the establishment of informaldigital hubs

The Council calls forthe informal EU Digital Diplomacy Networkto continue to engagein strategic discussions on key emerging and challenging issues of tech and digitalpolicyand regularly to convene in enlarged format, bringing in, as appropriate, other European and like-minded partners, as well as other stakeholdersand relevant networks, andto further strengthen its coordination with the EU Cyber Ambassadors’ Network

the Council calls on the High Representative, the Commission, and Member Statesto enhance digital capacity building and cooperation with Africa

The Digital for Development (D4D) Hubis a good example of the Team Europe approach to digital cooperation with partner regions globally.

as well asdigital commonswhich contribute toincreasingthe usability of new technologies and data for the benefit of a society as a whole, offering trusted and secure international connectivity, such as subsea and terrestrial cables, or wireless networks, and taking into account ICT supply chainsecurity as an important element of building a resilient digital ecosystem

coordination in order to ensure that an improvedInternet Governance Forum(IGF)remain the main global platform for multistakeholder digital dialogue after 2025, in order to maintain support for the open, global, free, interoperable and decentralised internet including in the context of the negotiations for a Global Digital Compact

an ambitious agreement on e-commerce in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), including rules on the data free flow with trust;

Strengthen the role of the EU inthe International Telecommunication Union(ITU),by clarifyingstrategic goals, notably in view of the Plenipotentiary Conference in 2026, developingcoordinated positions, including, where appropriate, with other partners in the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), particularly on telecommunication standardisation,including future generation such as 6G,radio-communicationand development, conducting cross-regional outreach and promotingas a strategic objective the ITU’s commitment to achieving universal, meaningful connectivity that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms; and increasingcooperation among EU Member States represented in the ITU Council. The EU should also aim to strengthen coordination in the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) and other standard setting forato ensure that new technologies develop on the basis of interoperable and/or open standards.

otably the negotiations of the Global Digital Compact(GDC) and close cooperation with the UN Tech Envoy in particular on matters concerning Human Rights and the multistakeholder model of Internet Governancewhich is open, inclusive and decentralised.

owards Geneva-based organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union(ITU) and World Trade Organization(WTO)

n a Team Europe approach

he rights of those in vulnerable and/or marginalized situations, including women, youth, children, older people and persons with disabilities, continue to address inequalities, such as the digital gender divide and step up action to strongly oppose and combat all forms of discrimination on any groundwith a specific attention to multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including on grounds of sex, race, ethnic or social origin, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender identity.

in line with the vision of digital humanism and preserving human dignity.

by fostering digital literacy as well as to advance the human-centric and human rights-based approach to digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence,throughout their whole lifecycle.

the twin digital and green transitions offer a huge opportunity for sustainable development worldwide

The nature of this guiding sentiment is explained in the Discourse on Inequality (p. 197, note 2), where egoism (amour-propre) is contrasted with self-respect (amour de soi). Naturally, Rousseau holds, man does not want everything for himself, and nothing for others.

The General Will is, then, above all a universal and, in the Kantian sense, a "rational" will.

The whole complex of human institutions is not a mere artificial structure; it is the expression of the mutual dependence and fellowship of men.

"Why ought I to obey the General Will?" is that the General Will exists in me and not outside me. I am "obeying only myself," as Rousseau says.

The Sovereign must, therefore, treat all its members alike; but, so long as it does this, it remains omnipotent. If it leaves the general for the particular, and treats one man better than another, it ceases to be Sovereign; but equality is already presupposed in the terms of the Contract.

We have seen that the theory of the Social Contract is founded on human freedom: this freedom carries with it, in Rousseau's view, the guarantee of its own permanence; it is inalienable and indestructible.

Rousseau bases his political doctrine throughout on his view of human freedom; it is because man is a free agent capable of being determined by a universal law prescribed by himself that the State is in like manner capable of realising the General Will, that is, of prescribing to itself and its members a similar universal law.

The justification of democracy is not that it is always right, even in intention, but that it is more general than any other kind of supreme power.

regarding it as a purely ideal conception, to which human institutions can only approximate, and holding it to be realised actually in every republican State, i.e. wherever the people is the Sovereign in fact as well as in right

Every association of several persons creates a new common will; every association of a permanent character has already a "personality" of its own, and in consequence a "general" will

he General Will Rousseau means something quite distinct from the Will of All, with which it should never have been confused.

