This #AI-meets-copyright consultation is another wave of opportunistic grafting, much like the #crypto mess before it. The rhetoric about leveraging AI to “grow the economy” and “improve public services” is justification for a “commons” grab by nasty interests. It’s another pushing in the ongoing path of #deathcult worship, 40 years of #neoliberalism, digging us deeper into a hole we desperately need to climb out of.
The metaphor of composting captures the urgent need for discernment, what cultural and technological artefacts still serve us in the onrushing era of #climatechaos, and what is toxic and must urgently be composted. People ask what do we mean by this, in its cultural sense, composting is about adapting the remnants of the deathcult into something fertile for a radically different way of life. This is achievable only if we act swiftly to embrace radical change while there’s still time for the metaphor to remain metaphorical. Delay, and #climatechaos will render the metaphor physical—turning our cities, infrastructure, and economies into literal waste piles, where the nasty few will be left to fights over the scraps.
This urgent need for sorting what’s salvageable from what’s dead weight, requires critical thinking and collaborative effort to work, we need projects like the #OGB to build affinity groups of action, to balence radical action with consensus-building. While consensus about the failures of the last 40 years is important, we need to avoid falling into the trap of endless sterile deliberation. The urgency of the moment demands bold, practical actions to balance the needed intellectual and rhetorical critique.
The metaphorical shovel is right there—let’s use it. What we need, is a clear framework (#OMN) to identify what is compostable (ideas, tools, and systems that can support a degrowth future) and what must be discarded to the compost heap. A part of this is cultural agitation to shake people out of their complacency, as the economy of thinking must shift radically. This has to be shaped as a positive path to community resilience, building networks capable of mutual support, rooted in trust and regenerative practices, not the default #deathcult’s control/fear paradigm we are currently walking.
The push to #AI is part of a “last binge” of neoliberal exploitation, its largely irrelevance currently to the path we need to take, we need to urgently ignore and shift #mainstreaming conversations. The challenge is to redirect the narrative, how can we use our technology to empower grassroots alternatives to build a post-deathcult world? We need this in tandem with radical action to ensure the future remains fertile for new growth. Delay, and we’ll find ourselves buried under the non-compostable remnants of a civilization too slow to adapt. Time to grab that shovel. #OMN
This is my reaction from the talk, have not read the book.
In The Forever Crisis, the author presents complex systems thinking as a framework for addressing the world’s intractable challenges, particularly at the level of global governance. The book critiques the traditional top-down approaches that are pushed by powerful institutions like the #UN, highlighting how these solutions are a mismatched for complex, interwoven issues like #climatechange, security, finance, and digital governance.
One of the core issues raised is that global governance structures are failing to keep pace with the crises they are supposed to address. Traditional approaches “silo” issues, handling them in isolation, which makes it hard for messy interconnected challenges to be addressed in a holistic way. For example, while climate change is universally recognized as a priority, the complex “network of governance” is fragmented, leaving institutions like the UN and #IPCC struggling to effectively drive change. These traditional, siloed paths reflect a short-term vision, prioritizing superficial “silver bullet” solutions over systemic, transformative approaches.
A complex systems approach, likening effective governance to networks such as the “mushrooms under the forest floor”—resilient, interconnected, and adaptable. Rather than rigid, top-down mandates, this metaphor supports creating flexible, networked governance structures that can adapt to shifting crises. The notion of cascading solutions is key here: solutions should ripple across systems in a way that amplifies positive outcomes, rather than relying solely on isolated, large-scale interventions.
The talk highlights how unready we are for institutional preparedness and adaptive governance, with the importance of adaptability in governance, particularly in preparing for shocks, both anticipated and unanticipated. Using COVID-19 as an example, he critiques the over-reliance on “luck” rather than robust structures, suggesting that governance systems must be nimble and interconnected enough to absorb shocks without collapsing. Currently, we have a fasard, the UN and other agencies are trying to act as “confidence boosters,” convincing themselves of their own effectiveness.
Challenges to implementing complexity in governance, despite the potential of complexity theory, the talk raises significant questions about implementation. Power structures are deeply entrenched in traditional governance systems, making it difficult to shift away from rigid, reactive models. Further, financial systems tend to funnel resources into quick-fix solutions rather than funding long-term, adaptive responses.
My though, about the talk on mainstream solutions, touches on an essential question: can the existing structures within the “#deathcult” of neoliberalism actually provide the transformation we need? This perspective aligns with the book’s critique, questioning whether today’s dominant structures can truly embrace a complexity-oriented approach to governance. To solve this I focus on #Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB as grassroots projects which underlines an alternative that prioritizes local, networked, and community-driven solutions—a departure from the centralized and out-of-touch responses typical of global governance.
