Logo
Home
language
Kebijakan Privasi·Ketentuan Layanan

Latihan mendengarkan

Latihan mendengarkan/Video/TED Talk/Why Big Tech Is Incompatible with Democracy | Bruno Giussani | TED

Why Big Tech Is Incompatible with Democracy | Bruno Giussani | TED

Pilih mode belajar:

Highlight:

3000 Oxford Words4000 IELTS Words5000 Oxford Words3000 Common Words1000 TOEIC Words5000 TOEFL Words

Subtitle (359)

0:04How many algorithms are part of your
0:08daily life?
0:10How many sensors? How many screens? In
0:13fact, interacting with screens and other
0:16digital interfaces has become the main
0:20daily activity of almost all of us.
0:24But how many of those interactions are
0:27actually really of our choosing?
0:31Our lives are uh and our societies are
0:35increasingly structured around and by
0:39algorithms and digital networks. And
0:43this algorithmization of life I think is
0:48a problem for different reasons. And I
0:50want to uh touch upon two of them
0:53tonight.
0:56The first one is the nature of these
1:00technologies. We think they are products
1:03and we buy them and once we own them, we
1:07can do with them as we please. But in
1:11the last couple of decades,
1:14digital technologies have actually
1:15become platforms,
1:18invisible digital architectures within
1:22which we live and that changes
1:27absolutely everything.
1:30Almost all important software and
1:34digital services. Think of office and uh
1:39industrial applications,
1:41information and entertainment feeds,
1:44payments, artificial intelligence,
1:47chatbots, they all now run on the cloud
1:53as we say, which means that the data and
1:57the processing
1:59are not in our machines controlled by us
2:03locally, but they are on distant
2:06machines on remote servers to which we
2:10buy access and which are controlled by
2:13the providers
2:15and that gives them an immense power
2:18over our lives. [snorts] It allows them
2:22to decide what we can and cannot do.
2:27what ideas get visibility and what
2:30don't, what information we can access
2:34and also to influence our public
2:38debates. Of course, these technologies
2:41are efficient, useful, practical, well
2:45integrated, easy to use, often even
2:48free.
2:49Their utility is real and that's why we
2:52have adopted them and that's why it's so
2:54difficult to imagine doing without them.
2:58But all that comes at a price and
3:01finally we are starting to understand
3:04it. Data extraction, privacy loss,
3:08fragmentation of attention, dependency,
3:11mental health, we can do a very long
3:15list.
3:16And now for the past 3 years, a little
3:19bit more, generative artificial
3:23intelligence is infiltrating itself
3:26everywhere. It's popping up on all sorts
3:29of applications and programs, talking to
3:33us like friends, giving us sometimes the
3:36impression that we have superpowers.
3:39And indeed, AI chatbots can seem magical
3:43because they offer something almost
3:46irresistible.
3:48The opportunity to delegate to a machine
3:52the effort of thinking, learning,
3:57writing, even deciding.
4:00They are like
4:02cognitive baby bottles.
4:05And uh every day tens of millions of
4:08people rush to the nipple. But the more
4:12we delegate thinking [snorts] and
4:14deciding, the less we will be able to
4:16think and decide by ourselves.
4:21[snorts] And indeed, we are increasingly
4:23surrounded by machines that under the
4:26cover of optimization and practicality
4:29diminish our ability to understand
4:32reality and to act upon it.
4:36And they algorithmically reprogram
4:41change our societies. We think we
4:45control them, but actually is they who
4:47hypnotize us and domesticate us.
4:51And I know that's not a happy profile of
4:55our current situation that I just
4:59described.
5:00And for us Europeans, and that's the
5:03second point, for us Europeans, this
5:05problem is compounded by the fact that
5:08almost all these digital technologies
5:10are American.
5:12for a long time for a mix of uh
5:17economic opportunism and uh strategic
5:20naive and comfort and lack of
5:24imagination. We have accumulated a
5:26substantial technological lag. We have
5:28given up on our digital autonomy and it
5:32didn't seem such a huge deal because
5:35these technologies were coming from a
5:37country that was a friend and an ally.
5:41But now the United States are undergoing
5:45an internal revolution with fascist
5:48tendencies and they are engaging in a
5:51rogue and destabilizing external
5:55activism.
5:56Old established friendships are being
6:00replaced by openly hostile postures, by
6:05brazen interferences
6:08and force threats are becoming tools of
6:12foreign policy.
6:15And we must not fool ourselves. This is
6:17not just temporary. This is a profound
