James Moffat

623!??! #granddesigns

@zoesqwilliams theguardian.com/commentisfree/… - This article is bang on. 👏 . Hard repost - groucho. Drinks. Goss on my lofe story and divine comedy. Drinks On me.

@JKFruit read your wired article on Dxons book Read Write Own. You might like this I wrote a couple of years ago. acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc…

Check out my latest article: Elon and his X affair: A contrarian take. linkedin.com/pulse/elon-his… via @LinkedIn

Technically no. Internet is the network that the web runs on and was invented by the Americans. It was called Arpanet and was a US military system. Tim Berners-Lee Lee invented HTTP and the world wide web. This refers only to the html page part, the pages we read - which is only one tech that runs on the Internet alongside others like email.

Without Googling, name something USA invented.

Technically no. Internet is the network that the web runs on and was invented by the Americans. It was called Arpanet and was a US military system. Tim Berners-Lee Lee invented HTTP and the world wide web. This refers only to the html page part, which is one tech that runs on the Internet alongside others like email.

Technically no. Internet is the network that the web runs on and was invented by the Americans. It was called Arpanet and was a US military system. Tim Berners-Lee Lee invented HTTP and the world wide web. This refers only to the html page part, which is one tech that runs on the Internet alongside others like email.

Royal Blood being hammered on socials quite rightly.

Can someone tell me the difference between AI 'prompt engineering' and ye oldie communication skill of 'giving good instructions, please....

The true power of generative AI is not in the tech itself, but in its power to beguile. I was recently talking to a fellow tech consultant about generative AI and how hard it is to confidently call the impact of this layer of tech vs previous cycles of tech innovation. I've spent 20 years calling the impact of tech with what I consider a good bias towards success. But generative AI scares me, becuase it is so hard to call. My view is that generative AI's power is not in the tech but In the UI. This conversational interface is so beguiling. It is so human-like. For example, I always feel I need to use manners with generative AI. I say thank you and please. I feel the need to commend it when it does well. When it makes mistakes and you point them out it accepts its flaws and corrects itself - there is no rebuffal or misdirection. If you ask it, It provides you with constructive feedback and suggestions in a non-combative way. I get pleasure from using it. If anything at times it borders on the sycophantic. Therein lies its power and the danger. It makes me feel good when I use it - I have an intimate relationship with it. And the quality of output is simply not relevant. If we have learned anything from Qanon, election interference and the propaganda of the 20th and 21st centuries it is that quality is not relevant. Often quality is distrusted - 'experts and institutions' telling us how it is. Mediocre is not just ok - it is extraordinarily powerful if it validates the prejudices of the disenfranchised. If you look at the greatest horrors and successes of the political, social and business world over history, they have not been characterised by being 'the best ideas' - but the most beguiling delivery. The ability to relate and sell an idea and relatable story that people believe in and can identify with is the key to selling any idea - good, bad, indifferent or horrific. It is this - the absorbing, entrancing, enchanting, emotive, intimate nature of generative AI that makes it powerful, dangerous, beguiling and different. We have seen historically the power of the pen, print, film, TV, radio and social media to beguile and influence. Generative AI creates exponential productive capability for the propagandist. Whoever controls it and whatever influences it will deliberately or accidentally create its integral bias. It is not democratising like the technologies before it. It doesn't give us all a voice. it give power to the one - or indeed in the case of sentient AI - the none - to Influence us all. And like it or not, without proper and likley improbable governance it will eventually come to influence and create bias in us all. This is why generative AI is different. Not because of the tech. But because it sounds like one of us.

The true power of generative AI is not in the tech itself, but in its power to beguile. I was recently talking to a fellow tech consultant about generative AI and how hard it is to confidently call the impact of this layer of tech vs previous cycles of tech innovation. I've spent 20 years calling the impact of tech with what I consider a good bias towards success. But generative AI scares me, becuase it is so hard to call. My view is that generative AI's power is not in the tech but In the UI. This conversational interface is so beguiling. It is so human-like. For example, I always feel I need to use manners with generative AI. I say thank you and please. I feel the need to commend it when it does well. When it makes mistakes and you point them out it accepts its flaws and corrects itself - there is no rebuffal or misdirection. If you ask it, It provides you with constructive feedback and suggestions in a non-combative way. I get pleasure from using it. If anything at times it borders on the sycophantic. Therein lies its power and the danger. It makes me feel good when I use it - I have an intimate relationship with it. And the quality of output is simply not relevant. If we have learned anything from Qanon, election interference and the propaganda of the 20th and 21st centuries it is that quality is not relevant. Often quality is distrusted - 'experts and institutions' telling us how it is. Mediocre is not just ok - it is extraordinarily powerful if it validates the prejudices of the disenfranchised. If you look at the greatest horrors and successes of the political, social and business world over history, they have not been characterised by being 'the best ideas' - but the most beguiling delivery. The ability to relate and sell an idea and relatable story that people believe in and can identify with is the key to selling any idea - good, bad, indifferent or horrific. It is this - the absorbing, entrancing, enchanting, emotive, intimate nature of generative AI that makes it powerful, dangerous, beguiling and different. We have seen historically the power of the pen, print, film, TV, radio and social media to beguile and influence. Generative AI creates exponential productive capability for the propagandist. Whoever controls it and whatever influences it will deliberately or accidentally create its integral bias. It is not democratising like the technologies before it. It doesn't give us all a voice. it give power to the one - or indeed in the case of sentient AI - the none - to Influence us all. And like it or not, without proper and likley improbable governance it will eventually come to influence and create bias in us all. This is why generative AI is different. Not because of the tech. But because it sounds like one of us.

