265SmithWatt 75Neumann JHuangDHassabisFLiEMusk 20 Agentic AIforU
KingCharlesLLM DeepLearning009 NormanMacrae.net EconomistDiary.com Abedmooc.com
chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk - does chat value top 19 joys of human development
Q to xchat
Q tabulates ,more questions relevant to AI helping communities be job-rich by solving human's most urgent needs everywhere
ED & EW: I aims to clarify purpose of Intelligence and its engineering AI - we see 1956 booklet of von neumann "computer and brain" as foundation of AI of which dartmouth academic summit was hosted by Macarthy was one extension. The life works of NET (Neumann Einstein Turing) set up the three million fold ex[poentials of how to apply silicon, compute and satellites and already expected neural algorithms to be a mathematical key to designing machines that enhance human productivity and joy of life .
Wuestion example relevant to IRobot
In 1905 einstein's e=mc squared started INTELLIGENCE race to model every science locally - chemistry, energy/physics, biology, meteorology etc - here www.economistdiary.com/2026/05are 19 joyful ways AI can help communities action their deepest needs - many thanks to hassabis and huang and steve jobs; earlier to neumann einstein turing and all who have heped tranform education or gealth intelligence to twin ,ost urgent actions communities need to share now that 3 million fold techs have converged - electronic chips, design of maths brain power if computers, data mapping shared through 6+g stallietes
Branches of inspiring intelligences
Nobels
Technical note USA relevant to Agre interest in scioence diplo0macy - ho0w do embassies around the world collaborate and pompete in designing intelliugences above zero sum trading mdels and transformation of education needed for transgeneration intelligence
IN USA national supercomputer lab s are run by dpeartment of energy
today AI layer 1 energy interconnects genesis https://genesis.energy.gov/and pax silica programs
AI layer2 chips has been brought fropm taiwan to usa with jensen haung by maurice change tsmc and Guo Foxconn - see also talk by Taiwan minsister of economics
The idea that ai determines nation starteg was introduced to congress 2018 - today over 40 countries have nairr instiutes; but these become purposeful sovereign ai places if accelerated superchip infrastructire investment are branded by distinct national purposes
this put layer 4 as ai models and layer 5 as community ai action apps
and public broadcasting partnerships—we can transform media archives into structured knowledge graphs. Integrated into high school curricula, these topics prepare the next generation to design AI that serves the public good.
[Step 1: Data Ingestion] --> [Step 2: Simulation Lab] --> [Step 3: Civic Sandbox] Students analyze public Students build predictive Students pitch AI-driven broadcaster science archives. models using AI tools. community solutions. Views: 59
N1 Peter Agre Nobel 2002 Hopkins Global Health;
AI layer 1 Critical Minerals -other terms materials science, proteins ...
NET's Deepest AI Model - pattern maths since eientein 1905
Peter Agre, MD '74, emeritus leader of the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, is the 2003 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his discovery of aquaporin proteins.
aquaporin water channels; malaria; science diplomacy
Campus Global Health
N2 Demis Hassabis Nobel 2024 https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/12/hassabis-lecture.pdf
Alphafold3 opens 250 million proteins - core ai 1 pattern maths - est Einstein 1905
Neumann Hof Top 5 since 2012
(urban legend as well as being year that fei-fei li's imagenet competition revelaed neural network algorithms can enable machines to identify what humans see - alexnet , it is rumored that googe's larry page heard elon musk on a plane talking about demiss hassabis deep mind- page immediately send john dean and hinton over to due diligence acquisition of deep mind- ever sinece 2012 venture capital has turned silicon valley into ai valley - at the same time as pattern maths 2 humaoids sand autonomous mobile vehicles -self driving cars/drones was taking off in ai valley); elon musk and bezos had already started revololutionising space needed to go beyond 4G- all 3 of these ai domaisn have much deeper earning curves than llm models- this took public consciousness by storm in 2022 although they had been core to bots running digital commerce)
Team google page brin dean (previously eric schmidt) pichai appear to have asked demis hassabis to co-lead gemini as well as deep mind models- he continuesd to do this out of london- basic sciences london/cambridge have offered
in 1930s gpodfather of taiwan ai to be HT Li had come from Nanjing to study at cavendish- rutrherford cavendis, crock & Watson, Cambridge Maths Lab DAMTP all resided in square few hundred yadrs through first 3 quarters of 20th c- Hassabis had previouisly studeied compouter science at cambridhe early 1990s and moved into digital games then ai phd imperial college on neurscience;
you can comnmpoare 1990s storuies of
hassabis UK fei-fei li (princeton Caltech Stanfird from 2009), and stanford 1990s jensen huang jerry yang Clara Wu Tsai, as well as bit later Page and Brin as all stanford alumni (also Musk & Thiel)
its important to understand when did 3 million fold chmnage expoenetial playout
moores law between 1965-95 (the original innovation driver of vc silicon valley) - jensens law from 1993 but accelerated 2003 pixel coding, 2009 deep learning lab, with everyone else from 2012, with first AI breakthrough chip ordered by Musk 2015; all the while when did data clouds accelerate through satellites- whilst 1g,2g emerged in 1990s , these multipliers 5g, 6g seem to have been win-win with jensens law
N3 Doudna Berkeley
Tony Blair May 2026 - we need to start and end with community actions not 2 party politics:
As John Adams – second president of the United States – once wrote: “Ballast is what I want; I totter with every breeze.”
