🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 87: How Long Will It Take to Regulate AI?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how long it will take to regulate AI given the current pace of the effort"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is evolving faster than any technology in history. From generative models to autonomous systems, AI is reshaping industries, economies, and societies. Yet while innovation races ahead, regulation limps behind. The question isn’t just how to regulate AI - it’s how long it will take to do so effectively.

Given the current pace of global efforts, meaningful regulation could take 5 to 10 years—and that’s a conservative estimate.

The Current Pace: Slow and Fragmented

Despite growing awareness, AI regulation remains fragmented and reactive:

• The EU’s AI Act, the most comprehensive effort to date, is still in negotiation and won’t be fully enforced until 2026.
• The U.S. lacks federal legislation, relying instead on voluntary frameworks and state-level initiatives.
• China has issued guidelines on algorithmic transparency and data usage, but enforcement is uneven.

Global coordination is virtually nonexistent, with no binding international treaties or standards.

Most governments are still in the 'fact-finding' phase - holding hearings, commissioning studies, and consulting stakeholders. Meanwhile, AI capabilities are doubling every 6 to 12 months.

Why It’s So Hard to Regulate AI

AI regulation is complex for several reasons:

• Rapid evolution: By the time a law is drafted, the technology it targets may be obsolete.
• Multidisciplinary impact: AI touches everything - healthcare, finance, education, defense - making one-size-fits-all rules impractical.
• Opaque systems: Many AI models are 'black boxes', making it hard to audit or explain their decisions.
• Corporate resistance: Tech giants often lobby against strict regulation, fearing it will stifle innovation or expose proprietary methods.
• Global competition: Countries fear falling behind in the AI race, leading to regulatory hesitancy.

These challenges mean that even well-intentioned efforts move slowly - and often lack teeth.

Realistic Timeline: 5 to 10 Years

If we break down the regulatory journey, here’s what it looks like (phase/estimated duration):

• Research & Consultation: 1–2 years
• Drafting Legislation: 1–2 years
• Political Negotiation: 1–3 years
• Implementation & Review: 2–3 years

Even under ideal conditions, comprehensive regulation takes time. And that’s assuming no major setbacks - like political gridlock, industry pushback, or technological disruption.

What Could Accelerate the Process?

Several factors could speed things up:

• High-profile failures: A major AI-related scandal or accident could trigger emergency legislation.
• Public pressure: As awareness grows, citizens may demand faster action - especially around privacy, bias, and misinformation.
• Industry cooperation: If tech companies embrace self-regulation and transparency, governments may move faster.
• International frameworks: A global treaty or UN-led initiative could harmonize standards and reduce duplication.

But these are hopeful scenarios. Without them, the default trajectory remains slow.

Why Waiting Is Risky

The longer we delay, the greater the risks:

• Unregulated deployment: AI systems may be used in critical domains - like healthcare or criminal justice - without oversight.
• Entrenched bias: Flawed models could become embedded in institutions, making them harder to fix later.
• Loss of trust: Public confidence in AI could erode, stalling adoption and innovation.
• Geopolitical instability: Autonomous weapons and surveillance systems could escalate tensions between nations.

In short, the cost of inaction is steep - and growing.

Conclusion: The Clock Is Ticking

Regulating AI is not just a technical challenge - it’s a race against time. At the current pace, meaningful safeguards may take a decade to materialize. But AI won’t wait. It will continue to evolve, integrate, and influence every aspect of life.

We must accelerate the process - not by cutting corners, but by prioritizing collaboration, transparency, and foresight. Because the future of AI isn’t just about what it can do - it’s about what we allow it to do.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 86: Regulating AI - A Race Against Future Risks)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how AI must be regulated to avoid future risks"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is evolving at breakneck speed. From autonomous vehicles to predictive healthcare, AI is transforming industries and reshaping society. But with this rapid advancement comes a shadow of uncertainty - ethical dilemmas, misinformation, surveillance, and even existential threats. To avoid catastrophic outcomes, we must regulate AI now, before its power outpaces our ability to control it.

