News Feeds

Astronomers have developed a groundbreaking computer simulation to explore, in unprecedented detail, magnetism and turbulence in the interstellar medium (ISM) -- the vast ocean of gas and charged particles that lies between stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. The model is the most powerful to date, requiring the computing capability of the SuperMUC-NG supercomputer at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre in Germany. It directly challenges our understanding of how magnetized turbulence operates in astrophysical environments.

A robotic hand can pick up 24 different objects with human-like movements that emerge spontaneously, thanks to compliant materials and structures rather than programming.

AI is advancing at such speed that speculative moral questions, once the province of science fiction, are suddenly real and pressing, says a philosopher and psychology researcher Frank Martela. Martela's latest study finds that generative AI meets all three of the philosophical conditions of free will -- the ability to have goal-directed agency, make genuine choices and to have control over its actions. This development brings us to a critical point in human history, as we give AI more power and freedom, potentially in life or death situations.

What the true impact of artificial intelligence (AI) is and soon will be remains a point of contention. Even among scientifically literate skeptics people tend to fall into decidedly different narratives. Also, when being interviewed I can almost guarantee now that I will be asked what I think about the impact of AI – will it help, will it hurt, is it real, is it a sham? The reason I think there is so much disagreement is because all of these things are true at the same time. Different attitudes toward AI are partly due to confirmation bias. Once you have an AI narrative, you can easily find support for that narrative. But also I think part of the reason is that what you see depends on where you look.

The “AI is mostly hype” narrative derives partly from the fact that the current AI applications are not necessarily fundamentally different than AI applications in the last few decades. The big difference, of course, is the large language models, which are built on a transformer technology. This allows for training on massive sets of unstructured data (like the internet), and to simulate human speech is a very realistic manner. But they are still narrow AI, without any true understanding of concepts. This is why they “hallucinate” and lie – they are generating probable patterns, not actually thinking about the world.

So you can make the argument that recent AI is nothing fundamentally new, the output is highly flawed, still brittle in many ways, and mostly just flashy toys and ways to steal the creative output of people (who are generating the actual content). Or, you can look at the same data and conclude that AI has made incredible strides and we are just seeing its true potential. Applications like this one, that transforms old stills into brief movies, give us a glimpse of a “black mirror” near future where amazing digital creations will become our everyday experience.

But also, I think the “AI is hype” narrative is looking at only part of the elephant. Forget the fancy videos and pictures, AI is transforming scientific research in many areas. I read dozens of science news press releases every week, and there is now a steady stream of news items about how using AI allowed researchers to perform months of research in hours, or accomplish tasks previously unattainable. The ability to find patterns in vast amounts of data is a perfect fit for genetics research, proteinomics, material science, neuroscience, astronomy, and other areas. AI is also poised to transform medical research and practice. The biggest problem for a modern clinician is the vast amount of data they need to deal with. It’s literally impossible to keep up in anything but a very narrow area, which is while so many clinicians specialize. But this causes a lack of generalists who play a critical role in patient care.

AI has already proven to be equal to or superior to human clinicians in reading medical scans, making diagnoses, and finding potential interactions, for example. This is mostly just using generic Chat-GPT type programs, but there are medical specific ones coming out. AI also is a perfect match for certain types of technology, such as robotics and brain-machine interface. For example, allowing users to control a robotic prosthetic limb is greatly improved, with training accelerated, using AI. AI apps can predict what the user wants to do, and can find patterns in nerve or muscle activity to correspond to the desired movement.

These are concrete and undeniable applications that pretty much destroy the  “AI is all hype” narrative. But – that does not mean that other proposed AI applications are not mostly hype. Most new technologies are accompanied by the snake oil peddlers hoping to cash in on the resulting hype and the general unfamiliarity of the public with the new technology. AI is also very much a tool looking for an application, and that will take time, to sort out what it does best, where it works and where it doesn’t. We have to keep in mind how fast this is all moving.

I am reminded of the early days of the web. One of my colleagues observed that the internet was going to go the way of CB radio – it was a fad without any real application that would soon fade. Many people shared a similar opinion – what was this all for, anyway? Meanwhile there was an internet-driven tech bubble that was literally mostly hype, and that soon burst. At the same time there were those who saw the potential of the internet and the web and landed on those applications for which it was best suited (and became billionaires). We cannot deny now that the web has transformed our society, the way we shop, the way we consume news and communicate, and the way we consume media, and spend a lot of our time (what are you doing right now?). The web was hype, and real, and caused harm, and is a great tool.

