At last the
weather has turned cold and the cycle of our seasons is normalising: I can now wear
the merino vest I bought in preparation. And it's good for the retail trade -
the backbone of our economy - which will not be left with piles of redundant
jumpers to dump later in the outlet malls. I just hope the bogeyman, climate
change, is not playing tricks on us and this turns out to be a false start
because I've also bought an enormous book - The
English and their History by Robert Tombs, 891 pages, 1.7 kilograms - to
see me through the long, chilly evenings and the SAD-prone days.
At first,
daunted by its scale, I put the book aside for when I had a substantial chunk
of free time but then, confronting my feeble procrastination, I took the plunge
on Tuesday evening. From page one I was hooked. What I like about a good history
book is that it enlightens the long view, the big picture and the broad context,
usefully counterbalancing the insular short-termism that is the daily diet of
our socio-political news-feed: especially in a week such as this when Osborne presented
Cameron's Government budget. To say that they have an eye on re-election would
be an understatement. To question their motives would be naive. They are, of
course, defending the assets they acquired by conquest in 1066.
I 'm only up
to page 71, but it is already clear that the English are, to some extent, still
subservient to their Norman conquerors. (The name 'Cameron' is thought to be
derived from a Norman baronial name - Cambernon. The name 'Osborne' is Viking in
origin, but the Normans were Vikings who had settled in France before crossing
the Channel for their England-grab). And if this all sounds like a conspiracy theory,
just drop the word theory: there is strong evidence of the actuality (follow
this link to get started!). Our Normans do not appear to be inclined to
work for the benefit of all. For example the visionary concept of the European
Union - "the first time in history that a bunch of grown-up nation states
have had the wisdom and maturity to abandon some of their precious sovereignty
for the greater good"* - is of no
use to them.
Talking of
visionaries, Stanley Kubrick's film 2001:
A Space Odyssey is once more on general release and, on seeing it again
after 40 years, I was amazed by his prediction that Hilton Hotels would be
providing the space-station accommodation (Virgin may actually beat them to it,
but we get the point). He also knew that fashion would be crucial, even in
space. The appointment of Hardy Amies as costume designer was inspired: those snazzy
suits sported by the civilians in the Hilton conference facility are in vogue
again. But the treachery of HAL the computer is the most significant prediction.
The danger of conferring artificial intelligence on machines has cropped up
more recently: I think Professor Stephen Hawking must have popped down to his
local Odeon this week, bearing in mind his timely warning that we should be
very afraid of AI.
But I am
more optimistic. Certainly HAL was dangerous, but HAL was working in space with
no one around to moderate its behaviour. Here on earth the Health & Safety at
Work Inspectorate would monitor it for anti-human tendencies. If each nation
had a HAL (an updated model) programmed to formulate government policies, we
could eliminate those interminable, expensive and ineffectual humanoid international
negotiations. The HALs could commune together using their algorithms to make rational
decisions about asset ownership, wealth distribution, the elimination of
poverty and armed conflict - and the reinstatement of the seasons. AI: what's
to fear?
No comments:
Post a Comment