Category Archives: Technology

Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Books, Defence, Military, Science, Technology

Robocops to become part of UK’s defence vision

FUTURISTIC VISION FOR DEFENCE

Intro: Weapons technology scientists recruit sci-fi authors to prepare military for droid soldiers and AI

In the 1987 sci-fi blockbuster RoboCop, actor Peter Weller growled: “Dead or alive, you’re coming with me”. The idea of cyborg law enforcers roaming the streets was a fantasy.

Now, British military scientists believe AI-powered cops like those seen in the film could become a reality – and have teamed up with science fiction writers to create a vision of what that could look like.

The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) has unveiled Creative Futures, a book of short stories designed to inspire the developers of future weapons tech.

The collection, edited by Dr Allen Stroud of Coventry University, brings together authors and defence experts to imagine scenarios stretching as far forward as 2122.

Professor Tim Dafforn, the chief scientific adviser at the Ministry of Defence, said: “Innovation isn’t just about inventing new technology – it’s about understanding how it will be used, and by whom.

Fiction gives us the freedom to explore those scenarios in ways traditional analysis cannot, helping defence prepare for futures that are complex, contested, and unpredictable. If we only plan for what seems likely today, we will be blindsided tomorrow.”

The stories in Creative Futures explore how emerging tech, a changing society, and global challenges could shape the world of defence and security over the next 100 years.

They cover everything from robot policing and the rise of AI to quantum technology that can predict the future, and wars fought between autonomous machines – already seen with the use of drones in the Russia-Ukraine war.

The DSTL says one of its aims is to help Britain’s defence and security services avoid being taken by surprise by the use of tech in a conflict.

It believes that, by combining scientific expertise with storytelling, the short stories offer a “unique lens to consider alternative futures – both desirable and undesirable”.

The DSTL futures programme management team says the anthology is aimed to “engage, evoke, and provoke”, and in pushing defence scientists to “imagine new ways of working” and “rethink what the future could be”.

It says that preparing for the future means thinking beyond the next upgrade or system. Science fiction challenges us to consider the human, societal, and geopolitical dimensions of technology.

Dr Stroud said: “Science fiction isn’t just entertainment – it’s a strategic tool. These stories help us explore the risks and opportunities of emerging technologies beyond today’s horizon that we might otherwise miss.”

– Creative Futures is available to buy online

Standard
Computing, Digital Economy, Technology

Quantum computing threatens crypto’s future

CRYPTOCURRENCIES

Intro: Bitcoin et al are increasingly becoming more insecure – and not just because of price volatility

In Robert Harris’s The Second Sleep, the novelist imagines a world hundreds of years in the future where humanity has regressed to a medieval standard of living, population, and way of thinking.

Towards the end of the book, we learn what might have caused this calamity: not a pandemic, meteorite strike, or nuclear war, but a complete collapse in the digital economy.

From payment systems to Just-In-Time supply chains and the wealth of machinery that sustains us, the modern economy is almost wholly dependent on digital instruction.

If everything went down all at the same time, a state of anarchy would rapidly establish itself. In the ensuing chaos, it would be every man for himself with likely devastating consequences for lives and civilisation more widely.

It is hard to imagine what combination of circumstances might completely and lastingly disable the digital economy. However, cyber threats are very much a real, present, and fast increasing danger.

You only need to look at what happened to Jaguar Land Rover last year to see the dire consequences when firewalls are breached. It closed the UK automotive company down for more than a month.

Growing resources and time are being devoted to further securing these systems in more or less every walk of life – a prime example of the diseconomies of technology if ever there was one – and not least in the wild-west world of cryptocurrencies, wholly dependent as they are on complex encryption to safeguard value and assign ownership rights. The threat posed to these assets by advances and developments in quantum computing has long been a main topic of debate in the Bitcoin community. The issue has recently gone viral after being raised in Christopher Wood’s much-followed Greed and Fear investment newsletter.

As the head of equity strategy at the investment bank Jefferies, Wood points out that deriving a public key from a private key is computationally simple. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency rely for their security on the assumption that the reverse operation would take trillions of years, even for a sophisticated supercomputer. But as Wood says, “This asymmetry collapses with the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum computers, potentially reducing the time to derive a private key from a public key to mere hours or days.”

