Digital slop…

Over the years, the Badger’s been involved in company acquisitions, and he’s also been on the receiving end when his employer was itself acquired by another company. Experiencing both sides of the equation has been valuable and educational. Acquisitions normally follow standard processes. When the transaction is finally agreed and completed, the subsequent integration activities also follow fairly standard processes. This week the Badger was asked about his view on ‘digital slop’, and – oddly – this triggered a memory from way back in 1997 when the Badger attended a post-acquisition leaders conference following the purchase of a Dublin-based company in the telecommunications software market. This company had products in the short messaging services (SMS) sector, and the conference took place in a rural hotel in the Irish countryside some distance from the city.

Why did ‘digital slop’ trigger this particular memory? Probably because a memorable element of the conference was a presentation by a leader from the acquired company on their vision of the future for mobile phones and telecommunication software products. They described a vision of the future in which everyone had an internet-connected mobile phone which enticed them to enter a shop every time they walked past one in a shopping mall or on the High Street! It was an interesting presentation which occurred during the year of Amazon’s IPO, before Facebook existed, and shortly before Google was founded. Most conference attendees could see its technological feasibility, but most questioned why people would want to be bombarded with ‘marketing and adverts’ as they walked through a mall or along a High Street. Most, including the Badger, thought members of the public would say ‘I don’t need this, I don’t want this, and I don’t trust this’.

It was these 1997 words that underpinned the Badger’s answer about today’s ‘digital slop’, a phrase that’s emerged in recent years to describe the huge growing volume of dubious online content produced using AI tools. Digital technology has changed the world since 1997, AI continues to change it under our feet, and AI-enabled ‘digital slop’ does little for humanity except add to the mass digital exploitation of people. People have come to learn with social media over the years that dubious content, online misinformation, and addictive scrolling are not bugs but features of the system, and that they are becoming ever-more slaves to algorithms that don’t have their best interests at heart. Countering this requires an iron will and some disciplined personal behaviour. In relation to AI produced ‘digital slop’, perhaps ‘I don’t need this, I don’t want this, I don’t trust this, and I don’t consume this’ is a better mantra for today than the 1997 words. AI is a powerful technology that cannot be ignored, but the general public probably need more attitude and behavioural alignment with these words if humanity is to resist its mounting digital slavery…

Studying at University, the electronic pocket calculator, and AI…

Last week the Badger wrote about his nephew’s burst of doubt about whether AI renders going to university pointless. He messaged this week to say thank you for the Badger’s guidance and to confirm that AI is not going to get in the way of fulfilling his dream of studying a STEM subject at university. Good! The Badger has no doubt that he’ll get to university and do well in his chosen subject. The Badger say’s this not through optimistic rose-tinted glasses of family connection, but because his nephew ended the message saying ‘I’ve concluded that while AI provides an additional set of tools, I don’t expect to use them to cut corners and do the thinking and work for me because this technology won’t help me be me, or help me develop the independent thought processes, behaviours, and skills that people like Tim Berners-Lee acquired when they did their degree at university’. This sentence got the Badger thinking.

When Tim Berners-Lee did his undergraduate degree at university there were no laptops, tablets, smartphones, or desktop personal computers, and no AI. In fact, the pocket calculator was a recent innovation! It’s easy to forget that it was only ~50 years ago that the emergence of electronic pocket calculators started to make rapid calculations accessible to a wide personal and professional audience. When they first hit the market, the Badger was just starting his degree course. He and most other students on the course had soon bought a pocket electronic calculator. The Badger purchased a Sinclair Cambridge for £19.95. Others bought a Sinclair Scientific costing £49.95, a price that was beyond the Badger’s means. By the end of his degree, however, the Badger had upgraded to a Texas Instruments SR-51, which served as a great workhorse for many years. But here’s the point. Calculators became an essential tool, but they didn’t fundamentally change the content of our degree course, or the concepts, methods, processes, practices, ways of thinking, practical skills, and interactions that were at the heart of the subject matter.

Many of today’s tech leaders went to university in the 1980s and 1990s when every student had an electronic pocket calculator, and rudimentary personal computers were very limited compared with those of today. They’ve all done well without AI. Of course, AI is different to the pocket calculator, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s a tool. Those studying for a degree today should use this tool responsibly, because outsourcing your thinking and development to this technology just to gain a qualification serves no useful purpose, especially if you value your independence, freedom of thought, personal creativity, and the maximisation of your career options. As the Royal Observatory recently put it, AI can ultimately trivialise human intelligence. The whole point of going to university is ultimately to grow human intelligence, not trivialise it.

