Over the last two days, the world of AI has been struck by two maelstroms. Both concern ethics, both involve two of the world’s leading AI companies, and both force us to ask whether the institutions directing the development of artificial intelligence are equal to the responsibility they have assumed. Yet they illuminate two quite different dimensions of the problem of Ethics in AI. The first arose from a dispute involving New York University mathematician Tristan Buckmaster, his collaborator Levent Alpöge and OpenAI. Buckmaster and Alpöge had spent about a year working on difficult problems related to the Navier–Stokes equations, using models from OpenAI and Anthropic as research tools. OpenAI subsequently mounted its own large-scale agentic effort after hearing that progress had been made on a Millennium Prize problem. It then announced a result within days, triggering questions about research confidentiality, the use of customer interactions in model training, scientific attributi...

Photo by Traxer on Unsplash The establishment of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve by the U.S. government marks a significant shift in global economic strategy, with profound implications for the world economic order. This initiative, part of a broader set of executive actions by President Donald Trump, aims to leverage Bitcoin as a digital asset to bolster the U.S. currency and potentially redefine the role of the dollar in international trade. The Bitcoin Strategic Reserve is designed to treat Bitcoin as a reserve asset which is similar to gold, but with the added benefits of being a digital, algorithmically scarce resource. This approach aligns with historical precedents where gold served as a global settlement currency before the U.S. dollar took over, suggesting that Bitcoin could play a similar role in the future. The establishment of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve by the U.S. is expected to have far-reaching global implications. Brazil, Russia, and Poland are already exploring simil...

Image generated by Microsoft AI Designer Few weeks ago I commented that the India-US collaboration is missing the key subject of Data Protection law. The Data Protection Bill was still in 'draft' stage then, and now that its been passed by the parliament, I got reading it.  While my misgivings about Data privacy not being featured in India-US discussions as well as my reservations about the Bill excluding governments and regulators from its purview, continue; I must say that the the law itself has come out as a nicely drafted piece of legislation, and a departure from the legalese of other countries' laws such as EU's GDPR and CCPA/CCPR in California, United States. Firstly , the language of the bill is quite lucid and easy to understand - for people like me who are not lawyers, the language was quite easy to understand and digest. Not just simple language, but the Act includes Illustrations within its text to clarify the meaning and intention of different clauses - wh...

The recent announcement by WhatsApp to update its privacy terms - and 'accept or leave the app' stance - led to an exodus of users from Whastapp to competing, privacy-conscious apps such as Telegram or Signal. A week after the exodus began, Whatsapp clarified its stance - and WhatsApp's CEO went about providing a long Twitter clarification . And then, many returned, many who considered moving stayed put on Whatsapp. This post is meant for those who are still sitting on the fence - it clarifies questions like: What is this all about? What do I do? Is Whatsapp safe? I've heard Telegram is Russian - so how is it safer than Whatsapp? I can't move because my business contacts are on Whastapp - how do I secure myself? PS: I've modeled this post based on several conversations I've had with friends and family on this subject, dealing with the chain of questions they ask, then objections they raise, then clarifications they seek - and finally the change resistance ...