January 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Reminder | 126° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 Gennaio 2020

by Massimo Arvat

Grazie per l’informazione, purtroppo non potrò essere presente, è possibile avere un link ad una registrazione? Massimo Arvat > Il giorno 06 gen 2020, alle ore 12:15, Nexa Media <media(a)nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > > Gentilissimi, > > > > vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 8 gennaio, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, > eccezionalmente nella Sala Principi d'Acaja presso il Palazzo del Rettorato dell'Università degli Studi di Torino, in Via Verdi 8, > si svolgerà il 126° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: > Metafisica del Web > Ospite: Maurizio Ferraris (Professore all'Università degli Studi di Torino). > > Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-126 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-126> > > Cordiali saluti, > > > -- > Anita Botta > Communication Manager > > Nexa Center for Internet & Society > Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN > Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino > > web: https://nexa.polito.it/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> > mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> > tel: 011 090 7219 > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa Massimo Arvat arvat(a)zenit.to.it ***** Zenit Arti Audiovisive soc. coop. Iscrizione Albo Cooperative n. A101724 Partita Iva 06278280018 Via Salerno 1 10152 Torino - Italy Tel. +39.011.5217964 Fax +39.011.4369765 ****** Visita il nostro sito Visit out website www.zenit.to.it ****** Questo documento è formato esclusivamente per il destinatario. Tutte le informazioni ivi contenute, compresi eventuali allegati, sono da ritenere esclusivamente confidenziali e riservate secondo i termini del vigente D.Lgs. 196/2003 in materia di privacy e del Regolamento europeo 679/2016 – GDPR- e quindi ne è proibita l’utilizzazione ulteriore non autorizzata. Se avete ricevuto per errore questo messaggio, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di contattare immediatamente il mittente e cancellare la e-mail. Grazie. Per informazioni: Zenit Soc. Coop. Via Salerno, 1 – 10152 Torino (TO) Italia – Telefono +39 011.5217964 – Mail info(a)zenit.to.it Confidentiality Notice – This e-mail message including any attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information pursuant to Legislative Decree 196/2003 and the European General Data Protection Regulation 679/2016 – GDPR-. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank You. For Information: Zenit Soc. Coop. Via Salerno, 1 – 10152 Torino (TO) Italia – Telefono +39 011.5217964 – Mail info(a)zenit.to.it

Jan. 7, 2020

intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) ha recentemente pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC qui: https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) A seguire un'intervista col prof. Caso. jc *Prof. Roberto Caso, Lei è autore del libro /La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale/pubblicato da Ledizioni: in che modo il conflitto tra apertura e chiusura della conoscenza, tra pubblicità e segretezza caratterizza lo sviluppo della scienza?* Lo sviluppo del sapere e della conoscenza si è sempre basato su una dialettica tra segretezza e pubblicità. Però la scienza moderna a partire dal XVI secolo ha impresso una decisa virata verso la pubblicità. A questo proposito, una delle più lucide narrazioni si deve alla penna del famoso storico della scienza Paolo Rossi, più volte citato nel mio testo. La scienza moderna nasce essenzialmente pubblica e si serve della nuova rivoluzionaria tecnologia della stampa per aprire ed estendere il dialogo tra uomini pensanti. In quel momento storico la comunità scientifica era composta da un circolo ristretto di sapienti, ma la pubblicità attraverso la stampa dei libri e delle prime riviste scientifiche mirava ad allargare la cerchia e a sviluppare, attraverso un dialogo infinito, il progresso della scienza. Quelle persone illuminate avevano intuito che la discussione e la verifica dei risultati della ricerca scientifica costituiscono un’azione essenzialmente collettiva e cooperativa. Solo attraverso una pubblica discussione orale o scritta si può progredire: avanzando dubbi, offrendo prospettive altre, contaminando saperi differenti. /continua qui:/ https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir…

Jan. 7, 2020

Reminder | 126° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 Gennaio 2020

by Nexa Media

Gentilissimi,  vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 8 gennaio, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, eccezionalmente nella Sala Principi d'Acaja presso il Palazzo del Rettorato dell'Università degli Studi di Torino, in Via Verdi 8, si svolgerà il 126° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *Metafisica del Web* Ospite: /Maurizio Ferraris (Professore all'Università degli Studi di Torino).// / Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-126 Cordiali saluti, -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

Jan. 6, 2020

US announces AI software export restrictions - The Verge

by Matteo Flora

US announces AI software export restrictions - The Verge https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/5/21050508/us-export-ban-ai-software-china-…

Jan. 6, 2020

Re: [nexa] Spagna: Manuel Castella prossimo Ministro dell'Università?