AI and deciding to go to University…

What do you say when a youngster comments that it’s pointless taking on a Student Loan to attend university when AI will deliver knowledge faster, cheaper, and on demand? The Badger faced this dilemma a few days ago when his nephew, an intelligent, motivated, tech-savvy youngster striving for good exam results to study a STEM subject at his first-choice university, said exactly this. He’s starting to doubt if university is the right path given the expense, the ever-developing and impressive capabilities of AI, and the potential struggle of finding a graduate-level job after graduating. Many youngsters in the same position probably have similar bursts of doubt, but what did the Badger say in response to his nephew’s comment?

It seemed essential to respond with something objective, balanced, and relevant to the fast-changing world of today and the foreseeable future. The youngster is completely digital native and already dealing with the day-to-day reality of AI. He’s finding this makes decisions like going to university more difficult, but the Badger thinks deciding to go to university is something that should not be influenced by advancing AI capabilities. The gist, therefore, of the Badger’s response to his nephew’s comment was as follows.

Youngsters would be nuts to go to university if the only thing they wanted was to accrue expert knowledge/information, because AI will deliver that faster, cheaper, and conveniently on a device in their bedroom at home! The real value of university is in the accrual of knowledge/information with everything that’s wrapped around this. AI can tell you facts and help you learn, but university teaches you how to argue, critique, question, navigate institutions, defend a position, collaborate with strangers, work with those who disagree with you, and to handle stress, deadlines, and ambiguity. It’s the dealing with pressure at university that gives you identity and self-discipline. These aspects are very important because graduating with a degree signals to others, especially employers, that you can operate in a structured system, work with others, and apply yourself to achieve deadlines and good results. Furthermore, you don’t become a mature adult by sitting in your bedroom with a chatbot! You become a mature adult by leaving home, negotiating shared living, budgeting, dealing with conflict, failing and then recovering, gaining exposure to ideas that you didn’t choose, and discovering who you really are. AI gives you answers, but university provides answers and an environment that shapes your identity.

The Badger’s nephew was thoughtful for a moment before admitting that their main worry was how long it takes to find a graduate-level job after graduation (see here and here). He’s especially worried that AI means dire employment prospects when he graduates. The Badger’s advice? If university is your dream, then follow it and become an educated, disciplined adult with the strength of character to face the challenges ahead, if and when they arise…

AI in the dock?

Consider this scenario. Someone approaches an individual and asks them to provide answers to some questions. The individual performs some Google searches of the internet, consults books in a local library, and then pieces together the answers to the questions. These are then communicated to the requestor face to face, or by phone or video call. The requestor uses the answers to commit a wicked crime for which they are prosecuted. The person providing the answers to the requestor’s questions is deemed by law to have some culpability for the crime and so they are prosecuted too. Now consider the same scenario but with the perpetrator directly asking ChatGPT (or similar) the same questions. The AI’s answers are used to commit the same wicked crime for which the perpetrator is prosecuted. The AI, however, does not have the same legal culpability for the crime as the individual noted above.

Reports that Florida’s attorney general has opened a criminal investigation into whether ChatGPT provided advice to a murdering gunman last year, see here for example, made the Badger wonder about the following question: ‘Are people using AI professionally or personally really aware of where the boundaries of responsibility sit?’ Probably not, was the conclusion after musing in the Spring sunshine. If a doctor follows a wrong diagnosis delivered by an AI, is the doctor responsible or the hospital, the engineers who built the AI model, or some other organisation in the chain? Some who build and deploy AI models appear to think such responsibility questions can be sorted out later when something goes awry and causes a crisis. This is never a sensible approach.

The more AI develops, the more it impacts important aspects of everyone’s life. However, it isn’t obvious, at least to the Badger, that professionals or the public understand much about how AI arrives at its answers. The Badger, who’s not a lawyer, thus spent a little time exploring how the law deals with the question of responsibility when someone takes action guided by AI’s output. It appears that you – not the AI vendor nor the algorithm – but you the user are legally responsible. This means that anyone – organisations, professionals, or members of the general public – using AI is always responsible and liable for the actions taken on guidance from AI. Organisations and humans can be sued, but AI cannot. When AI makes a mistake, liability flows to the humans and organisations that deployed it and used it,

That’s not really a surprise, but it’s a reminder for all users that they are more likely to find themselves in the dock than AI. It’s also a reminder that proper human consideration and diligence is imperative before acting on AI’s outputs. The Badger also thinks it’s a reminder that we must never allow AI to autonomously rule the world…

Digital backlash…

The Artemis mission around the dark side of the moon, the sight of humanoid robots running a half marathon (here and here), Anthropic’s Claude Mythos AI model and comments by ex-PM Rishi Sunak, all illustrate the power and relentless advance of digital technology. Having a decades-long career in the IT industry, it’s been routine for the Badger to deal with perpetual change in digital technology. The rapidity of that change kept the Badger and his colleagues motivated, challenged, learning and eager for new skills, and greatly satisfied when systems were delivered to clients and put into operational use. With this background you might think the Badger is an ardent digital technophile today, but he’s not. He’s ‘neutral’ with no strong affinity for, or aversion to, digital technology. He’s not overly enthusiastic about digital technology’s constant impact on our lives, but not overly critical of it either. Why is that?

