Google

Congress is failing to deliver on its promise of billions more in research spending, threatening America's long-term economic competitiveness

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, January 17, 2024

The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars every year to support fundamental scientific research that is mostly conducted at universities.

Key Points: 
  • The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars every year to support fundamental scientific research that is mostly conducted at universities.
  • For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s.
  • If lawmakers miss a second Feb. 2 deadline, then automatic budget cuts will hit future research hard.
  • Our data shows how endangering basic research harms communities across the U.S. and can limit innovative companies’ access to the skilled employees they need to succeed.

A promised investment

  • Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act.
  • The “science” part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation – America’s premier basic science research agency – in its 74-year history.
  • The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

Research’s critical impact

  • Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies like artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology.
  • Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.
  • They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.


When Congress’ problems endanger basic research, they also damage businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

Jobs and innovation

  • Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, like AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.
  • Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs, but are particularly important for leading tech companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.
  • They also hurt private-sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills.

High stakes

  • Temporary cuts to research funding hurt too because they reduce high-tech entrepreneurship and decrease publication of new findings.
  • This would make one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.
  • Whether the current budget deal succeeds or fails, basic research is on the table and the stakes are high.


Jason Owen-Smith's research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap. He is executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS).

Is economic growth good for our health?

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Is economic growth good for us?

Key Points: 
  • Is economic growth good for us?
  • Put another way, we know that growing the economy is good for business and for creating jobs.
  • Given how wealth contributes to health on the personal, individual level, the case for economic growth might seem intuitive.

Economics and life expectancy


There is a reliable historical correlation between economic prosperity and trends in life expectancy, which is enough for many scholars to suggest that growth is generally a good thing. However, this is not to say that we can expect continued improvements in health whenever we see economic growth.

  • As a political sociologist and epidemiologist, I understand health as a fundamentally political problem.
  • I am not alone in this; scholars have connected politics to population health since ancient times.

Politics and economics

  • The problem is that too many scholars have come forward with concerns that growth can be bad for our health.
  • A classic sociological study published in 1897 found that suicide rates spike after sudden improvements in a society’s economic prosperity.
  • There is also evidence that economic growth harms public health when governments do not plan for it carefully.

Priorities and population health


Arguably, many growing societies happen to be the same ones that invested in education and other beneficial infrastructures, which explains the correlation with health.

  • By the same token we cannot expect better health to come from economic growth if the pursuit of growth ends up increasing income inequality.
  • Nor can we expect better health after slashing budgets allocated to key priorities such as education or health care.
  • And then there is the issue of how health is defined.

A better way to grow

  • Such findings prompt the question of whether there is a better way to grow.
  • For many researchers, the answer is obvious and the case for it clear: Yes.
  • The takeaway here would seem to be that growth can be good for health.


Andrew C. Patterson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Misinformation: how fact-checking journalism is evolving – and having a real impact on the world

Retrieved on: 
Monday, January 8, 2024

It is important to counter false claims and false narratives.

Key Points: 
  • It is important to counter false claims and false narratives.
  • And research now shows a lot more clarity about how to do this.
  • That is an impressive number but tiny by comparison with the scale of the problem, which may, of course, be worsened by AI.
  • Groups such as UK fact-checking charity Full Fact are developing AI to help spot false claims and boost the reach of fact-checks.

Does fact-checking work?

  • The problem, correctly identified by the NYT, is that this success “is inconsistent and contingent on many variables”.
  • A first challenge is that those who see and believe misinformation are, often, not the same as those who see and believe the subsequent fact-checks.
  • They see daily evidence in emails and comment threads that, while some appreciate their work, others reject it.

Correcting the record

  • First, research confirms what many fact-checkers see firsthand: knowing someone is checking will often push politicians to be more careful with their claims.
  • Obvious exceptions aside, many public figures will quietly drop a claim after it’s been debunked – or even issue a mea culpa.
  • Many operations take a direct approach, contacting media outlets or political campaigns to ask them to correct the record.
  • British lawmakers last month voted to change House of Commons rules on correcting the official record, following a campaign by the fact-checkers Full Fact.


Peter Cunliffe-Jones is a member of the advisory board of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), based at the Poynter Institute, founder of the fact-checking organisation Africa Check, and was senior advisor to the Arab Fact-Checkers Network (AFCN) in 2023. Lucas Graves does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

I research the therapeutic qualities of writing about art – here are three steps for trying it yourself

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, January 4, 2024

I asked myself this question during my creative writing PhD, where my focus was on writing a collection of poems in response to modern and contemporary art.

