#ai development company california

[techsolutions-world]

AI Development Services in USA | Protonshub Technologies

Protonshub Technologies provides best AI development services in the USA, dedicated to transforming businesses through innovative artificial intelligence solutions. Team of Protonshub has experience in AI technologies to deliver customized solutions that enhance operational efficiency, automate processes, and drive data-driven decision-making.

[techerasworld]

AI in Mobile App Development | Protonshub Technologies

Checkout how AI helps to automate your process through mobile applications. Protonshub has expertise in creating and implementing chat-bots into mobile applications.

[techsolutionsworld]

AI Development Services in USA | Protonshub Technologies

Get AI Development Services in USA at affordable prices. Being a renowned AI solutions company Protonshub offers the best AI development solutions that increase your business efficiency. Solutions they offer are Generative AI, Chatboats, AI Security, Automation Solutions, Facial Recognition Software etc. Connect: digital@protonshub.com to get a quote.

[technovation]

Artificial Intelligence Services USA | Protonshub Technologies

Get the best artificial intelligence development services in USA. Protonshub has AI experts they define, design, develop and deliver the best AI solutions for your growing business.

[jcmarchi]

Tech industry giants urge EU to streamline AI regulations

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/tech-industry-giants-urge-eu-to-streamline-ai-regulations/

Tech industry giants urge EU to streamline AI regulations

.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper display:none; img width:100%;

Meta has spearheaded an open letter calling for urgent reform of AI regulations in the EU. The letter, which garnered support from over 50 prominent companies – including Ericsson, SAP, and Spotify – was published as an advert in the Financial Times.

The collective voice of these industry leaders highlights a pressing issue: Europe’s bureaucratic approach to AI regulation may be stifling innovation and causing the region to lag behind its global counterparts.

“Europe has become less competitive and less innovative compared to other regions and it now risks falling further behind in the AI era due to inconsistent regulatory decision making,” the letter states, painting a stark picture of the continent’s current position in the AI race.

The signatories emphasise two key areas of concern. Firstly, they point to the development of ‘open’ models, which are freely available for use, modification, and further development. These models are lauded for their potential to “multiply the benefits and spread social and economic opportunity” while simultaneously bolstering sovereignty and control.

Secondly, the letter underscores the importance of ‘multimodal’ models, which integrate text, images, and speech capabilities. The signatories argue that the leap from text-only to multimodal models is akin to “the difference between having only one sense and having all five of them”. They assert that these advanced models could significantly boost productivity, drive scientific research, and inject hundreds of billions of euros into the European economy.

However, the crux of the matter lies in the regulatory landscape. The letter expresses frustration with the uncertainty surrounding data usage for AI model training, stemming from interventions by European Data Protection Authorities. This ambiguity, they argue, could result in Large Language Models (LLMs) lacking crucial Europe-specific training data.

To address these challenges, the signatories call for “harmonised, consistent, quick and clear decisions under EU data regulations that enable European data to be used in AI training for the benefit of Europeans”. They stress the need for “decisive action” to unlock Europe’s potential for creativity, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship, which they believe is essential for the region’s prosperity and technological leadership.

A copy of the letter can be found below:

While the letter acknowledges the importance of consumer protection, it also highlights the delicate balance regulators must strike to avoid hindering commercial progress. The European Commission’s approach to regulation has often been criticised for its perceived heavy-handedness, and this latest appeal from industry leaders adds weight to growing concerns about the region’s global competitiveness in the AI sector.

The pressure is rapidly mounting on European policymakers to create a regulatory environment that fosters innovation while maintaining appropriate safeguards. The coming months will likely see intensified dialogue between industry stakeholders and regulators as they grapple with these complex issues that will shape the future of AI development in Europe.

(Photo by Sara Kurfeß)

See also: SolarWinds: IT professionals want stronger AI regulation

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: ai, artificial intelligence, ethics, eu, europe, european union, government, law, legal, regulation, Society

[algoson]

For businesses in Portugal, Lisbon, seeking excellent software development services that prioritize both quality and cost-effectiveness, Algoson Software is your ideal partner. Based in India, we serve clients worldwide, including in the USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and France. Get in touch with us at contact@algoson.com to discover how we can enhance your digital journey.

