• At a moment of military might, Israel looks deeply vulnerable
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/03/21/at-a-moment-of-military-might-israel-looks-deeply-vulnerable

    Beaucoup de bruit autour de la dernière édition de The Economist. Même les « meilleurs » amis d’Israël commencent à s’inquiéter (pour eux ?)

    There is still a narrow path out of the hellscape of Gaza. A temporary ceasefire and hostage release could cause a change of Israel’s government; the rump of Hamas fighters in south Gaza could be contained or fade away; and from the rubble, talks on a two-state solution could begin, underwritten by America and its Gulf allies. It is just as likely, however, that ceasefire talks will fail. That could leave Israel locked in the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence, featuring endless occupation, hard-right politics and isolation. Today many Israelis are in denial about this, but a political reckoning will come eventually. It will determine not only the fate of Palestinians, but also whether Israel thrives in the next 75 years.

    If you are a friend of Israel this is a deeply uncomfortable moment. In October it launched a justified war of self-defence against Hamas, whose terrorists had committed atrocities that threaten the idea of Israel as a land where Jews are safe. Today Israel has destroyed perhaps half of Hamas’s forces. But in important ways its mission has failed.

    First, in Gaza, where its reluctance to help provide or distribute aid has led to an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe, and where the civilian toll from the war is over 20,000 and growing. The hard-right government of Binyamin Netanyahu has rejected plans for post-war Gaza to be run by either the Palestinian Authority (pa) or an international force. The likeliest outcome is a military reoccupation. If you add the West Bank, Israel could permanently hold sway over 4m-5m Palestinians.

    Israel has also failed at home. The problems go deeper than Mr Netanyahu’s dire leadership. A growing settler movement and ultra-Orthodox population have tilted politics to the right and polarised society. Before October 7th this was visible in a struggle over judicial independence. The war has raised the stakes, and although the hard-right parties of the coalition are excluded from the war cabinet they have compromised Israel’s national interest by using incendiary rhetoric, stoking settler violence and trying to sabotage aid and post-war planning. Israel’s security establishment is capable and pragmatic, but no longer fully in charge.

    Israel’s final failure is clumsy diplomacy. Fury at the war was inevitable, especially in the global south, but Israel has done a poor job of countering it. “Lawfare”, including spurious genocide allegations, is damaging its reputation. Young Americans sympathise with it less than their parents do. President Joe Biden has tried to restrain Mr Netanyahu’s government by publicly embracing it, but failed. On March 14th Chuck Schumer, Israel’s greatest ally in the Senate, decried Hamas’s atrocities but said Israel’s leader was “lost”.

    It is a bleak picture that is not always acknowledged in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Mr Netanyahu talks of invading Rafah, Hamas’s last redoubt, while the hard right fantasises about resettling Gaza. Many mainstream Israelis are deluding themselves, too. They believe the unique threats to Israel justify its ruthlessness and that the war has helped restore deterrence. Gaza shows that if you murder Israelis, destruction beckons. Many see no partner for peace—the P.A. is rotten and polls say 93% of Palestinians deny Hamas’s atrocities even took place. Occupation is the least-bad option, they conclude. Israelis would prefer to be popular abroad, but condemnation and antisemitism are a small price to pay for security. As for America, it has been angry before. The relationship is not about to rupture. If Donald Trump returns he may once again give Israel a free pass.

    This seductive story is a manifesto for disaster. (...)

  • The genocide case Israel faces is more about politics than the law
    https://www.economist.com/international/2024/01/17/the-genocide-case-israel-faces-is-more-about-politics-than-the-law


    getty images

    Since its creation in 1946 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has heard an average of fewer than three cases a year. Many are obscure, such as a dispute over pulp mills in Uruguay. The trial that began on January 11th, though, was one of the highest drama, when it heard arguments from South Africa that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
    Palestinians were elated by the sight of Israel in the dock after decades of impunity for its conduct in the occupied territories. Crowds gathered to watch it broadcast in squares in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the West Bank.

