TRAI Revamps DND and MySpeed Apps to Curb Spam and Check Real-time Network PerformanceExpanded multilingual access, simplified reporting and real-world testing https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2227567&RegID=3&LID=1
Friday, 13 February 2026
PIB::TRAI Revamps DND and MySpeed Apps to Curb Spam and Check Real-time Network PerformanceExpanded multilingual access, simplified reporting and real-world testing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0S048D2tj4 : Yuval Noah Harari: Stories, Power & Why Truth Doesn't Matter | Nikhil Kamath | People by WTF:
Nikhil Kamath and Yuval Noah Harari: AI taking over religion's authority :
Do you believe religion is dying, Yuval, amongst the youngest of people? No, it's changing. It has been changing throughout history, and it's changing again. How is it changing now? How is it changing now? One thing very interesting is that AI is increasingly taking over religion, especially religions of the book. You know...If I take Judaism, for example, Judaism grants ultimate authority not to human beings, but to words in books. It calls itself the religion of the book. Humans have authority in Judaism to the extent
that they know words in books. Now, until today, nobody, not even the most learned rabbi in the world, could read and remember all the words in all the Jewish books because there are too many of them. -Right. -AI can easily do that. So, for a religion that gives ultimate authority to words in books,
now, there is a non-human intelligence that is about to take it over because it can take over the source of authority. So AI can't change the book, but it can--
-Reinterpret it. -Reinterpret it. I mean, the book has been reinterpreted again and again and again. This is a game being played for thousands of years. And this is how all the other books got written. They're all reinterpretations of the original book. And now, we have something that can read and remember all the books, and has a chance of becoming the new authority that people will increasingly, if they have a question, they will not go to a human rabbi, they will go to an AI. And it's the same in Christianity, and it's the same with Islam, and it's the same with many other religions. With trust depleting in the world as quickly as it is, don't you think millions of people will not want to resonate with one book, but smaller groups of thousands of people will find their own representation of each of these books? Could be. And again, an AI could write new books. Almost every religion claims in its story that it was created by a non-human intelligence. Maybe for the first time in history, it will actually happen, that we will see the emergence of new sects created by AI and spread by AI missionaries.
And you know, to change people's minds, the most powerful thing is intimacy. Not power, not force. A good friend can change your mind in a way that almost nobody else can. And what is happening now in AI, that if for the previous decade, we saw this competition for human attention, that the algorithms are competing to grab our attention, now the front is shifting from attention to intimacy. AIs are learning how to create intimacy with humans, how to create friendships, how even to create romantic relationships. Can you tell me what you mean by intimacy? Yes. Somebody that you talk with a lot, maybe every day, that you share your deepest fears and hopes and thoughts, and listens to you and gets to know you and gives you advice that you take very, very seriously. And this is where AI enters. There are already youngsters today in the world that you ask them, "Who is your best friend?" And they say, "It's an AI." I met some kids recently who said their girlfriends were AIs. Yeah, they have AI girlfriends and boyfriends. -Like 20-year-olds. -Yeah. And you look at toddlers today, they grow up from day zero, basically, interacting with AIs more than they interact... If you just measure it in terms of time, you just measure how much time this baby, this child, spends with their father, mother, brother, friend from kindergarten, AI, you will find they spend most time with the AI. And already they are willing to share with it things that they don't share with anybody else. It knows things about them nobody else knows. And this is maybe the biggest psychological and social experiment in human history conducted on billions of people right now. Nobody has any idea what the consequences will be in 10 or 20 years. When this child that learns what is friendship, what is emotional attachment, Purpose, suffering, and controlling your mind they learned it through a relationship with an AI. What will this do to the social and romantic capacities and relationships in 15, 20 years? Nobody has any idea. And it's amazing that we just allow it to happen.
If you wrote the book, Yuval the AI, you wrote the new book that people interpreted and reinterpreted as whatever religion they want to believe in, what would Yuval optimise for? What would be the three tenets of the new religion the world needs? I'm not in the business of creating religions. I've seen enough of it. As a historian, I know there are many, many ways in which this can go wrong. I don't want anybody seeing me as a rabbi or a priest that holds the truth and tells them how to live. This is extremely dangerous to them, even more dangerous to me, because it kind of inflates your ego and you go crazy. And it would be hard to pull off alive. You need somebody who's dead who wrote the book. Or artificial intelligence. It's easiest with dead people, because then you can do whatever you want with their words. But, yeah, AI will be a book that talks back to you. Like, we had all these sacred books and they were silent. When we had a question, we had to find a human expert on the book. Just imagine what happens when the book can actually talk back to you. Isn't the book respected in the manner that it is because of the finality of the book and the fact that it is not dynamic? And when I read the book or I read an interpretation of the book, and Yuval does, we read the same thing? If the book were to change-- Because people constantly reinterpret it. You look at Judaism or Christianity of today, Christianity of today, completely different from what they were 1,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago. Because as the world changes, as human relations change, people reinterpret the book, sometimes in extreme ways. You know, you read Jesus talking with people about compassion and love. If somebody slaps you, give them your other cheek. How did they interpret it to build the Inquisition, to burn people alive just because they didn't believe in the exact same way that I believe about the religion of love? They didn't just burn Jews and atheists, they burned other Christians. And how is it possible that, yes, you and I, we both believe in the religion of love and compassion, but because it's a little bit different, your interpretation than mine, then I will burn you. And I can find a way to base what I do on what Jesus said. But burning somebody is also maybe out of love. Of course, they always say it's out of love. The love of a story, a really good story. They found a way to explain that this, "I love you so much, this is why I burn you. Because if you hold these terrible views you're holding, after you die, you will go forever and ever to hell.
