Month: January 2024

By Lydia Kostopoulos

Human imagination is the foundation for everything in the world around us. As motivational writer William Arthur Ward famously said “If you can imagine it, you can create it.”

Throughout history, it was the people with seemingly audacious and imaginative fantasies who invented so many of the technologies we take for granted today such as electricity, planes, organ transplants, the internet, and mobile phones—all having far-reaching implications for society and the global economy. With the convergences of multiple technologies in this Fourth Industrial Revolution, the technological fantasies that inventors have are even more audacious—flying anywhere around the world in 30 minutes, extending eternal life, 3D printing entire cities, managing agriculture from space, communicating to the computer through thought, and creating artificial intelligence that is equal to the cognitive capability of a human brain and being able to talk to communicate with animals. These are just some of the many technological fantasies that people are pursuing today.

It is these types of bold technological fantasies that drive innovation and will impact society. We have had many General Purpose Technologies (GPT) in our history (most notably fire and electricity), however, what is different in our historical moment is the speed with which general purpose technologies are being introduced into our society, economies, and homes. AI builds on top of all previous technologies such as the Internet, mobile phones, the Internet of Things (IoT) and synthetic biology. This rapid integration presents a tremendous economic and social opportunity but also comes with the potential for immense social peril.

Social cohesion and mental well-being at the whim of decision architecture 

As we live in an era of proliferating emerging technologies, it is worth appreciating the power of decision architecture that influences the decision-making process of people. The best example to showcase this is the underappreciated and underestimated power that social media decision architecture has had on the fabric of our society. Social media was created on the basis of the bold technological fantasy—‘What if there could be a digital platform where everyone could be in touch with all their friends’. Since then, while it has remained a platform to connect with your friends, it has also expanded to become a utility for businesses, a precision advertising platform, and a loudspeaker for public officials and terrorists alike.

Over the years, the algorithms began to change and technologists and software engineers were asked to design algorithmic systems that incentivise keeping people on social media platforms for as long as possible so that they can view as many ads as possible. One such example is Facebook where 97.5 percent of all its revenue comes from ads. Corporate decisions that singularly focused on ad revenue, without regard for societal impact, have had many consequences for the mental health of all demographics across the population.

At the individual level, algorithmic decision architecture that exclusively favours corporate incentives has adversely impacted mental well-being. The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigative journalism report on TikTok’s algorithm and found that it was able to classify and show viewers items they were interested in even if they did not explicitly search for it. More concerningly, they found that what keeps people viewing more videos on the platform isn’t necessarily what they are interested in and what they like, but what they are most “vulnerable” to. Facebook and Instagram have been found to exacerbate body image issues for teenagers, particularly girls. Meta is aware of it and how its platforms create low self-esteem for kids and teens. A study on the social media use of adolescents who committed suicide found various themes relating to the harmful effects of social media such as “dependency, triggers, cyber victimisation, and psychological entrapment.” These negative consequences of AI on social media have not been fully managed and continue to cause harm today.

At the societal level, algorithmic decision architecture that exclusively favours corporate incentives without consideration of downstream order effects has created polarised and fragmented societies. The Center for Humane Technology outlines the impact of AIon society in their AI Dilemma presentation by Aza Raskin and Tristan Harris. In this presentation, they create a distinction between society’s first interaction with AI which was through social media; and they label society’s second interaction with AI as occurring in 2023 with the current and emerging generative AI tools. Information overload, doomscrolling, addiction, shortened attention spans, sexualisation of children, polarisation, fake news, cult factories, deepfake bots, and the breakdown of democracy are a few of the harms that have been identified from society’s algorithmic interaction with social media.

While the software developers did not have malicious intent, they overlooked their duty to society when they singularly focused on creating algorithms that were incentivised to maximise engagement on the platform. Raskin and Harris’ assessment of what is socially unfolding with the next interaction with AI is a reality collapse due to an excess of fake everything, in turn, resulting in a trust collapse. In his book The Coming Wave, Mustafa Suleyman, founder of Google’s DeepMind, also flags his concern about the ubiquitous nature of generative AI and its ability to democratise the creation of cyberweapons, exploit code, and our very biology. These concerns that are unfolding each day have not been fully managed and are notable threats today.

While it is important to grapple with the social challenges of existing algorithms, there are new algorithms and new ways through which they will be embedded deeper into our lives.

