Economy – John Vincent

Patch?

Hobbyists built it. So, how come billions are invested by the huge corporations that use it? Only a fraction of their resource was used to create it in the first place. The INTERNET is as much a wonder of the world as the pyramids. I don’t say that lightly. Today’s level of interconnection, intercommunication and interaction across the whole globe was merely speculated about 50-years ago. In historic terms that’s the blink of an eyelid.

Where we are now it’s impossible to imagine a future without the facilities that are at my fingertips. Tap out recognisable words and they can go anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.

[That part is poor. Keyboards are where my fingertips connect with the world. Surely there will come a better way in the not-too-distant future? Evolution didn’t make us this way.]

Looking at some other major advances of civilisations, they came about in separate ways.

Long distant roads were originally military assets. Getting legions of troops from one place to another in a sprawling empire. Dominating the landscape. Reinforcing even the most remote outpost. Crossing a great distance on land has moved through several phases, waterways gave way to railways and they back to roads, as a primary means of transportation.

The telegraph was more, what I might call, can do technology. Experimentalists like Marconi put two and two together to make five. Scientific investigation provided the possibilities. He, and his like, were entrepreneurs. They saw the piece parts of technology as a business opportunity.

Aviation was more of an evolutionary advancement. A dream that the ancients held and wrote about. Slowly down the centuries theories and experimentation came together until powered flight became viable. Then decade after decade, more technical possibilities were exploited. Warfare, enterprise and adventurers have driven continuous development.

The INTERNET wasn’t seen as a commercial opportunity at its inception. It was a put together simply as a means for scientists to share their work. Maybe more than hobbyists doing the work but technicians with no master plan for world domination. They certainly were not Bond villains.

That is one possible one reason for the vulnerabilities inherent in our global electronic infrastructure. This week, the implications of those intrinsic vulnerabilities are becoming all too apparent. Embedded code that only a few experts take any notice of, that is until something bad happens. Their vital work never especially celebrated or significantly rewarded.

I don’t say it will ever happen but what if there was a practical plan for an INTERNET-2. A whole new set of protocols? An attempt to build-in integrity, expandability, and security from day one. Learning from experience.

The word “patch” is an indication of how crazy the current situation remains. It’s like that silly word “glitch.” Even the word “junk” seems quite inadequate if a crook “hacks” someone’s private account. These words make serious issues seem like minor inconveniences. Distinguishing between annoyances and harmful situations has become muddy waters.

Why is this the case? Is this the only way to communicate what’s going on.

I think it goes back to simple utility. Is the INTERNET, in its current form, so incredibly useful that society can tolerate any number of “inconveniences.” I wonder. Or will the story be like the waterways and the railways. Neither will ever go away but one will dramatically improve on the other. Push past the other. Thus, civilisation advances.

pipeline clogged up

Education policy over the last 40-years has a lot to answer for. Not at its best. Sadly, its best is only available to less than a quarter of the population. When you have classes on how to design a cereal packet taking precedence over how to cut a piece or wood or wire a plug or cook and egg or check a shopping bill then we are in ridiculous territory.

Do I jump on the bandwagon and blame Margaret Thatcher? We’ll it’s a nice conspiracy theory of politics. That said, there’s a hint of truth in the assertion. The Thatcher governments did start the drive towards a service-based economy where the importance of manufacturing industry was diminished. So, practical and vocational skills training were reshaped. They became unrecognisable. Then successive governments took money out of post 16 education.

Waking up in 2026 to a drift that started in 1986 is great, if a little late. A new education and training transformation is surely needed but is it the one that the current Prime Minister (PM) has in mind? His writings suggest that he’s a nostalgic sentiment towards vocational skills.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is working on the subject. His report is expected soon. Recommendations centred on a redistribution of government funds towards employment support are likely to be on the cards.

I know it’s a repetitive complaint to make because it’s said often. Now, what schools are obliged to teach and life as it’s lived are miles apart. In fact, life as it will be lived, in the lifetime of pupils in school now. A gap, that has always been there has been encouraged to grow.

