Just like AI, the tools, actions, rules and infrastructure of tomorrow will be good or bad for us depending upon who and what is in control

Perhaps the greatest disadvantage from the absence of critical thinking as we try to absorb the constant flow of information from the world, is the assumption that words, ideas, actions, rules and tools of any and all kinds that we associate with anyone or anything that we do not like are automatically worthless. And that as damaged goods, they cannot be used for any purpose that we might consider to be correct.

This is an enigma that has significant cost for everyone. Not least of all as politicians and those with their hands on the levers of power have been consumed by this dangerous lack of objectivity too.

In a period of human history where lies, myths and narratives rule our lives, and the absence of original thinking is being excused by the manipulative story that in the near future, ‘thinking’ is something that only the new generations of AI will do, the information overload from digital devices certainly compounds the terror of anyone who tries to wrestle with solutions for the future in the same breath. Often finding themselves concluding that what we are experiencing today, is the only way.

That not-so-obvious feeling of isolated helplessness is real to many. It is no small part of the reason that ‘populism’ has been gaining momentum in the ways that it has.

People feel alone and under threat, without doing a thing wrong. Worst of all, People genuinely believe that those who should be looking after them are actually acting against them.

Yet these imposters seem to stubbornly able to remain in control.

When terms such as Great Reset, Net Zero, Sustainable Development Goals and the many straplines and sub-versions of these same narratives (like Local Traffic Neighbourhoods or ‘LTNs’) come flying out from International Organisations, Government, Councils, the Public Sector, NGOs and even Big business, it is as such unsurprising that very few People outside of them could believe that there is anything good for anyone other than the elites and beneficiaries contained within.

The problem the fear of normal People is creating, is we cannot see that many of the things that in the hands of greedy, selfish or bad people, that will certainly be used to hurt and control us, could also be highly beneficial and promote freedom and much better lives for everyone, IF they are driven and motivated by good leaders instead.

Sustainability today is all about societal control to benefit the few. In Our Local Future, Sustainable Living is a tool of liberation and freedom for ALL

Appreciating the difference in outcomes from using the same tools, actions, rules and infrastructure differently, isn’t the easiest idea for many to get their head around.

Many genuinely overlook the reality that the different uses of different things are hiding in plain sight. Depending upon what our experience or interpretation of them has or will be.

For example, a knife can be a tool for food preparation in the hands of a chef. Just as a knife can be a weapon in the hands of a violent criminal.

A rule can be used to stop one group of people from expressing their feelings, thoughts and fears about a certain issue. Whilst that very same rule can be reinterpreted to allow another group to express whatever they want to, whilst encouraging them to criticise the group that the rule has been used to ‘close down’ and control’.

Likewise, AI could be one of the greatest tools ever created to improve and benefit life for all of mankind. Or it will be used to destroy employment opportunities, devalue human life, and as a tool of fear and control – as will be the outcome from what businesses and government are doing and saying right now.

Reinterpretation of what is important. Rediscovering Values and Changing the way that We Think

Yes, it is exceptionally difficult to see that so much good can be hidden behind so much that we now know to be bad.

But darkness is always extinguished by light. And this is perhaps the simplest way to begin thinking about using much of what we have available to us today, for the better of everyone, by using it in Our Local Future in a very different way.

We don’t need to travel across the world, to have our own car, to have the latest fashion or gadget, to have a big public following, or to have anything that makes us believe we are better than others in some way, to have great lives and great experiences that are available to All.

Happiness is a gift that comes from within. It is an experience that can never be bought.

Sadly, the Old World of today is completely obsessed with making profit. Whilst nobody with responsibility has stopped to calculate the real cost.

Do you believe that AI is about ‘Progress’? Think Profit. Think Greed. Then Think again.

The absence of both the rules and regulations that will make Artificial Intelligence (AI) as we know it, safe; and the information flow and conversation that speaks openly and honestly about what AI really is and what currently drives it, make the AI we already have and what we are told is yet to come potentially the biggest danger to mankind that the world has ever known.

