#disruptive tech

[creativityandinovationday]

Dyslexia, AI and the risks of technological solutionism.

Virtual event held by Mr. Richard Fletcher on "Dyslexia, AI and the risks of technological solutionism."

Giving individuals with dyslexia access to AI could potentially have wider benefits such as improved mental wellbeing, reduced anxiety and improved engagement with academia.

Most readers will now most probably have heard of ChatGPT. For some this word may fill us with hope and anticipation. Others may tremble. Before we describe the potential applications of ChatGPT in relation to dyslexia, let’s start by first defining and explaining the term ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) itself. AI has been defined as ‘the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings’ (Britannica, 2023). However, for individuals with dyslexia some tasks such as searching and extrapolating information from literature sources can be more challenging compared with neurotypical individuals.

AI has now entered what has been deemed as the ‘stage of intelligent cognition’ (Wang et al., 2023). This means that it has potential to mimic brain processes similar to those of humans. This sounds potentially petrifying, but we could think of it from a fresh stance. By way of one example, if we have a class of 30, each with a few different questions related to a topic, does that single teacher have time to answer all of those questions? This is where AI systems such as ChatGPT could come into play. Students can ask questions to the AI portal to deepen their understanding and responses are generated.

It could also be a potentially valuable assistive tool for those with dyslexia. Assistive technology which now encompasses AI has the potential to enhance the learning environment and make it a more pleasant experience for those with dyslexia (Pontikas et al., 2022). There is scope for such approaches to provide another layer of ‘reinforcement’ when used correctly, potentially having a positive impact on learning (Barua et al., 2022).

Gavin Reid (2009) defines dyslexia as: ‘a processing difference, often characterized by difficulties in literacy acquisition affecting reading, writing and spelling. It can also have an impact on cognitive processes such as memory, speed of processing, time management, co-ordination and automaticity. There may be visual and/or phonological difficulties and there is usually some discrepancies in educational performances. There will [be] individual differences and individual variation and it is therefore important to consider learning styles and the learning and work context when planning intervention and accommodations’.

Rather interestingly this definition encompasses learning styles, interventions and accommodations. This is where AI could come into play in this rapidly advancing technological age … as an accommodation and form of intervention to reinforce lea

[techdriveplay]

3D Printing: From Prototypes to Organ Transplants

In the last decade, the landscape of manufacturing, medical science, and even the arts have been fundamentally transformed by the advent of 3D printing technology. Once a niche tool used for the creation of simple prototypes, 3D printing has burgeoned into a revolutionary force that stands at the forefront of innovation across numerous sectors. This article delves into the journey of 3D printing,…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

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/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

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

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

[violent138]

Kind of want to see a panel or fic where the League shows up and helps Aquaman and Mera get a pod of stranded whales back into the sea. Between their powers and Aquaman's abilities, the whales actually make it to sea and survive.

[ursula-legun]

Call me whatever kind of weirdo political label you like, but it is insane to me how de-emphasized non-human ecocide/genocide/specicde is.

I know that everyone - including myself - has massive anthropocentric bias when it comes to processing death, and the reasons for that make sense in the abstract (even if I think this should be shifted heavily.)

But, like, entire ecosystems are disappearing. Species, and the relationships between them, are literally being eradicated on a daily basis. We are barely even aware of most nonhuman culture, and it's getting destroyed at a rate beyond what we can measure; not only does the loss of life (by any metric - organism count, expected lifespan lost, biomass, etc) massively outstrip anything humans have ever experienced, but the loss of kinds of life or ways of life are being destroyed at, again, a rate beyond what anyone is bothering to quantify right now.

It makes sense to me when people are relatively unconcerned about this because they aren't aware of it. But when somebody has even a fractional understanding of the environmental devastation happening at every moment...even given the (tremendous) relative emotional weight that people place on human life, I don't understand how anybody can know about this but not prioritize it.

And unfortunately, even half-heartedly prioritizing nonhuman life massively shifts so many decisions in both day-to-day life and broad-spectrum politics that it feels like. A completely different set of conversations to be having. As environmental collapse roots deeper into mainstream political discussion, I feel like this is getting to be a more and more stark contrast - the political goals/desires of people who are becoming concerned about environmental collapse, purely for the potential human consequence, are so many steps away from the goals of environment-for-its-own-sake that things become almost untranslateable.