This, not the absence of ‘better communications’ or of a ‘charismatic’ leader has been the defining problem of the government. Too often they seem to totter in the breeze. To lack ballast.
There are two epochal changes happening in the world today – one geopolitical, the other technological – and Britain is not prepared for either.
They require radical change in policy, system of government and politics.
The best political space from which this can be achieved is what I call the Radical Centre.
The centre – properly defined – is where you put policy first and politics last. So, you begin with the question: what is the right answer? And only once you have that do you engage in the political task of persuading people of it.
Britain is in a mess precisely because in recent years it has done the opposite.
Both main parties have gone off the rails by putting internal politics first and good policy second. Labour moving to the left after 2007 culminating in the absurdity of the Corbyn leadership. The Tories with Brexit.
Neither has fully recovered and ironically their failures have spawned new parties to their further left and right.
Yes, Britain needs radical change, but the difficulty (not just in Britain) is that too often the sensible people aren’t radical, and the radical people aren’t sensible.
The first epochal change is in the geopolitical order where America’s superpower status is now shared by China, in time to be joined by India. A sort of G2/3. These countries will be far ahead of whichever nation is in fourth place. By this calculation, everyone else including Britain is a middle power.
The second is the technology revolution led by developments in artificial intelligence, which will change everything. I mean everything. There is no point in debating whether this technological revolution is a good or bad thing. Just know it is a ‘thing’. In fact, it is ‘the thing’. It will displace jobs, though creating new ones, but no one yet knows the full consequence. Companies and countries will rise or fall on the back of it. It will revolutionise the private sector and should in time revolutionise public services and government. Yet people in most countries, including Britain, have no idea what is about to hit them.
This doesn’t obviate the need for immediate policies in familiar areas like immigration or taxation. But it will, in time, change even those.
Think of how Britain was in 1826 and how different it was in 1926. And then in 2026. This is the scale of change but in dramatically faster time.
Governments – any government – must find their place in this new world.
In foreign policy, it means finding the alliances necessary to do collectively what countries – other than the G2/3 – cannot do alone.
For domestic policy, governments must address what it means to govern in the age of AI.
Politics – at an international level – has always been primarily about power. It doesn’t mean values are irrelevant. On the contrary. But protection of those values also requires power. Because powerful nations have a habit of getting what they want. And less powerful nations don’t.
What is power derived from? From the strength of a country’s economy and the strength of its military capacity.
Those attributes made Britain the world’s greatest power in the 19th century and it is what sustains America’s power today. And why China, with the world’s second-largest economy and military, is the other superpower.
America allied itself to Europe in the 20th century to fight two world wars alongside us, and that alliance continued after the second world war in opposition to communism.
Today the USA and Europe including Britain share markets, a military alliance within NATO and democratic values. That is the rationale behind what we call the transatlantic alliance.
But it has always been an unequal partnership. America is much more powerful than any single allied country, is the dominant force and therefore is the ‘shot-caller’.
This has been true at least for the last half-century. Most American presidents have been too polite to say this; but they always thought it and more important, acted on it.
That is why I don’t believe with the Trump Presidency we’re witnessing a ‘rupture’. I have a great respect for Mark Carney and, as Canada’s prime minister, I understand completely why it feels like that to him, when Canada’s very independence as a nation appeared to be put in play.
I also understand the anxiety in Europe when the language of parts of the American administration seem to cast doubt on the value of NATO or the transatlantic alliance.
But I regard it less as a ‘rupture’ than a ‘reckoning’. This side of the water, we’re being told some home truths which, if wise, we will wake up to.
Though American security strategy is couched in very ‘America First’ terms, it identifies the principal threats – in the Arctic from Russia; longer term, globally, from China; and in the Middle East from Iran – no differently from how Europe sees the world. President Trump has demanded increases in NATO spending not dissolution of the alliance.
It may be a message delivered in brutal form (and the Americans would say that only by saying it brutally will we take it seriously); but in reality what is being said to us is not: ‘the partnership is dead’ but rather ‘be bigger and better partners’.
Europe needs to build economic competitivity and military capability. At present it is not succeeding in either as it should.
The so-called New World Order is not the consequence of an American breach with its Western allies. The case for the Western alliance is as strong as ever.
Rather it is the product of a risen China, a rising India, a newly militaristic Russia, emerging significant power blocs in the Gulf and elsewhere, and therefore the shifting pattern of power. And it isn’t an ‘order’ yet because the pattern is not yet clear.
So where does this leave Britain? Caught between the isolationist tendency of parts of the right and misguided progressivism of parts of the left which combined are in danger of leaving Britain marooned on an island of irrelevance.
Twenty years ago, we were, beyond doubt, America’s key ally in security and defence, leaders in Europe even though not part of Schengen or the Euro, and, with the Department of International Development (DfID), major players in soft power in the developing world.
All are now in doubt or gone.
The partnership with the USA is weaker. To be clear, we were never asked to ‘join’ America’s military action in Iran and, never having been part of the planning for such a mission, could not have been part of it. The initial request was simply for the use of our military bases for the refuelling of American planes. I understand the reasons for refusal but it’s not the best way to treat our ally.