[reasonsforhope]

Green energy is in its heyday. 

Renewable energy sources now account for 22% of the nation’s electricity, and solar has skyrocketed eight times over in the last decade. This spring in California, wind, water, and solar power energy sources exceeded expectations, accounting for an average of 61.5 percent of the state's electricity demand across 52 days. 

But green energy has a lithium problem. Lithium batteries control more than 90% of the global grid battery storage market. 

That’s not just cell phones, laptops, electric toothbrushes, and tools. Scooters, e-bikes, hybrids, and electric vehicles all rely on rechargeable lithium batteries to get going. 

Fortunately, this past week, Natron Energy launched its first-ever commercial-scale production of sodium-ion batteries in the U.S. 

“Sodium-ion batteries offer a unique alternative to lithium-ion, with higher power, faster recharge, longer lifecycle and a completely safe and stable chemistry,” said Colin Wessells — Natron Founder and Co-CEO — at the kick-off event in Michigan. 

The new sodium-ion batteries charge and discharge at rates 10 times faster than lithium-ion, with an estimated lifespan of 50,000 cycles.

Wessells said that using sodium as a primary mineral alternative eliminates industry-wide issues of worker negligence, geopolitical disruption, and the “questionable environmental impacts” inextricably linked to lithium mining. 

“The electrification of our economy is dependent on the development and production of new, innovative energy storage solutions,” Wessells said. 

Why are sodium batteries a better alternative to lithium?

The birth and death cycle of lithium is shadowed in environmental destruction. The process of extracting lithium pollutes the water, air, and soil, and when it’s eventually discarded, the flammable batteries are prone to bursting into flames and burning out in landfills. 

There’s also a human cost. Lithium-ion materials like cobalt and nickel are not only harder to source and procure, but their supply chains are also overwhelmingly attributed to hazardous working conditions and child labor law violations. 

Sodium, on the other hand, is estimated to be 1,000 times more abundant in the earth’s crust than lithium. 

“Unlike lithium, sodium can be produced from an abundant material: salt,” engineer Casey Crownhart wrote ​​in the MIT Technology Review. “Because the raw ingredients are cheap and widely available, there’s potential for sodium-ion batteries to be significantly less expensive than their lithium-ion counterparts if more companies start making more of them.”

What will these batteries be used for?

Right now, Natron has its focus set on AI models and data storage centers, which consume hefty amounts of energy. In 2023, the MIT Technology Review reported that one AI model can emit more than 626,00 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent. 

“We expect our battery solutions will be used to power the explosive growth in data centers used for Artificial Intelligence,” said Wendell Brooks, co-CEO of Natron. 

“With the start of commercial-scale production here in Michigan, we are well-positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for efficient, safe, and reliable battery energy storage.”

The fast-charging energy alternative also has limitless potential on a consumer level, and Natron is eying telecommunications and EV fast-charging once it begins servicing AI data storage centers in June. 

On a larger scale, sodium-ion batteries could radically change the manufacturing and production sectors — from housing energy to lower electricity costs in warehouses, to charging backup stations and powering electric vehicles, trucks, forklifts, and so on. 

“I founded Natron because we saw climate change as the defining problem of our time,” Wessells said. “We believe batteries have a role to play.”

-via GoodGoodGood, May 3, 2024

--

Note: I wanted to make sure this was legit (scientifically and in general), and I'm happy to report that it really is! x, x, x, x

[mariacallous]

In March 2007, Google’s then senior executive in charge of acquisitions, David Drummond, emailed the company’s board of directors a case for buying DoubleClick. It was an obscure software developer that helped websites sell ads. But it had about 60 percent market share and could accelerate Google’s growth while keeping rivals at bay. A “Microsoft-owned DoubleClick represents a major competitive threat,” court papers show Drummond writing.

