How are online tools being used to track and resist fascism across the globe?
What are the online tools that fueled 'No Kings' and the Trump Resistance? From Signal to Reddit, people across the world are using tech tools to plan, analyse, and carry out political activism. We explore what those tools look like and how effective they are in preventing a bleak political future, including an explainer on the website 'Realtime Fascism' that uses AI to track fascism online.
Also, Tesla's have been causing drama -- from phantom braking to a rise in Robotaxi issues. Will this stall the progress of automated vehicles in Australia?
Plus, AI overviews have transformed the way we search for things online. What does this mean for old-school search engines and the sources we can trust?
Plus why and how have 40,000 Cameras, from bird feeders to baby monitors, been exposed to the internet?
GUESTS:
Petra Stock, environment and science reporter for the Guardian Australia
environment and science reporter for the Guardian Australia
Charles Gretton, Director of Attention and Innovation, Integrated AI Network, and Associate Professor at ANU
This episode of Download This Show was made on Gadigal land and in Naarm and on Ngunnawal country.
Technical production by Allyse Simons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Federal Group wants 'independent assessment and oversight' of Macquarie Point stadium
Daniel Hanna I think we always thought this would be the final process. Obviously, we had a debate not that long ago about referring the stadium proposal to the Project of State Significance and the Planning Commission. So we put in submissions in good faith. And yeah, I certainly believe probably the process should continue. I think we need some independent assessment and oversight of this proposal. Obviously, we've got quite a number of concerns about what is proposed for the stadium at Macquarie Point. I want the opportunity to hear them and think they should be independently assessed. David Reilly So to be clear, you feel like this overriding legislation that's been proposed or that's been supported, that's already been tabled and supported by both Labor and Liberal, we're expecting after the election, you feel that that is the wrong approach, Daniel Hanna? Daniel Hanna Yes, absolutely we do. I've had a good look through that draft legislation, which was previously tabled. And there obviously was a consultation process. We put in a submission to that, but we had a lot of concerns. I mean, effectively that draft legislation, if anyone can have a look at it, I'd encourage them to do so. Really what that took away was all of the, for example, the appeal rights for any third party. It would override any piece of legislation, anything in the planning scheme, and also would give the Minister of the Day absolute discretion to make amendments at any time. So really there's, we thought all of the usual protections that neighbours and other parties have would be overridden. And it's, I don't think a good piece of legislation at all. David Reilly So opening submissions today, you're not due to give evidence, I think for a week or so, is that right? But what's the gist of what you'll be telling the commission? Daniel Hanna Yeah, look, we're appearing next week and we'll be making our submissions. Obviously we put in a comprehensive submission to the TPC and we'll be making submissions along those lines. I mean, we've got a number of concerns and certainly some of the more general ones are around this. We believe this stadium is just, what's proposed is in the wrong location. It's in a heritage zone. We, as a private sector operator and investor, have developed in good faith, complying with the existing Sullivan's Cove planning scheme, which represents a lot of those heritage values. And we just don't think a 55 metre tall stadium of the bulk and height that's proposed is appropriate right to the edge of Evans Street. And it will forever change what is a beautiful maritime heritage zone that's valued by Tasmanians and visitors. David Reilly Well, also, of course, valued by your company, it does push up pretty closely against some of your own accommodation assets. Exactly what's in that area that Federal Group currently owns and operates? Daniel Hanna So we own and operate the Henry Jones Art Hotel and the facilities that surround the Henry Jones. We've also got the Mac One Hotel, both on the waterfront. Clearly the Henry Jones is probably the most impacted. If you look at that iconic vista, I guess, from the docks from Mures over towards Hunter Street and the Henry Jones, it really is one of the iconic images in Tasmania. Unfortunately, with the stadium that's proposed, we'll have a massive structure looming right over the top of Henry Jones, right to the edge of Evans Street. We've also got some other very direct concerns around the stadium during construction and operation in that location. And that goes to things like getting access, for example. We believe Evans Street will be closed a significant proportion of the time during construction and then operation. And that's how our guests, our staff and our suppliers can all access our hotels. We're very concerned about access. We're also concerned about other things, yeah, noise, lights and shadowing, and parking as well, to be frank. David Reilly We've had a couple of people asking about this Mac 2.0, the Stadium 2.0 proposal, backed by Dean Coleman and of course, former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon. One text are asking, is it true that Federal Group is behind Stadium 2.0? Now it's sort of gone off the boil a little bit, this project, but is that still your preference, that site? Daniel Hanna Yeah, look, that would still be our preference. I think it deals with a lot of the heritage issues that we've got concerns about. So I would certainly encourage whenever we run over this election and we have a new government in place to consider that proposal. But let me first of all, address the concern raised in that text. I can absolutely tell you that Federal is definitely not behind 2.0. David Reilly So not linked to 2.0 and Paul Lennon? Daniel Hanna No, we have nothing to do with that project. Obviously the proponents of that project have presented to us in the past as a company, many months ago. And we thought that that was a very good project, worthy of consideration, would address a lot of our concerns and is, I think, still worthy of consideration. We think it's a much better location and I think delivers a better bang for the buck.
