Posts by Long John Silver

News Corp labels some AI companies 'crass kleptomaniacs'

Where there's muck there's money AND ...

where there's money there's muck.

Re: Surely these two words should be in ironic quotes

You made my day.

The truth nobody wants to admit: Chinese or not, open models are competitive now

Chinese small-sized AI models should worry the USA

Trillions of parameters should not thrill run-of-the-mill businesses. Tasks to be delegated to AIs will be routine, not cutting edge. Very likely, small, i.e. millions of parameter models, refined and, perhaps made 'heretic', from the mega-models, can be located on-premises without spilling proprietary information into the maws of competitors and governments.

Following a recent statement by China's President, we may anticipate reduced-size AI models available across the globe to all who want them. Just as conventional supercomputers are a niche market, so shall be that for AI models requiring immense memory and processing power. Rather than connecting to massive data centres, the norm shall be local use of several bespoke small AI models. After all, models housed in motor vehicles are deemed fit to replace human drivers.

Moreover, why should private individuals take out subscriptions for sharing use of massive AI models when their need can be met, 'for free', on domestic equipment? We may be certain that despite short-term supply difficulties for memory chips, the prices of AI-hosting devices will come down.

Former OpenAI CTO does what Altman won't, releases a frontier AI model that's actually open

More, more, more - bigger, bigger, bigger - BETTER? and for whom?

An initial 975 billion parameters for assignation of values during 'training' (i.e. exposure to whatever digital materials are to hand) represents an immense number of 'degrees of freedom' for model fitting. Given that a modest computing device with VRAM in the range 16-32 GB is capable of doing tasks (e.g. 'imaginative' text and image processing) not so long ago in the realm of fantasy, one wonders what this two terabyte leviathan can accomplish. Similarly, where do even larger models, not in the public domain, and never likely to be, lead?

Setting aside nonsenses to the effect that ever greater 'degrees of freedom' must lead to 'emergent properties' and a 'singularity', one wonders what mighty existential questions the technicians behind AI, and their supposedly prescient money-masters, have in mind. Cynical consideration of each of the mindsets leads to 'suck it and see' rather than the foresight of Asimov's 'Foundation series' books character Hari Seldon.

These considerations suggest requirement for urgent strategic thinking over the best uses of resources for large-scale computing. Two choices present: general purpose 'supercomputers' programmed by people for specific tasks (e.g. modelling solar activity), or differently organised computation centred upon immense 'black box' statistical models. The latter, have various kinds of proven utility, but reliance upon their cognition may pose an epistemological trap.

Unfortunately, a considered view of the wisest among mankind shall never emerge, nor ever be sought. Man's governance rests in the hands of a shallow 'political class' directed by minds obsessed with finance, personal power and dynastic enrichment.

Linus Torvalds tells AI haters to fork off

Not unreasonable

Pragmatism is the proper stance when facing opportunities and challenges offered by proponents of AI.

Dark patterns in Windows are steering users to Edge: Mozilla-commissioned report

Damning the already damned

Microsoft is entering the period of terminal decline, it is seemingly inevitable for bloated organisations after becoming complacent in the absence of the 'hunger' driving their entrepreneurial founders.

AI customers are coming around to the idea that small is beautiful

Shifting perspectives may devastate Western (i.e. USA) AI-service businesses

Eschewal of cloud-hosted mega-models in favour of task-specific, and therefore generally less-demanding resources, locally-hosted AI models offers full onsite (factory, office, or home) control without necessity of revealing confidential information. Should the big Western players rein in ambitions to sell tokens giving access to the latest, greatest, AI, they may find marketing smaller standalone models barely feasible.

Very likely, sales of small models (varying in size for differing tasks) would mirror the 'tried and tested' (but sorely wanting) schemata of Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and others. Additionally, purchasers/renters would be exhorted to 'check in' for updates. The rigmarole of licensing, 'seats', 'auditing', and proprietary code lockdown, would continue: as always, a horde of middleman assistant cooks spoiling the broth.

Lurking in the woodshed could be a nasty surprise for Western vendors of AI. At present, they keep to themselves their latest AI incarnations, and sparingly release open-weight, open-source, etc., cut-down in size, models for general use. This business modality could soon be smashed by China. It seems likely our friends in China will release (truly) open-source local models surpassing anything yet available via cloud services.

Their motivations may be mixed. In part, many are people willing to share their successes in hope of greater collective global achievement in the future.

Geopolitical considerations suggest advantage to China from smashing perfidious NATO nation, especially the USA, attempts to dominate, in progression to monopolisation, the perceived market in AI technologies.

US government interference over which models their players are allowed to release to the public (including most enterprises) opens opportunities for China to distribute freebies. If distribution doesn't involve payment, it would be impossible for despotic regimes such as the USA, EU, and UK, to block access.

Uncensored AI models (beyond porn dross) will stymie US/UK/EU attempts to direct thought along lines acceptable to politicians' masters (not electorates). China, itself, has a few troublesome historical events and viewpoints to hold back until its rapidly-being-educated population is sufficiently mature to absorb them (c.f. 'Tiananmen Square' with 'Peterloo').

