You Pay For Social Media, AI and Crypto Via Your Utility Bills

Households consume the most electricity in the UK. That's why the huge surge in global energy prices following the expansion of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted the government to invoke price caps and handouts to protect consumers (and businesses) from bankruptcy, along with private energy providers who failed to manage their market exposures. Yet few have noticed that the world's computing data centres, including those hosting artificial intelligence platforms, already consume enough energy to power entire countries and compete with humans for vast amounts of fresh water. Crypto-currencies also require huge amounts of energy to 'mine'. So, not only are you paying for many 'free' online services with your personal data, you're also paying through your energy and water bills. And based on the advertising and other revenues from your participation, Big Tech can afford to outspend you. To illustrate the challenge, the UK government just announced a massive new Microsoft AI facility in London, even as Thames Water circles the drain and lack of capacity in the UK's national grid is delaying the construction of new homes, renewable energy projects and electric vehicle charging points. Given these costs and shortages, should we be speculating in bitcoin and using generative AI (either for fun or to do things we could do for ourselves)?

How much power does the latest consumer technology use?

While consumer electronics only account for 6% of household usage, that doesn't account for the centralised data processing among digital media and gaming platforms, for example, when you participate online. As a result, households are responsible for 35% of electricity usage, services 29% and industry 30%. You might argue that much of this data centre capacity is used by businesses, but many of them do so ultimately to serve consumers - from online search, shopping and social media services to powering giant credit card networks. 

Artificial intelligence, however, operates at a whole new level above the more traditional digital media. A Netflix fan would have to have watched 1,625,000 hours of content to use the same amount of power it took to train OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.0 during 2022, according to a Dutch researcher. Generating a single image from text on other AI platforms costs the same amount in energy as charging your smartphone.

The same Dutch researcher has estimated that the AI sector alone will use as much power as the Netherlands by 2027, while the International Energy Agency predicts that the world's data centres (including AI and other digital media) will consume the double the amount of electricity in 2026 that they consumed in 2022 - about as much as Japan (the 5th largest electricity consumer in the world, behind China, the US, India and Russia).  

Bitcoin mining - an activity whose sole purpose is to feed the world's first and largest distributed Ponzi scheme - absorbed nearly 1% of the world's electricity in 2023 - enough to power Greece or Australia. That's up to 5 times the cost of legacy payment systems that process vastly more transactions (though they also use enough to electricity to power Portugal or Bangladesh).

How much water does the latest consumer technology use?

Data centres also consume vast amounts of water (not counting what they recycle) to cool the computers and humidify the internal air. But even the process of generating the electricity they use also consumes water. 

In 2021, for example, Google's data centers consumed approximately 4.3 billion gallons of water (16.3 billion litres), an average of 450,000 gallons (1.7m litres) of water per data centre each day. Microsoft reckoned that it consumed 1.7 billion gallons (nearly 6.5 billion litres) in 2022.

Gridlock

The surge in energy and water usage by future-gazing tech providers comes at a time when Britain's infrastructure is already failing to support the construction of new and more energy efficient homes, renewable energy sources and the switch away from diesel and petrol vehicles.

“Nationally, we’ve got an absolute ­crisis in all infrastructure.” Plans by Michael Gove, the housing secretary, to build 150,000 homes in Cambridge to create a British Silicon Valley were already being hampered by lack of water... “And where’s the power coming from? Something fundamental has to change...”

"...90 new homes in the Littlemore district had been meant to have heat pumps. “The National Grid basically said ‘we won’t have enough power to connect them’ so half the houses are going to have to have gas boilers instead – it’s so frustrating. 

Great Britain’s power stations together generate 75 gigawatts of electricity, and the mainland is expected to need about twice as much by 2050 as people switch to ­electric vehicles and heat pumps.” The Guardian

Dissatisfaction with Britain's electric vehicle charging network is running at about 70% of EV drivers, citing a lack of public charging stations and unreliability. The government is targeting 300,000 charging stations by 2030, with only 53,677 available at the start of 2024 (an increase of 45% in 12 months) and the majority to be provided by private investors.

Meanwhile, Britain's water problems flow partly from the risk of drought and party from its combined sewage system which takes rainwater through the same pipes as the grey water from sinks and baths, as well as the raw sewage from toilets. Any excess of rainwater simply overloads the sewerage system of pipes that normally takes sewage to local treatment works, and the overflow goes directly into the waterways... 