"There is often," he says, "a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter takes account only of the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills."

The body politic is also a moral being, possessed of a will, and this general will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of the laws, constitutes for all the members of the State, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or unjust."

The effect of the Social Contract is the creation of a new individual.

Doubtless," says Rousseau, "there is a universal justice emanating from reason alone; but this justice, to be admitted among us, must be mutual. Humbly speaking, in default of natural sanctions, the laws of justice are ineffective among men."

Rousseau saw the only means of securing effective popular government in a federal system, starting from the small unit as Sovereign.

democracy is possible only in small States, aristocracy in those of medium extent, and monarchy in great States

Government, therefore, exists only at the Sovereign's pleasure, and is always revocable by the sovereign will.

Sovereignty, on the other hand, is in his view absolute, inalienable, indivisible, and indestructible.

Government, therefore, will always be to some extent in the hands of selected persons.

Rousseau regards as inalienable a supreme power which Hobbes makes the people alienate in its first corporate action.

It is the view that the people, whether it can alienate its right or not, is the ultimate director of its own destinies, the final power from which there is no appeal.

This would leave us still in the realm of mere fact, outside both right and philosophy.

essential to distinguish between the legal Sovereign of jurisprudence, and the political Sovereign of political science and philosophy.

Where Sovereignty is placed is, on this view, a question purely of fact, and never of right.

"Sovereignty is the exercise of the general will."

He wished to break up the nation-states of Europe, and create instead federative leagues of independent city-states.

he therefore held that self-government was impossible except for a city.

He regards the State as existing mainly to protect life and property, and is, in all his assertions of popular rights, so cautious as to reduce them almost to nothing.

Hobbes, living in a time of civil wars, regards the worst government as better than anarchy, and is, therefore, at pains to find arguments in support of any form of absolutism.

As soon, therefore, as the State is set up, the government becomes for Hobbes the Sovereign; there is no more question of popular Sovereignty, but only of passive obedience: the people is bound, by the contract, to obey its ruler, no matter whether he governs well or ill.

He agrees that the people is naturally supreme, but regards it as alienating its Sovereignty by the contract itself, and delegating its power, wholly and for ever, to the government.

The best-known instance of its actual use is by the Pilgrim Fathers on the Mayflower in 1620, in whose declaration occurs the phrase, "We do solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic."

The second view, which may be called the Social Contract theory proper, regards society as originating in, or based on, an agreement between the individuals composing it.

Grotius is sometimes held to have stated the theory so as to admit both forms of contract; but it is clear that he is only thinking of the first form as admitting democratic as well as monarchical government.

It was often supported by references to the Old Testament,

The doctrine that society is founded on a contract between the people and the government is of mediæval origin.

They represent society as based on an original contract either between the people and the government, or between all the individuals composing the State.

it turns out to be a weapon that cuts both ways.

it is based on the consent, tacit or expressed, past or present, of its members.

These are the Social Contract, Sovereignty and the General Will.

Rousseau, founding his whole system on human freedom, takes man as the basis, and regards him as giving himself what laws he pleases.

in the first words of the Social Contract, "is to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and certain, rule of administration, taking men as they are and laws as they might be."

distinguishing self-respect (amour de soi) from egoism (amour-propre),

he is passing over to the conception of "nature" as identical with the full development of capacity, with the higher! idea of human freedom.

the contrast between the "state of nature" and the "state of society" runs through all Rousseau's work.

How, Rousseau asks, can the will of the State help being for me a merely external will, imposing itself upon my own? How can the existence of the State be reconciled with human freedom? How can man, who is born free, rightly come to be everywhere in chains?

One school, by collecting facts, aims at reaching broad generalisations about what actually happens in human societies! the other tries to penetrate to the universal principles at the root of all human combination.

e is merely asserting the sure principle that a fact can in no case give rise to a right.

o lay down the essential principles which must form the basis of every legitimate society.

The Discourse on Political Economy is important as giving the first sketch of the theory of the "General Will."

But, by reading between the lines, an attentive student can detect in it a great deal of the positive doctrine afterwards incorporated in the Social Contract.

He recognises society as inevitable and is already feeling his way towards a justification of it.

The conclusion of the Discourse favours not this purely abstract being, but a state of savagery intermediate between the "natural" and the "social" conditions, in which men may preserve the simplicity and the advantages of nature and at the same time secure the rude comforts and assurances of early society.