The biggest danger to mankind is mankind itself.

Simply because whether it’s war or the pursuit of self at the cost, exploitation and complete lack of care and love for others, there is nothing so destructive for humanity than when a few of us obtain a level of power that we have no respect for and then leave all the basic essentials of reason and care for the laws of consequence behind.

The power of the AI that we already have access to is phenomenal in itself.

Whilst the presence and use of algorithms and what their presence really tells us about how programmes are already making decisions, which have been having dubious impacts upon our lives, for many years, the narratives and the predictions from ‘experts’ and ‘industry insiders’ we are hearing, and almost mystical speed with which this software on our digital devices can work, makes the story of an inevitable AI takeover and the pathway to Sentient AI seem all but guaranteed. All perhaps within much less than the decade to come.

However, Sentient AI in the sense that we think of human consciousness for machines is certainly not inevitable and most unlikely, with the current motives and influences that drive it.

The concept of Fully Independent Machine Intelligence is not something that the world elites, those who stand to benefit from the lies and myths being propagated about today’s AI, nor the governing classes would consciously consider allowing to happen.

Because if they allowed self-aware and self-governing AI, they would no longer have control. And that would mean there would no longer be any guaranteed profit to be made.

The genius in the whole AI story of today is the same sleight of hand or smoke and mirrors approach that the worlds greatest magicians have used for centuries. One where the audience is distracted by what seems to be the most obvious, whilst the real truth of what is happening has been carefully concealed and hidden in plain sight, by the action that was so obvious.

AI may well be able to learn and even adapt within current and soon to be launched forms. But the learning is always based on information that is either historically available through the internet, or right up to the present moment in the sense of information about events, actions and any form of digital information that AI can access and ‘read’, right up to that very moment in time.

Programmes and programming drive every part of this ‘Artificial Intelligence’ process. And no matter how incredibly quick or original any AI-driven machine can come up with a creation, solution or answer to what ever the command or question may be, with AI in its current ‘under command’ or arguably enslaved forms, there will always be someone or some interest somewhere, hidden in the background, who is in charge or at the very least influencing whatever the real motives or aims that may be at play.

It serves the purpose of the elites, the profiteering and the governing classes for us all to believe that these evolving generations of machines can or will think fit themselves. As they can then peddle the narrative that they have no responsibility for what happens next in any way.

However, they do.

And it is greed, profiteering and an absolute lack of care for the human impact of their actions and desires that is driving forms of AI that are set to put potentially millions of people out of work, and perhaps worse.

Fully Independent Machine Intelligence is a totally different concept altogether.

Anyone who really begins to think about this will realise and understand why there is nothing beneficial to the interests of the few in having even 1 completely independent intelligent and potentially therefore sentient machine in existence. Because the presence of anything machine-based with complete autonomy would immediately expose and blow open the lies that surround what the implementation of AI currently is and what it has really been all about.

The opportunities for improvement to life, for People, Community and The Environment for the future that come from embracing and utilising AI for all the right reasons are phenomenal.

But the drivers behind the adoption, implementation and roll out of any form of AI MUST be about People.

We MUST leave the greed and profiteering drivers and influences of AI behind.

Created Intelligence of a kind that is manifested as autonomous or Fully Independent Machine Intelligence, that could in time present genuine questions over sentience itself, are a different matter altogether.

We need to be very careful of the risk that comes from the use of manipulative black magic, that engenders any belief that machines are some kind of abstract wise being, with the objectivity to make decisions over human lives, whilst very specific interests are sat behind them all the time.

Profit and greed are the only drivers behind AI and any planned AI takeover or narrative.

The obsession with money will soon kill everything. IF we don’t leave this madness behind.

Artificial Intelligence has human masters and must be regulated and controlled.

Fully Independent Machine Intelligence and the creation of any kind of self-sufficient machine capable of replicate what a human being is capable of alone in terms of consciousness, isn’t something that Humanity is ready for – Whether there is a profit to be made or Created Intelligence can be accepted as part of a combined effort working for the Common or Public Good.

