We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Come inside the tech lab making accessibility fun
It all started with gaming, modifications for joysticks, and controllers that allow disabled veterans to once again play their favorite video games. Now, Microsoft’s Inclusive Tech Lab is a haven of innovation and creativity, featuring toys and tools created by and for the disability community. Come along as Program Manager Solomon Romney takes GZERO on an exclusive tour of the lab making accessibility awesome.
Watch more interviews from Global Stage.
FILE PHOTO: A view shows parts of an unidentified missile, which Ukrainian authorities believe to be made in North Korea and was used in a strike in Kharkiv earlier this week, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv, Ukraine January 6, 2024.
UN: North Korean missiles were used in Ukraine
The United Nations found evidence that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv with a North Korean Hwaseong-11 missile in January, according to a new report. The US and allies have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells to Russia, but this is the first concrete evidence that Pyongyang has sent more advanced weapons.
Not that the Hwaseong-11 is all that advanced. It’s a knock-off of the Soviet OTR-21, which debuted in the 1970s and has a range of under 200 miles. But it shows how little heed Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un pays to the sanctions the UN has levied against him for his ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
Speaking of, Russia vetoed the annual renewal of UN sanctions monitors overseeing North Korea just last month for the first time in 15 years. We’re watching for more signs that Moscow is using its diplomatic heft to help out the Hermit Kingdom, as well as deepening relations between Pyongyang and Tehran, Russia’s other increasingly important ally.Tesla CEO Elon Musk steps out of a vehicle, during his visit to China, in Beijing, China, April 28, 2024, in this screen grab taken from a video.
Beijing gives Blinken cold shoulder, extends warm welcome to Musk
Last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a high-profile visit to China, marked by terse talk and some tough symbols. Two days ahead of Blinken’s arrival, China launched a submarine-based ballistic missile test, and as he departed, the Chinese air force flew jets over the Taiwan Strait. Beijing was not amused by the US Congress passing a supplemental spending bill last week, including billions in military assistance to Taipei.
In contrast, Tesla founder Elon Musk's surprise visit starting Sunday was all smiles. Musk posted to X about the honor of meeting Chinese Premier Li Qiang, who heralded Tesla as a pillar of US-China economic cooperation. Tesla has sold more than 1.7 million cars in China since it entered the market a decade ago, and its largest factory is in Shanghai.
Musk wants to roll out Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology in China before Chinese automakers deploy similar capabilities. Musk is also seeking approval to transfer data collected in China to the US to train algorithms for FSD tech. Market watchers called the unexpected visit "a major moment for Tesla" as the company struggles with layoffs and slumping sales.A club for hemming China in
On Monday — the day that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters that Canada is interested in joining the AUKUS defense alliance — documents were released at a public inquiry that showed that Canada’s intelligence agency believes China “clandestinely and deceptively interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 general elections.”
Also on Monday, as Chinese ships carried out exercises in disputed waters in the South China Sea, the US, UK, and Australia announced that they were talking to Japan about inviting that country to participate in Pillar II of the security pact.
China’s growing military and political belligerence is rattling other countries, and they are responding by drawing together in a way that would have been out of the question a decade ago.
Neighbors under pressure
Pillar I of AUKUS, which was announced in 2021, is a collaboration between Australia, the Americans, and the Brits aimed at adding a powerful new capacity to Australia’s military: nuclear-powered (though conventionally armed) submarines. This is a huge spend for Australia — $368 billion over 30 years — that carries an inherent political risk. And to make the deal, Canberra had to blow up relations with France by abandoning a deal to buy French subs. The Aussies only did that after a year of tense political and economic confrontations with China that left decision-makers in that country gravely concerned about its future in a neighborhood dominated by Beijing. Australia’s back was against the wall.
Like Australia, Japan is being driven to closer cooperation with the United States by its concerns about an increasingly powerful and assertive China. Japan’s trade-focused economy depends on international shipping passing freely through the South China Sea, for instance, where China has been clashing with the Philippines.
So Tokyo has reason to be interested in Pillar II of the AUKUS arrangement, which focuses on defense technology sharing, including quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, artificial intelligence, and electronic warfare — all areas where China presents a technological challenge, and where Japan could offer expertise.
With China rapidly expanding its military, Japan has decided to break with its post-war pacifist tradition and dramatically increase defense spending.
Northern lightweights
Canada is also opening its checkbook, but at a much smaller scale, which would explain why the AUKUS partners are making a point of talking about doing business with Japan, rather than Canada.
Nobody is talking about adding other countries as full members, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Tuesday, but proceeding on a project-by-project basis.
Historically, Canada spends little on defense, falling well short of the 2% of GDP that NATO members have all agreed to spend. In an increasingly dangerous world, though, pressure is mounting for Canada to step up, and on Monday, Trudueau’s government did roll out a five-year plan to bring defense spending up to 1.76% of GDP by 2030, up from 1.38% last year.