Crisis? What Crisis?

Who's to blame for Britain's sagging infrastructure involves lots of finger-pointing and misinformation. 

When challenged over delays to connect new systems to the electricity grid, the National Grid's system operator complains that the queue of projects waiting to connect would add 800 gigawatts of electricity - "more than more than four times as much as the country would ever need." There are even delays in the time it takes to get an estimate of when a project will be connected, as well as 'zombie projects' that were approved but have been abandoned due to connection waiting times of 5 to 15 years.

Yet this hides the fact that more renewable projects/systems will be necessary to reduce Britain's reliance on fossil fuels, since energy systems that generate electricity from solar and wind don't all contribute to the grid at the same time, unlike a gas-fired or coal-fired power station where the energy source to create the electricity is under human control. 

As for water - well, none of England’s rivers is classified as being in good ecological health and Britain is already failing to produce enough fresh water to meet its needs year round. The country's 'combined sewage system' should be replaced by separate systems for rainwater and sewage, yet modernisation efforts have merely doubled-down on the combined system.

UK Government Distracted by Culture Wars

Britain's energy sector is self-evidently poorly prepared for the future. Here is a good description of the alphabet soup of bodies involved and the problem of every additional significant energy system creating the need for some change in part of the network. Here's a good overview of the challenges facing sewerage reform and here is a discussion of drought risk.

There is undoubtedly a need for reforms and there are plenty that have been announced with targets of, say, 2035 and 2050, but where are the plans that had a target of, say, 2023? And if we had them, why weren't they being updated?

It's hardly surprising that a country with 5 prime ministers in 8 years and as many Cabinet reshuffles has failed to find the time or dedication required to overhaul the energy sector and water industry. Too much control over the maintenance and renewal of Britain's creaking infrastructure has been left to private interests. Had the income from customer bills gone into public coffers instead of draining into investors' pockets, it might have been a different story - or at least the money might have been used to bolster the many other public services that are in such a dire state. 

Choices, Choices

All this brings us back to scarcity and the need to make careful choices over how we develop, protect and deploy our energy and water resources. This is largely a question of politics and intervention by a responsible government to balance out the many competing interests. Areas in which Brexit Britain has been - and continues to be - very poorly served. 

It must be doubted that a new government will be able to make much progress after 15 years of under-investment and poor decision-making by its predecessors.

In these circumstances, it seems unwise to devote enormous amounts of power and water to mine bitcoin for speculative purposes or to support generative AI systems that are either used merely for entertainment or to render people jobless (if the hype is to be believed). 

Certainly cash-strapped consumers should think about their utility bills and water shortages before speculating in bitcoin, playing online games or using open AI systems for entertainment or to do things that they could do for themselves. 

 

How Britain's Economic Future Still Depends On Brussels

Britain has a services-based economy: 80% of our output and employment is in services. Professional services, finance, travel, telecoms/computing are all key areas, as is degree to which retail sales are online. This is clearly an advantage for a set of islands when it comes to exports, because services don't need to be shipped. But services may be subject to other trade barriers, such as licensing requirements when offered in other countries, as well as unfair trade practices by local competitors and suppliers. Rules and how well they're enforced are important issues. About half our trade is with the EU, because it's closer than the rest of the world. The EU is also a market of 448m people, 412m of whom are internet users, with 288m online shoppers. That makes enforcement of the EU's new Digital Markets and Digital Services Acts all the more critical, regardless of the fact that the UK no longer sits at the regulatory table.

Scale of UK services exports to the EU

While we generally import more than we export, that overall trade deficit being £33bn in 2023. That's the result of a deficit of £187bn in goods imported over exports, offset by a surplus of £153bn in exported services (including services that overseas customers bought here in the UK, as well as services performed by UK firms working abroad). 

Brexit has obviously made the EU market less accessible for UK firms, so the loss of the free movement in goods, services, people and capital makes earlier comparisons unreliable. But based on trade data for 2022: 

• the EU accounts for 36% of Britain's total services exports;
• we have a trade surplus in services with 14 EU countries and a deficit of trade in services with 13 countries, our closest neighbour being the largest surplus (Ireland at £14 billion) and Spain the largest services deficit (£11 billion); 
• our single largest type of exported service was £55bn worth of “other business services”, being legal, accounting, advertising, research and development, architectural, engineering and other professional and technical services, representing 38% of all UK service exports to the EU. 
• exports of financial, travel and telecoms/computing/data services are also very significant.  