IDK. I think that in some ways I am feigning confusion to myself about this because it's....kind of necessary to do that...to continue having regular interactions with other human beings..................but on other levels, I am genuinely baffled.

The most profound anthropogenic environmental impacts of the last ~400 years were, charitably, mostly inadvertent; they stem from a combination of "acceptable losses," colonial alienation from the environment, and general ignorance as to the effects of various technological processes. At this point the consequences are clearly, and without exaggeration, apocalyptic; but most of the proposed mitigation strategies are about as blind as the initial processes, if not outright known to be inadequate.

There are very obvious actions that can be taken, which would clearly permit the greatest mitigation of the processes that are currently dominating the catastrophe - and there are similarly obvious obstacles to these actions, like, how do you get everyone to coordinate on global degrowth?

But what gets me, what really keeps me up at night, is that this is all entirely off the table for any "serious" discussion. Because large-scale degrowth, spinning down of industry, would lower many life expectancies and disrupt possibly every single human society, it's just...rejected out of hand no matter what. And again, I get it, loss of human life usually just feels worse than loss of nonhuman life, especially when it's your own community, but like...we're not even going to try and talk about this? We're not even going to try and plan out what it would look like?

The best alternative plans boil down to nuclear power, increased urbanization, electric cars, and space-based resource extraction. (Admittedly, while I don't love nuclear power, I would actually massively prefer it to hydro or wind.) But this is the basket into which we are putting the eggs of global food production? The idea of doing something that you know would cause significant human suffering, but massively benefit the entire globe, is so repugnant that you're going to go with....the fucking spacex weirdos??? As though that's not already causing incomprehensible levels of human and nonhuman suffering as we speak????? You think this is actually going to lead to a better average quality of life for humans, let alone all the other organisms, three centuries out??????? Hello???????????????

[evermoredeluxe]

oh taylor’s in-ear were not working during anti-hero even though she literally got her mic pack replaced during lavender haze 💀 she literally just took them out of her ears

[fictional-worlds-are-exquisite]

i'm pretty sure i've cut all content consumption out of my routine now

i don't mean that in the sense of i no longer consume content, i mean i've managed to remove it from routine behaviour

yes i will scroll instagram but it's not the first thing i do on waking until i get through all the posts since yesterday. it's just something i choose to do when i feel like it

yes i will watch youtube but i no longer go through all videos since yesterday from all the channels i'm subscribed to and watch them all or add it to watch later if i can't squeeze it into the day. this was my most recent success so i'm avoiding my subscriptions tab so i don't fall into the hole and am instead looking up individual channel videos to watch for no more than an hour. when i'm convinced my brain will behave i believe i will be able to scroll subscriptions casually and only when i want to.

this used to cause me such trouble because i genuinely saw these things as part of my routine so i'd be over here like man my routine of consuming content is all messed up because i went out for the day with someone i will need to double it tomorrow to fix it so i'm back on track. or i'd be like kinda wanted to do this today but a youtuber i follow uploaded a 2 hour video so I won't be able to fit it in :/

anyway that was trash. now i think i just have routines around food (3 meals a day) and work/study. Everything else is clean and free. I can do whatever I feel like when i have free time. i feel a little lost now but at least i'm no longer spending hours on content consumption when it's not actually making me happy

[techverse1]

Tech Stocks Plunge as DeepSeek Disrupts AI Landscape

Market Reaction: Nvidia, Broadcom, Microsoft, and Google Take a Hit On January 27, the Nasdaq Composite, heavily weighted with tech stocks, tumbled 3.1%, largely due to the steep decline of Nvidia, which plummeted 17%—its worst single-day drop on record. Broadcom followed suit, falling 17.4%, while ChatGPT backer Microsoft dipped 2.1%, and Google parent Alphabet lost 4.2%, according to Reuters.

The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index suffered a significant blow, plunging 9.2%—its largest percentage decline since March 2020. Marvell Technology experienced the steepest drop on Nasdaq, sinking 19.1%.