The answer lies in three points: there’s no putting digital advances back in the box once they exist, not all digital technology is good for society, and digital technology dominated by a handful of individuals, corporations, or countries does not lead to a focus on benefiting humanity as a whole. Regarding the first point, innovation is a human attribute that will always produce advances, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the second and third points which have moved the Badger to ‘neutral’ over the last decade, because digital technology has taken over our lives by stealth, driven ostensibly by agendas set by giant US and Chinese corporations controlled by a handful of individuals. Regulators have been slow, and tech giants have strongly resisted the introduction of sensible new laws that benefit wider society at every turn because of the threat to their own agendas. Digital advances have infiltrated society by default and diffusion without too much regard for the impact on the public. AI simply illustrates the point. Philosophical objectivity is thus at the heart of why the Badger’s become a neutral rather than ardent technophile.

Everyone today is more aware than ever before of digital technology’s downsides. There’s a growing willingness for the public to push back on the digital world. The UK government backtracked on Digital ID ambitions after a backlash, there’s a growing backlash against AI in the US (see here, here, and here), Swedish schools are cutting back on digital learning and returning to books, pen, and paper, numerous countries are  moving to ban social media for under 16s, a ban on children using smartphones at school has just been announced in the UK, and big tech has just lost a landmark social media addiction case. Society’s pushing back and questioning an unrestrained digital world more and more, and this backlash seems likely to grow with time. Indeed, with the world as it is today, the Badger’s unlikely to move from a neutral affinity any time soon…

OpenAI pausing Stargate UK is hardly a surprise!

As widely reported (see here for example), OpenAI is pausing its multi-billion-dollar Stargate UK project. The project was first announced in September 2025 with the declared purpose of ensuring ‘OpenAI’s world leading AI models can run on local computing power in the UK, for UK – particularly for specialist use cases where jurisdiction matters. This will help power the UK’s future economy, boost its global competitiveness, and deliver on the countries national AI Opportunities Action Plan’. The UK government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan had been announced in January 2025 as a focus for ramping up AI adoption to boost economic growth, jobs, and improvements to people’s everyday lives. A year later, in January 2026, a seemingly positive  progress update was published. The government’s thus likely to be wringing its hands about OpenAI’s pause. Why? Because it puts a dent in the country’s desire to be an ‘AI superpower’, especially when the company asserts that regulation and high energy costs are obstacles. The Stargate UK pause, however, is hardly a surprise given that the holistic situation faced by OpenAI today is really no different to when the project was announced last September.

OpenAI announced the project on the date President Trump started his state visit to the UK. With tariffs as a backdrop, the pressure on the UK government to make the visit a success was huge, and a centrepiece during the visit was the signing of a technology partnership involving new investment and cooperation on AI. Domestically, the government needed this to promote its growth agenda, but a ‘technology partnership’ and tangible realities are different. Given the pressure for the visit to be a success, OpenAI’s Stargate UK announcement was part of an overall joint PR strategy – at least that’s what the Badger senses. At that time, the UK had some of the highest costs for electricity in the world, and that’s still the same today! If there’s one thing an aspirant AI superpower needs, it’s economically competitive electricity and so it can hardly be a surprise when a commercial company focused ‘on the business case and numbers’ decides to hold off further investment. Additionally, there’s uncertainty about changes to UK law to allow AI firms to train their systems using copyrighted works, ongoing investor anxiety about an AI bubble, the fact that OpenAI hasn’t delivered a profit yet and is forecast to make losses of ~$44 billion before becoming profitable in 2029, and that OpenAI is facing massive competition from Google (and others) which is raising significant questions about its future. All of these points were material when Stargate UK was announced 7 months ago, and they remain so today.

A sceptic could thus be excused for thinking that the project was driven by a geopolitical public relations necessity in the first place. For the Badger, with his instincts rattling from experience, it’s thus hardly a surprise that Stargate UK is paused…   

Will AI experience a ‘tobacco moment’?

