Posts Tagged ‘politics’
“Don’t eat your seed corn”*…
AI doesn’t really “think.” Rather, it remembers how we thought together. Are we’re about to stop giving it anything worth remembering? Bright Simons with a provocative analysis…
We are on the verge of the age of human redundancy. In 2023, IBM’s chief executive told Bloomberg that soon some 7,800 roles might be replaced by AI. The following year, Duolingo cut a tenth of its contractor workforce; it needed to free up desks for AI. Atlassian followed. Klarna announced that its AI assistant was performing work equivalent to 700 customer-service employees and that reducing the size of its workforce to under 2000 is now its North Star. And Jack Dorsey has been forthright about wanting to hold Block’s headcount flat while AI shoulders the growth.
The trajectory has a compelling internal logic. Routine cognitive work gets automated; junior roles thin out; productivity gains compound year on year. For boards reviewing cost structures, it is the cleanest investment proposition since the internal combustion engine retired the horse, topped up with a kind of moral momentum. Hesitate, the thinking goes, and fall behind.
But the research results of a team in the UK should give us pause. In the spring of 2024, they asked around 300 writers to produce short fiction. Some were aided by GPT-4 and others worked alone. Which stories, the researchers wanted to know, would be more creative? On average, the writers with AI help produced stories that independent judges rated as more creative than those written without it.
So far, so on message: a familiar story about the inevitable takeover by intelligent machines. But when the researchers examined the full body of stories rather than individual ones, the picture became murky. The AI-assisted stories were more similar to each other. Each writer had been individually elevated; collectively, they had converged. Anil R Doshi and Oliver Hauser, who published the study in Science Advances, reached for a phrase from ecology to explain this: a tragedy of the commons.
Hold that result in mind: individual gain, collective loss. It describes something far more consequential than a writing experiment—it describes the hidden logic of our entire relationship with artificial intelligence. And it suggests that the most successful organizations of the coming decade will be the ones that do something profoundly counterintuitive: instead of using AI to eliminate human interaction by firing droves of workers, they will use it to create more human interaction. IBM has reversed course on its earlier human redundancy fantasies. I bet more will in due course…
[Simons sketches the history of humans’ intertwined development of both social/organizational and utile technologies, concluding…]
… What the chain reveals is a dependency the AI industry has largely declined to examine. The underlying intelligence of a large language model isn’t a function of its architecture, its parameter count, or the volume of compute thrown at its training. It is not even about the training data. It is a function of the social complexity of the civilization whose language it digested.
Each epoch advanced the cognitive frontier through something far richer and more complex than the isolated genius of an individual guru or machine. It did so through new forms of collective problem-solving. Think new institutions (the Greek agora, the Roman lex, the medieval university, the scientific society, the modern corporation, and the social internet) that demanded and rewarded ever more sophisticated uses of language.
The cognitive anthropologist Edwin Hutchins studied how Navy navigation teams actually think. In his 1995 book Cognition in the Wild, he wrote something that reads today like an accidental prophecy. The physical symbol system, he observed, is “a model of the operation of the sociocultural system from which the human actor has been removed.”
That is, with eerie precision, a description of what a large language model (LLM) really is, stripped of all the unapproachable jargon and mathematical wizardry. An LLM like ChatGPT is a model of human social reasoning with the human wrangled out. And the question nobody in Silicon Valley is asking with sufficient urgency is: What happens to the model when the social reasoning that produced its training data begins to thin?…
[Simons explores evidence that this may already be materially underway, then explores what that “atrophy” might mean …]
… If AI capability depends on the social complexity of human language production—and if AI deployment systematically reduces that complexity through cognitive offloading, homogenization of creative output, and the elimination of interaction-dense work—then the technology is gradually undermining the conditions for its own advancement. Its successes, rather than failures, create a spiral: a slow attenuation of the very substrate it feeds on, spelling doom.