The selloff extended beyond the US, rippling through Asian and European markets. Japan's SoftBank Group closed down 8.3%, while Europe’s largest semiconductor firm, ASML, fell 7%.

Among other stocks hit hard, data center infrastructure provider Vertiv Holdings plunged 29.9%, while energy companies Vistra, Constellation Energy, and NRG Energy saw losses of 28.3%, 20.8%, and 13.2%, respectively. These declines were driven by investor concerns that AI-driven power demand might not be as substantial as previously expected.

Does DeepSeek Challenge the 'Magnificent Seven' Dominance? DeepSeek’s disruptive entrance has sparked debate over the future of the AI industry, particularly regarding cost efficiency and computing power. Despite the dramatic market reaction, analysts believe the ‘Magnificent Seven’—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—will maintain their dominant position.

Jefferies analysts noted that DeepSeek’s open-source language model (LLM) rivals GPT-4o’s performance while using significantly fewer resources. Their report, titled ‘The Fear Created by China's DeepSeek’, highlighted that the model was trained at a cost of just $5.6 million—10% less than Meta’s Llama. DeepSeek claims its V3 model surpasses Llama 3.1 and matches GPT-4o in capability.

“DeepSeek’s open-source model, available on Hugging Face, could enable other AI developers to create applications at a fraction of the cost,” the report stated. However, the company remains focused on research rather than commercialization.

Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management, told Reuters that if DeepSeek’s claims hold true, it could fundamentally alter the AI market. “This could mean lower demand for advanced chips, less need for extensive power infrastructure, and reduced large-scale data center investments,” he said.

Despite concerns, a Bloomberg Markets Live Pulse survey of 260 investors found that 88% believe DeepSeek’s emergence will have minimal impact on the Magnificent Seven’s stock performance in the coming weeks.

“Dethroning the Magnificent Seven won’t be easy,” said Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers LLC. “These companies have built strong competitive advantages, though the selloff served as a reminder that even market leaders can be disrupted.”

Investor Shift: Flight to Safe-Haven Assets As tech stocks tumbled, investors moved funds into safer assets. US Treasury yields fell, with the benchmark 10-year yield declining to 4.53%. Meanwhile, safe-haven currencies like the Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc gained against the US dollar.

According to Bloomberg, investors rotated into value stocks, including financial, healthcare, and industrial sectors. The Vanguard S&P 500 Value Index Fund ETF—home to companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola—saw a significant boost.

“The volatility in tech stocks will prompt banks to reevaluate their risk exposure, likely leading to more cautious positioning,” a trading executive told Reuters.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman Responds to DeepSeek’s Rise OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged DeepSeek’s rapid ascent, describing it as “invigorating” competition. In a post on X, he praised DeepSeek’s cost-effective AI model but reaffirmed OpenAI’s commitment to cutting-edge research.

“DeepSeek’s R1 is impressive, particularly given its cost-efficiency. We will obviously deliver much better models, and competition is exciting!” Altman wrote. He hinted at upcoming OpenAI releases, stating, “We are focused on our research roadmap and believe

[epicstoriestime]

Why Aren’t We Using Counter-Drone Tech in NJ?

Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) Clusters of unidentified drones have been buzzing around New Jersey, raising eyebrows and concerns, especially near critical infrastructure. The U.S. has top-tier counter-drone systems—tech designed to track and neutralize UAVs—yet they aren’t being deployed here. Instead, officials are focused on monitoring and investigating, leaving the public wondering:…

[onlinemarketingcash4ublogspotcom]

"The Rise of Virtual Influencers, Gary Vaynerchuk's Take"

In this thought-provoking episode, we explore the future of influencer marketing and the rise of AI influencers. Our discussion delves into how AI is set to revolutionize the industry, rendering traditional human influencers obsolete. Discover how businesses and individuals must adapt to this impending transformation and the profound impact it will have on the market. Don't miss out on this eye-opening conversation!

https://www.onlinemarketingcash4u.blogspot.com

Chapters:

(00:00) I think the influencer industry is going to get massively affected by AI

(00:39) It sounds like companies need to adjust too

[leonhorn]

