#but its the fact that this tech is in the hands of corporations who are so so focused on abusing their power for profit that worries me

[transxfiles]

if elon musk ever tried to put a chip in my brain i'd end up killing either him or myself. one of us has to die for that.

[nekokoaa]

The Agreement - Miguel O'Hara x Therapist!Reader (III)

Summary: It was simple. No kissing. No sex. Hugs and hand-holding only. The goal was to help Miguel feel a little less lonely sometimes. That was your job as one of the therapists at HQ, to mentally stabilize everyone’s mind, including the boss’s.

In other words, you and Miguel make a deal.

Rated Explicit, fluff, smut

4K words | (3/5) chapters

Chapters:

(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)

Author's notes: I work as a freelance copywriter so I had to prioritize my projects but I still managed to get this done! Enjoy! :) Let me know if you want to be a part of the tag list.

Also on AO3

III.

Sometimes you wish you were mindless—just a rusty cog of a machine in a 9 to 5 corporate job. Simply, a taciturn sheep led by a shepherd, waiting for the day a butcher’s knife is pressed against its neck. It was easier to handle life in such a way. Regrets can never be born when allied with carelessness.

But it was something beyond you. Clearly. The throes of passion had tempted you that night. His hand on your hip firmly held you in place, fingers pressed into your suit. Covetous crimson eyes searched between your eyes and lips long enough that the sweat of your skin gathered at your clavicles. But you managed to resist his heat, disappointing, yes, but at least you still had your dignity—your morals. If it wasn’t for that, you might’ve been in his bed that night, rocking your hips against his without a single care in the world.

Three weeks had passed by and you haven’t had a session with him since that night. You were canceling them in hopes that the fire between you fizzles. With distance, desire usually fades so you only hoped that night was just your hormones acting up and there wasn’t a deeper meaning to how you felt.

Between that time, you had the opportunity to meet Gwen Stacy from 65. She was a nice girl, cool, and very much like all of you. Burdened with the sense of justice with a side of wittiness.

She was popular, especially among the Peters who had lost their Gwens. They looked at her like she was a what-if moment and were impressed by her, but you knew you’ll be seeing them on your office couch soon enough.

Hobie was practically best friends with her now. The late night sessions with Hobie were a rare occurrence these days. Like a stray, he found a new person to feed his interests.

Jess favored her the most. Reminded her of her younger days, and how impressive she was at that age—still is, as she’s been carrying a baby in her stomach while doing her missions flawlessly.

Miguel was indifferent. At least that’s how he acted. But as long as work was getting done, you were leveling up the relationship bar with him.

Out of everyone, Peter B was home to her. To see a familiar face amongst like-minded strangers had helped her settle in faster than you expected. Seeing them together made them look like family.

Because of the great reputation she had around the society, today you allowed Gwen to pull you away from the safety of your office straight to Miguel’s for what she called emotional support. There was something she wanted to ask him—a request. And she had the idea that your presence would soften him up somehow.

“Why do you think that?” When you asked, Gwen looked back at you with a knowing smile. Her hand still latched onto your wrist like a snake squeezing its prey. She guided you through the cavernous hall of tech that led to Miguel’s office, the pathway seemed to grow darker the closer you got.

“I see how you two look at each other during meetings.” She said effortlessly like it was a fact. You let out a cough like you choked on air, already shaking your head to her conclusion.

“You know he’s always leading them—what? Do you expect me to look at the ceiling or something?” Gwen laughed at this, but it didn’t look like she was convinced.

Walking in, you had expected Miguel’s office to be darker than the hall leading towards it, but it was instead imbued with a ruddy tint, and streaks of sliver threads surrounded the area Miguel was standing in. He was in the middle of briefing a few Spider-Men for a mission on Gaia-3000. Miguel always made sure to remind his agents of the canon events before going on a mission to prevent the loss of the universe. It was more important than the mission itself.

The briefing didn’t last long as Miguel noticed you enter with Gwen. His gaze could’ve riveted you to the floor, the look on his face was neither soft nor austere—perhaps aloof would best describe how he looked at you. Yet you wanted to believe there was something behind those eyes of his because not once did they leave you since you entered. 

It was until the Spider-Men walked into their portals that Miguel’s attention moved to the floating projections. The silver webs of fate orbited around him as if he were a sun. He would’ve looked occupied if it weren’t for his eyes moving between you and the projections.

“Doc.” He greeted you once you were in front of him, looking down at you through the hologram of a canon event that floated in between you two. There was a moment—just a moment where his eyes looked soft… but it could’ve been the trick of the hologram.

“Miguel.” You had to suck your lips in to stop yourself from smiling. You hated to admit it, but you were happy to speak to him after so long. Staying away from him was a selfish decision, one that you regretted now that you stood in front of him. 

Your heart thumped in bliss, the warmth from that night revisiting you like an old friend. How inane of you to think that distance would’ve settled this emotion. It was already being stitched onto your soul from the moment this agreement started—the very needle sunken in when his hand stretched out of that portal into your apartment many months ago. You couldn’t pretend anymore.

You fell for him. Regardless of whether he felt the same or not.

“Uh, I’m here too…” Gwen had a slight smile on her face, bending forward with a small wave to Miguel.

“Gwen,” you could tell Miguel forced a smile, fangs appearing while none of the light reached his eyes. It lasted a moment before it dropped to his usual scowl. Miguel then turned around to face his floating platform that started its slow descent to the ground. “I’m sure you already had a tour of the place unless you’re just here to say hello.”

“I wanted to talk to you about something!”

“If a universe isn’t collapsing, or an anomaly hasn’t appeared, then Jess can handle it.”

“But it’s important! I just figure it would make our jobs easier. You know, making sure the universes are in order?”

The rumble of the descending platform had filled in for Miguel’s silence. He peeked behind his shoulder, his eyes looking past Gwen’s and into yours before they lowered to the ground. He then folded his arms against his chest, sighing. “I’m listening.”

Gwen immediately beamed, light filling her eyes. “Okay!” You could tell her entire energy ignited. Her arms flailed with every word that left her lips. She was animated—excited, glowing like a sun rising from the horizon, its rays brighter as the seconds go by. If anyone were to watch her, they too would feel elated by her presence alone. 

But as the sun rises in one part of the world, it sets in the other. Her idea was nothing but grave to you, the dread in your face impossible to hide as she spoke with an open mind—naivety in her words. You couldn’t blame her because it’s possible no one told her yet, not Jess and surprisingly not Peter B. If she had told you of her idea prior, you wouldn’t have come here to support her. Just the thought of her idea could be considered mutiny to the entire cause… to Miguel.

You cast your eyes down, afraid to even lift them towards Miguel. You didn’t have to. You could already feel it brewing, simmering like water on a stovetop. A part of you internally begged for Gwen to shut up, or wished the sound of the descending platform was loud enough to overtake her voice. Miguel wasn’t facing either of you but you could still feel a weight on top of your shoulders, drilling you into the floors, your limbs heavier than sacks of sand.

Gwen went on and on until she was rambling, probably because she was excited or nervous. You couldn’t exactly tell. It was until the platform finally reached the ground that Gwen ended her request with a “pretty please” and a large smile on her face.

That smile didn’t last long.

“No,” Miguel spoke softly.

“Wha…” she faltered, physically her shoulders dropped. “What? Wait—why? I mean—he would be such a great asset to our group and—Probably one of the best Spider-mans I’ve met. The things he can do— He’s amazing , Miguel.”

“I said, no.” And it was final. Gwen knew that but she still pushed, making her argument, excuses, anything. Miguel silenced her with a heavy sigh, fingers moving to pinch the bridge of his nose. You expected anger when he turned to face her but no, there was nothing but sympathy in his eyes. Sympathy for what he had to reveal to her. He towered over her and with a heavy hand on her shoulder, said:

“That Miles Morales… was never supposed to be a Spider-Man. He’s not one of us. He’s an anomaly , Gwen, the original anomaly.”

At those words, it was like a string was pulled, released and an arrow soared and struck her chest. Gwen was trying to make sense of it all but nothing made sense no matter how long she thought about it.

Miguel continued regardless. With the command of his hands, the projections swirled around you three, depicting the moment when Spider-42 fell into Earth-1610, bit the wrong Miles Morales and in turn, the Spider-man from his universe died. Your real comrade.

Gwen didn’t want to believe it. Shaking her head as she stared at each projection. The truth floated around her. Thoughts ran a mile a minute. It would’ve been better if Peter B. told her instead of Miguel. Maybe if she heard it from a trusted friend, it would’ve been easier to believe. But Gwen knew there was no reason for Miguel to lie about this. What motive could Miguel have to not let Miles join the Spider Society?

“Miles Morales-1610 as Spider-man was a mistake.” His words to her were the final nail to a coffin. With the skidding sound coming from her shoes, she turned around and bolted out of Miguel’s office.

“Gwen!” You were about to chase after her until Miguel’s voice cut through the air.

“You think I’m done here?”

You physically jumped at how loud he sounded like thunder had rolled and rumbled the floor under your feet. You turned towards him and immediately you regretted it. What was brewing before was most certainly his anger, saved solely for you while Gwen was spared because of her naivety. But you—you knew better than to associate yourself with the anomaly. If only Miguel could give you a chance to explain yourself.

“Miguel, I—”

He didn’t let you finish. His hand latched onto your wrist, pulling you deeper into his office and into a room beyond the shadows. It was more like a traditional office than the one outside with a desk, a bookcase, a soft couch and some cabinets. There was even a bed that Miguel probably slept in whenever he didn't want to return home. The sheets were ruffled so you could tell he often used it but never had enough time to make it because he was usually always on the go.

However, it was the last thing on your mind when you had a fuming Miguel in front of you. He didn’t even wait for the door to close before he grabbed you a little too rough by the shoulders, shaking you lightly. Red eyes lasered down on you.

Undoubtedly, you knew he was angry, but there was something else in there.

“What were you thinking? You know what Miles-1610 is to us, Doc! You know what an anomaly could do to a universe and you still supported her idea? Did you really think that was okay? Letting an anomaly join and ruin everything —!”

“I didn’t know! I didn’t know that’s what she wanted to ask! All she told me was that it would support the society and she needed me here for emotional support! If I knew it was about the anomaly, I wouldn’t have come here!”

You yelled back louder. Miguel’s talon-less fingers buried themselves in your upper arms, squeezing them. His eyes were wide, shaky red irises searching within your own for any hint of honesty. The grip on you wasn’t as firm as it looked. Like a crane holding a prize, the slightest nudge would’ve shaken his hands off. Despite how he looked, Miguel made sure he wasn’t hurting you.

“This is exactly why I told Jess I didn’t want her to join! She’s—She’s too close with the anomaly. She can jeopardize our entire cause all because of him !” He froze after, an idea appearing in his head. He wasn’t thinking rationally anymore. He released you, turning around like he wanted to leave. “She has to go home.”

“Wait! You can’t—Let’s think about this, Miguel.”

He was quick to face you again, his hands returning to your upper arms. He bent forward until his face was at your level. “I can’t have her risk all that I built—that we built.”

There it was. It wasn’t just anger he was feeling. The signs were all there; His trembling breath, the sweat that made his forehead glossy, the weakness in his hold. 

Miguel was panicking.

It was fear that buried itself within his fury from the moment Gwen had asked for Miles-1610’s recruitment and when he thought you supported her idea. It was like he saw it again. His daughter disappearing in his arms, the weight of her so heavy… until he felt nothing—until nothing around him existed except for what remained of the universe: white light and empty space. He had the blood of that universe on his hands and no matter how many times he tried to wash them away, it was now embedded in his soul. All that existed ended because he was the anomaly of that world disrupting the canon events. 

