Category Archives: Society

Artificial Intelligence, Research, Science, Society, Technology

Superintelligent AI and its threat to humanity

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: Humanity faces an uncertain fate as experts brace for superintelligent AI. The tech industry claims looming “singularity” will change everything

Every time one of the world’s top artificial intelligence companies unveils a new system, employees at the US research organisation METR put it through its paces. Its ability is tested to complete a series of increasingly complex tasks.

The tasks are measured by how long each one would take a skilled human. They range from trivial arithmetic (two seconds) and completing a game of Wordle (13 minutes) to building complex military satellite software (taking a human expert 14.5 hours).

The test then serves as a gauge as to how capable AI has become – and where it might go.

The first version of ChatGPT, released in 2022, could only perform simple tasks that would take a human a few seconds.

But as AI systems have become more powerful, they are able to complete more complex actions that would take humans hours or days, such as breaking into a medical website and downloading all its data.

METR has found that AI capabilities are doubling in power every 196 days. Plotted on a graph, this progress starts slowly then rapidly accelerates to a near-vertical plane.

Converse with anyone in the AI industry for any length of time and the likelihood of them pulling up a version of the chart approaches 100pc, to the point where it has become a meme in its own right. It is being referred to as the most important chart in the world. The chart goes off the scale.

Last month, the AI lab Anthropic announced it had developed a new system, called Mythos, that it said was too powerful to release to the public because of its ability to find gaping holes in online security systems.

When METR’s researchers released the results of Mythos’s capability and function, they scored the system at 16 hours – meaning the world’s most powerful AI can now automate tasks that would take a human two full eight-hour shifts.

Nonetheless, they said the model was “at the upper end” of their ability to test. In other words, progress has become too fast for them to measure.

Not everybody is convinced by the results because the test only measures if a machine can do something half the time, not if it can do it consistently. The METR chart has, however, captured many people’s imaginations for two reasons.

First, the exponential growth looks strikingly similar to “Moore’s Law”, the maxim that has governed the electronics industry for more than half a century, stating that microchips roughly double in power every two years.

Second, it measures abilities, rather than intelligence. While many AI “benchmarks” resemble university exams and gradings, dealing in abstract reasoning or maths, the METR test studies whether AI can actually work.

It suggests that on current trends, vast amounts of human tasks could be automated in the next couple of years – including, most crucially of all, the art of developing AI models itself.

At that threshold, known in the tech industry as “recursive self-improvement”, all bets are off.

The concept is closely linked to superhuman AI because an AI that can make itself smarter could act like an evolutionary chain reaction, rapidly building to a system vastly more capable than mankind.

AI would have become – as IJ Good, the Bletchley Park codebreaker, predicted in 1965 – “the last invention that man need make”. Almost Orwellian in thought.

For 60 years, the idea seemed out of reach. But much of Silicon Valley believes this is about to change – and the US government is starting to notice.

The vast majority of people’s experience of AI has not changed much in the last couple of years. The release of ChatGPT in 2022 generated an initial flurry of excitement and fear in equal measure but, since then, progress has been less obvious.

The AI experience for many people comes in seeing an obviously fake video on their social media feeds, seeing an AI overview at the top of their search results, or having a bot that “helpfully” offers to summarise their emails.

But at the coalface, people are rapidly bringing forward their timelines for the day that superintelligence arrives.

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, International trade, Politics, Society, Technology

Wresting opportunity from this geopolitical crisis

GEOPOLITICS

Intro: If Britain is nimble and responsive to this global crisis it can be a winner in an era beset by conflict. Confident governments that circumvent risk will benefit handsomely

Amid the geopolitical storms and instability emanating from Ukraine to the Strait of Hormuz, flickers of light are piercing the gloom. To paraphrase Charles Darwin, it is not the strongest that survive, but those most responsive to change. So too, with nation states. Mid-ranking powers are navigating independent paths to mitigate risks and grasping opportunities lacing the chaos. There are lessons here for Britain.