AI is the same, just at an earlier part of the curve. It is hype, but also a powerful tool. We are still sorting out what it works best for and where its true potential  lies. It is and will transform our world, and it will be for both good and for ill. So don’t believe all the hype, but ignore it at your peril. If it will be a net positive or negative for society depends on us – how we use it, how we support it, and how we regulate it. We basically failed to regulate social media and are now paying the price while scrambling to correct our mistakes. Probably the same thing will happen with AI, but there is an outside chance we may learn from our recent and very similar mistakes and get ahead of the curve. I wouldn’t hold my breath (certainly not in the current political environment), but crazier things have happened.

Like with any technology – it can be used for good or bad, and the more powerful it is the greater the potential benefit or harm. AI is the nuclear weapon of the digital world. I think the biggest legitimate concern is that it will become a powerful tool in the hands of authoritarian governments. AI could become an overwhelming tool of surveillance and oppression. Not thinking about this early in the game may be a mistake from which there is no recovery.

The post The AI Conundrum first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

The pitch and hoarseness of a person's voice often changes if they have Parkinson's disease, suggesting there could be a non-invasive way of screening for the condition

Here are many popular myths about chocolate. How many can you tell are true or not?

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Experiments with hydrogen atoms could soon reveal whether particles that were long thought to be forbidden by physics actually do exist

Engineers have taught a simple submarine robot to take advantage of turbulent forces to propel itself through water.

Engineers have taught a simple submarine robot to take advantage of turbulent forces to propel itself through water.

Here’s the comedy bit from a recent edition of Bill Maher’s “Real Time” (there are two; I’ll put up the other one tomorrow). The title is “New Rule: Retake the Flag!

He first gives examples of politicians using profanity, something they never did in previous decades. That bit is pretty funny.

Maher’s guests are Democrat Donna Brazile and Republican Mike Lawler, and after his bit on profanity, Maher, citing statistics on how few Democrats say they’re proud to be American, goes on to extol the USA in an unusual burst of patriotic fervor.  He says, for example, “The U.S is leagues ahead of the rest of the world on most of the progressive issues that are important to young people,” citing statistics about gay freedom, a rise in diversity, women and black people increasingly owning businesses,  and contrasting the U.S. with third-world countries (and the Middle East).  He goes on to deplore what is especially odious: the fact that young people often appear to regard Hamas as a role model (here I agree with him 100%).  He adds, “If the thought leaders in the Democratic Party keep encouraging and not rebuking the idea that America is cringe and the people who run Gaza are great, the Democrats are doomed. . . the Democrats’ problem is the energy of the party is with the young, and the young are with the terrorists. That’s not good!”  His comment on the AOC/Bernie Sanders rally is quite apposite, but watch to see it.

He finishes by extolling all the technical advances that came from America, like smartphones and Grubhub, presumably to show the kids that they’re living an American-buttressed life.

This is a bit too jingoistic for me, though I agree with Maher’s view that young Democrats often wrongly admire terrorists, and I laughed at the profanity bit.  But other countries are at least as progressive as America in some ways, and more progressive in others. Think of Canada or Europe, especially Scandinavia. In many of those countries the penal system is more rational and humane than America’s, and there is more paternity/maternity leave, help for old people, and free medical care for all.

I will not attribute this to Maher’s demonized Dinner with Trump, but he does have a point that America is a good country to live in (or was until January), and countries ruled by terrorists are not ones we should admire.  I think he just decided to extol what is good about America. Unfortunately, we’re not unique in many of the ways he extols.

 

 

The drug ubrogepant doesn't just ease the headache of a migraine, but also relieves symptoms like neck stiffness and fatigue if taken early enough

Finding out whether gravity – and therefore space-time itself – is quantum in nature has long been thought impossible. But innovative new ideas might be about to help answer this crucial question

The drug rizatriptan is often recommended for vestibular migraines, which cause vertigo as well as headache, but doesn't actually seem to be effective

A team has developed Boccia XR, a rehabilitation program using extended reality technology that can be introduced even in environments with limited space.

A team engineers created a twisty high-temperature heat exchanger that outperformed a traditional straight channel design in heat transfer, power density and effectiveness and used an innovative technique to 3D print and test the metal proof of concept.

The universe is decaying much faster than thought. This is shown by calculations of scientists on the so-called Hawking radiation. They calculate that the last stellar remnants take about 10^78 years (a 1 with 78 zeros) to perish. That is much shorter than the previously postulated 10^1100 years (a 1 with 1100 zeros).

Massive ripples in the very fabric of space and time wash over Earth constantly, although you'd never notice. An astrophysicist is trying a new search for these gravitational waves.

Massive ripples in the very fabric of space and time wash over Earth constantly, although you'd never notice. An astrophysicist is trying a new search for these gravitational waves.

How might floating solar energy projects impact wild birds and vice versa? A paper outlines key considerations for a growing floating solar industry.