The Importance of Digital Platforms

You can see from the nature of our most successful services exports that their marketing and supply depends on digital platforms and related services, including search engines, cloud/hosting, app stores, browsers, e-commerce marketplaces and messaging services. 

While most of the services exported by British businesses will be supplied electronically to EU businesses of varying sizes, the online consumer markets are obviously also very important. In the retail sector, over a third of British business is now online, making the UK the third largest country in terms of the share of retail that is e-commerce, after the US and China. By contrast, about 15.4% of retail sales across all EU countries occur online. In absolute terms, however, the UK only has a domestic market of 66m internet users, while the EU has 412m (92%) of its population using the internet, 70% of whom (288m) buy stuff online. 

At that scale it becomes very important that the EU's digital markets are well regulated, and that businesses and their customers are shielded from unfair competition and trade practices.

How Does the EU Ensure Fair Digital Markets?

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) builds on existing competition law by rooting out unfair practices of very large digital platform operators (“gatekeepers”) when providing services that other businesses use to reach their own customers online. Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft have all been designated as gatekeepers, since they effectively act as private rule-makers who could potentially create ‘bottlenecks’ and ‘choke points’ that limit access, unfairly exploit personal and business data for their own purposes and/or impose unfair conditions on market participants. All face exploratory investigations under the DMA by the European Commission in connection with search services, app stores, browsers and messaging services, to see if they might be luring away customers from other businesses who use those platform services. 

The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), on the other hand, protects EU-based users of online communication, e-commerce, hosting and search services, by exempting intermediary service providers (“ISPs”) from certain liability for performing certain duties. There are extra requirements for ISPs with at least 45m average monthly active EU users (known as ‘very large online’ (or 'VLO') platforms and search engines). Even UK providers may be caught, where it has an entity based in the EU or has a 'substantial connection' with the EU (i.e. a significant number of users as a proportion of the EU population or by targeting its activities at one or more EU countries). Services such as Bing, Google Search, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X/Twitter, AliExpress and LinkedIn already face exploratory investigations under the DSA. Basically, the European Commission wants to know how these businesses: 

• mitigate the risks of creating and spreading information using generative AI and risks to electoral processes; 
• block illegal content; 
• protect users' fundamental rights; 
• avoid promoting gender-based violence; 
• protect children; 
• protect users' mental well-being; 
• protect users' personal data; 
• protect consumers; and 
• avoid the infringement of copyright and other intellectual property rights.

How Do British Businesses Benefit From the DMA and DSA?

British businesses will not want to spend heavily to acquire and deal with customers via gatekeepers' services, only to see the gatekeepers take those customers on directly. That's where the DMA comes in. It should not matter that a foreign business is among those who suffer any violation, since that will also affect EU businesses and customers that the DMA is primarily designed to benefit. 

More widely, British businesses trading online the EU customers should also be reassured that the DSA regime is designed to ensure those customers are treated well and fairly in the intermediary environments. Otherwise, they risk losing both the channels through which they attract and deal with EU customers and/or the EU customers who are unwilling to engage with those channels. Equally, businesses will want to know that they are taking on genuine customers and dealing with reputable service providers online, rather than risking exposure to fraud and intellectual property rights infringement via their EU sales and marketing channels.

Either way, it's clear that Britain's service exporters are highly dependent on the EU trade bloc and its regulatory regime, regardless of Brexit.

Whether they can expect the same protection at home is another matter...

EU Countries To Offer Their Citizens Digital Identity Wallets From 2026

The EU is finally pushing forward with aRegulation that requires member state governments to offer their citizens a voluntary European digital identity wallet from 2026.

Under the new law, member states will offer citizens and businesses digital wallets that will be able to link their national digital identities with proof of other personal attributes (e.g., driving licence, qualifications, bank account). Citizens will be able to prove their identity and share electronic documents from their digital wallets simply, using their mobile phones. 

 The new European digital identity wallets (EDIWs) will enable all citizens to access online services with their national digital identification, which will be recognised throughout the EU, without having to use private identification methods or unnecessarily share personal data. User control ensures that only information that needs to be shared will be shared.