This is the Social Edge Paradox, and the intellectual tradition it draws from is older and more interdisciplinary than most AI commentary acknowledges…
[Simons unpacks that heritage, and puts it into dialogues with recent thoughts from Dario Amodei, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and Sam Altman, concluding…]
… The Social Edge Framework outlined here is a direct counterpoint to Amodei, Aschenbrenner, and Altman. It is a program of action to counter the human redundancy fantasy. It challenges the self-fulfilling doom-spirals created by the premature reallocation of material resources to a vision of AI. I speak of the philosophy that underestimates the sheer amount of human priming needed to support the Great Recode of legacy infrastructure before our current civilization can even benefit substantially from AI advances.
By “Great Recode,” I am paying homage to the simple but widely ignored fact that the overwhelming number of tools and services that advanced AI models still need to produce useful outputs for users are not themselves AI-like and most were built before the high-intensity computing era began with AI. In the unsexy but critical field of PDF parsing—one of the ways in which AI consumes large amounts of historical data to get smart—studies show that only a very small proportion of tools were created using techniques like deep learning that characterize the AI age. And in some important cases, the older tools remain indispensable. Vast investments are thus required to upgrade all or most of these tools—from PDF parsers to database schemas—to align with the pace of high-intensity computing driven by the power-thirst of AI. Yet, we are not at the point where AI can simply create its own dependencies.
Indeed, the so-called “legacy tech debt” supposedly hampering the faster adoption of AI has in many instances been revealed as a problem of mediation and translation. AI companies are learning that they need to hire people who deeply understand legacy systems to guide this Recoding effort. A whole new “digital archaeology” field is emerging where cutting-edge tools like ArgonSense are deployed to try to excavate the latent intelligence in legacy systems and code often after rushed modernization efforts have failed. In many cases, swashbuckling new-age AI adventurers have found that mainframe specialists of a bygone age remain critical, and multidisciplinary dialogues and contentions are essential to progress on the frontier. Hence the strange phenomenon of the COBOL hiring boom. New knowledge must keep feeding on old.
The Social Edge Framework says: yes, scaling matters, architecture matters, and compute matters. But none of these will continue to deliver if the social substrate—the complex, argumentative, institutionally diverse, perspectivally rich fabric of human interaction—is allowed to thin. And thinning is very possible…
… The Social Edge prescription is that organizations that hire more people to work in AI-enriched, high-interaction, and transmediary roles—where AI scaffolds learning rather than substituting it—will derive greater long-term advantage than those that treat the technology as a headcount-reduction device. In a world where raw cognitive throughput has been commodified, the value arc shifts to something considerably harder to replicate: the capacity to coordinate human intent with precision, speed, and genuine depth. That edge lies in trans-mediation and high human interactionism.
The AI industry is telling a story about the future of work that goes roughly like this: automate what can be automated, augment what remains, and trust that the productivity gains will compound into a wealthier, more efficient world.
The Social Edge Framework tells a different story. It says: the intelligence we are automating was never ours alone. It was forged in conversation, argument, institutional friction, and collaborative struggle. It lives in the spaces between people, and it shows up in AI capabilities only because those spaces were rich enough to leave linguistic traces worth learning from.
Every time a company automates an entry-level role, it saves a salary and loses a learning curve, unless it compensates. Every time a knowledge worker delegates a draft to an AI without engaging critically, the statistical thinning of the organizational record advances by an imperceptible increment. Every time an organization mistakes polished output for strategic progress, it consumes cognitive surplus without generating new knowledge.
None of these individual acts is catastrophic. However, their compound effect may be.
The organizations that will thrive in the next decade are not those with the highest AI utilization rates. They are those that understand something the epoch-chaining thought experiment makes vivid: that AI’s capabilities are an inheritance from the complexity of human social life. And inheritances, if consumed without reinvestment, eventually run out. This is particularly critical as AI becomes heavily customized for our organizational culture.
Making the right strategic choices about AI is going to become a defining trait in leadership. Bloom et al. cross-country research has long established that management quality explains a substantial share of productivity variance between teams and organizations, and even countries.
