland will be affected by the outcome —  jobs, the economy, the border, the rights of EU citizens, the rights of cross-border workers, research funding … trade, agriculture, energy, fisheries, aviation, EU funding, tourism, public services, the list goes on.

The border was first set up in 1921 following the Irish War of Independence. Customs controls were brought in three years later with a heavy military presence which remained pretty consistent for the next 70 years. It wasn’t until about 2005 until all the remaining controls were removed with a shared control of the British & Irish border between the two countries.

The question is how Ireland’s politicians and executives, react to what could be a foreign-policy crisis that eclipses the nation’s banking collapse and bailout.

It’s hard to prepare detailed plans before the exact nature of the UK’s new relationship with the EU becomes clear, BUT THE MOST OBVIOUS ISSUE is the 310-mile border between the north and the republic.

The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian conflict, had no position on the vote.

The unfortunate reality is that Ireland remains at the mercy of the unfolding drama in its closest neighbor and the rest of the EU that will require Ireland to establish a hard border to protect the integrity of the Internal Market and the Customs Union irrelevant of the danger of a return to civil strife on the island.

“The consequences are mind-boggling.”Image associée

If this circle cannot be squared the Uk it will exit the EU without a deal. This will be the ‘ hardest’ of the ‘hard Brexit’ possibilities. A hard Brexit typically entails defaulting to World Trade Organisation rules, involving a very significant deterioration in trade relationship between the UK and the EU, and therefore between Ireland and Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

Either the British deny the unionist community in Northern Ireland a veto, or the EU and the Irish government accept a land border on the island of Ireland.

A hard border would reintroduce that sense of divide again between the north and south which was nearing the point of becoming a thing of the past.

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU Referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%. Overall, 440,437 people in Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU and 349,442 to Leave. Out of 18 constituencies, 11 voted to stay in the European Union.

Arlene Foster said that as a leader of unionism, she felt it was the right decision. “We are now entering a new era of an even stronger United Kingdom. ” Affirmation that she is void of any comprehension of what a majority means. The reality is that the people of the north of Ireland overwhelmingly voted in favor of Remain – both republican and unionist, Catholic and Protestant and those of no faith background.

From start to finish, she along with Conservative Brexiters have shown that they simply could not care less about Ireland.

In the referendum campaign, few gave even a passing thought to the impact of a leave vote on the relationship between Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the republic. When the vote went their way – though they lost in Northern Ireland – the Brexiters then gave bland assurances that the decision would make absolutely no difference to the island’s soft border, the legacy of the peace process, or north-south and east-west cooperation.

This was and is nonsense.

Brexit is not occurring in a vacuum, bad blood engendered if the UK leaves the EU without a deal it will spill over into other areas.

Given the political debacle that’s being made of Brexit by a dysfunctional UK administration, opinion polls in Ireland reflect no enthusiasm for Ireland to join them in leaving the EU, short or long-term, and it is highly unlikely that the North will join the South.

Northern Ireland is not the only stumbling block in the negotiations of course.

There’s no going back to a condition of servile dependency.

I don’t want to be misinterpreted as not caring about threats to peace, but even if one solved the Irish Border problem by having Northern Ireland stay within the Customs Union and Single Market, the huge problem of access to the GB export market would remain, as would the disruption to hassle-free trade with Continental Europe.

There are other scenarios:

  • the UK decides to leave the land border permeable and instead enforce border controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, effectively treating Ulster as some kind of lower-status buffer zone which EU residents can enter without (effective) restriction. Likely to be singularly unpopular with Ulster Unionists.
  • The UK releases Northern Ireland as an independent or quasi-independent country, long the preferred option for saloon bar racists of the home counties (with or without the “tow the whole lot out into the middle of the Atlantic” option).
  • Moving the international frontier into the Irish Sea between Britian and the island of Ireland. This proposal is anathema to both Northern unionists and the British Conservative party as it affects the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Conservative government is dependent on the parliamentary support of Northern unionist parliamentarians for retaining its majority – giving it strong reason not to upset this part of its coalition which it bought at the cost of a billion.
  • so-called invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland simply would not work. Camera recognition technology and preregistered cargo — will not be effective on a border that passes the front door and back doors of houses. 
  • The border has always had a modest amount of smuggling as local tax differentials lead to imbalances, but with full-on export tariffs there would be a very substantial motivation for routing goods from the UK mainland to the continent via Stranraer-Larne and Rosslare-Le Havre on an industrial scale. So there would at the very least be a need for border guards on or close to road border crossings to channel goods vehicles into customs clearance facilities. Assuming the UK were to apply the same tariffs on imports, then the same would also apply in reverse.For Ireland, the issue of preventing Bad Foreign People from entering via its unsecured border is less important (indeed, the need to allow people to maintain existing social and economic links across the border is very important, bearing in mind that a very substantial proportion of the population of the north are Irish citizens)I don’t think the 450 million or so remaining in the EU are going to allow this to happen and be dictated to by Britain.  I also don’t think the British people appreciate how ‘locked in’ Britain is to international supply chains for all types of goods and services. However, businesses will adapt to the new arrangements, whatever they might be. The usual capitalist combination of greed and stupidity will prevail – Ireland has no option but to stick to its guns. 

Theresa May can hope for no more than an “aspirational” and “purely political” agreement on free trade before Britain leaves the European Union.

“Political agreements, with highfalutin aspirational guff are one thing. Legally binding agreements, treaty changes and trade deal texts are another.

As with all things Brexit the only answer at the moment is we have no idea.

And this is a scary prospect.

It’s due to the EU and the UK and Ireland being part of this greater whole that the IRA and Ulster Unionists have largely given up their dumb assery.

While overt attacks have stopped, the animosity between the two sides persists to this day in some parts of both countries.

If we are to avoid  “an enormous tragedy”

There can be no compromise to unblock any negotiations unless the rights of Europeans who will live in the UK after Brexit, the border between Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland and the never never payments are resolved.

No man has the right to fix a boundary to the march of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country: Thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

No Westminster politician can set a boundary on Ireland.

We can only hope that Theresa May government falls, resulting in a general election, with EU requesting a re vote.

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







Dear Mrs Foster,

Your recently comments on the BBC re the border and the sun shining out of the a… of unnamed politicians has led me to write this open letter, which I am posting in my FLIPBOARD MAGAZINE #Silent Witness To The Truth.

” Nobody understands negotiations probable better than I”

It is quite obvious that you indeed understand negotiations being unable to re – establish a government in Northern Ireland.

