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.

So Many Targets, So Few Bullets

Okay, it's been a looong week, it's 2:20am, my cab leaves for the airport at 4:00 and I haven't packed yet. So there are two chances of a decent post this week...

In all fairness, the dazzling array of targets hasn't exactly allowed one to focus one's thoughts - I mean, I've been hammering away on the Tweet button like a chimp on speed. So all I can usefully do is commend that frenetic feed to you, as a parting gift.

But if I had to choose, these would be my top 8:

1. Zero Hedge: on whether the US and Europe will track Japan's 21 year slide (and counting);
   
2. Spectator: that Rebekah Brooks statement on phone-hacking in full;
   
3. Naked Capitalism: Partying on the Edge of the Eurozone Volcano - I love that title;
   
4. Naked Capitalism: Fukushima Cover Up Unravels;
   
5. Guardian: What Twitter thinks of the News of the World, visualised;
   
6. P2P Banking: The US Government Accountability Office's Guide to US Regulation on P2P Lending;
   
7. Schumpeter: On being sacked for telling tales 'through' the media; and
   
8. Chris Marsden's observations on what the Dead Parrot Sketch and UK Media regulation have in common.

And, hey, I have a whole hour left to pack. So time for a little light entertainment:

Do The Media Matter?

"Well, old man, I will tell you news of your son:

give me your blessing: truth will come to light;

murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may,

but at the length truth will out."

The Merchant of Venice, Act II, Scene ii

Whether you love or hate Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (or the UK media's own Editors' Code of Practice), its perfectly understandable that a judge doesn't consider it in the public interest for the media to publish the 'news' that a man and woman have bonked each other, or that a court has made a decision to that effect.

At first I found it strange that John Hemming MP would choose this particular location on which to build his redoubt in defence of freedom of expression. But then I read his Wikipedia entry.

The Trafigura saga is perhaps a far better example of something on the margins. However, it also shows that an issue may grow to be considered in the public interest in due course, despite early attempts to keep it under wraps. And that the 'traditional media' have little to do with that process, although a mention in Private Eye might be required to get the ball rolling. By contrast, it seems the recent Twitter coverage of bonking injunctions was driven more by media folk and an opportunistic MP than the genuine ferocity behind the social media attention given to Trafigura.

In other words, the truth about matters of real public interest will out. Maybe not in a way that allows the tabloids a 'scoop' and a fast buck. But it will out.

So perhaps the biggest irony in all this is the enormous quantity of free advertising the traditional media have lavished on Twitter. For the sake of argument, they point to Twitter as a rival media property. If Twitter can publish, they complain, why can't the media?

Let's put aside the reality that Twitter does not have anything like the marketing spend, reach or 'authority' behind it as the UK press. The fact is that Twitter is an unedited dynamic, the product of its individual participants' own publishing decisions. For the media to complain about Twitter is simply to admit that the truth will out in spite of them.

Image from Mogulite.

It's All About Sociolinguistics, Innit?

Hat-tip to The Week for reprinting the fascinating article by Helen Rumbelow, on how English is being transformed by multi-cultural Britain, rather than American sportscasters.

Jonnie Robinson, curator of sociolinguistics at the British Library, explains that about 80% of English speakers have English as their second language. This provides plenty of opportunities for "word-sex" between English and other languages - mainly in London where over 200 languages are spoken. This intercourse produces new stress patterns (emphasis) on syllables, "question tags" that turn sentences into questions, as well as brand new words like "peng". Ironically, the reason that English spoken elsewhere in the world tends to jar with Londoners' sensibilities is because it's relatively antiquated, not somehow bastardised.

This would seem to present a grave challenge to any business hoping to "chat" authentically and consistently in the globally accessible social media world (which also has its own slang). In fact, global - even regional - consistency would seem a lost cause. And the roll-out of the various location features on the major social media platforms is a precursor to locally targeted "chat", and products. Innit?

Image from UMS English Department blog.

Buried!

Has a week gone already?! The distinct lack of posts has been due to my being buried by business-as-usual, plus:

• Consultations on the implementation of the new E-money directive by both the Treasury and the FSA;
• The latest edition of the EC's Consumer Markets Scoreboard;
• Excellent discussions on where bankers and social thinkers disagree and agree;
• All the other great stuff that I tweeted or retweeted, to which I may yet find the time to return; and
• Last but not least, agreeing the topic for discussion at the inaugural meeting of the SCL Junior Lawyers' Group on 20 January 2011 - be there!