The launch by Microsoft of the Majorana One quantum chip may have accelerated so-called “Q-Day” – the date when quantum computers become powerful enough to break most current public-key encryption – by several years. A report published early last summer by Chaincode Labs estimated that up to 50pc of all Bitcoins in circulation (four to 10 million of them) could be vulnerable to theft, with reused addresses and “Satoshi-era” wallets thought to be the most exposed. These were named after Bitcoin’s anonymous founder.

They call Bitcoin “digital gold”. A better description might be fool’s gold, for the whole construct depends crucially on a constantly expanding pool of demand.

Once that demand stabilises or falls then the whole store-of-value illusion begins to collapse. Whether the threat from quantum computing is real or not, it’s giving plenty of pause for thought. It also appears to be quite seriously damaging attempts by Donald Trump’s White House to normalise crypto as a respectable asset class.

BlackRock flagged quantum computing as a key risk when launching its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF last year while El Salvador, the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, has seen fit to split its reserves of the virtual currency between 14 different addresses as insurance against potential theft.

Wood himself was an early convert to crypto, but he appears to have lost the faith, reallocating the entire 10pc of his synthetic portfolio once occupied by Bitcoin to physical gold and gold-mining stocks.

Not that you need to crack the encryption code to steal Bitcoin. Contrary to the sales pitch, cryptocurrencies are already one of the most insecure forms of money around – and not just because their price is so volatile.

North Korean hackers managed to swipe $1.5bn (£1.1bn) from the crypto exchange Bybit in February last year. For the year as a whole, a total of $3.5bn of Bitcoin is reckoned to have been stolen. Particularly vulnerable are those who brag acclaim about their crypto wealth on social media: extortion or kidnap can quickly follow.

And because the whole purpose of crypto is to be free of government oversight and interference, it makes the funds virtually impossible to recover once a wallet has been opened and drained by someone else.

In any case, some quite extreme solutions to the quantum threat have been proposed, including simply burning the vulnerable coins in an attempt to preserve the currency’s underlying integrity.

Extreme, yes, and also a root-and-branch betrayal of individual property rights – a bit like telling half of all sterling account holders that their money had been cancelled. In such circumstances, the pound would never be trusted again.

It is not just crypto that is at risk from quantum computing. The entire payments system, which is similarly just numbers on a computer screen, would also be exposed.

Harris’s imagined societal collapse in his novel may not be as fanciful as it seems.

From its early origins in Caesar’s cipher, encryption has been a constantly evolving and improving form of security. Maybe money, both crypto and fiat, can indeed be made quantum resilient.

But there is no compelling answer to the quantum threat yet and the two underlying forces that have sustained Bitcoin and its mini-mes from the start – worries about debasement of fiat currencies and the appeal of self-custody – will lose their value if it turns out your wallet can be easily stolen. There has never been an exact correlation between the price of Bitcoin and that of gold but up until the past several days, the two seemed to have completely decoupled, with the gold price surging ahead over the past year but Bitcoin flat or falling.

Digital gold it is not, and that’s possibly got something to do with the threat posed by quantum computing.

Despite enthusiastic backing from the Trump White House, crypto has so far failed to achieve the credibility among institutional investors that promoters were hoping.

For all its faults, fiat currency – backed by the taxpayer and underwritten by the central bank – continues to be a more secure form of money than the snake oil of a decentralised ledger.

Like almost everything else, crypto has become part of the culture wars divide, such that true believers are far more likely to be on the American Right than the Left.

Yet, any hopes Trump might have had of enriching himself, his backers, and his supporters by fully embracing the crypto revolution have so far proved misplaced.

Recent falls have wiped out the entirety of the gains seen under Trump’s swashbuckling, deregulatory agenda. It’s not the end of the world – but nor is it the reinvention of money once promised or hoped for.