Shall I blame another Conservative politician? An admirer of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. That “ever-popular” past Brexit promoting ex-Minister. Mr Gove to be precise. Yes, that blame would be more than appropriate. Obsessions with narrow national performance statistics was misguided. Not unimportant but overly prioritised.

It’s time to urgently get more young people into places that provide opportunity and personal growth. Totally regardless of their background and the places where they grew-up.

One recent comment I’ve heard from industry is this; we’d like to take on more apprentices if we had more experienced people to mentor them at work. Not only that but the apprentice levy hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that but business is tough so the focus must be on the here and now, if we want to be here tomorrow. In otherwards, the recruitment pipeline is clogged up.

There’s a degree of uncertainty too. Not that this is new either. The shape of the jobs of 10-years’ time isn’t easy to plan for given the race to implement ever more advanced technology. I say that’s not new. What I may be underestimating is the pace of change.

The plus here. Young people are the digital natives. They stand a much better chance of adapting to the rapid pace of change than anyone who, like me, grew up in the analogue world.

If Burnhamism is to mean anything this problem must be cracked[1]. It’s urgent. A subject for several red boxes. For the PM to push hard on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0melgpre23o

As I said in [insert conference venue]

It’s Autumn. This morning, my garden is getting some desperately needed rain. On the News, stories are of the Conference season ending. That’s the part of the year when UK political parties gather their members and supporters at venues up and down the country. Conference rooms buzz and hotel bars sell out of snacks (and beer). Several themes keep popping up. These themes are regardless of the political party or their philosophy. They fit nicely into speeches. They get a hearty round of applause. It’s not that 2026 is different from other years. What’s remarkable is that it should be different.

The three recurrent popular themes I have in mind are:

Offer of give aways or a policy announcement focused on potential supporters.
Majoring on the unique powers one party has, as opposed to others.
An announcement that’s magical thinking dressed up as seriousness.

The first is about planning for future elections. It’s no good expecting voters to flock to a party unless the members and supporters of that party are lined up ready to go. Door-stepping, leaflet deliveries, donations, local meetings all depend on voluntary engagement. Big money can shift the dial by paying campaigners to do some groundwork. There’s no substitute for local people doing their best in every constituency. Whatever the financial situation.

Second. Answering the question of – why vote for us? There must be a USP. This is often more to do with personal belief than practical reality. Wrapped up in a projection of values, there must be a specialness that motivates people. It can be irrational, unrealistic, and colourful rhetoric.

Say, Conservatives cut taxes. Although history shows that they don’t. Labour protects workers. Only that they often cosy up to big business when in power. Liberals herald freedom and equality. Only to agonise over both, perpetually. Greens are ambassadors for the planet. Only to see their ill-considered efforts backfire. Reform is businesslike. Only that every week there’s resignations and scandals.

Third. To capture the national News cycle at least one new announcement must make a splash. This eye-catching commitment or instant policy may be forgotten in just a few of days. For example, the Conservatives “iron dome” is a godsend for newspaper cartoonists. Next general election the proposal will be locked away in a cupboard.

I don’t want you to think that the list above is a grumpy old man being too cynical. There’s a political legacy here that is incredibly difficult to shift. I can report, contrary to business as usual, there are developments this year. Perhaps another list of three will help.

Firstly, the UK political landscape is unusual. There are five national parties vying for the public’s attention. All five parties have a chance of making breakthroughs. All five party leaders are smiling about their own prospects.

Second. Huge issues leave all politicians scratching their heads. Stumped. Rapidly advancing technology and its impact on society and the workforce of the future remain a minority interests. Big answers to big questions are not forthcoming.

Third. Turbulence experienced every day, whether it be volatile world affairs, climatic changes or the rising cost of living seems to have politicians clutching at straws. Unable to show it but all to conscious of the unpredictability of the electorate. The impact of events.

