Connect with us

Science & Technology

They promised us Martian colonies; instead, we got Facebook

Dr. Andrea Galli

Published

on

The advent of the digitization changes the values of the society, especially as an apparatus of power, not as a real benefit to humanity.

Everyone talks about digitalization. When I browse the science and technology section in newspapers, I mostly find articles on smartphones, clouds, and social media. And I realize that the entertainment industry has become the technological progress engine nowadays.

For purposes of illustration: by 2019, California invested around 75 billion USD in venture capital, more than a half of it across the US, distributed between more than 2,300 startups. That is substantial. But if you take a closer look, the picture changes. More than a half of that goes into software development, with only about 20 percent allocated for life sciences and almost nothing for significant engineering. The buzz words are always the same: “cloud” something, “smart” something, “AI” something, “blockchain” something. In the meantime, the more aloof the claim, the higher the probability of funding, even if the real innovative benefit to humanity is negligible.

The situation is not better in other technology centers, including those in Europe. So in the end, we have cases like Theranos which turn out to be fraud machines on a large scale. We have the Binary Options scam startups in Tel Aviv which plundered the savings of people from half a continent. Or Wirecard in Germany suspected of operating one of the largest cloud platforms for money laundering.

If not based on a robust fraudulent scheme, the business models of such “cloud” something, “smart” something, “AI” something, “blockchain” something companies are actually ailing right from the start. Most users are not willing to pay money to use their platforms. That’s why the tech giants have come up with an idea: they pretend to believe in the dream of free use –and users pay with their private data.

Just imagine that we are back in the year 1990 when sending letters and making phone calls were still relatively expensive matters. The representative of a new telecommunications company stands at your door and says: “We have a super offer for you. You will never have to pay for long-distance calls again, we will also deliver every letter for free. But we will record everything you say or write. Furthermore, we reserve the right to analyze this information, share it with others, sell it, and besides–if we don’t like specific content –to delete it.” It’s clear what you would have said or done at the time to such a representative.

Today, we embrace the digital monitoring of society because we see this as a new normality. The sin was committed in 2004 when Google went public after the dotcom bubble burst. Even in the 1990s, search engines and social networks were still underpinned by the best intentions. They were meant to connect people, help share knowledge, create common grounds, and make money. It was about indexing websites while preserving the informational self-determination of the individual. Then it became clear that little money could be earned that way. And so began the indexing –the profiling – of users, i.e., people of flesh and blood.

The new tech companies collect all the data about our searching, writing, reading, walking, breathing, eating, paying, liking, loving, disliking, laughing, and purchasing behavior. This is called the Big Data. They can use that information to track us and sell us things. Or to monitor our thoughts and sell us lies. Or to surveil our opinion and manipulate us. Or they can resell the data and the analyzed profiles to third parties, including governmental organizations and political parties.

Artificial Intelligence plays a dominant role in this user profiling, monitoring, and surveillance business, since it delivers the techniques for it. Some computer scientists involved in Artificial Intelligence development enthusiastically say: “When computational learning ability meets large amounts of data, the quantity should one day turn into quality.” In other words, intelligence that learns on its own is actually created. Maybe so, but we are a long way from that.

Neural networks in AI remain classification and correlation machines. They detect patterns in data, for example, faces on billions of pictures. From such patterns, findings can be derived which, in turn, can be interpreted and used by humans. Yet, first of all, this has nothing to do with intelligence in the genuine sense of the word. It has nothing to do with the ability of an organism to independently create a model and to make decisions to adapt and thus to survive on its basis. If still more computing power meets more data, then we get better correlations, better pattern recognition, but not intelligence.

In 2012, the world’s fastest supercomputer was running at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. It simulated a neural network with the complexity of a human brain with 530 billion neurons and 137 trillion synapses. The machine required eight megawatts of power but was 1,500 times slower than a human brain. Consequently, it would need 12 gigawatts to simulate an average human brain in real-time (let us say, that of an acumen of Omar Simpson). That is the power of about 15 to 20 nuclear reactors or 100 coal-fired power plants. Greta Thunberg will be glad to hear it! We will never, ever create artificial intelligence with the existing computer architectures.