For the past 20 years, various players have pushed the idea that you could have a digital identity issued by any number of certified 'trust providers' based on certain agreed standards. This would go hand-in-hand with concepts of 'personal data stores' and access to your transaction data in machine-readable form ('midata')that would allow you to control how your data is monetized. There was speculation that the trust providers would likely be banks and telecoms companies, or perhaps dedicated new entities; but there were always concerns about whether they really had the core competencies required - or the risk/liability appetite - as well as issues relating to security and privacy.

The European Commission explains that:

• by 2026, each member state must make a digital identity wallet available to its citizens and accept EDIWs from other member states according to the revised regulation 
• sufficient safeguards have been included to avoid discrimination against anyone choosing not to use the wallet, which will always remain voluntary 
• the wallet’s business model: issuance, use and revocation will be free of charge for all natural persons 
• the validation of electronic attestation of attributes: member states are required to provide free-of-charge validation mechanisms only to verify the authenticity and validity of the wallet and of the relying parties’ identity 
• the code for the wallets: the application software components will be open source, but member states are granted leeway so that, for justified reasons, specific components other than those installed on user devices need not be disclosed 
• consistency has been ensured between the wallet as a form of eID and the scheme under which it is issued...

Qualified website authentication certificates (QWACs) will ensure that users can verify who is behind a website under well-established eID security rules and standards (which enable open banking service providers to authenticate each other's systems, for example).

There's Nothing Intelligent About The Government's Approach To AI Either

Surprise! The UK government's under-funded, shambolic approach to public services also extends to the public sector's use of artificial intelligence. Ministers are no doubt piling the pressure on officials with demands for 'announcements' and other soundbites. But amid concerns that even major online platforms are failing to adequately mitigate the risks - not to mention this government's record for explosively bad news - you'd have thought they'd tread more carefully.

Despite 60 of the 87 public bodies either using or planning to use AI, the National Audit Office reports a lack of governance, accountability, funding, implementation plans and performance measures. 

There are also "difficulties attracting and retaining staff with AI skills, and lack of clarity around legal liability... concerns about risks of unreliable or inaccurate outputs from AI, for example due to bias and discrimination, and risks to privacy, data protection, [and] cyber security." 

The full report is here.

Amid concerns that the major online platforms are also failing to adequately mitigate the risks of generative AI (among other things), you'd have thought that government would be more concerned to approach the use of AI technologies responsibly.

But, no...

For what it's worth, here's my post on AI risk management (recently re-published by SCL).

SuperStupidity: Are We Allowing AI To Generate The Next Global Financial Crisis?

I updated my thoughts on AI risk management over on The Fine Print recently and next on my list to catch up on was 'the next financial crisis'. Coincidentally, a news search prompted an FT article on remarks about AI from the head of the SEC. 

While Mr Gensler sees benefits from the use of AI in some efficiencies and combating fraud, he also spots the seeds of the next financial crisis lurking not only in the various general challenges associated with AI (e.g. inaccuracy, bias, hallucination) but particularly in: 

• potential 'herding' around certain trading decisions; 
• concentration of AI services in a few cloud providers;  
• lack of transparency in who's using AI and for what purposes; and
• inability to explain the outputs. 

All familiar themes, but it's the concentration of risk that leaps out in a financial context, though it was also a wider concern identified in hearings before the House of Lords communications committee and by the FTC, as explained in my earlier post. 

The fact that only a few large tech players are able to (a) compete for the necessary semiconductors (chips) and (b) provide the vast scale of cloud computing infrastructure that AI systems require is particularly concerning in the financial markets context because the world relies so heavily on those markets for economic, social and even political stability - as the global financial crisis revealed. 

We can't blame the computers for allowing this situation to develop.

So, if 'superintelligence' is the point at which AI systems develop the intelligence to out-compete humans to the point of extinction, is 'superstupidity' the point at which we humans seal our fate by concentrating the risks posed by AI systems to the point of critical failure?  

AI is a Set of Technologies, Not The End Of Work

We've heard a lot for a long time about artificial intelligence replacing our jobs and, ultimately, the human race. We're told we'll need to retrain to do things that AI computers cannot. But beware the hype. After all, AI is just a set of technologies and we've coped with the introduction of new technology before. Rather than having to retrain, it's more likely you'll be using AI without even realising it. And there are cases where robotics are needed because humans are reluctant or unavailable to do certain tasks... The real concern is that the hype distracts us from more immediate and greater threats posed by AI and how to manage and regulate the risks appropriately.