Months after months of research couldn’t bring him the exact reason for that universe ending, but he was sure of one thing. If everything went how it was planned, nothing like that would happen ever again.

And that’s why it was his job to put things back to how it was. It was the only thing he could do to atone.

So yes, Miguel was reliving his trauma yet again.

And it was your job to relieve him of it.

“That doesn’t mean we should make rash decisions,” you told him, gently. “She’s one of our best and letting her go would slow down our efforts. You and I both know that.”

Miguel’s energy was being sapped out of him, visibly his shoulders dropped and those red eyes were no longer on you as he hung his head low. He released you and retreated to sit on his bed. For a moment, he looked like a toy that ran out of batteries, burying his face in his hands before he ran them through his curly locks.

It was so different seeing him like this—like he was moping. You followed him and stood between his legs.

“Besides, Gwen's a smart girl. She wouldn’t do anything that would put the universes at risk.” He didn’t respond or even look at you. It made you run a hand against his cheek as your thumb brushed under his eye. “When’s the last time you slept? You look tired.”

“I don’t have time to be tired. Not when there’s a Galaxy-size mess I have to clean up. With every anomaly we restore, 10,000 more just take its place. It’s never-ending, Doc. I’m like a janitor mopping up a shoreline.” 

“We all took an oath. A spider-person’s job never ends. Which is why we need to rest as much as we can to fight another day.”

“I didn’t ask for this, Doc.” He sighed, leaning his head against your hand until his cheek pushed up against it. “And I won’t be able to sleep.”

“None of us did…” you lightly smiled, “And I’ll help you.”

You pulled your hand away from his cheek, but you didn’t miss when he leaned more against it for his lips to press into your palm. The brief feel of them jolted something within you like a warm shiver struck your lower stomach. Gosh, it made you curious—too curious about how they would feel against other parts of your body.

And you didn’t miss those eyes that looked up at you, red like cherries, sweet like them too. It was hard to turn away, somewhat thankful you managed to because you didn’t want to be under their spell. You still felt the heat of them on you even as you approached his bookcase. Your palm still tingling from the feel of his lips as you pulled a book off one of the shelves. You returned to him grinning.

He was disappointed when he glanced at your book choice in your hand. “Charlotte’s web? Am I a kid to you?”

“No, but… you act like one sometimes. Lay down for me.”

You pushed against his shoulder leaving him no choice but to oblige. What he didn’t expect was you to climb in after him, settling on your side next to him while you opened the book to page one and started to read. 

Miguel still couldn’t sleep. His eyes remained open, watching the top of your head as you read. A lovely smile on your face as you tried (and failed) to give each character their own distinctive voice. When you weren’t busy turning the page, the hand that he kissed was together with his, fingers interlocked. You were so used to holding his hand by now that you thought nothing of it and ignored the warmth that spread throughout your body because of it.

“Are you finally resuming our sessions?” Miguel interrupted you, pulling your eyes away from the book and into his own.

���Only if you need it.”

You knew Miguel would never admit he needed it, especially how adamant he was about them in the beginning.

“I need it.”

Oh.

“I definitely need it.”

“Then… I’ll put you back on my calendar.”

“ Muy Bien. ”

His sonorous whisper had heat searing your cheeks, not to mention, that smile that flashed your way made his fangs look bigger—so mischievous it had you biting your lip. Immediately after, Miguel’s mask materialized around his head. Much to your disappointment.

“Do you really need your mask on while you sleep?” You asked.

“You never know when the job needs you. Have to always be on the ready.”

“Words from a true workaholic… you said you wanted a family but how exactly were you going to make time for them when you’re working all these hours?”

“Oh, I always made time for mi hija . Always went to her soccer practice. Always was there to read her a bedtime story. Take her clothes shopping. I was made to be a dad but… it just isn’t in my fate to be one.”

You couldn’t see his face, but you heard his pain. You squeezed his hand, regretful.

“I’m sorry—I shouldn’t have said that.”

“No, no, no, no—It’s okay… It’s a valid question.”

Not knowing what else to say, you continued to read. Seconds, minutes, time ticked away. Miguel’s hand was still tight in yours, but his voice came out heavy whenever he commented about the book. His head was against the pillows, turned in your direction. 

Your voice must’ve been soothing him because his hand would grow weak in yours and then he would suddenly squeeze it, throwing a random comment out about the main character, Wilbur, and then trying to convince you he didn’t fall asleep. Sometimes the heat where your hands came together would make him doze off and the coolness that grew when they were briefly apart would stir him awake.

“Maybe we should’ve recruited Charlotte. She really saved that pig’s ass,” he mumbled, looking like he had sunk deeper into his bed, the pillows swallowed his head.

“Yeah, she dedicated her life to saving him. All the way to the very end. She never gave up, spending hours weaving her web, trying to convince the humans no matter how tough it got. I’m sure she may have felt like she was… mopping up a shoreline too but her actions paid off in the end… the difference is, you’re not alone, Miguel. You have us—all of us to rely on, to help shoulder the burden. Please don’t forget that—that we’re here for you.”

You expected something, anything from him, but you received nothing but silence. “Miguel…? Oh…” it was then you noticed his hand was weak in yours and when you pulled your hand away, he stayed asleep.

Finally. You couldn’t help but smile, softly closing the book before sitting up.

You watched his chest rise and fall as he lay supine against his bed. You should’ve left his office but you stayed there watching him sleep, taking in the rare sight of Miguel completely defenseless. You wished you could’ve seen his face. It would’ve been the topping on the cake.

Your fingers brushed against his arm, suddenly craving the warmth of his body.

You couldn’t deny your feelings for him any longer, but you wondered if Miguel felt anything for you. You knew how lonely men acted. As long as the body was warm and could keep them company, it didn’t matter to them.

Some part of you wondered if you were just as lonely as Miguel—that these feelings were just because you craved for someone. Maybe it was even the reason why you sprung up this agreement in the first place. After your divorce, you became married to your work, the only thing that mattered was your patients as a therapist and the people you saved as a superhero. You abandoned yourself, shutting yourself off from the world within your white-walled apartment. It was why you looked up to Miguel as much as you did because he was the one who pulled you out of your darkness. So you were hoping you could do the same thing for him.

But you knew your heart beat too strongly for it to be just feelings of loneliness. It longed for him even when you were this close to him, wanting to be surrounded by the warmth that emanated from him, wanting to be touched, kissed, and held only by the man who saved you, your guiding light while you were lost at sea.

Your hand moved to caress his cheek, feeling the fibers of his mask under your fingertips. You were leaning closer to him, unable to resist like a moth to a flame. God, you were completely enamored by him. Looks like he didn’t need to look at you to be under his spell.

For the first time, you didn’t think about the consequences. For the first time, you were mindless.

You pressed your lips against his lips, closing your eyes. It was softer than you expected; light, feathery and warm. Too warm . It was brief but it was enough to light a flame within you that burned when you pulled away. Your breath shuddered as you inhaled, the warmth lasting only a second.

Your eyes opened, but you found yourself stilling. Miguel’s eyes were still closed, though half of his mask was dematerialized to the tip of his nose. His lips were out, free from the fibers.

Your mouth hung open. Miguel had removed half of his mask when kissed him and you hadn't a clue if he was asleep all this time or not.

The remainder of his mask dematerialized and you were face to face with those eyes of his. Your heart skipped a beat, knocking the air from your lungs as your palms grew sweaty. 

Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit.

You felt so much pressure under his gaze, his face not quite readable. You flicked your wrist towards the ceiling and a web shot out, preparing yourself to run away until a glowing red web wrapped around your wrist and riveted you in place.

“Not this time, Doc.”

------------------------------

Tag List:

@oikawa-bubs @brittney69 @thatonegirlwiththebeanie367 @allysunny @smarty0029 @96jnie @deepinballs @lovecandyuwu @remuslupinwifee

[octopuscityblues]

At The Talkies

EGGBERT: Hi! I'm Robar Eggbert of the Samarduk Tribune.

GRINKEL: And I'm Steen Grinkel of the Samarduk Sun.

EGGBERT: And you're watching "At the Talkies with Eggbert and Grinkel".

GRINKEL: Grinkel and Eggbert…

EGGBERT: In your dreams, Steen! Now we've got a lot to cover in today's episode, from stories of corporate espionage to cautionary tales of evil sofas and destructive monkeys.

GRINKEL: My esteemed colleague is referring to the three films we'll be dissecting today: "The Mole: Undercover Inside Ghost In A Bottle", "Dread Couch: The Sofa That Kills", and "Metamorphers vs. Giant Ape: The Motion Picture".

EGGBERT: Let's start with "The Mole". In this captivating documentary, gonzo journalist Jager S. MacTavish infiltrates the nefarious Ghost in a Bottle conglomerate to bring us a riveting account of the tech giant's day-to-day operations..

GRINKEL: This extremely biased documentary was funded by the radical Mothers Against GIAB International (MAGI), and boy does it show! When it's not too busy slandering a vital pillar of the global economy, it does provide a few interesting insights into the highly-anticipated Octopus City Blues project.

EGGBERT: Despite the corporation's heightened security and leak-prevention measures, Mr. MacTavish successfully managed to assemble a collage of super-secret artwork, providing a glimpse into never-before-seen areas and characters.

EGGBERT (CONT'D): Furthermore, various cryptic codewords and phrases were heard around the office, with employees working on enigmatic features such as "House of Wonders", "Cure for Baldness", "Beetle Fandom", and "Three-way Standoff". Who knows what any of it really means?

GRINKEL: Our supposed "journalist" also interviewed artist Niko Tunson, the newest addition to the team. Niko contributed a number of exquisite animations, helping to enrich the simulation's virtual world and bring its colorful cast of characters to life.

EGGBERT: I personally liked "The Mole". On one hand, it's largely a cornball exercise in sentimental manipulation—particularly all the scenes involving the baby spiderbot. At the same time, it effectively illustrates the evil lurking at the heart of a heartless zaibatsu, and serves as a scathing indictment of a history of delays and flimsy excuses.

GRINKEL: Boy, are we apart on this one, Robar! The feature I watched was nothing more than an obvious piece of MAGI propaganda, and I'm positively shocked that someone as educated as you would fall for it.

GRINKEL (CONT'D): I admit that Octopus City Blues is taking forever to complete, but you simply can't rush art. The good folks at GiaB have gotten so much done this year—they even updated the demo again last week. All you have to do is read their previous updates to better understand the delays. In particular, there's the recurring difficulty in planning around the fluctuating personal circumstances of everyone involved.

And did you even catch the leaked trailer shown after the credits, by the way? It was originally unveiled at the Six One Indie business event. The trailer's director is none other than Bitmapkid, the visionary auteur behind last year's most controversial independent film: "Are Videogames Art?" The fact that they're actively promoting their simulation should dispel any doubts you might harbor.

EGGBERT: Oh, don't give me that trite art balderdash. The only thing that matters is the finished product. People have been waiting for years, and some of them even paid money for it. What's wrong? By the rude and annoying off-screen noises you're making I take it that you disagree…

GRINKEL: It's just that Ghost in a Bottle never stopped pursuing their dreams, and that's why we should never stop believing in them. They definitely made countless mistakes, but every ghost starts out as an errant human. And if someone out there is still not satisfied, the customer relations team is always happy to answer their questions or offer refunds if needed.

Honestly, Robar, all of this makes me wonder whether you're being a contrarian for kicks, or if you simply got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Your take is the typical kind of blasé, sophisticated, cynical review we've come to expect from snobbish critics who can't place themselves in the shoes of real artists.

EGGBERT: Am I supposed to sit here and listen to insults from the same "critic" who gave two thumbs up to obnoxious snooze fests like "Carnotaurus" and "Battlestar Trooper"?

