US AI policy risks disaster because of Trump
United States
had the disaster that was the Dust Bowl. On pretty much every level, ecological, economic and social, it was a catastrophe.
Farmers in the Southern Plains ignored decades of advice to rotate their crops, causing extraordinary damage to crops. The focus on high yields in the short-term, against the advice being roared at them, proved devastating.
With his proposals around
artificial intelligence (AI)
in July,
Donald Trump
all but heralded in a digital Dust Bowl.
The US president's executive orders around AI, particularly his claimed concerns around so-called 'woke AI', rather misses the core issue at hand.
Trump's stated proposal is to strip AI of ideology, which is noble on the face of things. The problem is how AI, or really any technology, is developed. There's one common factor with all technologies: people.
Systemic biases, specifically the unconscious ones, are a plague upon technological development that negatively affect all users irrespective of political persuasion.
Bias mitigation, which is still in its developmental life cycle, has already proven effective at avoiding major missteps when it comes to data management. It addresses the core issue, that the person writing the code is not always reflective of the person using it.
This covers all the obvious biases around gender and race but also economic circumstance, location factors (think of rural vs urban transport), and even factors in how these affect logistics.
That last bit is why Trump's proposal is bad for even his most ardent supporters. The global flow of commerce is a labyrinth of connections that would give Theseus a migraine. The use of bias mitigation in any system that uses data, including AI, accounts for a lot of the blind spots in any logistical operation.
The impact on the US economy could be enormous as nations operating with bias mitigation, including
China
and the
EU
, will have a clear advantage. The basic ability to trade and attract talent will increase for those nations, as they won't have added needless complications to their own economies.
Those on Trump's side would contend this is merely a measure against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Whatever your stance on DEI, this is simply false.
Bias mitigation is far more boring than that. It isn't rooted in the need to make the world fairer for minorities. It's much colder than that. Bias mitigation is about ensuring no relevant factor is unaccounted for. If it can affect the data set, it needs to be factored in.
This isn't 'woke AI', it's smart organisation.
There'll be plenty of rhetoric in the weeks to come about how important it is, on an emotive level, for either everyone to have their voice heard or not. That debate's existence will be music to the ears of any economy seeking to take business away from the US.
In Europe and China, far from ideological pals, the role of bias mitigation is understood for what it is, the best course for technological development. Companies operating in these territories will benefit from more talent seeking to work with this approach.
Likewise, US companies will seek, albeit under the radar from the US president, to move more development operations outside of it for the same reason.
As with the Dust Bowl, there is a short-term gain here. By not putting in the labour required of bias mitigation, AI companies not using it will be able to spin up new products quickly and make immediate revenue gains.
[
Top seven tech firms' earnings put AI divide in sharp focus
Opens in new window
]
Yet in key areas that Trump's supporters want to revive, such as manufacturing and energy, this short term gain will be enormously damaging. By excluding bias mitigation, they are making the logistical labyrinth more confounding.
AI companies in the US will suffer from regulatory whiplash, not knowing what changes they need to make to keep up with the whims of their government. This in turn will stifle innovation and hamper public trust in the ability of AI to deliver real benefits.
There's no point trying to rationalise the why of this decision, not because of the usual criticisms of Trump but rather because of how much this mirrors the tragedy of the Dust Bowl.
For all the good advice farmers in the US Southern Plains got, they were too focused on the immediate gain. They were in competition and wanted to get ahead in the race in the quickest way possible.
If Trump's plan comes to pass, then the US will take a lead, of sorts, in the AI arms race by removing bias mitigation. Roll-out of systems will be faster. It's when, and we won't have to wait long, those systems break that the problems will surface.
The six-year peak of the Dust Bowl's worst impact was repaired partially through nature, as the soil was left untouched, and largely through acknowledging mistakes that were made.
The New Deal's approach to agriculture in the 1930s aggressively focused on crop rotation, to maximise soil health.
The digital dust bowl will only be solved by whoever inherits the mess left behind by this administration. In time, the damage to AI development in the US will be undone out of economic necessity. It need not occur in the first place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
38 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Europe stresses need to protect Ukrainian interests ahead of Trump-Putin talks
Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday that Kyiv 'values and fully supports' a joint statement by European leaders on achieving peace in Ukraine while protecting Ukrainian and European interests. European leaders on Saturday welcomed US president Donald Trump 's plans to meet Russian president Vladimir Putin on ending the war in Ukraine, while stressing the need to keep pressure on Moscow and protect Ukrainian and European security interests. 'We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests,' they said. 'We agree that these vital interests include the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,' the statement said, adding: 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.' READ MORE The leaders said 'they remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force', and added: 'The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.' They said negotiations could only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. On X, Mr Zelenskiy wrote that 'The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people today for the sake of peace in Ukraine, which is defending the vital security interests of our European nations.' 'Ukraine values and fully supports the statement by President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Tusk, Prime Minister Starmer, President Ursula von der Leyen, and President Stubb on peace for Ukraine.' Mr Trump plans to meet Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday. He has talked up the prospect of a deal that could resolve the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict. Mr Zelenskiy and his European allies have warned that any deal requiring Ukraine to surrender significant parts of its territory would only encourage Russian aggression. – Reuters
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
China wants US to relax AI chip-export controls for trade deal
China wants the United States to ease export controls on chips critical for artificial intelligence as part of a trade deal before a possible summit between presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. Chinese officials have told experts in Washington that Beijing wants the Trump administration to relax export restrictions on high-bandwidth memory chips, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter. The White House, State Department and China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the report. HBM chips, which help perform data-intensive AI tasks quickly, are closely watched by investors due to their use alongside AI graphic processors, particularly Nvidia's. READ MORE The FT said China is concerned because US HBM controls hamper the ability of Chinese companies such as Huawei to develop their own AI chips. Successive US administrations have curbed exports of advanced chips to China, looking to stymie Beijing's AI and defence development. While this has impacted US firms' ability to fully address booming demand from China, one of the world's largest semiconductor markets, it still remains an important revenue driver for American chipmakers. - Reuters
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Love of Pod: Has Nespresso been good or bad for coffee?