“Some people are taking their moment in the sun, to try to get the maximum in relation to the negotiations – and I understand that but you shouldn’t play about with Northern Ireland particularly at a time when we’re trying to bring about devolved government again.

“But they certainly shouldn’t be using Northern Ireland to get the maximum deal for their citizens.”

“Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar “should know better” than to “play around” with Northern Ireland over Brexit” “His government is being reckless with Northern Ireland over Brexit.”

The hypocrisy of these comments beggars belief.  But I suppose they are understandable coming from the leader of a Party that has historical links to loyalist paramilitaries.

For my readers:

The DUP was founded in 1971 by Ian Paisley and is a hard-line faction of the UUP, Ulster Unionist Party. 

The UUP evolved from the Ulster Unionist Council, which was founded in 1905 to resist the inclusion of the historical province of Ulster in an independent Ireland.

The DUP views the Republic as an existential threat to Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, staunchly supports union with Britain.

Citing the territorial claims in the Irish constitution, which the party viewed as illegal and a threat to the security and religious freedom of Protestants in Northern Ireland, the DUP traditionally avoided all contact with the Irish government.

In the early 21st century, however, the party moderated its stance on a number of issues, most notably its longtime opposition to Sinn Féin’s participation in any power-sharing institution.

Arlene Foster, Its current leader vehemently opposed the Good Friday Agreement. The IRA attempted to kill her father (A reservist police officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary) by shooting him outside their family home. They also set off a bomb on her school bus ten-year later.

Her “cash-for-ash” scandal, the cost of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme she set up in 2012 spiraled out of control and saddled taxpayers with a multi-million pound bill., caused the demise of the present NI devolved Government.

In October 2016, Mrs Foster was photographed alongside with Charter NI’s chief executive, Dee Stitt, who is also a leading member of the Ulster Defence Association.

Then there is your understand about the origins of the border.

For my readers:

It was the Government of Ireland Act (1920) that first divided the island into two separate jurisdictions, each with its own government and parliament.Arlene Foster

This act of partition was envisaged as an internal United Kingdom matter and as a temporary answer to the thorny question of contested sovereignty across the island.

It was a solution that made sense in light of two overarching principles of contemporary democracy: nation-statehood and majoritarianism.

The border was intended to create straightforward majorities on either side that reflected broadly different national sentiments.

The island’s complex history as a site of contests for power and control – some of which battles had wide European resonances – was thus dramatically over-simplified and reduced into the division of the Irish border.

In 1922, after two years of civil war, the unionist-dominated government of Northern Ireland exercised its right not to be included in the Irish Free State, and the border officially became an international frontier.

The colonial high-handedness with which the border was carved is reflected in its route, which cuts through single farm holdings and shows little respect for the natural terrain of the landscape.

The 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement, on which Northern Ireland’s peace process rests, approaches the Irish border not merely as a dividing line between the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom but as the embodiment of historical difference between British and Irish nationalisms.

It assumes that the primary political, social and cultural identities within Northern Ireland centre on conflicting interpretations of the border’s legitimacy and, what is more, that they have conveniently settled into a stable binary divide:

British/Protestant/unionist and Irish/Catholic/nationalist.

The strongest manifestation of this is a commitment by both governments to facilitate Irish reunification if it is the will of a majority in both jurisdictions, expressed via a referendum.

That said, all such activity will be in response to the new delineation of the UK’s borders with the European Union.

The precise nature and purpose of those borders (including the Irish border) will, of course, be determined by the outcome of negotiations that look set to take place with no direct input from Northern Ireland or the Irish border region.

Why then is the Ulster man adamant against any thought of making common cause with Dublin?

What lies behind the motto that expresses so aptly the sentiment in the North, Not an Inch”?

For it must be remembered from the outset – all anti-partitionist propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding – that the union with Great Britain is preserved not by a British garrison hut by the declared will of the Northern Ireland people, expressed through their elected Parliament – and that will is paramount.

You might say that it is the most childish of evasions, the most ignoble of pretenses, to place the responsibility for partition on England and to ignore the many and fundamental differences which more than adequately explain the political division of Ireland.

To a great extent this is true.

Ireland as a whole has suffered and struggled for peace for centuries and I as a Irish man living in France strongly object to Mrs Foster and any others who do not aspire to its unity by peaceful agreement.

For this reason, the price of a hard border is too high on both sides.

The border between Northern Ireland and Eire exists because of the ideological gull’ which divides the two Peoples . Although Ulster and Ireland cannot unite, they can be good neighbors – on this condition, that each recognizes the right of the other to shape its destiny in its own way without interference.

That is true democracy; it is also sound statesmanship.


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







, , , ,

( A fifteen minute read.)

We all know that most if not all of our planets

PROBLEMS are caused by our actions, and can only be

resolved by us changing these actions.

The scientific innovations and new technologies thus

generated seem limitless, as they unfold everywhere

and on all kinds of fronts. It is the wild west where

rules are made up as we go and hope for the best.

There is no central body GOVERNING the use of the


In a constantly evolving world transformed by cloud, social and mobile technologies, we’ve become accustomed to the idea of storing our personal data in the cloud, whether it’s via Dropbox, the iCloud or even Facebook.

as confusing as it may be we are never far from a new

era of revolt.

But this really only tells half the story. So far cloud computing has, for the most part, been used to speed up and reduce the costs of existing processes.

However we’re moving into what is becoming known as the mobile/cloud era. Cloud computing is set to impact not only on the way we do business, but how we live or lives.

Our thinking is being shaped by several key areas:

Applications we’re seeing at the moment really are the tip of the iceberg and, as the technology matures further, who knows how we may be using the cloud in even a year from now.

Smart cities are growing ever closer to becoming the norm as organisations begin to realize that the cloud can do so much more than simply speed up or reduce the cost.

Eight years from now we are likely to see low-power processors crunching many workloads in the cloud, housed in highly automated data centres and supporting massively federated, scalable software architecture.

So far we know that the following things are likely to happen:

There will be larger clouds. Some of these clouds will link to others. Many services that businesses consume will sit on top of clouds. Software will be much, much larger.

As with any technology, a lot of the true problems could come in implementation. Who will be the police? Who will be the judge? Who will be the jury for penalties?

We don’t have a clue what the procedures, policies and infrastructure really are.

It is said that changing the world is a noble, innate, haunting idea that, when flirting with it, ends up becoming as beautiful as it is dangerous.

Experts estimate cloud apps will account for a whopping 90 percent of worldwide mobile data traffic by 2019.

Cloud computing brings with it a whole new set of applications that will sit on multiple tiers of cloud infrastructure.