    A full trial would take years to conclude. In the meantime South Africa has asked the court for “provisional measures”, one of which is that it orders Israel to stop fighting in Gaza. The burden of proof for an injunction is low: “South Africa just needs to show that its claims are plausible,” says Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School. Judges must now decide whether to demand that Israel end its longest and deadliest war against the Palestinians since 1948.
    As a political gambit, South Africa’s case is already a success. Yet as a legal strategy it is risky. Some of Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 7th could plausibly be described as war crimes. But in seeking to label them genocide, a uniquely horrific crime, it risks making the debate about the label rather than the actions themselves.
    In politics, genocide has become a byword for the worst human suffering imaginable. But legally it is a tightly defined concept, and hard to prove. This is because it entails not just particular acts, such as killing civilians or causing them “serious bodily or mental harm”, it also requires that they be done with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”.
    To prove intent, South Africa cited Israeli ministers, lawmakers, army officers and soldiers: the Knesset member who spoke of “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth”; the troops who later chanted “may Gaza be erased”. It sought to show that these statements were followed by rank-and-file soldiers. Israel argued that these were “random quotes that are not in conformity with government policy”.
    Parts of South Africa’s presentation were sloppy: its lawyers referred to a speech in which Mr Netanyahu invoked the biblical story of Amalek, a nation that persecuted the Israelites, yet in seeking to explain how the allusion was genocidal they cited the wrong biblical passage. Their filing then quoted Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, saying on October 10th that “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.” That sounds genocidal. But in Mr Gallant’s actual comments there is an additional sentence in the middle: “Hamas will no longer be.” The correct quote, and the rest of the clip, make clear that he is referring to Hamas, not to Palestinians.

    Still, it is impossible to deny that some prominent Israelis have said things that could incite genocide, which is also an offence under the UN convention, to which Israel is a signatory. Though they have suffered no legal or political consequences for doing so, it would be hard to prove that their incitement amounts to state intent.
    A second issue is proving Israel has killed Palestinians because of their nationality. South Africa’s lawyers claim that Israel’s use of 2,000lb (907kg) bombs, the largest in its arsenal, in densely populated places like Jabalia, in northern Gaza, is evidence of genocide. Using such large bombs could be a war crime, unless Israel can show it had no other way to strike a vital military target. But it is not a genocidal act unless South Africa can prove that Israel dropped those bombs specifically to kill lots of Palestinians. Thus far, it has failed to do so. The same goes for the restrictions Israel has imposed on aid to Gaza. “Israel could argue that it used starvation as a weapon of war to make people suffer,” says Mr Haque. “That would be a war crime, but it’s not genocide.”
    To call these arguments distasteful would be an understatement. The South African filing describes a litany of horrors committed against Palestinians in Gaza. Whichever way the ICJ rules, they will still be horrors. By pressing the charge of genocide, South Africa has created a situation in which a ruling in Israel’s favour could be seen as absolution for its conduct.
    Yet even if it is absolved of genocide, Israel should still be scrutinised for other possible violations. Start with two of the core principles of international law: distinction and proportionality. The former requires armies to distinguish between civilian and military targets. The latter demands they not inflict excessive harm on civilians in relation to military utility. With northern Gaza now a wasteland, and thousands of civilians dead, it is hard to trust that Israel has adhered to those principles. Israeli officials concede that in this war the army has approved strikes that are both deadlier for civilians and achieve smaller military gains than in previous conflicts in Gaza. Some Western officials think Israel has crossed a legal line with its new calculus of proportionality.
    Other questions of law deserve scrutiny as well. One is the destruction of Gaza’s medical facilities. There is strong evidence that Hamas has used hospitals for military purposes, which is itself a war crime. Under international law, hospitals can lose their protection if used for “acts harmful to the enemy”. But they do not become valid targets indefinitely. That Hamas militants might have used Shifa hospital in October does not necessarily justify an Israeli raid there in November. In many cases Israel has not offered compelling proof that its attacks on hospitals were justified.
    Another question is over the appalling humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where the UN says there is a risk of imminent famine. Israel told the ICJ that it has not limited deliveries of food to Gaza, which is true in theory but not in practice. It has largely barred such deliveries via its own territory, which is how most supplies entered Gaza before the war, and it imposes long and unpredictable inspections on aid entering from Egypt.