Three weeks later, on Friday the 13th, Google announced the acquisition of DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. The US Department of Justice and 17 states including California and Colorado now allege that the day marked the beginning of Google’s unchecked dominance in online ads—and all the trouble that comes with it.

The government contends that controlling DoubleClick enabled Google to corner websites into doing business with its other services. That has resulted in Google allegedly monopolizing three big links of a vital digital advertising supply chain, which funnels over $12 billion in annual revenue to websites and apps in the US alone.

It’s a big amount. But a government expert estimates in court filings that if Google were not allegedly destroying its competition illegally, those publishers would be receiving up to an additional hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Starved of that potential funding, “publishers are pushed to put more ads on their websites, to put more content behind costly paywalls, or to cease business altogether,” the government alleges. It all adds up to a subpar experience on the web for consumers, Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser says.

“Google is able to extract hiked-up costs, and those are passed on to consumers,” he alleges. “The overall outcome we want is for consumers to have more access to content supported by advertising revenue and for people who are seeking advertising not to have to pay inflated costs.”

Google disputes the accusations.

Starting today, both sides’ arguments will be put to the test in what’s expected to be a weekslong trial before US district judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia. The government wants her to find that Google has violated federal antitrust law and then issue orders that restore competition. In a best-case scenario, according to several Google critics and experts in online ads who spoke with WIRED, internet users could find themselves more pleasantly informed and entertained.

It could take years for the ad market to shake out, says Adam Heimlich, a longtime digital ad executive who’s extensively researched Google. But over time, fresh competition could lower supply chain fees and increase innovation. That would drive “better monetization of websites and better quality of websites,” says Heimlich, who now runs AI software developer Chalice Custom Algorithms.

Tim Vanderhook, CEO of ad-buying software developer Viant Technology, which both competes and partners with Google, believes that consumers would encounter a greater variety of ads, fewer creepy ads, and pages less cluttered with ads. “A substantially improved browsing experience,” he says.

Of course, all depends on the outcome of the case. Over the past year, Google lost its two other antitrust trials—concerning illegal search and mobile app store monopolies. Though the verdicts are under appeal, they’ve made the company’s critics optimistic about the ad tech trial.

Google argues that it faces fierce competition from Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and others. It further contends that customers benefited from each of the acquisitions, contracts, and features that the government is challenging. “Google has designed a set of products that work efficiently with each other and attract a valuable customer base,” the company’s attorneys wrote in a 359-page rebuttal.

For years, Google publicly has maintained that its ad tech projects wouldn’t harm clients or competition. “We will be able to help publishers and advertisers generate more revenue, which will fuel the creation of even more rich and diverse content on the internet,” Drummond testified in 2007 to US senators concerned about the DoubleClick deal’s impact on competition and privacy. US antitrust regulators at the time cleared the purchase. But at least one of them, in hindsight, has said he should have blocked it.

Deep Control

The Justice Department alleges that acquiring DoubleClick gave Google “a pool of captive publishers that now had fewer alternatives and faced substantial switching costs associated with changing to another publisher ad server.” The global market share of Google’s tool for publishers is now 91 percent, according to court papers. The company holds similar control over ad exchanges that broker deals (around 70 percent) and tools used by advertisers (85 percent), the court filings say.

Google’s dominance, the government argues, has “impaired the ability of publishers and advertisers to choose the ad tech tools they would prefer to use and diminished the number and quality of viable options available to them.”

The government alleges that Google staff spoke internally about how they have been earning an unfair portion of what advertisers spend on advertising, to the tune of over a third of every $1 spent in some cases.

Some of Google’s competitors want the tech giant to be broken up into multiple independent companies, so each of its advertising services competes on its own merits without the benefit of one pumping up another. The rivals also support rules that would bar Google from preferencing its own services. “What all in the industry are looking for is fair competition,” Viant’s Vanderhook says.

If Google ad tech alternatives win more business, not everyone is so sure that the users will notice a difference. “We’re talking about moving from the NYSE to Nasdaq,” Ari Paparo, a former DoubleClick and Google executive who now runs the media company Marketecture, tells WIRED. The technology behind the scenes may shift, but the experience for investors—or in this case, internet surfers—doesn’t.