We’re out of Europe. And DfID is disbanded.
We have forgotten an essential lesson not just of diplomacy but of power politics: if you want to play you have to be sat at the table. And bring something to the table.
I know how hard it is to be an ally of the USA. We were its staunchest supporter post 9/11. We went through Afghanistan and Iraq together. But it mattered deeply to America and so it mattered to us also. America remains the indispensable core of Britain’s security alliance. But staying with it means even when it is difficult or unpopular.
No one who has been through the maze of European Councils, Commission bureaucracy and the often ugly compromises of EU membership can be a starry-eyed proponent of Europe as presently constructed. Again, unpopular to stay the course and be present. But in the world of G2/3, do we want to be absent from the debates of our own continent and engagement with the world’s largest commercial market with whom we do almost half our trade – more than twice the amount we do with America, our next largest trading partner?
And you will never convince any focus group I have ever come across to support spending on international development – except perhaps one of bishops – but it is important for Britain’s strength abroad that we develop deep ties with a developing world which is developing fast.
What’s done is done. None of these things can simply be reversed. But to repair our standing, all require leadership and commitment.
For the American relationship, that means building defence capability and being prepared politically to argue for the alliance even when controversial, of which Iran is the latest example.
For soft power, it is impossible for fiscal reasons to wind the clock back. But there are substantial things Britain can offer our developing-world partners: trade and investment with British companies, our financial expertise and globally respected rule of law, our technology, and capacity building for governance.
Not for full articulation here, but we need a functioning relationship with the other superpower: China. Keir Starmer was absolutely right to visit. We have major points of disagreement with China but the idea we can afford to ignore China or treat China as if we were dealing with a modern version of the Soviet Union is profoundly mistaken. The Western alliance should be strong enough to deal with whatever comes from China; but stay engaged with it and where viable, cooperate with it.
The Gulf States are another new factor in global politics – wealthy, modernising fast, and with huge investment in the West which they’re increasing, as well as becoming important players in the developing world. The war in Iran will not alter this. Europe including Britain should fashion a strong alliance with the Middle East and not just the Gulf. But again, not easy with parts of Western opinion for a diversity of reasons.
The cumulative risk for Britain is that we become frighteningly insular: wary of America because of President Trump; out of Europe because we think it inconsistent with national sovereignty; considering China as an ‘enemy state’; nervous allies of the Gulf States because they’re not democracies; and not much interested in the developing world because they’re poor and potentially liable to immigrate.
The hardest part is our relationship with Europe.
The government has rightly created a new atmosphere in our European relations. Meanwhile domestic policy – with measures on tax, spending and the labour market – is moving in a more ‘European’ direction.
There is a developing sense that as the country becomes more ‘European’, and British opinion moves against Brexit, then at some point it is ripe to enter a debate about ‘going back’.
This is not a strategy.
It is true that what is crazy is to be where we’re presently heading – that is, becoming ‘European’ in our practices while being out of Europe.
But if we want to go back into some sort of structured relationship with Europe, we can only do so from a position of economic strength. We must be at the farthest end of European competitiveness. At present, we’re not.
Any structured relationship will require a negotiation. And that negotiation will have to be from strength and not weakness.
Europe is facing the challenge of implementing the Draghi report on competitiveness. Most countries agree it should be implemented. Many objective observers doubt it will be, because it advocates flexible labour markets, welfare including pension reform, and technological innovation. All face stiff opposition.
However, European politics is changing. The current European Parliament has a much more pragmatic approach. The European Council likewise. And the German chancellor and the European Commission are embracing the Draghi report with at least some clear intention of implementation. So, there are signs of hope. But there is a long way to go.
Technology policy is the critical factor. If European policy continues in the direction of addressing the dangers rather than seizing the opportunities, i.e. weights technology regulation against the technology sector, it will be impossible for Britain to go back fully into the European Union. We can’t argue that technological innovation and adoption is the key challenge of modern governance and tie ourselves to a technology environment essentially hostile to it.
On the other hand, if we negotiate from strength and begin the process of dialogue now with the EU, we are better placed to influence the direction of European policy, including on technology.
So, what Britain should do is to say to our European ‘partners’: we want to come back to a structured, formal relationship with Europe, but this can’t be a take-it-or-leave-it offer on either side. We want to engage now in the European debate about its future. We will build strong pillars of partnership with Europe on defence and energy, where already it is clear we have huge common interests. And we need a robust dialogue on technology policy.
I have used the phrase structured relationship deliberately. There is also an active debate in Europe around whether it makes sense for Europe to move at different speeds on different issues. So, we should keep open exactly what a formal and structured relationship with Europe means. And what it means should be part of the dialogue.
The truth is that Britain has lost from Brexit. But so has Europe. We’re both weaker without the other. But we can’t go back to cohabitation unless on a basis which enhances our capabilities, economic and political, and does not undermine them – and that goes for both of us.
Britain’s policy towards Europe cannot be decided separately from its domestic policy. The two must cohere.
There are many things the government is doing with which I agree: investment in infrastructure, some reforms in planning, parts of the health plan, openness to the digital revolution, parts of the immigration and policing agenda, smoothing out some of the worst trade friction with Europe and a debate around at least some of the necessary welfare reforms.