I was just reading Richard Dawkins’s engrossing essay on sex, gender, and wokeness, and something struck me—a notion that’s not original since it occurred to Rebecca Tuvel when she wrote her infamous essay for Hypatia, a feminist philosophy journal, on “transracialism” Tuvel’s essay pointed out the philosophical and moral parallels between declaring you’re a member of your non-natal “race” (again, I prefer “ancestry”) and declaring that you’re of  your non-natal sex.  Yet Tuvel’s philosophical analysis of this issue, an analysis which I applauded, got her in hot water. As Wikipedia notes:

 

The feminist philosophy journal Hypatia became involved in a dispute in April 2017 that led to the online shaming of one of its authors, Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis.  The journal had published a peer-reviewed article by Tuvel in which she compared the situation of Caitlyn Jenner, a trans woman, to that of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who identifies as black. When the article was criticized on social media, scholars associated with Hypatia joined in the criticism and urged the journal to retract it.  The controversy exposed a rift within the journal’s editorial team and more broadly within feminism and academic philosophy.

In the article—”In Defense of Transracialism”, published in Hypatia‘s spring 2017 issue on 25 April—Tuvel argued that “since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races”.  After a small group on Facebook and Twitter criticized the article and attacked Tuvel, an open letter began circulating, naming one of Hypatia‘s editorial board as its point of contact and urging the journal to retract the article. The article’s publication had sent a message, the letter said, that “white cis scholars may engage in speculative discussion of these themes” without engaging “theorists whose lives are most directly affected by transphobia and racism”.

On 1 May the journal posted an apology on its Facebook page on behalf of “a majority” of Hypatia‘s associate editors. By the following day the open letter had 830 signatories, including scholars associated with Hypatia and two members of Tuvel’s dissertation committee. Hypatia‘s editor-in-chief, Sally Scholz, and its board of directors stood by the article.  When Scholz resigned in July 2017, the board suspended the associate editors’ authority to appoint the next editor, in response to which eight associate editors resigned.  The directors set up a task force to restructure the journal’s governance.  In February 2018 the directors themselves were replaced.

And of course Rachel Dolezal was also demonized when she was outed as having been born white although claiming she was black. She was fired as president of the local NAACP, and, as Wikipedia notes, “dismissed from her position as an instructor in Africana studies at Eastern Washington University and was removed from her post as chair of the Police Ombudsman Commission in Spokane over ‘a pattern of misconduct'”. All for saying she was black when she was born white. I do believe Dolezal assumed her black identity honestly. It didn’t seem to be a ruse, and, indeed, why would she fake being a member of an oppressed minority unless she really believed it. It surely wasn’t a trick or a ruse.

Richard has been writing about this disparity/hypocrisy for years, most notably in his website post, “Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary.”  The title is of course correct, but pointing it out on Twitter cost Richard the 1996 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association. And that was for simply raising the question of any relevant difference between being “transracial” or “transsexual”. The AHA acted shamefully in that case, and I’ve washed my hands of it.

Indeed, since race is more spectrum-ish than is sex, it would seem to be MORE JUSTIFIABLE to say you’re a member of a non-natal race than of a non-natal sex.  After all, people like Barack Obama are of mixed ancestry, and can claim whatever they want with biological justification (in his case, white or black).  But if he felt more Asian, why couldn’t he claim he was Asian? After all, race, like sex, is supposed to be a social construct.

This came back to me when I considered the case of Kat Grant and her essay for the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which I documented here. That fracas resulted in my published response being taken down, with the consequence that I resigned from the FFRF along with Richard and Steve Pinker.  And the FFRF declared that it dissolved the honorary board of which we were all members (though, curiously, it’s still on the web). Grant’s essay, “What is a woman?” implicitly accepted sex as a social construct and ended this way (bolding is mine):

All of this is to say that there is an answer to the question “what is a woman,” that luckily does not involve plucking a chicken from its feathers. A woman is whoever she says she is.

Yes, a woman is whoever she says she is. Clearly, sex is a social construct here, and you can be whatever sex you want, regardless of your natal gamete-producing system.  Grant was widely applauded by many on the gender-extremist side, while my response was taken down by the FFRF for being hurtful and offensive (you can still read it here, here or here).

 

This fracas, which I call “The KerFFRFle,” has reminded me of the seeming hypocrisy of regarding both sex and race as social constructs, but allowing you to declare whatever sex you feel you are, but not allowing you to declare whatever race you feel you are. Transracialism would seem especially laudatory because one would think it would be a bold move to declare you’re of an oppressed minority group. (Again, I prefer “ancestry” or “population” to “race” for reasons I’ve explained many times.)

I am not taking a stand on these issues here, but merely trying, as did Richard, to understand the difference.  And so I ask readers?

Why is it okay (indeed, applauded) to be transsexual but not transracial?