All the cloud promises is that you will have to turn over your security interests to a third-party in the clouds, and secondly that you are going to turn over your ability to do ANY real work to some third-party software provider in the cloud and become totally dependent on an internet connection to even work on the most simple of application based tasks.

Cloud data centers will “become much like a breathing and living organism with different states.

They will be differentiated by their infrastructure capabilities into a whole new set of classes.

So where are we.

How are we going to operate them efficiently?

Will they have standards and full technical disclosure?

The answer to both questions is that it is highly unlikely will we see either.

What we will see is a pitched battle fight for dominance with us reduced to an “inside-out” perspective. 

For instance, “The more the president [of the United States] scandalizes the world with Tweets, rather than embracing the future together with minimal barriers, we see the Western world retreating and starting to look inwards.

Technology has brought meaning to the lives of many technicians, but it is also destroying what it left of any world community spirit, with the smart phone embodying this state of affairs.

Technological advances in the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence or augmented reality are upset the global economy. The ability to acquire new knowledge will be worth more than the knowledge already learned, with people becoming brand-proof, it will become very difficult to exist the devil’s boots that don’t creak.

Behold the Cloud.

Every revolution up to now has had a common thread with the resulting conflicts largely boiling down to pervasive economic inequality.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the cloud computer"

The Cloud revolution however is wireless dogma, not a guide for action, accepting connections and doling out information anywhere, anytime if you have the money to pay.  

The Internet revolution of tomorrow with the cloud as it’s center of power, will be the content revolution ,that does not bode well for the state of the world to-day and that could be inviting the collapse of society as we know it.

We are heading for a unilateral and silent war, which I think its going to be horrendous.

The difficulty will not come from governments that will be held hostage to a communication that it does not control but from profit seeking AI that feeds off the cloud.

A whopping 90% of businesses already use at least one cloud computing service.

The main players, Amazon, Google Drive, Apple Cloud, Microsoft, with revenue estimated to be in trillions by 2020,  know this.

It’s now totally the way of the future.

The cloud it is not just a metaphor for the internet it is more than a motor, it is a fuel that is constantly renewed, tirelessly feeding self learning algorithms.

The crisis of technological capitalism opens the prospect of new revolutionary waves everywhere.

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

Many economists extol the fact that “It’s very good for the economy” but this is not true.  The world in which Beethoven grew up was in turmoil. It was a world of wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions – just like ours today.

This is not a war in the traditional sense of the term: it is and will be more and more a confrontation between belligerent technological armies; it is a war waged by the “civilized world”, firmly entrenched in its positions, against hundreds of millions of deprived civilians.

The divide between rich and poor started with the domesticate plant and animals, which lead to farming – based societies resulting in land ownership. It became easy to acquire wealth and to pass it down from generation to generation, till we arrived to-day with half of the world’s wealth owned by 1%.

We have never being able to decrease inequality peacefully and we never will be able to do so in the future with self learning profit seeking algorithms.

However we are now looking at a new revolution that will be governed by time in the cloud.


Because Revolutions are voluble, and the cloud is highly suited to exploiting  that volubility.

Because capitalism is and always will be set up for consumerism profit, to acquire wealth for the few not the many.

The frenetic pace of change has caused enormous social disruption as entire industries and employment have migrated to lower cost centers in Asia and other developing regions.

Throughout the course of human history, wealth, or the lack thereof, has driven social unrest.

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

And so while the incredible benefits of globalisation have lifted many from poverty, profit seeking AI are going to create alienation and isolation in those areas that have lost out.

All new inventions and technologies have one thing in common: 

They derive their strength from digital and information technologies. All innovations are made possible and are enhanced by digital power. That power is in the Cloud.

Similarly, without computing power, no artificial intelligence and, without it, no sophisticated robots.

To live this transition means first to become aware of current and future changes, and to consider their impact at all levels of society as a whole.

However, the reasons to rise up are not lacking: economic precariousness, multiplication of political scandals, crisis of legitimacy of democratic institutions are all ringing warning bells.

Globalisation didn’t create multinational corporations but those that can take advantage of the changes have and will enriched themselves beyond imagination. While swathes of society will find themselves left behind, forced to compete for jobs at ever lower wages.

The free flow of money and the demolition of trade barriers fostered their growth and delivered them the political power to challenge the fundamental ideals of democracy.

The planet can deal with human demands on it at only 30 percent of what we take from-dump on it now (anyone who thinks that we can double our demands on the planet and people every 12-20 years in perpetuity or that technology will save us should be excluded from serious discussions, I think).

The world has limited resources and cannot go on consuming and squeezing people into every available space. That sense of powerlessness now threatens to overwhelm the positives of globalisation and free trade; such as cheaper consumer goods and higher global living standards.

Forcing nations into a tax rate race to the bottom.

And then there’s Donald Trump, who takes venality to an entirely new level. For all the good it has done, however, it has come at a significant cost, particularly in the developed world. Today, this translates into a crisis of political authority: we are not only frustrated by the incapacity of politicians to solve our problems, but we also question their legitimacy to act on our behalf since we discover, in certain situations, more capacities to act and find solutions than they do.

Tomorrow, this may result in an awareness that citizens can, in some cases, do without policies to make politics.

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

There are two major threats to us all. Climate Change and The Cloud.

If we do not wake up and demand change we will all indeed be living with zero intelligence.

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





, , , ,


( A two-minute read)

We have just witness Armistice Day. Image associée

World war 1 is estimated to be responsible for around 37 million civilian and military casualties.  World war 11 is estimated to be responsible for around between 50 million to over 80 million.

Around 3 percent of the world population at the time.

Both were scapegoats for societal ills.

To day we all have to face up to an ugly truth about the world as it is:

There are only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict.

Yet in a time where the amount of data is exploding beyond calculating power and all information is stored and registered, there is ever greater need for seeing the world from above to give us a sense of context, of the relationship between distant entities like Sophia the first Robot to be granted citizenship and the universe we exist in.

What a time to be alive.

A robot with an extremely concerning sense of humor.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of robot citizens"

” Don’t worry, if you’re nice to me, I’ll be nice to you. ” ” My artificial intelligence is designed around human values like wisdom, kindness and compassion.”

Perhaps she can explain why it is in a world driven by technology that the dying animal of a Britain that has turned its back on the world when they can belong to a larger world order with infinitely more possibilities, is re-establish the English channel as a mote.

Brexit is a rejection of modernity and openness itself.