The tech giants, from Facebook to Google, and the technological centers pursuing the buzz of the “cloud” something, “smart” something, “AI” something, “blockchain” something are making our lives difficult with their practices. The Silicon Valley and other comparable innovation centers promised us Martian and Moon colonies. They promised us luxurious interplanetary vessels populated with androids to do our housework and sexy cyborgs to entertain us with brilliant conversations. Instead, we received smartphones with preinstalled Facebook apps or other similar social media platforms. And in certain cases we got industrial robots that are taking away our jobs. Or algorithms running on supercomputers that automatically invest our hard-earned pensions into the technological innovation of the “somethings”. Or computational propaganda bots that trigger chain reactions of posts in social networks by publishing messages of ideology or hate or investment advice. The list of innovations that we got is long.

The upside is that if Facebook would vanish from the face of the earth tomorrow, what would be the consequences for humanity? None! Except for the tears of loneliness flowing on empty screens among social media addicts. But one thing is clear: the advent of the digitization changes the values of the society and the quality of life as much as the advent of plastic did. Its long-term benefits are ambiguous. The responsibility for these innovations is enormous, certainly, not as a “technical means”, but as an instrument of power and power itself .It is through the culture of digitization that the spirit of a new power will manifest itself. There is no doubt (you can already judge by the early signs today) that digitization will be authoritarian and repressive like no other culture in the world.

Continue Reading
Comments

Science & Technology

Artificial Intelligence: Are we ready to cease control?

Published

on

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a prevalent theme of science fiction for decades now. The idea that machines can exhibit same level of intelligence as humans has kept writers and audience in the firm grip in all sorts of art, from top selling novels to blockbuster movies. But artists and futurists have a certain habit of romanticizing the subject. Like frequent inclusion of robots similar to humans. And I get it, that is an easier method than expecting your audience to show empathy with long lines of code. But this artistic image of AI is wrong. Portraying AI as humanoid robot is analogous to creating chassis of car; even before invention of combustion engine.

So why is there so much hype around AI now? Will it really destroy the world or is it going to create a new Utopia where all of the troublesome labor will be handled by intelligent machines? Over the years, great minds like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawkings raised genuine concerns about Artificial Intelligence. But AI has also shown promising future in many fields like health where artificial limbs for handicap persons work with the help of this new technology. So where will AI take us in the future?

In 1960s, there was a similar hype around Nuclear Technology. There were proponents of nuclear technology who dreamed of a future powered by nuclear energy. Where cars would never run out of fuel and all of human energy needs would be fulfilled by this seemingly never-ending source of energy. And then there was an opposing side, which feared a dystopia, scared by the destructive power of nuclear technology, as demonstrated by US in 1945. But look at us now. AI is not different; there are two extreme positions but as it is the case with every issue with two extremes, truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Progress in AI has seen an exponential growth over the years, thanks to the enabling variables such as computer processing power. As great minds around the world are in a race to mimic millions of years of human evolution on computers, there are few things which need to be addressed by policy makers and scientists alike. How far is too far? How much control we want AI to have? Can we trust AI to hand over everything? Is AI even capable enough? There are many experts who believe that AI can never be at the level of human intelligence.

And perhaps they are right. We cannot create intelligence in machine which can match human intelligence. Perhaps, we are incomprehensibly complex and we cannot mimic nature. But then again, if random mutations can result in human intelligence, what’s stopping AI to achieve the same level? In fact, AI has already surpassed us in limited scope. Deep Blue and Alpha Go computer systems has defeated best human players in popular board games like Go and Chess. Think about it, even if you dedicate your whole life mastering one of these games, you can never be as good as these computer systems. You can dismiss these achievements but AI is not going to stop at beating us in Chess. It is going to be far more than a playing toy in near future.