And on macroeconomic policy, the government has given the famed ‘bond markets’ reason to be quiescent, at least until the Iran war and the latest leadership turmoil.
These are no small achievements.
This is a government of people, by and large, trying to do their best given a precarious inheritance.
But there is a fundamental problem.
The people don’t want ‘politics as usual’. The real reason behind the rise of the leaders from Donald Trump to Giorgia Meloni to Javier Milei is that they answer this call. You can like them or dislike them, but their chief characteristic is they appear to be unbound, not constrained by conventional thinking.
I have experience working with the Trump Administration and I describe the difference with conventional politics in this way. The conventional leader sets a destination down the road. They drive towards it. They come to a brick wall barring the way. They stop at the wall. Sit down and consider all the options. Keep considering. Finally take a decision to go round, through or over the wall, but it’s a complicated process. It takes time and there is a constant pulling back by a cautious system.
The unconventional leader – in this case President Trump – drives down the road, sees the brick wall and accelerates. Yes, there are bits flying off the bus, there is a fair amount of debris and damage, the passengers feel mildly nauseous, but, with luck, he’s through the wall. It is simultaneously high in potential risk and in potential effectiveness.
The risk, of course, is if any wall on the journey turns out to be not a few inches but a few feet thick.
I am not advocating this approach. Merely describing its appeal. It seems to answer the efficacy challenge.
And today, the frustration with the system is such that people are inclined to take the risk. Because anything is better than the agonising irritation of incremental change that never seems to deliver real change.
This new breed of unconventional leaders has also understood how the new media landscape operates. Social media has transformed both politics and conventional media, which has decided – not all but most of it – ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. The effect is political debate conducted in a climate of perpetual gale-force winds, capable at any moment of turning into a tornado, and, confusingly, constantly changing direction.
Conventional politicians pay close attention to what media, traditional and social, agitate over. This means they’re blown this way and that, trying to follow the prevailing wind. The paradox is that the public form part of this wind, but at the same time deeply distrust it. And look for leaders who stand strong in the face of it.
These unconventional leaders appear to have the ballast many conventional politicians lack.
They have an attitude, a tribe and a project.
They’re prepared to raise the middle finger to the part of the media which opposes them. And for protection they build a tribe – a core of support which will follow them, sometimes almost blindly. That’s why the ‘scandals’ which would immediately topple a conventional politician, they survive. The tribe won’t follow the tornado. Therefore, they reduce its impact. To switch analogies, they defang the beast.
And these leaders have a project. You might like it or not. But they have one. It gives them strength and purpose.
Before the 2024 general election I would ask members of the shadow cabinet and Parliamentary Party how they saw themselves. What are we: New Labour, Old Labour, Blue Labour? Usually the response would be: we don’t really think of ourselves like that, i.e. we don’t want to make that choice. And I would say: if you don’t choose your definition, by default it will be chosen for you. You will drift, trying to be both New and Old Labour at the same time and will end up as what I call ‘Just Labour’ – i.e. firmly in the party’s comfort zone.
Worse, before the election you will naturally be drawn to a New Labour pitch because it will more likely win over floating voters and business. But post-election, the pressure within the party will drive you towards Old Labour because it will give you an easier life and because you have never articulated why it’s wrong.
Therefore, if you’re not careful, people will vote thinking they’re getting a version of New(ish) Labour and then in government feel they have instead got a version of Old(ish) Labour. The leadership will end up personifying Labour’s essential choice, not resolving it. And the electorate will feel cheated.
Due to the way the manifesto was drafted, the government took with it into power commitments which meant that there was an inevitable gap between the government rhetoric around growth and the impact of these commitments on what the business community needed to restore the so-called animal spirits and get the private sector moving.
The commitments were: the new workers’-rights laws; the net-zero acceleration and phasing out of the British oil and gas industry; the uplift in the minimum wage beyond inflation; and the non-dom changes.
The prime minister and the chancellor should have said right at the outset: these are commitments which economic circumstances have rendered unwise to proceed with. The priority is growth. That comes with a vibrant private sector which has suffered years of economic instability, and we are going to go all out for making business feel respected and supported.
Dropping the commitments would have been painful but bearable because the government would have started with real goodwill from business.
But we didn’t, and to compound the problem, we chose a rise in National Insurance not VAT to plug the fiscal gap in the first Budget. Either tax increase would have been unpopular. Only one undermined business confidence.
Then, in the last Budget, it appeared as if we were increasing tax to pay for additional welfare spending, when the public already thinks welfare bills are too high.
Taken together, these measures have given headwinds not tailwinds to British business, despite the macroeconomic gains for which the chancellor is rightly praised.
At a minimum, the government should try to limit the effect of the changes made and, as we have argued consistently, remove those parts of the net-zero agenda which prioritise clean energy over cheaper energy; and from now on make sure the actions match the words on growth.
This would be better for Britain, but by itself won’t renew the country.
To do this requires a fundamental reset.
Whoever is elected next time will be seen as offering something radical. At present, there are the Greens offering radical leftism. There is Reform offering radical rightism. The Tories are offering Reform Lite. (The Lib Dems are being Lib Dems, i.e. finger in the wind).