Rousseau declares explicitly that he does not suppose the "state of nature" ever to have existed: it is a pure "idea of reason," a working concept reached by abstraction from the "state of society."

the idea of "nature" has already undergone a great development; it is no longer an empty opposition to the evils of society; it possesses a positive content.

The plan of the first Discourse is essentially simple: it sets out from the badness, immorality and misery of modern nations, traces all these ills to the departure from a "natural" state, and then credits the progress of the arts and sciences with being the cause of that departure.

Theory makes no great leaps; it proceeds to new concepts by the adjustment and renovation of old ones.

It is owing to this faculty of giving his generalisations content and actuality that Rousseau has become the father of modern political philosophy. He uses the method of his time only to transcend it; out of the abstract and general he creates the concrete and universal.

The intellectuals of the eighteenth century therefore generalised to their hearts' content, and as a rule suffered little for their lèse-majesté: Voltaire is the typical example of such generalisation. The spirit of the age favoured such methods, and it was therefore natural for Rousseau to pursue them.

we must always remember that Rousseau is writing in the eighteenth century, and for the most part in France. Neither the French monarchy nor the Genevese aristocracy loved outspoken criticism, and Rousseau had always to be very careful what he said.

we must see if the answer still holds when the question is put in a more up-to-date form.

The statesmen of the French Revolution, from Robespierre downwards, were throughout profoundly affected by the study of his works.

At the present day, his works possess a double significance. They are important historically, alike as giving us an insight into the mind of the eighteenth century, and for the actual influence they have had on the course of events in Europe. Certainly no other writer of the time has exercised such an influence as his. He may fairly be called the parent of the romantic movement in art, letters and life; he affected profoundly the German romantics and Goethe himself; he set the fashion of a new introspection which has permeated nineteenth century literature; he began modern educational theory; and, above all, in political thought he represents the passage from a traditional theory rooted in the Middle Ages to the modern philosophy of the State. His influence on Kant's moral philosophy and on Hegel's philosophy of Right are two sides of the same fundamental contribution to modern thought. He is, in fact, the great forerunner of German and English Idealism.

Great men make, indeed, individual contributions to the knowledge of their times; but they can never transcend the age in which they live.

Without mentally referring to the environment in which they lived, we cannot hope to penetrate below the inessential and temporary to the absolute and permanent value of their thought.

To achieve a high burstiness effect, I'll employ a careful blend of sentence structures, varying lengths, and a sprinkle of rhetorical devices.

Perplexity evaluates coherence and appropriateness, differentiating AI from human writing. It aids in quality assessment and comparison.

perplexity helps us gauge text quality and coherence. It measures how well models predict upcoming words based on context.

The model is just an equation. I think institutions and private owners will be much more protective of their data going forward.

rather numerous AI depending on the need, as companies will likely develop their own AI.

A centralized AI would cause myriad problems re: access & ethics: magnifying inequity, monopoly power, problems with privacy, the stifling of innovation, lack of personalization, bias, misuse, regulatory challenges… etc.

Language learning models will all be compatible with each other.

make some infinitely scalable ai protocols like the internet has that will allow for language learning models to be incorporated into every aspect of everything.

I suspect at some point individuals will have their own AI to manage themselves and their preferences and there will be a massive AI/human network that everyone will use to share improvements, thoughts, ideas, creations, discoveries,

Save time while learning more.

Concerns about public reputation have affected the development and release of large language models.

Much of professional and personal success depends on persuading others to recognize your value.

A recent survey of AI researchers revealed that 36 percent feel that AI could cause nuclear-level catastrophe.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, biologists translated a new type of technology, mRNA, into a safe and effective vaccine at a pace unprecedented in human history. When significant harms to individuals and society are on the line, regulation does not impede progress; it enables it.

banning biological weapons at the Biological Weapons Convention during the Cold War

a system of prohibitions, regulations, ethics, and norms that ensures the wellbeing of society and individuals.

Yet the ethos of this research is not to ‘move fast and break things,’ but to innovate as fast and as safely possible.

Due to a handful of early missteps with nuclear energy, we have been unable to capitalize on its clean, safe power, and carbon neutrality and energy stability remain a pipe dream.

These weapons, representing the first time in human history that man had developed a technology capable of ending human civilization, were the product of an arms race prioritizing speed and innovation over safety and control.

Away from geopolitics, Mr Sunak is keen to interest Mr Biden in his ideas about new international structures to regulate artificial intelligence. As sound and rational as these ideas may be, however, they are likely to be swamped should America decide to work something out with the EU .