In the AI age, small differences in leadership quality can generate large differences in outcomes—a non-linear payoff I call convex leadership. The term is borrowed from options mathematics, where a convex payoff is one whose upside accelerates faster than the downside decelerates. Convex leaders convert cognitive abundance into structural ambition and thus avoid turning their creative and discovery pipelines into stagnant pools of polished busywork. Conversely, in organizations led by what we might call concave leaders—cautious, procedurally anchored, optimizing for error-avoidance—AI would tend to produce more noise than signal. Because leadership is such a major shaper of all our lives, it is in our interest to pay serious attention to its evolution in this new age.
The Social Edge is more than a metaphor. It is the literal boundary between what AI can do well and what it will keep struggling with due to fundamental internal contradictions. Furthermore, the framework asks us all to pay attention to how the very investment thesis behind AI also contains the seeds of its own failure. And it reminds leaders that AI’s frontier today is set by the richness of the social world that produced the data it learned from…
Eminently worth reading in full: “The Social Edge of Intelligence.”
Consider also the complementary perspectives in “What will be scarce?,” from Alex Imas (via Tim O’Reilly/ @timoreilly.bsky.social)… and in the second piece featured last Monday: ““Curiosity Is No Solo Act.“
Apposite: “Some Unintended Consequences Of AI,” from Quentin Hardy.
And finally, from the estimable Nathan Gardels, a suggestion that Open AI’s recent paper on industrial policy for the Age of AI fills a vacuum left by an unimaginative political class and should be taken seriously, at least as a conversation starter: “OpenAI Proposes A ‘Social Contract’ For The Intelligence Age.”
* Old agricultural proverb
###
As we take the long view, we might recall that today is the anniverary of a techological advance that both fed the social edge and encouraged the build out of the technostructure from which today’s AI hatched: on this date in 1993 Version 1.0 of the web browser Mosaic was released by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. It was the first software to provide a graphical user interface for the emerging World Wide Web, including the ability to display inline graphics.
The lead Mosaic developer was Marc Andreesen, one of the future founders of Netscape, and now a principal at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (AKA “a16z”)… where he has been become a major investor in, promoter of, and politicial champion of the current crop of AI firms.
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”*…
Today we have Substack and social media and blogs. In the old days, we “spoke” in person…
Speaker’s Corner, in Hyde Park in London, is a fabled site of on-going, open public speeches and debate. As Amelia Soth reminds us, that tradition also has a long history in the U.S…
There is nothing in American civic life today like Chicago’s old “Bughouse Square.” From the 1890s to the mid-1960s, it was a hotspot for soapbox speakers: radicals, evangelists, cranks, poets, philosophers, and eccentrics. Anyone with a perspective outside the mainstream gathered there nightly to declaim from their improvised podiums. The ethos, as one newspaper put it, was “free speech and the louder the better.” People actually came to listen, too, in crowds.
Bughouse Square (properly named Washington Square Park) might be the most famous free-speech center, but the practice of soapboxing stretched from sea to shining sea. New York City had its own crew of “peripatetic philosophers.” Hubert Harrison, known as the “Black Socrates,” delivered his critiques of capital right in front of the New York Stock Exchange. Then there was Portia Willis, the “suffrage beauty,” who drew in crowds with her looks and kept them with her wits.
As Mary Anne Trasciatti writes in “Athens or Anarchy? Soapbox Oratory and the Early Twentieth-Century American City,” the soapbox was a particularly democratic mode of public address. Even if you couldn’t get your cause into a meeting hall or a newspaper column, you could still hop on a box, lift your head a few inches above the crowd, and start talking. But that doesn’t mean just anyone could be a successful soapboxer. You had to be a good speaker to keep the crowds listening.
People tried all kinds of tricks to get attention. One soapboxer (wonderfully named Lowlife McCormick) would perform a Houdini-like escape from a straitjacket, which he would then declare to be a metaphor for the bonds of wage labor. Another would catch the crowd’s attention by shouting “I’ve been robbed! I’ve been robbed!” Once he had their ears, he’d finish up with “…by the capitalist system!” A really good soapboxer could draw in so many listeners as to render the streets impassable. One photo shows anarchist Alexander Berkman completely surrounded by a sea of hats.