The Risks We Can’t Ignore

AI’s potential is immense - but so are its risks. Without regulation, we face:

• Bias and discrimination: AI systems trained on flawed data can perpetuate racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.
• Job displacement: Automation threatens millions of jobs, especially in manufacturing, transportation, and customer service.
• Surveillance and privacy erosion: Facial recognition and data mining technologies can be weaponized by governments and corporations.
• Misinformation: Deepfakes and AI-generated content can distort reality, undermine trust, and destabilize democracies.
• Autonomous weapons: AI-controlled drones and cyberweapons could trigger conflicts without human oversight.
• Loss of control: As AI systems become more complex, even their creators may struggle to understand or predict their behavior.

These aren’t distant hypotheticals - they’re unfolding now. Regulation is not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

What Regulation Should Look Like

Effective AI regulation must be proactive, adaptive, and globally coordinated. Here’s what it should include:

1. Transparency and Accountability

AI systems must be explainable. Developers should disclose how models are trained, what data is used, and how decisions are made. If an AI system causes harm, there must be clear lines of accountability.

2. Ethical Standards

Governments and institutions must define ethical boundaries - what AI can and cannot do. This includes banning autonomous lethal weapons, enforcing consent in data usage, and protecting vulnerable populations.

3. Bias Audits

Mandatory bias testing should be required for all high-impact AI systems. Independent audits can help identify and mitigate discriminatory outcomes before deployment.

4. Human Oversight

Critical decisions - like medical diagnoses, legal judgments, or military actions - must involve human review. AI should assist, not replace, human judgment in sensitive domains.

5. Global Cooperation

AI knows no borders. International frameworks, similar to climate accords or nuclear treaties, are essential to prevent regulatory loopholes and ensure shared safety standards.

Who Should Lead the Charge?

Regulation must be a collaborative effort:

• Governments: Must enact laws that protect citizens and promote responsible innovation.
• Tech companies: Should adopt self-regulation, publish ethical guidelines, and invest in safety research.
• Academia: Can provide independent analysis, develop ethical frameworks, and educate future AI leaders.
• Civil society: Must advocate for transparency, fairness, and human rights in AI development.

No single entity can shoulder this alone. It’s a shared responsibility - and a shared opportunity.

Why Time Is Running Out

AI’s growth is exponential. Each new model is more powerful, more autonomous, and more integrated into daily life. The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to rein in its influence.

History has shown that unregulated technologies - from nuclear energy to social media - can spiral into crises. AI is no different. The window for safe regulation is closing fast.

Conclusion: Intelligence With Integrity

AI is not inherently good or bad - it’s a tool. But powerful tools demand responsible stewardship. Regulation is how we align AI’s capabilities with human values, ensuring it serves society rather than undermines it.

We must act now - not out of fear, but out of foresight. Because the future of AI isn’t just about smarter machines - it’s about wiser choices.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 85: AI’s Water Crisis - How Fast Could We Run Dry?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how fast the water will be depleted as is consumed by the data centers for AI"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the world - but it’s also quietly draining one of our most precious resources: water. As AI models grow larger and more complex, the data centers that power them are consuming staggering volumes of water to stay cool. With AI’s exponential growth, the question is no longer if this will impact global water supplies, but how fast.

Let’s unpack the urgency behind this hidden crisis.

Why AI Needs Water

Data centers are the beating heart of AI. They house thousands of servers that run nonstop, generating immense heat. To prevent overheating, these facilities rely heavily on cooling systems - many of which use water.

Water is consumed in two key ways:

• Evaporative cooling: Water is evaporated to lower air temperature.
• Liquid cooling: Water circulates directly to absorb heat from servers.

While efficient, these methods are resource-intensive. And as AI workloads surge, so does the demand for cooling.

The Exponential Growth of AI - and Water Use

AI’s growth is not linear - it’s exponential. Each new model is bigger, more data-hungry, and more computationally demanding than the last. For example:

• GPT-3 required hundreds of thousands of liters of water to train.
• Google’s data centers consumed over 15 billion liters of water in 2022.
• Microsoft’s water usage jumped 34% in one year, largely due to AI workloads.

If this trend continues, AI-related water consumption could double every few years. That means by 2030, global data centers could be consuming tens of billions of liters annually - just to keep AI cool.

Regional Strain and Environmental Impact

Many data centers are located in water-scarce regions like Arizona, Nevada, and parts of Europe. In these areas, every liter counts. Diverting water to cool servers can strain agriculture, ecosystems, and human consumption.