    Investigating such cases, however, will not be the job of the ICJ. That task would fall to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the other big court in The Hague, which claims jurisdiction over both the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7th and the war in Gaza that followed because Palestine is a signatory to its founding treaty. But such investigations will be sluggish.
    For now, that leaves the genocide case at the ICJ and the question of whether to impose any of the provisional measures requested by South Africa. Because the ICJ settles disputes between un member-states, and Hamas is not one, judges are in the uncomfortable position of being asked to order Israel to implement a unilateral ceasefire with no corresponding obligation on Hamas to halt its genocidal attacks.
    Even if it were to issue such an order, it would have no means to enforce its judgments, which governments sometimes ignore. Israel has made clear that it will do just that. “We will continue this war until the end,” Mr Netanyahu has said. “No one will stop us, not even The Hague.”
    Still, a ruling against Israel could have far-reaching consequences. It would certainly make the politics of supporting Israel’s war more complicated for its allies. There could also be legal implications. In America the so-called “Leahy law” bars the government from providing military aid to foreign forces that commit human-rights abuses. If the ICJ were to find that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide, some Democrats would no doubt try to invoke this law. It is unlikely that such a view would find majority support in a country that is both supportive of Israel and hostile to international courts. But President Joe Biden’s administration could still find itself in the uncomfortable position of appearing to much of the world to be excusing a crime it has long sought to end.

  • Election of the chair of the #IPCC – The Economist
    #GIEC

    Editor’s note: the ipcc’s new chair will be elected at its 59th session in Nairobi on July 25th-28th. Three weeks ago we invited all four candidates for the post to contribute a piece to this section; Dr Roberts and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele agreed to do so.

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/debra-roberts-on-why-she-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/jean-pascal-van-ypersele-on-why-he-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

    #paywall

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
      The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

      D. R. :
      REFLECTING ON THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) sixth assessment cycle, known as AR6, I am struck by the extent to which global challenges, once distant or abstract, are now immediate and personal. Global crises made me caregiver to my 100-year-old father during the covid pandemic; contributed to a week of poverty-fuelled civil unrest where I live in South Africa; and saw flood waters engulf our home because of the ever-warming atmosphere.

      These experiences remind us why science is so important. Evidence-based decision-making has allowed the world to respond to the pandemic, attribute extreme events to climate change and understand that inequity anywhere undermines a safer, more sustainable future for everyone.

      For the past 35 years the IPCC has provided decision-makers with scientific evidence to inform policy. Over the first five assessment cycles the panel explained the causes and impacts of climate change, whereas the most recent cycle has focused on identifying solutions.

      But during the United Nations’ “decade of action”—aimed at stepping up action to tackle the world’s biggest challenges—it is clear that we need not only solutions, but also an assessment of their feasibility and effectiveness to inform ambitious short-term action. And action is critical as the AR6 reports conclude that the pace and scale of what has been done so far are insufficient to tackle climate change. This is the challenge for the seventh assessment cycle, AR7.

      Having worked at the interface between science, policy and practice for more than 30 years in the fields of climate change, biodiversity, sustainability and resilience, I know how difficult it is to turn science into action. Experience has taught me that the best outcomes come from working together to prioritise equity and shared responsibility.

      My priority as chair of the IPCC would be to build a strong leadership team. I would harness the strengths of the vice-chairs and the Working Group and Task Force/Group co-chairs and bureaus to strategically plan the scientific workflow of the cycle and determine how we make IPCC operations more sustainable. That will involve assessing and reducing the carbon footprint of IPCC’s own activities. An AR7 leadership team with a shared vision and clear roles would drive even stronger scientific integration than we saw in AR6. The Special Report on Cities offers an early opportunity to put increased integration into practice.

      Ensuring more balanced representation of women and scientists from the global south, and addressing data gaps for the south, should be priorities for AR7. My appointment as the first female chair, and the first from Africa, would encourage more women and global-south scientists to volunteer their time. I would also work with the IPCC vice-chairs to liaise more closely with member governments, who are responsible for identifying national experts, to ensure that a more representative range of authors are nominated for AR7 reports.

      In addition, we need to make the work environment more inclusive, for instance by training people to work effectively in diverse, multicultural teams. Ensuring that the Gender Action Team concludes the work on a code of conduct and complaints process should also help.

      Engaging more young scientists is critical. By involving early-career scientists and IPCC scholarship recipients, and providing clear roles for Chapter Scientists, who give technical and logistical support to authors, we can help ensure the longevity of the organisation.