The book’s focus on complexity theory as a tool to facilitate self-organizing, resilient systems could be a powerful argument for the decentralized path I advocate. This framework validates the idea that change might be more effectively driven from the grassroots, where diverse actors work in networked patterns that reflect the natural resilience seen in ecosystems.
The talk:
Join Thomas Hale, Professor in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and Adam Day, Head of UN University Centre for Policy Research in Geneva, as they discuss Day’s newest book The Forever Crisis.
The Forever Crisis is an introduction to complex systems thinking at the global governance level. It offers concepts, tools, and ways of thinking about how systems change that can be applied to the most wicked problems facing the world today. More than an abstract argument for complexity theory, the book offers a targeted critique of today’s highest-profile proposals for improving the governance of our environment, security, finance, health, and digital space. It suggests that we should spend less effort and resources on upgrading existing institutions, and more on understanding how they (and we) relate to each other.
My thinking and notes.
Its the #NGO crew talking about my subject, this is a professor and the #UN secretary generals adviser. Start with basic complexity, telling a normal story.
Globalisation drives complexity, the nudge theory, the network of governance which we have to manage. Use the IPCC as a tool, but this is a mess. The argument for big solutions, top down is a bad fit for complexity thinking. The solution is tendicalse? Or the mushrooms under the forest floor, network metaphor.
Shifting tipping point, to shift change
Long problems demand complexity, current risk is undervalued
Transformative global governance, or our current global governance could go extinct.
We have a anufe data, for AI to be used as early warning “advising” governance.
So this is main-streaming looking at change and mediating the challenge. Whether it works at all is an open question, looking unlikely looking around the room.
He says we can’t co-operate, and in his terms this is correct. The solution is to try and “trick” the current systems to work together, don’t think he gets beyond this.
UN women calls the current path a failer, and that this is ongoing, but MUCH more urgent now.
In the report, the silos were knitted together, but nobody understood this, so then it was unpacked into sloes so that people could accept it.
The conference that did this report, was in a large part a confidence booster that the current systems could actually work. This is a very small step. No war was won.
The is a consensus that the current process is failing, and needs to change to challenge the current structures. The problem of re-siloing, the crumbling of bridges as they are being built, the outcome the establishment is still blocking the needed bridging.
For him, the ideas don’t create transformation. They spent a year going over old agreements, the new issues were not focused on. This was a problem of trust and transparency. So the whole process was knocked back a year.
Is this change easer or harder during crises? We tend to think that crises creates flexibility, but he argues they hold together stronger when change might be happening? She points to the defence crotch, that change is being blocked by the crises, it’s complex.
Are any of the current institutions fit to governing #AI
Finance funds silver bulite solutions rather than long term solutions. Quick fix, fixes nothing, its funding pored down the drain. His solution is a real cost on carbon if we can get the spyware command and control right to make this work.
On chip verification, hardcoded spy and control in our chips… now this is a very #geekproblem idea.
Can the states raise to work, she says we hope so 🙂 as the is no alternative 🙁 we won’t states to work, in partnership with the private secturer… we need the UN to preform its function, that partners with other actors, private structure, civil society etc.
Capacity building is 10% of the climate budget, this is about writing PDF’s, the people doing the change are simply not there.
Q. on the time to act, with the example of Gorbertrov and the claps of the Soviet Union.
Resilience is not a good thing, if the thing that is resilients are paths are not working.
Can we bake in a long term path into current decisions?
How can we change the existing system so that it balances?
The word leadership, that individuals playing a role, to be the change, is a subject that excites them.
My question would have been, the #deathcult – is the any actors or forces outside this cult – that you see could be the change we need?
He, Cascading solutions across the system fast enough to be the change we need?
She, better preparedness for the shocks, so we can pull together. To deal with issues we have not anticipated. We are not there yet.
The debate over AI’s energy consumption is one piece of a larger mess about technological in the face of current existential risks. Yes, #AI’s energy demands are a huge #dotcons waste, but focusing only on this is distracting us from a more #4opens discussions about the underlying ideology and assumptions driving the #geekproblenm technological paths—an example, the ideas of #longtermism, lets look at ths:
#Longtermism is a philosophe prioritizes the far future, arguing that we should make decisions today that benefit humanity hundreds or thousands of years from now. Proponents of longtermism advocate for technological advancements like AI and space colonization, pushing that these will ultimately secure humanity’s future, that is after many of us have been killed and displaced by #climatchoas and the resulting social brake down of mass migration. The outcome of the last 40 years of worshipping the #deathcult is this sleight of hand by changing the subject, yes, its a mess.