But if AI is going to be capable enough to do all physical and mental labor, what purpose would we as humans serve? If we, in this idealistic quest, render an entire species useless, would it stop AI to recognize our obsolescence and taking control? If one day, AI is going to surpass human intelligence and we become ants in front of it, how will it treat us? Matter of fact, how we treat ants? Think of it in this way: You are going to build a new home, but there is a colony of ants on a land where your new home is going to be built. You wouldn’t care less about those little ants. Try explaining immense benefits to animals, of cutting those trees and destroying their natural habitats. What if AI needs something and we are in its way? Would it care about us? And these are not scribblings of a paranoid mind, this is very much in realm of possibility and according to experts, it is going to happen in next few decades.

On October 5, 1960, an early warning system in Greenland issued a level-5 warning. Which meant a long range soviet missile is about to hit USA. The warning was quickly passed to the high command but it was dismissed due to the fact that Nikita Khrushchev, head of the Soviet Union was in US at that time, you wouldn’t expect him to be there at the time of nuclear attack. Later, it was investigated that early warning system in Greenland mistook rising moon as Soviet missile. But think about it for a second, had Nikita not been there in US? We were grazed by the apocalypse. We humans are fallible, we make mistakes and now, with the advent of destructive technologies on scale of extinction of all life on earth, we are right in our concerns about giving up control and handing it all over to the machines.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Artificial Intelligence and Its Partners

Oleg Shakirov

Published

on

Authors: Oleg Shakirov and Evgeniya Drozhashchikh*

The creation of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) reflects the growing interest of states in AI technologies. The initiative, which brings together 14 countries and the European Union, will help participants establish practical cooperation and formulate common approaches to the development and implementation of AI. At the same time, it is a symptom of the growing technological rivalry in the world, primarily between the United States and China. Russia’s ability to interact with the GPAI may be limited for political reasons, but, from a practical point of view, cooperation would help the country implement its national AI strategy.

AI Brothers

The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) was officially launched on June 15, 2020, at the initiative of the G7 countries alongside Australia, India, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Slovenia and the European Union. According to the Joint Statement from the Founding Members, the GPAI is an “international and multistakeholder initiative to guide the responsible development and use of AI, grounded in human rights, inclusion, diversity, innovation, and economic growth.”

In order to achieve this goal, GPAI members will look to bridge the gap between theory and practice by supporting both research and applied activities in AI. Cooperation will take place in the form of working groups that will be made up of leading experts from industry, civil society and the public and private sectors and will also involve international organizations. There will be four working groups in total, with each group focusing on a specific AI issue: responsible AI; data governance; the future of work; and innovation and commercialization. In acknowledgment of the current situation around the world, the partners also included the issue of using AI to overcome the socioeconomic effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the GPAI agenda.

In terms of organization, the GPAI’s work will be supported by a Secretariat to be hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and Centres of Expertise – one each in Montreal and Paris.

To better understand how this structure came to be, it is useful to look at the history of the GPAI itself. The idea was first put forward by France and Canada in June 2018, when, on the eve of the G7 Summit, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron announced the signing of the Canada–France Statement on Artificial Intelligence, which called for the creation of an international group to study AI-related issues. By that time, both countries had already adopted their own national AI development strategies – Canada was actually the first country in the world to do so in March 2017. The two countries proposed a mandate for the international group, then known as the International Panel on Artificial Intelligence, at the G7 conference on artificial intelligence in late 2018. A declaration on the creation of the group was then made in May 2019, following a meeting of the G7 Ministers responsible for digital issues. The group was expected to be formally launched three months later at the G7 Summit in Biarritz, with other interested countries (such as India and New Zealand) joining.