The Badger smiled and then sighed when Meta and YouTube were recently found liable for harming a young woman through the addictive design of their products and their failure to warn users of the risks. The smile was because it’s good to see tech giants not getting their own way. The sigh was because it’s taken far too many years to get to this point. Sensible people have known for years that these apps are designed to keep users compulsively engaged for as long as possible because it’s the clever monetisation of this that underpins their business models.

The Badger recalls the early days of social media when it simply helped people stay in touch, share milestones, and reconnect with old friends. In those days there was a clear divide between real and online life. Conversations ended on leaving a room or putting the phone down, photographs lived in physical albums, and social media was used as a harmless tool and not something that shaped or dominated how we lived. Today things are quite different. Social media has grown in power, profitability, and influence, to such an extent that the average person spends more time online using it than is prudent. What’s changed since those early days is the design of the apps and platforms. Endless scrolling, algorithm-driven recommendations, push notifications, and short video loops aren’t accidental. They’re features engineered to keep people engaged for as long as possible. Indeed, the BBC was reporting way back in 2018 that social media apps were deliberately addictive to users. The Badger thinks all this has certainly eroded the real-world routines, relationships, and boundaries for users over the last decades.

In the Meta and YouTube case, the prosecution lawyers have cleverly focused on how platforms are designed rather than what’s posted on them to win. The two giants plan to appeal but it’s debatable whether the appeals will succeed. Social media is thus having to grapple with the fact that this could be a reckoning similar to that experienced by the tobacco industry some decades ago. This ‘tobacco moment’ prompted the Badger to muse on whether AI will ultimately experience such a moment too. He concluded that it will. AI has the potential to harm institutions, elections, markets, information ecosystems, and critical infrastructure, and so its reckoning moment could happen faster, globally, and structurally. The possible triggers might relate to bias, misinformation, autonomy, and safety failures. Like the ‘tobacco moment’ for social media, AI’s moment will not be about banning it, but about liability.

A ‘tobacco moment’ isn’t about a single lawsuit. It happens when society collectively decides that an industry has externalized too much harm and the legal, regulatory, and cultural tides all turn at once. It seems foolhardy, therefore, to think that AI will be immune to a ‘tobacco moment’ of its own at some stage in the future…

AI and progress towards nuclear fusion for power generation…

When the radio alarm signals that it’s time to rise and prepare for the day ahead, it’s easy to doze for a few extra minutes without listening to the programme being broadcast from the radio. Sometimes, of course, there’s something in the babble which grabs your attention, sharpens alertness, and forces you to concentrate on whatever’s being said. That’s exactly what happened with the Badger earlier this week, The babble included an item of interest because it related to the Badger’s post-doctoral research many decades ago. That item was about the scientific and engineering drive to harness the power of nuclear fusion for the generation of limitless, sustainable, carbon-free electricity.  

The item covered the UK government’s written statement on the UK’s Fusion Strategy, it’s investment in STEP  – building a prototype fusion plant in Nottinghamshire by 2040 – and its investment in the world’s most powerful fusion-dedicated AI supercomputer to accelerate fusion design, modelling, and operations. It asserted that this is the most ambitious push yet to establish the UK’s complete energy independence from foreign price shocks. Investing £45m in this supercomputer, part of a wider government effort in AI and supercomputing infrastructure that has already seen a separate £36m supercomputer investment at the University of Cambridge, is a step along the road. However, let’s face it, it’s a tiny step when the country spends >£60bn on Defence, >£300bn on Welfare, and >£90bn on Education.

Harnessing nuclear fusion is the holy grail of getting clean, limitless energy. It’s been that way for as long as the Badger can remember and so has its reputation for always being ’50 years away’. The scientific and engineering challenges to be overcome in order to build and operate a commercially viable nuclear fusion reactor are enormous. However, there’s been huge advances over the last 30 years or so, a timeline that in parallel has also seen huge advances in computers and information processing. The latter has already helped enormously in getting fusion to its current position and there’s little doubt that further computing advances, particularly in AI and machine learning, will continue to accelerate progress towards achieving the holy fusion grail of large scale, carbon-free, sustainable energy on this planet.