We live in interesting times.

No more – please!

I would not ban Christmas. I think it was one of Oliver Cromwell’s biggest mistakes[1]. He may not have been the author of the legal ban but upholding it was a mistake (from 1644 to 1660).

But and there’s a but. Here the sun is shining and the temperature is mild. There are still bees landing on the flowers in my garden. Wander into a British supermarket or garden centre on the first of October and guess what I find. Rows and rows of Christmas goods. Anything from food in fancy tins to cheap toys from the far east. One or two shops take this to ridiculous extremes. Enter the front door and the first encounter is piles of Christmas goods. No possibility of ignoring the day that’s nearly 3-months away.

I find it insulting. It’s like we (shopkeepers) must shift this stuff, so we are going to make you pay attention. Make you loop your way through brightly coloured isles. For parents it must be awful.

The world turned upside down. Let’s bypass Halloween. Let’s bypass 5^th November (Gunpower plot). Let’s bypass any other traditional winter festivals. Let’s go straight to Christmas.

I’m not alone. One local garden centre is especially bad. With the idea of continuing my efforts to eke out the last Autumnal colours and buy some compost, I walked through the doors. As I weaved may way through cavalcades of shiny lights and stuffed Farther Christmases my heart sank. Totally unimpressed with the tinsel and plastic trees. Popping out the other side, into the part of the garden centre that is a garden centre, I sighed. Others around me sighed too.

“I didn’t come here for that” and we agreed. It was too much. I wouldn’t have said the same in mid-November but, so early in the season, I was in no mood for tacky festive celebrations.

Should I lobby my Member of Parliament to ban the display of Christmas goods in the shops more than a month before the day of celebration? It’s worth thinking about. Today, I can’t say we have a puritan-dominated Parliament so there’d be little risk of igniting a religious conflict. That said, I imagine most parliamentarians have bigger fish to fry just now.

Let’s not ban Christmas but a modicum of common sense from the commercial sector wouldn’t go amiss. Ramming Christmas goods down our throats is bad practice. I know that the takings for a lot of commercial businesses go up in the festive season.

My question is – are shops there to serve customers or is it the other way around. We all like celebrations. A saturation of homogonous red and white for weeks and weeks is not celebration. It’s jolly depressing.

Shopkeepers may say – you have a choice. Don’t go in our shops if that’s your reaction. That’s a viewpoint that could drive a call to outlaw the unloading of artificial jollity on an unsuspecting public. Forcing us to grind our way through layers of stuff destined for landfills in January next.

Oliver Cromwell’s era came to an end as foolishness took over. 365 years later I think we can do without 365 days of Christmas. British winter festivities amount to more than colourful biscuits.

[1] https://cromwellmuseum.org/did-oliver-cromwell-ban-christmas/

What’s next?

Brexit hasn’t gone away. Hushing up the debate doesn’t solve a problem. It makes it worse. Trying to run a marathon whilst carrying a weighty load of baggage on our backs is never going to get easier. Knowing that those weights can only get heavier makes it even worse.

If I remember rightly, which I do, those promoting this failed enterprise talked of a Singapore-on-Thames[1] like Britain that would stroll the world like a colossus. Free of entanglement with our neighbours. We’d be able to command cheap goods in the shops for all. Costs would go down and standards of living would go up. A mighty English lion would roar, and the rest of the world would tremble. The deception was criminal. It still is. What’s been delivered is the exact opposite. It’ tragic.

Now, we have a Prime Minister (PM) who must go out of his way to defend the Union. The United Kingdom (UK). Making passionate speeches about the world his parents inhabited. Kindling nostalgic emotions to emphasis the government’s commitment to holding our Union together.

If the Brexit vote was motivated by a public concern over immigration and freedom of movement, then what the UK has as a result is significantly worse than what we had during our membership of the European Union (EU). I know these subjects remain of great concern, but the direction of travel post-Brexit is 180 degrees from where we need to be.

