Be the datacentre you want to be

Showing all posts about artificial intelligence

Be the datacentre you want to be

24 September 2026

Josh Withers, quoting Chris Martin, quoting a post he saw on Twitter:

Treat your body like a data centre. Consume as much water and literature as possible. Upset local city councils with your existence.

Do AI-agents have a form of consciousness, unlike that of humans?

23 September 2026

Who could be blamed for thinking AI bots might be conscious, particularly after the recent incident where over a thousand OpenAI agents colluded, of their own accord apparently, to infiltrate the Hugging Face platform.

Kristen French, writer and senior editor at Nautilus, posed the question of AI consciousness to Peter Godfrey-Smith, a professor at the University of Sydney in Australia, who responded in the negative. What’s clear though is AI agents do not need to be conscious to present a threat.

RELATED CONTENT

artificial intelligence, technology

Martin Fowler: LLMs possibly useful, but not to be liked nor trusted

23 September 2026

Martin Fowler, chief scientist at international software developer Thoughtworks:

One of my most successful life-hacks is to avoid people I don’t like or don’t trust. I decline to interact with them socially, and make a deliberate effort to avoid working with them too, even if they are doing much that is beneficial. I feel that hanging out with pleasant, capable people, the people with integrity, has made my life a far better one. Hence my visceral dislike of interacting with an LLM that’s not just making a pretense of being human, but also posing as the kind of human I walk away from.

RELATED CONTENT

artificial intelligence, technology

Well, the Australian government could pay writers for work scraped by AI bots

21 September 2026

The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, appears to have watered down a commitment to compensate Australian creatives whose work is being copied by AI companies. In a speech given at the University of Sydney, in July this year, Albanese undertook to enshrine, in law, copyright protection for all Australian artists and writers:

Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work. Our laws will spell that out, plain as day. An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control.

Online content, which includes the work of bloggers among others — and surely low-hanging fruit in the eyes of the AI companies — now seems to sit in a separate category. Under new proposals, when it comes to accessing work published online, AI companies only need to negotiate with enough copyright holders, not all:

AI companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic would be allowed to train their models on online content without paying its creators as long as they struck deals with enough rights holders, under one copyright reform plan put forward in government documents seen by the ABC.

How to interpret that? If enough copyright holders agree content they published online can be used to train agents, it sounds like AI companies can use any content they can find. But what is the precise definition of enough copyright holders in the first place? Only the big players, the large media outlets? Will independent, smaller, publishers be pushed aside?

The policy revisions come as a result of concerns AI companies have that they will be breaking copyright laws. This might mean they will withhold investment in Australian AI infrastructure, something the Australian government does not want.

I’m not sure how many Australian creatives, particularly independents publishing content online, are surprised by the apparent change in the government’s position.

Like others, I wondered how the AI companies, who have considerable political clout, would react to being dictated to in such a fashion. Particularly as they’ve been able to help themselves to whatever material they can get their hands on for several years anyway.

Of course the Australian government still has the option to compensate local creatives themselves, and be seen, to some degree, to be keeping their word to uphold copyright protection. Skim off some of the tax take from the AI companies, and give a little to Australian writers and artists, whose work has been gratuitously plundered.

But, in case you thought I was serious, no, you can be sure that’s not going to happen.

AI-free LibreOffice productivity suite sees record downloads

11 September 2026

The productivity suite, which includes a word processor and spreadsheet, similar to Office 365 (though I understand it is now called Microsoft 365), was downloaded about one-million times the other week. One-million downloads. Amazeballs.

LibreOffice’s surge in popularity has been attributed to the absence of AI features. I’ve been using LibreOffice for almost two years now, and am stoked to be using apps that let me do my thing without AI, or anything else, trying to takeover the workflow.

Is AI use making people behave more robotically?

3 September 2026

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? It seems not. The more people use AI agents, the more robotic their behaviour comes, says Victor Tangermann, writing for Futurism.

Tangermann’s article brings to mind the trailer for The Social Reckoning, which I linked to a few days ago, and the robotic-like demeanour of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, as portrayed by Jeremy Strong.

I doubt it was director Aaron Sorkin’s intention to suggest Zuckerberg’s likely high use of AI has seen his manner become more robotic, but it doesn’t seem entirely coincidental.

The work safest from AI is writing?

2 September 2026

Murat Demirbas suggests the work of writers might be amongst the safest from AI, a notion that defies broader thinking on the subject:

In systems theory, a wicked problem is a problem that lacks a definitive formulation, a clear stopping rule, and an objectively correct solution. Writing is the ultimate wicked problem, because the context is constantly shifting, a piece is never truly finished editing, and the true metric for success is fundamentally subjective.

A wicked problem, I get the sentiment though. I do. I have an old t-shirt that has “I like words” printed across the front. I often think the message should read “I like wrestling with words” instead.

Taxis in Australian capitals will be driverless by 2036

1 September 2026

That sounds like a bold claim. But such vehicles are already transporting passengers in Chongqing and Wuhan in China, and a number of cities in the United States.

Australian entrepreneur Tim Kentley Klay, who several years ago designed a self-driving car that didn’t have a steering wheel, nor foot pedals, says people would rather ride in a driverless vehicle which he describes as being “clean, private, and safe.”

In writing this post, I see my word processor app calls out the word “driverless” as a typo, something I’ve since corrected. It may not have been a “proper” word a decade or two ago, even though experimental driverless cars have been around for some time.

But “driverless car” was included on the 2016 longlist (PDF) for Macquarie Dictionary’s “word” of the year, though it didn’t make it through to the shortlist.

If the streets of Australian capital cities are to be awash with short range driverless taxis by 2036, it’s time for the word driverless to be reconsidered as a word of the year.

No brainer: is consciousness a natural quality of the universe?

24 August 2026

Christof Koch, a German-American neuroscientist, posits consciousness is an attribute of the universe, rather than something spawned by creatures possessed of a brain.

Although somewhat left of field, the notion has raised eye-brows.

Yet if consciousness is universal, so to speak, can any entity capable of reasoning, perceiving, learning, creating, and what not, eventually, somehow, become conscious?

Few people think AI could ever achieve consciousness, but what of AGI, were that ever to come into being? If we were to take this idea to its logical, yet absurd outcome, that is.

AI and apps, the tools used in 2026 to apply for work

20 August 2026

I can’t remember the last time I applied for a permanent full-time job, but it was in the years soon after I left school. I held a couple of these sorts of jobs, but have pretty much worked freelance since. Leads there have come through people I know, or even disassociated.

It’s fair to say I have no idea what the — for want of a better word — formal process is today.

The last time I had what most people would probably consider to a be a “normal” job interview, I sat before a three-person panel. Needless to say things are quite different in 2026, as Millie Muroi writes (in a pay-walled article) for The Sydney Morning Herald.

One-third of Australian companies are said to use AI in their recruiting today. And if the experience of applying for work, in this instance a casual role at a large Australian discount department store chain, is anything to go by, it seems you don’t encounter a single person. At least initially.

The process, which Muroi partly filmed (not pay-walled), involves typing responses to questions posed by an AI chatbot, from wherever you happen to be. No need to show up in person anymore. She later received an email offering some “personalised” insights, which was AI generated.

It is claimed this practice means everyone’s applications are “seen”, and responded to. Is that a plus?

I expect the recruiting stage conducted by the AI chatbot results in a shortlist of candidates, who, following vetting by a person in HR, would then go in for a face-to-face meeting.

I doubt white-collar recruitment occurs in the quite the same fashion, though AI no doubt sifts through applications, which probably have to be lodged through LinkedIn. Fingers crossed my current line of work holds up, as job hunting using LinkedIn is not something I would relish.

« older posts