The Internet, itself in constant innovation since its inception, has historically supported unprecedented innovation across the globe, driving considerable growth in technology and commerce.This paper reviews a set of properties set out by Internet experts in 2012, which aimed to capture the unvarying properties that defined the Internet (“the Invariants”).
[…]
An early realization was that that the Invariants not only capture an ideal form of the Internet, they describe a generative platform — a platform capable of continuous growth and fostering the expansive development of new things upon itself.
[…]
Notably, several technologies being developed and deployed in today’s Internet don’t conform to those Invariants, and thus are not laying the foundation for similar innovations in the future. With the Invariants in hand, however, we have a tool to evaluate the state of the Internet and any proposed changes that would impact it, and support discussion between and among technologists and policy makers to help ensure that future choices foster a better Internet, aligned with the ideal expressed in the Internet Invariants.
This is “climate change” of the Internet ecosystem: absent concrete action to address the departure of the application infrastructure of the Internet from the ideal outlined in the Invariants, the experience of the Internet going forward will not feature such a rich diversity of solutions to the needs of the world’s population.
Technology
A couple of weeks ago, I gave a talk in Austria on smartphones and cybersecurity.
“Put up your hand if you like or maybe even love your smartphone,” I asked the audience of policymakers, industrialists and students.
Nearly every hand in the room shot up.
“Now, please put up your hand if you trust your smartphone.”
One young guy at the back put his hand in the air, then faltered as it became obvious he was alone. I thanked him for his honesty and paused before saying,“We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship.”
Israeli quadcopters are employing a "bizarre" new tactic of playing audio recordings of crying infants and women in order to lure Palestinians to locations where they can be targeted.
On Sunday and Monday night, residents of the northern parts of Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp woke up to the sounds of babies crying and women calling out for help.
When they went outside to locate the source of the cries and provide aid, Israeli quadcopters reportedly opened fire directly at them.
These people have no idea how computers work, how brains work, or how to define intelligence. They just believe that if they get enough transistors together, feed it enough data and the electricity requirements of a large industrialised nation, they will eventually create God. It's the ultimate cargo cult. They're drunk on they're own snake oil. And they're among the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world, instead of being institutionalised for their own safety. It's so funny/scary.
The video shows Sam Altman in talk with Connie Loizos. When Loizos asked Altman is he is planning to monetise his product, Sam Altman replied with: “The honest answer is, we have no idea."
Sam Altman further said that they had no plans to make any revenue. "We never made any revenue. We have no current plans to make any revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue," he said.
Speaking about the investors, Sam Altman said, “We have made soft promises to investors that once we build this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you."
As the audience laugh, Sam Altman said, “You can laugh. It's all right. But, it is what I actually believe is going to happen."
Bert's idea appears simple:
What if your computer made a little noise each time it sends data to Google?
So this is what he did. A piece of software dubbed googerteller designed for his Linux computer that emits a scratchy beep when the computer detects information flowing out from his computer to one of Google's computers.
[…]
After announcing the tool in a tweet the video quickly received over a million views. Spurred by this attention Bert decided to develop his tool further and include trackers not only from Google but also Facebook and dozens of other trackers.
The truth is many of the ills of today’s internet have a single thing in common: they are built on a system of corporate surveillance. Multiple companies, large and small, collect data about where we go, what we do, what we read, who we communicate with, and so on. They use this data in multiple ways and, if it suits their business model, may sell it to anyone who wants it—including law enforcement. Addressing this shared reality will better promote human rights and civil liberties, while simultaneously holding space for free expression, creativity, and innovation than many of the issue-specific bills we’ve seen over the past decade.
In other words, whatever online harms you want to alleviate, you can do it better, with a broader impact, if you do privacy first.
Yes, all of them.
Tesla is recalling all 3,878 Cybertrucks that it has shipped to date, due to a problem where the accelerator pedal can get stuck, putting drivers at risk of a crash, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The recall caps a tumultuous week for Tesla. The company laid off more than 10% of its workforce on Monday, and lost two of its highest-ranking executives. A few days later, Tesla asked shareholders to re-vote on CEO Elon Musk’s massive compensation package that was struck down by a judge earlier this year.
We are at a unique juncture in the AI timeline; one in which it’s still remarkably nebulous as to what generative AI systems actually can and cannot do, or what their actual market propositions really are — and yet it’s one in which they nonetheless enjoy broad cultural and economic interest.
It’s also notably a point where, if you happen to be, say, an executive or a middle manager who’s invested in AI but it’s not making you any money, you don’t want to be caught admitting doubt or asking, now, in 2024, ‘well what is AI actually, and what is it good for, really?’ This combination of widespread uncertainty and dominance of the zeitgeist, for the time being, continues to serve the AI companies, who lean even more heavily on mythologizing — much more so than, say, Microsoft selling Office software suites or Apple hocking the latest iPhone — to push their products. In other words, even now, this far into its reign over the tech sector, “AI” — a highly contested term already — is, largely, what its masters tell us it is, as well as how much we choose to believe them.
And that, it turns out, is an uncanny echo of the original smoke and mirrors phenomenon from which that politics journo cribbed the term. The phrase describes the then-high tech magic lanterns in the 17th and 18th centuries and the illusionists and charlatans who exploited them to convince an excitable and paying public that they could command great powers — including the ability illuminate demons and monsters or raise the spirits of the dead — while tapping into widespread anxieties about too-fast progress in turbulent times. I didn’t set out to write a whole thing about the origin of the smoke and mirrors and its relevance to Our Modern Moment, but, well, sometimes the right rabbit hole finds you at the right time.
Awash in vehicle data, most car manufacturers, or OEMs—original equipment manufacturers—found themselves in an unfamiliar role. “What has given rise to the industry is that most OEMs have recognized that they are better at making cars than they are at processing and handling data,” said Andrew Jackson, research director at PTOLEMUS Consulting Group, which studies the connected vehicle industry.
This created an opening for a new kind of third-party data company, vehicle data hubs, which are at the center of the connected vehicle data market.
[…]
Andrea Amico is founder and CEO of Privacy4Cars, an automotive data privacy company. Amico said of vehicle data hubs, “So, there’s many sources out there. Their business proposition is collect all this data, create massive databases, try to standardize this data as much as possible and then literally sell it. So that’s their business model.”
There are two clear, connected issues to address. The first is the extent of power concentration, which contradicts the decentralised spirit I originally envisioned. This has segmented the web, with a fight to keep users hooked on one platform to optimise profit through the passive observation of content. This exploitative business model is particularly grave in this year of elections that could unravel political turmoil. Compounding this issue is the second, the personal data market that has exploited people’s time and data with the creation of deep profiles that allow for targeted advertising and ultimately control over the information people are fed.
How has this happened? Leadership, hindered by a lack of diversity, has steered away from a tool for public good and one that is instead subject to capitalist forces resulting in monopolisation. Governance, which should correct for this, has failed to do so, with regulatory measures being outstripped by the rapid development of innovation, leading to a widening gap between technological advancements and effective oversight.
The future hinges on our ability to both reform the current system and create a new one that genuinely serves the best interests of humanity. To achieve this, we must break down data silos to encourage collaboration, create market conditions in which a diversity of options thrive to fuel creativity, and shift away from polarising content to an environment shaped by a diversity of voices and perspectives that nurture empathy and understanding.