In normal life, the answer would be no.
Usually, whether we are going to be remembered or forgotten is not something that we could opt for. We can indeed thrive to by our actions or deeds, but the final outcome of this psychological process is up to third persons having a good or bad perception about us.
In May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the ECJ’) has come to a milestone judgment saying that a person has a right to be forgotten. But the context where the person ought to be forgotten is internet. Not the real world. However, real enough to influence the life of a real person. Thus the ECJ tangled the right to privacy, the right to data protection and the right to expression in a digital world. It brought to internet life Directive 95/46, originaly designed to protect private data of persons processed either by automated means (computer data bases) or by non-automated means (traditional paper). The said Directive could not have envisaged the need for the protection of data on internet, since the internet itself was underdeveloped then.
Mr. Mario Costeja González, the complainant in this case, wanted the Google to remove information on the auction of his property which was published in a local newspapers distributed in Catalonia, Spain, 16 years before. The information consisted of 36 words only. It was published on two dates only. However, still after so many time has lapsed, anyone searching through the name of Mr. Gonzáles using Google, would be offered information about the said auction.
No society would benefit from knowing these few words on selling of his property. Nor would third persons. The only benefit, or more properly malafit was done to Mr. Gonzáles. He wished his name not to be connected with an event that existed many years before, that implied no criminal act nor offence nor damages to third persons.
The ECJ has recognised that by saying that the information to be erased is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the lapse of time. It authorised Mr. Gonzáles, and other Gonzáleses alike to request search engines to erase the data.
However there we come to a problem. The search engine at issue is Google Inc. But it has its subsidiaries in all the European countries, such as google.es, google.fr, google.at, etc. Therefore Google could come to an idea to erase Mr. Gonzales’s name only from its European subsidiaries.
Because the judgment was issued by the ECJ, which is called the supreme court of the EU. And which formally does not have jurisdiction over USA, Australia or New Zealand.
And why not?
Because it is internet at issue. And internet does not have borders, at least not the classic ones. And because anyone in Europe could access google.es, but at the same time google.com. So if a person was erased from google.es, he still remains at google.com. And he is visible within Europe, at google.com, but also within USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Let’s imagine that the ECJ judgment implies only his erasure from European Google subsidiaries. What could he do to have his name erased from Google.com accessible worldwide? Well, he could initiate the same proceedings before USA court. And Australian court. And New Zealand court. And African court. Actually before all other courts, apart from European which already gave its ruling. Would that be feasible? Justified? Protective of human rights? An answer may already appear to us.
But what is the relation between the real law and cyber law?
Classic legal theories recognise the teritorrial principle in law. With the emerging of international law, the strictly teritorrial approach was a bit modified, by spreading certain features to supranational level. We now face the emerging of a cyber law. In cyber law, uncertain is the teritorry, its control, the area of application. What is not uncertain are the subjects of law. They are still real. Their status is still certain. Therefore the ECJ judgment pointed out that the subjects of the right to erasure are the inhabitants of the EU. The category ‘inhabitants’ is in this case certain.
If we recall the well established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it has defined the jurisdiction of a state on a less formal manner. It took into consideration the effective jurisdiction. Not the one which was determined by borders. Nor the one recognised internationally. Therefore the formally Cyprus teritorry could be considered as belonging to Turkey for the purpose of Turkey being respondent party for violations of human rights (see Cyprus v. Turkey, ECtHR judgment of 2001). Such a legal construction enabled the Court to act in an effective manner when dealing with human rights violations which needed a real remedy. A remedy which is effective.
In this case, strictly formally speaking, Google supsidiaries at the European teritorry would be liable. However, can we restrict the information so as to flow only in Europe? Can we determine with certainty that no person in Europe will use the Google.com world url. The answer would be NO. If we have a new media for spreading information potentially violating human rights, we must adjust our legal rules applicable to it. And apparently the praxis.