by Antonio Casilli

Berry Wellman non sarebbe tanto d’accordo con questa attribuzione di paternità … ;) ----- Mail d’origine ----- De: David Orban <david(a)davidorban.com> À: J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> Cc: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Envoyé: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 14:17:54 +0100 (CET) Objet: Re: [nexa] Spagna: Manuel Castella prossimo Ministro dell'Università? Come promotore primo del concetto di Network Society, sarà affascinante vedere se avrà modo di implementare programmi ispirati dai suoi studi! On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 2:05 PM J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > > *Los comunes proponen al sociólogo Manuel Castells como ministro de > Universidades* > > *Su nombramiento depende de que la investidura de Pedro Sánchez salga > adelante* > > https://elpais.com/politica/2020/01/05/actualidad/1578211432_345389.html > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Telecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society *We respect your right to disconnect. This email send time is due to my own workflow efficiency. You are in no obligation to take action or reply to it outside your office hours.*

Jan. 5, 2020

Re: [nexa] Spagna: Manuel Castella prossimo Ministro dell'Università?

by David Orban

Come promotore primo del concetto di Network Society, sarà affascinante vedere se avrà modo di implementare programmi ispirati dai suoi studi! On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 2:05 PM J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > > *Los comunes proponen al sociólogo Manuel Castells como ministro de > Universidades* > > *Su nombramiento depende de que la investidura de Pedro Sánchez salga > adelante* > > https://elpais.com/politica/2020/01/05/actualidad/1578211432_345389.html > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Jan. 5, 2020

Spagna: Manuel Castella prossimo Ministro dell'Università?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Los comunes proponen al sociólogo Manuel Castells como ministro de Universidades* /Su nombramiento depende de que la investidura de Pedro Sánchez salga adelante/ https://elpais.com/politica/2020/01/05/actualidad/1578211432_345389.html

Jan. 5, 2020

R: CCPA: Facebook non può più sottilizzare sulla questione della vendita di dati

by lorenzo albertini

testo preso qui: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV… _____________________________________________ Da: lorenzo albertini [mailto:lorenzoalbertini.vr@gmail.com] Inviato: domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:16 A: 'nexa' <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Oggetto: R: [nexa] CCPA: Facebook non può più sottilizzare sulla questione della vendita di dati **** grazie per l'interessantissima notizia. La definizione di SALE ivi contenuta (civil code, division 3, part 4, title 1.81.5, § 1798.140, lettera (t) ; rosso mio): (t) (1) “Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration. (2) For purposes of this title, a business does not sell personal information when: (A) A consumer uses or directs the business to intentionally disclose personal information or uses the business to intentionally interact with a third party, provided the third party does not also sell the personal information, unless that disclosure would be consistent with the provisions of this title. An intentional interaction occurs when the consumer intends to interact with the third party, via one or more deliberate interactions. Hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does not constitute a consumer’s intent to interact with a third party. (B) The business uses or shares an identifier for a consumer who has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information for the purposes of alerting third parties that the consumer has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information. (C) The business uses or shares with a service provider personal information of a consumer that is necessary to perform a business purpose if both of the following conditions are met: (i) The business has provided notice of that information being used or shared in its terms and conditions consistent with Section 1798.135. (ii) The service provider does not further collect, sell, or use the personal information of the consumer except as necessary to perform the business purpose. (D) The business transfers to a third party the personal information of a consumer as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the business, provided that information is used or shared consistently with Sections 1798.110 and 1798.115. If a third party materially alters how it uses or shares the personal information of a consumer in a manner that is materially inconsistent with the promises made at the time of collection, it shall provide prior notice of the new or changed practice to the consumer. The notice shall be sufficiently prominent and robust to ensure that existing consumers can easily exercise their choices consistently with Section 1798.120. This subparagraph does not authorize a business to make material, retroactive privacy policy changes or make other changes in their privacy policy in a manner that would violate the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code). > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: nexa [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Antonio > Casilli > Inviato: sabato 4 gennaio 2020 16:39 > A: nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > > Oggetto: [nexa] CCPA: Facebook non può più sottilizzare sulla questione della > vendita di dati > > Se, come me, non ne potete più dei saccenti corporate che pretendono che > "Facebook non vende i vostri dati" (di solito basandosi su sottili distinzioni > lessicali: "condivisions", "monetizzazione", ecc.), apprezzerete il California > Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), entrato or ora in vigore. Propone una > definizione comprensiva della nozione di "vendita". > > > "Many companies have made changes to their privacy policies to follow this > new law, and there's a directory that lists how you can request your data and > improve your privacy settings. But a handful of companies aren't complying > with the new law, whether by failing to provide, essentially, a "do not sell my > data" link or button on their websites -- which the law requires -- or arguing > that the rules don't apply to them. > > Facebook said in a December blog post that it doesn't plan to make any > changes to its web tracking, believing that the law's definition of selling data > doesn't apply to it. The social networking giant argued that it shares data with > third parties, which it doesn't consider selling. > > But under the new law, sharing is still considered a sale, according to Mary > Stone Ross, co-author of the CCPA. > > "The definition of 'sell' is written in a way to include the sharing of personal > information," said Ross, associate director at the Electronic Privacy > Information Center, or EPIC. "They are playing fast and loose with the > definition of 'sell.'" > > Facebook didn't immediately respond to a request for comment for this > story." > > https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-new-privacy-law-puts-you-first- <https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-new-privacy-law-puts-you-first-too-ba…> > too-bad-companies-are-ignoring-it/ > > > > -- > Antonio A. Casilli > Professor, Telecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, > Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate > Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & > Society > > *We respect your right to disconnect. This email send time is due to my own > workflow efficiency. You are in no obligation to take action or reply to it > outside your office hours.* > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > -- > Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG. > http://www.avg.com