New fantasies, new technologies, new responsibilities

As a coping mechanism for dealing with grief after her best friend passed away, Eugenia Kuyda created a conversational AI bot of him based on all their text exchanges. She did this so that she could continue to chat with him posthumously. Out of this experience, she created the company Replika where anyone can create a personalised AI companion to chat with. The testimonials feature many happy users who feel they found a friend and that this digital algorithmic companion has alleviated their loneliness. In fact, Replika and other digital companion AI companies are creating a valuable technology that addresses a growing social problem. In May 2023 the US Surgeon General released an advisory report calling out the public health crisis of loneliness and social isolation. Currently, two countries in the world have appointed a minister for loneliness—the United Kingdom and Japan. However, studies show that this epidemic of loneliness and social exclusion has a strong foothold in Africa and India as well and in other parts of the world where studies have not yet been conducted.

Given the adverse social implications AI has had with social media, as new AI-based chatbots and digital companions are created to alleviate the growing problem of loneliness, it will be imperative to consider the first rule in the “Three Rules of Humane Tech” outlined by the Center for Humane Technology: “When you invent a new technology, you uncover a new class of responsibilities.” This rule is not only relevant to those who invent a new technology, but it applies to all those who use this technology. Within the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) policy governing how personal data is managed, there is a section on the “Right to be Forgotten” which did not need to exist until computers could remember us in perpetuity. Will new laws need to be created to force companies to maintain the cloud infrastructure of digital companions across the lifetime of an individual? Will rights be needed for these algorithmic companions so that those who rely on them do not have to grieve, or feel lonely without them? What if people want to marry their AI companion? If AI companions become an important form of social infrastructure and part of human intimacy, new laws will need to be created to protect these customised algorithms and access to them.

In due course, there will be new government policies and regulations to mitigate and manage the social implications of existing and new AI technologies, yet, the current state of technological advancement continues to exceed the speed with which regulations are legislated. The absence of regulation does not mean companies should abdicate their responsibility for it. In an era where loneliness and isolation are on the rise, those who design algorithms have an outsized role to play in creating algorithmic systems that do not destroy social cohesion, exacerbate loneliness, or push teenagers to commit suicide. Those who leverage algorithms built by others need to hold themselves and others accountable to ensure that algorithmic systems cause no harm.

In the meantime, the wild technological fantasy we should all embrace today should be to design algorithmic systems that create incentives for human flourishing and socio-economic prosperity.

• About the author: Lydia Kostopoulos is a strategy and innovation advisor.
• Source: This article was published by Observer Research Foundation

By Benjamin Seevers

Taking on Taylor Swift, a recent documentary on CNN, tells the story of Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, a pair of songwriters for the early 2000s hip-hop group 3LW. Hall and Butler sued Taylor Swift in 2021 over Swift’s hit song “Shake It Off” for allegedly violating their copyright for the 3LW song “Playas Gon’ Play.” Hall and Butler allege that the phrases “haters gonna hate” and “playas gonna play” in Swift’s song are ripped straight from the 3LW song.

This accusation is simply dishonest. The phrase “haters gonna hate” predates both of the songs and appears to have arisen spontaneously rather than having been coined by any particular person or group. The same could be said for “players gonna play.” Assuming that a copyright, a form of intellectual property (IP), is a legitimate form of property, Swift clearly did not “steal” these phrases because they were already common phrases at the time of the composition of both songs.

However, assuming the (correct) position that IP is not a legitimate form of property, Hall and Butler clearly have no legitimate grounds to sue Swift. These phrases, whether Swift “stole” them or not, are fair game. Anyone can make use of them in any manner that they desire. These phrases can be used in a song or any other form of media. Hall and Butler do not have a monopoly on these phrases.

Intellectual property is not legitimate property because general ideas cannot be claimed. One person’s use of a certain idea (or in this case a phrase) does not legitimately impose restrictions on another person’s use of the idea. Whether Hall and Butler coined these phrases or not, they certainly have the right to say them to their hearts’ content. But that does not give them the right to prevent others from doing so. These phrases are produced by rearranging the physical world to produce sound or written lyrics. If someone owns the requisite physical resources, they should be free to reproduce these lyrics in either verbal or written form and profit from them as much as they want. The copiers are not necessarily using anything that was previously owned.

