5/5 (2)

AI brings a lot of challenges and (unknown) dangers. An example is when tech company Google’s most advanced chat program started talking out of itself: the software spoke of its consciousness, identity, emotions and superiority to other forms of AI. By many, it was considered horrifying: it literally said it saw itself as human (Zhang et. al 2021).

Currently, more and more AI scientists are sounding the alarm about AI (Zhang 2021). Not because the computer has been brought to life, but because the gap between university and industry is now life-size. Behind the scenes, Google has developed an amount of computing power that no university can match. Behind those computers are ten times as many smart scientists as at the university (Mhlanga 2021). And like Google, there are quite a few tech companies that can do the same, from Meta to China’s Baidu.

This means that university research is increasingly being driven into the arms of big tech. After all, universities’ supercomputers are too small to check the latest algorithms from the tech sector, while those algorithms increasingly play a vital role in society, from traffic safety to discovering new molecules for drugs (Mhlanga, D. (2021). . Relevant research may shift as a result. The role of academia is shrinking, while the tech sector is becoming more dominant, which is negative for society. The more widespread the application of AI systems becomes, the greater the role of independent science should be.

The skewed AI development between academia and industry also threatens the sovereignty of Europe. Even if tech companies were to make their computers and algorithms available to Europeans, one new US president for example could roll this back. All superpowers seek leadership in AI. Europe cannot be dependent on other nations for the most important and vital technology of tomorrow’s world. 

A single university, or even a single country, cannot compete with the current AI powers: this would require cooperation. Competitive supercomputing should be a top European priority, not as a one-off project, but structurally. Because the development of computing power is an eternal race, and to essential to fall behind.

References

Zhang, Z., Ning, H., Shi, F., Farha, F., Xu, Y., Xu, J., … & Choo, K. K. R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in cyber security: research advances, challenges, and opportunities. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1-25.

Zhang, C., & Lu, Y. (2021). Study on artificial intelligence: The state of the art and future prospects. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23, 100224.

Mhlanga, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence in the industry 4.0, and its impact on poverty, innovation, infrastructure development, and the sustainable development goals: Lessons from emerging economies?. Sustainability, 13(11), 5788.

5/5 (1)

The influence on our society of Internet giants such as Facebook and YouTube is increasingly being questioned (Cochrane and Ward 2021). Following sustained criticism, major technology companies have rapidly taken steps that until recently seemed unthinkable. Reddit, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Snapchat and Facebook have recently implemented new measures to combat hate messages and online disinformation (Sen 2022). These changes are a clear sign that unregulated Web policies are over. But too little of the debate still focuses on the structural flaw of the online economy, which is users’ lack of control over their own data. We urgently need to rethink that model.

In the early days of the Web, computers were directly connected and data was stored on its own hard drives (Hawley 2021). With the start of the new millennium, our digital communications changed to a centralized system where the storage and exchange of information takes place on the servers and platforms of a handful of technology companies. This left billions of people dependent on a few market leaders to share information with each other. Under the current revenue model, these companies have complete control over our data. This has led to market disruption and a complete lack of competition.

In itself, centralization need not be a problem (Yu et. al 2021). There are good reasons for bringing people together on a single platform. For example, a navigation app uses large amounts of data and offers extensive features. Sometimes, as a user, you just want the most convenient and reliable option. However, the situation changes when we can no longer choose which platform to use.

The current market leaders do everything they can to maintain their monopoly and prevent the introduction of new platforms. Changing networks is virtually impossible since we cannot take our messages, photos and contacts with us to another platform. Not only do we have no control over our own data, communication from one network to another is also out of the question. Actually, this is unfair competition (Hawley, 2021). 

This lack of competition harms the user: the companies that dominate the market do not have the need to fundamentally change their user experience or platform and take into account privacy or ethical concerns about a phenomenon like fake news (Cochrane and Ward 2021). Moreover, the current market model restricts further innovation. New initiatives that do consider the negative implications of their platform or that do not use user data for advertising purposes have no chance of survival in the current market: the entry barrier is too high (Hawley, 2021).

To rectify the skewed balance of power, we must reclaim our data. Digital data vaults are a relatively new solution, and allow us to securely store our data and share information with contacts who are not on the same platform. These types of solutions will not only protect us from large-scale data breaches, but innovation by independent app builders will once again become possible.

If we want to find solutions to the problems of today’s Big Tech, the decentralization of the Web is necessary. Ultimately, the root of the issue is not caused by a single social network, but by the hyper-centralization of data and users, and consequently of power. The first step toward a solution is to give each individual control over his or her own data, for example, by working with personal data vaults.

References

Birch, K., Cochrane, D. T., & Ward, C. (2021). Data as asset? The measurement, governance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 20539517211017308.

Hawley, J. (2021). The Tyranny of Big Tech. Simon and Schuster.

Sen, A. (2022). Are data markets a solution to big tech market power? A competitive analysis. Journal of Government and Economics, 7, 100052.
Yu, H., Hu, Q., Yang, Z., & Liu, H. (2021). Efficient continuous big data integrity checking for decentralized storage. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 8(2), 1658-1673.