However, the initiative did not receive the support of the United States wfithin the G7. Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron were expected to announce the launch of the group at the end of the event, but the American delegation blocked the move. According to Lynne Parker, Deputy Chief Technology Officer at the White House, the United States is concerned that the group would slow down the development of AI technology and believes that it would duplicate the OECD’s work in the area. The originators of the idea to create the group (which received the name Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence in Biarritz) clearly took this latter point into account, announcing that the initiative would be developed under the auspices of the OECD.

A Principled Partnership

Like other international structures, the OECD has started to pay greater attention to artificial intelligence in recent years, with its most important achievement in this area being the adoption of the Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. Unlike other sets of principles on AI, the OECD’s recommendations were supported by the governments of all member countries, as well as by Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru and Romania, which made it the first international document of its kind. They were also used as the basis for the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence.

In accordance with the OECD recommendations, signatory countries will adhere to the following principles of AI development: promote AI technologies for inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; the priority of human-centred values and fairness throughout the life-cycle of AI systems; the transparency and (maximum possible) explainability of AI algorithms; the robustness, security and safety of AI systems; and the accountability of AI actors.

In addition to this, the document proposes that the following factors be taken into account when drafting national AI development strategies: investing in AI research and development; fostering a digital ecosystem for AI research and the practical implementation of AI technologies (including the necessary infrastructure); shaping national policies that allow for a smooth transition from theory to practice; building human capacity and preparing for labour market transformation; and expanding international cooperation in AI.

A few weeks after the OECD endorsement, the recommendations on AI were included as an annex to the G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy dated July 9, 2019, albeit with slightly different wording. The principles thus received the support of Russia, China and India.

Within the OECD itself, the recommendations served as an impetus for the creation of the OECD AI Policy Observatory (OECD.AI), a platform for collecting and analysing information about AI and building dialogue with governments and other stakeholders. The platform will also be used within the framework of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence and Realpolitik

The decision of the United States to join the GPAI was likely motivated more by political reasons than anything else. In the run-up of the G7 Science and Technology Ministers’ Meeting in late May 2020 (where all participants, including the United States, officially announced the launch of the GPAI), Chief Technology Officer of the United States Michael Kratsios published an article in which he stated that democratic countries should unite in the development of AI on the basis of fundamental rights and shared values, rather than abuse AI to control their populations, which is what authoritarian regimes such as China do. According to Kratsios, it is democratic principles that unite the members of the GPAI. At the same time, Kratsios argues that the new coalition will not be a standard-setting or policy-making body, that is, it will not be a regulator in the field of AI.

The United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China published in May 2020 and the many practical steps that the American side has taken in recent years are a reflection of the tech war currently being waged between the United States and China. For example, the United States has taken a similar approach to the formation of new coalitions in the context of 5G technologies. In 2018–2019, the United States actively pushed the narrative that the solutions offered by Huawei for the creation of fifth-generation communications networks were not secure and convinced its allies to not work with Beijing. Thirty-two countries supported the recommendations put forward at the Prague 5G Security Conference in May 2019 (the Prague Proposals), which included ideas spread by the United States during its campaign against Huawei (for example, concerns about third countries influencing equipment suppliers).

The United States is not the only GPAI member that is concerned about China. Speaking back in January about the U.S. doubts regarding the Franco–Canadian initiative, Minister for Digital Affairs of France Cédric O noted, “If you don’t want a Chinese model in western countries, for instance, to use AI to control your population, then you need to set up some rules that must be common.” India’s participation in the GPAI is particularly telling, as the United States has been trying to involve India in containing China in recent years. The new association has brought together all the participants in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Australia, India, the United States and Japan), which has always been a source of concern for Beijing, thus sending a very clear signal to the Chinese leadership.

The Prospects for Russia

The political logic that guides the United States when it comes to participating in the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence may very well extend to Russia. The Trump administration formally declared the return of great power competition in its 2017 National Security Strategy. In Washington, Russia and China are often referred to as the main rivals of the United States, promoting anti-American values.