But the attention soapboxing attracted wasn’t always positive. The 1910s saw a series of vicious “free speech fights” kick off in cities like Spokane, San Diego, and Fresno. Grace L. Miller lays out the history of perhaps the most violent of these struggles in “The I.W.W. Free Speech Fight: San Diego, 1912.” Things started to heat up when a deputy sheriff drove his car into a crowd of people listening to a socialist speaker. One listener reacted by slashing the sheriff’s tire. Within two days, the city passed an ordinance banning street speaking.
In response, the I.W.W. (the Industrial Workers of the World, or the “Wobblies”) urged supporters to ride the rails to San Diego and fight for their right to soapbox:
Come on the cushions; ride up on top;
stick to the brake beams; let nothing stop.
Come in great numbers; this we beseech;
Help San Diego to win free speech.Soapboxers descended on the town en masse. Each would step up on the box, say a word or two, and then get yanked off by the police and carried to jail. There’s even an old Wobbly joke about a speaker who starts his speech with the traditional salutation—“Fellow friends and workers”—and then, when he realizes no one’s coming to arrest him, panics and shouts “Where are the cops?!”
The Wobblies’ goal was to overwhelm the court system with free-speech cases until the city was forced to give up prosecuting soapboxers. Soon the jail was overflowing. But instead of following the legal process, the city discharged the arrestees right into the waiting arms of a vigilante gang, who drove the Wobblies to the county line and viciously beat them with axe handles.
It’s not exactly clear who the vigilantes were, but the gang may have been composed of some of the city’s most prominent citizens. A newspaper editor who was run out of town for his sympathy to the free-speechers wrote of them (as quoted by Miller): “The chamber of commerce and the real estate board are well represented. The press and public utility corporations, as well as members of the Grand Jury are known to belong.”
Yet the vigilantes went too far, and labor organizations called on the state government to intervene. The commissioner sent to investigate declared that the abuses he saw weren’t taking place in Tsarist Russia. At great personal cost, the Wobblies had put the concept of free speech to the test, and won…
When public oratory was a defining feature of civic life: “The Golden Age of the American Soapbox,” from @amelia-soth.bsky.social in @jstordaily.bsky.social.
* John Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicens’d Printing, to the Parliament of England
###
As we speak up, we might ponder another Chicago-related phenomenon, recalling that it was on this date in 1986 that Geraldo Rivera made a “shocking discovery”:
Notorious and “most wanted” gangster, Al Capone, began his life of crime in Chicago in 1919 and had his headquarters set up at the Lexington Hotel until his arrest in 1931.
Years later, renovations were being made at the hotel when a team of workers discovered a shooting-range and series of connected tunnels that led to taverns and brothels making for an easy escape should there be a police raid. Rumors were spread that Capone had a secret vault hidden under the hotel as well.
In 1985, news reporter Geraldo Rivera had been fired from ABC after he criticized the network for canceling his report made about an alleged relationship between John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. It seemed like a good time for Rivera to scoop a new story to repair his reputation.
It was on this day [that] a live, two-hour, syndicated TV special, The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault aired. After lots of backstory, the time finally came to reveal what was in that vault. It turned out to be empty. After the show, Rivera was quoted as saying “Seems like we struck out.”
– source
“Where liberty dwells, there is my country”*…
Ah, but where might that be? Amos Miller (using tools from the good folks at Mapbox) shares a handy site with the answers…
The Civic Atlas is a project which marries leading civic data sets with information on governance types and physical capitals.
This project is an exploration of physical governance. As international relations enter another era of rocky uncertainty, it’s important to have the opportunity to look at a world which is not flat or equal. Many countries are on the march away from freedom and democracy towards autocracy. Many are already there.
Explore this project by selecting various freedom and democracy indices in the dropdown menu. Click a state to see where its legislative authority is housed, more information about the country, its governance system, and its governance scores. To learn more about each index, click on its link in the nav bar while selected.This is our globe.
We all live here.
A visualization of governance around the globe: “The Civic Atlas.”
* Latin phrase of unknown origin; the motto of Algernon Sydney and James Otis
###
As we compare and contrast, we might spare a thought for Alexis de Tocqueville; he died on this date in 1859. A French diplomat, political philosopher, and historian, he is best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes, 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both, he analyzed the living standards and social conditions of individuals as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville’s travels in the United States (on a mission to examine prisons and penitentiaries here) and is today considered an immensely important early work of sociology and political science.