Some advertising experts predict that if Google is broken up, users’ experiences would get even worse. Andrey Meshkov, chief technology officer of ad-block developer AdGuard, expects increasingly invasive tracking as competition intensifies. Products also may cost more because companies need to not only hire additional help to run ads but also buy more ads to achieve the same goals. “So the ad clutter is going to get worse,” Beth Egan, an ad executive turned Syracuse University associate professor, told reporters in a recent call arranged by a Google-funded advocacy group.

But Dina Srinivasan, a former ad executive who as an antitrust scholar wrote a Stanford Technology Law Review paper on Google’s dominance, says advertisers would end up paying lower fees, and the savings would be passed on to their customers. That future would mark an end to the spell Google allegedly cast with its DoubleClick deal. And it could happen even if Google wins in Virginia. A trial in a similar lawsuit filed by Texas, 15 other states, and Puerto Rico is scheduled for March.

[mindblowingscience]

Being able to create accurate weather models for weather forecasting is essential for every aspect of the American economy, from aviation to shipping. To date, weather models have been primarily based on equations related to thermodynamics and fluid dynamics in the atmosphere. These models are tremendously computationally expensive and are typically run on large supercomputers. Researchers from private sector companies like Nvidia and Google have started developing large artificial intelligence (AI) models, known as foundation models, for weather forecasting. Recently, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, in close collaboration with researchers Aditya Grover and Tung Nguyen at the University of California, Los Angeles, have begun to investigate this alternative type of model. This model could produce in some cases even more accurate forecasts than the existing numerical weather prediction models at a fraction of the computational cost.

Continue Reading.

[duchessofvastergotland]

The schedule for Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel's visit to California

19th February

Visit to the Marine Mammal Center to learn about their work to protect the oceans through research, education and animal care

Visit to the Scandinavian School and Cultural Centre to meet with students studying Scandinavian language and culture.

Afternoon reception for Swedish people living in the San Francisco Bay Area

20th February

Meeting with California Governor Gavin Newsom ahead of the signing of a cooperation agreement on the green transition

Visit to the Consulate General's office to meet staff and tour the premises

Briefing on driverless cars, a new element in the cityscape of San Francisco

Visit Open AI to learn about the latest developments in artificial intelligence

Meeting with the Mayor of San Francisco at City Hall.

Inauguration of the Consulate General of Sweden by the Crown Princess at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music

21st February

Company visits with the Swedish business delegation - the couple will visit a range of businesses in San Francisco including Intel and Google to discuss the development of AI

Visit to Stanford University for an in-depth look at the ethical aspects of AI

22nd February

Seminar at Nordic Innovation House to discuss cooperation between Sweden and California

Participation in the Green Transition Summit where the Crown Princess will give a speech

[denimbex1986]

'Oppenheimer director Christopher Nolan has said he "absolutely" will not work on another film until the Hollywood strikes are resolved.

Tens of thousands of Hollywood actors have joined writers in taking industrial action, because they want streaming giants to agree to a fairer split of profits and better working conditions.

The Screen Actors Guild also wants to protect actors from being usurped by digital replicas.

Nolan admitted he was "very fortunate with the timing", as his film's premieres were held just before the strike began, meaning Oppenheimer would not be affected by industry members stopping work.

When asked if he would write another film during the strike, he told BBC Culture editor Katie Razzall: "No, absolutely. It's very important that everybody understands it is a very key moment in the relationship between working people and Hollywood.

"This is not about me, this is not about the stars of my film," the acclaimed director, writer and producer added.

"This is about jobbing actors, this is about staff writers on television programmes trying to raise a family, trying to keep food on the table."

As more production companies use streaming platforms - like Netflix and Amazon Prime - for their shows, it has changed how actors and writers get paid.

Previously every time an episode was re-run on a TV network, it would tend to involve payment, allowing those who worked on projects to get by in between jobs.

The director said the companies involved had not yet "accommodated how they're going to in this new world of streaming, and a world where they're not licensing their products out to other broadcasters - they're keeping them for themselves".

