News Feeds

As I mentioned, a hen mallard came into Botany Pond yesterday and quickly took up with Armon, with him being protective and driving away other drakes.  Could this have been Vashti returning after she left the pond with her brood? The only way to tell is to compare bill photos, as hens have identifying dark marks on their bill. So I did the comparison, which you can see below.

Vashti: left side of bill (on nest)

New hen: left side of bill. same black markings on upper bill, black bill tip, and freckles on left side of bill:

Vashti: right side of bill:

New hen: right side of bill. This is the most dispositive to me: note the cloudy darkness on the right side with a small black clump on the bottom, along with the line of “freckles” extending ventrally.

This is good enough for me, and I am calling her “Vashti” again. Moreover, she’s back with Armon (they bonded very quickly after the new hen arrived at the pond yesterday), and they were showing breeding behaviors this morning (head bowing, etc.). My guess is that Vashti is going to essay a second brood.

The sad part is that Vashti almost certainly lost her brood after wandering away from Botany Pond, and came back to try again. The good bit is that she’s trying again, and I will be here to oversee the process again. And Armon is overseeing everything.

Duck tending is hard!

There are tens of thousands of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that represent some of the most easily accessible resources in the solar system. If we can get to them at least. Planning trajectories to rendezvous with these miniature worlds is notoriously difficult, and requires a massive amount of computational power to calculate. But a new paper from astrodynamicist Alessandro Beolchi of Khalifa University of Science and Technology and his co-authors offers a much less computationally intensive way to find these trajectories, and has the added bonus of finding the much less energy-intensive paths to boot.

Since the early 20th century, people’s skulls have got rounder and their jaws have got wider, probably because of changes in health, diet and environment

They’re a prolific, yet often elusive for northern hemisphere observers. If skies are clear, watch for a strong annual meteor shower that’s attained an almost mythical status: the May Eta Aquariids. The Eta Aquariid meteor shower is active from April 19th until May 28th, with the key night being the evening of May 5th into the morning of May 6th.

The degree of anti-Jewish violence in the UK has escalated since October, 2023, and has been especially noticeable in the last six months. Here are the antisemitic incidents that Grok describes, including the stabbing yesterday.

• 23 March 2026 – Golders Green arson: Four ambulances belonging to the Jewish volunteer medical charity Hatzola Northwest were deliberately set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green (a major Jewish neighbourhood in north London). Police treated it as a suspected antisemitic hate crime; multiple arrests followed.
• Mid-April 2026 – Series of attempted arsons on Jewish sites in north London:
  • 15 April: A brick and two bottles (believed to contain petrol) were thrown at Finchley Reform Synagogue.
  • Around 17–18 April: Suspected arson attacks targeted a building in Hendon previously used by a Jewish charity and Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow (where a teenage boy reportedly smashed a window and threw a lit bottle inside).
  • Late April (reported around 27 April): A suspected arson attack on a Jewish memorial wall in Golders Green.

  Counter-terrorism police linked some of these to possible paid criminal actors (with speculation of Iran-related motives in some reporting) and made multiple arrests across the incidents.

• 29 April 2026 – Golders Green stabbing (ongoing investigation as of 30 April): Two Jewish men (aged 34 and 76) were stabbed in the street in Golders Green shortly after 11 a.m. Police declared it a terrorist incident, stating the suspect (a 45-year-old man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) appeared to be “hunting for anyone visibly Jewish.” Both victims were hospitalized in stable condition. The suspect also allegedly turned the knife on officers.

This was combined with persistent accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, Those accusations againt Labpir seem to have eroded under PM Keir Starmer, whose wife and family are Jewish and the kids are being raised Jewish though Starmer himself is an atheist. Yet, as the Free Press article asserts (see below), Starmer is “failing Britain’s Jews” through inaction against incidents like the ones above. First, an archived article from the Torygraph (click to read), showing journalist Suzanne Moore (not Jewish) fed up with the violence:

A few paragraphs:

I am completely broken over the stabbing of two Jewish people in Golders Green.

I should have said “the stabbing of two of our own”. I am not Jewish, but these are our people in our streets, in the city in which I live. Today’s attack is utterly shaming and enraging, and the latest in a line of appalling anti-Semitic crimes. At this point, I just don’t want to hear any more excuses about why this is happening to this tiny minority.

I don’t want to hear more about Palestine, Zionism, Netanyahu, colonialism, “mental health” or “diversity”. Where have these endless, spiralling discussions got us? We are dancing on the head of a pin about whether anti-Semitism is a form of racism, when it so obviously is.

We are now at the point where ambulances are firebombed, and the leader of the Green Party has the gall to ask whether the problem faced by the Jewish community is simply a “perception” of being unsafe. When random Jews are subject to attack, no one asks their position on the Jewish state before spilling their blood, do they? Or where they stand on Gaza?

Where I live in Hackney, east London, Hasidic Jews and Muslims live alongside each other. Many of the local Haredi schools resemble fortresses with 24-hour security. No other community is living like this. Churches and mosques do not need armed guards, and if they did, we would see this situation for what it is – a national emergency.