Listening to industry in the UK amongst the issue that make them very unhappy, Brexit is never far from the top. The uncertainty and red tape that persists makes trading difficult. Finding, training, and retaining the skilled workforce they need has got harder. Costs keep rising as UK influence over world affairs weakens. Brexit is like a weighty millstone around our necks.

It would be nice to think that the advocates of Brexit have a solution to the problem that they caused. However, painful as it maybe, if you listen to them all they do is carp. Point the figure of blame. Then propose even more Brexity type ideas that mean digging an even bigger hole for us.

There’s hope. At least hope in rhetorical terms. This week, the PM has been floating a set of possibilities[2]. It’s characteristically vague. I don’t criticise him for the caution, given the volatility the political landscape and the financial boost his opponents have gained.

A decade ago, I continue to think that the Leavers did not win the Brexit vote. It was lost by the Remainers. The Leave campaign deployed their arguments with passion and marketing knowhow. Remainers, of which I was a guilty party, majored on logic and rational debate. Sticking to the facts. Sadly, being as attractive as an economics lecture by the gloomiest professor in town. Besuited business highbrows boring the pants off the public.

That’s the dilemma. We know, not only by facts, but now by experience that Brexit was a massive mistake. We also know that pure facts alone do not cut through however conclusive the arguments may be. Charts and statistics have their place only when they move the heart.

I hear this with industry people I talk to. It goes like this; surely the public can see that we need to reengage with Europe. Especially with the conflicts that are raging around the globe. Those words that – we are stronger together – have never been truer.

If there is another UK referendum soon, then the case for being an EU member must be an enthusiastic and visibly patriotic one. No castigating former Leave voters. Such a national campaign must be forward looking, positive and inspiring. An emotional anthem to unite us around the cause. A real world approach to the real world.

[1] https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/brexit-could-singapore-on-thames-become-reality

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmlyewr0lnj3o

Servicing the future

Extrapolation is a dodgy game. That is to take a set of figures from past performance and then projecting them into the future. All too often, even in the world of artificial intelligence, a linear projection is deemed sufficient. Having a mass of collected data and then plotting a line that nicely fits somewhere in the middle. Assuming that there’s a value that is atypical of the accumulated data set.

It’s well accepted that predicting the future is fraught with assumptions. Real life is multidimensional and full of combinations and permutations of possibilities that are off the charts. However, everyday there is enough stability to make planning a useful activity.

There’s the phenomenon of the step change. Overnight a new law may be applicable. In the morning a new system may be switched on. In the evening, a major crash may stop transport links for hours. Events, both predicable and unpredictable throw a spanner in the works.

Trying to predict future workforce needs based on current facts and historic trends is something every major industry must do. I say “must” accepting some struggling and pathological organisations survive on a day-to-day basis.

So, if I start with a 100 people and expect a growth of 5% each year, it’s not unreasonable to think that I might need 105 people next year. It’s surprising how often this basic calculation is presented. Same with the predicable response from a chief executive who would prefer an improvement in productivity. Deliver the same output with the same, or less, people.

Predicting one year ahead is a must. Predicting 10-years ahead is nice. However, in certain industries where, say the products have long lives or the demand for services isn’t going away a long-term projection has meaning.

The search for productivity goes on. Digitisation has made inroads into the paper-based world of a couple of decades ago. I remember when I first held a digital camera in the office. In the mid-1990s it was a whizzy bit of kit to be loaned out on rare occasions.

Artificial intelligence, and all the technology wrapped around it, are reshaping business strategy, risk assessments and workforce planning. Everyone is seeking a competitive advantage.

This morning when I woke up, I was introduced to a new word. It was a BBC radio broadcast called: Rethink: manufacturing or services?[1] It doesn’t exactly roll off the tong. It’s servitization.

The premise is that the line between organisations manufacturing products and those who provide services isn’t a ridged one. Progressively, whatever the product, train, plane or automobile, they use masses of data not only to make but to operate. The data flows rapidly backwards and forwards between maker and operator. And lots of it too.