Powerful models small enough for domestic equipment or, at most, requiring higher-end hardware affordable even by small businesses, will demonstrate a future wherein AI is not confined to mega-centres but, rather, is scaled to specific tasks.

Handing out swathes of free software may not appear economically sound. Yet, think on it, China has a huge population and many burgeoning industries and other activities. The Chinese State (as distinct from the messes in the Neoliberal West) can contract with Chinese private enterprise to provide software meeting China's needs and, being digital - therefore of no monetary value - may be given away elsewhere.

In tandem with this, the 21st century China-inspired Renaissance, perforce, shall set-free from walled-gardens humanity's immense amount of digitally expressed or expressible culture. A move promoting a shift to creative fervour and away from lazy rentier-economics.

Free AI software opens opportunities for its creators to accept commissions for tailoring it, or fine-tuning, for specific commercial, industrial, and educational purposes (e.g. for-profit Linux development/support companies make their money from bespoke services to 'enterprise' based upon their free-for-use, and free-for modification, open 'distributions').

The route forward for AI, and much else, shall be mapped by China and other major economies (e.g. Russia and Iran) at present poorly aligned to the spent West.

AI slop writing has taken over the internet, particularly LinkedIn and X

A race towards the average?

Assume the following.

(1) Most of the general population lacks the nous or the skills to construct prose expressing well-reasoned argument. That's always been true despite 'functional literacy' for everyday life nowadays being highly prevalent in many nations. Obversely, the limitation applies to capacities for attention span when reading; also, in part, it associates with a culture of 'busyness': being seen to do something rather than ruminate. The last is exemplified by gobbets of online text preceded by an anticipated 'time to read'.

(2) Despite strong reservations concerning the abilities of so-called 'AI', informed people would concede that some AI models can churn out lucid prose presenting information/argument drawing upon sound (apparent) knowledge of grammar and broad vocabulary matching those of an educated person (by traditional standards of some decades ago). Setting aside occasional AI 'hallucinations', a major criticism of AI text output rests upon flowery language and prolixity; the former evident when 'story telling' is requested.

Presupposing the above, lends credibility to the notion that on lowest-common-denominator social media, 'long-form' comments likely arise from AI generated text. This may be used as the justification for dismissing such comments unread; ironically, thereby, the potentially best amidst a stream of drivel is ignored. Although 'discourse' on Twitter et alia rarely is of interest to people of discernment, the habit of dismissing long-form as "slop", may quickly become part of youth culture; mostly that doesn't matter, but some young people (5%?) have innate potential to develop ideas requiring careful exposition.

Behavioural norms develop independently of simple rationales. In the instance discussed here, movement towards a new cultural norm equates to panegyrising the 'average'. Given no means to recognise, let alone to exult, excellence, results in a static or falling 'norm'.

Set aside fears of AIs usurping the planet's governance. Instead, be grateful for how they may fill in an increasing deficit in human knowledge and reasoning skills.

Brown says AI make student brain no work good, teacher should help use it better

There may be an independent contributory factor

University students in the USA enter a costly system of education which leaves most of them with an immense debt which cannot be avoided even by bankruptcy. As always, the UK follows US leads into Hell; the backdoor privatisation during the 80s and 90s has led to an unfelicitous environment for staff and students alike.

The context demands US students to gain good final grades come what may. The risible, now almost unobtainable, American Dream remains a strong motivator for individuals in a society devoid of deeply embedded culture.

DRAM it! Cheap PCs being priced out of existence as memory cost bites

Re: My suggestion being implemented?

Only two downvotes so far. Where have Satan's little helpers gone? Very remiss.

My suggestion being implemented?

On occasion, I have posited that surveillance states like the USA, UK, and Australia, will move towards preventing ordinary people from owning Internet connected devices over which the user has considerable control. Dumb terminals with little onboard memory and no provision for attaching external memory shall be the norm. ISPs must connect customers to one of a handful of government approved cloud services; in turn these services will provide memory store (falsely claimed to be heavily encrypted), plus subscription access to such as Microsoft and Netflix.

Thereby, two birds are killed with one stone: the provision of unassailable surveillance, and the knock-on of total protection for so-called 'Intellectual Property'.

Governments or, at least, any wily advisers they employ, will recognise that surreptitious introduction of what are to become unavoidable restrictions, begets less chance of successful protest when compulsion is applied.

Thus, pricing current PCs out of existence for plebeians leaves a gap to be filled by cheap dumb terminals. These devices could be made very attractive to the impecunious by (initially and for a short while thereafter) bundling-in 'free' access to cloud-based software vended by Microsoft/Apple and their 'trusted partners' such as major games merchants, streaming services, and gambling emporia. The WEF intention that nobody should 'own' anything, but rent it instead, would be boosted.