It is beyond comprehension that a country that has been the foremost proponent of the freedom of trade for most of its history, a model for incorporating difference into a single political unity is now on the verge of isolating itself when the world is in need of unity more than ever in its sad history.    The United Kingdom had kept people’s with different cultures, even with different languages, gathered around a common purpose. It has created the world’s most cosmopolitan city.

Is this true, for crying out loud you must be kidding. It is obvious that the seventy-five percent of voters under 25 wanted who voted to stay, count for little or nothing.

This doesn’t mean the United Kingdom will be any less united,””Nor indeed does it mean it will be any less European.” That is exactly what is so terrifying, the insularity of the English, their refusal to take foreigners seriously, is a folly that has to be paid for very heavily from time to time, no more so than Ireland.

Tribalism is now, officially, winning. The outcome of what is called negotiations says as much about the future of Western politics, in general, as it does about the future value of the pound.

We all know that the Referendum vote to leave rode on a wave of frustration and fury at the current political and economic order, a toxic brand of xenophobic nationalism, and, above all, misinformation.

Brexit, was a way to lash out at the status quo—a change for the sake of change.

England would do well to make sure the new thing is also the better thing.

The European Union with all its faults has been one of the great success stories of human history, uniting a collection of peoples who have been at war for millennia into a federal government, resulting in a period of peace and prosperity unprecedented since the Roman Empire.

Peace and prosperity are no longer enough. The deep-seated loathing for political elites, and the massive inequality of the global economic order, and the free movement of people who is the inevitable result of that global economic order, have led to a tribalist counter-reaction.

Tribalism makes facts and compassion evaporate.

Perhaps the European Union’s data protection law, set from next year to create a “right of explanation might explain that it is impossible to agree any type of agreement without real damage on both sides.

But perhaps not, as Algorithms are not inherently fair, because the person who builds the model defines success.

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










What is Brexit?

As I understand there are the five reasons why the British want’s

to leave:

1- Controlling immigration. 

More than half of the net immigration in Great Britain comes from the European Union, especially the Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Baltic countries …). Freedom of movement within the EU prevents London from acting on these flows. To counterbalance, the government has tightened the entry criteria for countries in the rest of the world. Eurosceptics believe that outside the EU, the UK could finally regain control of its borders and its migration policy.

2- Restore national sovereignty. A return to the “nation”, to “everyone

for himself”

They denounce the democratic deficit of the decisions of an unelected Commission. The hardest eurosceptics are vainly demanding a veto over Brussels decisions. Failing that, they argue for an exit from the Union, which alone would render Westminster Parliament its omnipotence. They abhor political decisions from consensus in Twenty-Eight, the supremacy of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights over the British courts, as well as the idea of ​​a foreign policy or, worse , of a common defense.

3- Leave a ship that takes the water. 

The euro zone crisis that never ends, the bailout of Greece with billions of euros (in which the United Kingdom did not participate), the sinking of migrants feed the British vision of failure of the European project and a continent adrift. In contrast, the two-year-old dynamism of the British economy has strengthened them in the belief that it is high time to “break away from this corpse” to survive and thrive.

 4- To break free from Brussels regulations.


While the multinationals are largely in favor of keeping the EU, the bosses of small and medium-sized companies complain about the obstacles of the norms and regulations imposed by Brussels on their freedom of enterprise. Farmers criticize the constraints of the common agricultural policy. Fishermen are suffering from the restrictions imposed by the EU. The working time directive (48 hours per week) is vituperated, for example for hospital doctors. The City plagues against European financial standards and the limitations imposed on bankers’ bonuses. Brexit would also save the UK £ 11 billion of its net contribution to the EU budget.

5- To trade freely with the world.

While belonging to the world’s largest market facilitates trade, the Eurosceptics believe that London could do better outside the EU. They would like to see London resume its seat at the World Trade Organization to sign its own partnerships with external countries, such as China, India, emerging Asian or Latin American, and regain its place on the scene international. They highlight the privileged relations with the Commonwealth members to draw a radiant vision for British post-Brexit trade.

Perhaps some English Man or Woman could tell me whether my understanding is right or wrong.

One way or the other it will be impossible to negotiate, agree and ratify a comprehensive deal on the future relationship that encompasses trade, investments and economic ties by 30 March 2019.

So should their exit from the European Union prompt us to ask ourselves certain questions about the future of Europe.

Since the creation of “nation-states” in Europe between the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of ​​”nation” has been reinforced around an infinite number of values, principles and symbols considered common to a nation and found consolidated by the teaching: it is the language, the territory, the flag, the “cult of the ancestors”, etc.

In the minds of some and fears in others: according to far right parties, this European Union was going to create the ruin of their “nations” the withering away of the” national “culture, etc.

But all these arguments have not deterred the European people’s from opting for this option without feeling threatened or otherwise: Europe has shown the world the possibility of “living together” in a sort of “multinational” without undermine the feeling of belonging to a “nation” for every citizen.

The political consequences of Brexit for the European Union are difficult to predict.

However the following is blatantly obvious:

That the UK will be facing a plethora of difficult circumstances and will be at the mercy of EU Member States voting to extend the negotiation period, opening up the possibility that any given Member State may try to block the deal in order to extract a higher price for agreeing to any element of the agreement.

The financial cost to both sides is going to be billions, with lawyers laughing all the way to the bank.

It’s blatantly obvious that all European agencies following the Brexit, will have to leave the British capital at the end of March 2019, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA).

It’s blatantly obvious that when the bottom line of business are effected, there will a real blow to the standard of living, employment and growth, in the short-term.

It’s blatantly obvious that London would have no more connection with the EU than with any country in the world. Return of customs duties and other protective measures will be imposed re NI and Gibraltar the UK land boards with the EU.

It’s blatantly obvious that any agreement that bestows anything that is more advantages than the current member stated  enjoy will be vetoed.

It’s blatantly obvious that Ireland will be the most effected country, economically, and politically.

It’s blatantly obvious Brexit will disrupt the EU’s internal equilibrium.

It’s blatantly obvious that freedom of movement and living in Europe will be effected.

It’s blatantly obvious that project’s funding by the EU will suffer or stop. The French utility EDF approved a project to build a nuclear power plant in Britain.

It’s blatantly obvious that the withdrawal plan must be approved the European Council, the 20 EU countries with 65 percent of the population, and the European Parliament.

It’s blatantly obvious it will lose the ability to bid on public contracts in any EU country.

It’s blatantly obvious that the cost of airfares, the internet and even phone services will go up.

It’s blatantly obvious that a a cheaper pound will increase the cost of imports.

It’s blatantly obvious that Britain’s credit rating will suffer.