Much of the hype surrounding AI confuses its development with its actual or potential uses, whether in business or in the course of other activities, like writing a wedding speech. As with any technology, there's obviously a business in developing AI, selling it and deploying it. But how useful it is depends on who uses it and how.

This confusion is perhaps partly driven by fact that some businesses are developing and operating 'open' AI systems-as-a-service focused on particular use-cases or scenarios (chatbots, research, text-to-image and so on), so you conduct your activity on their platform rather than your own device. The hype surrounding these platforms is intended to attract investment and users, but it seems unlikely that they will become the Alphabet (Google), Microsoft or Meta (Facebook) of tomorrow, especially as those tech giants are funding AI development themselves, to cement their own market dominance. 

Yet, while the tech giants might dominate the markets for their technology (and some markets where they act as more than just a tech business, like advertising), you'll see that they aren't dominating every business sector or industry in which their technology is used. 

It's therefore the people and businesses who successfully deploy and use AI who will benefit from those technologies, not the developers. This is no different to the use of telephones, laptop computers or email (or a distributed ledger supporting a cryptocurrency). 

Nobody who went from using a typewriter or the analog version of a telephone, laptop, email or work intranet would say that they're redundant or even work less as a result of using the new/replacement technology. If anything, those tools have enabled changes in work patterns that have meant that humans work faster, longer and, ultimately, harder.

And there was more 'retraining' involved in introducing PCs, email, spreadsheets and video conferencing than AI, which may be so embedded in existing processes that you don't even realise you're using it, whether in terms of product recommendations, chatbots and virtual assistants, predictive text and search features, or tagging your friends in the social media. 

There is plenty of speculation that truck drivers will be replaced by robots. Maybe truck technology has evolved to mean fewer drivers per tonne of truck, but there has been a steady increase in the number of trucks (and therefore demand for drivers) in the UK, for example, and driving a giant HGV takes more skill than smaller vehicles. Yet, ironically, there is a persistent shortage of drivers, so that transport firms are effectively being forced to invest in autonomous vehicles, just as farmers are turning to robotics due to a shortage of humans willing to pick fruit and vegetables). There are also many risky tasks that are better done remotely by machines, such as working in radioactive or other dangerous environments. AI may still be a threat to those still willing to do those tasks, yet they could also benefit from the demand for experienced humans to help in the wider development, deployment and use of the robots. This is no different to previous waves of technological innovation.

Yet all humans have a genuine concern if their personal information is being included in an AI's training data or is otherwise being harvested and used without your consent. That's where humans need to focus urgently, as well as in the creative industries where copyright violation by AIs is also rife. We also need to be on guard against hallucinating AIs, disinformation, deepfakes and misinformation - particularly in an election year.

More on that soon...

Defending Humanity Against The Techno-Optimists

I've been involved in tech since the mid-90s, have experienced the rise and burst of many 'bubbles', and have been writing about SiliCon Valley's war on the human race since 2014. But the latest battles involving crypto and AI are proving to be especially dangerous. A cult of 'techno-optimism' has arisen, with a 'manifesto' asserting the dominance of their own self-interest, backed by a well-funded 'political action committee' making targeted political donations. Laws and lawsuits are pending, but humanity has to play a lot harder on defence... To chart a safe route, we must prioritize the public interest, and align technology with widely shared human values rather than the self-interest of a few tech enthusiasts, no matter how wealthy they are.

As Michael Lewis illustrated in The New New Thing, SiliCon Valley has always had its share of people eager to get rich flogging a 'minimum viable product' that leaves awkward 'externalities' for others to deal with. Twenty five years on, we are still wrestling with disinformation and other harmful content that flows from social media platforms, for example, never mind the 'dark web'.

Regardless of the potential downsides, the 'Techno-optimist manifesto' seeks to elevate and enshrine the get-rich-quick-at-others'-expense approach in a set of beliefs or 'creed' with technology as a 'god':

"Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential." a16z

The techno-optimist creed commands followers to view the world only in terms of individual self-interest, to a point verging on malignant narcissism:

"We believe markets do not require people to be perfect, or even well intentioned – which is good, because, have you met people? Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” a16z

In other words, techno-optimists aren't interested in humanity, good intentions or benevolence. They are only self-interested and believe that you and everyone else is, too. It's you against them, and them against you. In this way, the techno-optimists absolve themselves of any responsibility to care about other humans, because other humans are merely self-interested and technology is the pinnacle of everyone's self-interest. 