Nolan, who was Oscar-nominated five times for the films Dunkirk, Inception and Memento, added: "They have not yet offered to pay appropriately to the unions' working members, and it's very important that they do so.

"I think you'd never want a strike, you never want industrial action.

"But there are times where it's necessary. This is one of those times."

Speaking ahead of the London premiere, where several of Oppenheimer's stars left the red carpet early to strike, he explained: "It's very important to bear in mind that there are people who have been out of work for months now, as part of the writers strike, and with the actors potentially joining - a lot of people are going to suffer."

Despite the row in California, British-born Nolan has no current plans to work more in the UK, his home country, as he prefers to be "on the real locations" where his films are set.

"The UK has wonderful film studios," he explained. "It's a great place to come to shoot a film if you're going to be on sound stages."

Oppenheimer tells the story of J Robert Oppenheimer, the enigmatic Manhattan Project scientist, who had a leading role in developing the atomic bomb that made him a "destroyer of worlds".

He "gave us the power to destroy ourselves and that had never happened before", Nolan said.

Commissioned by the US Government during World War II, and believing themselves in a nuclear race with the Nazis over who would create the bomb first, in 1945 scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico detonated a test bomb, codenamed Trinity.

Their invention was then used, controversially, to end the war, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to devastating effect.

The film is an exploration not just of Oppenheimer's story, but of the "incredible decision" the scientists took on that first occasion.

"There's a possibility that when you push that button, you might destroy the entire world," Nolan told the BBC.

"And yet they went ahead and they pushed it. How could you make that decision? How could you take that on yourself?"

Another existential threat to civilization is AI, which is also part of the Hollywood strike and makes the Oppenheimer movie more timely.

"One of the interesting things about putting this film out is it's coming at a time when there are a lot of new technologies that people start to worry about the unintended consequences," he said.

"When you talk to leaders in the field of AI, as I do from time to time, they see this moment right now as their Oppenheimer moment. They're looking to his story to say, 'what are our responsibilities? How can we deal with the potential unintended consequences?' Sadly, for them, there are no easy answers."

Nolan is one of a rare number of Hollywood directors. His films - Interstellar, the Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception amongst them - are both blockbusters and arthouse fare; critically acclaimed and, Tenet aside, which was released during the pandemic, box office successes.

"I make the films that I really want to go to the cinema and sit down with my popcorn and watch" he says. "I started making films when I was a kid. I made Super 8 films from when I was seven or eight years old and I've never stopped".

He's a champion of the big screen who, famously, left Warner Bros for rival Universal to make Oppenheimer.

Nolan's known for wanting his films to feel authentic rather than computer-generated.

There was even a rumour doing the rounds on the internet that he had set off a real atomic bomb in New Mexico for Oppenheimer.

"We recreated the circumstances of it," he said, "obviously not using an atomic weapon. What we're trying to portray is this moment of absolute beauty and absolute terror.

"This is the moment that really changed the world."'

[techerasworld]

Artificial Intelligence Services USA | Protonshub Technologies

Get artificial intelligence services in the USA. At Protonshub they create and help you in your ongoing AI journey. They build softwares and AI implementation with rigorous testing and evaluation to identify and eliminate bias, errors, and failures. Get: digital@protonshub.com a quote now!

[technovation]

Artificial Intelligence Development Company USA | Protonshub Technologies

Protonshub is a top notch artificial intelligence development company in the USA.  They offer advanced AI development services that help businesses to automate their operations smoothly. The generative AI can transform your business and drive growth to the next level, Protonshub crafts high-performing AI web & applications using NLP & Machine Learning. Drop an email: digital@protonshub.com to know more.

[jcmarchi]

Why Silicon Valley Can’t “Move Fast and Break Things” When It Comes to AI

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/why-silicon-valley-cant-move-fast-and-break-things-when-it-comes-to-ai/

Why Silicon Valley Can’t “Move Fast and Break Things” When It Comes to AI

People say that Silicon Valley has matured beyond the hotheaded mindset of “move fast, break things, then fix them later,” and that companies have adopted a slower, more responsible approach to building the future of our industry.