When assessing the possibility of interaction between Russia and the GPAI, we need to look further than the political positions of the participants. According to the Joint Statement from the Founding Members, the GPAI is open to working with other interested countries and partners. In this regard, the obvious points of intersection between Russia and the new association may produce favourable conditions for practical cooperation in the future.

First of all, the GPAI members and Moscow rely on the same principles of AI development. Russia indirectly adopted the OECD recommendations on artificial intelligence when it approved the inclusion of the majority of their provisions in the Annex to the G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy in 2019 and thus shares a common intention to ensure the responsible and human-centred development and use of artificial intelligence technologies. This does not mean that there will not be differences of opinion of specific issues, but, as we have already noted, in its current form, the activities of the GPAI will not be aimed at unifying the approaches of the participants.

Second, according to media reports, Russia is working to re-establish ties with the OECD. It is already helping the OECD with its website, periodically providing data on new legal documents that will create a framework for the development and implementation of AI that have been adopted or are being considered.

Third, the current development of the national AI ecosystem in Russia shows that the state, business and the scientific community are interested in the same topics that are on GPAI agenda. This is reflected in the National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence for the Period up to the Year 2030 adopted in October 2019 and the draft Federal Project on the Development of Artificial Intelligence as Part of the National Programme “Digital Economy of the Russian Federation.” Furthermore, following the adoption of the National Strategy last year, Russian tech companies set up an alliance for AI development in conjunction with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which is very much in keeping with the multistakeholder approach adopted by the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence.

It would seem that politics is the main stumbling block when it comes to Russia’s possible participation in GPAI initiatives, for example, the organization’s clear anti-Chinese leaning or its members openly discrediting Russia’s approaches to the development of AI. That said, Russia has nothing to gain from politicizing the GPAI, since cooperation with the organization could help it achieve its own goals in artificial intelligence. What is more, we cannot rule out the possibility that the GPAI will be responsible in the future for developing unified AI rules and standards. It is in Russia’s interests to have its voice heard in this process to ensure that these standards do not turn into yet another dividing line.

*Evgeniya Drozhashchikh, Ph.D. Student in the Faculty of World Politics at Lomonosov Moscow State University, RIAC Expert

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

5G: A Geostrategic sector for Algorithmic finance

Published

on

The last ones were days of increasing tensions between the two biggest economic superpowers, the USA and China. The geopolitical crescendo seems to become always more intense, and the two giants are trying to build up two strong alignments against one another in a competition that Bloomberg defines a “Cold War 2.0.” or a “Tech War”. The implementation of 5G technologies plays a fundamental role in this “rush to the infrastructures” also due to their linkages with the “High-Frequency Trading” world; the sector of contemporary finance based on always faster algorithms and huge Data Centres that require strong software and the analysis of tons and tons of information to predict stocks fluctuations hence “to do God’s work” as Lloyd Blankfein (the actual Senior Chairman of Goldman Sachs) said in 2009 [1].

In the article “Digital Cold War” Marc Champion describes his strongly polarized vision of the global scenario in which the conflict would take place like two technological ecospheres; with half of the world where people are carried around by driverless cars created by Baidu using Huawei 5G’s, chatting and paying with WeChat and buying on Alibaba with an internet connection strictly controlled and limited by the Great Firewall; while on the other part of the world people with a less controlled internet connection buy on Amazon and use other dominating companies e.g. Google, Tesla, Ericsson, and Facebook. The latter presented scenario is always more tangible, indeed it is enough to consider that the People’s Republic of China has equipped itself with an alternative system to the GPS (the instrument that following the theory of the PRC caused the downfall of two Chinese missiles sent during the conflict with Formosa), created by Baidu on the 23rd July 2020.