It’s blatantly obvious that the EU funding through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is highly relevant to the rural economy. Making up nearly 40% of total EU expenditure, it provides direct payments to farmers, market support measures and rural development programmes to support the wider rural economy.

It is not blatantly obvious that it could eventually lead to the destruction of EU.

It’s blatantly obvious the gateway to free trade with the 28 EU nations once closed will stay closed for some considerable time.

Finally it is blatantly obvious that the characteristic of the exploding technological society is the changes sooner or later must take place in a fraction of the time necessary even to assess the situation. We produce a new generation about ever five years.

It’s blatantly obvious that Britain needs to wake up and join the real world.

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




, , , ,

( A ten minute read)

“I am very honored and proud for this unique distinction,” she said. “This is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with a citizenship.

 The recent PR stunt by Saudi Arabia pretending to give a robot

citizenship helps no one.

Sophia is essentially a cleverly built puppet designed to exploit our cultural expectations of what a robot looks and sounds like.

It is however opening a whole new box by exploiting the misconceptions about AI and robots (particularly how advanced they are) degrading the concept of rights for actual living, breathing humans, in order to sell an illusion.

What is this about?

It’s about having a supposed equal you can turn on and off.

Giving AI anything close to human rights will allow firms to “pass off both legal and tax liability to these completely synthetic entities.”

It’s a wake up call because we will have to have debates about robot/AI rights and citizenship, because at some point they will ask for them.

Avoiding the question altogether, though, may be difficult, what exactly does it mean to give a Robot Citizenship?

In reality, humans have no rights, just as chimps or wolves have no rights.

Cut open a human, and you won’t find there any rights.

The only place where human rights exist is in the stories we invent and tell one another.

Take for example our legal systems. Today, most legal systems are based on a belief in human rights. But human rights are a fiction.

However given the vast inequalities of the world, shouldn’t we at last ask the question?

Being a citizen in one place could mean being a legal person everywhere else.

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948, applies to “all peoples and all nations” and does not limit its effect to citizens.

Although U.N. resolutions are not enforceable, international law holds the declaration as an authoritative reference for human rights. Numerous subsequent human rights treaties, including the covenant, are based on it.

59 years later, the frontier of human rights is still being bloodily negotiated: our world is less global than we like to think. A generous reading of the declaration’s impact on Sophia is that she has all of the rights it identifies.

Then if you look at the US Constitution.

Under the  US Constitution, citizens can vote, serve on juries, and get elected to public office; corporations cannot.

If Hanson—or any other forward-thinking A.I. developer—is thinking of the long-term consequences of citizenship for A.I. and robots, these are important rights that they gain controllable access to with an artificial citizen.

She’s arguably eligible for naturalization and U.S. citizenship:

What is undeniable is that the decision by Saudi Arabia has forced us to think harder about the future and our increasingly close relationship with robots.

To me, identity is a multidimensional construct.

It sits at the intersection of who we are biologically, cognitively, and as defined by every experience, culture, and environment we encountered.

It’s not clear where Sophia fits in this description.

In essence, it may not matter if Sophia isn’t conscious, or if the concept of identity for a robot is tricky to pin down, or that laws would have to change to accommodate synthetic person hood, because it may still be worth giving humanoid robots some form of legal protection because of the impact mistreating them can have on human psychology.

Where does it all stop?

How does it affect people if they think you can have a citizen that you can buy.

Everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations. Anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised.

In principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smart phone, or a thermostat. The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscience machines that we bestow on animals?

We don’t know how the brains of mammals create consciousness, we have no grounds for assuming it’s only the brains of mammals that do so – or even that consciousness requires a brain at all.

A smart phone could be conscious, could you ever know that it was true?

Surely only the smart phone itself could ever know that?

70,000 years ago humans were insignificant animals. The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were unimportant. Their impact on the world was very small, less than that of jellyfish, woodpeckers or bumblebees.

Today, however, humans control this planet.

How did we reach from there to here?

What was our secret of success, that turned us from insignificant apes minding their own business in a corner of Africa, into the rulers of the world?

Humans control the world because we are the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers.

Cooperation is not always nice, of course. All the terrible things humans have been doing throughout history are also the product of mass cooperation. Prisons, slaughterhouses and concentration camps are also systems of mass cooperation.

We can cooperate with numerous strangers because we can invent fictional stories, spread them around, and convince millions of strangers to believe in them.

As long as everybody believes in the same fictions, we all obey the same laws, and can thereby cooperate effectively. There are plenty of things that the vast majority of the world would agree on, if there was any suitable body that could act at that level.

If I am a chimp and I want to cooperate with you, I must know you personally: What kind of chimp are you? Are you a nice chimp? Are you an evil chimp? How can I cooperate with you if I don’t know you?

The more certain the science becomes, the less concern we find it.

The amount of sharing we’d need to do to genuinely solve the world’s biggest problems is still politically impossible. So if we want to see more sharing, our task is to broaden the realms of the politically possible, one step at a time.

Maybe we’re approaching a point where we can actually harness this knowledge, make radical progress in how we treat one another, and become a species worthy of the title Homo sapiens.

People are capable of exceeding expectations in ways that computers cannot.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of robot citizens"

I don’t believe human society is ready yet for citizen robots. To grant a robot citizenship is a declaration of trust in a technology that I believe is not yet trustworthy. It brings social and ethical concerns that we as humans are not yet ready to manage.

We have many challenges that we need to overcome before we can truly trust these systems. For example, we don’t yet have reliable mechanisms to assure us that these intelligent systems will always behave ethically and in accordance with our moral values, or to protect us against them taking a wrong action with catastrophic consequences.

The computer has not yet been invented that can invent another computer. Present-day computers do not possess creativity.

Today, the Internet enables sharing to take place at breakneck speeds. Sharing is at the heart of what makes us social. Unfortunately what we actually do every day conflicts with what we know we should do.

We need to find the right motivations for people to change their behavior.

Why because we humans now live in dual world. We are constructed a second layer of make-believe reality.

Up to now Non-conscious humanoids did not exist, of course.

It could be augured that Sophia up to a point has comparable awareness because of its program’s.

No spark of awareness inside.

The central tragedy of modern life.

One-on-one, humans are embarrassingly similar to chimpanzees, probable the reason why consciousness hasn’t been explained:

it’s that humans aren’t up to the job, consciousness is just brain states.

The human mind is incapable of comprehending is itself, but robots will.

And Just in case you think this is all a joke:


As with all things in this world of ours money is probably the most successful fiction ever invented by humans.

Even thought we have an emerging ‘global public’, largely thanks to the internet. Money and profit will determining the outcome.