Jan. 5, 2020

R: CCPA: Facebook non può più sottilizzare sulla questione della vendita di dati

by lorenzo albertini

**** grazie per l'interessantissima notizia. La definizione di SALE ivi contenuta (civil code, division 3, part 4, title 1.81.5, § 1798.140, lettera (t) ; rosso mio): (t) (1) “Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration. (2) For purposes of this title, a business does not sell personal information when: (A) A consumer uses or directs the business to intentionally disclose personal information or uses the business to intentionally interact with a third party, provided the third party does not also sell the personal information, unless that disclosure would be consistent with the provisions of this title. An intentional interaction occurs when the consumer intends to interact with the third party, via one or more deliberate interactions. Hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does not constitute a consumer’s intent to interact with a third party. (B) The business uses or shares an identifier for a consumer who has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information for the purposes of alerting third parties that the consumer has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information. (C) The business uses or shares with a service provider personal information of a consumer that is necessary to perform a business purpose if both of the following conditions are met: (i) The business has provided notice of that information being used or shared in its terms and conditions consistent with Section 1798.135. (ii) The service provider does not further collect, sell, or use the personal information of the consumer except as necessary to perform the business purpose. (D) The business transfers to a third party the personal information of a consumer as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the business, provided that information is used or shared consistently with Sections 1798.110 and 1798.115. If a third party materially alters how it uses or shares the personal information of a consumer in a manner that is materially inconsistent with the promises made at the time of collection, it shall provide prior notice of the new or changed practice to the consumer. The notice shall be sufficiently prominent and robust to ensure that existing consumers can easily exercise their choices consistently with Section 1798.120. This subparagraph does not authorize a business to make material, retroactive privacy policy changes or make other changes in their privacy policy in a manner that would violate the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code). > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: nexa [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Antonio > Casilli > Inviato: sabato 4 gennaio 2020 16:39 > A: nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Oggetto: [nexa] CCPA: Facebook non può più sottilizzare sulla questione della > vendita di dati > > Se, come me, non ne potete più dei saccenti corporate che pretendono che > "Facebook non vende i vostri dati" (di solito basandosi su sottili distinzioni > lessicali: "condivisions", "monetizzazione", ecc.), apprezzerete il California > Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), entrato or ora in vigore. Propone una > definizione comprensiva della nozione di "vendita". > > > "Many companies have made changes to their privacy policies to follow this > new law, and there's a directory that lists how you can request your data and > improve your privacy settings. But a handful of companies aren't complying > with the new law, whether by failing to provide, essentially, a "do not sell my > data" link or button on their websites -- which the law requires -- or arguing > that the rules don't apply to them. > > Facebook said in a December blog post that it doesn't plan to make any > changes to its web tracking, believing that the law's definition of selling data > doesn't apply to it. The social networking giant argued that it shares data with > third parties, which it doesn't consider selling. > > But under the new law, sharing is still considered a sale, according to Mary > Stone Ross, co-author of the CCPA. > > "The definition of 'sell' is written in a way to include the sharing of personal > information," said Ross, associate director at the Electronic Privacy > Information Center, or EPIC. "They are playing fast and loose with the > definition of 'sell.'" > > Facebook didn't immediately respond to a request for comment for this > story." > > https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-new-privacy-law-puts-you-first- <https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-new-privacy-law-puts-you-first-too-ba…> > too-bad-companies-are-ignoring-it/ > > > > -- > Antonio A. Casilli > Professor, Telecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, > Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate > Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & > Society > > *We respect your right to disconnect. This email send time is due to my own > workflow efficiency. You are in no obligation to take action or reply to it > outside your office hours.* > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > -- > Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG. > http://www.avg.com