Unfortunately, current trends tell a different story.

Despite the lip service, the way companies build things has yet to actually change. Tech startups are still running on the same code of shortcuts and false promises, and the declining quality of products shows it. “Move fast and break things” is very much still Silicon Valley’s creed – and, even if it truly had died, the AI boom has reanimated it in full force.

Recent advancements in AI are already radically transforming the way we work and live. In just the last couple of years, AI has gone from the domain of computer science professionals to a household tool thanks to the rapid proliferation of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. If tech companies “move fast and break things” with AI, there may be no option to “fix them later”, especially when models are trained on sensitive personal data. You can’t unring that bell, and the echo will reverberate throughout society, potentially causing irreparable harm. From malicious deepfakes to fraud schemes to disinformation campaigns, we’re already seeing the negative side of AI come to light.

At the same time, though, this technology has the power to change our society for the better. Enterprise adoption of AI will be as revolutionary as the move to the cloud was; companies will completely rebuild on AI, and they will become infinitely more productive and efficient because of it. On an individual level, generative AI will become our trusted assistant, helping us to complete everyday activities, experiment creatively and unlock new knowledge and opportunities.

The AI future can be a bright one, but it requires a major cultural shift in the place where that future is being built.

Why “Move Fast and Break Things” is Incompatible with AI

“Move fast and break things” operates on two major assumptions: one, that anything that doesn’t work at launch can be patched in a later update; and two, that if you “break things,” it can lead to breakthroughs with enough creative coding and outside-the-box thinking. And while plenty of great innovations have come out of mistakes, this isn’t penicillin or Coca-Cola. Artificial intelligence is an extraordinarily powerful technology that must be handled with the utmost caution. The risks of data breaches and criminal misuse are simply too high to ignore.

Unfortunately, Silicon Valley has a bad habit of glorifying the messiness of the development process. Companies still promote a ceaseless grind, wherein long hours and a lack of work-life balance become necessary to make a career. Startups and their shareholders set unrealistic goals that increase the risk of errors and corner-cutting. Boundaries are pushed when, maybe, they shouldn’t be. These behaviors coalesce into a toxic industry culture that encourages hype-chasing at the expense of ethics.

The current pace of AI development cannot continue within this culture. If AI is going to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems, it will have to train on highly sensitive information, and companies have a critical responsibility to protect that information.

Safeguards take time to implement, and time is something Silicon Valley is thoroughly convinced it doesn’t have. Already, we’re seeing AI companies forgoing necessary guardrails for the sake of pumping out new products. This might satisfy shareholders in the short term, but the long-term risks set these organizations up for massive financial harm down the road – not to mention a complete collapse of any goodwill they’ve fostered.

There is also a serious risk associated with IP and copyright infringement, as evidenced by the various federal lawsuits in play involving AI and copyright. Without proper protections against copyright infringement and IP violations, people’s livelihoods are at risk.

To the AI startup that wants to blitz through development and go to market, this seems like a lot to account for – and it is. Protecting people and information takes hard work. But it’s non-negotiable work, even if it forces AI developers to be more thoughtful. In fact, I’d argue that’s the benefit. Build solutions to problems before they arise, and you won’t have to fix whatever breaks down the road.

A New Creed: “Move Strategically to Be Unbreakable”

This past May, the EU approved the world’s first comprehensive AI law, the Artificial Intelligence Act, to manage risk through extensive transparency requirements and the outright banning of AI technologies deemed an unacceptable risk. The law reflects the EU’s historically cautious approach to new technology, which has governed its AI development strategies since the first sparks of the current boom. Instead of acting on a whim, steering all their venture dollars and engineering capabilities into the latest trend without proper planning, these companies sink their efforts into creating something that will last.

This is not the prevailing approach in the US, despite numerous attempts at regulation. On the legislative front, individual states are largely proposing their own laws, ranging from woefully inadequate to massively overreaching, such as California’s proposed SB-1047. All the while, the AI arms race intensifies, and Silicon Valley persists in its old ways.

