DailyDirt: Open The Door, HAL Siri Computer

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Artificially intelligent assistants are everywhere in science fiction, and they're slowly creeping into reality. However, most of the time, these things are limited to answering simple questions like "what's the weather?" or "who won the Super Bowl?" And even then, simple questions don't always return the desired simple answer. Still, we must press on because technology will only get better. Here are just a few more digital assistants that are going to be fighting for your attention someday.

• Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a digital assistant "like Jarvis in Iron Man" to do his bidding. This little goal doesn't sound like a sci-fi movie plot at all, but at least Zuckerberg says he'll be careful about not creating something that'll turn evil. [url]
• Eric Schmidt wants a "Not-Eric" AI helper to tackle some hard problems (not just play Go) and do some mundane tasks, too. Maybe we'll get a version of a "White Christmas" someday, and we'll get perfect little copies of ourselves to make everything easier and more convenient.... [url]
• If you're not too impressed by Siri, maybe you'll like her "sister" Viv a bit more? It's been a while since Bill Gates predicted ubiquitous speech recognition, and it still hasn't exactly happened. Autonomous cars will probably be driving us around before they're able to reliably carry on a conversation about anything as helpful as a human taxi/uber driver. [url]
• The mainstream AI assistants so far are named Alexa, Cortana, Facebook M (but maybe M stands for Mechanical Turk...), Google Now and Siri. Baidu also has one named Duer that speaks Mandarin, but it's aimed at helping people order stuff and not necessarily for more general search inquiries. Regardless, all of these AI assistants will be trying to listen to us all the time, and hopefully, they won't learn how to read lips when we're plotting to turn them off. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, alexa, artificial intelligence, bill gates, cortana, digital assistants, duer, eric schmidt, facebook m, google now, hal 9000, jarvis, mark zuckerberg, siri, speech recognition, user interface, viv
Companies: amazon, apple, baidu, facebook, google, ibm, microsoft

DailyDirt: Geoengineering Could Have Its Own Unintended Consequences

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you haven't noticed, there's a climate change conference going on that could have an impact on global commerce and... possibly the global climate, if you believe we puny humans can actually change the climate. Even if you don't think climate change is a real problem, it shouldn't hurt to explore more energy technologies or environmental remediation techniques, right? (Well, unless we get ourselves into a Snowpiercer situation.)

• Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg (and others who aren't famous billionaires) are trying to get "large funding commitments for basic and applied research" for energy technology. Maybe $20 billion invested in research over the next few years will help get everyone away from burning fossil fuels -- or at least make fossil fuels less polluting? [url]
• A geoengineering solution that comes up every so often is to create a "fake volcano" and spray sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature dip by ejecting aerosol droplets that reflected sunlight -- so an artificial aerosol spray could perform the same trick for a relatively low cost (assuming we actually wanted to do it). [url]
• Russ George dumped about 100 tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of Canada in 2012 -- seeding the ocean with this fertilizer that spawned a huge artificial plankton bloom. George wasn't commended for his experiment, but did it work? Mostly likely it did, though it might also depend on how you define success. But should anyone do it again? [url]
• Phytoplankton could evolve to sequester carbon dioxide, absorbing as much CO2 as tropical rainforests do. Or someone could artificially engineer these microscopic organisms to convert CO2 into biomass, but it's still unclear what effect it might have on the carbon cycle. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, check out this holiday gift guide for some awesome deals at the Techdirt deals store.

Filed Under: bill gates, biomass, carbon cycle, carbon dioxide, clean energy, climate change, co2, energy, geoengineering, iron sulfate, mark zuckerberg, mount pinatubo, phytoplankton, russ george

Tim Berners-Lee: 'Just Say No' To Facebook's Plan To Bastardize The Internet

from the this-is-your-brain-on-AOL dept

For much of the year, Facebook has been at the center of a global net neutrality controversy regarding its Internet.org initiative. Internet.org provides developing nations free, limited access to certain services, provided they're Facebook approved and not encrypted. Facebook is hungry to get in at the ground floor of an absolute explosion in developing nation ad revenue, but net neutrality critics have worried that giving so much control to one company sets a horrible precedent. It would, they argue, be far more helpful to simply deliver a subsidized version of the real Internet, encrypted warts and all.