When US President Donald Trump last week announced plans for a 39% tariff on Swiss imports, he blindsided politicians in the picturesque European state. Swiss officials were reportedly convinced they had secured a 10% rate – but in the end were faced with a tariff that was higher even than the 31% rate proposed on 'Liberation Day' in April. And one of the companies likely to bear the brunt of that stinging rate is consumer goods behemoth Nestlé – particularly via its premium coffee pod brand 'Nespresso'. That is actually the underdog in the US coffee pod market – trailing the dominant Keurig system. But it's rapidly gaining ground. In 2013 Nespresso had a 3% market share in the US; but by 2023 that had risen to more than 14%. But the prospect of tariff-induced price rises could stifle that growth – which would represent a rare blip in what has been the remarkable growth of the coffee pod brand. Though the story of Nespresso probably starts a lot earlier than you realise. How so? Most people would think of a Nespresso machine as a very 21st century appliance – but the system was actually invented in 1975 and patented by Nestlé in 1976. However it was too complicated and cumbersome to be economically viable for at least a decade – with the first commercial units not being launched until the mid-to-late 1980s. And when they did arrive, they looked almost identical to regular espresso machines – down to having a portafilter where the pods went in. And Nespresso remained a fairly niche product through to the mid-to-late 90s, at which point things began to change. One of the important factors behind that shift was the fact that Nestlé began to sign deals with appliance makers like Siemens, Philips and De'Longhi, which started to make Nespresso machines of their own. That made them more accessible and affordable (and ultimately smaller and more countertop-friendly, too). In the early 2000s, Nestlé also started opening retail outlets – and really it's at this point that the concept took off. And it's become a huge success since then... Massive – it's hard to find figures on this but there are certainly tens, if not hundreds of millions of Nespresso machines in use around the world today. It dominates the coffee pod market in Europe – even though there are alternatives like Tassimo (which is made by JDE Peet's) and Dolce Gusto (confusingly, made by Nestlé). While it is enjoying rapid growth in the US and other markets. As a result, there's huge demand for pods. There was a figure from 2020 which claimed Nestlé sold 14 billion pods a year – and it's probably even higher now. That's reflected in the fact that Nespresso had revenues of the equivalent of €3.4 billion in the first half of this year. But that 14 billion pod-sales figure doesn't even properly reflect the popularity of the system. Because, given that it was invented in the mid-70s, Nestlé's patents on the system actually began expiring in 2012 – just as it was properly reaching mainstream appeal. That ultimately meant that other companies could start making and selling Nespresso-compatible pods and machines without needing approval from Nestlé, or without having to pay them a licencing fee. Nestlé did try to fight that in the courts for a while but lost – which is why you can see a range of non-Nestlé pods in supermarkets today. The only thing companies have to be careful about is not giving consumers the impression that they're official pods – which is why it can often be so hard to find the words 'Nespresso-compatible' on the packaging. But ultimately that array of third party options means that there are likely billions more pods being sold each year - across a range of other coffee brands – on top of what Nestlé sell directly. In a way the Nespresso has become the 21st Century's Maxwell House – because it's now the baseline for an at-home coffee. If you go to a friend's house and they offer you a coffee – even if they're not enough of a coffee drinker to have an expensive espresso machine or a bag of fresh coffee – there's a good chance that they'll have a Nespresso machine, instead of a crusty jar of instant. The same goes for hotels – in a lot of places the Nespresso machine has replaced the bundle of instant coffee sachets stacked next to the kettle. How has it managed to become so ubiquitous? Part of the success has been down to their use of what you might call the 'razor blade' or 'printer ink' approach to sales. Because Nestlé made a decision relatively early on to keep the price of the machines low in order to make them accessible to consumers – focusing on the pods as a way of making profit. The logic here being that if you make it easy for a customer to buy into your ecosystem, it will take a lot for them to decide to leave. Though, now that customers can easily buy non-Nestlé pods, that model has become less lucrative. And that's part of the reason why in 2014 - just two years after their patents started to expire - Nestlé brought out a new version of Nespresso. Called the 'Vertuo' system, it uses bigger, dome-shaped pods – and the machine spins them, claiming the centrifugal force helps get better flavour extraction. Many coffee experts have dismissed the value of this technique, but it is unique enough to allow Nestlé to patent it. That means no-one else can make pods to fit this system, so consumers have to go to Nestlé for their coffee (for the next four or five years at least). And that, in turn, is part of the reason why you can often buy a technically newer Vertuo-compatible machine for less than one that fits the old-style pods. There's now less of an incentive on Nestlé to subsidise the old pod system. But aside from making machines affordable, another crucial thing that Nestlé did in building the