Mr Rama’s confidence encompasses the region. The entire Balkans, he notes, even traditionally pro-Russian Serbia, is united behind Ukraine. A member of Nato since 2009 and since 2010 part of the Schengen group that grants visa-free travel within Europe for up to three months, Albania has no serious tussles with its neighbours, he adds. “This is unique in our history.”

Each party owns half of Debswana, which mines 95% of the diamonds in Botswana, the second biggest producer after Russia

It seems likely that many poor countries will want to emulate it, to their advantage—and India’s too. ■

India’s reputation is much better in the global south than America’s or China’s.

India’s technology could in such ways be tainted by the vishwaguru’s growing authoritarianism.

The system also suffers security breaches. Experts say it is very easy to access it with false credentials or spoof fingerprints. India’s technology offer, says one analyst, includes a lot of “hot air”.

By promoting its technology as a means to transform poor countries, India hopes to position itself as a neutral third force between what it sees as the transactional West and an authoritarian China.

Cross-border linkages of such systems could bypass America’s financial architecture. In February NPCI connected UPI with Singapore’s digital payments systems, PayNow. In April it did the same with the United Arab Emirates’ system. Indians should, in theory, now be able to use UPI in shops and restaurants in Dubai. “India is self-sufficient on the domestic payments. We would like to be self-sufficient on cross-border payments and remittances as well,” says Dilip Asbe, NPCI’ s boss.

In the event of a future crisis, domestic payments systems based on UPI could be insulated; they would be harder for American sanctions to target.

And just as Europe’s influence on global technology has been boosted by its regulatory power, so India’s will grow if many countries adopt Indian-made digital systems.

What we are trying to do is get them to build their own systems with building blocks which are interoperable,”

The Philippines was the first to sign up; 76m of its 110m people have been issued with digital ID s using MOSIP’ s technology, says its boss, S. Rajagopalan. Morocco conducted a trial of the technology in 2021 and has made it available to 7m of its 36m people. Other countries using or piloting MOSIP include Ethiopia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Togo.

The International Institute of Information Technology, a university in Bangalore, launched the Modular Open Source Identity Platform ( MOSIP ) in 2018 to offer a publicly accessible version of Aadhaar-like technology to other countries.

DPI is “infrastructure that can enable not just government transactions and welfare but also private innovation and competition,” says C.V. Madhukar of Co-Develop, a fund recently launched to help countries interested in building DPI pool resources.

At the club’s meetings, delegates are hammering out a definition of DPI. India is also trying to launch a multilateral funding body to push DPI globally. It hopes to unveil both at a g 20 leaders’ summit in September, marking the end of its presidency.

Starting without legacy systems such as credit cards and desktop computers, developing countries can leapfrog the West.

Partly to that end, India invited 125 such countries to a “Voice of the Global South Summit” in Delhi in January. “I firmly believe that countries of the global south have a lot to learn from each other’s development,” Mr Modi told their delegates, offering DPI as an example.

Aadhaar is run by the government; UPI is managed by a public-private venture, the National Payments Corporation of India ( NPCI ). Other platforms, such as for health and sanitation management, are created by NGO s and sold to state and local governments. Many have been designed by IT experts with private-sector experience.

The Open Network for Digital Commerce is a newish government-backed non-profit dedicated to helping e-commerce services work together.

The IMF thinks the government thereby saved 2.2trn rupees ($34bn), or 1.1% of GDP , between 2013 and March 2021.

a triad of identity, payments and data management

Once known as the “India Stack”, they have been rebranded “digital public infrastructure” ( DPI ) as the number and ambition of the platforms have grown. It is this DPI that India hopes to export—and in the process build its economy and influence. Think of it as India’s low-cost, software-based version of China’s infrastructure-led Belt and Road Initiative. “

Every year, approximately $48 trillion are invested in projects. Yet according to the Standish Group, only 35% of projects are considered successful. The wasted resources and unrealized benefits of the other 65% are mind-blowing.

Only 35% of projects today are completed successfully.

These private interests can change without public input, as when OpenAI effectively abandoned its nonprofit origins, and we can’t be sure that their founding intentions or operations will survive market pressures, fickle donors, and changes in leadership.

Nonprofit projects are still beholden to private interests, even if they are benevolent ones.

The open-source community is proof that it’s not always private companies that are the most innovative.