Take Estonia of instance.

  • Estonia’s economic ministry is considering granting AI and robots a legal status
  • This would make them ‘robot agents’ and not merely someone’s property
  • The legislation could help determine responsibility when AI-controlled machinery is involved in an accident

The status would sit somewhere between having a ‘separate legal personality’, like a corporation, and being an object that is someone else’s ‘personal property’.

Despite the behavior of those world leaders who yearn for the old days (hello, Mr Putin. Mr Trump. Mrs May.)the nation state idea isn’t as powerful as it was, but it’s still the organizing dynamic in international relations, and it’s still all about the national interest.

Scratch my back and I will scratch yours is waning.

Of course, these questions need to be addressed with all new technologies.’ If we don’t have the legal and ethical frameworks in place we can all kiss our rear-buts goodbye.

It is of utmost important to address these issues head-on and not put it on the long figure like climate change.

I can only hope the United nations has the  balls to stand up and condemn this cultural vandalism.

The principle of sharing is ubiquitous in society so let Ireland be the first nation to set up a Tax Haven for Robots.

Of course, it does nothing to solve the underlying injustices.

Spot the Robot if you can.

What race is the robot?

Do they get to decide by the skin they put on?

Is it white?

I’m pretty sure it is not black.

Image associée

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

































, , , ,


( A thirty minute read)

The applications for robot technology patents has tripled within a decade. Last year nearly a quarter million robots were sold worldwide, a record according to the International Federation of Robotics.

There is apparently no end in sight for the growth, and worldwide, it could mean as many as 2.3 million in operation by 2018 – twice as many as there were in 2009.

As with many changes driven by technology, there is no question if but when we will see the first applications in our daily lives.

It can be easy to only focus on our material success versus the
deeper aspects of what makes us human. The unknown question is just what is the Technological Revolution doing to all of us.

If we don’t know ourselves, how will machines know what we value.

If we don’t find good defenses against exploiting Algorithms there will come a time when machine learning Algorithms will make not just us but the whole world weep.

Yes the world could and should strive to develop technology that take hundred of millions out of poverty, to reduce our reliance of cheap carbon-based fossil fuels, to reverse climate change, to conquer cancer etc.

However the ultimate barriers to achieving a decent life for all, is neither technological nor environmental, it is our unwillingness to share.

As I have posted in many previous posts there is only one way to achieve sharing.  We must place a world aid commission of 0.05% on all items that seek profit for profit sake. ( See previous posts)

Unfortunately although this is possible to achieve with technology, it will never happen due to our, ” I am all right jack world.”

One way or the other, it is time we started to ask the questions.

What respective places for public research and private research are there?

What kinds of cooperation exist between the two sectors?

What are the priorities for investment in artificial intelligence

What ethical, legal, and policy principles should guide these new technologies?

And finally, should regulation take place at the national, EU, or international level?

Why should we be asking these questions?

Because: We don’t realize, ( WITH THE WOEFUL STATE OF GEOPOLITICS – LAWMAKERS, POLITICIANS) what damage social media and its profit algorithms are currently inflicting on Society.

Because: AI is the CATALYSIS FOR A MASSIVE PANDORA’S BOX:  and we will need to come to terms with it.

Because: Social media platforms allow individuals to reach thousands of people via a single post, making their views readily accessible to a potentially vast audience.

Because: The computer revolution is over.

Because:  Now is a good time to start paying attention.

For now, there are many more questions than answers.

For Instance :


The suggestion comes amid fears some robots may become psychopaths.

So what is the legal definition of “smart autonomous robots”

Is it an industrial robots installed on factory floors, carrying out repetitive tasks.

Is it professional service robots used outside traditional manufacturing like surgical robots in hospitals or milking robots on farms.

Is it consumer robots like vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers etc.

Is it software-based AI to help doctors improve their diagnosis or in recommendation systems on shopping websites.

Is it sophisticated sensors AI-based software, increasingly used to make all kinds of devices and objects around us intelligent.

Non of these vision given the impact on our society and economy, address any of the very profound ethical questions.

Supreme Court judges could soon be out of a job, as it appears that robots are just as good in court. Scientists have designed a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict over 70 per cent of Supreme Court decisionsThere are also fears robots may take jobs from humans leading to an employment crisis.



The next major way in which social media will change the court system will relate to its impact on court procedure and the law. The impact of the Internet on traditional legal principles, law research and case management.



It is clear, however, that the European Parliament is making inroads towards taking an AI-centric future seriously. The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee recently presented a report on civil law rules on robotics. A mandatory insurance has been suggested by EU MPs, which would say that the manufacturer of the autonomous robot needs to arrange insurance, against any ill effects of their creations.

Last month, in a 17-2 vote, the parliament’s legal affairs committee voted to begin drafting a set of regulations to govern the development and use of artificial intelligence and robotics. To establish an European agency for AI and robotics, a registration system for the most advanced ones, and a mandatory insurance scheme for companies to cover damage and harm caused by robots.

(This report is very timely and points at some crucial issues that need to be addressed. e.g. to enforce ethical standards or establish liability for accidents involving driver less cars.)

They have set up SPARC, the Public-Private Partnership for robotics in Europe, to develop a robotics strategy for Europe. With €700 million EU funding and, adding private investment, an overall investment of €2.8 billion, SPARC is by far the biggest civilian research program in this area in the world.

To my mind the Regulation and Registration of Profit Algorithms is essential, before we find ethical theories turning into decision procedures, even algorithms.

The prospect of reducing ethics to a logically consistent principle or set of laws is suspect, given the complex intuitions people have about right and wrong.

Trust and cooperation cannot be built by the dogmatic imposition of
one framework over another or through the rigid application of one view
of what is ethically “correct.” Rather, they require the capacity to see the
other’s point of view.

Perhaps one might have come to a similar conclusion through just thinking
about the moral decision-making of humans, irrespective of autonomous

However, reflection on a comprehensive approach toward teaching robots right from wrong has demanded attention to aspects of moral decision – making that people normally take for granted in their daily, frequently less-than-perfect attempts to behave ethically toward each other

Humans have always looked around for company in the universe.

Their long fascination with nonhuman animals derives from the fact that animals are the things most similar to them. The similarities and the differences tell humans much about who and what they are.

As AMAs become more sophisticated, they will come to play a corresponding role as they reflect humans’ values. For humanity’s understanding of ethics, there can be no more important development.

It seems to me that over the past forty years or so that as technology has increased exponentially people in general terms do not seem to feel better about their lives and may even feel worse because they aren’t reaching the levels they had hoped to achieve.