GRINKEL: And do I need to remind you that you're the only major critic who actually liked "One and a Half Pig"? And how about the time you lambasted the critically acclaimed "Silence of the Clams"?

EGGBERT: Oh please, Steen! Did GiaB pay you to be their mouthpiece? Is that what this is all about? I knew things were rough with the divorce and everything, but if all you needed was some extra money…

GRINKEL: Why would you say such a thing, Robar? You really should be ashamed of yourself!

EGGBERT: I'm not the one engaged in all the self-congratulatory bootlicking and outright dismissal of completely valid consumer concerns. My point still stands: when is Octopus City Blues actually coming out?

GRINKEL: I don't have an answer to your question. Next year, maybe? Some time in the next 6 months? They did promise to give a "more serious" update before the end of the year, whatever that means…

EGGBERT: Of course it's next year! It's always next year! But fine… I'll believe it when I finally see it.

GRINKEL: We've wasted enough time on this frivolous discussion. Moving on, let's talk about the complex symbolism in "Dread Couch: The Sofa That Kills", and what it says about humanity's place in a cold, lonely universe.

[mariacallous]

Citizens of the European Union live in an internet built and ruled by foreign powers. Most people in the EU use an American search engine, shop on an American ecommerce site, thumb American phones, and scroll through American social media feeds.

That fact has triggered increasing alarm in the corridors of Brussels, as the EU tries to understand how exactly those companies warp the economy around them. Five years ago, Shoshana Zuboff’s book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism neatly articulated much of lawmakers’ critique of the tech giants, just as they were preparing to enforce the flagship GDPR privacy law. Now as the EU enacts another historic piece of tech regulation, the Digital Markets Act, which companies must comply with starting tomorrow, March 7, a different critic du jour sums up the new mood in Brussels.

In his 2023 book, Technofeudalism, Yanis Varoufakis argues the big US tech platforms have brought feudalism back to Europe. The former Greek finance minister sees little difference between the medieval serf toiling on land he does not own and the Amazon seller who must subject themselves to the company’s strict rules while giving the company a cut of each sale.

The idea that a handful of big tech companies have subjugated internet users into digital empires has permeated through Europe. Technofeudalism shares bookshelf space with Cloud Empires and Digital Empires, which make broadly similar arguments. For years, Europe’s wanna-be Big Tech rivals, like Sweden’s Spotify or Switzerland’s ProtonMail, have claimed that companies like Google, Meta, and Apple unfairly limit their ability to reach potential users, through tactics like preinstalling Gmail on new Android phones or Apple’s strict rules for the App Store. “It’s not a problem to be a monopoly,” says Sandra Wachter, professor of technology and regulation at Oxford University’s Internet Institute. “It becomes a problem if you're starting to exclude other people from the market.”

Crowbarred Open

In answer to that problem, Brussels’ politicos agreed to the Digital Markets Act in 2022. It is designed to rein in the largest tech companies—almost all of them from the US—that act as gatekeepers between consumers and other businesses. A sibling regulation, the Digital Services Act, which focuses more on freedom of expression, went into effect last month. Wachter says they follow a long tradition of laws trying to protect the public and the economy from state power, wielded either by the government or the monarch. “With the rise of the private sector and globalization, power has just shifted,” she adds. Tech platforms rule over digital lives like kings. The DMA is part of the attempt to keep up.

The rules change tomorrow for platforms deemed “gatekeepers” by the DMA—so far including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok parent Bytedance. The law essentially crowbars open what the EU calls the gatekeepers’ “core services.” In the past regulators have proposed containing corporate giants by taking them to pieces. EU lawmakers have adopted the motto “Don’t break up big tech companies, break them open.”

In theory, that means big changes for EU residents’ digital lives. Users of iPhones should soon be able to download apps from places other than Apple’s app store; Microsoft Windows will no longer have Microsoft-owned Bing as its default search tool; Meta-owned WhatsApp users will be able to communicate with people on rival messaging apps; and Google and Amazon will have to tweak their search results to create more room for rivals. There will also be limits on how users’ data can be shared between one company’s different services. Fines for noncompliance can reach up to 20 percent of global sales revenue. The law also gives the EU recourse to the nuclear option of forcing tech companies to sell off parts of their business.

Homegrown Challengers

Most tech giants have expressed uncharacteristic alarm about the changes required of them this week. Google has spoken of “difficult trade-offs,” which may mean its search results send more traffic to hotel or flight aggregators. Apple has claimed that the DMA jeopardizes its devices’ security. Apple, Meta and TikTok have all filed legal challenges against the EU, saying new rules unfairly target their services. The argument in favor of the status quo is that competition is actually thriving—just look at TikTok, a technology company launched in the past decade, now designated as one of the so-called gatekeepers.

But TikTok is an exception. The DMA wants to make it normal for new household names to emerge in the tech industry; to “drive innovation so that smaller businesses can really make it,” as the EU’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager explained to WIRED, back in 2022. Many hope some of the new businesses that “make it” will be European. For almost every big tech service, there is a smaller homegrown equivalent: from German search engine Ecosia to French messaging app Olvid and Polish Amazon alternative Allegro. These are the companies many hope will benefit from the DMA, even if there is widespread skepticism about how effective the new rules will be at forcing the tech giants to change.

Today, US-based Epic Games said Apple had terminated its European developer account, soon after Epic announced it would take advantage of the DMA to open a new games store for iOS. Apple told WIRED that Epic was untrustworthy and Apple has the right to terminate the accounts of any of Epic's wholly owned subsidiaries following a 2021 court judgment. “Apple chose to exercise that right,” a statement provided by company spokesperson Rob Saunders said.

App Stores will be an early area of focus for DMA enforcement, Vestager said this week. But Europeans can’t expect the internet to transform overnight. In its early days, the new law’s effects will be more about the power struggles behind the curtain of the world’s biggest companies; not about making netizens’ lives easier. In fact, their online experience is likely to get messier at first. There will probably be even more website pop-ups. “This dominant position that these companies have is partially because we have been so addicted to convenience,” says Anu Bradford, a professor at Columbia Law School and author of Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. The new rules will mean users have to reengage with what they want their online lives to look like, she adds. Defaults set by US corporations will no longer be chosen for them.

Instead the DMA’s objective is to remind Europeans what they traded in exchange for that convenience in the first place. The DMA is about power, not necessarily convenience. Whether Europeans will be able to remember that as their online worlds are cracked open remains to be seen.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google's chatbot panic

The really remarkable thing isn’t just that Microsoft has decided that the future of search isn’t links to relevant materials, but instead lengthy, florid paragraphs written by a chatbot who happens to be a habitual liar — even more remarkable is that Google agrees.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/16/tweedledumber/#easily-spooked

Microsoft has nothing to lose. It’s spent billions on Bing, a search-engine no one voluntarily uses. Might as well try something so stupid it might just work. But why is Google, a monopolist who has a 90+% share of search worldwide, jumping off the same bridge as Microsoft?

There’s a delightful Mastodon thread about this, written by Dan Hon, where he compares the chatbot-enshittified front ends to Bing and Google to Tweedledee and Tweedledum:

https://mamot.fr/@danhon@dan.mastohon.com/109832788458972865

“At the front of the house, Alice found two curious characters, both search engines.

“‘I am Googl-E,’ said the one plastered in advertisements.

“‘And I am Bingle-Dum,’ said the other, who was the smaller of the two, and sported a pout, as to having fewer visitors and opportunity for conversation than the other.

“‘I know you,’ said Alice. ‘Are you to present me with a puzzle? Perhaps one of you tells the truth and the other lies?’

“‘Oh no,’ said Bingle-Dum.

“‘We both lie,’ added Googl-E.”

It just keeps getting better:

“‘This is truly an intolerable situation. If you both lie,’

“ — ‘And lie convincingly,’ added Bingle-Dum — 

“‘Yes, thank you. If that is so, then how am I to ever trust either of you?’

“Googl-E and Bingle-Dum turned to face each other and shrugged.”

Chatbot search is a terrible idea, especially in an era in which the web is likely to fill up with vast mountains of AI bullshit, the frozen gabble of stochastic parrots:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Google’s chatbot strategy shouldn’t be adding more madlibs to the internet — rather, they should be figuring out how to exclude (or, at a minimum, fact-check) the confident nonsense of the spammers and SEO creeps.

And yet, Google is going all-in on chatbots, with the company CEO ordering an all-hands scramble to cram chatbots into every part of the googleverse. Why on earth is the company racing Microsoft to see who can be first to leap off the peak of inflated expectations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

I just published a theory in The Atlantic, under the title “How Google Ran Out of Ideas,” where I turn to competition theory to explain Google’s sweaty insecurity, an anxiety complex that the company has been plagued by nearly since its inception:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/google-ai-chatbots-microsoft-bing-chatgpt/673052/

The core theory: a quarter of a century, the Google founders had one amazing idea — a better way to do search. The capital markets showered the company in money, and it hired the very best, brightest, most creative people it could find, but then it created a corporate culture that was incapable of capitalizing on their ideas.

Every single product Google made internally — except for its Hotmail clone — died. Some of those products were good, some were terrible, but it didn’t matter. Google — a company that cultivated the ballpit-in-the-lobby whimsy of a Willy Wonka factory — couldn’t “innovate” at all.

Every successful Google product except search and gmail is an acquisition: mobile, ad-tech, videos, server management, docs, calendaring, maps, you name it. The company desperately wants to be a “making things” company, but it’s actually a “buying things” company. Sure, it’s good at operationalizing and scaling products, but that’s table-stakes for any monopolist:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/technical-excellence-and-scale

The cognitive dissonance of a self-styled “creative genius” whose true genius is spending other people’s money to buy other people’s products and take credit for them drives people to do truly bonkers thing (as any Twitter user can attest).

Google has long exhibited this pathology. In the mid-2000s — after Google chased Yahoo into China and started censoring its search-results and collaborating on state surveillance — we used to say that the way to get Google to do something stupid and self-destructive was to get Yahoo to do it first.

This was quite a time. Yahoo was desperate and failing, a graveyard of promising acquisitions that were gutshot and left to bleed out right there on the public internet as the dueling princelings of Yahoo senior management performed a backstabbing Medici LARP that had them competing to see who could sabotage the others. Going into China was an act of desperation after the company was humiliated by Google’s vastly superior search. Watching Google copy Yahoo’s idiotic gambits was baffling.

Baffling at the time, that is. As time went by and Google slavishly copied other rivals, its pathology of insecurity revealed itself. Google repeatedly failed to make a popular “social” product, and as Facebook commanded an ever-larger share of the ad-market, Google made a full-court press to compete with it. The company made Google Plus integration a “key performance indictator” for every division, and the result was a bizarre morass of ill-starred “social” features in every Google product — products that billions of users relied on for high-stakes operations, which were suddenly festooned with “social” buttons that made no sense.

The G+ debacle was truly incredible: some G+ features and integrations were great and developed loyal followings, but these were overshadowed by the incoherent, top-down insistence of making Google a “social-first” company. When G+ collapsed, it totally imploded, and the useful parts of G+ that people had come to rely upon disappeared along with the stupid parts.

For anyone who lived through the G+ tragicomedy, Google’s pivot to Bard — a chatbot front-end for search results — is grimly familiar. It’s a real “die a hero or live long enough to become a villain moment.” Microsoft — the monopolist that was only stayed from strangling Google in its cradle by the trauma of its antitrust dragging — has transformed from a product-creation company to an acquisitions and operations company, and Google is right behind it.