“The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democracy, from beneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep” – from Democracy in America
“A creditor is worse than a slave-owner; for the master owns only your person, but a creditor owns your dignity, and can command it.”*…
Developing countries around the world are deeply in hock. According to UNCTAD (UN Trade and Development), global public debt reached a record high of $102 trillion in 2024. Although public debt in developing countries accounted for less than one third of the total – $31 trillion – it has grown twice as fast as in developed economies since 2010. Those developing nations had debt service on that external public debt of $487 billion in 2023– which meant, for half of them, paying at least 6.5% of export revenues to service external public debt. More practically, that means that 3.4 billion people are living in countries that spend more on interest than on healthcare or education. [See the UNCTAD fact sheet here.]
Not surprisingly, developing countries sometimes fall sufficiently behind to call their loans into question. When that happens, an under-the-radar “informal group” of creditors– the Paris Club– gets together to negotiate a way forward…
The Paris Club is an informal group of official creditors whose role is to find coordinated and sustainable solutions to the payment difficulties experienced by debtor countries. As debtor countries undertake reforms to stabilize and restore their macroeconomic and financial situation, Paris Club creditors provide an appropriate debt treatment. Paris Club creditors provide debt treatments to debtor countries in the form of rescheduling, which is debt relief by postponement or, in the case of concessional rescheduling, reduction in debt service obligations during a defined period (flow treatment) or as of a set date (stock treatment).
The origin of the Paris Club dates back to 1956 when Argentina agreed to meet its public creditors in Paris. Since then, the Paris Club has reached 484 agreements with 102 different debtor countries. Since 1956, the debt treated in the framework of Paris Club agreements amounts to $616 billion.
The 22 members of the Paris Club are mostly the larger OECD members, plus Russia. South Africa is a prospective member, and China and India are Ad Hoc members. Organizations like the IMF, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the OECD are “observers.” Participants representing members are government officials. The U.S., for instance is represented by a State Department official (relying on positions formulated by the Treasury Department).
Sven van Mourik puts all of this into context…
In today’s world, finance is dominated not by states, but by private actors. The market capitalization of a company like Apple in December 2023 reached $3 trillion, exceeding the combined GDP of at least 140 countries. Last year, global private financial assets reached a record $291 trillion, of which some 50 percent is concentrated in North America. By contrast, the world’s nations together owed a global public debt of a record $102 trillion in 2024, of which so-called “developing” countries owe $31 trillion. While there’s a playbook for private debt and corporate bankruptcy, it’s a different story for the official debt owed by nation states. What happens when a state can no longer repay its foreign creditors?
Following a deep global debt crisis in the early 1980s, the world’s poorest states struggled to service impossible debts to foreign capital, leading to widespread revolts and humanitarian crises across the formerly colonized, developing countries of the Global South. Following the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, the burden of this public debt is once again immense…
[van Mourik reviews some of the startling statistics cited above…]
… It is puzzling to see states prioritize the servicing of foreign debt, even when it directly harms their populations. Why not default? Experts at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, D.C. claim that “there is no alternative” to what has become an ossified response to sovereign debt crises: cut the government budget, facilitate the private sector and grow your economy to repay your foreign debt. But what about when a state, fully cooperative with the policy measures prescribed by these institutions, still cannot repay its debts?
As a financial historian, this question led me to investigate a creditor that routinely takes center stage as countries attempt to navigate sovereign default, an institution so secretive that it has largely escaped the public eye. The Paris Club, an informal forum of representatives from creditor countries largely in the Global North, has steered the destinies of nations in financial peril, restructuring over half a trillion dollars in sovereign debt since its first meeting in 1956. Without its approval, countries face default and can effectively be prevented from accessing long- and short-term trade credit — credit that facilitates the uninterrupted flow of goods across borders, and can be compared to a country’s life blood. Without it, states are unable to access vital imports like food, fuel and medicine.