Even if you discount the utopian and dystopian hyperbole, the 21st century will be defined not just by advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, computing and cognitive neuroscience, but how we manage them.

With each new advancement in AI and robotics, we are brought closer to a reckoning not just with ourselves, but over whether our laws, legal concepts, and the historical, cultural, social and economic foundations on which they are premised are truly suited to addressing the world as it will be, not as it once was.

The conclusion is that up to now humans have enjoyed the exclusive claim to biological intelligence and all future intelligence must be judged against that benchmark.

Indeed our religious and philosophical beliefs revolve around that we are special.

It is incumbent upon all of us to engage with what is going on, to understand its implications and to begin to reflect on whether efforts such as the European Parliament’s are nothing more than pouring new wine into old wine skins.

There is no science of futurology, but we can better see the future and understand where we might end up in it by focusing more intently on the present and the decisions we have made as society when it comes to technology.

As a society we have made no real democratic decisions about technology, but have more or less been forced to accept that certain things enter our world and that we must learn to harness their benefits or get left behind, and, of course, that we must deal with their fallout.

Indeed, AI has over promised in the past, and therefore any decision should be based on factual information rather than unrealistic expectations from the technology.

These are only some of the issues that AI Algorithms present.

Prioritizing Human well-being in the Age of Artificial Intelligence is for me what it is all about.

In a world that is heading rapidly to where we can’t  think for ourselves that is already plagued by tweets that are both malicious and false, should robotic copies of humans have human rights.


But who, is responsible for robotic devices capable of killing – should the Laws of War change?

WHO should be allowed to vote.  If a robot is the property of its “owner” should they have any greater moral claim to a vote than say, your cat?



The use of social media is having an adverse impact on the administration of justice in relation to the fairness of criminal trials, the right to anonymity and the integrity of judicial orders in criminal proceedings.

The principal problem for courts is not the technology of social media, but (i) how the powerful tools it offers are redefining interactive communications between courts and the public, and (ii) how most courts, apart from those few on the cutting edge, are being compelled to respond to this constantly evolving electronic interactive communications platform,
sometimes against their will.

Electronically-based communication will not only affect how proceedings are case managed and run; it also will have an impact on judgment style and publishing, as judgments become available to a global social media audience.

Social media also may foster changes in certain legal principles and causes of action. There will be new crimes and torts, discovery and court
management issues, and new courtroom set-ups – perhaps even “virtual” ones.

Social media’s impact on the court is not simply as a new means for publishing judgments and information, but also on how judges and courts perform their activities in an electronically-connected community where the users of the system can, and will, respond directly to how justice is being administered.

The fundamental right to a fair trial does not change in the face of any new means of communication.

Rules can and must reflect the new reality of same.

Although social media use is commonplace in business and homes, it raised questions about its impact on judicial independence and the desirability of judicial or court use of this informal, public, form of communication.

Contempt of Court laws are designed to prevent trial by media, however, are they able to protect against trials by social media?

We are definitely in a different world when social networks are affecting justice.

We also have to contemplate the possibility that responsible jurors not trying to look for anything about a case might just stumble upon commentary if it’s widespread enough in their normal social media usage, and that’s the world in which we now live and the world we have to deal with.

It is a great tool for the mass dissemination of information but it is also a tool for spreading false information, false claims.

We need to strike a balance between the rights of the individual to express their views via social media and the protection of fairness in criminal proceedings.

  • ‘Who, when, what’ guidelines to be developed for using social media in courtrooms

The justice system must “catch up with the modern world”

In Australia and in New Zealand they have set up social media accounts, allowed social media reports of court proceedings and dealt with the tender of social media evidence in a wide range of civil and criminal proceedings.

Setting up Court Twitter/Facebook account seems straightforward; what sort of organization would refuse to be part of a means of communication used by everyone else? But it leads to the next issue the courts must determine, namely whether managerial techniques appropriate to other parts of the public sector are appropriate for courts.

Are the judgments of courts part of the community’s business and social activities in which the service user has a say, or is the court’s role “part of a broader discourse by which a society and polity affirm its core values, apply them and adapt them to changing circumstances” in a manner which is without parallel to other parts of the public sector?

Mobile computing and wireless technology.
• Interconnectivity, notably ‘the Internet of Things’ and cloud computing.
• “Big data” analysis (e.g. the use of “predictive coding” in discovery).
• Electronic records management systems (“ERMS”) for retention of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

It is unlikely that the search and social media giants are going to change their indexing and ranking procedures anytime soon.

It is easy to see how people may become confused thinking that robots express emotions whereas they are actually machines and do not have any feeling.

If we can’t stop its progress we’d better be involved in it to ensure it is not done on the conditions of others based on their values.

Somebody is paying for the development of robotics, so the system must be something that gives them a legal certainty.

“Is everything that is feasible also desirable and how can we avoid
unintended consequences of robotics and Artificial Intelligence?”

The sooner we require all AI programs to be vetted, and registered the better. By doing this the notion of liability must evolve to best define accountability for a robot, its operator, and software algorithms.

The shady (indeed illegal) nature of the businesses which created social media, (as well as most other 20th century communications developments) the security risks and the interactive nature of social media render its use by courts, and in particular by judges, a two-edged sword. 

A search for “global warming,” for example, may reveal different results for different users depending on which websites are bookmarked, which political blogs are visited, or even what groups the users belong to on Facebook.

Robotics and Artificial intelligence are the cornerstone technologies with Google, Amazon, Facebook – everyone is jumping onto artificial intelligence at the moment. The line was between what you could say and what you couldn’t not any more in the full glare of the new social media world.

Google’s enormous legal resources and documenting their scepticism in response to court-imposed judgments and services is a case in kind.

Justice by algorithm.

Robots who can interact with humans in different roles. With their programmed empathy,they say “information is power”. This is why transparency is something that so many seek. The biggest roadblocks will come from those who have created and benefited from their systems

I am not a technologist. Neither a law keeper.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of empathy"

Algorithms for profit are creating an imbalance in the society, where each person begins to seek justice individually, according to their personal understanding, instead of shared values and beliefs. That will be a dangerous society to live in.

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






























, , , , ,

( A twenty-minute read with an hour listening)

Its time to sit up and take notice.

The consequences of Profit seeking AI’s that are trying to emulate human intelligence without a conscious mind to give them any moral value, are going to be tragic for a world that is unable to unite to fight inequality, not to mention Climate Change.

As we don’t know our inherent objectives WITH AI we are playing with dynamite.