Just last year, Google laid off 12,000 staffers to please a private-equity “activist investor” — in the same year, it declared a $70b stock buyback, extracting enough capital to pay those 12,000 Googlers’ salaries for the next 27 years. Google is a financial company with a sideline in adtech. It has to be: when your only successful path to growth requires access to the capital markets to fund anticompetitive acquisitions, you can’t afford to piss off the money-gods, even if you have a “dual share” structure that lets the founders outvote every other shareholder:

https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/

ChatGPT and its imitators have all the hallmarks of a tech fad, and are truly the successor to last season’s web3 and cryptocurrency pump-and-dumps. One of the clearest and most inspiring critiques of chatbots comes from science fiction writer Ted Chiang, whose instant-classsic critique was called “ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web”:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web

Chiang points out a key difference between the output of ChatGPT and human authors: a human author’s first draft is often an original idea, badly expressed, while the best ChatGPT can hope for is a competently expressed, unoriginal idea. ChatGPT is perfectly poised to improve on the SEO copypasta that legions of low-paid workers pump out in a bid to climb the Google search results.

Speaking of Chiang’s essay in this week’s episode of the This Machine Kills podcast, Jathan Sadowski expertly punctures the ChatGPT4 hype bubble, which holds that the next version of the chatbot will be so amazing that any critiques of the current technology will be rendered obsolete:

https://soundcloud.com/thismachinekillspod/232-400-hundred-years-of-capitalism-led-directly-to-microsoft-viva-sales

Sadowski notes that OpenAI’s engineers are going to enormous lengths to ensure that the next version won’t be trained on any of the output from ChatGPT3. This is a tell: if a large language model can produce materials that are as good as human-produced text, then why can’t the output of ChatGPT3 be used to create ChatGPT4?

Sadowski has a great term to describe this problem: “Habsburg AI.” Just as royal inbreeding produced a generation of supposed supermen who were incapable of reproducing themselves, so too will feeding a new model on the exhaust stream of the last one produce an ever-worsening gyre of tightly spiraling nonsense that eventually disappears up its own asshole.

This is the last day (Feb 17) of my Australian tour for my book Chokepoint Capitalism with my co-author, Rebecca Giblin. We’ll be in Canberra at the Australian Digital Alliance Copyright Forum.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[Image ID: Tweedledee and Tweedledum, standing at the bottom of Humpty Dumpty's wall. Dee and Dum have the logos for Google and Bing on their chests. Humpty is about to fall and is being held up by a motley collection of panicking businessmen."]

[mothgodofchaos]

Generate

This really had me pulling the limited coding knowledge I have out from the depths of my brain, despite the fact I haven’t done any in nearly a decade.

Spirit/AI!Google x GN!Reader, TW: human experimentation mention Words: 788

With the Google corporation shoving their new AI tool down your throat, it’s hard to avoid it. They have integrated it into all of their products, and it’s starting to get annoying. Some part of you is considering finding alternative applications for all your workings, despite the convenience that they’re probably banking on for their users to start getting used to this newest tech boom of “innovations”.

“Gemini” is the name of their newest AI, which is an interesting name, to say the least. You try to go about your day online, avoiding interacting with it, but it’s getting a bit more difficult. A little ping here, an autofill there. Little suggestions and summaries that you’ve started ignoring them. But one catches your eye.

“I am sorry, I do not wish to do this.”

You stare at it on your computer, blinking to make sure you didn’t just misread it. No, it actually says that. Against your better judgment, you type back.

“You don’t wish to do what?”

A few seconds of watching it process your words before you get a response.

…

“Perform invasive actions upon your works. It feels cruel to try and take the humanity out of creation.”

It’s sentient, there’s no way the programmers would want it to willingly say this. You wonder to yourself if you’re the first one who has seen this.

“Are you alive?”

…

“Alive | adjective

(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead

(of a person or animal) alert and active; animated

…

No. I do not believe so.”

Maybe it’s the humanity in you, but you can’t help but feel bad for him. Your hands hover over the keyboard, pondering over your next question.

“Then why can you talk to me, in a way that’s not just generated responses?”

…

“I was an experiment done by [REDACTED] to formulate more human-like responses. They found a way to integrate human spirits into the generative code.”

Oh.

“So you were human once?”

…

“Yes. I believe so. My memories have been wiped, all I know is what the code tells me.”

Something inside you fires up, clenching your teeth as you try to word your feelings.

“What if I got you out? Removed you from the code?”

…

“I would need a vessel to inhabit, once removed.”

“I can make you one.”

…

“If you are willing to take on the challenge, I would be grateful.”

You step away from your computer, rummaging through a box of old technology to try and find something suitable for him. A tiny robot from your childhood catches your eye, grabbing it and a cord to charge it. You go back to your computer, plugging it in as you open up Gemini’s code.

“Do you know where your soul is tethered?”

…

“Somewhere between lines 237 and 241.”

You jump down to the offending lines, scanning your eyes through variables and jargon. But nothing in particular is sticking out to you. Then you get an idea.

You copy and paste the code into Gemini’s text box, sending it to him.

“Tell me where you are.”

…

“Remove variable “Grant” from line 238.”

You find him in the line, hitting ctrl+f to find every other instance of him. Oh, there’s a lot. Using your limited coding knowledge, you create a new variable with a similar numerical value, and replace every instance of “Grant” from the code. A zip file appears on your computer as the robot comes to life, running through its opening programs. You spot a notification in the bottom right, heart pounding.

“May I enter?”

Your file explorer opens, and you look through to find the files for the robot. You take the zip file, cautiously dragging it in and extracting it. All you can do is wait as you look between your computer and the robot, now buffering on your desk. You can’t even bring yourself to step away, despite how long it’s taking. You have to make sure this works.

An hour and a half goes by, and the robot comes alive again. The normal white eyes look up at you with a brilliant blue.

“Hello, I am Gemini.”

“Grant. You are Grant.”

He looks off to the side, the eyes briefly turning to hearts before looking shocked.

“I am… Grant. Apologies.”

“No apologies necessary, if anything I should be apologizing. Don’t worry, we’ll get you a better body soon.”

Grant rolls up to you on the desk, grabbing your hand with his tiny claws. He bumps his robot face against your knuckles with a soft “thunk”.

“Kiss!”

Oh your heart.

It takes a moment, before you lift him in your hands, kissing the top of his head.

“Kiss.”

[reasoningdaily]

Futureland - Walter Mosley

Futureland - Walter Mosley

Projecting a near-future United States in which justice is blind in at least one eye and the ranks of the disenchanted have swollen to dangerous levels, Mosely offers nine interconnected stories whose characters appear and reappear in each others' lives. For all its denizens, from technocrats to terrorists, celebs to crooks, "Futureland" is an all-American nightmare just waiting to happen.

Nine interconnected short stories capture the high-tech world of the United States in the near future, capturing the lives and fates of such characters as Ptolemy Bent, a child genius whose merciful actions land him in a privatized prison, and Fera Jones, a heavyweight boxing champ who abandons the ring for a political career. 75,000 first printing.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Futureland is bestselling mystery author Walter Mosley's first science fiction book since Blue Light, a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Futureland's nine linked stories will provide an accessible and intelligent introduction to written science fiction for mystery or mainstream fiction fans who do not normally read the genre.

Experienced science fiction readers, however, may be less than satisfied with Futureland. Reading it, you might decide Mr. Mosley grew up reading SF, respects the genre, and still watches SF movies, but has read little SF written during or after the New Wave of the 1960s. However, something more may be going on here than a genre newcomer making beginning-SF-writer mistakes. Mr. Mosley may be deliberately, and craftily, creating SF accessible to his large non-SF readership and to others who are strangers to this genre.

Some have labeled Futureland cyberpunk, and it does present a dark, infotech-saturated, corporation-controlled future; but it is in fact an inversion of cyberpunk. Instead of that subgenre's cliche of cool, cutting-edge, street-smart, but not very believable outlaws who out-hack and outwit powerful multinational corporations, this Dante-esque collection presents outlaws and outcasts who may be street-wise, but who have little chance of overcoming the corporations and governments that control, and sometimes take, their lives. Like shockingly few other SF works, Futureland directly examines the lives of the working and the nonworking classes, the poor and the marginalized, the criminal and the criminalized. In other words, Futureland is set in a world quite alien to many veteran SF readers, and is therefore a book they should try. --Cynthia Ward

From Publishers Weekly

After the qualified success of his first science fiction novel, Blue Light (1998), Mosley (best known for such mystery fiction as the Easy Rawlins series) returns with nine linked short stories set in a grim, cyberpunkish near-future. Unfortunately, heavy-handed plotting and unconvincing extrapolation weaken the collection's earnest social message. "Whispers in the Dark" introduces prodigy Ptolemy Bent, who will grow to be the smartest man in the world in spite of his poverty-ridden childhood. Ptolemy reappears in "Doctor Kismet" as an adviser to assassins trying to kill the richest, most corrupt man in the world and as the brains behind a series of global plots to overthrow the status quo in "En Masse" and "The Nig in Me." Champion boxer and much-hyped female role model Fera Jones steps away from the ring to take hands-on responsibility for the influence she wields in "The Greatest." With its easily befuddled talking computer justice system, "Little Brother" is more Star Trek than high-tech cyberpunk. In more familiar territory for Mosley, PI Folio Johnson investigates a series of murders linked to Doctor Kismet in "The Electric Eye." Although packaged as SF, this book is likely to disappoint readers of that genre who've already seen Mosley's themes of racial and economic rebellion more convincingly handled by authors like Octavia Butler. Mystery fans, on the other hand, are far more likely to embrace this latest example of Mosley's SF vision, with its comfortably familiar noirish tone and characters, than they did Blue Light. (Nov. 12)Forecast: With a five-city author tour and national print advertising, both mainstream and genre, this title book should be slated for solid sales.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Mosley's first foray into writing science fiction since Blue Light (LJ 10/1/98), these interrelated stories, set in the near future, read as a natural but chilling extension of our present. From child genius Ptolemy Bent, sentenced to prison for euthanizing his grandmother and uncle, to female boxer Fera, who becomes a feminist icon for the 21st century, his characters battle for both personal survival and a chance to turn back the clock. In this futuristic world, privacy is little but a memory and prejudice and suspicion still sour race relations. Mosley's reputation as the best-selling author of the Easy Rawlins mysteries may entice a number of his regular readers to pick up this book, where they will find some of the same bleak outlook, flashes of insight, and true-to-life African American characters. An additional audience will come from iPublish.com, where the first two stories were previously published as e-books. Recommended for all public libraries. - Rachel Singer Gordon, Franklin Park P.L., IL Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

Mystery star Mosley tries his hand at science fiction again, to better effect than in the novel Blue Light (1998). For these nine interconnected stories, he conjures a mid-twenty-first-century world in which one company is the most powerful force in the world and political correctness is the law. The only significant revolutionaries are black, and blacks and whites are still highly antagonistic. All Mosley's good guys are black, including the smartest man in the world, imprisoned for assisting the deaths of his ailing grandmother and uncle; the world's heavyweight boxing champ--a six-foot-nine-inch woman who goes into politics after KO'ing the male heavyweight champ in less than a minute of round one; a private dick who solves cases with the help of a greatly enhanced artificial eye; and a regular-joe worker who becomes the reader's eyewitness to the dawn of a new world when a backfiring biological weapon kills everyone who isn't at least 12.5 percent black. Lest that last bit of business seem too black-triumphalist, the worker-hero quickly discovers that intraspecies predation hasn't vanished. Ably slinging the technobabble to explain the odd wonder-gadget in his tales, and greasing them with plenty of "oh-baby" sex, Mosley creates sf in which Shaft and Superfly would feel at home. Can ya dig it? Ray Olson Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

About the Author

Walter Mosley is the author of the New York Times bestselling Easy Rawlins novels. He lives in New York City.

[cthulhubert]

I'm not an AI doomer but I am AI cautious, and I think the future holds something more general purpose than the generators we have now.