In these circumstances, if Labour continues as ‘Just Labour’, it risks getting sliced to the left and right of itself.
And should it actively choose Old/Blue Labour, it may get back some of the so-called Red Wall (though remember New Labour kept those seats in 2005 and Labour lost them subsequently going left), but it then risks losing the parts of the country it gained in the south.
Labour’s only electorally viable strategy is to become the Radical Centre.
Let me explain why.
Everywhere in Western politics there is fragmentation, mirrored in the fragmentation of the media. Look around Europe and the traditional parties of left and right have seen their support cratered. Or there has been turmoil within those parties.
They have responded mostly by trying to move to the left or to the right in the mistaken belief the centre ground has disappeared; or defined the centre ground in a rather flabby and weak way as ‘not extreme’ or ‘moderate’.
This has happened because of a confusion of two different elements. The centre ground is still where elections can be won. Labour won in 2024 in part because people thought the party was sort of centrist, even though really it wasn’t. Macron won in France from the centre. So did the Democrats in the Netherlands recently. So did Tusk in Poland. Mark Carney too. Albanese in Australia. If the Democrats had chosen a strong centrist candidate in the 2024 American election, it would have been a much closer call.
The centre has a supply problem not a demand one.
However, the centre should never be the place of managing the status quo. Or of splitting the difference between left and right. Or just being ‘moderate’.
Rather, as I said earlier, the centre is the place where policy comes first and politics second. You work out the correct analysis, then the correct answer, and shape your political strategy around it.
Where, therefore, the correct answer requires radical change, the centre should be the radical changemaker.
This is the vacant space in British politics.
Parties no longer ‘own’ political space. Even 20 years ago, they did. They had core votes, people who stayed with them almost like religion. They identified with the party, Labour or Conservative. The parties owned that space. Even if, occasionally, they deserted it.
No longer. Today you don’t own the space, you inhabit it. Or not. And if not, it’s empty and up for grabbing. To the left and right of Labour the space is crowded. But not the centre. And the great benefit of it? It is best for the country too.
The Radical Centre starts from the proposition that governing in the age of AI will be the principal challenge. And opportunity. The route to economic prosperity and social justice. Here is what such an agenda might look like.
1. The private sector will go through a process of adaptation to this new AI world and, therefore, business and entrepreneurs need to know government is on their side, removing obstacles to business growth – not creating them as they go through this massive process of adjustment. So, all those measures I described above which hold business back should be corrected or mitigated.
2. We need a transformative programme for planning reform and deregulation. The planning system in Britain is an abomination. The government has taken significant steps, but well short of a truly radical reform.
3. We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources. This is essential for our competitiveness and for taking advantage of AI.
4. We should create a major new partnership with the private and voluntary sectors for apprenticeships and training – not just for the young and unemployed, but for the existing workforce whose jobs will be affected by AI and who need to learn AI adoption. Build on and not dilute the education reforms for schools started under New Labour and continued under the Conservatives. And keep our universities strong because they’re critical to the technology economy. This is the key to extending opportunity and wealth, even more than it was in 1997.
5. ‘Reindustrialising’ the north of the country can be encouraged by government giving incentives and help but most of all it will come through first-class infrastructure, education, freedom from bureaucracy, and government working in partnership with the private sector and with the forward-facing part of the trade-union movement. And with a broad definition of ‘industry’ if we want to create jobs because much of future manufacturing will likely be done by robots, though there will be also major opportunities in areas requiring a high degree of traditional skills.
6. A plan for fundamental reform, over time, of welfare. By the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. No serious country can do that. Mental-health spending has exploded over the past five or six years. The system at points incentivises people not to work. The triple lock is unaffordable long term. All of this is horribly hard, but the British people know, deep down, the necessity of doing it. If the Conservative Party repeats its offer of working together on welfare, Labour should accept the offer.
7. The NHS needs not NHS reform but whole-system health-care reform. Moving from cure to prevention. Mixing private and public provision in a fundamental realignment of the two. Reorganising the delivery of health care, for example making weight-loss drugs and other preventative products widely available. Getting rid of all the old shibboleths which have turned the NHS into a point of theological principle rather than a modern service where the transformative power of technology alters its foundations.
8. Take effective – i.e. ‘whatever it takes’ – action to solve the illegal immigration issue. The home secretary is right in believing that solving this issue is critical and has completely changed in nature since 2007. Solving it is pre-conditional to getting the British people to listen to bigger arguments about the future. We should deal by whatever means with small boats but recognise the necessity of targeted immigration in certain sectors for economic growth and be unashamed to advocate it.
9. Most important of all, reorganising the whole of government around the harnessing of the 21st-century technological revolution. All governments for the foreseeable future will govern in the age of AI. Those which understand it will see their countries prosper; those which don’t, won’t. This is literally the challenge across all sectors including welfare and health (digital ID is just one, though vital, part of it). It will define the future of the British economy which, ironically, has a powerful position in technology but one we’re in danger of squandering.
10. Our aim, for the long term, should be a Reimagined State in which taxes and spending can be lower, productivity higher and government seen as enabling not directing, with political consensus behind such a radical restructuring of the state.