The Paris Club convenes to set up a new payment schedule for a country at risk of defaulting on its “official” debt owed to other countries. It is unique in that despite its pivotal role, it remains an informal institution. It comprises 22 major creditor countries, including the United States, Germany and France, and occasional ad hoc participants like India and China, which together coordinate reduced or rescheduled debt payments for a country facing default.
The Paris Club itself doesn’t lend new money. Instead, it “treats” a country’s debt payment schedule, either through rescheduling interest payments or, since the late 1980s, by offering the poorest countries a “haircut” and partially restructuring the debt. In its 70-year history, including the recent Debt Service Suspension Initiative, the Paris Club has treated a total of $863 billion of debt for 102 countries through 543 agreements; this amounts to around two-thirds of the world’s sovereign debt restructurings through 2010. A staggering legacy for a group that lacks any public oversight. With some pride, former chairmen of the Paris Club’s secretariat have called the Club a “non-institution” and “totally discreet if not secretive.”…
[van Mourik unpacks the operations of the Club and explains its symbiotic relationship with the IMF and its “structural adjustment” programs– AKA “austerity,” the reduction of debtor government expenses, often on social welfare, education, and healthcare (and often to painful effect)
… While the Paris Club rescheduled debt payments, the IMF designed programs that served to optimize a country’s ability to pay back interest and principal; the arrangement has over the years evolved into a debt restructuring routine in which debtor countries have little say.
The IMF today remains an institution in which the countries of the Global North have nine times more voting power than the countries of the Global South, as voting rights are tied to economic weight. In the Paris Club, a similar power differential is reflected in the spatial and temporal arrangement of the procedures, which borders on the theatrical. A debtor country’s delegation only ever confronts its creditors alone and is required to leave the room when they deliberate to set the terms of a deal…
[van Mourik explores the consequences of these deals, concluding…]
… creditor-dominated organizations like the IMF and the Paris Club allow rich countries to remain at the helm of a sinking ship. After all, as economist Daniel Munevar concluded following the COVID-19 pandemic, continuing within our current framework of debt servicing would “sound the death knell” for the world’s climate ambitions, as it prevents debtor countries from implementing the costly policies needed to meet ambitious climate targets. Others conclude that a serious degrowth strategy, one that prioritized ecological sustainability and social well-being over growth for its own sake, would require the countries of the Global South to default.
Various formations of countries across the Global South have proposed debt restructuring regimes, like the UN Framework Convention on Debt, that would “improve the fairness and transparency of debt resolution mechanisms.” Gabor, the economist, has called this new UN framework “a bid to wrest deliberative control away from the closed-door clubs where Northern financial might prevails.”The question is under what circumstances such strategies might be successful. Despite the Paris Club’s inclusion of non-Western members like Korea and Brazil, or the IMF and the Paris Club’s recent collaboration with China and the G20, the deck remains stacked against low-income borrowing countries, who “have little voice in any of these fora.”
The deeper challenge for all states is to reform a global financial architecture that evolved based on the interests of a handful of Western creditor states, at the cost of austerity and social destruction elsewhere. Debtor countries that wish to retain access to global markets — even for the most vital imports — must participate, and service their debt within regulatory frameworks over which they have no control and which have proven to be defective…
Who really controls international debt? “The Quiet Powerbroker,” from @thedialmag.bsky.social.
All this said, it’s important to note that in fact an alternative is emerging, but not one that’s in the spirit of the UN Framework. Even before the Trump Administration took the U.S. off the field, China had become the world’s largest development lender.
“How China Lends: A Rare Look into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments“:
We collect and analyze 100 contracts between Chinese state-owned entities and government borrowers in 24 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Oceania, and compare them with those of other bilateral, multilateral, and commercial creditors. Three main insights emerge. First, the Chinese contracts contain unusual confidentiality clauses that bar borrowers from revealing the terms or even the existence of the debt. Second, Chinese lenders seek advantage over other creditors, using collateral arrangements such as lender-controlled revenue accounts and promises to keep the debt out of collective restructuring (“no Paris Club” clauses). Third, cancellation, acceleration, and stabilization clauses in Chinese contracts potentially allow the lenders to influence debtors’ domestic and foreign policies. Even if these terms were unenforceable in court, the mix of confidentiality, seniority, and policy influence could limit the sovereign debtor’s crisis management options and complicate debt renegotiation. Overall, the contracts use creative design to manage credit risks and overcome enforcement hurdles, presenting China as a muscular and commercially-savvy lender to the developing world.