Have a great weekend!

Image from PubSub.

Living Outside The Paywall

One refugee from The Times paywall is BabyBarista, a fictional account of a junior barrister practising at the English Bar. Author Tim Kevan explained:

"I have today withdrawn the BabyBarista Blog from The Times in reaction to their plans to hide it away behind a paywall along with their other content. Now don’t get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the decision to start charging. They can do what they like. But I didn’t start this blog for it to be the exclusive preserve of a limited few subscribers. I wrote it to entertain whosoever wishes to read it. Hence my decision to resign which I made with regret. I remain extremely grateful to The Times for hosting the blog for the last three years and wish them luck with their experiment."

The walled garden of proprietary content is doomed. I won’t link to anything inside a ‘paywall’, not because I'm against publishers making money but because the paywall may interfere with the reader's journey, and the publisher is unlikely to ever link back as part of a meaningful dialogue with those outside its bubble. I will only link to paid-for content when the payment process is seamless and there's a decent chance the publisher may link back. That's how the new media world works. Google and Facebook - about whom the newspapers complain most - succeed by facilitating how we use and generate content, not by bricking themselves in.

Image from EducatedNation

Social Media Icing On Old Media Cake

The social media do appear to be saving old media. For now.

According to the Pew Research Centre's New Media Index, 99% of stories linked to in blogs during the year to January 15, 2010 came from "legacy outlets such as newspapers and broadcast networks. And... the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post accounted for fully 80% of all links."

Of course, while you may be reading a blog that links to an 'old media' story, that doesn't necessarily mean you've bothered to read that story. And every minute you spend reading the blog is time you don't spend engaging directly with 'old media'. Yet the social media are a source of both links and evidence of what resonates with readers.

So the old media may still be baking the cake, but the social media are supplying the icing. And who likes cake without icing? [That's enough analogy now. Ed.]

The reason this dynamic may not last is that the old media seem to be ignoring the stories that resonate most amongst the social media. Pew found that "the social media tend to home in on stories that get much less attention in the mainstream press. And there is little evidence, at least [in the year to 15 January 2010] of the traditional press then picking up on those stories in response."

In fact, you might conclude from Pew's table above that the mainstream press ignored the scale of reader demand for news on politics, foreign events, science, technology, the environment, pop culture, 'oddball', gay issues, consumer news and education. And it's worth noting that news related to "gardening, sports or other hobbies" was not tracked.

It would be interesting to see whether this imbalance is rectified in the coming year. But if it is not, I wonder whether old media will find itself permanently losing readership in these areas?

If so, no more cake!

Image from Petit Pois

Social Media Explained Simply?

The internet is the spaghetti, social network services the sauce.

Image from FeedYourself

Market Research and Social Media

Today I presented again on 'Behavioural Targeting of Online Advertising', this time at the 5th Annual Online Research Conference in London. Not that I advise any clients in the area, but I've tried to keep up to date in light of the whole Phorm controversy.

Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the day, but I did catch the morning.

I enjoyed Mark Earls' presentation on the changing relationships between people and organisations, and the role of market researchers as mediators who can help everyone adjust to the new reality. It was also interesting that he picked up on the useful role that the tons of publicly available data can play, and that reminded me of Hans Rosling's excellent presentation on that subject at TED:



Mike Hall of Verve tried to define a new medium called the 'online brand community'. There was no time for questions but this seems to assume the brand is at the centre of things, and I wonder what Mike would say about the research value of comments people publish in the complete absence of the brand? In distilling the essence of community in 6 'rules', Mike also said that 'participation is the oxygen of the community'. But surely the 'oxygen' is whatever induces participation. And it's too simplistic to state as another rule that people participate online to obtain information. Some want to broadcast, others to listen. As the guys from InSites Consulting reported, people tweet to chat socially, 'show off' a rare URL, upload photos, or because they're curious, want a laugh or to be made to wonder. I guess that information is at the heart of all those things, but there's far more to it.

I'm sure the afternoon was just as thought-provoking. Definitely an event to keep an eye out for next year.