On this account, the ECJ did make a step further by giving the Directive 95/46 its cyber life, although almost twenty years ago when it was created no such spread of internet was imaginable. It also did make a link of the right to be forgotten to the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights, the instrument which already celebrated its 60 years birthday. Such connections make those instruments living together with the growth of society.
Should we then confine ourselves to some old outdated theories? Should we close eyes to real life? The European Court of Human Rights pointed that the right to privacy should not be interpreted restrictively (Amann v. Switzerland, ECtHR judgment of 2000, Rotaru v. Romania, ECtHR judgment of 2000, etc.). Why should we then restrict the application of ECJ judgment to European subsidiaries of Google? Would the purpose of the protection of EU inhabitant be achieved if we act restrictively? If an international principle in dealing with human rights violations is restitutio in integrum, can then a person be ‘in integrum’ forgiven if we allow only for narrow application of ECJ judgment? By answering these questions, we will determine the tommorow’s effect of similar violations. We have to imagine how the tommorow would look like in order to act now. And to act with no constraints that would impair the efficiency of law.
The Hong Kong Deputy High Court Judge, Marlene NG, on the other side of the world, in her judgment of August 2014, in a similar case, has said in concluding remarks to her judgment: ‘…the internet has become a universal medium. The advantages of having easy access to a rich store of information are many, and they have been widely applauded. But such benefit comes at a price; any risk of misinformation can spread easily as users forage in the web. The art is to find the comfortable equilibrium in between.’
We therefore have to accept the fact that the law must follow the growth of society, and not walk by it. The law should follow life and each segment of its development.
So the only logical answer to the first question of this text would remain: No, the person cannot be partially forgotten, neither in real life, nor in the cyber world.
Future Goals in the AI Race: Explainable AI and Transfer Learning
Recent years have seen breakthroughs in neural network technology: computers can now beat any living person at the most complex game invented by humankind, as well as imitate human voices and faces (both real and non-existent) in a deceptively realistic manner. Is this a victory for artificial intelligence over human intelligence? And if not, what else do researchers and developers need to achieve to make the winners in the AI race the “kings of the world?”
Over the last 60 years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been the subject of much discussion among researchers representing different approaches and schools of thought. One of the crucial reasons for this is that there is no unified definition of what constitutes AI, with differences persisting even now. This means that any objective assessment of the current state and prospects of AI, and its crucial areas of research, in particular, will be intricately linked with the subjective philosophical views of researchers and the practical experience of developers.
In recent years, the term “general intelligence,” meaning the ability to solve cognitive problems in general terms, adapting to the environment through learning, minimizing risks and optimizing the losses in achieving goals, has gained currency among researchers and developers. This led to the concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI), potentially vested not in a human, but a cybernetic system of sufficient computational power. Many refer to this kind of intelligence as “strong AI,” as opposed to “weak AI,” which has become a mundane topic in recent years.
As applied AI technology has developed over the last 60 years, we can see how many practical applications – knowledge bases, expert systems, image recognition systems, prediction systems, tracking and control systems for various technological processes – are no longer viewed as examples of AI and have become part of “ordinary technology.” The bar for what constitutes AI rises accordingly, and today it is the hypothetical “general intelligence,” human-level intelligence or “strong AI,” that is assumed to be the “real thing” in most discussions. Technologies that are already being used are broken down into knowledge engineering, data science or specific areas of “narrow AI” that combine elements of different AI approaches with specialized humanities or mathematical disciplines, such as stock market or weather forecasting, speech and text recognition and language processing.
Different schools of research, each working within their own paradigms, also have differing interpretations of the spheres of application, goals, definitions and prospects of AI, and are often dismissive of alternative approaches. However, there has been a kind of synergistic convergence of various approaches in recent years, and researchers and developers are increasingly turning to hybrid models and methodologies, coming up with different combinations.