In Ukraine, necessity has proved the mother of invention. Since Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has revolutionised its industrial-defence base, changing the face of global warfare. In 2024, Ukraine conducted the first fully autonomous drone strikes on Russian targets. The scale of innovation is equally dramatic. Ukraine has reduced its reliance on foreign-supplied military hardware, from 54 per cent to 18 per cent, in three years. Now, Gulf states are queuing up to buy its drones to defend themselves against Iran.

Such rugged self-reliance and determination persuaded the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to leave OPEC, the 12-country cartel that fixes oil prices and supply. “Opexit” will enable the UAE to increase its oil production by around 40 per cent, and help to ease global shortages. In doing so, the UAE has derided regional rivals, deepened ties with the US and Israel, and signed a defence pact with Ukraine. These moves are highly controversial for a mid-sized power under lethal fire – responding with vision and self-confidence.

The trend is not limited to those facing military pressure. When China responded to Australian criticism over Covid in 2020 by imposing tariffs, the government in Canberra reduced its dependency on China. It expanded trade with South-East Asia, and signed Aukus, the defence co-operation pact with Britain and the US.

In the wake of US tariffs, Canada signed a dozen new free trade deals, and launched a sovereign wealth fund to boost critical mineral supply chains with allies. It has ramped up defence spending, and is partnering with innovators in defence tech. 

The emerging trend undermines lazy assumptions that mid-sized nations must choose between or bow to larger powers. Confident governments that manoeuvre nimbly can circumvent risk. By co-operating in clusters with like-minded partners, they can seize the opportunities accompanying geopolitical ructions.

There are clear lessons for Britain. Since 2019, UK trade has increased – measured by volume or as a proportion of GDP. The latest United Nations statistics show that, since its departure from the EU, Britain rose from seventh to fourth place in the global trade rankings, spurred on by trade deals with Australia, India, and the 11 countries of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. As a services-oriented economy, the UK should strike further deals from the Gulf to South America.

UK trade objectives, however, must play to our comparative advantages. London remains the second-largest financial centre in the world, contributing 20 per cent more to the UK economy than it did in 2016. We can build on this by securing greater market access abroad. Reform at home would help, too. With public finances strained, state support should focus on sectors where the UK offers global leadership from life sciences to AI, for example, to make it easier for large funds to invest in data centres and defence procurement.

As the conflict in Iran shows, the global economy is still acutely reliant on traditional maritime supply chains. Britain has a long history as a leading maritime nation, and UK firms – like GB Global – are looking to high-tech logistics and modular methods of shipbuilding to mitigate these risks. The Government can do more to support this strategic sector, in ways that would boost tax revenue.

If Britain aims to lead in innovation, we need a reliable supply of critical minerals. Similarly, Europe-wide efforts to rebuild defence capabilities will fail without a stable supply of heavy rare earths.

While the West lags behind China by around 20 years in the race to mine and refine these commodities, Europeans have been slower to respond than the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia. The UK has some natural resource and refining capacity, but is yet to translate strategic objectives into operational delivery. One option is to help finance projects abroad in return for the off-take needed to service industry.

Likewise, in defence tech there is a UK hub emerging in Swindon, but it needs a technical college to provide the skills, faster procurement decision-making, and a revamp of the electricity grid to attract businesses.

The splintering of the post-1945 international order has sent waves of uncertainty around the world. Yet mid-sized countries can navigate turbulent geopolitical waters, but only if they face the new realities and play to their strengths.

Standard
Economic, Government, Politics, Society, United States

With or without tariffs, Trump has reshaped the world

GLOBAL ECONOMY

When the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs were illegal, he reacted with characteristic fury saying the decision is a “disgrace” and that the judges have been swayed by “foreign interests”. Trump then asserted that he has a back-up plan ready to go.