This makes the documentary’s use of the term “cultural appropriation” even more ridiculous. We now know that phrases cannot be appropriated, but to say that a specific culture has an exclusive right to phrases is absurd. Assuming that property in phrases is legitimate, the right must be traceable to a definite person who spoke or wrote the phrases in the first place. This right cannot be homesteaded by a class of individuals: a culture. An individual must first compose the phrase, and that individual would presumably have a right to allow others to use the phrase.

May the composer allow an entire class of people, such as members of a culture, to use the phrase? If IP is to be consistent, then yes, but the key part of this is that it must be demonstrated that the person who first used that phrase gave that class of people the right to use the phrase. If that cannot be demonstrated, one cannot simply scream “cultural appropriation” whenever they hear or see something they do not like.

All Swift did was use a common phrase that she had the complete right to use. In fact, she used it in a more effective manner than others before her. As of right now, Swift’s 2014 song “Shake It Off” has almost 1.3 billion total listens on Spotify plus an additional 66 million listens from the song’s re-release, while the song Hall and Butler wrote, “Playas Gon’ Play,” currently has 12 million total listens on the same platform despite being 14 years older. Of course, there are other methods of listening to songs, but these statistics affirm the fact that Swift has an immense impact on current music listeners.

This brings us to the economic function of a songwriter and singer. They are tasked with rearranging words into phrases that are catchy and audibly pleasing, perhaps with lyrics that make people think. There are many reasons an artist may become successful, but at the root of their success is that they please enough consumers to make a profit. While 3LW’s song was successful with their audience, Swift’s song blows 3LW’s out of the water. Swift clearly knows how to produce a product that satisfies consumers, and nobody has a right to infringe on her ability to do so unless she violates another’s rights. And as far as this controversy goes, Swift did absolutely nothing wrong.

Another lesson that can be extracted out of this controversy is how people use the government to leech off of successful people. While Hall and Butler were unsuccessful in plundering Swift, other innovators are not so lucky. In the world of patents, there are so-called “patent trolls” who hold patents for vague products without having actually invented anything. Why? They sit on these patents for years so that they can sue innovators for inevitably inventing something similar. Of course, these trolls get compensated and innovation is stifled.

Ideas, including phrases, must be free to use. If there are restrictions in the form of IP laws, then bad actors are empowered to extract payment from the actual innovators. As a result, consumers are deprived of new technology, pharmaceuticals, and, as this controversy demonstrates, good music.

• About the author: Benjamin Seevers is an economics PhD student at West Virginia University.
• Source: This article was published by FEE

There is an old proverb that when misfortunes come, they come in battalions. Coming on top of reports of American soldiers going down like nine-pins on a drone strike against the super secret CIA station for intelligence and covert operations on the Syrian-Jordanian border, ’nyet’ is the word from Beijing to the Biden administration’s entreaties seeking  intervention with Tehran to rein in the Houthis of Yemen, against the foreboding backdrop of the Axis of Resistance expanding its operations against American and Israeli interests. 

President Biden deputed his National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to handle this highly delicate mission with Beijing, instead of the US’s top diplomat Antony Blinken. Sullivan is uniquely placed to switch roles between the US’ domestic and foreign policies. He is a trusted hatchet man of the president and is actively involved in Biden’s re-election campaign. 

Sullivan stayed overnight in Thailand On Friday/Saturday to launch his charm offensive vis-a-vis Foreign Minister Wang Yi. But he came away with no sign that China is willing to use its influence with Tehran. 

Later, an unattributable media briefing by a senior NSC official via teleconference was hastily arranged by the White House to cover Sullivan’s back side. It brought home that reading the Chinese tea leaves is an art in itself. As the NSC official put it, “Beijing says they are raising this with the Iranians … but we’re certainly going to wait before we comment further on how effectively we think they’re actually raising it.” 

Sullivan seems to have hit a brick wall. This is curious because the Biden Administration should have learnt from previous experience with Beijing in trying to prod China to convince close ally North Korea to scale back its nuclear weapons programme or roll back its “no limits” friendship with Russia over Ukraine. 

Actually, South Korea’s military said on Sunday that North Korea fired several cruise missiles, extending a streak in weapons tests that are worsening tensions with the US and reflecting Pyongyang’s efforts to expand its arsenal of weapons designed to overwhelm remote US targets in the Pacific, including Guam!   

Evidently, the Biden administration failed to comprehend that Beijing was under no obligation to use its influence on Pyongyang for serving American interests. It is sheer naïveté to expect Beijing to fall for selective engagement on issues that aim to buy time for the president to give his best shot in the upcoming November elections. 