This mindset is a ridiculous and obviously stupid path we should not take, some of the issues:
Overconfidence in predicting the future: Longtermists assume that we can reliably predict the long-term outcomes of our actions. History has shown that even short-term predictions are fraught with uncertainty. The idea that we can accurately forecast the impact of technologies like AI or space colonization centuries from now is, at best, speculative and, at worst, dangerously hubristic.
The danger of #geekproblem mentality, the idea that we should “tech harder” to solve our problems, that is, to invest more heavily in advanced technologies with the hope that they will eventually pull us out of our current crises, mirrors longtermist thinking. It assumes that the resource consumption, environmental degradation, and social upheaval caused by these technologies will be justified by the benefits they might bring in the future.
This path is the current mess and flawed for meany reasons:
Resource Consumption: The development of AI, space technologies, and other technological “solutions” requires vast amounts of energy and resources. If these technologies do not deliver the expected returns, the initial resource consumption itself exacerbate the crises we are trying to solve, such as the onrushing catastrophe of climate change.
Opportunity Costs: By focusing on speculative technologies, we neglect immediate and practical solutions, like transitioning away from fossil fuels, which mitigates some of the worst effects of climate change. These simpler, more grounded paths may not be as glamorous as AI or space travel, but they cannot backfire catastrophically.
Moral and Ethical Implications: Whether it is right to invest heavily in speculative technologies when there are pressing issues today that need addressing—issues that affect billions of lives. The idea that a few future lives might be more valuable than current ones is a dangerous and ethically questionable stance.
The is always a strong case for caution and pragmatism in technology. Instead of betting our future on high-stakes #geekproblem technological gambles, a pragmatic approach to focus on solutions that offer benefits today while reducing the risks of tomorrow is almost always a good path. For example, changing our social relations and economic systems away from the current #deathcult, by using social tools to investing in renewable energy, rethinking urban planning, and restore ecosystems would all be actions that can have immediate positive effects while also contributing to a humanistic future. This #KISS path carry far fewer risks if they turn out to be less impactful than hoped. The worst-case scenario with renewable energy is that it doesn’t solve every problem—but it won’t make them worse. In contrast, if AI or space colonization doesn’t deliver on its pie in the sky promises, the consequences are simply disastrous.
A call for grounded action, the challenge of our time is not to “tech harder” in the hope that advanced technologies will save us, but to consider the balance between “native” #4opens humanistic innovation and #dotcons caution. The example here #Longtermism, with its emphasis on far-off futures, leads us to a dangerous path by neglecting the immediate, tangible actions we can take now, not in a thousand years. We need to focus on paths that address our most pressing problems without risking everything on pie in the sky self-serving mess making. This means actions like reducing fossil fuel dependence, preserving biodiversity, and creating more change and challenge social systems like the #OMN and #OGB—steps that will help us build a resilient and humanist world for both the present and the future #KISS
In our conversations on #AI there is a copyright trap, pushed in the #mainstreaming, the #fashionista conversation around protecting producers and cultural industries are growing hysterical. Some policymakers and activists are pushing for shielding creators from the very real threats posed by these new technologies. However, in their haste to act, leftist and progressive crew are advocating for the use of copyright law as a defensive path. This approach is a mess and fraught with contradictions and risks, a real “Copyright Trap”.
The Copyright Trap is the “common sense” belief that copyright law can be used as a tool to support and protect producers of our culture. This path is problematic:
Feudal Nature of Copyright: Copyright, along with patents and trademarks, is a form of intellectual property that comes from feudal rights. It grants semi-eternal rents to those who did not contribute to the production of the work, much like the way land was historically controlled by a few powerful lords.
Restriction of the Commons: Copyright takes works out of the public domain and locks them into walled gardens, thus restricting the commons. These runs counter to the principles of #4opens access and communal sharing that activists and progressives champion.
Injustice to Future Creators: By extending and expanding copyright protections, we make it harder for future producers to build upon the shoulders of giants. This stifles creativity, trapping future generations in a cycle of restricted access and limited freedom.
The mess underpin the current debates around AI and copyright:
“If Value, Then (Property) Right” Fallacy: This is the ideological belief that if something has value, it must be protected as property. This ignores the complex ways in which value is created and shared, particularly through communal and collaborative efforts, that do not fit into property rights dogma.
Unauthorized Copying as Inherently Wrongful: The idea that copying is wrong ignores the realities of how culture and knowledge developed through imitation, adaptation, and remixing. This perspective is particularly ill-suited to the #openweb era, where information is shared and transformed.