Over the next few days, he may well use all the power of his office to find a way of reimposing additional levies on everything America imports (on top of the 10pc he has already announced).

And yet, despite all of the drama of the decision, it may not make a great deal of difference. Tariffs have already fundamentally reshaped the global economy – and there will be no return to the old order now.

The decision of the Court was split by six votes to three, but was still clear enough. By relying on a 1977 law meant for national emergencies to impose sweeping tariffs on everything from cars to toys to microchips, Trump exceeded the power of his office.

In peacetime, it is the role of Congress to decide on import levies. Trump can try to find another legal route if he wants to; but for now, his original tariffs are dead in the water.

So, does that mean we can all go back to the global trading system that has reigned for the last half-century? One in which the rules-based order is back, where free and open trade is restored, and where globalised supply chains can operate without any barriers? Well, not exactly.

As much as the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, and the gatherings of Davos might want it to, there is no going back to the old system. The world has changed too much since “liberation day” last April for that to happen.

To start, Trump has already said he will impose an additional 10pc global tariff, on top of the levies he has already forced through. Is that legal? At this stage, no one really knows.

The president is planning to use a section of the 1974 Trade Act which allows him to set import restrictions for 150 days, and it will probably be another year or more before the Court delivers a verdict on that decision.

By then, he may well be using another obscure piece of legislation, and then another. Trump is determined to impose tariffs, and will use all the power of the White House to make them stick. He doesn’t care how often the Court rules against him.

More significantly, just look at some of the ways that the global trading system has changed over the 10 months since the tariffs were first imposed.

Europe has already decoupled from the US as much as it can, and, where that hasn’t been possible, made concessions to hold the fort.

Japan has opened up its market to American rice, and will feel nervous of putting up barriers again simply because the Supreme Court ruling might mean it can do so.

China has started to build its own computing and chip industry, replacing the American hardware that it used to depend on.

Global conglomerates, such as Britain’s AstraZeneca for example, have already committed billions of dollars to building factories in the US to make sure their products are on the right side of the tariff wall, and, with those contracts already signed, there will be no movement to scrap those plans now. The list goes on.

The supply chains that span the world have already been reconfigured, and it is too late now for a complete reversal, even if some wanted to do it.  

Many of the senior figures around Trump probably suspected all along that the tariffs were illegal, but decided to go ahead anyway. They knew they would never get Congress to agree to them, and figured that a year would be enough time for the levies to change the global trading system.

In that judgement, then, they were correct. Surreptitiously, or maybe with some good fortune, they may even end up with the best of all possible worlds. The global trading system will have been reordered, and largely in America’s favour, with the tariffs as the battering ram.

But the levies themselves, with all the price rises for ordinary consumers that they triggered, will have to be ditched. The result will be falling inflation, and the Federal Reserve will be able to cut interest rates. That will help going into difficult mid-term elections later this year.

It will be messy over the next few weeks. The Trump presidency is a chaotic wild ride, and no policy has proved more disorderly than tariffs. We still don’t know if the White House’s new legal tricks will work? Or whether the president will try to persuade Congress to impose tariffs for him?

We don’t even know yet whether the billions of dollars in revenue collected from the tariffs will have to be repaid by the American government, and if so whether it is the manufacturers, the retailer, or even the consumer who will get the refund? Even by Trump’s standards everything is up in the air.

One point, however, is surely cast in stone. We are not about to return to the old trading system any time soon.

Trump has already reshaped the way goods move around the world. The huge trade imbalances between the US and the rest of the world will keep on being reduced. Manufacturing will move closer to the consumer. Trade flow will reduce, and barriers will remain in place.

Whether that will be better or worse than the old system is open for debate. Prices may well be higher, but against that there may well be better paid blue-collar jobs, and countries will rely more on their own resources.

Either way, that is the new reality, and one that Trump has created – and whether we like it or not, it will take more than six Supreme Court justices to stop that process now.

Standard