Skip to main content

Anti-trust - 21st century style

Anti-trust – 21st century style

All of us know when a particular company or cabal of companies begin to and then control a sector of products, it invokes attention.  These companies are sometimes subject to the anti-trust provisions of the law, i.e. Sherman Anti-Trust.  That was yesterday, when companies created an unfair market advantage to increase profits.  Many companies were broken up in this way, notably Standard Oil.

Today is different, with monopolies and cabals created to hold information, the commodity of the future.  Implied here is that large corporations such as Amazon and Facebook contain so much information about citizens, it can actually affect what people do and how they buy.  By marketing information, they will soon be moving into altering what citizens think, and even how they vote.  The tip of this is already evident, with many pundits and news anchors discussing that such firms are becoming too big and controlling too much leverage in America. Alas, even they don’t know what to do.   Shipping multiple millions of units pales next to mining and controlling multiple million-exabytes of data.

Information is the commodity of the future.

Just take a quick look at how many “information” companies are surging financially and continue to do so. They have tools, such as deep learning, that few understand. It seems obvious that some politician will adopt these ideas and develop legislation to rein in such firms, restricting how information can be used and sold.  This is a tall order, with most all of them having little understanding of how powerful massive information data lakes can be. 

I say, hurry, hurry, hurry somebody before the process is so deeply embedded, it will be nearly impossible to extricate from this trend.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view