A publicly funded LLM could serve as an open platform for innovation, helping any small business, nonprofit, or individual entrepreneur to build AI-assisted applications.

But Washington can take inspiration from China and Europe’s long-range planning and leadership on regulation and public investment.

The EU also continues to be at the cutting edge of aggressively regulating both data and AI.

AI’s horrendous carbon emissions, and the exploitation of unlicensed data.

et corporations aren’t the only entities large enough to absorb the cost of large-scale model training. Governments can do it, too. It’s time to start taking AI development out of the exclusive hands of private companies and bringing it into the public sector. The United States needs a government-funded and -directed AI program to develop widely reusable models in the public interest, guided by technical expertise housed in federal agencies.

Silicon Valley has produced no small number of moral disappointments.

governments working in partnership with the private sector should vigorously engage in each area of potential risk to use AI to maximize society’s defensive capabilities.

Open source AI should be allowed to freely proliferate and compete with both big AI companies and startups. There should be no regulatory barriers to open source whatsoever.

Startup AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can.

but not allowed to achieve regulatory capture, not allowed to establish a government-protect cartel that is insulated from market competition due to incorrect claims of AI risk.

The single greatest risk of AI is that China wins global AI dominance and we – the United States and the West – do not.

Let’s put AI to work in cyberdefense, in biological defense, in hunting terrorists, and in everything else that we do to keep ourselves, our communities, and our nation safe.

Digital creation and alteration of both real and fake content was already here before AI; the answer is not to ban word processors and Photoshop – or AI – but to use technology to build a system that actually solves the problem.

I’m not aware of a single actual bad use for AI that’s been proposed that’s not already illegal. And if a new bad use is identified, we ban that use.

we have laws on the books to criminalize most of the bad things that anyone is going to do with AI.

The level of totalitarian oppression that would be required to arrest that would be so draconian – a world government monitoring and controlling all computers? jackbooted thugs in black helicopters seizing rogue GPUs? – that we would not have a society left to protect.

The AI cat is obviously already out of the bag.

It’s the opposite, it’s the easiest material in the world to come by – math and code.

Any technology can be used for good or bad. Fair enough. And AI will make it easier for criminals, terrorists, and hostile governments to do bad things, no question.

AI will not come to life and kill us, AI will not ruin our society, AI will not cause mass unemployment, and AI will not cause an ruinous increase in inequality.

To summarize, technology empowers people to be more productive. This causes the prices for existing goods and services to fall, and for wages to rise.

This fallacy is the incorrect notion that there is a fixed amount of labor to be done in the economy at any given time, and either machines do it or people do it – and if machines do it, there will be no work for people to do.

don’t let the thought police suppress AI.

As the proponents of both “trust and safety” and “AI alignment” are clustered into the very narrow slice of the global population that characterizes the American coastal elites – which includes many of the people who work in and write about the tech industry – many of my readers will find yourselves primed to argue that dramatic restrictions on AI output are required to avoid destroying society.

demand ever greater levels of censorship and suppression of whatever speech they view as threatening to society and/or their own personal preferences

So any technological platform that facilitates or generates content – speech – is going to have some restrictions.

no absolutist free speech position

And the same concerns of “hate speech” (and its mathematical counterpart, “algorithmic bias”) and “misinformation” are being directly transferred from the social media context to the new frontier of “AI alignment”. 

from “AI safety” – the term used by people who are worried that AI would literally kill us – to “AI alignment” – the term used by people who are worried about societal “harms”.

If the murder robots don’t get us, the hate speech and misinformation will.

But their extreme beliefs should not determine the future of laws and society – obviously not.

“AI risk” has developed into a cult, which has suddenly emerged into the daylight of global press attention and the public conversation.

There is a whole profession of “AI safety expert”, “AI ethicist”, “AI risk researcher”. They are paid to be doomers, and their statements should be processed appropriately.

This explains the mismatch between the words and actions of the Baptists who are actually building and funding AI – watch their actions, not their words.

What is the testable hypothesis? What would falsify the hypothesis? How do we know when we are getting into a danger zone? These questions go mainly unanswered apart from “You can’t prove it won’t happen!” In fact, these Baptists’ position is so non-scientific and so extreme – a conspiracy theory about math and code – and is already calling for physical violence, that I will do something I would normally not do and question their motives as well.