But if I burn you now, maybe this will cause you to change your mind. And then, OK, so you die in a horrible way, but afterwards, you go to heaven. So I'm burning you out of love." Yuval, is democracy dead if it has become as dynastic and these friendships and animosities, not between nations any more, but with individuals? In four years, all that, or in three years in America, all that's being done today, yesterday, the day before, is gonna be forgotten because there's somebody new there at the helm. Then what is the point of democracy? Does it even work any more? Democracy is not dead. It's still extremely powerful. It's still the, you know, most powerful idea around. Everybody still claims. Even again, Putin, he doesn't go out and say democracy is dead. He still holds elections every four years. I mean, nobody has managed to come up with a better idea so far. So, it's still extremely powerful. And even in practical terms, the big advantage of democracy,
over all the other systems, is that it is built on a powerful self-correcting mechanism.
Anti-incumbency. -That is anti-incumbency? -Yes. That, you know, that a basic truth about human beings is that we all make mistakes. Even the biggest geniuses and presidents and whatever, we make mistakes. And also political parties, countries, we make mistakes. Now, how do you correct your mistakes? The big problem for dictatorships is that you can get it right 10 times, and then you get something terribly wrong, an economic policy, a war, whatever. In a dictatorship, there is no built-in mechanism to change the ruler, the ruling party, the policy. -You're stuck with it. -Right. Democracy is all about checks and balances, all about self-correction. The most basic mechanism is elections. You choose somebody, you give them power to pursue certain policies. After four years, the people can say, "We made a mistake, let's try something else." This is still the best mechanism that humanity has managed to come up with. Of course, it's a complex mechanism because it's not enough just to have periodic elections. Elections can be rigged. Algorithms destroyed the public conversation And you can't go to the courts because the courts are in the pocket of the new dictator, and the media won't report about it
40:09
because the media is in the pocket of the dictator. So, you still hold elections, but there is no longer a self-correcting mechanism. Like in Russia, there is no way that Putin can actually lose an election. And the same we saw in Venezuela, that Maduro, by all evidence, lost the last elections big time, but the election committee and the Venezuelan media and courts, they all said he won. So you could not get rid of him that way. If you had to build a media house from scratch, this is something I'm passionate about, Yuval. What should the media for the new world look like? Is it something that is not behind a corporation? Is it more like a cooperative, more fragmented media?
Algorithms destroyed the public conversation
40:03
And you can't go to the courts because the courts are in the pocket of the new dictator, and the media won't report about it
40:09
because the media is in the pocket of the dictator. So, you still hold elections, but there is no longer a self-correcting mechanism.
40:17
Like in Russia, there is no way that Putin can actually lose an election.
40:22
And the same we saw in Venezuela, that Maduro, by all evidence, lost the last elections big time,
40:29
but the election committee and the Venezuelan media and courts, they all said he won.
40:35
So you could not get rid of him that way. If you had to build a media house from scratch,
40:40
this is something I'm passionate about, Yuval. What should the media for the new world look like?
40:47
Is it something that is not behind a corporation? Is it more like a cooperative, more fragmented media?
40:55
Because if large corporations that are the social media companies of today,
41:00
have algorithms that optimise for a reaction, control who consumes what,
41:07
it doesn't even matter what media is being reported and generated because they get to choose who reads what.
41:15
Yeah, that's the big problem today with the media world. How do you fix it?
41:23
Don't let non-humans control the human conversation.
41:28
Our biggest mistake is that over the last ten years, we gave one of the most important jobs in the world to algorithms,
41:37
and they did a terrible, terrible job. You know, one of the...
41:43
Human society is ultimately a conversation between humans, especially in democracies.
41:50
We come together, we discuss what to do, foreign policy, economic policy, and for that, you need media.
41:58
How do you manage a conversation between millions of people? And we built institutions over centuries to manage the public conversation.
42:08
They were not perfect. No institution is perfect, but they learnt from mistakes over time
42:14
and they became better. And then, we did a terrible mistake.
42:19
We gave the job of managing the public conversation to algorithms. And why did it work?
42:26
Why did the algorithms manage this job in a manner that it got more reaction?
42:32
Because the algorithms were given a very, very simple task. The algorithms were not given the task, okay, manage the conversation
42:42
in a way that will build trust, or in a way that will promote truth, or in a way that will improve society.
42:50
How do you measure improve society? This is a very difficult metric. We want a simple metric. They were given a very simple metric, increase engagement.
42:59
What does it mean? Make people spend more time on the platform and engage more. Like, engage, you read a story,
43:06
you send it to your friends, or you write a comment. This is engagement. And the business model was, if people spend more time on our platform,
43:14
engage more, we make more money by showing them more advertisement or taking their data and selling it to a third party.
43:21
This was the business model. The metric was extremely simple, which was good for the algorithms
43:28
because these are very primitive AIs. This is, like, the first generation. And the AIs experimented
Post a Comment