Moreover, the water returned to the environment is often warmer, which can disrupt aquatic life and degrade water quality.

When Could We Run Dry?

While it’s unlikely that AI alone will deplete the world’s water supply, its contribution to water stress is accelerating. Consider this:

• The UN estimates that by 2030, half the world’s population will live in water-stressed regions.
• If AI continues to grow exponentially, its water demand could outpace conservation efforts in key regions within a decade.
• Without intervention, local water shortages could become common by the mid-2030s - especially in tech-heavy zones.

In short, we may not run dry globally, but AI could push vulnerable regions past their tipping points far sooner than expected.

Can We Slow the Drain?

There are solutions - but they require urgent action:

• Green data centers: Facilities designed for minimal water use and powered by renewable energy.
• Alternative cooling: Air-based and immersion cooling systems that reduce or eliminate water dependency.
• AI optimization: Smarter scheduling and model efficiency to reduce computational load.

Tech companies must invest in sustainable infrastructure and disclose water usage transparently. Governments must regulate and incentivize eco-friendly practices.

The Ethical Dilemma

AI promises incredible benefits - from medical breakthroughs to climate modeling. But if its growth comes at the cost of clean water, we must ask: Is it worth it?

Water is not optional. Intelligence should not come at the expense of sustainability. As we build smarter machines, we must also build smarter systems - ones that respect planetary boundaries.

Conclusion: Intelligence Must Be Sustainable

AI’s water footprint is growing fast - and if left unchecked, it could accelerate regional water crises within the next 10 to 15 years. The solution isn’t to halt AI’s progress, but to align it with ecological responsibility.

We must act now. Because in the race for artificial intelligence, the real test isn’t how smart our machines become - it’s how wisely we manage their impact.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 37: How AI Can Increase Unemployment)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a blogpost of 600 words on how AI can increase unemployment"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries, automating processes, and reshaping the global workforce. While AI offers efficiency and innovation, it also presents significant risks to employment, potentially leading to widespread job displacement. As AI-driven automation replaces human labor, concerns about unemployment, economic inequality, and workforce adaptation continue to grow.

1. AI-Driven Job Displacement

One of the most immediate ways AI increases unemployment is through automation, where machines and algorithms replace human workers. Industries most affected include:

• Manufacturing: AI-powered robotics reduce the need for factory workers.
• Retail and customer service: AI chatbots and self-checkout systems replace human employees.
• Finance: AI automates investment decisions, reducing demand for financial analysts.

A report by McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2030, up to 375 million workers worldwide may need to switch occupations due to automation.

2. AI’s Impact on Low-Skilled Jobs

AI disproportionately affects low-skilled and repetitive jobs, making it harder for workers in these roles to transition to new employment. Examples include:

• Warehouse workers replaced by AI-driven logistics systems.
• Data entry clerks replaced by automated processing software.
• Truck drivers replaced by autonomous vehicles.

Without proper workforce retraining, AI-induced unemployment could widen economic inequality.

3. AI’s Role in Economic Inequality

AI benefits corporations that can afford advanced automation, but it disadvantages smaller businesses and low-income workers. AI-driven automation:

• Increases profits for large corporations, widening the gap between wealthy and struggling businesses.
• Reduces wages for workers, as AI replaces human labor.
• Limits economic mobility, making it harder for displaced workers to find new opportunities.

Without proper regulation, AI could exacerbate income inequality, leading to social unrest and economic polarization.

4. AI’s Influence on Hiring Practices

AI-powered recruitment platforms streamline hiring but also eliminate human judgment, leading to:

• Automated resume screening, which may overlook unconventional career paths.
• AI-driven hiring biases, reinforcing discrimination in employment decisions.
• Reduced personal engagement, making job seekers feel disconnected from employers.

While AI improves efficiency, it removes the human element from hiring, making employment less accessible.

5. AI’s Role in Financial Market Instability

AI-driven algorithms dominate stock trading, investment strategies, and financial predictions. While AI enhances efficiency, it also introduces risks:

• AI-powered trading systems can trigger market crashes due to rapid, automated decision-making.
• AI-driven financial models may misinterpret economic trends, leading to poor investment choices.
• Over-reliance on AI in banking could create vulnerabilities in financial security.

AI’s influence on financial markets requires strict oversight to prevent economic instability.