Key Points: 
  • I asked myself this question during my creative writing PhD, where my focus was on writing a collection of poems in response to modern and contemporary art.
  • I made use of books and postcard reproductions of artworks and also looked online, using resources such as Google Images and virtual gallery tours.
  • And I reflected on how it’s possible to nurture a love of art and creativity despite such feelings of marginalisation.
  • Is there something in the obscurity or formlessness that chimes with something buried in our psyche?
  • Maybe creative writing – and particularly writing that makes use of artworks – can perform this function, and even work as a precursor or complement to psychotherapy.
  • So, here are three steps I have found to be effective when using an artwork as a prompt to “write therapeutically”.

1. Choose your artwork

  • People often say a piece of art “resonates” or “speaks” to them.
  • See if you can allow an image to find you in this way.
  • It doesn’t need to be an artwork in a museum or gallery – any image you feel a connection with is a good choice.

2. Embrace ‘slow looking’

  • As you do so, analyse the image and try to notice as much as possible.
  • This kind of attention involves looking around the entire artwork, without assuming that some parts are more important than others.
  • Instead, try to treat everything as though it’s of equal significance (at least initially).

3. Try uninhibited writing

  • Follow your slow looking exercise with some uninhibited and uncensored writing.
  • As you work, consider adopting a particular mode of writing in response to the image.
  • There are many alternatives – you could even try writing poems about the artwork.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Patrick Wright received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

41 US states are suing Meta for getting teens hooked on social media. Here’s what to expect next

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, November 9, 2023

In the United States, 41 states have filed lawsuits against Meta for allegedly driving social media addiction in its young users (under the age of 18), amid growing concerns about the negative effects of platforms.

Key Points: 
  • In the United States, 41 states have filed lawsuits against Meta for allegedly driving social media addiction in its young users (under the age of 18), amid growing concerns about the negative effects of platforms.
  • The lawsuits allege Meta has been harvesting young users’ data, deploying features to promote compulsive use of both Facebook and Instagram, and misleading the public about the negative effects of these features.

Leveraging whistleblower revelations

  • These cases rely in part on revelations made by former Meta employee Frances Haugen in 2021 about the role Facebook’s algorithms play in facilitating harms on the platform.
  • Haugen’s testimony suggests algorithms deployed across Facebook and Instagram were designed to increase content sharing, and therefore profits, using data harvested from users over many years.
  • These changes, she said, impacted how content was viewed on the news feed, leading to increased sharing of negative content such as hate speech.

Concerns over algorithms and content

  • Instead it provides a continuous stream of content without a natural endpoint.
  • They say the recommendation algorithms used by Meta periodically present users with harmful materials.
  • These include “content related to eating disorders, violent content, content encouraging negative self-perception and body image issues, [and] bullying content”.

Consequences for Australia

  • This includes material relating to cyberbullying of children, cyberabuse of adults, image-based abuse and abhorrent violent material.
  • The Federal Court can impose significant penalties for violations of the Online Safety Act.
  • But this doesn’t cover all the harmful content on social media, such as some linked to eating disorders and negative self-image.
  • Australia also has no legislative equivalent to COPPA.

We need collaboration and innovation

  • But domestic law can only go so far in protecting people using a medium that operates (mostly) seamlessly across borders.
  • As such, international law scholars have suggested more creative approaches in the context of online hate speech.
  • In doing so, the court strengthened The Gambia’s claims in a pending action before the International Court of Justice.
  • Kayleen Manwaring receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation and the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.
  • She is a member of the Advisory Board for the Consumer Policy Research Centre (Vic) and is Deputy Chair and NSW Coordinator for an Australian chapter of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology.

UK announces AI funding for teachers: how this technology could change the profession

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, November 9, 2023

Generative AI, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, responds to prompts from users to produce content.

Key Points: 
  • Generative AI, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, responds to prompts from users to produce content.
  • For example, a teacher might ask ChatGPT, “make me a lesson plan on river flooding in Tewkesbury for year seven”.
  • Technology giants Google and Microsoft, as well as established education technology platforms such as Khan Academy, are promoting their AI offerings to schools.

Why is AI attractive?

  • There are two influential factors explaining the take-up of AI by teachers.
  • For government ministers who have long promised teachers reduced workoads and better working conditions, AI seems to offer a tangible and affordable answer.
  • The idea of AI to support teachers leading classes in short-staffed subjects may be particularly appealing.

Devaluing teachers

  • What’s more, a move toward teachers as technicians is unlikely to attract high quality graduates – or make our education system the envy of the world.
  • Teachers consider a wide range of factors when developing a curriculum and individual lessons within it.
  • If AI becomes routine, teachers may not develop the skills needed to critically evaluate and adapt AI-generated lessons and activities for the students in front of them.
  • Someone (or something) else doing the educational thinking, with a “presenting person” in front of the students, may free teachers from the burden of planning and assessment.