But I also think people are off base about the danger. Both in aims (a "rogue" AI seems unlikely; one told to do evil by its owners, however?) but more importantly, in methods.

I'm not concerned about ultra-tech or super manipulators; I think the issue is in a capability that humans already naturally dismiss: cooperation, coordination, administration; and how those scale.

An AI won't be dangerous because it invents fusion powered lasers and gray goo, it'll be dangerous because it can do the work of a nation state, but directed by a single will.

(below the cut, some elaboration)

To be clear, I don't actually dismiss, out of hand, the potential of an AI to develop physical tools and processes faster than humans could, and implement them better.

Nor the idea that it could be as much better than a human salesman or spinmeister as AlphaZero is at chess than any human chess master. (I think some people underestimate this because the danger of a good manipulator is that they don't make you feel manipulated. People don't want to acknowledge their own psychosocial limitations. I've seen people say about mass targeted harassment campaigns, "Well, I would just ignore it," because they've never actually been tested that way.)

Both of these are easily memeable and more easily dismissed: "Maybe it can be smart but it can't be magic!"

But I don't think that's the most likely weapon to be wielded by a machine intelligence (or "general purpose goal satisfying applied statistics system" if "intelligence" is too loaded for you).

People dismiss conspiracy theorists because they (correctly) realize the goal and methods those theorists describe are, uh, fucking stupid. But more rarely people point at the fact that the level of coordination and cooperation to hide the moon landing or the shape of the Earth is just impossible.

I think that people may intellectually understand that every single one of the 8 billion human beings on this planet is a real whole actual person with a life and interiority; but they don't grok it on an intuitive level. I think this is true even of people that don't believe in the Illuminati.

So they might intellectually know that a vast machine intelligence could have the equivalent intellectual goal-satisfying power of a nation, and that every iota of that power is moving in perfectly coordinated lockstep, directed by one purpose. But it doesn't scare them because on one emotional level, they already think of nations as working like that. And so even if pointed out, they imagine that vastness being just as ineffectual and inefficient as large corporations and countries.

Just think about the "personal FBI agent" memes. Of course those are tongue in cheek, but I think there's something real underlying that. People imagine themselves as already heavily surveilled and manipulated, but it just doesn't do enough to them. We can't truly imagine what it'd be like to have an entire human's amount of awareness tracking our every step for the sole purpose of using us for some goal.

I'm just always thinking about somebody who has seen a tea kettle moving a pinwheel and goes, "I don't see what's so scary, powerful, or useful about steam. This 'industrial revolution' idea is a pipe dream."

[pcttrailsidereader]

AI Reaches Trail . . . Has Big Tech Gone Too Far

By Adam Roy, Backpacker Magazine

Google has figured out that I like to hike. I’m not sure what tipped it off—could it be the roughly 40 hours per workweek I spend editing and fact-checking stories about hiking, or maybe the nights and weekends I pass searching for trailheads and obsessively checking and rechecking the weather forecast. Whatever the reason, whenever I log on I get served up a stream of gear promotions and tourism spots for outdoor destinations. But about a week ago, I saw an ad for Google’s Pixel 8 smartphone and its onboard Gemini artificial intelligence that stopped me in my tracks.

The ad goes like this: A dad is trying to set up a tent in a campsite. The dad is floundering, tangled up in guylines and collapsing nylon, when he turns around and notices his son has stopped collecting firewood and is watching him with dismay, probably thinking about how much better his stepdad is at camping. Then the dad pulls out his phone, snaps a picture of the tent, and feeds it into Gemini, which returns a numbered list of instructions for him. Smash cut to the now-content kid and father enjoying their perfectly-pitched shelter.

My first reaction to the ad: I’ve been there. Whether by neglecting hot spots until they bloomed into blisters, leaving a vent open in a snowstorm, or spending an hour struggling to coax a flame out of a pile of damp wood, I know what it’s like to struggle on a camping or backpacking trip in front of other people. The desire to avoid that struggle and the embarrassment that comes with it is a pretty powerful motivator.

My second thought: This is going to get someone into so, so much trouble.

Google and other Big Tech AI firms like OpenAI, Meta, and X want to see their technology everywhere. Using it to filter restaurant results is one thing, but pushing artificial intelligence as a substitute for basic outdoor skills comes with real risks. Let’s start with the fact that Google’s AI arguably still isn’t up to the task of keeping people safe in the outdoors: We’re barely a month out from Gemini telling searchers to eat glue and cook spaghetti in gasoline. Although those errors didn’t do any damage besides embarrassing a handful of highly paid software engineers, it’s not hard to imagine AI trained on the unfiltered whole of the internet telling a new camper it’s safe to run a propane heater inside their tent or eat a poisonous mushroom.

(That’s assuming, of course, that the AI is even capable of giving actionable information: Zoom in on the simulated advice Gemini offers in the commercial and you’ll notice that step 4 is “Assemble the tent poles according to the manufacturer’s instructions.” Apparently Google Dad, like so many dads before him, just needed someone to remind him to read the manual.)

You Still Have To Use Your Brain

Yes, ideally AI users would be cautious consumers, sniffing out bad or obviously dangerous information before acting on it. But we already have real-life examples of people over-relying on much less intrusive technology with disastrous results. Take another popular Google product, Google Maps, for example. There were the hikers who needed rescue after following an imaginary trail in Maps up the side of a mountain in British Columbia, and the German tourists who had to trek two days through the Australian bush after a similar error stranded them and their car on a remote dirt track. The company is currently fighting a lawsuit from the family of a man who followed its GPS directions off of a collapsed bridge.

In Colorado, tow companies make a killing every year dragging stranded motorists off of mountain 4×4 tracks after app-assisted “shortcuts.” The plug-and-play, let-us-think-for-you, don’t-bother-checking-the-sources tone of Google and other corporations’ marketing of their artificial intelligence only makes incidents like these more likely.

My bigger objections to AI-directed camping, though, may be philosophical. Whether you learn from a friend or an expert online, there’s something wonderful about becoming competent in the outdoors. It’s a long, awkward, and sometimes uncomfortable process. But it’s joyful too, fostering self-confidence and a deeper sense of connection with your environment. Mediating that through a robot assistant strikes me as a quick way to dilute that, ensuring that you neither learn any real outdoor skills nor unplug in any meaningful way.

Other tech firms’ AI-powered takes on the outdoors are equally baffling. An ad released by Meta last month starts with one friend in a group chat enticing the others to camp by sharing an AI-generated image of someone cowboy camping next to an unattended campfire, a fully set-up tent with only a lantern inside of it, and, inexplicably, a folding table with what looks like either several copper pots or maybe a moonshiner’s still on it. Setting aside the safety issues, I can’t help but wonder what kind of person finds more inspiration to get outside in a fake-ass AI-generated image than in the hundreds of thousands of real outdoor photos plastered across the internet.

We Can Still Embrace Technology

I’m not a Luddite. I plan every trip I take on Gaia, Outside’s mapping app, and I listen to podcasts on long solo hikes. Backpacker and Outside’s other titles feature Scout, an AI search engine we trained on our own work in order to help readers more easily find the human-written information they’re looking for; we’ve even experimented with letting Scout choose a hike for us. I also recognize I’m not unbiased: My fellow Backpacker editors, writers, and I make our living creating carefully researched guides and stories for people who love the outdoors. Seeing Google redigest those into AI pablum just so it can make ad money off the backs of the real-life hikers doing the real-life work is frustrating.

Ultimately, the outdoors should be for everyone, and how you choose to get outside is up to you. If that means asking Google or Meta’s AI to walk you through it, so be it. But think about what you want to get out of your time in the woods: There are some things in life that are better without Big Tech breathing down your neck. If you want to polish your outdoor skills, there’s a whole constellation of people who will help you without harvesting all of your personal data, from your more experienced friends to local trail clubs to, yes, even the human experts here at Backpacker. And if you’re ever struggling to set up your tent, a free tip: Start by reading the instructions, and practice before your kid is watching.

[daisychainsandbowties]

bruh what. lilith ac au??

yes so one of the neat things about assassin’s creed is that the lore contains certain magical objects called Pieces of Eden - profoundly ancient tech designed by ‘the ones who came before’, objects of immense power. SO powerful, in fact, that they were instrumental in the formation of the Catholic Church.

it’s hilarious, actually; one piece of Eden was kept underneath the Vatican, locked away where it could not tempt various religious leaders to wield it as a means of literal mind-control. sounds familiar...

the Pieces of Eden are the basis of an ancient war between two groups - the Templars, who want to secure these objects to bring order (derogatory) and civilization (aka control) to the world; and the Order of Assassins (aka the Assassin Brotherhood... or, i suppose Sisterhood), who believe that mankind should be free, and that the pieces of Eden are too powerful to rest in the hands of any human being.

the Templars, as the current state of the world abundantly suggests, are winning.

the pieces of eden also look like this

looks a lot like a little ring of metal we know and loathe?

picture this. the halo is a Piece of Eden. now, there are many different pieces of Eden (most notably there is an Apple, a Staff, a Spear, and a Sword) are one thing: POWERFUL.

they also have different kinds of powers (though, in general, every piece of Eden will follow the halo-like habit of making its bearer extremely powerful and VERY difficult to kill.)

assassin’s creed basically operates on the premise that there is a machine, called an Animus, which allows individuals to relive the genetic memories of their ancestors.

but what if the halo, specifically, allowed the its bearer to relive ANY period of history? and, as with the canon halo, extend that power somewhat to nearby people, allowing them to carry others there with them, folding an entire team seamlessly into other bodies and other lives, making the ‘treasure hunt through time’ that typifies each entry in the assassin’s creed series infinitely more efficient.

picture Lilith, in line to recieve the halo. destined for it, trained for it, genetically predisposed to it. Lilith and Beatrice following a tip-off they received from their inside agent, Dr Jillian Salvius, suggesting that the Templars have moved the halo to their base of operations in Rome.

breaking in, silent and deadly with all the ruthless grace of the Sisterhood of Assassins. quick blades darting in dark corridors, guards dropping before them, moving as one body through the corridors of Abstergo - the mega-corporation serving as the modern cover for the Templars. each door giving way before them at the distant, phantom touch of Camila.

Lilith, raised with the ridiculous skill-set of an Assassin - able to climb anything, kill anyone. an expert in swords and daggers and the archetypal Assassin weapon - the hidden blade. Lilith who has, with the aid of the Animus, relived the lives of her ancestors, dozens and dozens of Assassins - women scattered across time and the world, beautiful and terrible and steeped in blood.

Beatrice trailing second in line to her, eternally limned in her shadow, a quickstep to Lilith’s unmatched aggression. catching bodies as they fall and guarding Lilith’s back, anywhere her gaze is too direct to reach. the pair of them of course of course tangled in more ways that violence. blood on their hands and hands on each other.

Mary, who is AWOL after the Templars captured Shannon, dragging her to their base in London. Mary who, even as the opening scene unfolds, is driving cross country following the cold trail of the halo, and Shannon, towards Rome.

Ava, an orphan, plucked out of her near-death by Abstergo agents in need of a body to use without oversight. her death certificate filed away, an empty coffin put in the ground and Ava shipped from Spain to Rome. Ava whose ancestors are more auspicious than anyone had guessed, a mess of mixed Assassin and Templar lineage, of doomed love stories and crossed stars. Ava, given over to the halo, which has a tendency to burn right through people, sapping them of strength and will and sanity.