      Strengthening the organisation must be accompanied by actions that enhance the scientific leadership of the IPCC. Given the increase in climate-change-related literature, I believe AR6 was the last assessment cycle in which it was possible to produce a comprehensive assessment of the literature using traditional means. In AR7 we should evaluate new tools such as AI and machine learning, which can potentially assist the assessment process and increase access to non-English literature. We must ensure that authors from the global south have equal access.

      AR7 will require broader engagement with those who hold indigenous and local knowledge, which will be crucial in developing strategies that improve stewardship of ecosystems, increase biodiversity and improve resilience. Better co-ordination with the work of other global initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which was created to bridge the gap between biodiversity science and policy, should also be prioritised.

      Finally, if IPCC reports are to inform fast and far-reaching implementation, we must be willing to question whether lengthy assessment reports delivered at the end of the decade of action are the best approach. Shorter, more focused special reports may better support ambitious action and the second Global Stocktake—the process that enables governments and other stakeholders to assess progress made in meeting the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change. We should step up regionally focused communication efforts and encourage other networks, including NGOs, to produce their own reports based on IPCC material. The chair should play a central role in IPCC communications. As a skilled science communicator, I am well placed to do that.

      In the decade of action, we need IPCC leadership with the right experience. As an active publishing scientist and skilled practitioner, I bring a practical approach to the science. My experience would help me to build bridges inside and outside the IPCC. I would ensure that the panel’s work stays independent of politics, is fair and balanced, prioritises scientific integrity and creates a work environment that values all voices. The science of AR7 will be critical to ensuring we leave no person, place or ecosystem behind.■

      Debra Roberts is IPCC Co-Chair of Working Group II (Sixth Assessment Cycle); heads the sustainability and resilience function in eThekwini municipality in Durban; and holds the Professor Willem Schermerhorn Chair in Open Science from a Majority World Perspective at the University of Twente.

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
      He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

      J.-P. Y :
      THIS YEAR marks the 35th anniversary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the halfway point to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. Our planet is facing challenges that have no historical equivalent. Action, based on the best scientific assessments, is needed on a number of fronts: to stay on track with the 1.5°C goal and accelerate reductions in emissions; to engineer a just transition to more climate-resilient economic development; to put the most climate-vulnerable countries on a stronger footing and provide funding for a broader set of developing countries; and to find the right mix of climate-change mitigation, adaptation and other societal objectives.

      Action means alerting the world to the consequences of inaction while looking for ways to tackle the climate crisis. The IPCC has been doing this consistently, for example providing lists of technologies and measures that could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, with a clear indication of their lifecycle costs.

      I am convinced that the IPCC can serve policymakers’ needs even better. Scientists and policymakers need to discuss issues freely before any IPCC report is written, to increase the policy relevance of such documents. Many of the policymakers I met during my campaign to chair the IPCC told me their job would be easier if climate action (SDG 13) was better integrated into the 2030 agenda and the 16 other SDGs. We must let the IPCC help those policymakers.

      In its most recent reports, the IPCC helped to break down the barriers between different, siloed objectives by demonstrating links and synergies between them. Eradicating poverty (SDG 1), for example, is essential while adapting to climate change, reducing net CO2 emissions and improving people’s health. I intend to continue on this track if I become chair and I propose the preparation of a special report on climate change and sustainable development, with a full assessment of the many synergies (and the trade-offs) between the 17 SDGs. The world needs more solutions and more inspiration, rather than another doom-and-gloom report.

      The IPCC has transformed the production and communication of climate-change knowledge, greatly enhancing awareness and acceptance of the global emergency. I want to reinforce this authority by making the IPCC the global voice of climate. This requires a comprehensive communication strategy. I initiated work on this when I was vice-chair between 2008 and 2015. But getting the message across remains a challenge. I want to improve the readability of report conclusions and make it easier for decision-makers and the public to digest the IPCC’s output. And I want to encourage feedback from both constituencies. Our reports should not only disseminate knowledge but also spark dialogue.