The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Israel: why the brand boycotts probably won't make much difference

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, November 9, 2023

McDonald’s found itself caught in the crossfire after an Israeli franchisee said it was providing thousands of free meals to the Israel Defense Forces.

Key Points: 
  • McDonald’s found itself caught in the crossfire after an Israeli franchisee said it was providing thousands of free meals to the Israel Defense Forces.
  • Similarly, Starbucks faced boycott calls after disagreeing with a post on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) by the chain’s union expressing solidarity with Palestine.
  • Many other American companies are being targeted, in some cases purely for their government’s support for Israel.
  • More broadly, there have been boycotts over everything from the Ukraine war to “woke” branding.

Case study 1: Danish cartoons

  • In 2005 Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten caused huge offence to many Muslims over cartoons satirising Prophet Muhammad.
  • Much of the outrage was directed at the Danish government for refusing to take action, while Danish-Swedish food group Arla became a lightning rod for calls to boycott Danish products.

Case study 2: the Ukraine war

  • Both consumers and western companies boycotted Russia and Belarus after the Ukraine invasion in 2022.
  • Among the companies pulling out or temporarily halting operations were McDonald’s, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Nike, Apple, BP and Shell.

Case study 3: anti-wokeism

  • In 2015, Starbucks initiated a national conversation about race relations and attempting to bring different racial groups together.
  • This attracted much criticism online for being self-serving, with people pointing out that the chain’s staff weren’t particularly ethnically diverse.
  • More recently, Bud Light faced a two-week boycott from conservatives after its “woke” campaign online featuring trans activist Dylan Mulvaney promoting a tallboy can.

What it means for the Israel boycotts

  • Judging by the experiences of Denmark and Russia, brand boycotts appear to exert minimal influence on the target nation’s economy.
  • In the absence of coordinated sanctions against Israel, social media is likely to be the sole means of pressuring companies and governments into change.
  • Companies trading in Israel or even whose government is backing the offensive could easily fall into that category.


Dr Aisha Ijaz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Who will write the rules for AI? How nations are racing to regulate artificial intelligence

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Our understanding of AI technologies is largely shaped by where we encounter them, from facial recognition tools and chatbots to photo editing software and self-driving cars.

Key Points: 
  • Our understanding of AI technologies is largely shaped by where we encounter them, from facial recognition tools and chatbots to photo editing software and self-driving cars.
  • Less visible are the world’s governments, which are shaping the landscape of rules in which AI systems will operate.
  • Since 2016, tech-savvy regions and nations across Europe, Asia-Pacific and North America have been establishing regulations targeting AI technologies.

Ramping up AI regulations

  • AI regulation efforts began to accelerate in April 2021, when the EU proposed an initial framework for regulations called the AI Act.
  • These rules aim to set obligations for providers and users, based on various risks associated with different AI technologies.
  • As the EU AI Act was pending, China moved forward with proposing its own AI regulations.

A ‘wake-up call’

  • In April, influential lawmaker Chuck Shumer said his country should “not permit China to lead on innovation or write the rules of the road” for AI.
  • On October 30 2023, the White House issued an executive order on safe, secure and trustworthy AI.
  • The order attempts to address broader issues of equity and civil rights, while also concentrating on specific applications of technology.

Shared vision

  • The EU’s AI Act, China’s AI regulations, and the White House executive order show shared interests between the nations involved.
  • Countries or regions see AI as a contributor to their economic development, national security, and international leadership.
  • Numbers like these, and talk of perceived benefits from tech companies, national governments, and consultancy firms, tend to dominate media coverage of AI.

Competing interests

  • At the UK’s AI safety summit, international tensions were apparent.
  • While China agreed with the Bletchley declaration made on the summit’s first day, it was excluded from public events on the second day.

The limitations of current rules

  • For instance, there is no clear, common set of definitions of different kinds of AI technology in current regulations across jurisdictions.
  • Current legal definitions of AI tend to be very broad, raising concern over how practical they are.
  • However, defining AI technologies narrowly, as China has done, poses a risk that companies will find ways to work around the rules.

Moving forward

  • The existing AI governance frameworks from the UK, the US, the EU, and – to a limited extent – China are likely to be seen as guidance.
  • Global collaboration will be underpinned by both ethical consensus and more importantly national and geopolitical interests.


The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Internet of Things: tech firms have become our digital landlords – but people are starting to fight back

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Many people worry about the privacy risks of using these devices because they may allow hackers to listen to our conversations at home.