Is it WRONG that energy companies recorded record profits this year whilst so many faced fuel poverty now and this winter? Many governments, political parties and individuals seem to feel that to some extent it is unfair that some profit while others struggle to pay for basic shelter. Similarly - over the last 20 years digital firms have made Billions in super-profits and risen to be the worlds richest companies by mining and using our data without the data owners (us) sharing in the wealth creation. How do you feel about that? Was this fair? Is data a resource like oil? Should profits from it be redistributed to the data owners or capped? The similarities between how energy companies make profits from fossil fuels as a resource to be mined and how digital firms make money from data as a resource to be mined is uncanny. I think our views on data and energy should be similar - and yet this seems a highly politicised issue with views split between the left and the right. Why do you think that is? #data #digital #energy #mining #oil #profit

Is it WRONG that energy companies recorded record profits this year whilst so many faced fuel poverty now and this winter? Many governments, political parties and individuals seem to feel that to some extent it is unfair that some profit while others struggle to pay for basic shelter. Similarly - over the last 20 years digital firms have made Billions in super-profits and risen to be the worlds richest companies by mining and using our data without the data owners (us) sharing in the wealth creation. How do you feel about that? Was this fair? Is data a resource like oil? Should profits from it be redistributed to the data owners or capped? The similarities between how energy companies make profits from fossil fuels as a resource to be mined and how digital firms make money from data as a resource to be mined is uncanny. I think our views on data and energy should be similar - and yet this seems a highly politicised issue with views split between the left and the right. Why do you think that is? #data #digital #energy #mining #oil #profit

Online Safety Bill: It’s not Cricket, stupid!   Listening to Radio 4 recently I heard Damian Collins MP talking about the Online Safety Bill. As the Chair of the committee that drafted it, Collins made an 'interesting' argument in favour of the bill: He said they're 'only asking digital firms to comply with rules traditional services already have to follow.' This a false premise. It leads to a bill that is at best flawed, potentially catastrophically damaging for our fundamental human rights and the economic prospects of ‘UK PLC’. The Online Safety Bill has commendable objectives: 1. Uplift user safety online. 2. Enhance freedom of speech online. 3. Bolster law enforcement against illegal content. 4. Empower users to keep safe online. 5. Improve understanding of the harm landscape. While these goals are noble, blindly applying analogue era rules to a digital world as Collins suggest is like playing football by the rules of cricket. 🏏⚽️ it just wont work. Analogue rules don’t work in a digital first world. It is naive, ignorant and potentially catastrophically dangerous. Consider this: - Private vs Public: The digital space blurs these boundaries. The proposed rules on encryption act as an end to the concept of privacy and anonymity online all together. Privacy is a fundamental human right in the west.   - Digital harm: What does harm mean in the digital context? Can text cause harm? If so what happens to freedom of speech? The bill extends the definition of harm to such an extent it could easily be abused without addressing the fundamental issue of online harm. - Scale & Geography:  A digital platform can instantly reach billions, creating challenges like content moderation at scale. Digital firms operate globally, complicating regulatory jurisdiction. - Compliance: The cost of compliance for online firms could stifle startups and innovation in the UK.  This will force innovation offshore and further entrench the monopoly of the deep pocketed offshore global giants that currently run the show. Content: The user-generated nature of online content changes the liability landscape. How are digital firms the right people to decide what content is good and bad? Their business models create inherent conflict and bias here. Our legislation needs to be mindful of these (and many other) unique digital dynamics, or else it risks undermining the freedoms it seeks to protect and handicaps the UK economy. Let's be clear: The digital giants that shape our world aren't altruistic agents. Their power needs to be balanced. Many awful mistakes have been made and abuses carried out in the era of ‘free for all’ digital innovation. Yet, applying outdated analogue rules could inadvertently solidify their monopolies and exacerbate existing harm. The Online Safety Bill aims to shield us from digital risks. But, without understanding the sea-change brought about by the digital age, it may unknowingly sow the seeds of the very dangers it strives to prevent.

Facts I learned this week: 5 adventurous millionaires > 700 poor desperate migrants

@Baddiel It does get a bit like that at points. But ultimately it is a religous ceremony!

I’m less keen once these things just become feature length episodes of Songs Of Praise.

@rorysutherland I don't know if there is any evidence of deliberate or planned disruption. The question for me is does the stopping of protest make for a better or worse advertisement for modern Britian and what we purport to stand for. I'd argue possibly not.

This is just me, but when did we conflate free speech with the right to disrupt things? I don't like football. This means I am free to tweet this. It doesn't give me the right to run onto the pitch with a placard saying "Not my sport."

@TGrayWrites @JSAinslie It also has wizards dragon and merpeople. It's almost like fantasy.

The showcases at @SamsungUK KX are basically my interior design and tech shopping list for the next 12 months! Love it.

I support the Mensarius Oath for ethical investing. vcl.to/mensarius #MensariusOath