Standard
Art, Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Culture, Society, Technology

AI-generic-slop is theft from real artists

CREATIVE ART

Intro: Art generated by online tools is painfully bland and is leading us down the path to cultural stagnation

Pablo Picasso, one of the most influential artists of the 20th century, admitted that “Great artists steal.” The Spanish genius assimilated African mask imagery into modern art, and many other greats throughout history have done something similar. Essentially, this is how creativity works. But behind their masterpieces are struggle, friction, and unique vision. Enter another entirely different beast, the theft by proliferating AI engines. These are killing creativity, harming real artists, and fuelling an epidemic of unoriginality.

By serving prompts to generators such as Midjourney or DALL-E, people can generate images on screen, in just a few seconds. Anyone can conjure up a Vincent van Gogh-styled still life or Leonardo da Vinci-inspired selfie and at once exhibit it online. Social media platforms such as X are filled with fans of this technology who declare: “AI art is art.” But this doesn’t make it true.

In fact, AI “art” doesn’t even exist – it is an illusion. AI models work on pattern recognition, not artistic decision making. While an “AI artist” may serve prompts to this technology, they cannot be considered the author of its output. It has simply been remixed from ready-made imagery without thinking, feeling, intent, or ingenuity. Absent from AI “art” is creative process, which should take more than a few seconds. This is apparent in the low-quality, generic slop that’s produced. Lacking a distinctiveness of style and voice, it can only offer a dynamic of smooth homogeneity.

It bypasses craft, which is what great artists develop – with brushes and paint, pencils and paper – over months, years, and even decades. AI artists celebrate the power of technology to make creativity accessible, and this forms their central argument and tenet as to why it’s so great. True craft, however, takes dedication, consistent practice, and experimentation.

John Constable not only worked tirelessly inside his studio but made countless studies en plein air – as revealed in Tate Britain’s current exhibition, Turner & Constable. Celebrating two of Britain’s greatest painters, it shows what being an artist really takes. On display are watercolours, oils and sketches, as well as paint-covered palettes, paintboxes, and even a sketching chair.

Among Constable’s masterpieces is his 1836 work Hampstead Heath with a Rainbow, where prismatic hues glide through menacing clouds. His technique looks effortless but was suffused with genius-level skill. And behind it, unseen by the average enthusiast, are more than 100 cloud studies he created in an attempt to capture their transient energy.

Where AI generates pictures in an instant, Constable was committed to an ongoing process; the experience gained through observation and documentation was ultimately of immense benefit to him.

Similarly, JMW Turner made around 37,000 sketches of landscapes he’d seen with his own eyes. Determined to evoke the raw power of nature – from blazing sunsets to howling storms – he pushed realism towards abstraction with an excitement that’s visible in his energetic brushstrokes.

In contrast to Constable and Turner’s radical compositions, AI’s aesthetic is flat, twee, and often old fashioned. Defined by a saccharine palette of candy colours and hazy tones, automatically generated landscapes are hollow, sanitised, and no match for Britain’s great painters and artists. Working some 200 years ago, they painted emotive, not idealised, places of both personal and historic significance.

What is more, both Constable and Turner began their paintings by looking, and really observing the world. This fundamental act is absent from the process of AI’s so-called artists who are more like a client giving instructions to a graphic designer than an artist painting at their easel. AI engines are also doing real harm to contemporary artists and their hard work.  

Among those who have already experienced its damaging effects is Australian painter Kim Leutwyler. She says her distinct style has been copied by app-generated portraits. “My issue isn’t with AI itself, but with the unethical way it has been trained without artists’ consent,” she said. “The right to opt in or out of having your data scraped for AI training should be fundamental, not optional.” This view is widely held across all of the creative industries.

AI, then, is pilfering from artists, the very people it relies on. It harms us all with its blandness. Rather than moving art forward, like Turner and Constable did in their day, it contributes to what has been termed “cultural stagnation”.

Anyone infuriated by Hollywood’s endless remakes of viewer favourites has a similar impact. It threatens both originality and individual thinking. And because future AI will only draw from more of this generated material, it will continue to create typical rather than unique visions.

AI art isn’t art, it’s a mirage, and it won’t be looked at for longer than a doom-scrolling second. In our world of efficiency and productivity, creative pursuits are one of very few remaining places where human endeavour is vital. Behind the brushstrokes of Turner and Constable are years of looking, thinking, making and struggle, and that’s what creative art is.

Standard