Venture capitalists are only inflaming the problem. When investing in new startups, they’re not asking about guardrails and safety checks. They want to get a minimum viable product out as fast as possible so they can collect their checks. Silicon Valley has become a breeding ground for get-rich-quick schemes, where people want to make as much money as they can, in as little time as possible, while doing as little work as possible – and they don’t care about the consequences.

For the age of AI, I’d like to propose a replacement for “move fast and break things”: move strategically to be unbreakable. It might not have the same poetic verve as the former, but it does reflect the mindset SV needs in today’s technological landscape.

I’m optimistic the technology industry can be better, and it starts with adopting a customer-centric, future-oriented mindset focused on creating products that last and maintaining those products in a way that fosters trust with users. A more mindful approach will make people and organizations feel confident about bringing AI into their lives – and that sounds pretty profitable to me.

Toward a Sustainable Future

The tech world suffers from overwhelming pressure to be first. Founders feel that if they don’t jump on the next big thing right away, they’re going to miss the boat. Of course, being an early mover may increase your chances of success but being “first” shouldn’t come at the expense of safety and ethics.

When your goal is to build something that lasts, you’ll end up looking more thoroughly for risks and weaknesses. This is also how you find new opportunities for breakthroughs and innovation. The companies that can transform strengths into weaknesses are the ones that can solve tomorrow’s challenges, today.

The hype is real, and the new era of AI is worthy of it. But in our excitement to unlock the power of this technology, we cannot forgo the necessary safeguards that will make these products reliable and trustworthy. AI promises to improve our lives for the better, but it can also cause immeasurable harm if security and safety aren’t core to the development process.

For Silicon Valley, this should be a wake-up call: it’s time to leave the mentality of “move fast, break things, then fix them later” behind. Because there is no “later” when the future is now.

[algoson]

At Algoson Software, our dedicated team of software engineers possesses the expertise to craft AI-based products and software solutions that stand out in terms of innovation and quality. Utilizing the most suitable technologies, we ensure the delivery of superior products at affordable prices. For further inquiries and assistance, feel free to reach out to us at +91-783-758-8185 or via email at contact@algoson.com.

[darkmaga-retard]

Stavroula Pabst

Aug 20, 2024

These days, tech companies are publicly warming up to the defense sector. Department of Defense spending is increasingly going to large tech companies including Microsoft, Google parent company Alphabet, Oracle, and IBM. Open AI recently brought on former U.S. Army general and National Security Agency Director Paul M. Nakasone to its Board of Directors. And a growing clan of Silicon Valley-based “techno-patriots,” including the likes of Anduril’s Palmer Luckey and Andreessen-Horowitz’s Marc Andreessen, seem eager to prove that the technology industry can alleviate the United States’ geostrategic and economic weaknesses — if awarded the military contracts to do so.

But the increasingly public relationship Silicon Valley enjoys with the Pentagon is no sudden development. Rather, Silicon Valley was made by — and in the service of — a U.S. government and military eager to establish dominance over its adversaries in the Cold War and beyond. Namely, extensive and consistent post-war era government funds, and especially military contracting, overhauled the American technology industry, transforming the once-quiet region surrounding Mountain View, California into the bustling tech metropolis it is today.

A (military) history of Silicon Valley

Tech industry enthusiasts are eager to attribute Silicon Valley’s success to free market entrepreneurship, where great ideas born in suburban California garages took off through hard work and grit. In reality, regional post-war era entrepreneurs and researchers had help from a U.S. government eager to spend on research and development: in a sustained Cold War with the Soviet Union, competition in the technology, space, and arms sectors was stiff.

In time, Cold War era government R&D spending, which came primarily from DOD and NASA, crystallized what historian Margaret O’Mara describes as a “blueprint” for Silicon Valley success, where companies like Fairchild Semiconductor worked to procure outside investments, especially through government and military contracts, that nurtured and sustained growth. Through this “blueprint,” O’Mara posits that Silicon Valley-based tech companies, which had secured stability via government funding, rocked existing markets while driving the formation of new ones, thus achieving unprecedented success.