6:20systemic transformation.
6:23And the big tech tech companies, the big
6:25American tech companies, the one that we
6:27carry in our pockets, the one that are
6:29on our desk on whose digital services we
6:33depend,
6:35they are aligned with the priorities or
6:37of their government. We actually seeing
6:40a convergence of military and political
6:43power and of cloud power. When
6:49the CEOs are invited to accompany the
6:52president to a dinner, for example, with
6:55the king of England, that's not so that
6:58they can take a selfie with the king,
7:01right? That's a signal. It's a signal
7:04that digital technology is today central
7:07to American power projection. In fact,
7:10we should start looking at their data
7:13centers in the same way we look at the
7:16military bases that the US is
7:18maintaining around the world. And in
7:22this context, the fact that uh large
7:26parts of Europe
7:28run on American servers and software
7:33owned by American companies, encoding
7:36American values and worldviews and
7:39subject to American law of course
7:43creates a huge systemic vulnerability.
7:47[clears throat]
7:48You cannot build a healthy economy and a
7:51strong society on somebody else's
7:55digital infrastructure.
7:58And our dependence
8:00is actually substantial. We may not
8:02realize it uh in our daily daily use,
8:05but somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all
8:09digital technologies we use are
8:13American.
8:15And tech dependence is both a political
8:18and an economic risk. Should our access
8:23[snorts] to American digital
8:25infrastructure be cut off for technical
8:28reasons, for an accident, for economic
8:31reasons or for political reasons, it
8:35would cause a nearly immediate paralysis
8:38of nearly everything. administration,
8:42hospitals, energy systems, businesses,
8:45of course, the military, payments,
8:48social networks, all our messaging apps.
8:51And yet we continue to transfer segments
8:57of our companies, of our governments,
8:59and our social and private lives onto
9:02American clouds every day, deepening our
9:07dependence.
9:09And
9:11dependencies,
9:12every dependence can be turned into
9:16coercion and into submission.
9:21And so I think it's urgent, very urgent,
9:24to find another way
9:26to demericanize
9:28as much as possible our digital uses and
9:33infrastructures.
9:36Now,
9:37don't take me for an anti-American.
9:40I've spent the last 30 years building
9:41bridges between the two sides of the
9:43Atlantic. There is nothing anti-American
9:47in what I'm saying here tonight. But
9:50there is everything anti-technological
9:54submission.
9:56So how do we go about it? Obviously I'm
9:59not advocating for shifting to the other
10:02technological track of the world, the
10:04Chinese,
10:06nor for anarchic approach which in
10:10today's technological reality would be
10:14impossible.
10:16I'm talking about taking back control,
10:19about reestablishing, restoring a level
10:23of choice, of autonomy, of digital
10:28sovereignty.
10:30Some will say, "But we don't really have
10:33alternatives [snorts] to the American
10:36tech giants."
10:38We hear that all the time.
10:41But it's only half true because yes, we
10:45don't have giants. We don't have a
10:47European Google or a European Microsoft,
10:51but we do have alternatives, not for
10:54everything, but for many things.
10:56[snorts]
10:57They may be small, national, perhaps not
11:04perfect, [snorts] but they are rather
11:06good. And there are really many. And
11:09what we need to do is to make them grow
11:12to make them scale in a deliberate way.
11:16And there are many ways of doing that.
11:18One for example is to prioritize them in
11:22public procurement. We cannot go to
11:25private companies and dictate what kind
11:28of technology they should use to run
11:30their business. Although
11:33companies should wake up and realize
11:36that uh every time they store data on an
11:39American cloud, every time they
11:41integrate an American AI, every time
11:45they make their business model
11:47contingent upon accessing American
11:51digital technology, they're putting
11:53themselves in a position of dependence
11:56and weakening their operational
12:00robustness and resilience.
12:03But public procurement, we can decide
12:06where we direct taxpayers money. And I'm
12:10talking about tens, many tens of
12:13billions of euros that every year
12:16European public administrations send to
12:20the other side of the Atlantic to buy
12:23digital technology.
12:25And so we should start to take into
12:27account not only economic criteria but
12:31uh also strategic considerations when we
12:34choose technology and at least partially
