Category: Media

Free to move

Good old BBC. Let’s try and be nice to the British political extremes. All in hope of getting that reporter’s gem. The got’y moment. The “ah, so you don’t really mean it” moment that can get nailed on a website or flamed out on social media. The cosy feeling that a truth is revealed.

There’s one social good that the BBC delivered this morning on my radio. I was reminded, over breakfast that the Reform Party is just a home for renegade Conservatives. Nothing, more or less. The part of the former Conservative Party who thought Thatcherism was a bit soft.

They tout polices that have not weathered the storm. Failed, time and time again. Like downed rotten trees in a high wind. Add to that a fantasy series of promises about being more efficient and the darkness of the rabbit hole is all consuming. However much they talk over questioners, the bare bones of tickle down economics remain at their core. Give more money to those who already have it and mystically everyone will benefit. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss on overdrive. It would be deeply satisfying to see the Reform Party crumble. However, I fear that’s not going to happen as long as wealthy people keep throwing money at this political group.

This week is one where a shift in political momentum could go horribly wrong. For the last few weeks, the governing party has been slowly climbing up the opinion polls. Some say, at last the Labour party is being the Labour party. Others say that a massive dose of realpolitik is a betrayal of the progressive creed. As usual such rumbling debates are alive and well.

On the table is talk of “freedom of movement.” I wish it weren’t expressed in that way. Mainly because it’s not entirely what those three words say it is. It’s an oversimplification.

From my point of view, it’s essential to apply some pragmatism to the debate about who comes and goes from this country and why. One thing is absolutely clear; Brexit has made the situation much worse. Over the last decade, control of this country’s borders has become a rolling nightmare. Endless newspaper column inches of negativity.

As Europeans we should have a degree of freedom to move. A right to mobility is real. To live, work or retire in each other’s countries. There are conditions attached. I remember having to register in the German city of my residence. Freedom doesn’t come without bureaucracy.

There’s a strong national interest in getting the whole European economy moving. The notion that our island status affords a separation that means we are unaffected by others is utter nonsense. In fact, in the current economic circumstances this country could occupy a major leadership role in Europe.

The world of politics and diplomacy are intertwined. The difficulty is that this fact is difficult to translate into everyday public sentiment. Our eyes are focused on the big issues, and the cost of living is one of the biggest. So, making arguments for “freedom of movement” must come with attachments. Again clearly, Brexit did not make goods in the shops more affordable. That lie has been sunk.

To maintain stability in a complex world, countries need to work together. For us, the best chance of that happening is with our neighbours.

I have discovered an unfamiliar word. Gefühlspolitik – being driven by emotion, is the road to endless disappointments. Churning over the same old ground, being fooled by snake oil salesmen and Machiavellian masters.

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.

Traitors

I always was a great fan of The Prisoner. A British TV series that makes little sense other than being the twists and turns of a tapped man’s journey through an endless maze. Trying to understand what’s going on. Knowing that sometime the game must be played. All the time fighting to beat the system.

Until recently, I’d resisted watching The Traitors. This British TV series has retained its popularity as it’s regularly refreshed with a new cohort of players. It’s a parlour game that has walls. Walls of rules. The contestants are trapped in an unreality they must navigate. Unlike Patrick McGoohan, they are not alone.

Why resist? I guess it’s a strange reaction to popularity. It was like my thinking was based on the idea that if something gets such a massive round of hype it must be flawed. Let’s face it, recent peak viewing time TV tends to scrape the barrel. Frantically chasing ratings, it often goes for the lowest common denominator. TV is no longer king.

I’ve revised my opinion. It’s the complex social interactions that elevate this TV show above most “reality” TV. Yes, it’s a gameshow but not one with inane stupidly and overly polished lines.

The contestants are not abducted. In fact, they are all keen to be part of each week’s challenges. Each with the feeling that they are uniquely placed to win. Once they step through the doors of the gothic Scottish castle it’s as if they were abducted. The tables get turned and any sense of being in control starts to fade.