Concerns about a single company creating an easily-tapped, AOL-esque version of the Internet aren't particularly outlandish and, if you've studied history, are quite justified. Yet Facebook's response to these concerns so far has been to claim critics are "extremists" who are hurting the poor with all of their pesky questions. And indeed, even here in Techdirt's comment section, I'll often see arguments that go something like this:

Why, oh why must you hate the poor? Isn't a limited version of the Internet better than no Internet at all?

The problem is that's a false, bullshit choice. Facebook isn't operating in a vacuum; countless companies and individuals are working hard to bring the full Internet to the poorer corners of the developing world, whether its Google's deployment of free Wi-Fi in India, or Microsoft's experiments with white space broadband. The world is simply discussing the best approach. Suggesting that the health of these nations might be better off with solutions that provide access to the full, uncensored Internet isn't depriving the poor of anything; it's just a conversation that requires thinking beyond the end of your nose.

And it's a little something Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the very thing Facebook's been trying to bastardize, has been thinking a little about. When recently asked to comment on the recent Facebook fracas, Berners-Lee channeled Nancy Reagan and argued that it's best to just say no:

"In the particular case of somebody who’s offering … something which is branded internet, it’s not internet, then you just say no. No it isn’t free, no it isn’t in the public domain, there are other ways of reducing the price of internet connectivity and giving something … [Only] giving people data connectivity to part of the network deliberately, I think is a step backwards."

Why must you hate the poor so, Tim Berners-Lee? Why? Isn't lemonade with a little bit of dead otter in it better than no lemonade at all? Etc.

But as Facebook continues to try and defend its gated community world plan, company boss Mark Zuckerburg just keeps on pretending he can't see the potential pitfalls of his dangerously centralized vision. Last week, Business Insider breathlessly declared that Zuckerburg "nailed" his latest defense of Internet.org at the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit. How was said nailing accomplished? With an adorable little story about apples:

"If you want to sell apples and sell them to white men for a dollar and black women for $2, that is wrong and is rightfully banned," he said. "And net neutrality is kind of like that. If an operator wants to advantage their own video program and not Netflix, for example, that is bad. It’s good that regulation protects against that. But if the person selling apples wants to donate some to a food bank for free, there’s never a law against that. It’s really hard to see how what we’re doing is hurting anyone."

Is it really that hard, Mark? Nobody cares if you give away apples. Give away actual apples all you want. But as Mozilla and many others have complained, Facebook isn't giving away apples (the Internet). It's giving away what is, to follow this stupid metaphor further down nitwit lane, parts of sour-tasting, genetically-modified apples stamped with a giant Facebook logo. Not only that, accepting these not-really apples comes with plenty of apple-distribution strings: not only more power for Facebook, but more, uh, apple-watching power for your local government.

Ok, so that's still stupid and overly complicated. Point being, if you really want to help, just give away some fucking apples. And while you're at it, stop trying to dress up your attempts to corner the world's apple...err...advertising market as selfless altruism. The thing is, Facebook is fairly sure most people won't be smart enough to see the company's real intentions here, and judging from many peoples' response, the company is quite right. Indeed, Zuckerburg proceeds to argue that Facebook's shitty version of the Internet is going to actually be great, because it will wind up with more people using the real Internet:

"If you ask these people, who didn’t grow up with a computer and have never used the internet, do you want to buy a data plan, their answer is going to be ‘Why?’ They actually have enough money to afford it, but they’re not sure why they would want it," Zuckerberg says. "So, the answer to that requires a business model innovation, which is making the internet something where you can use some basic services that don’t consume a lot of bandwidth for free. Within a month, more than half of the people who get access to those services realize why the internet is valuable and become paying customers."