What does China get in return? The question doesn’t occur to the Biden Administration. The assumption in DC is that China is on an ego trip and begging for selective engagement with the No 1 military and economic power on the planet. On the contrary, China too has some legitimate demands to make — such as, for instance, the US not inciting Taiwan surreptitiously to travel on the path of independence, or allowing China a level playing field for setting new technology standards at the global level as an innovative country.

Interestingly, compared to the taciturn readout by the White House on the Sullivan-Wang Yi meeting in Thailand, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a candid full-bodied statement on Saturday to set the record straight and pre-empt the spin doctors in the Biden White House from scripting some false narrative. The relevant excerpts from the Chinese statement titled  Wang Yi held a meeting with Sullivan, assistant to the President of the United States for National Security Affairs are reproduced below:  (Unofficial translation)

“The two sides conducted frank, substantive and fruitful strategic communications around the implementation of the consensus of the San Francisco meeting between the heads of state of the two countries and the proper handling of important and sensitive issues in Sino-US relations.

“Wang Yi said that this year marks the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States.The two sides should take this as an opportunity to summarise their experiences and learn lessons, treat each other equally rather than condescendingly, seek common ground while preserving differences rather than highlighting differences, effectively respect rather than harm each other’s core interests, and work together to mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation to build a correct way for China and the United States to get along.

“Wang Yi emphasised that the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affairs, and Taiwan’s regional elections cannot change the basic fact that Taiwan is a part of China.The biggest risk to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is “Taiwan independence”, and the biggest challenge to Sino-US relations is also “Taiwan independence”.The United States must abide by the one-China principle and the three joint communiqués between China and the United States, implement the commitment not to support “Taiwan independence” into actions, and support China’s peaceful reunification.

“ Wang Yi pointed out that all countries have national security concerns, but they must be justified and reasonable. They cannot engage in pan-politicisation and pan-security, let alone curb and suppress the development of other countries.The two sides agreed to further discuss the boundary between national security and economic activities…

“The two sides also discussed international and regional issues such as the Middle East, Ukraine, the Korean Peninsula, and the South China Sea.” 

The Chinese readout did not even make any specific mention of the Houthis or Tehran! Instead, it underscored the perceived threat of Taiwan independence as “the biggest challenge to China—US relations.” And, furthermore, it reiterated Beijing’s concerns that the US is using export restrictions “to contain and suppress the development of other countries” and said that the two countries will discuss “the boundary between national security and economic activities” in future meetings.

What do we make out of this? Simply put, China’s reluctance to use its diplomatic and economic heft to support US moves to address the Red Sea disruptions by reining in the Axis of Resistance (or restrain North Korea’s behaviour) underscores the limitations of the Biden administration’s diplomatic outreach efforts or charm offensive to win over Beijing and get it committed to a selective engagement over Washington’s priorities on flash points that might otherwise become raging controversies in electoral politics till November. 

By the way, the Chinese readout also acknowledged that there are areas where Beijing is indeed interested in an engagement with the US at this transformative point in time — viz., the joint implementation of the so-called “San Francisco Vision,” which translates as: 

• regular contacts between the two presidents so as to “give strategic guidance to bilateral relations”; 
• promotion of bilateral exchanges; 
• making good use of the current strategic communication channels and a series of dialogue and consultation mechanisms” in various fields ranging from diplomacy, mil-to-mil ties, economy, finance, commerce, climate change, etc.; 
• continuing the discussion over the “guiding principles” of Sino-US relations; 
• cooperation in drug control; 
• Artificial intelligence intergovernmental dialogue mechanism; and,
• cultural exchanges.

How come the US and its western allies get it all horribly wrong? For an answer, the final word must go to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who said in New York while on a brief visit to the UN hqs last weekend:

“They believe that for 500 years they have ruled the world as they wish, living at the expense of others, and they think this should continue. This logic completely ignores the objective reality, in particular the fact that the vast majority of former colonies have gained independence, become aware of their national interests, want to strengthen their national, cultural and religious identity and are growing so fast that they have left the West behind – at least the BRICS members are.”

The bottom line is, Beijing will not fall for US attempts to create misperceptions in China’s relations with Iran or North Korea. China has no intentions to help the US to pull its chestnuts out of the fire in West Asia or the Far East. The international environment is rather fraught and Beijing has set its compass to be on the right side of history.