Allies welcomed the announcement, but there was nothing significant enough to make Canada a much more desirable partner for AUKUS, says Eugene Lang, a former Liberal defense official turned Queens University professor. Officials are interested.
“I just don’t know that we're doing anything to get their attention,” he says. “What they're doing in AUKUS is investing in developing brand-new technologies. To my knowledge, Canada has not got any specific money set aside for any of that.”
University of Ottawa Professor Thomas Juneau, who has interviewed allied officials about Canada’s potential role in AUKUS, found that Canada is increasingly seen as a free rider in defense and intelligence circles. It’s not surprising that Japan was invited before Canada, he says.
“It's really normal for AUKUS to bring in Japan before Canada because Japan is not only a much bigger country than we are, but it's right next to China.”
Wolf warriors
On the other hand, because of its Five Eyes intelligence-sharing experience, Canada could more easily cooperate with AUKUS than Japan, says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group.
And while it may not be spending enough money to be taken seriously, the Trudeau government has moved to be more circumspect in its relationship with China, limiting Chinese investment in critical minerals and being cautious about research projects.
“The scales have fallen from a lot of politicians’ eyes in the West,” Thompson says. “The question remains, how do you have constructive diplomatic and economic relations with Beijing, while at the same time competing with them geopolitically and seeking to build up and maintain deterrence?”
China will object to the new alliances being organized around it, but don’t expect Beijing to stop buying sabers and rattling them.
“China has a rising economy, so the idea that its rising economic power wouldn't come with rising geopolitical ambition is a fantasy, and we've kind of believed in that fantasy for a while, not just in Canada but in other Western countries,” says Juneau.
“But it was a fantasy all along.”
Why don’t we want more “accuracy” at the ballpark – or in the courtroom?
It’s baseball season again, and that means it’s time again to embrace the chronic self-harm of being a Mets fan (already off to a stellar 1-6 start), but also, this year especially, to ponder the ways in which technology risks making some things worse by making other things better.
That’s because this season was originally supposed to be the one where Major League Baseball began introducing robot umpires to call balls and strikes. The idea was to use new technology to make an old game more perfect, less arbitrary, more objective.
But after a few seasons of trials in the minor leagues, the robots’ march to the Majors slowed. It turns out, players and managers weren’t as thrilled about putting about Hal 9000 behind the plate as MLB thought.
The challenges of defining an objective and consistent strike zone, and the misgivings about removing human judgment altogether, have pushed back the robots’ debut for at least another season – if not more.
To be up front, I think that’s a good thing. Maybe I’m just yelling at clouds here, but to me the subtle arbitrariness of a strike zone – unlike, say, the objective reality of a safe/out call – is an intrinsic part of the short story that is a baseball game.
But all of this got me thinking about another more consequential area where people’s appetite for technological “accuracy” is milder than you’d think: the courtroom.
Of all the institutions in a democracy, judges and courts have perhaps the highest duty to be – and to be seen as – impartial. And yet a growing number of Americans no longer see the bench that way. Overall, fewer than 50% of Americans say they trust the judicial branch of the federal government, the lowest mark on record, and only half of Americans say criminal suspects are treated “fairly” – down from roughly two-thirds at the turn of the century.
Each side has its grievances. For many Republicans, the Biden administration has co-opted the courts as part of a banana republic style bid to sideline Trump with frivolous legal charges. Democrats, meanwhile, see the Supreme Court as hopelessly illegitimate and biased because Trump gave it an overtly conservative majority that, as anticipated, rolled back Roe v. Wade.
Can technology help? In one small corner of the justice system at least, it seems so. For several years now, AI programs have been used to assist judges in specific areas – such as determining bail – where machine learning can use vast amounts of past data to make predictions about future behavior.
America already jails more people than any country on earth, and fully a quarter of those in prison are merely awaiting trial, often for months at a time. But studies show that AI can improve things.
In one survey from 2017, an AI program was 25% more accurate than human judges when it came to predicting whether suspects released on bail would flee or commit more crimes. Using AI would also, the study found, have safely reduced the pretrial prison population by some 40%. Several states have found that using algorithms can help reduce pre-trial prison populations without an increase in crime.
That’s all good. But there’s one problem: People in general still don’t seem to want robots in the courtroom. A YouGov study from last year showed that barely 1 in 5 Americans thought a robot would “be a better judge,” while 56% preferred a “human who can use their emotion and instinct.” A broad survey of judges and other court workers found that two thirds were skeptical about using AI in the courtroom, citing concerns about accuracy and emotional intelligence.
There are, of course, problems with AI in criminal justice. One is the risk of bias. After all, if AI is what it eats, then training AI modules on decades of policing and court data shaped by systemic racial or socio-economic biases risks teaching robots to amplify them further. The ACLU has highlighted this problem in algorithms used for policing and pre-trial detention.
Another issue is transparency. These algorithms are a black box – private sector trade secrets guarded as closely by tech companies as KFC protects its spice recipe or Coke guards its formula. If a computer decides to jail you, you’d probably never know why – was it an AI hallucination that shipped you off to Rikers Island?