SBS Australia
4 hours ago
- SBS Australia
White House pressures Australia to boost defence spending
White House pressures Australia to boost defence spending Published 27 June 2025, 9:42 am The White House has delivered a veiled warning to the Australian Government to increase defence spending as a proportion of GDP, in the wake of NATO's commitments to boost support. It comes after Spain broke with the NATO position and is now facing the threat of increased US tariffs.
7NEWS
5 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Being polite to AI could be harmful to the environment
Whether it's answering work emails or drafting wedding vows, generative artificial intelligence tools have become a trusty copilot in many people's lives. ut a growing body of research shows that for every problem AI solves, hidden environmental costs are racking up. Each word in an AI prompt is broken down into clusters of numbers called 'token IDs' and sent to massive data centres — some larger than football fields — powered by coal or natural gas plants. There, stacks of large computers generate responses through dozens of rapid calculations. The whole process can take up to 10 times more energy to complete than a regular Google search, according to a frequently cited estimation by the Electric Power Research Institute. So, for each prompt you give AI, what's the damage? To find out, researchers in Germany tested 14 large language model (LLM) AI systems by asking them both free-response and multiple-choice questions. Complex questions produced up to six times more carbon dioxide emissions than questions with concise answers. In addition, 'smarter' LLMs with more reasoning abilities produced up to 50 times more carbon emissions than simpler systems to answer the same question, the study reported. 'This shows us the tradeoff between energy consumption and the accuracy of model performance,' Maximilian Dauner, a doctoral student at Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences and first author of the Frontiers in Communication study published Wednesday, said. Typically, these smarter, more energy intensive LLMs have tens of billions more parameters — the biases used for processing token IDs — than smaller, more concise models. 'You can think of it like a neural network in the brain. The more neuron connections, the more thinking you can do to answer a question,' Dauner said. What you can do to reduce your carbon footprint Complex questions require more energy in part because of the lengthy explanations many AI models are trained to provide, Dauner said. If you ask an AI chatbot to solve an algebra question for you, it may take you through the steps it took to find the answer, he said. 'AI expends a lot of energy being polite, especially if the user is polite, saying 'please' and 'thank you',' Dauner said. 'But this just makes their responses even longer, expending more energy to generate each word.' For this reason, Dauner suggests users be more straightforward when communicating with AI models. Specify the length of the answer you want and limit it to one or two sentences, or say you don't need an explanation at all. Most important, Dauner's study highlights that not all AI models are created equally, Sasha Luccioni, the climate lead at AI company Hugging Face, said. Users looking to reduce their carbon footprint can be more intentional about which model they chose for which task. 'Task-specific models are often much smaller and more efficient, and just as good at any context-specific task,' Luccioni said. If you are a software engineer who solves complex coding problems every day, an AI model suited for coding may be necessary. But for the average high school student who wants help with homework, relying on powerful AI tools is like using a nuclear-powered digital calculator. Even within the same AI company, different model offerings can vary in their reasoning power, so research what capabilities best suit your needs, Dauner said. When possible, Luccioni recommends going back to basic sources — online encyclopedias and phone calculators — to accomplish simple tasks. Why it's hard to measure AI's environmental impact Putting a number on the environmental impact of AI has proved challenging. The study noted that energy consumption can vary based on the user's proximity to local energy grids and the hardware used to run AI models. That's partly why the researchers chose to represent carbon emissions within a range, Dauner said. Furthermore, many AI companies don't share information about their energy consumption — or details like server size or optimisation techniques that could help researchers estimate energy consumption, Shaolei Ren, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside who studies AI's water consumption, said. 'You can't really say AI consumes this much energy or water on average — that's just not meaningful. We need to look at each individual model and then (examine what it uses) for each task,' Ren said. One way AI companies could be more transparent is by disclosing the amount of carbon emissions associated with each prompt, Dauner suggested. 'Generally, if people were more informed about the average (environmental) cost of generating a response, people would maybe start thinking, 'Is it really necessary to turn myself into an action figure just because I'm bored?' Or 'do I have to tell ChatGPT jokes because I have nothing to do?'' Dauner said. Additionally, as more companies push to add generative AI tools to their systems, people may not have much choice how or when they use the technology, Luccioni said. 'We don't need generative AI in web search. Nobody asked for AI chatbots in (messaging apps) or on social media,' Luccioni said. 'This race to stuff them into every single existing technology is truly infuriating, since it comes with real consequences to our planet.' With less available information about AI's resource usage, consumers have less choice, Ren said, adding that regulatory pressures for more transparency are unlikely to the United States anytime soon. Instead, the best hope for more energy-efficient AI may lie in the cost efficacy of using less energy. 'Overall, I'm still positive about (the future). There are many software engineers working hard to improve resource efficiency,' Ren said. 'Other industries consume a lot of energy too, but it's not a reason to suggest AI's environmental impact is not a problem. 'We should definitely pay attention.'