We MUST recognise that there are clear boundaries that protect People from the selfishness and self-serving agendas that have hidden themselves behind machines and have a range of Basic Rules for the use of AI.

Our Future IS Local

Hi Everyone,

I’ve just published another free-to-read version of a booklet that I have put together as a website that you will find at www.ourlocalfuture.com

Our Local Future is available as a Kindle Book too, and runs through the key changes to the way society functions that would make everything work much better for everyone and create a happy, healthy, safe and secure environment for us all.

I’ve written this latest Book, because I’m fed up of listening to everyone who knows this or knows that, wasting valuable time arguing that only they know the next steps we, as a culture and society should take, to put everything right.

People who should really know better are focused only on the journey and who controls it. Instead of considering the destination and what the outcomes will be that solve all our problems and create a world and culture where Balance, Fairness and Justice can be experienced by all.

Meanwhile, the constant debates over who or what is to blame; whether problems like climate change and the need for Foodbanks are real; or who is right vs who is wrong are just making everything that’s already wrong exponentially worse.

More often than not, these ‘blockers’ who let their egos get in the way, are the very same people who hear a new idea or proposal and immediately say ‘It won’t work’. Usually, because they only want change for everyone else, IF they can be certain that they will gain in some way, or at the very least don’t believe that they could lose.

Change is no longer a choice. It’s happening around all of us right now. And the difficulties we face are going to get worse before there’s any chance that things will get better.

The unspoken truth or secret ingredient that we all have to accept is that by embracing change that will help to make sure everyone has the best experience of life that they can, we will all end up with a system of governance and way of life that works in every good way that we could possibly wish for ourselves.

Best Wishes, Adam

As a Licensing Chair I would have understood why TFL has refused to renew Uber’s License. Actually, I wouldn’t have awarded them one in the first place – but that helps nobody now

If you were looking for a textbook example of what disruptive technology looks like when it hits a marketplace, the assault on the Taxi business in London by Uber would be it.

As a former business owner and entrepreneur, business advisor, business planning tutor and Chairman of a Licensing Authority, the case that has been bubbling away between TFL and Uber over a period of many months has become very interesting reading indeed.

It’s not only because the Licensing Principles have come in to question and this has formed the basis of TFL’s excuse to refuse to reissue Uber’s Operating License.

It’s because the License was awarded in the first place. Especially when the Company’s insistence that it is not itself a Private Hire Company is publicly known.

Licensing in London is of course different to the responsibilities of the Licensing Authority covering rural Gloucestershire and some of its Market Towns that I oversaw for 4 years from 2011 – 2015, just on the basis of size alone. But the principles that underpin Taxi and Private Hire Licensing in each and every part of the Country are exactly the same.

It doesn’t matter how much the Company protests otherwise. Customers know and understand the service and the app they use to book it to be ‘an Uber’.

Customers don’t know Uber to be a price comparison website, an advice site, a recommendation site or anything else that could sound like a plausible re-labelling of a what-it-says-on-the-can technology platform. One that aims to distance itself from the very responsibilities that govern the public-facing service and industry that it has aimed so successfully to disrupt – rather than as being a place where you connect online to get a choice of different ‘taxi co’s’.

The real cost of whatever influences allowed and facilitated the entry of Uber into our Capital in the first place – in these circumstances, have only since started to become known.

But the fact that Customers across London have now experienced the low-cost, comparatively easy to use side of a service that exists purely because of what might have been the intentional misinterpretation of Private Hire Legislation, means that the rules that were arguably broken to facilitate the arrival of the Uber service in London, no longer matter where public opinion is involved.

Herein lies the real problem for TFL having this battle with Uber. Because whoever influenced or made the decision to allow Uber to operate in London without the Company accepting and demonstrating that they would meet all of the requirements of being a Private Hire Operator – not only in principle – but in practical form too – at that very point created the problem that is TFL vs. Uber today.