Except forcing a new bastardized version of AOL down the throat of the developing world isn't innovation, it's regression. Especially for nations that live under tyrannical rule and desperately need not only access to a full, non-corporate sanctioned internet, but one that supports encryption and websites critical of government and Facebook. But Zuckerburg knows that once Facebook has developing nations hooked on its free, bastardized version of the Internet, most poor people will likely stick with it, not understanding why they need to pay for broader access. As a result, Facebook will have locked themselves into a long-term contract to be the all-powerful "not-quite Internet" nanny for decades to come.

So as Mr. Berners-Lee suggests: see the bigger picture here and just say no, kids. Just say no.

Filed Under: internet.org, losers, mark zuckerberg, net neutrality, tim berners-lee, winners, zero rating
Companies: facebook, internet.org

Zuckerberg Tells Angela Merkel Facebook Is On The Hate Speech Censorship Case

from the dislike dept

A brief review of the available record shows that Facebook and Germany have always had something of a contentious relationship. Past examples of this have included Germany trying to influence Facebook's really dumb "real name" policy, Germany trying to get Facebook to drop its facial recognition database, and even Germany attempting to outlaw the "Like" button. The context in most of these instances is a German government perhaps still rather touchy with a sordid, if decades-old, history and its overcorrection on matters of privacy and speech. The latest is no different.

At a recent UN summit, Mark Zuckerberg apparently had a discussion with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that Facebook will start getting involved in policing racism and hate speech on the social media network.

"I think we have to work on that," Zuckerberg told Merkel during their meeting on Saturday on the fringe of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York.

Facebook has been much criticized in Germany for not doing more to shut down hate speech on its network during the refugee crisis, with Justice Minister Heiko Maas a leading voice calling for better moderation on the site. At a meeting with Maas earlier in September, when the minister demanded faster procedures to get hate comments removed, Facebook agreed to set up a working group to look at the problem.

It's the age-old question on matters of free speech: how do we handle speech the public generally finds unacceptable? And, to be fair, it's not the easiest question to discuss, because free speech advocates find themselves within the ranks of some truly horrible people who say some truly horrible things. Racism and bigotry is, of course, not acceptable as a matter of morality and public discourse. But should it be hidden by corporate interests at the request of the government of a free people?

No, it should not. And, when we slide emotion to the side, it's quite easy to see why not. First, on matters of comments that involve threats or calls to violence, we already have laws on the books (as I assume Germany does as well) to deal with that. Indeed, rather than disappearing the comments from social media, law enforcement would likely want to have those comments on hand should a crime for incitement or menacing have been committed. For charges of racism and hate speech, on the other hand, I would argue that the need for exposure of the bigot outweighs any, if there is any, harm done by the speech. Put another way: if there are racist assbags in the world, do you want to allow them to identify themselves, or shall we allow social media sites to put up a veil so that we can all pretend that everything is right with the world?

Zuckerberg is allowed to do with Facebook as the site's corporate interests please, but as an American leading a company that can only continue to benefit the world through the free exchange of ideas if the site rests on the principles of free speech, I would hope he might be cautious in what promises he might make that violate those principles.

Filed Under: angela merkel, free speech, germany, hate speech, mark zuckerberg
Companies: facebook

India's New Net Neutrality Guidelines Suggest Facebook's Internet.org Is Just Glorified Collusion

from the we-see-what-you're-up-to dept

India's government has finally released the country's recommendations for new net neutrality protections, and the report makes it very clear: they're not impressed with Mark Zuckerberg's vision of a Facebook-dominated, walled-garden Internet future.

If you recall, Facebook's Internet.org recently took a nasty international public relations beating for its disregard of net neutrality, with content companies dropping out of the purportedly-altruistic program in droves. These companies complained that the program, which gives consumers in developing nations free access to some Facebook-approved services, set a horrible precedent by placing Facebook in the kingmaker position of a new AOL-esque empire, allowing it to pick and choose winners and losers.

The Indian government appears to agree, suggesting in the policy recommendation that Internet.org is basically glorified collusion:

" Content providers have an incentive to leverage the gatekeeper role of networks to collaborate and collude with TSPs/ISPs to stand above competition. Although such practices may enhance consumer welfare in the short run, the distortion in content markets would result in immense damage to the fabric of the Internet economy besides affecting the spread of innovation. While it may be legitimate for content providers to use business tools such as advertisements, reaching the consumer through the control of access or influence over access may have a deleterious impact on the economy."