12:38favoring national and European providers
12:43which would help them grow and note that
12:46that's exactly what the Americans and
12:47the Chinese do with their companies. And
12:50note also that I'm not talking about
12:53subsidies. I'm talking about markets,
12:56about purchases, about bids, about offer
12:59and supply. And if we help them grow,
13:02then there are cascading effects. They
13:06will have resources to invest in assets
13:08and capabilities. They will have a
13:10capacity to build new technologies, to
13:12retain talent, to dynamize the market,
13:14to become themselves internationally
13:17competitive.
13:20Further, we also need to establish
13:22distinct European model, a new kind of
13:26industrial policy that can foster a
13:29different kind of technological
13:31innovation and relaunch the European
13:34tech industry. An approach, for example,
13:38that favors transparency,
13:41interoperability,
13:42respect for essential values.
13:46A business model that does not rely on
13:49the often abusive exploitation of
13:52personal data, but favors technology
13:56that does not spy on people.
14:01A regime of competition rather than
14:04monopoly, federated rather than
14:07centralized,
14:09diverse, and above all democratic
14:13because the big tech tech platforms we
14:17use today by nature are authoritarian
14:21based as they are on surveillance and
14:25control.
14:27It seems to me that
14:30technology that does not spy on you,
14:34that should be Europe's digital
14:37difference.
14:39And it also needs to be an approach that
14:41is not only defensive but is competitive
14:44that builds technology, not only
14:46integrates or regulates it.
14:49Of course, emancipating ourselves even
14:51just partially won't be easy. There is
14:55no quick fix. There is no one for one
14:58replacement. It will take time but many
15:02have already done it. The city of Leon
15:05in France, cities in Denmark, the state
15:09of Schlesstein in Germany, ministries in
15:12Austria, the French National Police, the
15:15Swiss Supreme Court of Justice, both of
15:18those run on open-source software. The
15:22German government just a couple of days
15:23ago uh put forward a policy framework
15:26for a German tech stack
15:30and there are many many others [snorts]
15:32which shows that it is possible.
15:36And then there is us, each and every one
15:38of us here tonight, who hand over entire
15:43parts of our private and social lives to
15:46American platforms every day, including
15:48today,
15:50without asking enough questions.
15:55Sometimes we do have a moment of doubt.
15:59We feel uneasy when we realize that our
16:03messages are read and our images are
16:06viewed by AIS.
16:08That the information we receive is
16:11filtered and often invented by
16:14algorithms that the machines we used we
16:18use are programmed to manipulate us.
16:22But then the apps are so convenient,
16:25free, easy. Our friends are there, our
16:28followers are there, the chat bots
16:31present themselves as friends. And so we
16:34convince ourselves that it's okay and
16:37continue to use them.
16:40But it's not okay. In fact, I believe
16:41that the existence
16:44of big tech given their size, their
16:49concentration of capital, their growing
16:52technological grip into our lives, their
16:56almost direct access to our minds and to
17:00our emotions. The existence of big tech
17:03is no longer compatible with our
17:05freedoms and with democracy.
17:09The control they have over the
17:12development of artificial intelligence,
17:14one of the most astounding technologies
17:17ever created further entrenches that
17:21power, projects it into the future.
17:26However, that power, algorithmic power,
17:30cloud power rests at [snorts] least in
17:33part on our consent,
17:37on our compliance, on our passive and
17:40silent acceptance. And there is where we
17:45have a choice.
17:48We can of course decide that autonomy
17:50and digital sovereignty are too
17:54expensive or too complicated or that it
17:56is too late and accept technological
18:01submission. And that seems to be the
18:03path we are on right now.
18:07Or we can resist.
18:11We can decide that we want to remain
18:13free and democratic and make and do
18:16everything we can gradually but
18:20aggressively and with urgency to regain
18:23control of our cloud and our data. It's
18:28possible. It will be difficult. It may
18:31hurt. It will require a surge of pride
18:35and of will.
18:38collaborative effort, pulled resources,
18:41courage, imagination. But to me, the
18:45path is absolutely clear. We need to
18:48deamemericanize our technological uses
18:52and infrastructure and we need to start
18:56now. Thank you. [applause]