Since the dawn of AI, two approaches to AI have been the most popular. The first, “symbolic” approach, assumes that the roots of AI lie in philosophy, logic and mathematics and operate according to logical rules, sign and symbolic systems, interpreted in terms of the conscious human cognitive process. The second approach (biological in nature), referred to as connectionist, neural-network, neuromorphic, associative or subsymbolic, is based on reproducing the physical structures and processes of the human brain identified through neurophysiological research. The two approaches have evolved over 60 years, steadily becoming closer to each other. For instance, logical inference systems based on Boolean algebra have transformed into fuzzy logic or probabilistic programming, reproducing network architectures akin to neural networks that evolved within the neuromorphic approach. On the other hand, methods based on “artificial neural networks” are very far from reproducing the functions of actual biological neural networks and rely more on mathematical methods from linear algebra and tensor calculus.
Are There “Holes” in Neural Networks?
In the last decade, it was the connectionist, or subsymbolic, approach that brought about explosive progress in applying machine learning methods to a wide range of tasks. Examples include both traditional statistical methodologies, like logistical regression, and more recent achievements in artificial neural network modelling, like deep learning and reinforcement learning. The most significant breakthrough of the last decade was brought about not so much by new ideas as by the accumulation of a critical mass of tagged datasets, the low cost of storing massive volumes of training samples and, most importantly, the sharp decline of computational costs, including the possibility of using specialized, relatively cheap hardware for neural network modelling. The breakthrough was brought about by a combination of these factors that made it possible to train and configure neural network algorithms to make a quantitative leap, as well as to provide a cost-effective solution to a broad range of applied problems relating to recognition, classification and prediction. The biggest successes here have been brought about by systems based on “deep learning” networks that build on the idea of the “perceptron” suggested 60 years ago by Frank Rosenblatt. However, achievements in the use of neural networks also uncovered a range of problems that cannot be solved using existing neural network methods.
First, any classic neural network model, whatever amount of data it is trained on and however precise it is in its predictions, is still a black box that does not provide any explanation of why a given decision was made, let alone disclose the structure and content of the knowledge it has acquired in the course of its training. This rules out the use of neural networks in contexts where explainability is required for legal or security reasons. For example, a decision to refuse a loan or to carry out a dangerous surgical procedure needs to be justified for legal purposes, and in the event that a neural network launches a missile at a civilian plane, the causes of this decision need to be identifiable if we want to correct it and prevent future occurrences.
Second, attempts to understand the nature of modern neural networks have demonstrated their weak ability to generalize. Neural networks remember isolated, often random, details of the samples they were exposed to during training and make decisions based on those details and not on a real general grasp of the object represented in the sample set. For instance, a neural network that was trained to recognize elephants and whales using sets of standard photos will see a stranded whale as an elephant and an elephant splashing around in the surf as a whale. Neural networks are good at remembering situations in similar contexts, but they lack the capacity to understand situations and cannot extrapolate the accumulated knowledge to situations in unusual settings.
Third, neural network models are random, fragmentary and opaque, which allows hackers to find ways of compromising applications based on these models by means of adversarial attacks. For example, a security system trained to identify people in a video stream can be confused when it sees a person in unusually colourful clothing. If this person is shoplifting, the system may not be able to distinguish them from shelves containing equally colourful items. While the brain structures underlying human vision are prone to so-called optical illusions, this problem acquires a more dramatic scale with modern neural networks: there are known cases where replacing an image with noise leads to the recognition of an object that is not there, or replacing one pixel in an image makes the network mistake the object for something else.
Fourth, the inadequacy of the information capacity and parameters of the neural network to the image of the world it is shown during training and operation can lead to the practical problem of catastrophic forgetting. This is seen when a system that had first been trained to identify situations in a set of contexts and then fine-tuned to recognize them in a new set of contexts may lose the ability to recognize them in the old set. For instance, a neural machine vision system initially trained to recognize pedestrians in an urban environment may be unable to identify dogs and cows in a rural setting, but additional training to recognize cows and dogs can make the model forget how to identify pedestrians, or start confusing them with small roadside trees.