But a big issue is more basic: People just aren’t comfortable with a box of ones and zeros making decisions that depend on assessments of our character, our emotions, or humanity. There’s a kind of alienation there that people aren’t comfortable with, even if the accuracy is greater and the societal benefits can be modeled.
The problem is a delicate one. On the one hand, if we’re forgoing real improvements – fewer people in jail and safer streets at the same time – we are needlessly harming large numbers of people over a mistaken belief in the ability of people to judge other people fairly.
But in a deeply polarized and increasingly mistrustful society, introducing technologies that aim to make our institutions more accurate may also, paradoxically, cause people to trust them less.
Let me know what you think about robots at the ballpark or in the courtroom here – if you include your name and city, we may run your response in a future edition of the GZERO Daily newsletter.
FILE PHOTO: iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus are displayed during the 'Wonderlust' event at the company's headquarters in Cupertino, California, U.S. September 12, 2023.
US sues Apple over alleged smartphone monopoly
In an antitrust lawsuit filed Thursday, the Department of Justice alleged Apple’s dominance of the smartphone market amounts to a monopoly. The DOJ says Apple resorts to “delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase competition in the smartphone markets” to keep users reliant on its iPhone.
The iPhone’s success is the stuff of business school legend, capturing some 70% of the US smartphone market despite steep prices. In short, the DoJ’s contention is that unfair practices helped Apple get there.
Apple is denying the claims and says it will fight the lawsuit in court, but this isn’t the first time the company has faced similar legal challenges. This is its third antitrust suit in the US since 2009, and It was fined nearly $2 billion by the European Union last month for breaking fair competition laws.
Expect a tough legal fight, but if the government proves its case, there could be major changes coming to the iPhone. The complaint says Apple could shape up by ensuring full compatibility with phones, smartwatches, and digital wallets from other manufacturers, relinquishing some control over the apps that can run on iPhones, and imposing less onerous terms on users and developers.
Yuval Noah Harari on protecting the right to be stupid
Bestselling author and historian Yuval Noah Harari makes the case for mental self-care in an age where our minds are bombarded with an unprecedented influx of information. In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer, filmed before a live audience at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, Harari stresses the importance of a healthy ‘'information diet.'
"Our minds were shaped back in the Stone Age," Harari says. Smartphones and social media, designed by the today’s smartest minds, are engineered to 'hack our brains and manipulate our emotions. Harari warns, "Anybody who thinks they are strong enough to resist it is just fooling themselves."
As a public intellectual, Harari is acutely aware of the weight of his words. "We need to build a wall between the mind and the mouth," he tells Bremmer. "I also think that we need a part of preserving privacy is to preserve the right for stupidity."
Watch full episode: Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Podcast: Tracking the rapid rise of human-enhancing biotech with Siddhartha Mukherjee ›
- Why is America punching below its weight on happiness? ›
- Is life better than ever for the human race? ›
- Podcast: The case for global optimism with Steven Pinker ›
- Why human beings are so easily fooled by AI, psychologist Steven Pinker explains ›
Yuval Noah Harari: AI is a “social weapon of mass destruction” to humanity
In a wide-ranging conversation with Ian Bremmer, filmed live at the historic 92nd Street Y in NYC, bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari delves deep into the profound shifts AI is creating in geopolitical power dynamics, narrative control, and the future of humanity.
Highlighting AI's unparalleled capacity to make autonomous decisions and generate original content, Harari underscores the rapid pace at which humans are ceding control over both power and stories to machines. "AI is the first technology in history that can take power away from us,” Harari tells Bremmer.
The discussion also touches on AI's impact on democracy and personal relationships, with Harari emphasizing AI's infiltration into our conversations and its burgeoning ability to simulate intimacy. This, he warns, could "destroy trust between people and destroy the ability to have a conversation," thereby unraveling the fabric of democracy itself. Harari chillingly refers to this potential outcome as "a social weapon of mass destruction." And it’s scaring dictators as much as democratic leaders. “Dictators,” Harari reminds us, “they have problems too.”
Harari's insights into AI's impact on democracy, intimacy, and social cohesion offer a stark vision of the challenges and transformations lying ahead. "The most sophisticated information technology in history, and people can no longer talk with each other?"
Watch full episode: Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Everybody wants to regulate AI ›
- AI regulation means adapting old laws for new tech: Marietje Schaake ›
- Why human beings are so easily fooled by AI, psychologist Steven Pinker explains ›
- Steven Pinker shares his "relentless optimism" about human progress ›
- From CRISPR to cloning: The science of new humans ›
- Will AI further divide us or help build meaningful connections? - GZERO Media ›
- How neurotech could enhance our brains using AI - GZERO Media ›
- How is AI shaping culture in the art world? - GZERO Media ›
- AI is turbocharging the stock market, but is it all hype? - GZERO Media ›