      Inclusivity will be central to my programme as chair. During my campaign visits to more than 25 countries, I was struck by the diversity of human experience. I met many people who had been deeply affected by climate change, ranging from vulnerable women in fishing communities in Bangladesh, to a boy who had seen his friend drowned in a Belgian river swollen by torrential rains, to ministers from small islands that had seen a quarter of their annual GDP wiped out by a hurricane. I also met those trying to help, from experts in carbon capture and storage in Saudi Arabia to remote-sensing scientists monitoring disasters at the European Space Agency. I have talked to climate modellers trained in physics, just as I am; to social and behavioural scientists studying the mental and sociological obstacles to further climate action; and to pension-fund managers trying to make their portfolios greener.

      Climate change experienced in Alaska, France, Vanuatu or Zimbabwe differs in ways we can only grasp and respond to if we study the situations of those on the frontline in different parts of the world. The IPCC is a global organisation, and to continue to be respected globally it must be even more inclusive than it is today.

      I aim to increase the participation of experts from developing and climate-vulnerable countries, particularly women and early-career scientists, from all relevant disciplines, including economic and social sciences. There is evidence that women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. It cannot be acceptable that they make up only one-third of IPCC report authors. And we need more young experts—who will have more time to make a difference—just as much as we need the knowledge of indigenous people. We also need to remedy the under-representation of experts from the global south.

      The IPCC is well established as an epistemic authority in climate science and serves as a model of international expertise. But it needs to evolve if it wants to stay ahead of the climate emergency and a fast-changing social and geopolitical context. In the next assessment period, our work must be characterised by greater relevance, stronger communication and, above all, inclusivity. I am determined to serve as the chair who makes the IPCC the most solid, most scientific and most eloquent voice on climate, leaving no one unaware, no one behind.■

      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is professor of climatology and sustainable development sciences at UCLouvain. He was vice-chair of the IPCC between 2008 and 2015.

  • Migration to Britain hits a record high
    https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/25/migration-to-britain-hits-a-record-high

    Migration to Britain hits a record high
    The country is remarkably comfortable with it. So far
    May 25th 2023
    NEARLY SEVEN years have passed since the Brexit referendum in 2016. The desire to “take back control” of Britain’s borders and end free movement of labour from the European Union was what motivated many to vote Leave. In the three years before 2016, long-term net migration—immigration minus emigration—had averaged 285,000. Few would have expected that after Brexit still more people would come. Yet in 2022 net migration, according to eagerly awaited official statistics published on May 25th, rose to 606,000, a record for a calendar year. Perhaps surprisingly, Britons appear pretty comfortable with higher numbers, even if their politicians don’t.
    Since Britain formally left the EU in January 2020, non-EU nationals have accounted for nearly all net migration. Four-fifths of the 1.2m people who arrived in Britain in 2022 were citizens of non-EU countries, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The contribution of EU citizens, which was nearly half of net migration between 2010 and 2019, has fallen steadily since the Brexit vote.

    #Cocid-19#migrant#migration#grandebretagne#politiquemigratoire#immigration#postcovid#postbrexit#travailleurmigrant

  • The economics of thinness | The Economist
    Christmas Special, Dec 20th 2022
    https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/the-economics-of-thinness

    It is economically rational for ambitious women to try as hard as possible to be thin

    Mireille Guiliano is a slim and successful woman. She was born in France and studied in Paris before working as an interpreter for the United Nations. She then worked in the champagne business and in 1984 joined Veuve Clicquot whose performance was, at the time, rather flat. She fizzed up the ranks and launched their American subsidiary. In 1991 she became its chief executive and ran it with great success. In her apartment overlooking downtown Manhattan, she offers a glass of water before quipping “You know how much I love water.” She is correct; drinking plenty of water is a key rule in “French Women Don’t Get Fat”, her bestselling book on how to lose weight and stay slim “the French way”.

    In the book she describes her discomfort when as a teenager she gained weight while spending a summer in America. Her uneasiness comes to a head when she returns home to France and her father, instead of rushing to hug her, tells her she looks “like a sack of potatoes”. She goes on a new diet plan, remembers her old French habits (lots of water, controlled portions, moving regularly) and tips the scales back in her favour.

    #paywall

    le commentaire du tweet du 23/03/2023 qui annonce l’article :

    According to some surveys the expectation that they should be thin is learned by girls as young as six. The tragedy is that there is no escape

    https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1638920594715443202

  • A battle royal is brewing over copyright and AI | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/business/2023/03/15/a-battle-royal-is-brewing-over-copyright-and-ai

    Même si je ne suis pas certian de partage les conclusions et certaines remarques, il y a une manière intéressante de poser le problèm et des exemples significatifs.