The expert community sees a number of fundamental problems that need to be solved before a “general,” or “strong,” AI is possible. In particular, as demonstrated by the biggest annual AI conference held in Macao, “explainable AI” and “transfer learning” are simply necessary in some cases, such as defence, security, healthcare and finance. Many leading researchers also think that mastering these two areas will be the key to creating a “general,” or “strong,” AI.
Explainable AI allows for human beings (the user of the AI system) to understand the reasons why a system makes decisions and approve them if they are correct, or rework or fine-tune the system if they are not. This can be achieved by presenting data in an appropriate (explainable) manner or by using methods that allow this knowledge to be extracted with regard to specific precedents or the subject area as a whole. In a broader sense, explainable AI also refers to the capacity of a system to store, or at least present its knowledge in a human-understandable and human-verifiable form. The latter can be crucial when the cost of an error is too high for it only to be explainable post factum. And here we come to the possibility of extracting knowledge from the system, either to verify it or to feed it into another system.
Transfer learning is the possibility of transferring knowledge between different AI systems, as well as between man and machine so that the knowledge possessed by a human expert or accumulated by an individual system can be fed into a different system for use and fine-tuning. Theoretically speaking, this is necessary because the transfer of knowledge is only fundamentally possible when universal laws and rules can be abstracted from the system’s individual experience. Practically speaking, it is the prerequisite for making AI applications that will not learn by trial and error or through the use of a “training set,” but can be initialized with a base of expert-derived knowledge and rules – when the cost of an error is too high or when the training sample is too small.
How to Get the Best of Both Worlds?
There is currently no consensus on how to make an artificial general intelligence that is capable of solving the abovementioned problems or is based on technologies that could solve them.
One of the most promising approaches is probabilistic programming, which is a modern development of symbolic AI. In probabilistic programming, knowledge takes the form of algorithms and source, and target data is not represented by values of variables but by a probabilistic distribution of all possible values. Alexei Potapov, a leading Russian expert on artificial general intelligence, thinks that this area is now in a state that deep learning technology was in about ten years ago, so we can expect breakthroughs in the coming years.
Another promising “symbolic” area is Evgenii Vityaev’s semantic probabilistic modelling, which makes it possible to build explainable predictive models based on information represented as semantic networks with probabilistic inference based on Pyotr Anokhin’s theory of functional systems.
One of the most widely discussed ways to achieve this is through so-called neuro-symbolic integration – an attempt to get the best of both worlds by combining the learning capabilities of subsymbolic deep neural networks (which have already proven their worth) with the explainability of symbolic probabilistic modelling and programming (which hold significant promise). In addition to the technological considerations mentioned above, this area merits close attention from a cognitive psychology standpoint. As viewed by Daniel Kahneman, human thought can be construed as the interaction of two distinct but complementary systems: System 1 thinking is fast, unconscious, intuitive, unexplainable thinking, whereas System 2 thinking is slow, conscious, logical and explainable. System 1 provides for the effective performance of run-of-the-mill tasks and the recognition of familiar situations. In contrast, System 2 processes new information and makes sure we can adapt to new conditions by controlling and adapting the learning process of the first system. Systems of the first kind, as represented by neural networks, are already reaching Gartner’s so-called plateau of productivity in a variety of applications. But working applications based on systems of the second kind – not to mention hybrid neuro-symbolic systems which the most prominent industry players have only started to explore – have yet to be created.
This year, Russian researchers, entrepreneurs and government officials who are interested in developing artificial general intelligence have a unique opportunity to attend the first AGI-2020 international conference in St. Petersburg in late June 2020, where they can learn about all the latest developments in the field from the world’s leading experts.
From our partner RIAC
How as strategist we can compete with the sentient Artificial intelligence?