The cult only needs to focus on building new tech. 

The only remaining question relating to other humans is whether your self-interest is aligned with the techno-optimist's chosen technology. If not, you lose - as we'll see when it comes to their use of your cryptoassets or your copyright work or personal data where it is gathered among the training data they need to develop AI systems...

You might well ask if there are any constraints at all on the techno-optimists' ambition, and I would suggest only money, tech resources and the competing demands of other techno-optimists.

They claim not to be against regulation, so long as it doesn't throttle their unrestrained ambition or 'kill' their pet technology. To safeguard their self-interest, the techno-optimists are actively funding politicians who are aligned with their self-interest and support their technology, and attacking those who are not... with a dose of nationalism for good measure:

“If a candidate supports an optimistic technology-enabled future, we are for them. If they want to choke off important technologies, we are against them,” wrote Ben Horowitz, one of [a16z's] founders, in a Dec. 14 post, adding: “Every penny we donate will go to support like-minded candidates and oppose candidates who aim to kill America’s advanced technological future.” Cointelegraph

"Fairshake, a political action committee [PAC] supported by Coinbase and a16z, has a $73 million war chest to oppose anti-crypto candidates and support those in favor of digital assets... Fairshake describes itself as supporting candidates “committed to securing the United States as the home to innovators building the next generation of the internet.” Cointelegraph

Nationalistic claims are typical of such libertarian causes (Trump's "Make America Great Again") and invite unfortunate comparisons with European politics of the 1930s, as George Orwell pointed out in his Notes on Nationalism in 1945:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism... two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power... 

A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. 

But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right..."

Yet in 2014, Google's CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, 'warned' us that humans can only avoid the much vaunted Singularity - where computers out-compete humans to the point of extinction - by finding things that 'only humans can do and are really good at'. Ironically, by dedicating themselves utterly to the god of technology, the techno-optimist is actually asserting the 'self-interest' of machines! 

Of course, technology is not inherently good or bad. That depends on their human creators, deployers and users. There's a long list of problems in the techno-optimist manifesto which they claim technology itself has 'solved' but self-evidently has not, either because the technology was useless without human involvement or the problems persist.

And what of their latest creatures: crypto and AI?

While 'blockchain' or distributed ledger technology does have some decent use-cases, the one that gets the techno-optimists most excited is using crypto-tokens as either a crypto-currency or some other form of tradeable crypto-asset. They insist that the technology is so distinct that it must not be subject to existing securities laws. Yet they use the terminology of existing regulated markets to describe roles in the crypto markets that are really only corruptions of their 'real world' counterparts. Markets for cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets are riddled with examples of fraud and market manipulation that were long ago prohibited in the regulated markets. A supposedly distributed means of exchange without human intervention is actually heavily facilitated by human-directed intermediaries, some of which claim to operate like their real world equivalents that safeguard their customers' funds, while actually doing the opposite. The shining example of all these problems, and the numerous conflicts with the participating techno-optimists' self-interest, is the FTX scandal. And there are many others.

As for AI, again there are decent systems and use-cases, but the development of some AI systems relies on huge sets of 'training data' that would be prohibitively expensive to come by, were they not simply 'scraped' from the internet, regardless of copyright or privacy concerns: the technological equivalent of toxic waste. The creators of several of these 'open' AI systems defend their activity on techno-optimist grounds. Midjourney founder David Holz has admitted that his company did not receive consent for the hundreds of millions of images used to train its AI image generator, outraging photographers and artists; and OpenAI blithely explained in its submission to a UK House of Lords committee:

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”

So, there we were in 2014 being warned to be creative, but it turns out that the techno-optimists believe that your self-interest and the rights that protect your work can simply be overridden by their 'divine' self-interest. 

Needless to say, many humans are not taking this lying down (even if some of their governments and institutions are).

In January 2023, illustrators sued Midjourney Inc, DeviantArt Inc (DreamUp), and Stability A.I. Ltd (Stable Diffusion), claiming these text-to-image AI systems are “21st-century collage tools that violate the rights of millions of artists.”  A spreadsheet submitted as evidence allegedly lists thousands of artists whose images the startup's AI picture generator "can successfully mimic or imitate." 

