The government is unlikely to regulate AI.

The blog section of the website showcases the creative writing skills of its contributors. It also features insightful articles and interesting topics to read. The section is visually appealing with the use of illustrations, such as the one created by Otto Dettmer for Ikon Images. The blog section is a great place to explore new ideas and gain valuable knowledge.

Imagine if the internet treated you as a unique person? Presently, "surveillance capitalism" is the prevailing business model that tracks your internet usage and takes note of your interests and purchases, and uses this to figure out what other products and information might interest you. Although it's often viewed as all-powerful, it's actually a relatively general and inactive method that categorizes you based on what is already known about you. As a result, you could be grouped with several other individuals who share the same characteristics, and all of you would be exposed to the same content.

Imagine if your actions were answered proactively and cleverly. Whenever you accessed this blog post, a language program could modify it according to the sentence structure that you personally find most convincing. Every advertisement that crossed your path could instantly be altered and remodeled to appeal to your desires, whether they be food cravings, materialistic tendencies, or anxiety.

There is a fast-growing possibility that the internet will soon become a personalized experience that is more captivating and convincing than ever before, but only if the energy required to operate the system does not surpass the potential profits. Experts predict that this could lead to massive changes in employment for around 300 million individuals. However, the outcome could be either positive or negative. One thing that is certain is that our government will not effectively regulate this development.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published a white paper today (March 29) about regulating AI, primarily to create the illusion that they are taking action. Nevertheless, this measure will not influence any alterations foreign technology firms may make that impact our community.

We can state this without doubt as it has occurred in the past. Let's try and guess: ever since Facebook made its way to the United Kingdom back in October 2005, how many fresh regulations have been introduced to manage the utilization of social media? Over the course of almost twenty years, while Facebook and similar websites have caused divisions in politics, weakened local newspapers, and permitted the spread of anxiety, fury, falsehoods, and harassment, how many additional regulations has the UK implemented regarding their use?

Choose and input your email address to sign up for The Crash - a periodical bulletin that assists you in connecting the dots of the worldwide monetary deceleration.

Check out our privacy policy to learn more about our services and how New Statesman Media Group might utilize, handle, and distribute your personal information. The policy also covers your rights in regards to your personal data, as well as how you can opt-out of receiving future marketing communications.

No laws have been put in place to regulate the use of social media despite its impact on our society and the well-being of people. The UK's primary laws mention social media only six times in a short statement.

The death of 14-year-old Molly Russell in 2017 was ruled to be at least in part caused by the negative impact of online content on mental health. Specifically, the social media recommendation algorithms served her hundreds of images and videos related to depression and self-harm. This led to concern from Matt Hancock, who admitted that action needed to be taken to address the impact of social media on mental health, especially in children. This was seen as a failure on Hancock's part, as it was his responsibility as secretary of state for digital, culture, media, and sport and later health secretary to take action, which he did not do.

Molly Russell passed away five years ago and it has taken this long for a new legal document known as the Online Safety Bill to be produced. Unfortunately, it has not yet been approved, and Meta - the parent company of Facebook - has announced that they will refuse to abide by certain significant aspects of the legislation.

Why would technology be regulated when government officials themselves mock the idea? For instance, the Cabinet Office prohibited TikTok on government devices due to US security's classification of it as a "Trojan horse" for China - but Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, shared a clip from The Wolf of Wall Street on his TikTok account, showing Leonardo DiCaprio shouting "I'm not f***ing leaving." Meanwhile, Hancock continues to post frequently on TikTok and Facebook, using his government-funded time to offer free content to these platforms he was unable to regulate.

Additionally: AI can only be defeated by philosophy.

One might think that Hancock and Shapps are useless and self-obsessed and can't do their job properly. Indeed, that is an issue. But the bigger problem is that government operates at a much slower pace than tech companies. These companies strive for massive growth without caring about profitability or ethical considerations. On the other hand, regulation moves very slowly. For example, the Computer Misuse Act has barely been revised in 30 years.

When it comes to AI technology, there is a significant issue at hand. This is not only because AI promises to create a more effective internet for guiding people's thoughts and preferences, but also because it's inherently less accountable. For almost a decade, deep learning systems like ChatGPT have made astonishing discoveries such as accurate medical diagnoses and math solutions. However, researchers cannot explain how they arrived at their conclusions. The UK's National AI Strategy signatories, such as Kwasi Kwarteng and Nadine Dorries, cannot effectively regulate these systems, as they are opaque even to their creators.

The UK government doesn't want to regulate AI to the point where companies who create it decide to move to other places. Instead, they aim to create an environment that is very supportive of innovation, which would hopefully encourage more advancements in AI technology. This is because, just like in other business sectors, companies who work with technology can withhold the economic benefits of their work from governments that try to control them too much. The digital secretary at the time, Dorries, referred to this as governments trying to "keep up with the pace of change."

The UK's government is unable to provide the same level of incentives as other countries, particularly when it comes to investing massive amounts of money into research. The US is already taking a cautious approach with machine learning and has allocated $1.8bn towards non-defence-related AI for this year alone. In contrast, Jeremy Hunt recently announced a prize that would only pay 0.06% of that total in the UK's recent Budget.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to bring great advantages to the UK, or it could result in social and economic upheaval, or it may end up being underwhelming. The fact is that we don't have a clear idea of what is going to happen. What we are sure of is that the government's intention is to play a minimal role in regulating a field that is progressing too fast for it to keep up with.

Additionally, the information stored on cloud technology will revolutionize your interactions with governmental organizations.