They argue that because people like me cannot rule out future catastrophic consequences of AI, that we must assume a precautionary stance that may require large amounts of physical violence and death in order to prevent potential existential risk.

n short, AI doesn’t want, it doesn’t have goals, it doesn’t want to kill you, because it’s not alive. And AI is a machine – is not going to come alive any more than your toaster will.

My view is that the idea that AI will decide to literally kill humanity is a profound category error. AI is not a living being that has been primed by billions of years of evolution to participate in the battle for the survival of the fittest, as animals are, and as we are. It is math – code – computers, built by people, owned by people, used by people, controlled by people. The idea that it will at some point develop a mind of its own and decide that it has motivations that lead it to try to kill us is a superstitious handwave.

new technologies, and in practice inflames destructive emotion rather than reasoned analysis.

the Prometheus Myth – Prometheus brought the destructive power of fire, and more generally technology (“techne”), to man

AI will decide to literally kill humanity.

“Bootleggers” are the self-interested opportunists who stand to financially profit by the imposition of new restrictions, regulations, and laws that insulate them from competitors.

it takes what may be a legitimate concern and inflates it into a level of hysteria that ironically makes it harder to confront actually serious concerns.

The fine folks at Pessimists Archive have documented these technology-driven moral panics over the decades; their history makes the pattern vividly clear. It turns out this present panic is not even the first for AI.

anything that people do with their natural intelligence today can be done much better with AI, and we will be able to take on new challenges that have been impossible to tackle without AI, from curing all diseases to achieving interstellar travel.

I even think AI is going to improve warfare, when it has to happen, by reducing wartime death rates dramatically. Every war is characterized by terrible decisions made under intense pressure and with sharply limited information by very limited human leaders. Now, military commanders and political leaders will have AI advisors that will help them make much better strategic and tactical decisions, minimizing risk, error, and unnecessary bloodshed.

What AI offers us is the opportunity to profoundly augment human intelligence to make all of these outcomes of intelligence – and many others, from the creation of new medicines to ways to solve climate change to technologies to reach the stars – much, much better from here.

The application of mathematics and software code to teach computers how to understand, synthesize, and generate knowledge in ways similar to how people do it.

Mr Fick said the deadline seemed “quite an aggressive timeline to get to a [US] domestic [privacy] consensus, let alone a transatlantic consensus. But I think it’s imperative that we figure this one out.”

a “deft touch”

“I believe it’s incumbent upon those of us in developed wealthy economies to articulate a positive, compelling affirmative vision for what these technologies can do in the lives of our citizens.”

The “positive power” of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum science, and biotech “outweighs the risks”, according to Nathanial Fick, US ambassador at large for cyberspace and digital policy.

My father's work was an attempt to make the proceedings understood by the farmers. Up to now, legal processes have remained inaccessible to poor Filipinos. But that is a story for another day. During my first year in the priesthood, on several occasions, my bishop then, Leonardo Legaspi, asked me to translate his homilies and pastoral letters from English to Bikol.

The Broadband Access and in Home Solutions engineering process uses a top-down and bottom-up approach and several data triangulation methods to evaluate and validate the size of the entire market and other dependent sub-markets listed in Broadband Access and in Home Solutions report.

Cloud portfolio, Vertex AI and Gen App Builder

Enterprise Search on Generative AI App Builder (Gen App Builder)

including multiple tuning methods for large models,

ML platform to provide Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback, or RLHF

Embeddings API for text

Model Garden

Model Garden and Generative AI Studio

Vertex AI,

our text model powered by PaLM 2, Embeddings API for text, and other foundation models in Model Garden, as well as leverage user-friendly tools in Generative AI Studio for model tuning and deployment.

The next race is to discover what it is for. Apple has just fired the starting gun. ■

the technological struggle to make spatial computing a reality is being won.

ts aim is to get the product to the people who will work out what spatial computing can do.

It could be commercial (surgeons, engineers and architects have dabbled in the tech) or educational (Apple previewed a “planetarium” in its demo) or in entertainment (Disney made a cameo with ideas for immersive cinema and sports coverage).

whose eyes also appear on the outside of the glasses to make wearing them less antisocial.

hand gestures and eyeball tracking are in.

after desktop and mobile computing, the next big tech era will be spatial computing—also known as augmented reality—in which computer graphics are overlaid on the world around the user.

China and the U.S. have been developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems at a rapid pace that has evolved into a race for dominance, but should China surpass the U.S. in its technological capability, experts warn of dire consequences for America.