The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copying and using millions of its copyright works seeking to free-ride on its investment in its journalism by using it to build 'substitutive' products without permission or payment.  

Getty Images has also filed a claim that Stability AI ‘unlawfully’ scraped millions of images from its website. 

Numerous other lawsuits are pending; and legislative measures have either been passed (as in the EU and China) or regulators have been taking action under existing law (as the Federal Trade Commission has been doing in the US). 

Meanwhile, the right wing UK government has effectively sided with the techno-optimists by leaving it to 90 regulatory authorities to try to assess the impact of AI in their sectors, and even cancelled plans for guidance on AI copyright licensing that copyright owners had requested. 

As the Finance Innovation Lab (of which I’m a Senior Fellow) has pointed out, the AI governance debate is dominated by those most likely to profit from more AI - and the voices of those who may be most negatively impacted are being ignored. Government needs to bring industry, researchers and civil society together, and find ways to include the perspectives of the wider public. To chart a safe route forward, it is essential that we prioritize the public interest, and align technology with societal values rather than the self-interest of the techno-optimists. 

Commercially speaking, however, there's also the point that consumers tend to reward businesses that act as 'facilitators' (who solve our problems) rather than 'institutions' (who solve their own problems at our expense). Of course, businesses can start out in one category and end up in another... The techno-optimists' commitment to their own self-interest (if recognised by consumers) should place them immediately in the second category.

You'll See The Tories' Last Stand On The Far Right...

Britain's voters need to be on guard against extremists in this year's elections, starting tomorrow. The divisive nature of British politics since 2015 has led to the collapse of the country's public services and infrastructure across the board. And we know from bitter experience that this is fertile ground for those on both the far left and far right who prey on the most vulnerable and dissatisfied. So we need a new set of politicians who focus on providing adequate public services and infrastructure rather than stoking 'culture wars' and spouting idiotic nationalism dressed up as patriotism. 

Starmer seems to have won the Labour Party's ideological battles and occupies relatively centrist ground. The polls suggest we're about to find out whether he's any more effective in government than the Tories have been. But anything can happen, so it's important to be alert to the threat of a Conservative Party in its death throes...

Last week, for example, a group calling themselves the Popular Conservatives (PopCorns) held a launch event in which speakers appeared to mimic the rhetoric from Germany in the 1920s-30s in rants against the judiciary and the courts. Dangerous stuff.

Worryingly, our Defence Secretary (who generally but not always goes by the name 'Grant Shapps') also recently attacked the British military's recruitment policies on "ethnicity, diversity and inclusivity" as part of his party's so-called 'war on woke'. This was alarming enough for the respected Royal United Services Institute to warn that neo-Nazi groups are trying to insert their supporters into Britain's armed forces and police (Evening Standard 14.02.24).

Sunak would likely have you believe that he represents the 'sensible' wing of Britain's Conservative Party (among many wings), but his sole remaining policy involves demonising asylum seekers and deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda (on which he publicly accepted a £1,000 bet) and he recently attended a far right rally in Italy. Bringing back David Cameron as Foreign Secretary was also perceived by some as a sign of centrism. But you'll recall that it was Cameron who moved the Conservatives from the centrist political bloc in the European Parliament to the far right bloc, and they've remained fans of Hungary's leader and Putin fanboy, Viktor Orban to this day. Sunak was also Cameron's go-to contact when lobbying for Greensill/Gupta, so you can see they're really a couple of peas in the same pod.

If you think I'm suggesting that Putin also occupies the far right of the political spectrum, you wouldn't be far wrong. In truth, that 'spectrum' is not so much a line running infinitely left and right as a circle that brings the far right and far left together, cheek by jowl. Make no mistake, both extremes share an authoritarian vision that results in a totalitarian regime controlled by a wealthy elite. German fascists chose the name 'National Socialists' as an appeal as much to the workers and those who leaned left as to those who preferred jackboots to sandals. Putin longs to reinstate the communist USSR or perhaps an earlier empire, but his Russia is effectively controlled by oligarchs with their own private security forces. 

Britain's politicians may have started out spouting idiotic nationalist slogans as a means of courting marginal voters, but we've seen how this ends in tears as well as outright collapse. It's time Britain's voters sobered up and elected people who want to get on with the job of governing fairly in the national interest.