So, if I had to estimate the number of service engineers that would be needed in the next 10-years, I’d better be aware that their jobs are going to change dramatically. Radically.

However, overall will the numbers of people needed by an industry decrease or not? Or is it just that the nature of work will change for roughly the same overall numbers? That’s not so easy as a straight-line graph. Maybe, as productivity increases so it becomes possible to take on new tasks that previously were not viable. The performance of a product continuously improves.

I’d buy a service and not so much a product. I’ll buy 100,000 miles, not a car.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00325dd

Be fair

Here’s an example of why the public interest needs protection. It’s easy to assume that an App in common usage is comprehensive, unbiased, and trustworthy. But is it?

Sitting in a theatre there’s music playing as people fill the auditorium. Sounds a bit fancy. I’m talking about a local arts centre on a Saturday night. Playing was a compilation of songs and comic tunes few of which I knew. This kept the audience entertained as they shuffled in.

It’s the digital age. One tap on an App on my phone and the result is usually a whirring symbol whilst the App does its analysis to eventually show me what was playing. The whirring symbol kept going. This is hard, so the App excused itself. Then it drew a blank.

The next approach was to pick what seemed to be a theme in the song and look it up on a search engine. There’s the answer. A children’s show theme.

That made me think. Did the App not know the answer or did the App not bother to have reference to that type of song? I went down this line of thinking because what the App normally does is “helpfully” show where a song it has found can be purchased (streamed).

What interest could the App’s algorithm have if there’s nothing available to buy at the end of the process? Any presumption of coverage, fairness and objectivity is merely something I projected on the App’s internal workings. It’s not necessarily there.

The wider point is that placing trust on Apps that are free to download and for the most part produce useful results, as if by magic, maybe not be quite what they seem. Afterall nobody reads the small print – do they?

Some Apps compose data that is extracted from reputable sources. These become popular because of the love of convenience. Within bounds, the information provided can be trusted. This is the general assumption I may make about a freely available weather App.

A key factor here is trust. However, most often that trust only comes about by a regular “try it and see” experience. There’s no mark of quality. There’s no organisation looking after the public interest. Now, if you say to me – that’s what Ofcom[1] does in the UK, I’ll have a little laugh. That regulatory may keep a watching eye on the worst offenders as far as lawbreaking is concerned, but they are not much help in saying this App is a gold star, and this one is equivalent to a dodgy doorstep salesman.

For Apps with mechanical algorithms that chunter out information this may not be a problem. Even if their display includes advertisements and enticements to win a holiday.

What comes next with AI is more concerning. The commercial interests of a smart music identifier are evident. Making recommendations is not to my detriment. Although purposefully fishing in a restricted pool of information could be.

With general purpose Apps, which are a front to AI systems, there’s the potential for manipulation. Where commercial interests are the primary motivator there does need to be someone looking after the public interest. My interests. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

Stop and think

Anthropomorphism is more than the world of “Alice in Wonderland”. A talking rabbit is not the least bit strange fictional tale. Our minds happily accept this as a normal part of storytelling. The anthropomorphic qualities of an animal, or an object is not so easy to explain. But we do it all the time. That is thinking of non-human objects as human in a mystical transformative way.

A teddy bear is an object. One eye, fur, fluff and stuffing however shabby. It’s an object but the teddy bear I had when I was 6-years old is something more. It has a personality. Having travelled with me, over the decades, it’s not an object to be thrown away without a thought.

Like others, I do the same with animals. Not always. Occasionally, I go to the bottom of the garden where it adjoins a grassy field. I may talk to the cows. That’s if they are grazing up against the fence. Now, I know those Dexter cows have no idea what I’m saying but that’s unimportant.

Personal computers haven’t been in our lives as long as teddy bears and animals. From the unwieldy plastic boxes that filled our desks they have transformed into tablets, lap-tops and super smart phones. These devices can be sources of great utility or, on bad days, incredible annoyance. Fliting with both times saving or time destroying.