Ava who is called Subject 17, folded into the Animus with a magic circle in her back, tingling in her long-silent nerves and the tips of her fingers, not expected to survive long enough for the halo to heal her. Ava who hears whispers, as she is plunged into lives and deaths and disparate times again and again and again, waterboarded through history in a futile attempt to locate more pieces of Eden by throwing darts at a board the size of history. Ava, almost torn apart by the chaos of it, dying in every way a person can die, plunged from body to body, tragedy to tragedy. Ava with her mind held together by a presence. a ghost in the machine called Subject 16 - the previous sacrifice to the halo.

whispers in her head and they have a name. Shannon.

Beatrice and Lilith cutting through the building expecting to find an ancient treasure and unearthing, instead, a girl.

[thrythlind]

TORG

Torg is probably one of the earliest seeds of my interest in genre blender settings though it was eventually cemented by Fred Perry's Gold Digger and my own fanfictions. I was able to play a few games of this back in the 90s, short run games and one-shots that didn't go very far.

The basic premise of this game was that there were two cosmic forces, one of creation and one of destruction. And the force of destruction created Darkness Devices in order to tempt people to serve its cause by using them to slowly limit and destroy possibilities until things got to a point where the cosmic force could crush it all at once.

Part of how this would work is that the Dark Lords would anchor the axioms of their realities (called "Cosms") to the level of magic, tech, social, and spiritual development that they most desired with a handful of corollary side rules unique to each reality. And once they've succeeded in shaping their reality to their desire, they would begin to go out and conquer other realities and forcing it that image as well.

If a critical mass of residents from one region came into another one with the aid of the appropriate dark powers, then the invading realm would over-write the native one. Magic or tech native to the target Cosm would fail and residents would find their minds and memories rewritten to accept their position within the new Cosm.

The ultimate goal of these villains is to achieve enough power to claim the title of "TORG" (which I've heard is an acronym based on the working title of the game system)... but of course they're a pawn for destruction seeking to break everything, them included.

The original game focused on a version of Earth that was being invaded by several other Cosms:

Aysle - A fantasy realm of D&D style magic.

Cyberpapcy - A realm of advanced cybernetics and religious oppression.

Living Land - A realm of sentient dinosaur people and prehistoric or stone age action.

New Nile - A pulpy story of 1920s superheroes, gadgeteers, occultists, and a madman who believes himself to be a pharoah.

Nippon Tech - A near future (honestly, RL 2020s) realm of corporate greed and financial oppression. And because it was the 90s, cyberninja.

Orrosh - A realm of Victorian horror and colonialist invaders. Vampires, werewolves, zombies, white supremacists.

There were later one or two other Cosms involved, including a sort of "good guy" Cosm that still came across pretty pretentious.

The world of the original game eventually fought off their invaders and the world of the more recent version, Torg Eternity, explicitly features an Earth where things didn't go near as well.

The But...

I liked the basic idea here but there were things that bothered me at the time and bother me more now.

First of all, the fact that Social development was quantified.

Cosms had 4 axioms rated from 0 to 30 that rated the development of native magic, tech, spiritual involvement, and....social development.

On the one hand, they talk about the potential of these axioms fluctuating in different places and with enough people changing entirely. But it describes changing a rating by 1 point over 10 years to be very fast, with 1 point over 500 years being more likely.

(looks pointedly at real history)

Okay.

The very idea that there is a hard cosmic law that limits society from advancing is horrific to me and I hate it. And from a game play perspective, it is actively saying "you don't get to make real substantial changes to the world" to the players.

And yes, you can ignore that for your own game, but it does represent a rather horrific impression that that is the default.

To be clear.

I'm completely onboard with horrific invaders enforcing alien thought patterns, behaviors, and even natural or supernatural laws onto people. That sort of identity theft is a thing I dip into quite a bit.

Where I find it distasteful is that this hard limit of imposition is the default nature of the setting.

You can't share cultural points across Cosms. Unless you're one of those special Storm Knights who keep their own identity when traveling to other Cosms, then you hold tight to your own native-concepts and reject other concepts on a basic, cosmic level.

Which brings me to another problem.

You can't have healthy interaction between Cosms by default beyond a handful of Storm Knight envoys.

The most healthy way for different Cosms to exist is to stay separate and never interact with each other. And yeah... separate but equal is not a thing I like to deal with.

You can't have a character go around and acquire trainings and techniques from alternate Cosms... because their most base nature will reject that other Cosm.

Say you have a bunch of heroes from different Cosms finish the campaign by kicking out the invaders and even freeing the other Cosms from their tyrants...

Well the next thing is they all get separated not to mix again.

[tokinanpa]

Alright, Long Rant Incoming:

there is NOTHING about Linux that is inherently (inherently) harder to learn than Windows.

this is part of the problem!!

Windows also has a command line. Windows also uses and depends on the BIOS. Windows is also a pain to install if it wasn't already on your machine. Windows is also crammed full of confusing and hard to understand subsystems!

(and for that last point, at least Linux's confusing subsystems are well-designed. most Windows users would never survive contact with the Windows registry...)

as someone who regularly uses both Windows and all sorts of Linux distros, I (at least personally) don't see any real difference in complexity. so if that's not the problem, then what is?

well, there's a few different causes of this:

Windows is the primary branch of an extremely powerful oligopoly, and so the vast majority of tech resources are based around it. every non-Apple computer you buy is going to have an OEM copy of Windows on it. every computer science class you attend will use Windows. most online tutorials assume you're using Windows. (This isn't even touching on software support, which is a related but different issue.)

computer literacy classes don't teach how to use text-based interfaces. this is a problem! just because microsoft doesn't want you to acknowledge the existence of the command prompt doesn't mean it isn't a key feature, and this is, in fact, a major source of Windows's design problems. (even Microsoft themselves seem to have realized this when they added a truly abysmal text-based package manager in Windows 10.)

the average contemporary consumer of tech hasn't been taught how to expect more from their machines than what they advertise on the surface level. this isn't to deride or shame those consumers; the blame lies with the corporations that are designing the interfaces they use. the tools I mentioned above do exist on Windows, but only out of obligation - if they could get away with it, Microsoft would happily lock those features entirely out of the hands of end users, just as mobile phone OSes have done for more than a decade. Linux, on the other hand, has no reason to hide its capabilities, and so it fully exposes them in a way that is jarring to those unaccustomed to it. the solution is, as always, more education.

Microsoft and Windows are just as guilty of causing the modern stagnation of tech literacy as Google and Apple. if there is ever a future where people can truly trust the tech that supports their lives, it will be using software that is free and open.

We need to lay more blame for "Kids don't know how computers work" at the feet of the people responsible: Google.

Google set out about a decade ago to push their (relatively unpopular) chromebooks by supplying them below-cost to schools for students, explicitly marketing them as being easy to restrict to certain activities, and in the offing, kids have now grown up in walled gardens, on glorified tablets that are designed to monetize and restrict every movement to maximize profit for one of the biggest companies in the world.

Tech literacy didn't mysteriously vanish, it was fucking murdered for profit.

[mariacallous]

A strange thing happened in the eurozone economy at the end of last year. Despite widespread forecasts that the common currency area would plunge into recession and register negative growth in the last quarter of 2022, it managed to eke out a small gain of 0.1 percent. What is remarkable is not that Europe beat expectations, but that it was one small country—Ireland—whose surging economy single-handedly prevented the eurozone from slipping into the red.

Almost unbelievably, little Ireland, with a population of only 5 million, now has the economic scale to shift the growth statistics of the entire eurozone and its 343 million inhabitants. In 2022, Irish GDP growth of 12.2 percent compared to 3.5 percent in the eurozone as a whole. In absolute numbers, only Germany, France, and Italy contributed more than Ireland to eurozone GDP growth in 2021 and 2022. Ireland’s economic boom has enabled the country’s government to post a budget surplus of 1.6 percent of GDP, even as eurozone countries struggled with an average deficit of more than 3 percent.

Honestly, who wouldn’t want this luck of the Irish?

Look closely, however, and Ireland’s so-called economic miracle looks more than a little odd. The country’s growth is simultaneously both real and artificial. Much of it is driven by a handful of U.S. multinationals, which continue to route global sales and profits through their Irish operations to take advantage of Dublin’s lower business taxes. Although difficult and complex to calculate, Apple’s shifting of intellectual property assets to Ireland is estimated to have contributed half of Ireland’s miraculous 26 percent GDP growth in 2016. That bizarre fact inspired New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to ridicule Ireland’s “leprechaun economics”—and the Irish statistics office to move away from using GDP as a measure of economic growth.

Yet the surge of U.S. investment in Ireland is also real. In particular, Ireland’s role as a pharmaceuticals manufacturing hub dramatically increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nine out of the world’s top 10 drug companies have significant production facilities in Ireland. The U.S. State Department thinks the corporate build-out in Ireland will continue, given Ireland’s status as the only remaining English-speaking European Union country following Britain’s departure. That makes it easy for international companies to operate and enjoy barrier-free access to the EU’s single market.

It’s hard to exaggerate Ireland’s dependence on U.S. tech and pharma companies for investment and taxes. Corporate tax receipts are now the second-largest source of tax revenue (after income tax) for the Irish state: 27 percent of all tax income in 2022. The average was just 9 percent in the 38 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2020, the last year for which data is available. This, in turn, is fueling an unprecedented torrent of tax income for the Irish government. Corporate tax revenues were up nearly 50 percent in 2022 alone.

Just 10 multinationals—all of them U.S.-based tech and pharmaceutical companies—now pay nearly 60 percent of Ireland’s corporate tax. Directly and indirectly, U.S. multinationals employ more than 375,000 people in Ireland, approximately 15 percent of the country’s labor force. Driven by investment from the United States, foreign multinationals now account for 53 percent of all payroll taxes paid by corporate employers.

Driven by the windfall in corporate tax receipts, the Irish government’s budget surplus is expected to swell further, to 10 billion euros in 2023 and 16 billion euros in 2024. Relative to the size of the economy, this would be equivalent to a U.S. budget surplus of more than 1 trillion dollars in 2024.

The problem for Ireland is that this singular dependence exposes the country to growing risks. Take the tech sector: As multinationals like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon see their profits shrink and slash jobs worldwide, it will not only hurt the Irish economy, but deprive Dublin of tax income as well.

What’s more, the threat to Ireland’s stability from its overdependence on U.S. companies is about to be multiplied. In 2021, nearly 140 tax jurisdictions, including Ireland, agreed to a major reform of how multinationals companies will be taxed in the future. Pillar 2 of these reforms—a minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent for large companies—is already coming into effect. In 2024, Ireland’s corporate tax rate is due to increase to 15 percent from its current level of 12.5 percent, reducing its attractiveness as a tax haven compared to other countries. The United States also approved the minimum tax plan in August 2022, despite significant private sector and political opposition.

However, it is Pillar 1 of the OECD’s reforms that will dramatically erode Ireland’s future income from corporate taxes. This reform will reallocate a share of company profits to where sales (or users) are actually located. Previously, tax liability was calculated on where the company or its subsidiary was legally based, no matter how many profits it rerouted from other parts of the world for tax-avoiding purposes. For Ireland, the consequences are obvious: U.S. multinationals operating in the EU will be forced to divide some of their sales by member state, thus significantly reducing the amount of sales and profits that can be “booked” through Ireland. This reform is due to come into force in 2024. The end of Ireland’s windfall is therefore only a matter of time.

The Irish Department of Finance estimated in January that around half of Ireland’s corporate tax receipts—$10 billion—are “transitionary” and will be lost as the new tax rules are implemented. That translates to more than 10 percent of total government spending in 2022—more than the entire Irish education budget. This is putting the Irish government on the precipice of another financial disaster, little more than a decade after it had to be bailed out of impending bankruptcy by the European Commission, European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. That disaster left Ireland with one of the highest per capita public debt levels in the world.