Key Points: 
  • Many people worry about the privacy risks of using these devices because they may allow hackers to listen to our conversations at home.
  • But the contracts for using them are so long we don’t understand which other rights we might be signing away.
  • Of the 246 contracts, I focused on those that are most likely to be relevant to smart speaker Echo’s users.
  • I found they are on average as long as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (317 pages).

Does this matter?

  • T&Cs are not just about our privacy – and our privacy is not just about our data.
  • By surrounding ourselves with devices with sensors (also known as the “Internet of Things)”, we’ve effectively invited digital landlords into our homes.
  • Another example is how tractor manufacturer John Deere relied on its end-user licence agreement (Eula) to stop farmers repairing their smart tractors.
  • Cochrane’s girlfriend’s son had been “playing” with his computer without his permission while he was away from the house.

Regulation won’t work

  • They are both in progress, so we don’t know yet when they will be adopted.
  • Big tech and other large stakeholders have a huge influence because they have money and influence to fight laws they don’t like.
  • This was the case with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into effect at the end of a nine-year process.

What does work

  • Let’s circle back to John Deere and the way the company tried to deprive tractor owners of their right to fix their machines.
  • There is much to learn from those farmers who joined together with hackers to resist “smart power abuses”.
  • But only after attendees at a hacker’s convention figured out how to “jailbreak” the code that was locking farmers and engineers out.


Guido Noto La Diega receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the German Research Foundation - project ref no AH/W010518/1 "From Smart Technologies to Smart Consumer Laws: Comparative Perspectives from Germany and the United Kingdom". They serve on the Advisory Council of the Open Rights Group Scotland.

Is capitalism dead? Yanis Varoufakis thinks it is – and he knows who killed it

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, November 8, 2023

His late father, a chemical engineer in a steel plant, instilled in his son a critical appreciation of how technology drives social change.

Key Points: 
  • His late father, a chemical engineer in a steel plant, instilled in his son a critical appreciation of how technology drives social change.
  • In his striking response, Varoufakis argues that we no longer live in a capitalist society; capitalism has morphed into a “technologically advanced form of feudalism”.
  • Review: Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism – Yanis Varoufakis (Bodley Head)

Rent over profit

  • Such capitalists are clearly still flourishing, but Varoufakis argues they are not driving the economy in the way they used to.
  • “In the early 19th century,” he writes,
    many feudal relations remained intact, but capitalist relations had begun to dominate.
  • many feudal relations remained intact, but capitalist relations had begun to dominate.
  • If you are a seller, the platform will determine how you can sell and which customers you can approach.
  • The terms in which you interact, share information and trade are dictated by an “algo” that “works for [Jeff Bezos’] bottom line”.
  • This is not extracting profit through the production or provision of goods and services, as these platforms are not a “service” in the sense in which the term is used in economics.
  • They are extracting rents in the form of the huge cuts they take from the capitalists on their platforms.

Cloud serfs

  • Every time we use our cloud-linked devices – smartphones, laptops, Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri – we replenish the capital of the Big Tech cloudalists.
  • This in turn increases their capacity to generate more wealth.
  • We train their algorithms, which train us, to train them, and so on, in a feedback loop whose goal is to shape our desires and behaviour.
  • They could innovate “attention-grabbing” ways of “manufacturing” consumer desires – and it was delivered free-to-air!

Quantitative easing

  • First, the “internet commons” of Web 1.0 transformed into Web 2.0, privatised by American and Chinese Big Tech.
  • Coupled with “austerity” economics for the many, this “murder[ed] investment” and led to what Varoufakis calls “gilded stagnation”.
  • Much of the central bank money, particularly following another round of quantitative easing during the COVID pandemic, made its way to the Big Tech companies.
  • In an environment where profit became “optional”, loss-making Big Tech companies run by “intrepid and talented entrepreneurs” chose to build up their cloud capital.

GFC: the turning point

  • So why was the GFC such a pivotal point?
  • From the 1970s, economies were progressively deregulated and free-market policies were increasingly enthusiastically practised, leading to a new “financialised” version of capitalism.
  • Their collapse in 2008 would have taken down the US banking system, and the rest of the world with it.
  • What happened instead was that bankers, handed large bailouts, did not direct the money to where it was most needed.
  • Read more:
    'Greed is amoral': how Wall Street supermen cashed in on pandemic misery and chaos

A tech-driven economic revolution

  • For Varoufakis, we are not just living through a tech revolution, but a tech-driven economic revolution.
  • He challenges us to come to terms with just what has happened to our economies – and our societies – in the era of Big Tech and Big Finance.
  • The first decades of the 21st century have brought challenges that we are still struggling to come to grips with.
  • One thing is for sure – we have no hope of improving things without properly understanding our predicament.
  • The proposals are pretty radical, but I think Varoukais would say they are as radical as the times require them to be.


Christopher Pollard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.