For a fascinating and illuminating on-the-ground consideration of these issues, see/hear Mary Kay Magistad‘s On China’s New Silk Road.
* Victor Hugo
###
As we redesign debt, we might send thoughtful birthday greetings to Jean-Jacques Laffont; he was born on this date in 1947. An economist, he made pioneering contributions in public economics, development economics, and the theory of imperfect information, incentives, and regulation. Over the course of his career, he wrote 17 books and more than 200 articles. His 1993 book A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation, written with Jean Tirole, is a fundamental reference in the economics of the public sector and the theory of regulation. Laffont died in 2004; had he lived, he might well have shared the 2014 Nobel Prize for Economics awarded to his colleague and collaborator Jean Tirole for the work they did together.
He was uninvolved in the Paris Club; indeed, his last book, Regulation and Development, discussed policies for improving the economies of less developed countries in ways more consistent with the UN’s new framework than the IMF’s old-but-still-dominant playbook.
“The original idea of the web was that it should be a collaborative space where you can communicate through sharing information”*…
From yesterday’s post on the possible (and promising, but also potentially painful) future of computing to a pressing predicament we face today. The estimable Anil Dash on the threats to the open web…
You must imagine Sam Altman holding a knife to Tim Berners-Lee’s throat.
It’s not a pleasant image. Sir Tim is, rightly, revered as the genial father of the World Wide Web. But, all the signs are pointing to the fact that we might be in endgame for “open” as we’ve known it on the Internet over the last few decades.
The open web is something extraordinary: anybody can use whatever tools they have, to create content following publicly documented specifications, published using completely free and open platforms, and then share that work with anyone, anywhere in the world, without asking for permission from anyone. Think about how radical that is.
Now, from content to code, communities to culture, we can see example after example of that open web under attack. Every single aspect of the radical architecture I just described is threatened, by those who have profited most from that exact system.
Today, the good people who act as thoughtful stewards of the web infrastructure are still showing the same generosity of spirit that has created opportunity for billions of people and connected society in ways too vast to count while —not incidentally— also creating trillions of dollars of value and countless jobs around the world. But the increasingly-extremist tycoons of Big Tech have decided that that’s not good enough.
Now, the hectobillionaires have begun their final assault on the last, best parts of what’s still open, and likely won’t rest until they’ve either brought all of the independent and noncommercial parts of the Internet under their control, or destroyed them. Whether or not they succeed is going to be decided by decisions that we all make as a community in the coming months. Even though there have always been threats to openness on the web, the stakes have never been higher than they are this time.
Right now, too many of the players in the open ecosystem are still carrying on with business as usual, even though those tactics have been failing to stop big tech for years. I don’t say this lightly: it looks to me like 2026 is the year that decides whether the open web as we know it will survive at all, and we have to fight like the threat is existential. Because it is…
[Dash details the treats– largely, but not entirely driven by AI and its purveyors. He concludes…]
… The threat to the open web is far more profound than just some platforms that are under siege. The most egregious harm is the way that the generosity and grace of the people who keep the web open is being abused and exploited. Those people who maintain open source software? They’re hardly getting rich — that’s thankless, costly work, which they often choose instead of cashing in at some startup. Similarly, volunteering for Wikipedia is hardly profitable. Defining super-technical open standards takes time and patience, sometimes over a period of years, and there’s no fortune or fame in it.
Creators who fight hard to stay independent are often choosing to make less money, to go without winning awards or the other trappings of big media, just in order to maintain control and authority over their content, and because they think it’s the right way to connect with an audience. Publishers who’ve survived through year after year of attacks from tech platforms get rewarded by… getting to do it again the next year. Tim Berners-Lee is no billionaire, but none of those guys with the hundreds of billions of dollars would have all of their riches without him. And the thanks he gets from them is that they’re trying to kill the beautiful gift that he gave to the world, and replace it with a tedious, extortive slop mall.