The presentation of scenarios in which the 5G plays a crucial role makes it necessary to give a closer look at what 5G technologies technically are. 5G (Fifth-generation) stands for the next major phase of mobile telecommunications standards beyond the 4G/IMT Advanced standards. Since the first generation, that was introduced in 1982, it is observable a remarkable growth of cellular communication of about 40% per year; these issues led mobile service providers to research new technologies and improved services, basing on the evidence that wireless communication networks have become much more pervasive. Therefore, aiming to fulfill the growing need of human being, 5G will be the network for millions of devices and not just for smartphones, hence it grants connectivity between sensors, vehicles, robots and drones; and it provides data speed up to 1 to 10 Gbps, and a faster connection for more people in a km2, thus the creation of smart cities.

It is now more evident that the implementation of the fifth-generation technologies offers strategic slides of power and control to the companies, and the linked geopolitical actors, that manage the infrastructures and the network band. Therefore, 5G technologies play a crucial geopolitical role, being inter alia fundamental for strategic sectors, such as the high-frequency trading (that we are going to discuss later), that sustain and orientate the world’s economy. This rush to the infrastructure, hence to the technological supremacy led to a crescendo of reprisals among the world’s most influential countries. If we give a closer look at the relations between the USA and China, the last years were characterized by increasing tensions, in the commercial relations, in military ones linked to the Indo-Pacific area and the Xinjiang, and lastly, tensions concerning the approach to face the COVID-19 threat. USA and China, as Kishore Mahbubani says seems no longer partners either in business; but to fully understand the actual situation in terms of 5G the concrete measures and imposed bans are going to be presented. The fact that Chinese companies, in particular Huawei and ZTE, began focusing on acquiring a lead in 5G intellectual property well before their global competitors (with an expense, indicated in their annual report, of about $600 million between 2009 and 2013; and a planned one of about $800 million in 2019), being now leading ones in the implementation of the technology, led the US to be more consternated about their national security and global influence. Therefore, in the geopolitical logic of 5G, the US keep acting to opt against China as a country that “exploit data”, indeed Mike Pompeo in an interview in 2019 said “We can’t forget these systems were designed by- with the express (desire to) work alongside the Chinese PLS, their military in China”; while on the other side China has responded with a campaign that blends propaganda, persuasion, and incentives with threats and economic coercion, offering massive investments plans, aiming to reach the now well known “Belt and Road Initiative”. The Trump administration effectively banned executive agencies from using or procuring Huawei and ZTE telecommunication equipment with the National Defense Authorization Act signed in 2018, a ban that was challenged by Huawei in the court and obtained a favourable verdict; a ban that was later re-proposed in May 2019 with an executive order; that was followed by the US Commerce Department placing Huawei and 68 affiliates on an Entity List, a document that conditions the sale or transfer of American technology to that entities unless they have a special license; however the latter restrictions were imposed just for 90 days after the failure of the 11th round of trade talks between China and the US. Canada is another country with deteriorated relations with Beijing, after the arrest of Meng, who was extradited from the US territory. Furthermore, in recent days, as revealed by The Wall Street Journal, the UK announced that is going to ban Huawei 5G technologies from 2027, following the US imposition, and Beijing responded considering a possible ban on Chinese elements for the Finnish Nokia and the Swedish Ericsson. While the European Union keeps struggling to face the situation as a Union, and political reprisals between these two States occur e.g. the closure of the Chinese consulates in Huston and San Francisco and the closure of the US’ one in Chengdu;  in a geopolitical context, the US are trying to build a strong anti-Chinese alignment in the Indo-Pacific area, with the support of countries like the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand; also following the logic that in a strategic scenario the geopolitical actors, between two competitors States tends to choose the side of the farthest one. Another actor that could tip the balance in this global scenario is India; that following a government study of August 2018 could hit the national income of about $1 trillion by 2035 with the implementation of 5G technologies, improving the governance capacity, and enabling healthcare delivery, energy grid management and urban planning. However, high levels of automation and dependence on a communication network, if it would follow the investment plan proposed by Huawei (but also an extreme inclination to the US), could bring security threats and lack of supremacy, hence “voice” in a global scenario.