But with the first experimental reactors currently forecast to start operating around 2040 and beyond, usable power from fusion still seems ’50 years away’ in practice. Generation Alpha and their children are thus likely to be the first generations to use power from viable fusion reactors. So, here’s a thought. Enormous amounts of money are being spent on AI across the globe. In comparison, a pittance is being spent on getting to power-generating fusion reactors that will hugely benefit our planet. Unless there’s a 1960’s-like ‘let’s go to the moon’ moment for fusion, the Badger can’t help but feel that it will always be ’50 years away’ regardless of investments in dedicated AI supercomputers…

Nuclear Power for AI Data Centres…

According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, whose data can be explored visually here, there are 407 operational nuclear reactors currently generating electricity across the world. Of these, 94 are in the USA, 62 are in China, 57 are in France, and 34 are in Russia. The average age of the world’s operational reactors is 32.6 years, and they generate ~9% of global electricity. There are ~11,800 data centres worldwide with a rapidly growing proportion incorporating AI-specific infrastructure. Whereas traditional data centres require 10-15KW of electricity per rack, AI data centres need 40 – 250 KW per rack to support the heavy computational demand of AI models. So, where’s this extra electricity coming from? It’s a question brought into sharper focus by the conflict in the Middle East and its potential impact on the availability and price of gas which is used to generate ~20% of electricity globally.

All the major tech giants have been considering this question for some time. They want a reliable electricity supply and low emissions for their AI endeavours and are thus turning to nuclear power. For example, Microsoft wants to restart a Three Mile Island reactor mothballed in 2019, and Meta have signed a trio of nuclear deals  securing enough electricity to power ~5 million homes for its AI data centres. It takes some decades to build new, large-scale, nuclear reactors like those currently connected to electricity grids, and the surge in power demand for AI data centres is surpassing the planned new generation and transmission capacity. Amazon and most of the tech giants are thus keen to harness Small Modular Reactors (SMR) to sustain AI growth. SMRs are new with just two in the world currently operable. However, you’ll see from the World Nuclear Association’s SMR project tracker that we can expect many more to come on stream over the next decade.

Nuclear SMRs will thus be key providers of the power for the AI data centres needed to underpin this digital technology’s ever more rapid momentum. Is that a problem? No, provided there’s strict regulatory control before, during, and after SMRs are built and put into service, and that global institutions exist with real teeth to ensure that commercial organisations and nation states do not flout the necessary balance between AI self-interest, the greater good, and the proliferation of nuclear material. That may be a tall ask in a world which is full of conflict, extremism, and volatility, and is already embarked on a huge race for AI dominance. SMRs, however, are new and things may not go to plan. If SMR delays happen, then we may see AI momentum slow over the coming decade. Electricity, after all, is the blood of the digital world, and if there isn’t enough blood then things are bound to go awry…

Drone – The word of the decade…

Most people try to live the best life they can, and most want to live in a world where rules help their chances of doing so. Most don’t want to live in a world dominated by those who ignore or flout rules to suit their own purpose. The world order, however, is changing, the United Nations appears toothless, and disruptive geriatric leaders are making life hard for everyone. Conflicts around the world are making ordinary people increasingly worried, but anyone who wants to live their best life must focus on the things they can control and change rather than worry about the things they can’t. That’s sound guidance, but easier said than done.

The future is more uncertain today than for many years, and so when an old IT colleague asked what the Badger’s word or phrase of the 2020/30 decade would likely be, they didn’t get the answer they expected. They anticipated phrases like ‘Artificial Intelligence’, machine learning’ or ‘deep fake’, but the Badger’s answer was one word, namely ‘Drone’. There’re still some years of the decade to go, but on the evidence so far, and with further rapid tech advances inevitable in the coming years, the Badger feels that he’s unlikely to change his mind about his choice of word.

Drone’ is a word that’s growing in importance for anyone who wants to live the best life they can. It’s a fascinating word with a range of biological, sonic, technological, and metaphorical uses. For example, drone is a function, a sound, and a warning and a weapon. It can describe the buzz of a bee, the whirl of a machine, a worker, some of humanity’s most advanced tools, and a shadow overhead to be feared by civilian and military personnel alike. Ten years ago, it was mainly used to refer to bees or the experimental technology of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but at the start of this decade it became used mostly as a descriptor for any autonomous or remotely controlled civilian or military flying object. Today it is a blanket term for any man-made, autonomous, or remotely controlled flying object that can perform any civilian or military function. When someone uses the word today, it will mostly be in the context of weapons used in Ukraine and the Middle East, and not bees!

Declaring ‘the word of the decade’ halfway through a decade might be foolhardy, but the Badger’s sticking with it, because he feels that clever, man-made, affordable, flying objects for civilian and military purposes will continue to evolve rapidly and become a historically significant feature of this decade. Meanwhile, the bee population, essential pollinators in nature, is in decline. Somehow the word ‘drone’ highlights that humans have their priorities the wrong way round. If you want to live your best life, then change something – plant something in the garden to attract bees…