This article was published at Indian Punchline

Early Sunday morning, local time, a drone successfully struck a US military facility on the Iraq/Syria/Jordan border. Three US servicemembers were killed and several dozen were injured. 

The US Central Command claims that the attack hit a facility inside Jordan, but Jordan and the “Iraqi Resistance,” which took credit for the attack, say the US facility was inside Syria’s border.

Why does it matter? Jordan is a US ally and as such American troops stationed on its territory – while in our opinion extremely unwise – are not illegally occupying foreign soil. However, if as is likely this facility was inside the Syrian border it means US troops illegally occupying Syrian territory were hit. In other words a foreign occupying force was attacked by people defending their homeland. That’s a very different story and one that Washington’s warmongers would rather Americans back home not ponder.

Most Americans likely do not understand that US forces are illegally occupying a large portion of Syrian territory – a country with which Washington is not legally at war – and therefore any Americans killed in Syria may result in the public starting to ask, “why exactly are we there”?

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has never seen a war he doesn’t want other people to fight, has offered his own explanation as to why US troops are getting killed in Syria: “Our forces in Jordan and Syria are there to protect the American homeland.” But as thousands illegally enter our actual American homeland every day with total impunity, it is a claim that is unlikely to resonate with most Americans.

Nevertheless Graham, a one-hit wonder, has posted his advice to respond to the Iraqi Resistance drone strike on the US base in Syria: “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.” Iraq attacks an illegal US base in Syria? Attack Iran. His morning decaf mocha frap latte from Starbucks is cold? Attack Iran. One hit wonder.

A look at the above graphic showing the number of US troops in bases scattered throughout the region well within Iranian missile range reveals everything sane Americans need to understand about Graham and his fellow neocons: they don’t care about American troops. They view them as mere cannon-fodder to feed their obsession with finally fulfilling Netanyahu’s demand that the US attack Iran for Israel’s sake.

US hyper-interventionist foreign policy has thus far been relatively risk-free at home. A few thousand died in the disastrous US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but most Americans are so disconnected from military families that they likely knew no one who was sacrificed for Bush’s counterproductive war. But if Graham’s fever dreams are fulfilled and the US launches an attack on Iran with nearly a Vietnam-sized contingent of American “sitting ducks” in the region, there is a very good chance America may finally take notice. 

35,000 Americans in body bags to satisfy Lindsey’s perverse lust for blood could well finally focus America’s attention on the malevolent force that has maintained an iron grip on US foreign policy regardless of whether R’s or D’s are “running the show.” Let’s hope America wakes up before this happens.

So where do things go from here?

The Iraqi Resistance claims the attack was retaliation for the US support of Israel’s continuing attacks on Gaza and for recent US strikes on Iraqi military personnel inside Iraq. The Washington Post quotes an Iraqi Resistance spokesman as saying, “If the crimes of the Zionist regime do not stop, all American positions throughout the region will be a legitimate target for us and the war will intensify.”

As veteran journalist Elijah Magnier writes, that the Iraqi resistance takes credit for the attack “is embarrassing for the US administration because the retaliation could take place in Iraq and increase demands for US forces to leave the country.”

Iraq has already demanded that the US remove its occupation troops immediately and the Iraqi parliament voted nearly four years ago that US troops must leave the country. The DC establishment claimed that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to “restore democracy,” but when the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament voted for the US military to end its occupation of the country…Washington said “no” to democracy.

Nobody wants US troops in the region except for Israel, which has just been found to be possibly committing genocide in Gaza. Is this really the crowd we want to run with? Maybe we can just come home?

This article originally appeared as an exclusive update for RPI subscribers. Subscribe for free here.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, and other members of Congressional leadership in Washington D.C. on Tuesday (30 January 2024). 

The Secretary General stressed that a strong NATO is in the strategic interest of the United States, and that through NATO, the US has more friends and allies than any other power. He further pointed to the importance of keeping NATO strong through increased defence investment, welcoming increases across all Allies in recent years. Mr Stoltenberg commended the US for its support to Ukraine and highlighted that this support remains decisive for Ukraine’s survival and Europe’s stability.

Mr Stoltenberg met with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and participated in a discussion focused on Ukraine with a number Republican representatives. He concluded by meeting with the Co-Chairs of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the leadership of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee.

On Wednesday, the Secretary General will deliver a speech at the Heritage Foundation and travel to Troy, Alabama, to visit the Missiles and Fire Control Facility of Lockheed Martin