Jan. 5, 2020

Technology in 2050: will it save humanity – or destroy us? | Technology | The Guardian

by Alberto Cammozzo

A quanto pare la /artificial general intelligence/ --scusate, il nome corretto come sappiamo è /general SALAMI/-- è il "magic pony" che arriva volando al momento giusto per salvare il mondo. Se noi umani siamo stati così stupidi da rischiare l'estinzione, l'intelligenza delle macchine lo salverà al posto nostro, sollevandoci dalla fastidiosa responsabilità di comprendere e agire. Buon anno! <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/03/technology-2050-save-hum…> Amid the calamitous effects of climate change, artificial intelligence could make the difference between a livable future or a dystopian one Alex Hern Futurism is a mug’s game: if you’re right, it seems banal; if you’re wrong, you look like the founder of IBM, Thomas Watson, when he declared in 1943 that there is room in the world “for maybe five computers”. David Adams knew these risks when he wrote about the future of technology in the Guardian in 2004 – even citing the very same prediction as an example of how they can go awry. And from our vantage point in 2020, Adams certainly did a better job than Watson. When he looked ahead to today, he avoided many of the pitfalls of technology prediction: no promises about flying cars nor sci-fi tech such as teleportation or faster-than-light travel. But in some ways, the predictions were overly pessimistic. Technology really has made great leaps and bounds in the past 16 years, nowhere more clearly than AI. “Artificial intelligence brains simply cannot cope with change and unpredictable events,” wrote Adams, explaining why robots would be unlikely to interact with humans any time soon. “Fundamentally, it’s just very difficult to get a robot to tell the difference between a picture of a tree and a real tree,” Paul Newman, then and now a robotics expert at Oxford University, told Adams. Happily, Newman proved his own pessimism to be unwarranted: in 2014, he co-founded Oxbotica, which has hopefully solved the problem he mentioned, because it makes and sells driverless car technology to vehicle manufacturers around the world. If we move on from worrying over details, there are two key points at which the 2020 predictions fall apart: one about tech, the other about society. “Gadget lovers could use a single keypad to operate their phone, PDA [tablet] and MP3 music player,” Adams wrote, “or combine the output of their watch, pager and radio into a single speaker.” The idea of greater convergence and connectivity between personal electronics was correct. But there was a very specific hole in this prediction: the smartphone. After half a century of single-purpose consumer electronics, it was difficult to perceive how all-encompassing a single device could become, but just three years after Adams pubished his piece, the iPhone launched and changed everything. Forget carrying around a separate MP3 player; in the real 2020, people aren’t even carrying separate cameras, wallets or car keys. Failing to foresee the smartphone is an oversight about the progress of technology. But the other missing point is about how society would respond to the changing forces. The 2004 predictions are, fundamentally, optimistic. Adams writes about biometric healthcare data being beamed to your doctor’s computer; about washing machines that automatically arrange their own servicing based on availability in your “electronic organiser”; and about radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips on your clothes that trigger customised adverts or programme your phone based on where you are. And through it all is a sense of trust: these changes will be good, and the companies making them well-intentioned. Robots are here to stay … an automated production line in China. “There is a loss of privacy that is going to be very difficult for people and we haven’t figured out how to deal with that,” one of Adams’s interviewees admitted, when describing technology in 2020. “But if you explain what it does, how much information it provides and where it goes – and that the trade-off is that you don’t have to wait as long in line at the supermarket – then people will take the trade-off.” In fact, over the past decade and a half, the vast majority of people were simply never given the choice to accept the trade-off, and it is increasingly clear that many of them never would have if they had understood what was at risk. If the Guardian missed the advent of the smartphone, despite writing just three years before the launch of the iPhone, how can we possibly do better today, looking 10 times further ahead? The world of 2050 will be unimaginably different in many ways, even if we can safely assume people will still generally have two arms, two legs and an unpleasant smell if they don’t wash for long periods of time. But there are forces working in our favour. The internet is far more entrenched now than it was in 2004, and while its chaotic effect on our lives shows no sign of abating, it is at least predictably unpredictable. Similarly, smartphone penetration in the west is now as high as it looks likely to go. However the world changes over the next 30 years, it won’t be as a result of more Britons or Americans getting phones. Other predictions can be as simple as following trendlines to their logical conclusion. By 2050, the switchover to electric cars will have mostly finished, at least in developed nations – as well as in those developing nations, such as China, that are starting to prioritise air quality over cheap mechanisation. The “next billion” will be online, mostly through low-cost smartphones receiving increasingly ubiquitous cellular