Alongside this policy agenda would come a wholesale reconfiguration of government. Not civil-service retraining, but a new cadre of workforce, with the specialist technical skills necessary to do systemic change. Departments effectively run by ministers not exclusively from the ranks of Parliament if they have the necessary experience and capability in change management, with special provision for them to be accountable.
Without an agenda of this nature, radical but sensible, Britain will continue its long slide towards relegation from the Premier League of nations.
It is not inevitable we decline. Britain still has huge strengths, a highly talented people and a residual respect in the world. But we must show we understand how that world is changing and what our place in it should be. That requires, in turn, a fundamental change in our current politics.
q - jobs by nations 5/31/26
JU1So far which places in UK are humanly gaining most from ai and why. Conversely which places lagging and why.
JU2 Jensen calls AI great equaliser. But it seems (eg your reply JU10 so far it's places with bigger uni etc that are gaining. Can anything be done?
JU3 Around world are there any best examples of places making ai progress that did not start with best tech, big universities or the most energy etc
JU4 Ok but going deeper into Huang we have layer 5 ai. Community scaling solutions of most need to that community. any benchmark examples of that and mobilisation from diversity or bottom not from top down gov
JU5 Japan (eg nhk global channel) has some nice cases where ai is restoring traditional crafts or specialty agriculture tuned to nutrition, cooking and nature (including healthy speces). I see this as important to jobs sustainability generational joy and hi-trust ai at its most family and humanly worthwhile --- any cases of this sort?
ROBOTS IN LOOP
RL1 Madison Huang (see Korea SNU talk) us interesting as her early career studied deep craftsmanship in cuisine and then French luxury goods but us now in robotics at Nvidia .I am wondering if there are examples where a robot can make a difficult component of a craft but then free many people to design their unique artisan value
RL2 In US, some talk about prioritising need for community colleges craftsmanship apprenticeship not so much university abstraction. Could the robot in the loop if what has previously stopped an apprentice from being marketable early be a particular lever if some community college skilling. Also I wonder eg in becoming a nurse or other much needed occupations ,is there way robot can make training more affordable or help take some of responsibility or form admin so human can affordably but reliably serve human to human needs
RL3
I am not sure if it is robotics or drones engineering but I could imagine in some disasters eg forest fires AI helping both data mapping to clarify where most attention needed to fight fire and perhaps to augment humans if not enough humans at location or where risky but vital to be at disaster front wave. How do you see this?
RL 4 Would it also be the case that ai with drones can collect data so that either prevention or effectiveness improves in repeated situations (of interest to mayors and other public servants of specific regions)
RL 5 I am hopeful that eg Taiwan and Japan could advance some of these areas and then lot of Asia join in. Japan is both a place where nature is quite volatile eg earthquakes and population elderly needing ever more support. Taiwan remains world's best at layer 2 and understanding value of all 5 layers. Asia has many lead needs that rich west does not have. In some ways we are saying island or archipelago economies different issues than huge continent. While both need solutions huge advantage to humanity if places like Taiwan Japan Korea cooperate now. the East can celebrate good (news and action) AI. (This may also blend with Taiwan/Japan helping lead Earth2). Please examine this view.
Chartering 5 Layer AI Agency - integrating exponential intergenerational multipliers of trusted human relationship systems through community scaling apps
AsiaAI.docx where & how 2/3 human brains are celebrating AI livelihoods
====
lelated US AI reports:
chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk :help celebrate library of INTELLIGENCE multipliers: -system map
views on whether AGI exists
- how close are google aws or huawei to nvidia
2025REPORT-ER: Entrepreneurial Revolution est 1976; Neumann Intelligence Unit at The Economist since 1951. Norman Macrae's & friends 75 year mediation of engineers of computing & autonomous machines has reached overtime: Big Brother vs Little Sister !?
Overtime help ed weekly quizzes on Gemini of Musk & Top 10 AI brains until us election nov 2028
unaiwho.docx version 6/6/22 hunt for 100 helping guterres most with UN2.0
RSVP chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk
Prep for UNSUMMITFUTURE.com
JOIN SEARCH FOR UNDER 30s MOST MASSIVE COLLABS FOR HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY
1 Jensen Huang 2 Demis Hassabis 3 Dei-Fei Li 4 King Charles
5 Bezos Earth (10 bn) 6 Bloomberg JohnsHopkins cbestAI.docx 7 Banga
8 Maurice Chang 9 Mr & Mrs Jerry Yang 10 Mr & Mrs Joseph Tsai 11 Musk
12 Fazle Abed 13 Ms & Mr Steve Jobs 14 Melinda Gates 15 BJ King 16 Benioff
17 Naomi Osaka 18 Jap Emperor Family 19 Akio Morita 20 Mayor Koike
The Economist 1982 why not Silicon AI Valley Everywhere 21 Founder Sequoia 22 Mr/Mrs Anne Doerr 23 Condi Rice
23 MS & Mr Filo 24 Horvitz 25 Michael Littman NSF 26 Romano Prodi 27 Andrew Ng 29 Lila Ibrahim 28 Daphne Koller
30 Mayo Son 31 Li Ka Shing 32 Lee Kuan Yew 33 Lisa Su 34 ARM 36 Priscilla Chan
38 Agnelli Family 35 Ms Tan & Mr Joe White
37 Yann Lecun 39 Dutch Royal family 40 Romano Prodi
41 Kramer 42 Tirole 43 Rachel Glennerster 44 Tata 45 Manmohan Singh 46 Nilekani 47 James Grant 48 JimKim, 49 Guterres
50 attenborough 51 Gandhi 52 Freud 53 St Theresa 54 Montessori 55 Sunita Gandhu,56 paulo freire 57 Marshall Mcluhan58 Andrew Sreer 59 Lauren Sanchez, 60 David Zapolski
61 Harris 62 Chips Act Raimundo 63 oiv Newsom. 64 Arati Prab hakarm,65 Jennifer Doudna CrispR, 66 Oren Etsioni,67 Robert Reisch,68 Jim Srreyer 69 Sheika Moza
- 3/21/22 HAPPY 50th Birthday TO WORLD'S MOST SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY- ASIAN WOMEN SUPERVILLAGE
Since gaining my MA statistics Cambridge DAMTP 1973 (Corpus Christi College) my special sibject has been community building networks- these are the 6 most exciting collaboration opportunities my life has been privileged to map - the first two evolved as grassroots person to person networks before 1996 in tropical Asian places where village women had no access to electricity grids nor phones- then came mobile and solar entrepreneurial revolutions!!