I’d say that the popularity of the British version of The Traitors owes a great deal to the show’s host. Winkleman fits the dark cloak as if she were made for it. Despite her deadpan expressions there’s a hit of glee behind her eyes.

My analogy with The Prisoner centres on the psychodrama of deception. Who can be trusted? Like sitting around a card table trying to throw fellow players off the scent. The show’s reality is that no one can be trusted but some people can be trusted more than others.

The contestants are tested at every stage of the day and night. We watch on in a voyeuristic way, knowing what they don’t know. Evaluating who’s smart and who’s destined for the chop.

Celebrity Traitors is an odd mix. Because some of the contestants are known names, it’s easy to assume that their reactions are predicable. For the most part, this assumption is misleading. Viewers start to see the veneer of performance rubbed away. Not for everyone. At distinct stages, actors act, comics make jokes and personalities do their thing. But at moments of high pressure any veneer is eroded, exposing the real person.

One revealing part of the show does disappoint me. Maybe this is a part of human behaviour that I don’t like to admit exists. The round table gives the impression of equality. Like a setting in an Arthurian legend. It doesn’t playout like that when time is short and decisions must be made.

Instinctively contestants expose or kill off first those who are perceived to be the clever contestants. Could that be primitive instinct. Reduce the competition to improve the odds of winning. Not sure I like the message that this human behaviour contains.

“I can’t seem to face up to the facts.”  The theme for the show should be The Talking Heads song “Psycho Killer”.

Not again

The art of politics. If you view politics as a war of ideas, then there’s a role for both attack and defence. Where dividing lines are drawn harshly and prisoners are not taken. One idea wins and the others, however sound are banished.

I suppose that’s a reason there are so many barristers (lawyers) in British political life. They learn how to win by framing arguments in an adversarial setting. There’s little room available for compromise or concession. No second place as winner takes all. That said, the “war” analogy is not terribly useful in many respects. One aspect of a barrister’s life is to be single minded when in court but more amical in the tearoom after business is done.

Slightly different subject. I still believe in the “bell curve.” Juvenile as that may seem, in present circumstances that simple curve says a lot. Over the years I’ve stood on a lot of doorsteps. Had lots of fleeting conversations about every subject under the sun. Well, almost. The impression that stays with me is that the general public is nowhere near as polarised in their views as the News of daily politics would have us believe. The gap between life as it is lived and life as it is depicted in council chambers and parliament is persistent. That is whoever is in power.

Traditional the political bell curve has “right” and “left” painted on either end. That’s a polarisation that the media is comfortable with as it mirrors long memories. Wasn’t the world simpler in Cold War days when the camps of East and West were so easily characterised. When Socialist workers and Tory landed gentry were firmly fixed stereotypes.

Anyway, it’s a reaction to a seasoned politician (lawyer), on the far-right of politics, defending his position, on the BBC Today programme this morning, that I’m reacting to. A documentary is to be exposing some members of a British political party as being outspoken, making objectionable remarks and being extremely offensive (in my opinion).

Listening to a politician’s defence, that mainly consisted of deflection, was boringly predicable. When it clearly doesn’t, making claims that a system of vetting weeds out people who do not share the values of a Party, that becomes a hollow argument. The age of wisdom of the saying – when you are in a hole, stop digging – comes to mind.

So, what about the mismatch? The gap between where the public are and where the ends of the political spectrum would like us to think they are. This is not a new dilemma. In fact, our British adversarial structures of governance encourage it.

Sadly. if the media output and political debate are polarised there’s not much chance of getting to grips with cost-of-living pressures or getting the trains to run on time or stopping the water companies polluting our waters or caring for those in society who need care.

The polar ends of the political spectrum have nothing to offer in building a better world.

Let’s hear more from those who are trying to fix things that need fixing. Less from those who place more value on conflict and divisive language. Drawing from the pulpit, blessed are the peacemakers. Well, I’d be happy with; blessed are the less well-known people who strive to make things work. Who works tirelessly to build a better world.