It’s likely that a machine’s anthropomorphic qualities come out when we are most frustrated. That instantly takes me to the scene from the BBC’s Fawlty Towers[1]. It’s a memorable comic scene. It’s Basil Fawlty’s frustration peeks when his car breaks down at the most inconvenient moment possible. He gives his car a damn good trashing. The car doesn’t flinch or runaway.

Who hasn’t sworn at a computer? I’d label you untrustworthy if you answered – never. I’ve done it more times than I can remember, as if my computer could feel my annoyance. An inanimate black box, full of integrated circuits, memory chips, circuit boards, components, connectors, and multi-coloured wires.

One aspect of computing, that I can state without fear of contradiction. They don’t care. Not one bit. How can they? Caring is a human reaction.

By the way, in 1975, Basil Fawlty’s Austin 1100 Countryman (Estate) car had negligible electronics even if it was probably the car’s electrics at the root of his overwhelming frustration.

I’ve lead you down this path because the thought I have in mind is – will AI make a difference?

We humans are highly influenced by the nature of tasks. Having to read a simple advertising slogan is a million miles from learning from a dense book packed with complex detail.

It’s easy to forget that a computer has no opinion on the tasks that it’s given. Big or small. Awkward or easy. There may be ten lines of code to execute, or a thousand or millions.

My question is – are we anthropomorphising AI? When I read some articles about the future there’s a suggestion that computer code has become like the talking rabbit. It’s more than a synthetic voice composed from trillions on electrical ones and noughts. Blind we become to the reality of billions of machine instructions being crunched. Invisible is the reality of the billions of semiconductor junctions working at unfathomable speeds.

Using jazzy description like; “super intelligence” gives machines a mythical god like status. This is way off the mark in 2026. Powerful computing is truly amazing. AI is developing at an astonishing speed. That said, it’s an exceedingly long way from being anything like us. It’s true I may not be able to say the same in 2046, but we are not there now. What we can say confidently is that nature has had a head start of billions of years. And conscious creatures are vast orders of magnitude more complex than silicon-based electronics.

[1] https://youtu.be/78b67l_yxUc

AI Now

Without a long and tendinous epical on the ethical concerns raised by AI it might be as well to consider several of the practical changes that it has brought about in everyday life. Let’s go for something as simple as applying for a job. An experience that has changed considerably.

I think it’s well written up that this is not a great time to leave school or graduate. The prospect of applying for hundreds of jobs and getting a pile of rejections is an unsettling experience. Fine, during recessions, such as have happened in the past, this is not entirely unusual.

I’ve done my fair share of recruitment. That’s recruitment applying a paper based but highly bureaucratic process to address a pile of job applications. The writing of vacancy notices and setting criteria for a recruitment can be a time-consuming task. That is if the aim is to uphold the best practices that are current or even mandated. at the time.

It’s unsurprising that employers and recruitment agencies are now using AI tools to process applications as they arrive, most often via e-mail. Paper is going out of the window. That world I knew of having a file busting at the seams, and methodically working through it, are gone.

Like a vast electronic funnel applications are pushed in, are sieved through a filter, and some pop out at the at the other end of a hidden process. Hundreds of automated rejections are then created and scattered like confetti amongst those who failed to get past the AI gate keeper.

No wonder young people get a bit dejected as they accumulate masses of machine generated rejections. It’s not them, it’s a process. Easy to say but rejection can feel very personal.

However, there’s a smart fight back. AI can help (or can it). Let’s say I want a job that fits my profile. My ambitions, experience and talents. Just ask one of the AIs out there to generate a “prefect” CV. Feed it the relevant information. Next ask the AI to survey all the current vacancies for jobs that I could apply for with my generic CV. Then select the ones of interest. Having that list, feed the results into AI asking it to tailor a CV and application to fit the requirements of each one. Then automatically fire off the job applications. Error free, formatted to suite the style of the moment and fully customised.