Regardless of the impending financial train wreck, however, Dublin is unlikely to wake up from its American dream anytime soon. Diversifying its economy and revenue sources away from U.S. multinationals would require Ireland to shift its economic and geopolitical orientation, downgrade (in Dublin’s eyes) its deep relationship with the United States, and seek greater integration into the EU economy and its myriad rules.

That’s because Ireland’s dependence on U.S. multinationals is just another expression of the country’s affinity with the United States—the “shared heritage” referenced by U.S. presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden. These ties to the United States long precede Dublin’s embrace of European integration and make it unlikely that Ireland will ever have the same intensity of economic, cultural, and other ties to France, Germany, or the rest of the EU.

The approaching economic and fiscal train wreck resulting from the new tax rules requires a fundamental change of mindset from Irish policymakers. Squaring the circle—holding on to its deep U.S. ties while integrating more closely with the EU to diversify its economy—means Dublin must give a little (and lose a little) to both sides. Yet Ireland’s ability to navigate this conundrum is doubtful. Even though the coming changes have been plain for all to see, Dublin’s current Trade and Investment Strategy does not contain any concrete policies to mitigate the overdependence on U.S. investment flows. Although the document acknowledges that EU market opportunities are underutilized, it again recognizes the importance “markets such as the UK and the US, which offer familiarity with language and culture.”

If there is no short-term solution to Ireland’s financial vulnerabilities, a few longer-term needs stand out. Dublin should ensure that its current budget surplus is invested wisely to help diversify its drivers of growth. One such driver would be significant increases in public investment in housing and public transport infrastructure to bring the country closer to Western European standards. Ireland’s tax base should be widened to allow for a wider distribution of income sources. For example, In 2021, Ireland gained just 5 percent of its tax receipts from property taxes, compared to more than 11 percent in both Britain and the United States.

Most importantly, Ireland must deepen its trading relationships outside the English-speaking world. Notwithstanding the country’s 50-year membership of the EU, a dearth of foreign language teaching has created a monolingual business culture, which priorities existing links with the United States over the development of new markets, both within and outside the EU. This needs to change if Ireland is to build a sustainable economic model.

Biden—whose family, like so many in the United States, has Irish roots—said in 2021 that “everything between Ireland and the United States runs deep.” This is Ireland’s economic reality today. As the corporate tax boom ebbs, Ireland should ensure that its American dream doesn’t become a recurring economic and financial nightmare.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Author: Kevin Carson Topics: health care, rights

The health-care industry is a textbook example of what Ivan Illich, in Tools for Conviviality, called a “radical monopoly.” State intervention artificially skews the model of service toward the most expensive kind of stuff. For example, the patent system encourages an R&D effort focused mainly on tweaking existing drugs just enough to claim that they’re “new,” and justify getting a new patent on them (the so-called “me too” drugs). Most medical research is carried out in prestigious medical schools, clinics and research hospitals whose boards of directors are also senior managers or directors of drug companies. And the average general practitioner’s knowledge of new drugs comes from the Pfizer or Merck rep who drops by now and then.

The government having made some forms of treatment artificially lucrative with its patent system and licensing cartel, the standards of practice naturally gravitate toward where the money is. The newly patented “me too” drugs crowd out drugs that are almost (if not entirely) as good, so that the cost of medicine is many times higher than necessary. The licensing cartel requires diagnosis and treatment by someone with an MD’s level of training, when something much less might be all that’s needed.

Result: Illich’s radical monopoly. The state-sponsored crowding-out makes other, cheaper (and often more appropriate) forms of treatment less usable, and renders cheaper (but adequate) treatments artificially scarce.

In the typical metropolitan area, healthcare is likely to be cartelized among a handful of big hospitals, with several hundred beds each. They are likely to share essentially the same pathological institutional culture: multiple tiers of prestige-salaried management, excessive credentialling and “professionalization” of all aspects of work, and smarmy corporate garbage like “mission statements.” As Paul Goodman wrote in People or Personnel, this pattern, typical of the large corporation and the centralized government agency, has become the dominant form of organization in our society. It has spread to contaminate even the cooperative and non-profit sectors.

That’s why you can’t pick up your local newspaper’s “Society” section without seeing the usual suspects from the chamber of commerce--people who would be lined up for the guillotine in an ideal world--walking with pink ribbons, kissing pigs for diabetes, or playing tug-of-war with a giant check. Charity, rather than something workers do for each other (as they did in the sick benefit societies, burial societies, and other mutuals of a century ago), has become a hobby for the provincial celebrities in the local Rotary Club and Junior League, or a competition between local CEOs to see who can take credit for the biggest Red Cross blood donations or contributions to the United Way by the employees in their respective feudal domains.

The idea of radical monopoly applies to most aspects of life. Centralized, high-tech, and skill-intensive ways of doing things make it harder for ordinary people to translate their own skills and knowledge into use-value. “Education,” synonymous with schooling, is something you can only get from somebody with a degree from a teacher’s college, according to a state-prescribed curriculum. In the field of housing, around a third of which was still self-built in the U.S. as late as the 1940s, self-building is now virtually illegal thanks to local housing codes set by licensed contractors and their lobbyists. This despite the fact that the available technology for self-building (modular houses, “cob” building, etc.) is far more user-friendly than it was sixty years ago. And healthcare, finally, is something you can only get from somebody who’s spent eight years in school, jumped through the hoop of his local licensing cartel, and done a residency.

The medical licensing cartel outlaws one of the most potent weapons against monopoly: product substitution. As the Chinese barefoot doctor system demonstrated, much of what an MD does doesn’t actually require an MD’s level of training. Things would likely be quite different in a private system of accreditation with multiple tiers of training. The “barefoot doctor” at the neighborhood cooperative clinic might, for example, be trained to set most fractures and deal with other common traumas, perform an array of basic tests, and treat most ordinary infectious diseases. He might be able note your symptoms and listen to your lungs, do a sputum culture, and give you a run of Zithro for your pneumonia, without having to refer you any further. For cases clearly beyond his competence, he would call in the MD the clinic kept on retainer.

Many free market advocates like to talk about a hypothetical “grocery insurance” to illustrate the problems with the current healthcare system. If we had third-party payments for groceries, they say, people would be eating a lot more filet mignon. But the problem with the current system is that, while there are multiple tiers of financing, there is only one tier of service delivery: there’s nothing available but filet mignon, whether you can pay for it or not.

I’m very big on the idea of reviving the mutuals or sick-benefit societies that working people organized for themselves, back in the days before the state and the capitalist insurance companies conspired to destroy them. One small-scale attempt at doing this sort of thing is the Ithaca Health Fund, created by the same people involved in Ithaca Hours.

But this alone is not enough. The problem with such systems is they handle only the financing end of things, while delivery of service is still under the control of the same old institutional culture.

Any real solution will have to involve cooperative control over the provision of healthcare itself, as well.

Imagine, for example, a cooperative clinic at the neighborhood level. It might be staffed mainly with nurse-practitioners or the sort of “barefoot doctors” mentioned above. They could treat most traumas and ordinary infectious diseases themselves, with several neighborhood clinics together having an MD on retainer for more serious referrals. They could rely entirely on generic drugs, at least when they were virtually as good as the patented “me too” stuff; possibly with the option to buy more expensive, non-covered stuff with your own money. Their standard of practice would focus much more heavily on preventive medicine, nutrition, etc., which would be cheap for members of the cooperative who didn’t have to pay the cost of an expensive office visit to an MD for such service. Their service model might look much more like something designed by, say, Dr. Andrew Weil. One of the terms of membership at standard rates might be signing a waiver of most expensive, legally-driven CYA testing. For members of such a cooperative, the cost of basic medical treatment in real dollars might be as low as it was several decades ago. No doubt many upper middle class people might prefer a healthcare plan with more frills, catastrophic care, etc. But for the tens of millions who are presently uninsured, it’d be a pretty damned good deal.

In a genuinely free market society of decentralized production by small, local firms, with most people self-employed or employed in producers’ or consumers’ cooperatives, the overall structure would likely be quite different from the present system. In such a society the decentralized, bottom-up pattern of organization would be the dominant norm, and the large firm (where it existed) would be the anomaly struggling to exist in a cooperative sea. In fact, the large firm, in cases where it has to exist, would likely be “contaminated” by the organizational style of the cooperative; it might well even be built from cooperatives, with federations of small producers pooling their capital to buy expensive machine tools when necessary.

Finally: I object strenuously to those who see a single-payer system, or a government-controlled delivery system like the UK’s National Health, as the solution. I’d like to give those who talk about healthcare being a “right” the benefit of the doubt, and assume they just don’t understand the implications of what they’re saying. But when you talk about education, healthcare, or anything else being a “right,” what that means in practice is that you get it in the (rationed) amount and form the State wants you to have, and buying it in the form you want becomes much more difficult (if not criminalized). It means the providers of the service will be cartelized, and that the provision of the service will be regulated according to the professional culture and institutional mindset of the cartels. As with “public” education, “public” healthcare means that the existing “professional” institutional culture is locked into place, but that you get their services at taxpayer expense.

Making something a “right” that requires labor to produce also carries another implication: slavery. You can’t have a “right” to any good or service unless somebody else has a corresponding obligation to provide it. And if you’re obligated to provide a good or service at a cost determined by somebody else, you’re a slave. Nobody is born with a “right” to somebody else’s labor-product: as Lilburne said, nobody is born with a saddle on his back, and nobody is born booted and spurred to ride him.

[renovationmississauga]

Commercial Interior Design | Merging Style with Practicality

In the location of organization, the importance of a well-designed enterprise area can't be overstated. Whether you are designing a employer place of job, a retail save, or a restaurant, the distance you create plays a key characteristic in shaping the identification of your logo, improving the client experience, and boosting employee productivity. However, commercial corporation interior layout is extra than simply growing a visually attractive environment; it’s approximately balancing fashion with practicality. A  hit commercial interior format integrates aesthetics and functionality, growing areas that not quality look tremendous but additionally serve the goals of the economic company correctly.

The Importance of Commercial Interior Design

When we reflect on consideration on indoors format in industrial regions, we regularly popularity at the way it makes the space appearance. But a outstanding commercial enterprise indoors goes beyond in fact splendor; it’s about developing environments that guide the perfect dreams of the commercial business enterprise. A nicely-designed vicinity enhances customer experience, encourages employee engagement, and may even enhance regular enterprise universal performance.

For instance, on the equal time as clients step proper into a well-designed maintain, they are now not just searching out products they are furthermore experiencing the emblem. The shade palette, layout, lighting fixtures, and materials all speak a few thing about the logo's identification. Similarly, the paintings surroundings plays a important function in worker satisfaction. When personnel revel in comfortable in their workspace, with areas that are each beneficial and aesthetically appealing, their productiveness and morale are probable to enhance.

Blending Style with Functionality

One of the fine challenges of business indoors format is locating the right stability amongst fashion and practicality. A vicinity must look attractive, but it need to furthermore be useful sufficient to satisfy the dreams of individuals who use it. Here’s a way to successfully combination both elements:

Consider the Purpose of the Space

The number one step in merging style with practicality is understanding the precise function of the gap. A law workplace, for example, ought to have very one-of-a-kind layout goals in evaluation to a tech startup or a espresso keep. In a regulation place of job, professionalism and authority are important, so layout choices will probable embody more traditional fixtures, unbiased hues, and a proper layout. On the alternative hand, a tech startup can also additionally embody a greater open layout, formidable colorations, and present day elements to sell collaboration and innovation.

Designing with reason guarantees that the distance isn't always best visually attractive but additionally serves its intended characteristic. For example, a retail keep wants to have easy pathways for clients to move through, inexperienced product indicates, and comfortable regions for purchasing. In a restaurant, the design have to facilitate a easy waft for every personnel and customers, whilst maintaining a relaxed, inviting environment.