COLLAB platforms of livesmatter communities to mediate public and private -poorest village mothers empowering end of poverty 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
4 livelihood edu for all
3 last mile health services 3.1 3,2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
last mile nutrition 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2,6
banking for all workers 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
NEWS FROM LIBRARY NORMAN MACRAE -latest publication 2021 translation into japanese biography of von neumann:
Below: neat German catalogue (about half of dad's signed works) but expensive -interesting to see how Germans selected the parts they like over time: eg omitted 1962 Consider Japan The Economist
feel free to ask if free versions are available
0 The coming entrepreneurial revolution : a survey - In: The economist 261 (1976), pp. 41-65 cited 105
. we scots are less than 4/1000 of the worlds and 3/4 are Diaspora - immigrants in others countries. Since 2008 I have been celebrating Bangladesh Women Empowerment solutions wth NY graduates. Now I want to host love each others events in new york starting this week with hong kong-contact me if we can celebrate anoither countries winm-wins with new yorkers
mapping OTHER ECONOMIES:
50 SMALLEST ISLAND NATIONS
TWO Macroeconomies FROM SIXTH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE & war-prone
ADemocratic
Russian
=============
From 60%+ people =Asian Supercity (60TH YEAR OF ECONOMIST REPORTING - SEE CONSIDER JAPAN1962)
Far South - eg African, Latin Am, Australasia
Earth's other economies : Arctic, Antarctic, Dessert, Rainforest
===========
In addition to how the 5 primary sdgs1-5 are gravitated we see 6 transformation factors as most critical to sustainability of 2020-2025-2030
Xfactors to 2030 Xclimate XAI Xinfra Xyouth Wwomen Xpoor chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk (scot currently in washington DC)- in 1984 i co-authored 2025 report with dad norman.
|
Asia Rising Surveys
Entrepreneurial Revolution -would endgame of one 40-year generations of applying Industrial Revolution 3,4 lead to sustainability of extinction 1972's Next 40 Years ;1976's Coming Entrepreneurial Revolution; 12 week leaders debate 1982's We're All Intrapreneurial Now
|
The Economist had been founded in 1843" marking one of 6 exponential timeframes "Future Histores"
IN ASSOCIATION WITH ADAMSMITH.app :
we offer worldwide mapping view points from
and these viewpoints:
40 years ago -early 1980s when we first framed 2025 report;
from 1960s when 100 times more tech per decade was due to compound industrial revolutions 3,4
1945 birth of UN
1843 when the economist was founded
1760s - adam smithian 2 views : last of pre-engineering era; first 16 years of engineering ra including america's declaration of independence- in essence this meant that to 1914 continental scaling of engineeriing would be separate new world <.old world
IF we 8 billion earthlings of the 2020s are to celebrate collaboration escapes from extinction, the knowhow of the billion asian poorest women networks will be invaluable -
in mathematically connected ways so will the stories of diaspora scots and the greatest mathematicians ever home schooled -central european jewish teens who emigrated eg Neumann , Einstein ... to USA 2nd quarter of the 20th century; it is on such diversity that entrepreneurial revolution diaries have been shaped
EconomistPOOR.com : Dad was born in the USSR in 1923 - his dad served in British Embassies. Dad's curiosity enjoyed the opposite of a standard examined education. From 11+ Norman observed results of domination of humans by mad white men - Stalin from being in British Embassy in Moscow to 1936; Hitler in Embassy of last Adriatic port used by Jews to escape Hitler. Then dad spent his last days as a teen in allied bomber command navigating airplanes stationed at modernday Myanmar. Surviving thanks to the Americas dad was in Keynes last class where he was taught that only a handful of system designers control what futures are possible. EconomistScotland.com AbedMooc.com
To help mediate such, question every world eventwith optimistic rationalism, my father's 2000 articles at The Economist interpret all sorts of future spins. After his 15th year he was permitted one signed survey a year. In the mid 1950s he had met John Von Neumann whom he become biographer to , and was the only journalist at Messina's's birth of EU. == If you only have time for one download this one page tour of COLLABorations composed by Fazle Abed and networked by billion poorest village women offers clues to sustainability from the ground up like no white ruler has ever felt or morally audited. by London Scot James Wilson. Could Queen Victoria change empire fro slavemaking to commonwealth? Some say Victoria liked the challenge James set her, others that she gave him a poison pill assignment. Thus James arrived in Calcutta 1860 with the Queens permission to charter a bank by and for Indian people. Within 9 months he died of diarrhea. 75 years later Calcutta was where the Young Fazle Abed grew up - his family accounted for some of the biggest traders. Only to be partitioned back at age 11 to his family's home region in the far north east of what had been British Raj India but was now to be ruled by Pakistan for 25 years. Age 18 Abed made the trek to Glasgow University to study naval engineering.