In the past few years, long before October 7, waves of open anti-Semitism have crashed over us. Labour twisted itself up over it, and those they expelled went straight to the Greens.

Killing Jews in their place of worship in Manchester was shocking enough, but just like the dreadful massacre in Bondi Beach, no one was really that surprised. Jews don’t stab themselves, do they? Yet there is this disgusting underlying sentiment that somehow they have always had it coming. Jews are always held somehow responsible for the murderous violence against them.

She has a point.  Jews are not stabbing Palestinians, driving their cars into crowds of Arabs, or burning mosques.  She calls for action, as does Jonathan Sacerdoti below, who gives a number of suggestions.  And nobody asks the people who are attacked what their views are on Zionism or Netanyahu. This alone shows that it’s not Zionism or the current Israeli PM that’s prompting the violence: the target is Jews, pure and simple. As Moore says, “We need to protect each other, or we’re done for.”

The Green Party of England and Wales—it would be called “progressive Left” in the U.S.—has been accused by many, including at least two of my non-Jewish British friends (as well as by Suzanna Moore above) as being a refuge for British antisemites. One of the accused, Zack Polanski, has been leader of the Green Party for nearly a year, and happens to be Jewish, but Brendan O’Neill at the Spectator (not Jewish) calls out Polanski for weaselspeak. (Click below to read.)

 

Again, a few paragraphs:

Hey, Jews – have you ever considered the possibility that you’re making a fuss over nothing? That a few petrol bombs through the windows of your synagogues is not really a big deal? That your feelings of fear after two Jews were slain in Manchester on Yom Kippur and Jewish property was incinerated in Golders Green and Jews were spat at for wearing a Star of David pendant in public might be a tad overblown?

That’s what I heard when Zack Polanski wondered out loud this week if Britain’s Jews are experiencing ‘actual unsafety’ or just a ‘perception of unsafety’. It is one of the most tone-deaf, pitiless sentences I have heard a politician utter. The Jews of London were terrorised all last week. There were attempted firebombings at numerous synagogues. And here is the leader of the Green Party asking if Jews, the poor dears, merely feel unsafe. Callous doesn’t cover it.

It was an Israeli journalist who asked Polanski about the recent wave of Jewphobic violence. To be fair, Polanski, who is himself Jewish, did express concern about ‘the rise in anti-Semitic attacks’. But it felt perfunctory. He swiftly moved on to ‘the conversation’ he thinks we should be having. ‘There is a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety’, he said. He generously acknowledged that ‘neither are acceptable’. But there it was, out in the open, that slippery left instinct to minimise Jewish pain.

There is no other way to interpret his Kafkaesque formulation: ‘perception of unsafety’. That turgid piece of academese, which will doubtless go down a storm with the keffiyeh-wearing PhDs who swell the ranks of the Green party, seems expressly designed to downplay Jewish fear. Are you really at risk from the fire and the fists of the Jew-haters in our midst, or are you just imagining it? That was the toxic essence of Polanski’s unfeeling remarks.

. . . This isn’t all in Jews’ heads. They aren’t dumbly falling for a fear narrative. Their safety really has been compromised by the post-7 October frenzy of Jew hate. Imagine if petrol bombs were being thrown at mosques and Muslims had been murdered on Eid by a knife-wielding lowlife. Do you think Polanski would be holding forth on whether Muslims really are unsafe or are merely suffering from a ‘perception of unsafety’? Every single one of us knows he would not.

I am not keen on the word “Jewphobic” (it’s not a phobia; the word “antisemitism” will do nicely), but what’s going on in the UK is not simply a “perception of unsafety”. It is unsafety!  Look at the incidents above, all of which happened in the last two months. And is being stabbed simply a “perception” of being pierced with a knife?

Finally, to Labour PM Starmer himself. Today’s Free Press has an article critical of the inaction of Labour; the author is Alex Hearn, a co-director of Labour Against Antisemitism.

The “J’accuse” paragraphs:

Within hours of the stabbing, Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, called the attack “deeply concerning.” He said we must be “absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offenses.” I have been a Labour Party supporter for decades and I have to say plainly: The prime minister’s platitudes are not enough. They have not been enough for some time.

This is the latest in a huge surge of antisemitic attacks in London in recent months. Only last week, a viral video circulated of an Orthodox Jewish man harassed in the street and called a baby killer. Weeks before, ambulances belonging to a Jewish charity were set on fire. Each time, the prime minister says “Antisemitism has no place in the UK,” or some similar platitude.

But a man is judged by his deeds, and unfortunately, Keir Starmer is failing British Jews. On his watch, Jews are struggling to recognize the tolerant country we once knew. As everyday racism has been accommodated and tolerated, we’re long past expecting action.

On Wednesday, Britain’s chief rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, said that “words of condemnation are no longer sufficient.” He called for “meaningful action.” The Israeli foreign ministry was even more blunt: “The UK government can no longer claim this is under control.” The Israelis are right, and they are saying what most Jews in Britain now know to be true.

Consider what British Jews have seen happen in their country in the last three years. Ever since October 7, they have watched streets close in central London, week after week, for marches characterized by racism and hate. Each time, the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state is chanted as a moral demand.