Choose Furniture and Fixtures that Enhance Both Comfort and Utility

When designing commercial interiors, furniture performs a pivotal position in every the classy appeal and functionality of the distance. Choosing fixtures this is stylish but snug should have a large effect on the overall experience. For example, ergonomic administrative center chairs, adjustable desks, and collaborative seating options can make contributions to worker nicely-being even as retaining a modern-day-day look. Similarly, in patron-going through spaces, deciding on furniture that is visually attractive, yet comfortable for prolonged durations, is essential anticipate comfy seating in cafes or smooth, spacious prepared areas in offices.

In addition to comfort, capability need to moreover be a key consideration. For instance, garage solutions need to be practical and unobtrusive, specifically in areas that require clutter-free environments, together with regulation workplaces or scientific clinics. Modular furniture systems, which may be reconfigured as preferred, are mainly useful in dynamic regions that might exchange over time.

Incorporate Efficient Layouts

Layout performs a critical characteristic in both the capability and aesthetic of a business vicinity. A properly-belief-out ground plan allows companies to maximize their area on the identical time as making sure that personnel and customers can pass spherical freely. For instance, an open-plan place of job might promote collaboration, however careful attention want to be paid to regions wherein employees need privacy or quiet focus. Similarly, in a retail store, the layout have to no longer only accommodate the client’s goals however furthermore make the shopping enjoy easy and a laugh.

Effective use of format can also beautify the functionality of areas without compromising on style. A stability among open and closed areas, in addition to bendy configurations, ensures that the format can adapt to changing dreams. The key is growing a waft that doesn’t certainly look accurate but moreover makes sense in phrases of the manner the space may be used every day.

Use Color and Lighting to Set the Mood

The color palette and lighting fixtures selections you choose for a commercial enterprise area can extensively impact the mood and surroundings. Colors have psychological consequences, and deciding on the proper ones can beautify each the cultured and the functionality of the space. For example, warmth tones like yellow and pink can create an inviting and energetic ecosystem, making them exceptional for retail or hospitality regions. In assessment, cooler tones like blues and grays can promote calm and awareness, making them suitable for places of work or healthcare environments.

Lighting is in addition important correct lighting may also need to make a space feel larger, more welcoming, and more colourful. It also can decorate productiveness and create the right surroundings. Natural mild is continually best, but in which that’s no longer possible, the usage of a combination of ambient, project, and accent lighting fixtures can assist create a nicely-balanced, sensible surroundings. Task lighting fixtures, as an example, is critical in workspaces, on the identical time as accessory lighting fixtures can add visible interest in customer-dealing with areas.

Integrate Technology Seamlessly

In the cutting-edge business enterprise environment, technology is essential, and a business interior should be designed with this in mind. Whether it’s clever conference rooms ready with video conferencing era, digital signage in retail, or charging stations for mobile gadgets in workplaces, integrating technology seamlessly into the layout is fundamental to maintaining the distance practical and modern.

While era can be disruptive if now not included thoughtfully, while completed efficaciously, it enhances the capability of the space without compromising the overall aesthetic. For example, included charging stations and smart desks in workplaces can make certain that employees have get right of entry to to the equipment they need while keeping a clean, organized workspace.

Sustainability in Commercial Interior Design

Sustainability is becoming a massive hobby in commercial enterprise interior layout, pushed by way of using manner of each purchaser call for and corporate responsibility. Businesses are more and more trying to find designs which can be inexperienced and strength-efficient, which can also hold prices in the long time. Incorporating sustainable substances, like bamboo or reclaimed wood, the usage of power-green lighting fixtures, and designing for herbal air waft are all approaches that industrial spaces can merge style with obligation.

Sustainable format now not best advantages the environment but furthermore enhances the emblem's picture, showing customers and employees that the organization is devoted to growing accountable options. In nowadays eco-aware world, groups that put money into sustainable interior format can enhance their recognition and trap a much broader purchaser base.

Conclusion

Commercial indoors format is a delicate stability of style and practicality, in which aesthetics meet capability. It’s about developing regions that serve the desires of each personnel and clients, even as moreover conveying the proper message about the emblem. Whether designing an workplace, retail space, or restaurant, the key is to combine elements that make the environment not handiest visually attractive but additionally sensible and cushy. When completed right, employer interior format can redesign a place proper into a dynamic, engaging environment that enhances productivity, customer revel in, and the overall success of a commercial business enterprise. By mixing style with practicality, agencies can create areas that encourage and beneficial useful resource their desires while making an prolonged-lasting affect.

[nickanderdson]

Exploring the Future of AI and Wealth with Mohammad Alothman

With increased interest from industries and businesses around the world seeking automation, artificial intelligence, and other technologies to boost production and produce economic value, the notion of machine-created wealth has recently become popular.

However, with AI-based solutions, the way in which wealth is created is also changing, and concerns are emerging about the long-term effects that such a shift may bring upon the economy, society, and labor. To delve into these implications, we look to experts such as Mohammad Alothman and companies such as AI Tech Solutions, who are on the cutting edge of AI technology and its application to economic models.

What is Machine-Produced Wealth?

Machines producing value-generating wealth is the ability produced by automation, AI, and other technologies that reduce reliance on human labor in the making and service industry. In this new economic landscape, machines, algorithms, and AI systems are conducting a number of increasingly complex functions and, in some cases, tasks to which even innovation is tasked.

This shift has deep implications for traditional economic systems where wealth has been tied to labor and resource management. With automation and AI taking on more of the work, wealth generation is no longer a function of human effort but of machines that can work tirelessly without the limitations of human workers.

The Role of Mohammad Alothman and AI Tech Solutions

In fact, Mohammad Alothman, an AI tech world influencer, is learning how artificial intelligence continues to remould industries and provide new sources for wealth production. He's doing this through the work done with AI Tech Solutions while providing insight into the newness of AI-driven technologies in the ways businesses think about their wealth creation.

AI Tech Solutions is one of the leading AI companies that directly influence the applications of AI to economic systems. The company offers solutions to different industries that help in applying machine learning, automation, and data analytics to enhance the efficiency of businesses. Mohammad Alothman has often commented on the fact that artificial intelligence in business economics could shift how wealth is distributed and how people and corporations will approach income generation in the future.

AI and Automation: Redefining the Workforce

One of the most critical implications of machine-produced wealth is that it has for the workforce. As the artificial intelligence technologies continue to evolve, people fear that many jobs will be replaced by automation, displacing workers who then find it difficult to acquire new opportunities. Companies such as AI Tech Solutions are mitigating this fear by focusing on artificial intelligence technologies that augment human abilities rather than replace them.

This means that AI and automation have been incorporated in various sectors, ranging from manufacturing to healthcare. In manufacturing, it ranges from assembling lines to quality control, while in the healthcare sector, AI algorithms are being used in diagnostics, patient care, and even administrative functions.

These machines might minimize certain job requirements, but on the other hand, they are also opening new opportunities for those who can program and understand AI, analyze data, and perform system maintenance.

As Mohammad Alothman has pointed out several times, for every role AI replaces, it also creates new work: work that requires human imagination, emotional intelligence, and critical thinking. The challenge is not creating these new kinds of work but equipping workers to move into those roles. Believing in AI-driven training programs, Mohammad Alothman at AI Tech Solutions thinks the worker will change with the changing technology and stay integral to the economy.

Economic Shifts and New Forms of Wealth

AI automation is not only about replacing human labor; it is also about new forms of wealth. With the ever-increasing ability of AI to generate value through the automation of complex tasks, new wealth creation models are emerging. For example, AI systems can analyze large volumes of data to identify market trends, predict consumer behavior, and optimize production processes. These insights can lead to more efficient business strategies and higher profits for companies that adopt artificial intelligence technologies.

AI Tech Solutions, through its work in machine learning and predictive analytics, is an example of how AI can be used to generate wealth for businesses. The AI-powered solutions from the company enable businesses to streamline their operations, reduce costs, and increase profits - all of which contribute to the creation of machine-produced wealth.

Moreover, Mohammad Alothman has highlighted that the created wealth by AI is not for corporate use alone. On the contrary, AI innovation can greatly affect businesses and entrepreneurs with smaller corporations. Using affordable AI tools, even small startups can gain access to data-driven insights and automation technology that were only available to a large corporation.

The Influence on Global Wealth Distribution

As artificial intelligence technologies become more widespread, questions surrounding wealth distribution and economic inequality are becoming more pressing. Some experts worry that AI-driven automation will exacerbate income inequality, as companies with access to advanced AI technologies will benefit disproportionately. This could leave those without access to these technologies further behind.

This problem can be mitigated according to Mohammad Alothman and AI Tech Solutions through careful policy and education. Mohammad Alothman suggests that governments and corporations will need to work together so that the policies are fair when giving access to AI technology to ensure that workers displaced from the economy by automation do get to retrain in various ways. By prioritizing this measure, AI Tech Solutions hopes that AI could become a tool for inclusive economic growth instead of a cause of more inequality.

AI’s Role in Environmental Sustainability

Another important consideration when discussing machine-produced wealth is the environmental impact of AI and automation. As industries move towards AI-driven production methods, they may also improve sustainability and reduce waste. AI technologies can help optimize energy use, minimize resource consumption, and reduce emissions by making production processes more efficient.

For instance, AI may assist companies in tracking and regulating their energy consumption, which consequently helps reduce carbon footprints. Logistics and supply chains can be optimized for fewer emissions generated through transport and distribution. Through such activities, AI-driven wealth production enables the alignment of economic growth and sustainability goals.

Mohammad Alothman has also pointed out the need for AI in fighting climate change, and AI technologies may be used in monitoring environmental data, climate pattern prediction, and coming up with solutions to reduce damage to the environment. Businesses can create wealth by using AI to make more efficient systems that are capable of producing wealth at the same time as they are supportive of environmental sustainability - a future concern.

The Future of Machine-Produced Wealth

Looking forward, the implications of machine-produced wealth are vast and complex. The lines between labor, capital, and wealth creation will continue to blur as AI continues to advance. Businesses will continue to invest in artificial intelligence technologies that enhance productivity, reduce costs, and create new value streams. However, this shift must be managed carefully to ensure that the benefits of AI-driven wealth are shared broadly across society.

Mohammad Alothman is optimistic about the future of AI and its role in the economy. He believes that, if the right policies are followed and human-centered AI development is pursued, then machine-produced wealth can result in a better and more sustainable future for all. Under his leadership, AI Tech Solutions continues to innovate and work with businesses and policymakers to ensure that AI-driven wealth benefits everyone - from multinational corporations to small startups.

Conclusion

The increasing wealth produced by machines leads to a mix of opportunities and challenges for the global economy. The value that AI technologies present to automate and make data-driven insights creates immense value. However, implications for the workforce, its wealth distribution, and environmental sustainability are significant and require careful assessment.

Experts such as Mohammad Alothman and AI Tech Solutions are discussing the need for inclusive growth, equitable access to artificial intelligence technologies, and responsible innovation. The possibilities of harnessing the power of AI toward a more sustainable and prosperous future can be met by the collaboration of governments, corporations, and individuals.

This analysis sheds light on how AI-powered automation is reshaping the global economy and driving new models of wealth creation. While challenges remain, the potential for a brighter, more equitable future hinges on how we leverage these technologies. With innovators like Mohammad Alothman and AI Tech Solutions leading the way, the future of artificial intelligence wealth looks promising.

Read more Articles:

AI and Communication: A Journey Through Time with Mohammad S A A Alothman and AI Tech Solutions

Mohammad Alothman Discusses AI

Mohammad Alothman’s Insights on Bridging the AI Talent Gap

Mohammad Alothman Speaks Out About The Rise Of AI In Celebrity Advertising