    Consider two approaches in the music industry to artificial intelligence (AI). One is that of Giles Martin, son of Sir George Martin, producer of the Beatles. Last year, in order to remix the Fab Four’s 1966 album “Revolver”, he used AI to learn the sound of each band member’s instruments (eg, John Lennon’s guitar) from a mono master tape so that he could separate them and reverse engineer them into stereo. The result is glorious. The other approach is not bad either. It is the response of Nick Cave, a moody Australian singer-songwriter, when reviewing lyrics written in his style by ChatGPT, an AI tool developed by a startup called OpenAI. “This song sucks,” he wrote. “Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past.”

    Mr Cave is unlikely to be impressed by the latest version of the algorithm behind Chatgpt, dubbed gpt-4, which Openai unveiled on March 14th. Mr Martin may find it useful. Michael Nash, chief digital officer at Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest label, cites their examples as evidence ofboth excitement and fear about the ai behind content-creating apps like Chatgpt (for text) or Stable Diffusion (for images). It could help the creative process. It could also destroy or usurp it. Yet for recorded music at large, the coming of the bots brings to mind a seismic event in its history: the rapid rise and fall of Napster, a platform for sharing mainly pirated songs at the turn of the millennium. Napster was ultimately brought
    down by copyright law. For aggressive bot providers accused of riding roughshod over intellectual property (ip), Mr Nash has a simple message that sounds, from a music-industry veteran of the Napster era, like a threat. “Don’t deploy in the market and beg for forgiveness. That’s the Napster approach.”

    The main issue here is not ai-made parodies of Mr Cave or faux-Shakespearean sonnets. It is the oceans of copyrighted data the bots
    have siphoned up while being trained to create humanlike content. That information comes from everywhere: social-media feeds, internet searches, digital libraries, television, radio, banks of statistics and so on. Often, it is alleged, ai models plunder the databases without permission. Those responsible for the source material complain that their work is hoovered up without consent, credit or compensation. In short, some ai platforms may be
    doing with other media what Napster did with songs—ignoring copyright altogether. The lawsuits have started to fly.

    It is a legal minefield with implications that extend beyond the creative industries to any business where machine-learning plays a role, such as self-driving cars, medical diagnostics, factory robotics and insurance-risk management. The European Union, true to bureaucratic form, has a directive on copyright that refers to data-mining (written before the recent bot boom). Experts say America lacks case history specific to generative ai. Instead, it has competing theories about whether or not data-mining without licences is permissible under the “fair use” doctrine. Napster also tried
    to deploy “fair use” as a defence in America—and failed. That is not to say that the outcome will be the same this time.

    The main arguments around “fair use” are fascinating. To borrow from a masterclass on the topic by Mark Lemley and Bryan Casey in the Texas Law Review, a journal, use of copyrighted works is considered fair when it serves a valuable social purpose, the source material is transformed from the original and it does not affect the copyright owners’ core market. Critics argue that ais do not transform but exploit the entirety of the databases they mine. They claim that the firms behind machine learningabuse fair use to “free-ride” on the work of individuals. And they contend that this threatens the livelihoods of the creators, as well as society at large if the ai promotes mass surveillance and the spread of misinformation. The authors weigh these arguments against the fact that the more access to training sets there is, the better ai will be, and that without such access there may be no ai at all. In other words, the industry might die in its infancy. They describe it as one of the most important legal questions of the century: “Will copyright law allow robots to learn?”

    An early lawsuit attracting attention is from Getty Images. The photography agency accuses Stability ai, which owns Stable Diffusion, of infringing its copyright on millions of photos from its collection in order to build an image-generating ai model that will compete with Getty. Provided the case is not settled out of court, it could set a precedent on fair use. An even more important verdict could come soon from America’s Supreme Court in a case involving the transformation of copyrighted images of Prince, a pop
    idol, by the late Andy Warhol, an artist. Daniel Gervais, an ip expert at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville, believes the justices may provide long-awaited guidance on fair use in general.

    Scraping copyrighted data is not the only legal issue generative ai faces. In many jurisdictions copyright applies only to work created by humans, hence the extent to which bots can claim ip protection for the stuff they generate is another grey area. Outside the courtrooms the biggest questions will be political, including whether or not generative ai should enjoy the same liability protections for the content it displays as social-media platforms do, and to what extent it jeopardises data privacy.