Upbeat

I don’t like to say it. I will. The campaign for the next UK General Election (GE) has started.

That’s not to say that it didn’t start on Thursday, 4 July 2024. Sorry about the double negative. The Labour Party won a landslide victory as the Conservative Party vote collapsed just over 2-years ago. The electorate had finally had enough of 14-years of Conservative-led government.

Naturally, I wonder if it’s the case that government’s lose elections rather than opposition parties win them. There was a general mood in 2024 that the government had to go. I believe, it wasn’t so much a distaste for the Prime Minister (PM) of the day.

Part of the Conservative collapse was a surge in Liberal Democrat support. Parliamentary seats that had been “blue” for decades fell like nine pins.

Between a dissolution of parliament and polling day there can be less than 3-months. The process doesn’t have to be that speedy. However, PM’s who choose to go early often want to strike while the iron is hot. In terms of windows of opportunity, there’s a lot to be said for elections early in the year. Before the summer heat takes hold and on or after the local elections in early May each year. Winter elections are rarely preferred given the dark evenings and likelihood of poor weather.

So, that puts May-July 2027 and May-July 2028 in the frame. No PM can wish for the prospect of going right up against the wire in 2029. It can seem an act of desperation. Opposition parties would capitalise on that position as a sign of weakness.

Since we have a different Labour PM from the one who won on 2024, it seems reasonable that he would want to have a mandate to govern of his own. A renewed agenda, a new manifesto.

So, is the UK no more than 8 months, or so, away from a GE? Frankly, I don’t know. Many of the 650 members of the House of Commons elected in 2024 are still getting their feet under that table. Working out what the job of an MP is all about. I can’t imagine that they will be pushing the PM to throw caution to the wind. That said, if the main opposition parties remain struggling to find their feet, and haven’t organised themselves for a national election, then the door is open for the governing party to push through.

Would a PM calling an early election be punished by the electorate? Feed-up with all the instability of recent years. Or has volatility become such a part of the UK’s political landscape that no one will bat an eyelid. Just another roll of the dice.

Whether I like it or not, the UK has become more presidential. The personality of the PM is a factor in play. In not many of the electorate will be deeply engaged in reading every line of a new party manifesto.

In that popular political game, the national press like to build people up only to knock them down and do that as many times as it commands attention (clicks). The fate of Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer is a case in point. I couldn’t describe either of them as bad men. Certainly not egotists, idiots, or fools. Social media postings did that in abundance.

In this pseudo-presidential system, which has evolved in the UK, the popularists politicians have an advantage. Their formula is to use a megaphone to magnify prejudices and grievances. Can that onslaught be countered by the forces of hopefulness, openness, and positiveness? It’s a challenge to Liberals and Progressives who embrace an upbeat vision. Possible. I do remember the 1990s slogan – things can only get better. I wonder if they can in this decade.

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.

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

Two worlds

So, Hogarth’s print of Gin Lane[1] is revived as a template for UK Conservative Party policy. It’s a classical appeal to class prejudice. In their eyes there are the deserving and undeserving poor. And it’s easy to spot the difference.

A lower class of people have a long list of vices whist another has fortitude in the face of hardship. One drinks, gambles and brawls in the streets whilst the other will do a hard day’s work for a penny and not complain. To top it all the Conservative Party’s rush to travel back 275 years isn’t based on any principles or in-depth study. It’s merely because they are being politically out paced by the Reform Party.

UK politics is peculiar in so many respects. It may be less surprising when considering the annals of history of these islands.

Hogarth didn’t castigate those who drank alcohol as being the ultimate sinners. He drew a positive picture of those who drank beer[2]. Putting that beverage at the heart of an industrious and harmonious society.

As if the mark his place as the polar opposite to the right-wing hustle above, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reported to be wanting to lift the drinking ban at football matches. Hooliganism was once the blight of English football. That brought about a ban on drinking alcohol in the stands at football matches. Now, 40-years on those concerns are faded.