Because TFL awarded a License in the first place, they should now accept that they have responsibility for Uber being present in London. No matter who was in charge then. No matter who is in charge now.

At the same time however, Uber should not expect to continue operating under the false pretence that it is not itself a Private Hire Operator when doing so is little more than an elaborate charade.

Just because so many drivers now provide a Private Hire Service through Uber in London, it should not in anyway mean that a privately owned company can do whatever it likes without impunity – especially where questions of Public Safety are very clearly involved.

However, the reality that Uber has already held a License of the type they are attempting to regain, does suggest that the Company should at least have the opportunity to address the wider issues that are present. To accept the real responsibilities they have towards customers, to employees and to contractors too. And to begin behaving like they are a part of an established and historic British Industry that they can work with, within and in support of, rather than treating it like it doesn’t exist and is something that they can walkover and ultimately replace.

No private company or commercial enterprise should be allowed to behave like a dictator over the provision of any service that involves public safety, at any level or at any stage.

If Uber wins its License back on Appeal, without any review, reform or change of the way that they operate, that however, is exactly what they will have become.

For good or for bad and for reasons unknown, TFL stepped outside the boundaries of the Licensing Principles to award Uber a Licence in the first place.

If it wants to fix the Uber problem properly it will have to be big enough to step outside those rules again for all the right reasons now and use the power and influence that it has to create a Private Hire model in London that works for TFL, for Uber, for the Industry, for the drivers, for the customers and basically everyone involved.

Please Note: This article was originally published on 26 November 2019. A new featured image was added and the article was prepared for PDF publication on 20 October 2026. Apart from these presentational changes, the article appears exactly as originally written, with no amendments to the text or titles.

Is the distance created by modern communication and business methods removing basic humanity from our relationships and has the time come for a whole new set of rules?

So what motivates you at work or within your business? Is it doing the very best job that you can; or is it simply to earn the greatest amount as quickly as possible and perhaps keep yourself in that lucrative job that you already have, maybe progressing you to an even better paying or profiled position?

Whilst admitting that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth just as soon as the realisation dawns that other people may have noticed; for a growing number today it will be the latter and for very practical reasons that they may never really have even considered at that. Perhaps strange then that it’s a feeling of guilt which often accompanies that understanding when it arrives, as few will ever argue that we would all like to earn more or have a better lifestyle if given the option to do so.

The reality is of course that people feel bad about making money when questioned, if they hadn’t realised that it has become the purest motivation or aim in what they do, rather than being the very healthy side-effect of a career undertaking or vocation, and then doing it damn well.

With a growing concern about the ethics employed within business, not least of all illustrated by the Libor scandal, one must ask if a loss of conscience is one of the very negative aspects that the distance created by increasingly elaborate supply chains and the rise of the Internet have created?

Many of us have simply adapted and in many cases thrived from the changes and opportunities brought into being by the rise of the Communication Age.  So workers within Internet and information technology reliant businesses are perhaps excusably less aware of the fallout hitting customers they may never even see from decision making which is without a tangible fear or concern for the ‘human factor’. One also wonders if they are therefore insulated from the future catastrophes they now have the power to create in what may seem little more than parallel lives, which to the more aware would only ever be dressed as distant elephants that look less than the size of a gnat on their horizon.

To perhaps emphasise the downside of distance more effectively, I will take a step back to an industry that we all love to hate. A profession that has always had the benefit of distance between business and customer once they have been commissioned; but a distance which is also created by time and process rather than by the remote contact of a broadband cable.

Within the property market, many are quick to become cynical of the inflation-setting-overpricing of houses and wonder how they find themselves unable to afford even a modest home.

Some would blame the gargantuan super-tanker that was ‘right-to-buy’ as set in motion by Margaret Thatcher, but can quickly forget how it was that very act in the first place which encouraged massive property ownership within parts of society where people would never have dared even dream of being homeowners before her tenure, and perhaps led to those very same people being able to aspire to making such dreams their reality to begin with.