Nespresso brand was to go up-market. Rather than liken itself to instant coffee, Nestlé pitched Nespresso as a machine that could give users café-quality coffee in the home. And by doing this it justified charging much more per-drink. A single Nespresso pod might cost you somewhere in the region of 50-60c, for example, which is a lot when you compare it to the 8-12c per serving you'd likely get from a jar of instant. But if, in your mind, you're comparing it to the €4-5 coffee you get in your local cafe, then that 50c seems like a total bargain. And it didn't do them any harm to have George Clooney either... Not at all. He initially came on board in 2006, at first as the face of the brand in Europe. In 2015 the deal was extended to cover the US market too. And he's been credited as a key driving force in helping Nespresso to rapidly gain ground in the US (the fact that the Vertuo machine can make larger coffees has also helped). Needless to say, Clooney has done well from the deal too – he's reportedly paid $40m. Although it's not clear over what time-frame that is. In the 19 years of his relationship with Nestlé, he's sure to have earned a lot more. And that – along with some of his other business deals, like the sale of his tequila brand to Diageo, has meant that he is continually one of the world's highest paid actors - even in years that he hasn't actually made any films. For his part, he's previously said that the money from the Nespresso ads has gone towards funding a spy satellite that's monitoring human rights abuses on the Sudan and South Sudan border. Though it's been more than a decade since he said that, so it's not clear if it's still the case. Either way it has shielded him somewhat from the criticism that Nespresso and Nestlé in general has faced. These pods, while popular, are very controversial too... Absolutely – and that's aside from the string of controversies that Nestlé has been linked to over the years. When it comes to Nespresso in particular, there has been evidence of child labour found at coffee farms used by the brand as recently as 2020. That is an issue the company has repeatedly pledged to tackle. There is also the environmental impact of the system – because the pods are of course creating packaging that just didn't exist in coffee making before. Each Nespresso pod is encased in roughly one gram of aluminium – some other companies might use other materials, but aluminium tends to be the most popular, even with third parties. And while a gram of packaging might not seem like a lot, across 14 billion pods you're looking at 14,000 tonnes of packaging being created from official Nespresso-branded pods alone. Aluminium is recyclable and the grounds inside are biodegradable – but most people are not going to take the time to cut the pods open, clean them out and dispose of them properly. That kind of undermines the convenience that makes the pods so attractive to people. In response to this issue Nespresso has set up a recycling return programme, where customers get an empty packet they can put their used pods in and then post them to Nestlé to be disposed of properly. But by Nespresso's own admission, just one third of the pods it sells are getting returned – and that of course does not include the waste created by the pods made by other brands. Some customers also argue that the scheme is impractical, because it takes time to fill each bag – in which time the pods begin to get mouldy and smelly. So in reality, for most people, their pods just go in the bin – unlike a more traditional espresso, where the used coffee might go in the compost bin. Although there is an interesting counter-argument on Nespresso's environmental impact. This suggests that they could actually be better for the environment than a coffee made in an espresso machine or moka pot or cafetiere. The argument points out that the biggest source of emissions in coffee is from the growing, harvesting, roasting and transportation of the beans – not the packaging. And when consumers use ground coffee they may end up putting too much in – or making a bigger pot than they need, leading to them throwing some of it out. As a result, their per-cup footprint is bigger than it should be - unlike a Nespresso pod, which uses a precise amount of coffee per pod (and it's actually slightly less than you'd use in a single shot of regular espresso – another way Nestlé squeezes out extra value). But even with that in mind, it's hard to look past the fact that these bits of aluminium weren't part of the coffee-making process 20 or 30 years ago – but now they are, and the majority of that ends up going in the bin. In general, what's happening to coffee prices? There were warnings earlier this year that the already high price for a cup of coffee in a café was going to rise further towards the end of the year. That was based on a dramatic rise in the price of coffee on commodity markets, though it has eased off considerably since April. There are a range of factors behind that – for example climate change is impacting harvest yields in the likes of Brazil and India, where most of our coffee comes from. There have also been rising wages and rising transportation costs throughout the global supply chain. But while the price of beans is being impacted by very real things like poor harvests and rising costs, it's also being impacted by markets. Coffee is traded a commodity – and traders will make bets on where they think the price will go, and their bets can in turn push up the price that's paid in the real world. Last month the CEO of Italian coffee company Lavazza suggested that hedge funds were to blame for 80% of the price increases that had been seen in the price of coffee over the past four years.