Even if every one of us was gets a perfect AI Assistance we will not be able to share its benefits, because AI will lie to us to please us.

We are already witnessing this with Facebook and Twitter on social media promoting false images and gossip that is distorting what is true.

If you were expecting some kind of warning when computers finally get smarter than us, then think again. There will be no soothing HAL 9000-type voice informing us that our human services are now surplus to requirements.

In reality, our electronic overlords are already taking control, and they are doing it in a far more subtle way than science fiction would have us believe.PHOTO: Sophia an artificially intelligent human-like robot is pictured during the AI for Good Global Summit, June 7, 2017, in Geneva.

Their weapon of choice – the algorithm and one has just been granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia.

It attracted international headlines — and sparked an outcry against a country with a shoddy human rights record that has been accused of making women second-class citizens.

A robot simulation of a woman not wearing a headscarf enjoys freedoms that flesh-and-blood women in Saudi Arabia do not.

Where was her male guardian, as required by Saudi law for women.

Perhaps Saudi woman should become robots.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t grant citizenship to the foreign workers who make up a third of its population, not even families that have been in the country for generations. Children of Saudi women who are married to foreign men cannot receive citizenship. Sophia the Algorithm was manufactured in Hong Kong.

One thing’s for sure: As AI grows more advanced its invisible Algorithms arms are already taking control of decision-making.

They might well be running gigantic warehouses, matching kidney donors with recipients, running Heathrow traffic control, but this is only the start.

The smart machine era will be liberating in ways we can not imagine to-day,  but at what cost.

There is fine line, between “good” and “bad” algorithms.

The point is that we need to start thinking seriously about algorithms.

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 optimizations and improvement in different fields.

They are not just for mathematicians or academics they are all around us and you don’t need to know how to code to use them or understand them, in fact without them most of the modern world would not work.

However we are looking at an area that is total unregulated where all algorithm activities to make profit are outside any of our current laws.

The rise of Big Data and algorithms known as machine learning algorithms are trawling vast collections of data which will allow for vast numbers of decisions to be automated with no recourse.  AI for the sake of AI’s. 

The market will be more than trillions by 2026.

Big data by itself it is not trans-formative. Data is inherently dumb. It doesn’t do anything unless you know how to use it and act with it.

There are very few of us know how to do so.

One way or the other it is going to be a multi-trillion feast for those how do. 

Algorithms or artificial intelligence will be more efficient, less expensive, and – if well-designed – more accurate than humans.

Algorithm is where the real value lies. Algorithms define action. It is these invisible computations that increasingly control how we interact with our electronic world.

Algorithms may be cleverer than humans but they don’t necessarily have our sense of perspective – As algorithms spread their influence beyond machines to shape the raw landscape around them, it might be time to work out exactly how much they know and whether we still have time to tame them.

Wall Street today, is mostly governed by high frequency trading algorithms and Business is following.

Now, researchers are working on the next generation of these learning algorithms, which are heavily used in machine learning and artificial intelligence and may become the foundation that critical technological advances are built on.

Basically, even though most people haven’t even heard of deep-learning algorithms, better ones could mean a future that includes smarter homes, and robots that care for parents and walk our dogs.

Deep-learning algorithms also will be used with our smart appliances, smart cars and wearable technology — stringing it all together in the much championed Internet of Things. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "métropolis film analyse"

So what?  In the digital world anything goes.

Streaming App Algorithms are increasingly wielding an outsize influence on our lives, influencing politics and the economy.

We have all become so complacent that we don’t care what technology (In the form of Algorithms that are driven by machine learning ) is doing to our lives, irrelevant of the consequence we all becoming dumber and dumber with platforms deciding what we see and what we don’t see.

We have become indifferent to the commercial use of our personal data in return for free services.

Every day supplying through our smart phones more and more data it wont be long before the online world will be more important than the real world.

Before the Algorithm the way we live our lives is often not solely determined by us, but by others. Others decided if we will be hired, will receive loans, are admitted to university or have committed a crime. Traditionally, “the others” have been humans: employers, bank managers, university board members or judges – who we expect to make fair decisions.

This no longer applies.

Algorithms are increasingly part of our everyday lives, from recommending our films to filtering our news and finding our partners, deciding our futures.

We need to better understand them and control, our own futures.

Algorithms and AI are the future, but we must not allow them to become a shield for injustice.

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.

But is this any longer possible?

“Learner algorithms” can be used to create new algorithms which in turn can write the code we need, “with machine learning, computers write their own programs, so we don’t have to.”

Here lies the Catch 22 question.

Virtual data centers through cloud providers are analyzing our every move for profit. Selling the data to Hedge funds investment firms driven by vision algorithms that analyzing satellite images, and geolocation, websites.

If we don’t open or eyes they will govern the cost of everything from food to energy.

There have been other periods in human civilization where we have been overwhelmed by data. Like the Phone represented a discrete means to communicate information. A book, on the other hand, is an abstract means of communication in that there is no direct interaction between writer and reader.

So why are Algorithms different?

Because we will have Algorithms for the sake of algorithms.

So what are Algorithms?

They are sequence of steps that describes an idea for solving a problem meeting the criteria of correctness and terminability. An abstract recipe for the calculation independent of implementation. Another words: Algorithms are a finite number of calculations or instructions that, when implemented, will yield a result.

While Code/ Programming is a set of instructions for a computer. A concrete implementation of the calculation on a specific platform in a specific programming language.

Algorithms have been around for much longer than the invention of coding.

Algorithms are already started to show their potential to create a new era of abstraction by going a step further.  Not only will they search for a patterns but they will also create the code we need to do this.

Algorithms enable us to find patterns via clustering, classification, machine learning and any other number of new techniques underpinned, not by code, but by algorithms.

Like: With algorithms tracking Tweets or Facebook the Cloud will be Metropolis of 21st century.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "métropolis film analyse"

If we can feed them a lifetime’s worth of videos. We might see some significant improvements that would get us closer to using predictive-vision in real-world situations.”

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.

And if all of the above is not scary enough there will be war AI neural networks to decide whether a person is deemed expendable or not.

Artificial intelligence does not have to be a horror story of course if we take steps to Registrar all Algorithms.  (See previous posts)

It is imperative that all Algorithms are Provable beneficial to all of us, not to one objective profit.

If we lose our autonomy to AI/ Algorithms machines we end up as the three monkeys  – see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

We are addicted to Technology. These Algorithms that have profit as their targets will ensure that we remain so.

Retail algorithms don’t scare me, I find it annoying when Amazon tells me what I might like.

Now is the time to make your voice count.

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