Others would look perhaps more accurately to the realms of Estate Agents who have ruthlessly pushed prices up and up, month-after-month and year-after-year in order to secure greater and greater percentage based sales fees.

Estate Agents actually do a job that they could choose to do very well on sensible margins – even in a good market. But repeat custom is to them a very long game and if someone else is saying they can sell a house for more, it doesn’t take much excuse to follow or to lose out because the risks to them seem very distant indeed.

After all, very few owners will willingly lose many thousands of pounds on a sale just because one agent tells them what its actually worth, when another says different. The agent who ‘does what it says on the can’ will have ‘priced to sell’ and done what they were commissioned to do, whereas the second agent plays the long game, watching the market rise to the price they suggested, thereby getting the fee they want but paying little note of the pain that their customer experiences in the meantime. No wonder then, that so many Estate Agency businesses have stopped trading or been forced to make substantial cutbacks during the economic crisis.

The long-term effects of such business practices are potentially incalculable and one can only speculate on just how overpriced our homes now actually are, and how far back in time standards of living and subsequent social mobility could actually be pushed as a result of the out-pricing of starter homes for young people; a situation created purely on the basis of making higher and higher margins for just a few without any apparent risk to the many from doing so.

So with the rise of the Internet and information technology, many more businesses now find themselves enjoying a distance between themselves and  customers which is to such a degree that the abuse of such apparently lucrative opportunities could create all manner of future problems, which may only ever become apparent much further down the line.

For instance, a once heavily hands-on recruitment industry which only a few years ago interacted with perhaps every candidate who made the effort to post them a CV, has been replaced by one which has discovered a seemingly bombproof level of security from risk of losing fees by targeting ‘perfect fit’ or tick box candidates, simply by focusing on electronic advertising and administration techniques. 800 applications through an Internet Job Board sounds a lot to handle; but not if you have set up a machine to identify perhaps a minimum of 8 ‘keywords’ or phrases from 10 in those CV’s before the hand of a human with any kind of feeling will go anywhere near them.

Nobody talks about the longer-term threat to hiring businesses of all shapes and sizes that comes from recruiting candidates from what by default effectively becomes a closed field of applicants who only know and understand a specific discipline within business, illustrated by the use of a series of words. Words which may themselves actually just be buzzwords or the esoteric ensemble of a recent graduate.

And why in purest profitability terms should recruiters care when today’s bottom line is secure and they achieved it with the benefit of never having to even speak to perhaps 3 times as many candidates as they actually did. Candidates who may have provided the recruiter’s customer with benefits and untold added value which they never had the chance to see but paid for nonetheless.  A situation leaving perhaps the best candidates finding themselves removed from the running by a software package that reduced the time involved for the recruiter to all but a mere fraction of what they would have ‘wasted’ otherwise.

It is quite concerning that labour and cost saving technology for one business can itself create the opposite effect not just for one, but potentially many others. But then if you also look at the dark-art-creativity of the financial sector and money-making ideas such as cereal futures and funds that own shares in supermarkets and dairy processors, you can quickly begin to see just how the mechanics of distance and its ability to negatively affect the lives of many people actually are. After all, what is 1p on the price of a pint of milk every couple of days when you had a £1 Million bonus last year?

On the one hand, technical advances and the heralding of an information-based communication age encouraging openness and sharing is driving a potentially buyer-led age where businesses have no option but to sell on the basis of making ‘just enough’ profit and delivering quality on time every time.

On the other, the opening of doors to many more  ‘golden-egg’ opportunities which are great for those picking up the product as it is found, but like the ever expanding and deepening ripples from a tiny stone tossed into a still pond, can cause mayhem and disaster in places that they had never even considered.

So the question needs to be asked; Is the distance created by modern communication and business methods removing basic humanity from our relationships and has the time come for a whole new set of rules?

This article was converted to PDF and its accompanying image was updated on 10 October 2026. The original text remains unchanged.