In 2054 Capitalism Dies in Space | In 20xx Scifi and Futurism by In 20xx Futurism When people in space are cut off from Earth an imbalance of owner vs. customers comes to a breaking point. The people in space believe no one is left alive on Earth. As far as they know, the (around) 12,000 in space is all that's left of humanity. Those living on and near the moon form Luna Nation. Space refugees scattered near Earth must find a way to insure a future for themselves and their children. AI that in many ways exceed human intelligence play a part in a skirmish for resources. What does it take to outsmart an AI that can make you think you're having a video call with a co-conspirator when it's the AI you are talking to? An finally, if AI can make a six part miniseries staring Drew Barrymore and Crispin Glover about using DNA banks to spawn a new human race, what parts would the two actors play? Here's a list of the technology mentioned in the story: 1. Orbital stations and space habitats 2. Micro-gravity adapting robots (e.g., vacuum bots) 3. Smart glass walls 4. Satellite cameras 5. AI assistants (e.g., Butler AI) 6. Augmented Reality (AR) glasses 7. Canal links (brain-computer interfaces) 8. Virtual Reality (VR) equipment 9. Life support systems for space 10. Automated mining and manufacturing in space 11. Fusion-powered spaceships 12. Electric thrusters for spacecraft 13. Legacy tracking systems for spacecraft 14. Ejection systems for spacecraft 15. Motion stabilizers for space suits 16. Emergency beacons in space suits 17. Artificial wombs 18. DNA banks 19. Brain scanning and digital copying technology 20. Robots capable of performing complex tasks 21. Centrifuges for simulating gravity 22. Terraforming technology (theoretical, for Venus) 23. Advanced medical automation 24. Custom cell cultivators 25. Organ printing technology 26. Stasis technology for long space journeys 27. Laser tight-beam communication 28. Rockets and missiles (mentioned as being disabled) 29. Closed-circuit TVs in spacecraft 30. Space construction vehicles (e.g., "spider") 31. Delivery cruisers 32. Research ships 33. Hologram-producing screens Many of the characters in this project appear in future episodes. Using storytelling to place you in a time period, this series takes you, year by year, into the future. If you like emerging tech, eco-tech, futurism, perma-culture, apocalyptic survival scenarios, and disruptive science, sit back and enjoy short stories that showcase my research into how the future may play out. This is Episode 56 of the podcast "In 20xx Scifi and Futurism." The companion site is https://in20xx.com where you can find a timeline of the future, descriptions of future development, and printed fiction. These are works of fiction. Characters and groups are made-up and influenced by current events but not reporting facts about people or groups in the real world. Copyright © Leon Horn 2024. All rights reserved. Episode link: https://ift.tt/k06LA7S (video made with https://ift.tt/pO3bjSh) via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tFJVPfQw2k

[wigoutlet]

Elon Musk - Tesla Bull - Investing Design - Bull Market Baby

by WigOutlet

[farshores]

i'm behind on all the new paid mod things but man it's interesting to see the gun/arm cannon one as a Lore Friendly Guns of Skyrim user

[crafantale]

AI is literally the bane of humanity

PSA: bot comments are taking over ao3

The above examples have been provided with the authors' permission to demonstrate what these look like.

Basic rundown:

They are all 3 sentences long

Perfect grammar, capitalization, and punctuation

Like absolutely flawless English teacher-style writing with only a single exclamation mark, ever

No mentions whatsoever of character names, settings, situations, or anything that could be tied to the story

The usernames may be identical to people who exist on ao3, but the name is not clickable, and no profile is associated with it EXCEPT when you directly search for that name. What this means: the comments come from an unregistered (not logged in) reader, bots scrape the site for real usernames, attach that to the comment, and post

Please spread the word about this so authors can filter comments and report them accordingly

There has been some speculation about why this is happening at all, and the best guess is that this is a feature that AI-training story-scraping tools are implementing to try and make their browsing traffic look legitimate

[todayscroll]

France hosts global AI summit as Chinese rivals disrupt tech sector

The Artificial Intelligence Action Summit kicks off in Paris with scientific and technical forums as President Emmanuel Macron seeks to position France at the centre of the AI boom. Also in this edition: China calls US President Donald Trump’s latest tariff justification “unfounded and false”, and France finally gets a 2025 budget after months of political crisis.