Universe is made up of humans, stars, galaxies, milky ways, black holes other objects linked and connected with each other. Everything in the universe has its level of mechanisms and complexities. Humans are very complex creatures man-made objects are more complex and difficult to understand. With the passage of time human beings are more evolved and become more advanced technologically. Human inventions are reached to that level of advancement, which initiates a competition between machines and humans, itself. Humans are the most intelligent mortals on the earth but now human are being challenged by the intelligence (artificial intelligence), which was invented as helping hand for humans to increase efficiency. Here it is important to question that whether human’s intelligence was not enough to survive in the fast growing technological world? Or the man-made intelligence has reached to its peak so that humans come in competition with machines and human intelligence is challenged by the artificial intelligence? If there is competition, then how strategists could compete with artificial intelligence? To answer these questions we first need to know what artificial intelligence actually is.
Artificial intelligence was presented by John McCarthy in 1955; he characterized computerized reasoning in 1956 at Dartmouth Conference, the main counterfeit consciousness meeting that: Every fragment of learning or another element of insight can on a basic level be so unequivocally depicted that a machine can be made to empower it. An endeavor will be made to learn how to influence machines to exploit vernacular, mount deliberations and ideas, take care of sort of issues now held for people, and enhance themselves. There are seven main features of artificial intelligence as follows:-
“Simulating higher functions of brain
Programming a computer to use general language
Arrangement of hypothetical neurons in a manner so that they can form concept
Way to determine and measure problem complexity
Abstraction: it is defined as quality of dealing with ideas , not with events
Creativity and randomness”
Another definition is given by Elaine rich who expressed that counterfeit consciousness is tied in with making computer to do such thing which are presently being finished by human. He said that each computer is artificial intelligence framework. Jack Copland expressed that critical elements of artificial intelligence are speculation discovering that empowers the student to perform in the circumstance that are beforehand experienced. At that point its thinking, to reason is to make inference fittingly, critical thinking implied that by giving information it can finish up comes about lastly trickiness intends to break down a checked situation and investigating the highlights and connection between the articles and self-driving autos are its case.
Artificial intelligence is very common in the developed nations and developing nations are using artificial intelligence according to resources. Now question is that how artificial intelligence is being utilized in the above mentioned fields? Use of AI will be elaborated with help of phenomenon and examples of related fields for better understanding.
World is being more advanced and technologies are improving as well. In this situation states become conscious about their security. At this point states are involving AI approaches in their defense systems and some states are already using artificially integrated technologies. On 11 May 2017, Dan Coats, the executive of US National Intelligence, conveyed declaration to the US Congress on his yearly Worldwide Threat Assessment. In the openly discharged archive, he said that (AI) is progressing computational abilities that advantage the economy, yet those advances likewise empower new military capacities for our enemies’. In the meantime, the US Department of Defense (DOD) is taking a shot at such frameworks. Undertaking Maven, for example, otherwise called the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (AWCFT), is intended to quicken the incorporation of huge information, machine learning and AI into US military capacities. While the underlying focal point of AWCFT is on computer vision calculations for protest identification and characterization, it will unite all current calculation based-innovation activities related with US resistance knowledge. Command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) are achieving new statures of proficiency that empower information accumulation and preparing at exceptional scale and speed. At the point when the example acknowledgment calculations being produced in China, Russia, the UK, the US and somewhere else are combined with exact weapons frameworks, they will additionally expand the strategic preferred standpoint of unmanned elevated vehicles (UAVs) and other remotely worked stages. China’s resistance part has made achievements in UAV ‘swarming’ innovation, including an exhibition of 1,000 EHang UAVs flying in arrangement at the Guangzhou flying demonstration in February 2017. Potential situations could incorporate contending UAV swarms attempting to hinder each other’s C4ISR arrange, while at the same time drawing in dynamic targets.