In a popular move, it has been pointed out that drinking beer at a massive rock concert in a football stadium is treated entirely different from a match day gathering.

Here’s two sides of an English coin. Both with deep roots in our history. One to do with ingrained prejudices and the other to do with freedom and liberty. Both with an eye to future electoral popularity.

I expect there’s a cascade of draft proposals to introduce or scrap measures ready to flow out of policy makers lap-tops over the next couple of years. Differentiation is a key motivator. The struggle to stay in the top tier of pollical relevance continues. At the same time a sense of general discontent rumbles away.

Political competition is good, for the most part. Where it falls down is the attention it takes away from solving real problems by practical means. Hogarth’s prints can be interpreted as provoking thought about how divisive opposites can be. The truth being somewhere in the middle.

As discontent rumbles away it seems sad that politicians are running away from the pragmatic aspects of problem solving. Yes, effective governance can be dull. It can take time. It doesn’t always capture headlines. But what is it we really want? A good side show or a better society?

[1] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/gin-lane-1

[2] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/beer-street-1

It’s that season

It’s a time of seasons change. Autumn is upon us. Or Fall, if you like. I’m in the Northern Hemisphere so we have just passed the Autumnal Equinox. That means 12 hours from sunrise to sunset. A time of transition. In prospect are shorter days and longer nights.

Looking out of my kitchen window the display of trees, off in the distance are starting to become a colourful array of different tones. Long lost is the crisp greenness of Spring. Nature is tunned into the cyclic dance that our planet performs. It’s not just mellow tones that characterise this month. It’s mellow moods too. A sense of summer being lost to the records of history. No longer a subject of everyday talk. Now in a long record of hot dry seasons pointing the way to more to come. Its impact remains as we wait for winter rains to refill the aquafers of the surrounding hills.

Autumn comes as the ground remains hard. Dry and difficult to dig. Some trees look eager to shed their leaves. Sadly, some are in their death throws. Southern England takes on a faintly Mediterranean cloak. Climate change heralds a shift that is painted in the landscape.

In England, this is a political season too. It’s an occasion for political parties to assemble their supporters in seaside towns and major cities. To make grand speeches and toast electoral successes. To sidestep mistakes and forget exiles and defectors.

So, just as nature is undergoing a transition, national politics tries to do the same. There’s an analogy here. It’s the unpredictability of the size of the shift from one state to another. Change is predicable. What’s not is the range, either as subtle realignment or a starquake like shock. I suppose that’s why the News media take the time to report conferences. Nothing nicer than a rumbustious argument about beliefs or a sharp rebuke of an irritating campaigner. Political party managers strain every sinew to project a sense continuity with freshness and vitality. Often the truth is far from that curated image of harmony and common purpose.

What I’m asserting is that this season no different if a socialist, nationalist, popularist, liberal, libertarian, or conservative (all with no capitals). Or any mix of these competing ideas. Anarchists and totalitarians are a little different.

Leader’s speeches are atypical conference highlights. These are intended to encapsulate the ambitions and achievements of a political party. They address woes about threats too. Rarely, if ever do they talk of weaknesses.

I listened to the complete speech of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. It’s good to see that these political events are broadcast for everyone to watch. Our democracy depends on people being informed. Seeing events as they unfold.

Sir Ed Davey is a capable politician. His longevity in the business is testament to that fact. He’s been a national political party leader for 7 years. Out staying many other party leaders in the UK.

As leaf fall happens so the response to a speech can be written before the speech is given. Opponents have branded his efforts as the dead walking. Tough talking is portrayed as overreach. Some even find his sincere manner as embarrassing.

For me, he’s good at what he does. Trouble is that what he does is part of a legacy. He tends to always sound the same. If I look a couple of years ahead at a future UK General Election, then something new is needed for the Liberal Democrats. Now, there could be a snap election. In which case Ed Davey is ideally placed to build on past achievements. So, there’s the real gamble.

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