connections. But what they do on the internet is harder to guess. In 2020, there are two countervailing trends at work: on the one hand, providers, principally Facebook, have been trying to use subsidised deals to push newly connected nations on to stripped-down versions of the internet. If they succeed at scale, then many of the benefits of the web will be stolen from whole nations, reduced instead to being passive participants in Facebook and a few local media and payment companies. But pushback, from national regulators in places such as India and from competing carriers, could bring the new nations to the real internet instead. Unless, that is, national regulators push in a different direction, copying China, Iran and Russia to keep Facebook out by building a purely nationalistic internet. How better to ensure that the benefits of the web accrue domestically, they reason, than by requiring your citizens to use home-grown services? And if it makes it easier to impose censorship, well, that’s just another benefit. James Bridle, the author of the unsettling book New Dark Age, points out that the discussion can’t lose sight of who the next billion actually are. “I keep thinking about the way the tech industry talks about ‘the next billion users’ without acknowledging that those people are going to be hot, wet and pissed off,” he says, “and we’re only talking about hardening borders, rather than preparing – politically, socially, technologically – for this reality.” Because, if we are guessing the future from simple trend lines, there is another one that we need to acknowledge: the climate. The specifics of what will change are not for this piece, but the human response very much is. One possibility is plan A: humanity, in time, reaches net zero when it comes to emissions. In that scenario, we will live in a world where plant proteins replace meat in everyday consumption, where electrically powered networked mass transit reaches into the suburbs and beyond, a world of video-conferencing and remote attendance steadily chipping away at business flights, and of insulation inside the walls of British homes. (Look, it can’t all be high-tech.) If plan A fails, then there is a chance we turn to plan B. That is a world in which megascale injections of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere turn the heavens a milky-white, and a whole generation never sees a clear blue sky, in order to reflect more of the sun’s rays and pause the greenhouse effect. It is one in which we turn on gigantic processing plants that do nothing but extract carbon dioxide from the air and pump it underground into disused oil wells. It is one in which whole cities are abandoned and populations relocated to avoid the worst effects we can’t prevent. Plan B – geoengineering – is neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the future of humanity, says Holly Jean Buck, the author of After Geoengineering. “The worst thing would be we fail plan A and plan B. Over the next decade, I think geoengineering will definitely be tried. Right now, it’s toned down, I think because of people not wanting to talk about it. We don’t have the body of knowledge, and would need 20 or 30 years to develop it. Right about midcentury means it will be a crunch point: climate change will be really apparent.” But for Buck, as for Bridle, the distinctions that really matter aren’t necessarily the technology. “The choices around whether we have a livable future or a dystopian one are about social attitudes and social changes. “Right now, we’re in this era of stopgaps. Society used to be able to make a long-term plan: people built long-term infrastructure and thought a bit further out. That’s not something that happens now: we go to quick fixes. We need a cultural change in values, to enable more deliberate decision-making.” There is another possibility: that technology really does save the day, and then some. John Maeda, the chief experience officer at the digital consultancy Publicis Sapient, says that by 2050, “computational machines will have surpassed the processing power of all the living human brains on Earth. The cloud will also have absorbed the thinking of the many dead brains on Earth, too – and we all need to work together to survive. So I predict that we will see a lasting cooperation between the human race and the computational machines of the future.” This sort of thinking has come to be known as the singularity: the idea that there will be a point, perhaps even a singular moment in time, when the ability of thinking machines outstrips those who created them, and progress accelerates with dizzying results. “If you interview AI researchers about when general AI – a machine that can do everything a human can do – will arrive, they think it’s about 50/50 whether it will be before 2050,” says Tom Chivers, the author of The AI Does Not Hate You. “They also think that AGI” – artificial general intelligence – “can be hugely transformative – lots of them signed an open letter in 2015 saying ‘eradication of disease and poverty’ could be possible. But also,” he adds, citing a 2013 survey in the field, “on average they think there is about a 15% to 20% chance of a ‘very bad outcome [existential catastrophe]’, which means everyone dead.” There is, perhaps, little point in dwelling on the 50% chance that AGI does develop. If it does, every other prediction we could make is moot, and this story, and perhaps humanity as we know it, will be forgotten. And if we assume that transcendentally brilliant artificial minds won’t be along to save or destroy us, and live according to that outlook, then what is the worst that could happen – we build a better world for nothing?

Jan. 5, 2020