1943 marked centenary autobio of The Economist and my teenage dad Norman prepping to be navigator allied bomber command Burma Campaign -thanks to US dad survived, finished in last class of Keynes. before starting 5 decades at The Economist; after 15 years he was allowed to sign one survey a year starting in 1962 with the scoop that Japan (Korea S, Taiwan soon hk singapore) had found development mp0de;s for all Asian to rise. Rural Keynes could end village poverty & starvation; supercity win-win trades could celebrate Neumanns gift of 100 times more tech per decade (see macrae bio of von neumann)
Since 1960 the legacy of von neumann means ever decade multiplies 100 times more micro-technology- an unprecedented time for better or worse of all earthdwellers; 2025 timelined and mapped innovation exponentials - education, health, go green etc - (opportunities threats) to celebrating sustainability generation by 2025; dad parted from earth 2010; since then 2 journals by adam smith scholars out of Glasgow where engines began in 1760- Social Business; New Economics have invited academic worlds and young graduates to question where the human race is going - after 30 business trips to wealthier parts of Asia, through 2010s I have mainly sherpa's young journalist to Bangladesh - we are filing 50 years of cases on women empowerment at these web sites AbedMOOC.com FazleAbed.com EconomistPoor.com EconomistUN.com WorldRecordjobs.com Economistwomen.com Economistyouth.com EconomistDiary.com UNsummitfuture.com - in my view how a billion asian women linked together to end extreme poverty across continental asia is the greatest and happiest miracle anyone can take notes on - please note the rest of this column does not reflect my current maps of how or where the younger half of the world need to linkin to be the first sdg generation......its more like an old scrap book
how do humans design futures?-in the 2020s decade of the sdgs – this question has never had more urgency. to be or not to be/ – ref to lessons of deming or keynes, or glasgow university alumni smith and 200 years of hi-trust economics mapmaking later fazle abed - we now know how-a man made system is defined by one goal uniting generations- a system multiplies connected peoples work and demands either accelerating progress to its goal or collapsing - sir fazle abed died dec 2020 - so who are his most active scholars climate adaptability where cop26 november will be a great chance to renuite with 260 years of adam smith and james watts purposes t end poverty-specifically we interpret sdg 1 as meaning next girl or boy born has fair chance at free happy an productive life as we seek to make any community a child is born into a thriving space to grow up between discover of new worlds in 1500 and 1945 systems got worse and worse on the goal eg processes like slavery emerged- and ultimately the world was designed around a handful of big empires and often only the most powerful men in those empires. 4 amazing human-tech systems were invented to start massive use by 1960 borlaug agriculture and related solutions every poorest village (2/3people still had no access to electricity) could action learn person to person- deming engineering whose goal was zero defects by helping workers humanize machines- this could even allowed thousands of small suppliers to be best at one part in machines assembled from all those parts) – although americans invented these solution asia most needed them and joyfully became world class at them- up to 2 billion people were helped to end poverty through sharing this knowhow- unlike consuming up things actionable knowhow multiplies value in use when it links through every community that needs it the other two technologies space and media and satellite telecoms, and digital analytic power looked promising- by 1965 alumni of moore promised to multiply 100 fold efficiency of these core tech each decade to 2030- that would be a trillion tmes moore than was needed to land on the moon in 1960s. you might think this tech could improve race to end poverty- and initially it did but by 1990 it was designed around the long term goal of making 10 men richer than 40% poorest- these men also got involved in complex vested interests so that the vast majority of politicians in brussels and dc backed the big get bigger - often they used fake media to hide what they were doing to climate and other stuff that a world trebling in population size d\ - we the 3 generations children parents grandparents have until 2030 to design new system orbits gravitated around goal 1 and navigating the un's other 17 goals do you want to help/ 8 cities we spend most time helping students exchange sustainability solutions 2018-2019 BR0 Beijing Hangzhou:
Girls world maps begin at B01 good news reporting with fazleabed.com valuetrue.com and womenuni.com
.==========
online library of norman macrae--
==========
Ma 2 Ali Financial
health catalogue; energy catalogue
Keynes: 2025now - jobs Creating Gen
.
how poorest women in world build
A01 BRAC health system,
A02 BRAC education system,
A03 BRAC banking system
K01 Twin Health System - Haiti& Boston
Past events EconomistDiary.com
include 15th annual spring collaboration cafe new york - 2022 was withsister city hong kong designers of metaverse for beeings.app
© 2026 Created by chris macrae.
Powered by