Conclusion: AI’s Economic Risks Require Careful Management

While AI offers efficiency and innovation, its negative economic impact - job displacement, inequality, financial instability, and hiring biases - must be addressed. Governments, businesses, and researchers must develop policies that balance AI’s benefits with economic sustainability, ensuring AI serves society rather than disrupting it.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 28: Cutting through Complexity)

Business Intelligence Series

Independently of the complexity of the problems, one should start by framing the problem(s) correctly and this might take several steps and iterations until a foundation is achieved, upon which further steps can be based. Ideally, the framed problem should reflect reality and should provide a basis on which one can build something stable, durable and sustainable. Conversely, people want quick low-cost fixes and probably the easiest way to achieve this is by focusing on appearances, which are often confused with more.

In many data-related contexts, there’s the tendency to start with the "solution" in mind, typically one or more reports or visualizations which should serve as basis for further exploration. Often, the information exchange between the parties involved (requestor(s), respectively developer(s)) is kept to a minimum, though the formalized requirements barely qualify for the minimum required. The whole process starts with a gap that can create further changes as the development process progresses, with all the consequences deriving from this: the report doesn’t satisfy the needs, more iterations are needed - requirements’ reevaluation, redesign, redevelopment, retesting, etc.

The poor results are understandable, all parties start with a perspective based on facts which provide suboptimal views when compared with the minimum basis for making the right steps in the right direction. That’s not only valid for reports’ development but also for more complex endeavors – data models, data marts and warehouses, and other software products. Data professionals attempt to bridge the gaps by formalizing and validating the requirements, building mock-ups and prototypes, testing, though that’s more than many organizations can handle!

There are simple reports or data visualizations for which not having prior knowledge of the needed data sources, processes and the business rules has a minimal impact on the further steps of the processes involved in building the final product(s). However, "all generalizations are false" to some degree, and there’s a critical point after which minimal practices tend to create more waste than companies can afford. Consequently, applying the full extent of the processes can lead to waste when the steps aren’t imperative for the final product.

Even if one is aware of all the implications, one’s experience and the application of best practices doesn’t guarantee the quality of the results as long as some kind of novelty, unknown, fuzziness or complexity is involved. Novelty can appear in different ways – process, business rules, data or problem formulations, particularities that aren’t easily perceived or correctly understood. Each important minor piece of information can have an exponential impact under the wrong circumstances.

The unknown can encompass novelty, though can be also associated with the multitude of facts not explicitly and/or directly considered. "The devil is in details" and it’s so easy for important or minor facts to remain hidden under the veil of suppositions, expectations, respectively under the complex and fuzzy texture of logical aspects. Many processes operate under strict rules, though there are various consequences, facts or unnecessary information that tend to increase the overall complexity and fuzziness.

Predefined processes, procedures and practices can help cut and illuminate through this complex structure associated with the various requirements and aspects of problems. Plunging headfirst can be occasionally associated with the need to evaluate what is known and unknown from facts and data’s perspective, to identify the gaps and various factors that can weigh in the final solution. Unfortunately, too often it’s nothing of this!  

Besides the multitude of good/best practices and problem-solving approaches, all one has is his experience and intuition to cut through the overall complexity. False steps are inevitable for finding the approachable path(s) from the requirements to the solution.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part I: A Nail Keeps the Shoe)

Probably one of the most misunderstood aspects for businesses is the implications the adoption of a new technology have in terms of effort, resources, infrastructure and changes, these considered before, during and post-implementation. Unfortunately, getting a new BI tool or ERP system is not like buying a new car, even if customers’ desires might revolve around such expectations. After all, the customer has been using a BI tool or ERP system for ages, the employees should be able to do the same job as before, right?

In theory adopting a new system is supposed to bring organizations a competitive advantage or other advantages - allow them reduce costs, improve their agility and decision-making, etc. However, the advantages brought by new technologies remain only as potentials unless their capabilities aren’t harnessed adequately. Keeping the car metaphor, besides looking good in the car, having a better mileage or having x years of service, buying a highly technologically-advanced car more likely will bring little benefit for the customer unless he needs, is able to use, and uses the additional features.