    The copyrighting is on the wall

    Yet the ip battle will be a big one. Mr Nash says creative industries
    should swiftly take a stand to ensure artists’ output is licensed and used ethically in training ai models. He urges ai firms to “document and disclose” their sources. But, he acknowledges, it is a delicate balance. Creative types do not want to sound like enemies of progress. Many may benefit from ai in their work. The lesson from Napster’s “reality therapy”, as Mr Nash calls it, is that it is better to engage with new technologies than hope they go away. Maybe this time it won’t take 15 years of crumbling revenues to learn it.

    #Intelligence_artificielle #ChatGPT #Copyright #Apprentissage

  • How food affects the mind, as well as the body | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/how-food-affects-the-mind-as-well-as-the-body

    With mental-health disorders rising, a growing number of scientists are investigating how food or nutritional supplements affect the mind. Brains, being the most complex and energy-demanding of the body’s organs, almost certainly have their own specialised, nutritional needs. Welcome, then, to the emerging field of nutritional psychiatry.

    An adult human brain, which accounts for about 2% of a body’s mass, uses 20% of its metabolic energy. A host of vitamins and minerals are necessary to keep it going. Even in one small section of the brain’s metabolic pathways, many essential nutrients are needed. The conversion of tryptophan to serotonin alone requires vitamin B6, iron, phosphorus and calcium.

    Disentangling the brain’s nutritional needs from those of the rest of the body is tricky. Recommended daily allowances (rdas) are little help. They were formulated during the second world war on the basis of the nutrients needed for the physical health of troops. No such rdas exist for the brain. Not yet, at least.

    Compared with other fields, nutritional science is understudied. That is partly because it is hard to do well. Randomised controlled trials (rcts), used to test drugs, are tricky. Few people want to stick to an experimental diet for years. Instead, most nutritional science is based on observational studies that try to establish associations between particular foods or nutrients and diseases. They cannot be used to definitively prove a causal connection between a disease and a particular contributing factor in a diet. But as with smoking and lung cancer, put together enough of these kinds of trials and causal narratives begin to emerge.

  • The destructive new logic that threatens globalisation | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/01/12/the-destructive-new-logic-that-threatens-globalisation

    America is leading a dangerous global slide towards subsidies, export controls and protectionism
    […]
    Yet rescuing the global order will require bolder American leadership that once again rejects the false promise of zero-sum thinking. There is still time for that to happen before the system collapses completely, damaging countless livelihoods and imperilling the causes of liberal democracy and market capitalism. The task is enormous and urgent; it could hardly be more important. The clock is ticking.

    décidément, The Economist ressent fortement une montée des périls, après le chaos possible à la Chambre des représentants états-unienne (cf. post précédent), la montée du protectionnisme et la perspective de guerres commerciales avec le retour d’une logique de jeux #à_somme_nulle.

    (attiré sur cet article par la superbe illustration de couverture)

  • The changing ideology of Silicon Valley | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022/12/14/the-changing-ideology-of-silicon-valley

    Podcast avec Margaret O’Mara et Adrian Daub.

    STARTUP FOUNDERS in Silicon Valley are often motivated by an almost religious idealism: young tech workers, looking to move fast and break things, want to use technology to make the world a better place. But 2022 has brought about a reckoning: the business models of once-star firms, such as Uber and Meta, are under threat; the allure of the dishevelled whizz-kid has been undermined by the downfall of Sam Bankman-Fried; and the expense of Palo Alto has pushed plucky startups out. The Bay Area has often been populated by liberals, but many of tech’s heroes, like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen, have shifted to the right.