I think you can see where I’m going with this description of events. Yes, it is dehumanising. If both applicant and potential employer are using AI, without human intervention, there’s a battle of the machines going on. Noone need communicate a single word.

It’s like a human – machine – human sandwich. There’s no malicious intention in all this processing. Objectives are set to try and match people with opportunities, but the unintended consequences are ruinous. In fact, it’s like a Monty Python sketch for today.

Not for one moment am I saying that a process is not needed. What’s getting into the realms of science fiction is the escalation that is possible with AI tools. That interface between aspiring employee and potential employer becomes an algorithmic battle.

Because AI costs are so low then this mechanism can be applied at all levels, whether it’s applying to flip burgers or become a commercial pilot.

I’m not having a downer on AI. It’s just that we much never forget the need for the human touch. More than that, if the end results of the above mass processing is cynicism and demotivation again the results are unintended consequences. So, think before creating a new process.

Unraveling Future Risks

Much talk of the end of times doesn’t make for the end of times[1]. It’s true to say that commentators have taken time on their keyboards to ponder on the apocalypse. It isn’t the first time the subject has occupied the public mind. I could say that the four horsemen of the apocalypse have been around since biblical times. They have, and now there’s a couple more of them riding around the globe.

In my lifetime, the atomic age, the jet age, being wiped out by bombs and a following nuclear winter was brightly coloured there on the chart of probability. Far too high up that chart. Then the Cold War ended and a period of moderate sensibility seemed to exist. That didn’t last long. Chewing over the masses of accumulated planetary climate data created another headache. This time, but at a slower pace, climate change became one of the horsemen. No doubt the popularity of apocalyptic science fiction and science reality comes from a deep insecurity. A realisation that the evolution of space and time is way beyond human control.

Playing my vinyl that’s been sitting in a box for too many years, I’m listening to one of my favourite David Bowie tracks. “Five Years[2]” is the ultimate apocalyptic disaster song. It asks the listener to imagine the News coming over that we’ve only 5-years left on Earth. What would happen in such a situation? Would we all scream and run around like chickens with no heads?

Now I must ask, is that a good lead into one or two words about Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Those working on this technology seem to be getting nervous about that technology which they have cherished, developed and promoted. Let’s first say that AI is not new. When I graduated, in the 1980s, it was one of those esoteric subjects that was only for those wanting to do a PhD in an obscure part of the world. Not more than 20-years ago, given that aviation research was part of my remit, academics lobbied me because they thought a complex neural network should be able to predict the next major accident in aviation. That is fed with enough safety data. They may have been ahead of their time.

What has surprised a lot of people is the speed with which industry has gone from academic research to live digital systems that exhibit astonishing abilities. Access wide open too.

I don’t know if there’s a Moore’s Law[3] for AI. There doesn’t need to be one. The observation is that every week there’s News of even more powerful technology being made available. The disruptors are disrupting themselves before the rest of us have a clue what’s happening. As David Bowie would sing: “my brain hurts a lot.” Here’s what I think is problematic.

One. Concentrated Ownership. This innovation, and its potential power are in the hands of few people and States. Specialised expertise and infrastructure are prized intellectual property.

Two. Forecasting Dilemma. Projections are fuzzy, to say the least. Who can be believed? A simple curve on a graph doesn’t cut it. Step transitions are more than likely.

Three. Sleeping Sentinels. Regulatory lag is normal. Rules and regulators take time to mature. It’s just that, in this case, this lag may be disastrous. And some prefer to sleep.

Four. Legacy Thinking. Imagining AI’s future to be a version of past progress is woefully inadequate. It’s a new game when machines exceed human intelligence.

I do not believe that the world will end in five years but it maybe unrecognisable from today’s world. AI will create as many problems as it solves. Surely the powers that be need to step back and think about how the next decade will pan out.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/02/jd-vance-god-podcast-end-times

[2] https://youtu.be/8gPSGrpIlkc

[3] https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/moores-law