So, we’re in endgame now. They see their chance to run the playbook again, and do to Wikipedians what Uber did to cab drivers, to get users addicted to closed apps like they are to social media, to force podcasters to chase an algorithm like kids on TikTok. If everyone across the open internet can gather together, and see that we’re all in one fight together, and push back with the same ferocity with which we’re being attacked, then we do have a shot at stopping them.
At one time, it was considered impossibly unlikely that anybody would ever create open technologies that would ever succeed in being useful for people, let alone that they would become a daily part of enabling billions of people to connect and communicate and make their lives better. So I don’t think it’s any more unlikely that the same communities can summon that kind of spirit again, and beat back the wealthiest people in the world, to ensure that the next generation gets to have these same amazing resources to rely on for decades to come.
Alright, if it’s not hopeless, what are the concrete things we can do? The first thing is to directly support organizations in the fight. Either those that are at risk, or those that are protecting those at risk. You can give directly to support the Internet Archive, or volunteer to help them out. Wikipedia welcomes your donation or your community participation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting for better policy and to defend your rights on virtually all of these issues, and could use your support or provides a list of ways to volunteer or take action. The Mozilla Foundation can also use your donations and is driving change. (And full disclosure — I’m involved in pretty much all of these organizations in some capacity, ranging from volunteer to advisor to board member.) That’s because I’m trying to make sure my deeds match my words! These are the people whom I’ve seen, with my own eyes, stay the hand of those who would hold the knife to the necks of the open web’s defenders. [Further full disclosure: so is your correpondent, and so have I.]
Beyond just what these organizations do, though, we can remember how much the open web matters. I know from my time on the board of Stack Overflow that we got to see the rise of an incredibly generous community built around sharing information openly, under open licenses. There are very few platforms in history that helped more people have more economic mobility than the number of people who got good-paying jobs as coders as a result of the information on that site. And then we got to see the toll that extractive LLMs had when they took advantage of that community without any consideration for the impact it would have when they trained models on the generosity of that site’s members without reciprocating in kind.
The good of the web only exists because of the openness of the web. They can’t just keep on taking and taking without expecting people to finally draw a line and saying “enough”. And interestingly, opportunities might exist where the tycoons least expect it. I saw Mike Masnick’s recent piece where he argued that one of the things that might enable a resurgence of the open web might be… AI. It would seem counterintuitive to anyone who’s read everything I’ve shared here to imagine that anything good could come of these same technologies that have caused so much harm.
But ultimately what matters is power. It is precisely because technologies like LLMs have powers that the authoritarians have rushed to try to take them over and wield them as effectively as they can. I don’t think that platforms owned and operated by those bad actors can be the tools that disrupt their agenda. I do think it might be possible that the creative communities that built the web in the first place could use their same innovative spirit to build what could be, for lack of a better term, called “good AI“. It’s going to take better policy, which may be impossible in the short term at the federal level in the U.S., but can certainly happen at more local levels and in the rest of the world. Though I’m skeptical about putting too much of the burden on individual users, we can certainly change culture and educate people so that more people feel empowered and motivated to choose alternatives to the big tech and big AI platforms that got us into this situation. And we can encourage harm reduction approaches for the people and institutions that are already locked into using these tools, because as we’ve seen, even small individual actions can get institutions to change course.
Ultimately I think, if given the choice, people will pick home-cooked, locally-grown, heart-felt digital meals over factory-farmed fast food technology every time…
Unless we act, it’s “Endgame for the Open Web,” from @anildash.com. Eminently worth reading in full.
* Tim Berners-Lee… who should know.
###
As we protect what’s precious, we might send carefully-calculated birthday greetings to a man whose work helped lay the foundation for both the promise and the peril unpacked in the article linked above above: J. Presper Eckert; he was born on this day in 1919. An electrical engineer, he co-designed (with John Mauchly) the first general purpose computer, the ENIAC (see here and here) for the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory. He and Mauchy went on to found the Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation, at which they designed and built the first commercial computer in the U.S., the UNIVAC.
You must be logged in to post a comment.