Humans are the most intelligent creatures that created an artificial intelligence technology. The technology we human introduced is more intelligent than us and works fastest than humans. So here is big question marks that can humans compete with the artificial intelligence in near future. Now days it seems that AI is replacing humans in every field of life so what will be condition after decades or two. There is an alarming competition started between the human and AI. AI was called as demon by Tesla Elon Musk. A well physicist Stephen Hawking also stated that in future artificial intelligence could be proved as a bad omen for humanity. But signs of all this clear and we can clearly see the replacement of humans. We human are somehow losing the competition. But it is also clear that a creator can be destructor also. So as strategist we must have the counter strategies and second plans to overcome the competition. The edge human have over AI is the ability to think and we generate this in AI integrated techs so we must set the level for this. Otherwise this hazard could be a great threat in future and humanity could possibly be an extinct being.
What is more disruptive with the AI: Its dark potentials or our (anti-Intellectual) Ignorance?
Throughout the most of human evolution both progress as well as its horizontal transmission was extremely slow, occasional and tedious a process. Well into the classic period of Alexander the Macedonian and his glorious Alexandrian library, the speed of our knowledge transfers – however moderate, analogue and conservative – was still always surpassing snaillike cycles of our breakthroughs.
When our sporadic breakthroughs finally turned to be faster than the velocity of their infrequent transmissions – that marked a point of our departure. Simply, our civilizations started to significantly differentiate from each other in their respective techno-agrarian, politico-military, ethno-religious and ideological, and economic setups. In the eve of grand discoveries, that very event transformed wars and famine from the low-impact and local, into the bigger and cross-continental.
Faster cycles of technological breakthroughs, patents and discoveries than their own transfers, primarily occurred on the Old continent. That occurrence, with all its reorganizational effects, radically reconfigured societies. It finally marked a birth of mighty European empires, their (liberal) schools and overall, lasting triumph of the western civilization.
For the past few centuries, we lived fear but dreamt hope – all for the sake of modern times. From WWI to www. Is this modernity of internet age, with all the suddenly reviled breakthroughs and their instant transmission, now harboring us in a bay of fairness, harmony and overall reconciliation? Was and will our history ever be on holiday? Thus, has our world ever been more than an idea? Shall we stop short at the Kantian word – a moral definition of imagined future, or continue to the Hobbesian realities and grasp for an objective, geopolitical definition of our common tomorrow?
The Agrarian age inevitably brought up the question of economic redistribution. Industrial age culminated on the question of political participation. The AI (Quantum physics, Nanorobotics and Bioinformatics) brings a new, yet underreported challenge: Human (physical and mental) powers might – far and wide, and rather soon – become obsolete. If/when so, a question of human irrelevance is next to ask.
Why is the AI like no technology ever before? Why re-visiting and re-thing spirituality matters …
If you believe that the above is yet another philosophical melodrama, an anemically played alarmism, mind this:
We will soon have to redefine what we consider as a life itself.
Less than a month ago (January 2020), the successful trials have been completed. Border between organic and inorganic, intrinsic and artificial is downed forever. The AI has it now all-in: quantum physics (along with quantum computing), nanorobotics, bioinformatics and organic tissue tailoring. Synthesis of all that is usually referred as xenobots(sorts of living robots) – biodegradable symbiotic nanorobots that exclusively rely on evolutionary (self-navigable) algorithms.
Although life is to be lived forward (with no backward looking), human retrospection is a biggest reservoir of insights. Of what makes us human.
Hence, what does our history of technology in relation to human development tell us so far?
Elaborating on a well-known argument of ‘defensive modernization’ of Fukuyama, it is evident that throughout the entire human history a technological drive was aimed to satisfy the security (and control) objective. It was rarely (if at all) driven by a desire to (gain a knowledge outside of convention, in order to) ease human existence, and to enhance human emancipation and liberation of societies at large. Thus, unless operationalized by the system, both intellectualism (human autonomy, mastery and purpose), and technological breakthroughs were traditionally felt and perceived as a threat. As a problem, not a solution.
Ok. But what has brought us (under) the AI today?
It was our acceptance. Of course, manufactured.
All cyber-social networks and related search engines are far away from what they are portrayed to be: a decentralized but unified intelligence, attracted by gravity of quality rather than navigated by force of a specific locality. (These networks were not introduced to promote and emancipate other cultures but to maintain and further strengthen supremacy of the dominant one.)