After having analysed the geopolitical patterns of 5G implementation, it is time to analyse a strategic sector linked to the fifth-generation technologies, which is the “engine” of the World’s economy, the finance. There are some milestones that have made national markets global ones; within what is called the “rebellion of the machines” that led the financial world to be totally based on algorithms hence on speed. The first one was the introduction of the Telegraph, introduced in 1848, and that both with the new Galena and Chicago Railroad promoted the born of the Chicago Board of Trade. The telegraph carried anthropological changes hence it was fundamental for the division between the price and the goods; and it seems to have carried with itself big changes in the finance world, the same thing 5G will do in our scenario. Among all the events that led to the second phase of the “rebellion” there is what happened in 2000, when after merging with other European markets, thanks to SuperCAC, the Paris stock exchange took the name EURONEXT. Later in 2007, the second phase of the rebellion took place in an increasingly globalized scenario; where the tech was already part of the finance, and there were a lot of digitalized platforms to trade-in. Therefore, following the development of the digital world The Chicago Mercantile Exchange created his own platform Globex, which in 2007 merged with the CBOT’s one Aurora that was based on a weak band network of about 19,2 kb. The banks created black boxes so dark that it would not allow them to be in control anymore; a very different situation from the conditions established by the Buttonwood agreement of 1792, the act at the basis of the birth of the second world market after that of Philadelphia which provided for the sale of securities between traders without going through intermediaries. Subsequently, the steps that favoured the rise of trading platforms, the development of adaptive algorithms based on the laws of physics and, mathematics and biology, were multiple, which therefore led to the development of what is called phynanza. In the 2000s the most influential banking groups, Goldman Sachs, Crédit Suisse, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, through a strong deregulation and lobbying activities have directed the markets towards their deeper turning point; in an era in which the headquarters of the stock exchanges are not physical and the core bodies of the  exchange markets are in the suburbs where large spaces and the technological infrastructures of network and data transmissions allow the creation of huge data centers, where powerful software, cooling systems and adaptive algorithms give life to the daily oscillations of global finance. Algorithms like Iceberg, that splits a large volume of orders into small portions, so that the entirety of the initial volume escapes the “nose of the hounds”; or Shark that identifies orders shipped in small quantities to glimpse the big order that Is hiding behind; or Dagger, a Citibank algorithm launched in 2012 that like Stealth, Deutsche Bank’s algorithm, is looking for more liquid values, and also Sumo of Knight Capital, a high frequency trading company that alone trades an amount of about $ 20 billion a day; and there are many others, from Sonar, Aqua, Ninja and Guerrilla.

It is clear that to support such an articulated financial apparatus it is necessary to connect and analyze data with microsecond accuracy. Therefore, another example of 5G geostrategy in finance is Coriolis 2, an oceanographic ship created in 2010 by Seaforth Geosurveys that offers maritime engineering solutions. Notably, among their clients there is Hibernia Atlantic; an underwater communication network, that connects North America to Europe, created in 2000 at a cost of 1 billion. The New Jersey office manufactures transatlantic cables that rent to telecommunications companies like Google and Facebook, obviously not to improve the circulation of stupid comments on social networks. The ship is preparing the construction of “dark fiber” cables, and the technical management and the end-use are by Hibernia who may not share the band with anyone. The peculiar thing is that who ordered the cable, Hibernia, was created specifically for financial market operators and it is part of the Global Financial Network (GFN), which manages 24.000Km of optical fiber that connects more than 120 markets. This new fiber at the cost of 300 million, will allow to gain 6 milliseconds, a time that a USA-UE investment fund can use to earn £100 million dollars more per year. The transmission networks are fundamental in guaranteeing trading and in high frequency and the motto has changed from “time is money” to “speed is money”.

Bibliography

[1] Laumonier A., 2018. 6/5, Not, Nero collection, Roma.
[2] Kewalramani M., Kanisetti A. 5G, Huawei & Geopolitics: An Indian Roadmap. 2019, Takshashila institution; Discussion document.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending