Humanity is not a monoculture, and nor is Australia

Showing all posts about artificial intelligence

Humanity is not a monoculture, and nor is Australia

14 August 2026

I’m still reading through Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recently published vision of an AI future, but this paragraph jumped out at me:

Humanity is not a monoculture. People’s diverse values represent different tradeoffs they would make on important issues. There is no technological solution that can align with everyone’s opposing interests and values at once. Any singular superintelligence would have to prioritize some values over others and in the process would be incapable of being benevolent to everyone.

In this context, I think Zuckerberg is discussing the challenges of developing a so-called superintelligence that could comprehend the values of the world’s many varied, disparate, cultures.

Superintelligence, sometimes referred to as Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), sits above Artificial Geneal Intelligence (AGI), which in turn sits above AI. A go to example (for me) of AGI is the HAL 9000 computer, AKA Hal, from Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Hal appears to be conscious, and is capable of thinking and reasoning as a human would.

It seems to me ASI, which is (theoretically) vastly superior to AGI, should be able to extend its “benevolence” to all the people of the Earth, because understanding each of their cultures would surely be something that level of technology is easily capable of. Meta however is developing what they describe as superintelligence, which may vary from ASI.

But I digress.

I doubt Australian politician, and leader of a far-right party called One Nation, Pauline Hanson, would agree with Zuckerberg’s view that humanity is not a monoculture. Because during her recent appearance at the National Press Club, she declared Australia must exist as a “monocultural society”.

Yes, Australia, the place where people from just about every culture in the world, reside.

Surprisingly, Hanson views AI favourably, although she did call for stronger government regulation of the technologies. But technologies that may recognise humanity, and by extension, the people of Australia, are not monocultural? Can that be tolerated?

No doubt Hanson will be calling for the very strict regulation of that sort of technology.

LinkedIn CringeBot 3000, generating AI slop of the best quality

13 August 2026

Since the volume of slop-in-general is of epidemic proportions on the platform, it makes perfect sense an AI agent write actual AI slop for consumption there.

Zuckerberg says AI will improve your relationships. Did an AI scam bot tell him that?

12 August 2026

Tangentially related to the previous post. A few days ago Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg published the company’s latest AI vision. Or the one for this week at least. And the future is rosy, incredibly rosy.

If Meta has it their way, everyone will have access to their own “exceptionally capable” agent ~~— must Meta use URLs that look like someone typed out a random string of keyboard characters? —~~ (edit: URL amended) that seemingly will be able to help with anything at all:

Everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about. Your agent will work 24/7 on your behalf to improve your relationships, health, career, finances, home management, hobbies, and more.

But I’d be concerned about the relationship advice this agent intends to dispense.

As we learned from my post yesterday, some AI agents, particularly those attempting to scam people, specialise in faking relationships. One can only hope Meta’s relationship guidance agent is not taking cues from such scam agents.

RELATED CONTENT

artificial intelligence, technology

AI scam bots better at faking relationships than human scammers

11 August 2026

There’s good news and there’s bad news, but in reality not much is really good. The good, such that it is; AI bots could well put scammers out of work.

The bad; the AI scammers are far more effective at deceiving people.

Disturbingly though, these are scams that involve entering into a fake relationship with the intended victim. In other words, AI bots appear to be better at faking human relationships than people.

Take a minute to think about that.

The human scammers, meanwhile, having been put out work, might instead look for an honest way to make a living. That would be a plus.

But here’s the problem. If AI scammer bots are so adept at tricking people, what else might they be capable of? Putting yet more people out of work? Or is there nothing whatsoever to worry about?

Deserts, sea water, the AI data centre problem solved. Seriously

10 August 2026

Tech bros across the world have been giving everyone a right ear-bashing in the last few years about their AI agents, and the need for data centres to power them. And they’ve been crying foul in response to the environmental concerns many have expressed.

Tech bros worldwide are annoyed we don’t want to share our power and water supplies with them.

They’re unhappy we don’t want their data centres near the places we live, work, and send our kids to school. The tech bros are furious that we cannot seem to grasp the big picture. A prosperous and happy future of one-hundred percent dependence on their AI technologies is worth a few sacrifices.

Is it not?

Can’t we, the little people, cut back on our water and power consumption? Can’t we accept a little bit more climate change precipitated by water and power hungry data centres, is a small price to pay?

Wait up. Did I just say climate chnage? The phenomenon wreaking all sorts of havoc across the world, the driver of rising sea levels, temperatures, and unpredictable weather? Is not that sort of stuff the answer here? Not wild storms, and destructive bush fires.

No, I mean rising sea levels and warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures must be the result of more sunlight getting through, right? That’s logical, isn’t it? Can you see what I’m getting at? You can’t be a much smart tech bro, if you don’t. That extra sunlight can be put to good use.

So people don’t want data centres near where they live. Fair enough. Who wants their golf club to make way for one? Not the tech bros. The solution is obvious. Build the data centres where no one lives. Like a desert. Ok, sure. But what about power? There’s no power infrastructure in the desert.

No problem. Build large solar panel arrays. No one lives in the desert, so no one will be around to complain about the solar panels. Ditto the data centres. But wouldn’t the cost of solar panel arrays be prohibitive? Sure, but again, no problem. Simply increase the price of AI tokens. Just slightly.

That solves the power problem. What about water? There’s gnenerally not much water in a desert. And, depending who you listen to, AI data centres either use enormous quantities of water, or hardly any at all. Either way, people don’t want thirsty data centres guzzling any amount of water.

What to do? The solution is obvious.

Pipe it in. End of story. That’s not really the end of the story, but anyone, even the little people, can surely see the logic. Sea levels are rising. That means there’s plenty of water at hand. But AI data centres in the desert may be hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres, from the ocean.

No problem, pipelines are still the answer. If something like the Guildford West pipehead and water supply canal, in the west of Sydney, Australia, can be brought into being, the tech bros can do something similar out in the desert. Bonus points if gravity feeds alone can somehow be used.

Sure, the Guildford West system is only about sixteen kilometres total length. But if pipes can span sixteen kilometres, simple logic says they can go further. And don’t forget about the East–West Pipeline in Saudi Arabia, which is about twelve-hundred kilometres long.

But wouldn’t the cost of building massive pipe systems be prohibitive? Sure, but again, no problem. Simply increase the price of AI tokens. Just slightly.

I think we’ve covered off everything.

The tech bros can have their data centres, and the rest of us won’t even know they exist. Plus one or two problems occasioned by global warming will be resolved. Well, maybe one. If you believe the ocean can be drained with a tea cup.

Of course, I expect no one to take any of what I said the least bit seriously. Really I don’t. Particularly the tech bros who want to solve this very problem. Besides, they don’t read my website.

But perhaps I speak too soon. They might ask one of their AI agents about the feasibility of building data centres in the desert, in the manner I’ve prescribed. Then they might learn about this suggestion, since my website’s content is scraped all too often by their AI bots.

Can I then expect the tech bros offer me any recompense? Anything at all. A single lousy AI token even? Yes, I’m quite certain that will happen. When hell freezes over.

LinkedIn users can report AI slop, but what about the rest of it?

1 August 2026

Members of the professional network will be able to flag posts they think are AI generated. I haven’t been a LinkedIn participant in years — I have a personal website, why would I? — but it seems to me slop has been a problem on the platform since before AI was what it is.

AI does not compose my pickup lines, I do, have the t-shirt to prove it

29 July 2026

Natalie Kaufman, writing for the Wall Street Journal, about an apparent trend in early twenty-somethings, to rely on AI agents to supply them with conversation starters, and pickup lines.

The article is paywalled, but would you really want to read about this?

I think these things are best learned through experience, and watching other people, rather than turning to AI for pointers. It gives me an idea for a t-shirt though.

Some websites and blogs sport not by AI buttons, as a way of reassuring readers their content was written by a person, and not an AI agent.

People who want others to know their conversation starters, and, where applicable, pickup lines, are their own effort, could wear a not by AI-style t-shirt, perhaps bearing the slogan “AI does not compose my pickup lines, I do”.

It might help eliminate the confusion as to what banter is AI-generated, and what is not.

For the record, my pickup lines are reserved for the only person who reads this website…

Update: Simon at Firesphere has created a mockup of my no-AI t-shirt idea. Green is an ideal colour choice to, it’s affirming, and noticeable. Awesome, thanks Simon.

Facebook Verified, distinguishing human users from AI accounts, cats, dogs, etc

27 July 2026

The basic, free, verification badge, differs from the more familiar, paid for, Meta‌ Verified blue badge.

To qualify, applicants need to satisfy a number of requirements, including having a Facebook (FB) account that is in “good standing”. They will need to record a short video, which will be compared to selfies previously posted on their page.

I don’t use FB much, but did encounter a number of people using pictures of their pet, say a cat or a dog, as an avatar. Will we then see animals with Facebook Verified badges on their pages? And how many AI-generated accounts might slip through the cracks, and end up being verified?

Are bloggers the same as writers, journalists, under the Australian AI framework?

21 July 2026

Last week the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese unveiled his government’s AI strategy. Part of the proposed framework includes a provision to ensure Australian writers, musicians, artists, and journalists, are paid in the event their work is used in the development of AI agents.

This is as it should be. Anyone else who wants to access copyrighted material needs to pay. It should be no different for the big tech, and AI, companies.

As someone who writes predominately online, a blogger, I see myself as either a writer and/or a journalist, in terms of this framework. I know it sound like I’m being pedantic, and surely most people would assume a blogger is regarded as a writer or a journalist.

But is that the way I would actually be viewed under the proposed AI framework? Albanese, after all, made no mention of bloggers, or other online content creators.

Of course, the Prime Minister’s speech was a statement of policy intention, and the finer details, will, I assume, come later as the AI strategy is devised.

The matter is of interest though, as I’m one of who-knows-how-many Australian bloggers whose writings have been harvested in recent years, most likely by AI companies. Would bloggers also be subject to the provisions being proposed for writers, musicians, artists, and journalists?

Or does the exclusively digital nature of a blogger’s work somehow diminish its stature? Will any sort of payment for work copied or used by AI companies only apply to mediums that exist firstly in a physical form, such as books or paintings?

These are mediums that can be digitised (somehow), making them attractive fodder for knowledge hungry AI agents, but does their physical form still give them precedence?

To be clear, I’m not talking about copyright. Any work created in Australia is protected by copyright laws, including that of bloggers. Generally for copyright to apply, a work must be created by a person, be original, and be “fixed”, that is, the work must exist in a tangible form.

This includes content on a web page. Australian bloggers are covered then by copyright. Regardless of whether anyone actually takes notice.

But while Australian copyright laws apply to “people who express original ideas and information in certain forms“, the proposed AI strategy, based on what we know at present, seems far more specific. Writers, musicians, artists, and journalists. Not bloggers, or other content creators working online.

Time will tell though whether Albanese was being specific or not.

As I wrote last week, given the amount of scraping and copying that has already occurred, a large number of Australian creatives will have already lost out, in terms of compensation.

It’s my feeling then any payments that AI companies may be required to make, will only apply to works created after any legislation is enacted. Anything else could be complicated to say the least.

Again though, time will tell.

AI here to stay, accept it, says Australian government, vows artist copyright protection

17 July 2026

Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, says he wants to make Australia an “attractive destination” for investment in AI development, during a speech delivered on Wednesday.

Albanese also wants to balance the opportunities and risks presented by the technologies, particularly concerns that AI uptake will result in widespread job losses.

AI will take away jobs, he said, but will also create new and different lines of work.

Among proposals is a coordinated national framework, rather than a state-by-state approach, that will oversee matters including the construction of AI data centres.

In short, data centres will be required to generate their own power, by way of renewable energy sources, and minimise water consumption.

During his speech, Albanese also gave an undertaking to protect the intellectual property of Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists:

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. That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work. Anything less, is theft.

These are words Australian artists and creatives wanted to hear.

Protections will doubtless be included in upcoming legislation, but after rampant marauding of creative material by AI scraper bots in recent years, the move might come too late.

The proposed laws might protect work created in the future, but what of copyrighted content that has already been copied, and digested, by AI agents?

Will AI companies who used creative work in the past be required to offer retrospective remuneration? Will these entities, many of whom are based outside Australia, be the slightest bit concerned by these proposals?

« older posts