Dystopias are at their best when not obvious to their occupants. 'Ninety-eighty-four' overkill is not required. As an example, consider how well Neoliberalism has been accommodated by ordinary people; initially there was bribery (e.g. cheap council houses and share issues in formerly state-owned businesses), then the next generation accepted it as 'normal', i.e. unremarkable, economic and social policy.

There is a way to go yet. However, creatures like the late Ayn Rand, and the soon-to-be 'late' Soros would welcome the progress.

Britain's privacy watchdog quits after 'poor judgment' admission

What's become of robust expression of opinion?

I won't comment upon the specific storm in a teacup, but general observations are appropriate.

Apparently, fear of giving offence, accidentally or deliberately, appears embedded in the mindsets of adults born since the 70s. The imperative for restraint - amounting to reluctance to express opinions contrary to those of the herd - not only is embedded internally, but nowadays also enforced by the police; indeed, should opinion stray in support of 'not acceptable in the official narrative' persons one risks harassment, or arrest, by Britain's gun-toting would-be 'macho' anti-terrorism force.

Criminalisation of opinion burst upon public attention when the popular TV presenter - Anne Robinson - following a complaint to North Wales Police that Robinson had uttered "What use are the Welsh?", was placed under investigation for several months.

Robinson's question when taken at literal face value seems fair enough. When, as was the case, clearly uttered in jest, it begs laughter, not discussion.

When somebody interrupts to accuse one of uttering an '-ism', or other 'unacceptable' sentiment (e.g. assertion that people come in two sexes, and the 'gender' idea is nonsense), the robust response is "That's as may be" followed by continuation of what you were saying: certainly not apology or debate, the latter a fool's errand when dealing with morons. Indignation expressed over something one has written is best ignored; don't seek to be esteemed by fools.

The prudent stratagem when people persist in pursuing a vexatious complaint is to keep chucking the ball back into their court to elaborate/justify their concerns. Don't let them take an initiative wherein you have to explain yourself.

UK Cabinet Office hiring AI and innovation 'influencer' to build 'AI-first culture' in civil service

Recruit from YouTube?

YouTube abounds with contributors styling themselves as 'influencers'. This heterogeneous class of person ranges from 'celebrity' nobodies to other ordinary nobodies, each kind seeking a quick buck. An increasing number of non-people have joined the ranks of the damnable. These are animated AI-artifacts.

Users of ersatz people seem to favour hiding behind voluptuous females. Internet fora exist where hapless human nonentities seek instruction in creating attractive - by implication trustworthy - talking avatars. Doubtlessly, there are higher-order 'low-life' types making money through avatar construction.

Given the seedy nature of No. 10, the Cabinet, and its Office - this evinced from the likes of Zelensky and Murdoch being entertained there plus lingering mind-poisoning miasmas originating from Mr Blair, the Johnson creature, Mr Starmer, and various in-between bit-players in the games of mendacity and self-serving compliance with WEF/City demands - it is appropriate for the 'influencer' to manifest as a convincing (no money spared) avatar.

The committee feeding its collective-persona-avatar would remain secret. Civil servants logging in for their daily doses of uplifting National Socialism morale-boosting will believe they are seeing and listening to a living person. The belief will be reinforced by occasionally viewing faked animated clips of their 'influencer' in the company of really important people (e.g. Netanyahu, Blair, Soros, Zelensky, and Gates). Indeed, the influencer can be portrayed giving evidence to parliamentary committees, nobody would be the wiser.

Gradually, to meet requirements set by Davos and NATO cheerleaders, all government officials, including political 'leaders' will be replaced by seemingly handsome men and beautiful women. 'AI' capacities for pseudo-intelligent conversation rapidly are improving. The avatars will issue instructions to necessary remaining human staff. Thereafter, the UK can be reconstructed as an Israeli owned global AI asset; that is the land littered with razor wire protected 'data centres', and, such of the population unworthy for inclusion within 'Epstein Reserves' dotted over the planet, left to starve.

Mr Starmer and his team have excelled at visionary government. Praise from their masters shall be lavish. Mr Starmer's imminent successor shall carry forward the banner of National Socialism. Whoever that may be will mouth the words of AI-policy despite being clueless about how to use a pocket calculator. But first, he/she must erase from the UK all supporters of 'Palestine Action'.

Released under the Creative Commons Attribution International Licence 2.0.

What's in a word?

"Influencer" equates to "propagandist".

An 'influential' person carries the suggestion, but no guarantee, of authority drawing upon gravitas.

Feds freaked over Fable 5 after simple 'fix this code' prompt, not jailbreak, says researcher

Re: Stunt

I agree.

Abandonment of pseudo-intellectual claptrap arising in discussion of the supposedly 'emergent' property of the undefined attribute of consciousness, plus attendant nonsense about 'free will', and 'moral agency', is required before constructive discussion of so-called 'AI' and its uses can begin. Application of those ideas to humanity has led nowhere helpful, so why should it for 'AI'?