Both types of systems mentioned above can be quite expensive when considering the benefits associated with them. Therefore, looking at the features and the further requirements is critical for better understanding the fit. In the end one doesn’t need to buy a luxurious or sport car when one just needs to move from point A to B on small distances. In some occasions a bike or a rental car might do as well. Moreover, besides the acquisition costs, the additional features might involve considerable investments as long the warranty is broken and something needs to be fixed. In extremis, after a few years it might be even cheaper to 'replace' the whole car. Unfortunately, one can’t change systems yet, as if they were cars.

Implementing a new BI tool can take a few weeks if it doesn’t involve architecture changes within the BI infrastructure. Otherwise replacing a BI infrastructure can take from months to one year until having a stable environment. Similarly, an ERP solution can take from six months to years to implement and typically this has impact also on the BI infrastructure. Moreover, the implementation is only the top of the iceberg as further optimizations and changes are needed. It can take even more time until seeing the benefits for the investment.

A new technology can easily have the impact of dominoes within the organization. This effect is best reflected in sayings of the type: 'the wise tell us that a nail keeps a shoe, a shoe a horse, a horse a man, a man a castle, that can fight' and which reflect the impact tools technologies have within organizations when regarded within the broader context. Buying a big car, might involve extending the garage or eventually buying a new house with a bigger garage, or of replacing other devices just for the sake of using them with the new car. Even if not always perceptible, such dependencies are there, and even if the further investments might be acceptable and make sense, the implications can be a bigger shoe that one can wear. Then, the reversed saying can hold: 'for want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost'.

For IT technologies the impact is multidimensional as the change of a technology has impact on the IT infrastructure, on the processes associated with them, on the resources required and their skillset, respectively on the various types of flows (data, information, knowledge, materials, money).

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

♜Strategic Management: Business Impact Analysis (Definitions)

"The process of delineating the functions most critical to the survival of a business." (Yvette Ghormley, "Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans", 2009)

"A management-level analysis which identifies the impacts of losing company resources. The BIA measures the effect of resource loss and escalating losses over time, in order to provide senior management with reliable data on which to base decisions concerning risk mitigation and continuity planning." (Mark S Merkow & Lakshmikanth Raghavan, "Secure and Resilient Software Development", 2010)

"A method or exercise to determine the impact of losing the support or availability of a resource." (Linda Volonino & Efraim Turban, "Information Technology for Management" 8th Ed., 2011)

"Aims to (a) identify critical business processes, stakeholders, assets, resources and internal/external dependencies and (b) assesses and evaluates potential damages or losses at business level that may be caused by a threat to IT landscape." (Ulrich Winkler & Wasif Gilani, "Business Continuity Management of Business Driven IT Landscapes", 2012)

"A process used to analyze the business and identify critical functions and services. The BIA also helps the organization determine the cost impact of losing these functions and services. Organizations use the results as part of an overall business continuity plan." (Darril Gibson, "Effective Help Desk Specialist Skills", 2014)

"The identification of services and products that are critical to the organization." (Manish Agrawal, "Information Security and IT Risk Management", 2014)

"The process of analysing activities and the effect that a business disruption might have upon them." (David Sutton, "Information Risk Management: A practitioner’s guide", 2014)

"An exercise that determines the impact of losing the support of any resource to an organization, establishes the escalation of that loss over time, identifies the minimum resources needed to recover, and prioritizes the recovery of processes and supporting systems." (Adam Gordon, "Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK" 4th Ed., 2015)

"A functional analysis in which a team collects data, documents business functions, develops a hierarchy of business functions, and applies a classification scheme to indicate each individual function’s criticality level." (Shon Harris & Fernando Maymi, "CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide" 8th Ed., 2018)

"The analysis of an information system’s requirements, functions, and interdependencies used to characterize system contingency requirements and priorities in the event of a significant disruption." (William Stallings, "Effective Cybersecurity: A Guide to Using Best Practices and Standards", 2018)

"A business continuity management activity which is mainly intended for defining the core business functions, the recovery priorities regarding these functions and the corresponding time required for the resumption of each function." (Athanasios Podaras et al, "Regression-Based Recovery Time Predictions in Business Continuity Management: A Public College Case Study", 2021)

"Activity that identifies the VMF and their dependencies" (ITIL)

"An analysis of an information system’s requirements, functions, and interdependencies used to characterize system contingency requirements and priorities in the event of a significant disruption." (CNSSI 4009-2015)