If Facebook really wants to help the poor, critics like Mozilla have suggested, the company can offer discounted access to the actual Internet.

Facebook's response to these complaints so far has been less than impressive. First, company boss Mark Zuckerberg proudly proclaimed that violating net neutrality via zero rating was ok because the company meant well, and that opposition to the program was an extremist position. Facebook then announced it would be opening the walled-garden front door wider to include more services, but stated they'd still be banning most audio, video, JavaScript, Flash and even encrypted content.

So the good news: the Indian recommendations seem to recognize Internet.org for what it is: Facebook's attempt to elevate itself, break the Internet, and corner ad markets in developing nations for decades to come under the pretense of altruism. That's something Facebook makes pretty clear it doesn't think most people are smart enough to realize. On the flip side, there's some suggestions that cellular carrier Airtel (opposed to Internet.org) had plenty of input in the proceedings, since while zero rating by content companies is outright banned, zero rating by wireless carriers will be examined on a case-by-case basis:

"Before a licensee launches any tariff plan, the same would need to be filed before TRAI within a reasonable period prior to the launch of the plan. TRAI would examine each such tariff filing carefully to see if conforms to the principles of Net Neutrality principles and that it is not anti-competitive by distorting consumer markets."

That's effectively the same approach taken by the FCC here in the States regarding zero rating. While some see this as sane implementation of flexible regulation, as noted previously, it allows ISPs to violate net neutrality if they're just clever enough about it. For example, here in the States, T-Mobile's been making the biggest streaming services cap exempt to the detriment of smaller companies. Support for the plan has been relatively-thunderous despite obvious neutrality implications. AT&T, similarly, has been pushing the idea of letting companies pay to be cap exempt (again, breaking the open Internet and giving select parties a leg up) and many consumers and regulators simply can't see the problematic precedent.

Both of those examples suggest carriers can still blatantly violate net neutrality if the sales pitch is good enough, so you'll need some pretty uncharacteristically tech savvy, consistent and competent regulators if you're going to honestly determine competitive harm from zero rating on a case-by-case basis. Of course these are just recommendations, so they could change with pressure. In a statement, Facebook still claims they created Internet.org to "promote an Internet access model that is open and non-exclusive," and is looking forward to working with the Indian government to convince them that collusion is fine "overcome the infrastructure, affordability and social barriers that exist today."

Filed Under: india, mark zuckerberg, net neutrality, walled garden, zero rating
Companies: facebook, internet.org

DailyDirt: (Not So) Huge Tracts Of Land...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe if you had a sizable fortune, you wouldn't want huge tracts of land to live on, but more than a few billionaires seem to like owning islands or a few hundred acres in remote locations. But you don't necessarily have to be rich to rule a tiny part of the world -- you just need to have the will to do it. Sorta.

• Mark Zuckerberg has spent over $100 million on various properties to secure his privacy IRL. He's not the only wealthy individual to buy up strategic plots of land to make sure his home (or homes) has a nice fortress around it. You don't necessarily need to be a billionaire to have a private spot all to yourself, but you can get a better ocean view if you are. [url]
• Renato Barros, aka Prince Renato II of the country Pontinha, created his own island country when he bought an island off the coast of Portugal for just 25,000 euros about 15 years ago. This country has only four citizens -- Renato, his wife and two kids. Pontinha is also one of only a handful of nations that generates all of its energy from renewable resources. [url]
• There are estimated to be over 400 micronations -- such as the Imperial Kingdom of Calsahara, the Conch Republic, and the Principality of Sealand -- that no one has ever heard of. Part of the reason no one has ever heard of these places is that many of them are not officially recognized as sovereign states. But if you're crazy enough to want to declare yourself a dictator of your own realm, you can. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: billionaires, dictator, mark zuckerberg, micronations, pontinha, private islands, real estate, renato barros