In no way they correspond with a neuroplasticity of physics of our consciousness. They only offer an answer to our anxieties – in which the fear from free time is the largest, since free time coupled with silence is our gate to creativity and self-reflection. In fact, the cyber-tools of these data-sponges primarily serve the predictability, efficiency, calculability and control purpose, and only then they serve everything else – as to be e.g. user-friendly and en mass service attractive.
To observe the new corrosive dynamics of social phenomenology between manipulative fetishization (probability) and self-trivialization (possibility), the cyber-social platforms – these dustbins of human empathy in the muddy suburbs of consciousness – are particularly interesting.
This is how the human presence eliminating technologies have been introduced to and accepted by us.
How did we reflect – in our past – on new social dynamics created by the deployment of new technologies?
Aegean theater of the Antique Greece was the place of astonishing revelations and intellectual excellence – a remarkable density and proximity, not surpassed up to our age. All we know about science, philosophy, sports, arts, culture and entertainment, stars and earth has been postulated, explored and examined then and there. Simply, it was a time and place of triumph of human consciousness, pure reasoning and sparkling thought. However, neither Euclid, Anaximander, Heraclites, Hippocrates (both of Chios, and of Cos), Socrates, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Democritus, Plato, Pythagoras, Diogenes, Aristotle, Empedocles, Conon, Eratosthenes nor any of dozens of other brilliant ancient Greek minds did ever refer by a word, by a single sentence to something which was their everyday life, something they saw literally on every corner along their entire lives. It was an immoral, unjust, notoriously brutal and oppressive slavery system that powered the Antique state. (Slaves have not been even attributed as humans, but rather as the ‘phonic tools/tools able to speak’.) This myopia, this absence of critical reference on the obvious and omnipresent is a historic message – highly disturbing, self-telling and quite a warning.
Why is the AI like no technology ever before?
Ask google, you see that I am busy messaging right now!
Coronavirus, Critical Geographies and Geospatial Revolution: Redefining Epidemiology
The subject of Geography has often been understood and considered as the Gazetteer with names of countries and information about...
Disinformation: How to recognise and tackle Covid-19 myths
The outbreak of the coronavirus has led to disinformation that hampers efforts to contain the pandemic. Read on to find...
China’s road freight problem and its solutions
Shifting freight off China’s roads could be key to tackling air pollution in the 14th Five Year Plan period (2021-25), according to an...
The Myth and Reality of Social Distancing in India: Challenges to fight COVID 19
“Social distancing”—The Way out :A nasty and deadliest Spanish flu that started spreading around the world infecting and killing over...
East Asia and Pacific: Countries Must Act Now to Mitigate Economic Shock of COVID-19
The virus that triggered a supply shock in China has now caused a global shock. Developing economies in East Asia...
The Post-Coronavirus World Will Be Far Worse than the Pre-Coronavirus World
Signs, especially in the United States, are that the post-coronavirus-plagued world will have even more inequality of wealth, within each...
Washington- Beijing Moves: Conflict of Choices?
At the beginning of the 21st century, the relationship between US and China have transformed rapidly as the latter surpassed...
Europe3 days ago
Coronavirus Reveals Cracks in European Unity
Diplomacy3 days ago
COVID-19 Diplomacy and the Role of the United Nations Security Council
Americas2 days ago
Coronavirus is Trump’s most important electoral rival
Newsdesk3 days ago
World Bank Supports Madagascar’s Investment in Human Capital
Terrorism2 days ago
The Threat of Nuclear Jihad in Central Asia and Russia
Newsdesk3 days ago
OECD updates G20 summit on outlook for global economy
International Law2 days ago
A Recipe for Disaster: Pakistan’s ‘Migratory’ Response to COVID-19 in Pakistan- administered Kashmir
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan is striving enthusiastically to quell the COVID-19