The Starving Artist Trope: This trope is resurrected to justify the expansion of copyright protections, suggesting that without such protections, artists will starve. This story fails to address the systemic issues that actually lead to the impoverishment of producers, such as inequitable distribution of wealth and the monopolistic practices in the #dotcons.
Using copyright as a weapon against AI companies is counterproductive and hypocritical for those who advocate for the rights of authors, creators, and intellectual workers:
Counter to Progressive Values: Copyright as it stands is a tool of capital that entrenches inequality and restricts access to knowledge and culture. Using it to protect producers from #AI companies simply reinforces a system that many leftists and progressives have long criticized.
Locking Up the Commons: Stronger copyright protections, risk enclosing the cultural commons, making it difficult for producers to share content freely to be built upon.
Hindering change and challenge: Stricter copyright laws stifle social activism, as new producers find it harder to access and build on existing works. This is detrimental in an era where collaborative and iterative creation is key to technological and cultural progress.
Alternative Approaches, to effectively address the risks and harms posed by generative AI, we need to move past the “copyright trap” and look towards more appropriate “native” paths:
Promote #4opens Open Access and Open Source: Encourage the use of open access and open source licenses and traditions that allow for the free sharing and modification of works. This helps knowledge and culture remain accessible for social use.
Equitable Funding Models: Develop new models for supporting creators that do not rely on restrictive copyright laws. This could include systems of public funding, grants, and cooperative ownership that ensure people are fairly compensated for their work without repressively restricting access.
Regulation of #AI Companies: Rather than using copyright as a blunt instrument, on the vertical path, we can regulate AI companies directly. This includes measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair compensation for the use of creative works.
The call to use copyright law to protect producers from the threats of #AI is not a useful path for leftist and progressive movements. Instead of reinforcing a flawed and restrictive system, we need to seek “native” #4opens paths that align with our values. By doing so, we build a future where both humane creativity and resulting technology can thrive in balance, and not just #techchun the current mess.
The #stupidindividualism of the Silicon Valley’s ideology, around tech-driven libertarianism and as our chattering classes say “hyper-individualism”, is spreading social mess and #techshit, we need shovels to compost. It’s now clear that these anti #mainstreaming ‘solutions’ create more problems than they attempt to solve, particularly in terms of social breakdown and environmental damage. The utopian nightmares of tech billionaires collapse under the weight of on rushing real-world challenges. This should make visible to more of us the #geekproblem, the limits of technocratic fixes. The lies under the once-promised technological mediated future of freedom and innovation has been shown to be control and chaos, this should make it obvious that we need to take different paths away from the Silicon Valley’s delusion.
A podcast from of our weak liberals on the subject of #AIhttps://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2024/07/15-61610-gnl.sci.20240715.eb.ai_climate.mp3 a #mainstreaming view of the mess we are making on this path. The big issue is not the actual “nature” of AI, though that is not without issues. What I am covering here is that #AI is reinforcing existing power structures and socioeconomic realities, #neoliberal ideology and historical bias. This is driven by the goals of enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and maximizing profits by increased surveillance, this in itself should raise ethical concerns about privacy and freedoms, that the #geekproblem so often justifies under the guise of security.
We need to think about this: AI systems trained on data from the past 40 years are inherently biased by the socio-political context of that period, perpetuating what are now outdated and obsolete beliefs. This historical bias locks in narrow ideological paths, particularly those associated with #neoliberalism and our 40 years worshipping at this #deathcult. This is not only a problem with AI, its a wider issue, we continue to prioritize economic growth over social and environmental paths, with the resent election victory in the UK, the Labour Party’s is pushing the normal #mainstreaming established during the #Thatcher era, in this we see past ideologies continue to shape current #mainstreaming political paths, the tech simply reinforces this.
It’s hard to know what path to take with this mess. Ethical frameworks like the #4opens and regulatory oversight to guide the responsible use of AI might help. By addressing the current mess and challenges, we might be able to work towards an AI path that reflects diverse perspectives and serves a more common good rather than reinforcing narrow #deathcult litany and hard right ideological paths this grows, which is the current default path. Recognizing and addressing the challenges in AI development is the first step towards the change we need to challenge, us, to compost this social mess and heaps of #techshit we have created, that shapes us.
Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:
Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:
Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and societal benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.
Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.
Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:
Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.
In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to build the power of community to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed to reboot the #openweb
In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?
“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”
—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster
The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.
The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.
In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.
One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.
In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.
As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.
We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.
Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult
Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming
The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.
Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.
The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict
Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.
The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.
The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.
Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.
Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.
Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.
Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.
Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.
Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.
Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.
Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.
Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.
In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.
You are seeing a different world back to #opendata, if you run a mastodon instance you will have a large part of the content of the Fediverse sitting in your database in plan text….
Take this into account with policy and regulation please
