Elke Schwarz

Policy makers, take note. There are similar sentiments, rightfully so, amongst my students and peers here in UK. www.wsj.com/tech/ai/the-...

wsj.com

Unsurprising to most observers of the AI industry, but it nonetheless raises a host of complex (ethical) questions: a) what are the ethics of a company making a tech that creates security threats & then sells software that helps address such security threats? 1/ www.ft.com/con…

ft.com

Preach! Glad to see that the pope is speaking our language ... @stopkillerrobots.bsky.social www.ft.com/content/1231...

ft.com

Promethean Shame is going strong in Silicon Valley www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i...

Our tech overlords are planning for conscious AI to conquer the cosmos. What could go wrong? | Eduardo Porter theguardian.com

This is quite the story ... and a good illustration of the importance of slowing things down in an accelerated AI decision universe www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...

How a Starbucks marketing stunt spiralled into mass boycotts in South Korea theguardian.com

As you were saying ... www.vox.com/future-perfe...

The people who actually want AI to replace humanity vox.com

I can't quite figure out where the critical voices are here ... shouldn't the BBC be making an effort for impartiality on this crucial political issue? It's as though the significant risks AI poses are simply an acceptable price to pay for a technology with as-of-yet-uncertain large scale benefits.

When will we be able to pivot from "AI has the potential to [insert benefit]" to "AI has shown to be [doing the benefit]"? When will this potential be realised, rather than remain a millenarian trope around which to organise the present?

In 2024, Eric Schmidt said that he does "a weekly call with the heads of all the AI companies" in which they "rank the problems" affecting the industry. One of the biggest problems was energy and the second one is Washington, that is to say, regulation. You never guess what happened next ...

Idk, Wes Streetings speech seemed like a strange hotchpotch of talking points (an uncharitable assessment would perhaps suspect low level ChatGPT use here). What struck me as most interesting was his use of the language we are familiar with from tech industry / oligarchy contexts ... 1/

We talk so often of AI as the next industrial revolution, but AI strikes me as different. Has there ever been a trajectory where the actual, proven utility of a technology was absent, yet socio-economic and political life pre-emptively was structured around expected capabilities?

If there was effective regulation against systems that have known harmful effects on humans and human environments would an AI company's valuation of nearly USD 1 trillion be possible? Discuss.