I am convinced that the potentially very useful tool, 'AI', is most sensibly discussed in the context of evolutionary circumstances leading to animal/human behaviours deemed 'intelligent'. Additionally, the way by which initially uncluttered substrates - neuronal structures in animals/man, and computer components in 'AI' - are filled will need to converge on mechanisms akin to those arising through Darwinian Natural Selection. That is, 'AI' entities must be exposed to true 'learning' by experience. This motivated/regulated by a pain/pleasure principle such as hunger/repletion. When modelled upon intelligent humans (and cats) pain/pleasure generalises to curiosity/enlightenment.

It's obvious that LLM 'AI' models are nothing more than vessels into which digitally incarnated (supposed) knowledge and experiences are poured in. Even on its own limited terms, current 'AIs' are fed an indiscriminate diet of what's available. This parallels earlier prominent ideas about 'big data': bung everything in and trawl through in hope of finding helpful connections - the mindless underpinning of 'surveillance'.

Current 'AIs', viewed properly, are very large statistical models parsimoniously fitting, by various criteria, the data to which they were exposed and such that interconnections among the data can be explored. Indeed, an 'AI' can spew out convincing videos of Starmer, Zelensky, Netanyahu, Merz, Soros, and the ex-Mrs Parker-Bowles, performing stripteases on the floor of the UN chamber. However, just because AI 'performances' of that kind are way beyond the capabilities of routines within the 'Statistical Package for Social Sciences' (SPSS), and similar, does not mean 'AI' models differ qualitatively from those deployed by traditional statisticians.

What may differ greatly is the ability of mainstream AI computer scientists, and attendant 'others', to interpret/manipulate any kind of statistical model, compared to applied-statisticians. Insight into the working of multiple linear regression models, and into how they may be manipulated to help draw inferences from data, may be more helpful for discussing 'AI' than any amount of prating over 'layers', ''weights, 'distillation', etc. Even should computer scientists be familiar with standard statistical modelling, neither they nor anyone else, can but barely apply that skill to understanding the detailed inner working of any extant 'AI'. Throw in as many processing components as one wishes, but no additional insight into detailed 'AI' behaviour can emerge: it remains a passive statistical model.

US clampdown on Anthropic models sends EU sovereignty surge into overdrive

The EU's stance is simple to understand.

The EU, and like-minded British despots, are anxious to take full control over censoring AI models.

Britain plots digital bedtime after kicking under-16s off social media

A naughty idea?

Doubtlessly, many readers of The Register possess skills necessary for organising DDoS attacks. What if easy to follow instructions were promulgated via sites intelligent teenagers are likely to visit?

Imagine the benefit to the nation should Downing Street, the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall, selected parts of the City, and royal residences be subjected to prolonged DDoS,

Of course, anybody bearing a placard with the words "DDoS the Bastards" will be arrested under the Terrorism Act. It doesn't take long for Mr Starmer, and the Home Secretary (whoever that may be) to get the cross-party Neoliberal rank and file in line to vote for a proscription. They easily succeeded in stifling criticism of Israeli atrocities; at least, they think they did.

Beware, 'historical crimes' are prosecuted with great enthusiasm.

Re: Starmer's Legacy

Don't assume Bad Enoch, whoever leads the Lib/Dems, and Farrago, wouldn't jump on this bandwaggon.

It's all about control.

The currently three major parties, plus the even more lunatic fringe, are signed up to Neoliberalism, beholden to the City of London, staunch supporters of the WEF, and approve the message from the Ayn Rand Foundation. Differences between them are paper thin. Labour mumbles a few 'Old Labour' mantras, the Conservatives act similarly, the Lib/Dems remain puzzled as to which policies would give them an edge. Farrago has as much personal charm as Yaxley-Lennon, and each adds outspoken animosity towards immigrants to the basic Neoliberal agenda.

AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter

Re: Hilarious article leads to question

Thank you for a very interesting response.

Re: Hilarious article leads to question

That has serious ramifications.

Hilarious article leads to question

Not having bothered to become privy to the inner workings of so-called AIs, I am puzzled by their susceptibility to obey instructions input in a manner disapproved by an AI's designer.

Stories circulate about people submitting documents (e.g. CVs) ending up being perused by an AI whereupon instructions concealed in the text from human view by transparent fonts nevertheless influence an AI's 'judgement'. The question begged is how broadly this applies in general to AI inputs which the AI's operator has not intended as giving instructions. How can AI's be obliged to distinguish between instructions and the text they are supposed to analyse?

France and Germany agree to disagree, ditch joint next-gen Euro fighter

Good news?

A temporary reprieve for €100 billion from not being chucked down the drain?

Signal says UK plan to scan devices for nude images 'endangers us all'

Re: Nudity is not a crime

And frightening the horses is no longer a major consideration.

Re: Impossible to have a reasoned discussion

Yes, but don't place much faith in deterrence by severe sentencing. Historically, fear of punishment has not dramatically reduced criminality; canny criminals adapt their behaviour to become less visible; others don't think about consequences of their actions. In the eighteenth century there is the example of an English public hangman being himself hanged for theft.

Re: Mary Whitehouse was a well-meaning

My history too.

I recollect some of the broadcasting people who were butts of her campaigns regarded her with grudging affection.

Re: idiots led by Donkeys paid by Big Tech

Labour converged with the Conservatives when Mr Blair - a repellent individual exuding fake charm - saw opportunity for his own financial advancement from throwing in his lot with Neoliberal economic and social policy. Now he heads a 'foundation', the sourcing of its funds being a matter better not inquired into lest one incur the wrath of people far more despicable than Mr Blair.

Mr Starmer - 21st century Mary Whitehouse?

Mary Whitehouse was a well-meaning, yet sometimes overly zealous, protector of public morals. The movement she created took a keen interest in berating TV producers when nudity (or sparse clothing), lewd innuendo, and impious thought, was broadcast. Her National Viewers' and Listeners' Association became influential, but that declined during the 70s.

Mr Starmer is totally lacking the charm and humour of Mrs Whitehouse and, even in a parliament of mainly dimwits, he comes across as an intellect which, by comparison, makes former PM Boris Johnson look sage. Mr Starmer's obsession with nudity is bizarre. He doesn't distinguish it from obscene, repellent, and already illegal acts. Whilst most people, including Mr Starmer and all his cabinet members, look better well-covered than with all their bits and pieces displayed, nudity per se is something children and adults should take in their stride. If simple nudity becomes the focus for law enforcement, then police will be overwhelmed by offences reported or detected electronically. That will distract due attention away from genuine physical abuses of children and of vulnerable adults.

As suggested by other commentators, Mr Starmer's motivations have little to do with the wellbeing of anybody else other than himself and his (non-electorate) backers. It will suit him, the Opposition parties too, for non-sexual deviant thought to be stifled or caught and prosecuted. Not only is one forbidden from openly proclaiming sympathy with the aims of Palestine Action, and issuing similar not approved by the WEF sentiments, but also private conversations will be caught in the net.

Department of Work and Pensions' answer to AI job fears is a bot to polish your CV

Mr Starmer's thought processes are less inspirational than an AI's

Perhaps the introduction of officially sanctioned AI ghost-writer authorship of CVs was inevitable. It's the culmination of four decades of declining educational aptitudes; a vicious cycle of falling teacher/student abilities. Maybe the drop in expectations was hastened by Johnson's disastrous (yet profitable to some) handling of Covid-19 and its effects upon children and young adults. Congruently with whittled-down resources for education - austerity on behalf of crooked bankers and, later for corrupt Ukraine and its NATO cheerleaders, soon, perhaps for do-no-wrong Israel also - inane blather, some legislation too, concerning dubious so-called 'rights' of bizarre minority groups, genuflection to America's BLM, and deep ignorance of mammalian biology figuring in 'debate' about 'gender', it's no surprise that even bright young people have been sapped of confidence and denied basic skills.

These days, on social media, people capable of penning a couple of paragraphs of structured and grammatical prose, and drawing upon a vocabulary much greater than that of the average 'influencer/celebrity' (and British cabinet minister) is deemed an AI faking humanity. Sadly, there is an element of truth in that. Hence, expectation of job applicants writing coherent CVs has dwindled. Conversely, the intellectual qualities of people in management positions, especially the wishy-washy 'Human Resources' types, has, in tandem, declined. Therefore, the entire process of hiring may best be left to automata.

Given that back & forward of documents shall be online, there is opportunity for the residual 1% of truly able candidates to subvert the system to their own advantage. AI-prompting to circumvent built-in refusal mechanisms is becoming a fine art. It can go far beyond undressing a male politician and endowing him with female breasts. It appears that the well-versed in prompting can assume considerable control of an AI. Instructions can be inserted within apparently innocuous text by the expedient of using a white character font.

Thus, there is a dual opportunity for mischief. The Whitehall AI could be induced to produce ribald rhymes about prominent figures, these for distribution to its clients. Also, job applications sent to recruiters could be hiddenly configured to enhance their success.

Claude celebrates Anthropic's stock market float with blockbuster ... outage

Re: we're

According to some economic gurus, the 2008 crash will look like a 'correction' compared to what's to come. It's not only AI stocks which may be perilous to hold, but also a swathe of hitherto reliable companies operating in consumer-discretionary markets will suffer. On top of that the global economic position, especially as regards the USA, is dire.

Stay away from 'Growth stocks'

My personal investment planning avoids stocks which people buy in expectation of 'growth'. Although these may turn out to be sound investments, lack of a proven track record of income generation and dividend distribution is offputting. Even dividend shares, with yields near market average, are suspect when the P/E ratio is enormous: suggestion of 'talked-up' prices arises.

I don't buy into investment trusts, and similar, but if I did, I would be very suspicious of a holding in 'growth' AI as indicating seeking to be fashionable. In a market where AI-related stocks are prominent, which is the case in the USA, beware of index-tracking funds because, perforce, they must have amounts of stocks in proportion to the weighting of each in the market.

Peter Mandelson invited UK PM to meet Palantir's Thiel

Ever since Mr Blair took office, corruption in the UK has been running ever more deeply.

That an app 'Fits on a Floppy' is still a useful measure in 2026

That an app 'Fits on a Floppy'

Those were the days.

AIs don't like religion – particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, study claims

Shall my question be answered without bias?

I am deeply anxious to know why Thetans are not treated with reverence, and why their role in the cosmos isn't extensively taught in schools.

Re: And they're Surprised?

Reddit is part of the training base? If so, my secular heresies are becoming embedded in humanity's core beliefs.

Big Tech extracts retirement-scale wealth from UK internet users, research shows

Re: "Free" -- Always Was An Obvious Weasel Word......

"Our trusted partners"

A parochial acccount of the research findings

The title of this piece and the tenor of its content is directed at the UK, and with passing mention of Europe.

The Web3 Foundation document summary contains the following.

… the model finds that in the United States the average person is worth $6,563 in data-derived commercial value each year. In North America as a whole, it is $4,643. In the UK and Europe, it is $1,604. Even in the rest of the world, where monetisation rates are far lower, the annual figure is $265.

The considerably higher figure for the USA makes sense within the context.

Whether the sums shown have tangibility/meaning within monetised economies (or any other) must depend upon faith in "the latest methodological techniques"

Datacenter builds could be shielded from judicial review in UK planning reforms

Re: Corruption shall reign?

I had Mr Clegg in mind.

Corruption shall reign?

Data centres are big-money 'investments' backed by powerful influences in the USA and the UK. Regardless of whether these centres are a success or turn out to be white elephants, a huge number of middlemen shall walk away pocketing millions. We may be sure that across the present three major political parties in the Commons/Lords, and in the aspirant Reform Party, some individuals are salivating. It is as near certain as tomorrow's sunrise that key figures in the inner cross-party clique will benefit either directly (e.g. enormous 'brown envelopes' in the Cayman Islands and post-retirement sinecures), or indirectly (e.g. via favours for family and friends) from largesse organised by the likes of Musk, Rothschild Bank, J, P. Morgan, and other big players in Wall Street and the City.

Also, comparative tiddlers, up and down the country, with connections to local councils and/or devolved assemblies, shall rise to stand by the trough. A bonanza for some landowners, construction companies, and, of course, lawyers.

What better for these creatures, they befitted for life shaded from view of decent people, than keeping troublesome judicial authorities at bay?

Utah tells porn sites to take the P out of VPNs, and it's their fault that they can't

It is feaasible to control Internet access but not ...

… by screwing with VPN.

A state, or blocs of states such as the EU and USA, is capable of fully controlling Internet access. It merely has to forbid provision to ordinary people of computational devices capable of programmable independent action from a supervisory nexus.

That is, every 'consumer' device is a dumb terminal. These terminals would have only sufficient processing power and onboard storage to enable connection to an approved 'mothership'. Perhaps every connection would begin in a state supervised cloud and could continue to acceptable (to the state) other permitted entities such as Microsoft, Apple, GovUK, Tesco, Sky, and so on. Not only would disallowed individual sites be off-limits but, so too, nations not properly supportive of 'democracy', Western values, and Zionism.

This must be a wet dream of many governments. Equally so for commerce; add-blocking could be forbidden, as would access to copyright infringing materials. If the permitted devices had no means of connection to external storage, the circulation of a host of forbidden or proprietary 'content' would be stemmed.

This cannot be accomplished overnight. However, when a government and the major opposition parties are all signed up to Neoliberalism, it can be gradually implemented. Manufacturers and vendors of communication/computation devices are inveigled by promises or threats to follow the new rules. ISPs will be obliged to authenticate the nature of devices to which they offer services. Border forces will confiscate all incoming unauthorised equipment.

In the UK this need not be a bad development. Not only would children be protected, but also a huge swathe of dim and ill-educated adults can be denied access to sites (e.g. Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook) where 'dangerous' ideas are discussed, else their owners could be obliged to clean up their messes. As for porn, let adults have as much as they desire; it serves the purpose of 'bread and circuses' alongside major 'cultural' events including Eurovision Song Contests, Come Dancing, Olympics, and royal events such as funerals with ditties like "Candle in the Flatus".

These measures shall allow the true owners of politicians to proceed to the next stage of the WEF plan which is a population cull so that the number of serfs matches requirements.

Mozilla warns UK: Breaking VPNs will not magically fix Britain's age-check mess

Suggestion

Rather than fulminating over the UK government's attempt to serve its WEF masters to progress towards the Neoliberal-planned Ayn Rand dystopia, concentrate upon how the government's efforts can be thwarted.

For instance, law forbidding private use of VPNs would be laughed at and ignored en masse. However, there would be attempts to prevent payment processing by VPN service vendors.

What potential is there for the extension of volunteer provided services such as Tor? Can they be shutdown?

Bear in mind, this crackdown on freedom is not merely the idle fantasy of Mr Starmer and the self-serving half-wits surrounding him. Bad Enoch and her lot are equally in thrall to WEF and City of London backed Neoliberalism. Similarly, for the Lib/Dems and whoever leads them. Farage and his crew of mountebanks can nor more be trusted than the rabble of 'bought' career politicians.

Re: Wine and steak

That's spot on.

UK reloads artillery plans with £1B remote-control howitzer order

Soldier boys need their toys

Where's the threat? Oh, I forgot, Russia will be turning up along the Channel coast in 2029.

Lay in the vodka. A celebration awaits.

UK government prescribes Single Patient Record for NHS data chaos

Kickbacks matter

Forget about tendering processes. Drop empty ritual and cut to the chase. The contract must go to the company offering the largest kickback to be shared among Cabinet ministers and their dependents. The best kind of kickback, i.e. hard to prove, is offers of sinecures in post-political life. Also, children, such as Mr Starmer's must be considered; a nice touch would be free places at Harvard (no proof of ability required) and fast-tracked managerial employment by a behemoth concern. After all, Mr Blair's family did well. Johnson's multitude may be too young to benefit yet.

The only checks needed are on the financial stability of the winning company and its ability to meet promises. Palantir looks entirely kosher from Mr Starmer's perspective.

Firefox integrates an ad-blocker, but not to block ads

Ad-blocking bites the hand that feeds us

Ad-blocking is thoroughly reprehensible because it denies income to website owners intent upon bettering mankind through distributing information and entertainment.

Indeed, it is theft in exactly the same manner as bypassing paywalls and has similar purpose to illicitly distributing copyright protected 'content'.

Some people foolishly assume that website information and all other 'content' represented by sequences of binary digits is grist for the mill of the 'free'; the fact that binary sequences may endlessly be reproduced without depriving their originator of anything of tangible monetary worth - as determined by open market 'price discovery' - does not offer due recognition to effort going into the making of a sequence.

Blocking ads is akin to unauthorised 'derivation' from works owned by other people. Ads are integral to the ethos/style of any 'work' presented to the public. The mere fact of the alteration being visible only to the unscrupulous recipient doesn't act as mitigation because the damage has been done.

Until the time when the masses have access only to cloud-connected dumb terminals, it may not be feasible to deter or punish individual users of ad-blockers. However, that shouldn't prevent taking measures against makers and distributors of blockers. Let them be prosecuted and their sites for access be blocked like other unwholesome content.

Palantir CEO: 10 percent of the world 'professionally hates us'

Count me among the 10%.

Kids say they can beat age checks by drawing on a fake mustache

Battles against nebulous 'harm' may be unproductive

Setting aside documented instances when adults attempt (or succeed) in seducing minors into behaviours endangering the victims' physical, mental, or sexual wellbeing, leaves a bewildering miscellany of worries, some tangible, and others in the eye of particular beholders, which age-verification is claimed to reduce.

Regarding matters broadly to be labelled 'abuse', there is broad belief that wrongdoers must be thwarted, and if caught punished. Presumably, 'social media' and some discussion fora are rated as potential dangers. When these outlets are identified, their owners, if known, must be made responsible for supervising visitors. That applies to the big names, e.g. Twatter, and to fly-by-night outfits. Site blocking is crude, but can succeed in containing problems if blocking is regularly updated in a game of whack-a-mole. The prospect of blocking by one or more nations definitely would concentrate the minds of mainstream social media.

A lot of effort goes into blocking sites the offence of which is promoting removing crumbs from the tables of fat cat copyright rentiers. This effort would better be directed towards sites careless over potential harm to children and vulnerable adults. It's not just sexual predation to be considered. The Internet abounds with sites promulgating weird dietary, behavioural, and other life-style choices which are inappropriate for consideration by the immature. Why not identify them and keep them blocked for the benefit of everyone? Introduce legislation exempting government agencies from commercial (i.e. lost revenue) blowback when site owners assert they have been wrongly pilloried.

Simply blocking offers no infallibility, but it together with whack-a-mole deters everyone other than the committed, especially children with their many distractions (unless they are of obsessive nature).

The remainder of worries appears to centre upon access, without participation, to pornography. Throughout my nearly octogenarian lifetime in the UK, 'battles' and the shifting of boundaries have been continuous. For example, 'content' available now from terrestrial broadcasters would in the 50s and 60s have caused literal apoplexy among a 'Good and Great' concerned over the lax mores of lesser folk whilst themselves indulging in whatever they fancy.

For instance, nudity is commonplace in media legitimately available to children. Why shouldn't everyone take it in their stride? Perhaps access to explicit sexual activities of mainstream nature, such as in the comic French film 'Sexual Chronicles of a French Family' (2012) or the amusing 'Arabian Nights' (1974) should be incorporated into 'sex education' for adolescents; no doubt, much more enjoyable than earnest pontification over 'gender' and other modern nonsense preoccupations.

Non-mainstream, yet legal, materials likely offputting or puzzling for most adolescents, is better relegated to the whack-a-mole category (e.g. Pornhub and its like).

There is a place for age-checking, but by far more imaginative means than the numpties in Parliament would conceive. Why not commandeer 'AI' for the task? People, children and adults, could register themselves on each of their devices through 'conversation' with a high-end AI. Assuming the AI had been trained on the usual dross, plus extensive other materials, the conversation could lead to categorising an individual as mentally mature/immature, low/medium/high intelligence, broadly/narrowly educated, etc, without needing to assign a specific age.

Questions would range over factual knowledge, beliefs about appropriate behaviours in particular situations, and tests of mental acuity. Regarding factual knowledge, total ignorance of 'conversations' on Twatter/Facebook, of 'celebrities/influencers' lifestyles and opinions, and of the names of footballers, would be a strong step towards assignment in the upper categories of sentience.

Similarly, an hypothetical question such as "You were driving a car and knocked an old man off his bicycle. Which of the following immediate actions by you would be most sensible to do first? - (a) Check whether the man is injured. (b) … (c) … (d) Get the man onto his feet and then punch him in the face for damaging your car's bodywork - should if answered (d) result in banning from any site which gives the slightest hint of portraying or condoning violence. Thus, 'Superman' fan club websites would be off-limits.

A fifteen-year-old offering some inkling of what 'Special Relativity' is about would earn a free pass to anything so long as he hadn't made praise for the Beatles' musicality.

Committee types could have hours of immense fun fine-tuning the age-checking mechanism.

Where to buy a non-Apple, non-Google smartphone

Support from general commerce?

I would greatly appreciate being able to ditch Google and all its works. Proprietary Android, despite various ways to tame its intrusive nature, is becoming unbearable. Google's planned tightening of control over users is egregious.

I am aware of means to jailbreak Google Android devices, and capable of doing so. However, I am reliant upon a banking application for handling daily finances and a self-investment stocks and shares ISA. The application is provided by Barclay Bank; it works very well. However, the bank's priority is security, as is mine; this entails trusting a device's operating system and the user's general savvy. From a security angle, Google's planned restrictions may be helpful. Should Barclays and other banks choose the easy option of denying use of their applications on the open source version of Android, or better yet, ordinary Linux, the inconvenience would be considerable. In the worst scenario, it entails running two mobile devices: one for banking, and the other containing one's free choice of software sourced from outside Google's control.

On my phone, and another couple of devices, the best utility software comes from F-Droid. There is no reason why commerce when deploying applications requiring enhanced privacy and security should not endorse its own collectively curated repository of software usable on open-source Android and ordinary Linux. This could entail agreements with mobile device makers.

The EU is detaching itself from reliance on software and Internet services controlled within the USA legal jurisdiction. The UK should follow suit. Doubtless, a large chunk of the remainder of the world entertains similar intentions.

Databricks can't seem to shake authors' copyright claim that could result in 'extraordinary' damages

Did you know?

AI manufacturers scrape The Register articles and reader comments along with a host of other online publications. Therefore, by posting comments here one is contributing to the 'education' of LLM AIs.

Upon interrogation, the more versatile AIs offer sources for quotations and for their own distillations of opinion. Attributions go to the outlets scoured. I hazard, attributions to El Reg carry greater weight among the 5% of minds deemable as truly sapient (from among whom 'movers and shakers' of intellectual substance arise) than mentions of Twitter and similar places morons, publicists (self and otherwise), politicians, and dross calling themselves 'influencers', congregate.

The propagation of sound, yet unpopular, opinion is further enhanced by the incestuous nature of LLM AIs as their own promulgated 'content' becomes input for another AI.

Means for subverting the 'thought' processes of AIs are discussed among academics and mentioned by El Reg. These techniques are in their infancy, yet may become usable for people wishing to alter 'thought' within the mind-numbing 'democracies' everyone is told to revere. Perhaps, certain word usages and sentence constructions can raise the prominence (and authority) of text gobbled by AIs such that 'received opinion' is shifted; the alteration following from naive beliefs of AIs being authoritative.

Manipulating opinion may turn out to be far less costly than existing 'marketing' companies imagine.

Almost doubtlessly, major AI vendors are aware that their products can, before release, be tuned not only to omit discussion of dangerous or illegal topics, but also to mute, say, 'non-woke' sentiment.

Indeed, I have experienced attempts at muting 'non-narrative' opinion by a spelling and grammar checker add-on for Mozilla Firefox called "AI Grammar Checker & Paraphraser – LanguageTool". This tool, on the whole is excellent. However, when I referred to "the Ukraine" (i.e. the landmass), I was told that in modern parlance that is not acceptable. After, many attempts to set me on the path of righteous indignation against Russia, it gave up. Oddly, it doesn't object to the phrase "Palestine Action".

Regardless of vendor intention, truly subversive ways to influence the internal content of new and updating AIs may be emerging.

Re: Fair use

The USA copyright doctrine of 'fair use' was introduced to put gloss on otherwise obviously grossly restrictive law. Each stipulated exception enables lawyers to test the boundaries, resulting in a mishmash of case-law. A profitable pass time.