    On this week’s podcast, hosts Mike Bird, Soumaya Keynes and Alice Fulwood ask whether Silicon Valley has lost its religion. Margaret O’Mara, professor of history at the University of Washington, reveals the Valley’s past. And Adrian Daub, the author of “What Tech Calls Thinking”, tells us that the secret of the successful founder is to bamboozle regulators while they make a bit more money. Runtime: 41 min

    #Adrian_Daub

  • Why Europe is a great place for digital nomads | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/10/02/why-europe-is-a-great-place-for-digital-nomads

    Why Europe is a great place for digital nomads
    A varied continent with good WiFi and few internal borders
    AFTER MONTHS in lockdown in grey Berlin, Chris Bloom, a personal coach and blogger, planned his escape. Risking the ire of jealous Instagram followers, he took a covid-19 test, flew to Lisbon and settled into the Outsite co-working and co-living space, a pleasant blue-and-white tiled property with the essentials—stable internet and a coffee shop. Mr Bloom is part of a growing brigade of digital nomads in Europe, who work remotely while satisfying their wanderlust. This kind of itinerant lifestyle is as old as laptops and free internet. But covid-19 has given it a boost. A game of lockdown arbitrage began earlier this year as border controls eased and people fled congested cities like Berlin and London. Some headed for other cities, such as Lisbon and Madrid, which offered sunshine and looser lockdown rules. Others chose remote spots on the Mediterranean and in the Alps. Now covid-19 restrictions are easing but the trend continues as many Europeans reject a traditional office routine after a year and a half of remote work.

    #Covid-19#migration#migrant#europe#sante#digitalnomade#frontiere#confinement#modedevie#technologie#travail

  • The race to build a commercial fusion reactor hots up | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/06/24/the-race-to-build-a-commercial-fusion-reactor-hots-up

    A Canadian firm plans a demonstration machine in Britain

    An old joke about nuclear fusion—that it is 30 years away and always will be—is so well-known that The Economist’s science editor forbids correspondents from repeating it. No one doubts sustained fusion is possible in principle. It powers every star in the universe. Making it work on Earth, though, has proved harder. Engineers have tried since the 1950s, so far without success. The latest and largest attempt—iter, a multinational test reactor in southern France—has been under construction for 11 years and is tens of billions of dollars over its initial, $6bn budget.

    But that record does not dismay a growing group of “alternative fusion” enthusiasts. Through a combination of new technology and entrepreneurial derring-do they hope to beat iter to the punch. On June 17th one of their number, a Canadian firm called General Fusion, put its investors’ money where its mouth is. It said it would build a demonstration reactor, 70% the size of a full-blown commercial one, at Culham, the site of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Britain’s national fusion-research laboratory. Like iter, it hopes its reactor will be up and running by 2025.

    #paywall

  • Will vaccinations kick-start travel? | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2021/06/07/will-vaccinations-kick-start-travel

    Will vaccinations kick-start travel?
    Our weekly podcast at the sharp end of the global vaccination race
    Economist Radio Podcasts
    VACCINATIONS HAVE helped ease national lockdowns, but restrictions on international travel remain severe. When and how might they be lifted?
    Willie Walsh of the International Air Transport Association tells us airlines are a soft target for government restrictions. Aerosol physicist Lidia Morawska assesses how risky it is to travel by plane. T
    Alok Jha and Slavea Chankova are joined by Edward Carr, The Economist’s deputy editor. Runtime: 38 min For full access to The Economist’s print, digital and audio editions subscribe at economist.com/thejabpod. Sign up for our new weekly science and data newsletters at economist.com/simplyscience and economist.com/offthecharts.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#sante#vaccination#passeportvaccinal#circulation#frontiere#tourisme#economie

  • Needle to know - How useful are vaccine passports? | Leaders | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/13/how-useful-are-vaccine-passports

    How useful are vaccine passports?Identity schemes have a part to play in the return to life as normal, but only a modest one THE WORLD has stumbled through the pandemic by nationalising risk. In heavily infected countries the state has shut citizens in their homes for weeks at a time, letting them out only for exercise and to buy food. As vaccination spreads, and hospitals are less likely to be overrun, governments must gradually move choice back to the individual, where it belongs. How?
    Information is part of the answer. This week the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention issued the first guidance on what vaccinated people can do. More is needed. True, covid-19 is still poorly understood and the risk for individuals will depend on their own circumstances. Yet, as our covid-19 risk estimator in this issue explains, the data already cast some light on what puts you at risk if you are diagnosed with the disease. Age is closely tied to death, so do not visit your unvaccinated grandparents, however healthy they may be. Comorbidities can lead to a spell in hospital even for the young, so don’t imagine you are safe just because you’re under 35

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#sante#passeportvaccinal#comorbidite#nationalisme#pandemie#rsiquesanitaire