They have watched sitting members of Parliament attend those marches, where being “visibly Jewish” is deemed a provocation. They have watched as smashed windows of Jewish businesses are waved away in the pages of The Guardian as “small acts of petty symbolism.” They have seen an Israeli soccer team’s fans banned from Birmingham over concocted charges of hooliganism. They have watched students at Britain’s finest universities abuse Jewish professors and students, helping to create a culture where one in five British students said they would not house share with a Jew. They have watched parliamentary candidates campaign on Gaza, celebrating October 7. They have watched synagogues implement airport-style security, and their children required to undergo security briefings for kindergarten.

And they have watched a Labour government respond with the language of management, and with total inaction. “Concern.” “Determination.” “Resolve.” The vocabulary of bland press releases and the hope the news cycle will move on before anyone asks what, exactly, is being done to prevent the next attack.

But in the five years since Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party and in the nearly two years since he has been prime minister, the problem has only gotten worse. Instead of just the Labour Party needing cleaning up, the entire country does. The prime minister has not summoned the heads of the universities where Jewish students have been spat at and chased. He has not used his office to name the Islamist ideology that has driven a series of recent terror plots. He has not demanded the proscription of organizations whose leaders openly celebrated October 7. He has not designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s version of the SS, as a terror group in the UK. And he cannot stop his own MPs from joining the hate rallies.

The last paragraph has a number of suggestions that Starmer could heed to lessen the antisemitism—or at least the acts that pervasive antisemitism has prompted. (I use “pervasive” antisemitism deliberately, as that’s exactly what seems to be true of the UK.) To me, some of the suggestions abrogate American-style free speech, but Britain has no First Amendment. That said, the leadership needs to cultivate a climate of tolerance, and stop having the law demonize Islamophobia but go soft on antisemitism.

Finally, this seven-minute BBC Berkshire video featuring Jonathan Sacerdoti (a pro-Jewish brodacaster) has caused a kerfuffle on social media. People object to the interviewer speaking over Sacerdoti, who ticks off a list of antisemitic incidents and criticizes Starmer for inaction. Finally, the interviewer actually mutes Sacerdoti’s microphone when he criticizes the Green Party.  The man is quite eloquent, and offers tangible suggestions to erode public antisemitism, but either the broadcaster wanted to end the segment for political reasons or simply was in a rush to wrap things up. You be the judge. But muting the microphone is not the way to go. (In my view, the interviewer is pushing back not only on what Sacerdoti “characterizes” which is not a characterization but a description of reality, and also lauds the BBC’s evenhandedness, though most people recognize that the Beeb has been anti=Israel since October 7.)

As for stopping antisemitism, well, Sacerdoti’s suggestions will make public acts of antisemitism less frequent, but will it eliminate  the sentiments behind them? And why is this stuff now fulminating in the UK?

Despite outward appearances, the internal workings of ice giants like Uranus and Neptune are extremely chaotic. Pressures millions of times greater than Earth’s sea level combine with temperatures in the thousands of degrees to make some pretty weird materials. Now, a new paper from researchers at the Carnegie Institution, published in Nature Communications, describes a completely new state of matter that might exist in these extreme environments - a “quasi-1D superionic” phase.

I thought everyone needed one more thing to worry about, so here you go: evolving AI. When I hear this phrase I think of two things. The first are AI systems designed to simulate organic evolution. The second are artificially intelligent systems that are capable of evolving themselves. That latter one is the type you need to worry about.

Systems that simulate evolution already exist – Avida, Biogenesis,  Grovolve, Tierra, Framsticks: and others. They basically have some code that competes for some resource or to complete some task and the code randomly mutates and reproduces. That’s it, all you need for an evolution simulation. Code can compete for computer resources, or be a physics simulator with digital creature trying to move quickly across terrain. These are sometime gamified for entertainment, but are also used for serious research, to study patterns within evolutionary systems. I would love to see these kinds of systems get more and more sophisticated, even to the point of reasonably simulating living systems. Such systems could be used to test hypotheses about evolution – and would also disprove a lot of silly creationist talking points.

But now we are talking about evolvable AI – AI systems that are capable of developing themselves through evolutionary processes. A new paper in PNAS discusses the potential power and risks of such systems. They echo they kinds of issues that have been explored in science fiction for decades. The authors write: “Evolvable AI (eAI), i.e., AI systems whose components, learning rules, and deployment conditions can themselves undergo Darwinian evolution, may soon emerge from current trends in generative, agentic, and embodied AI.” The results, they argue, have not been adequately addressed when discussing the potential risks of rapidly developing AI ability.

The authors distinguish two types of evolving AI – breeder systems and ecological systems. In breeder scenarios the programmers are in control of the process, selecting which code to “breed” and evaluating the outcome. This process is like a digital version of domestication, and has the potential, if done wisely, to maintain control. In fact, systems can be bred to have greater predictability and control. There are still risks here. So far humanity has not bred an animal to be more intelligent than humans. This could theoretically happen with AI, resulting in emergent behavior not specifically selected for that could get out of the control of human programmers.

A far greater risk, however, is the ecosystem scenario in which the program itself produces variation and selection, without external control. They argue that such systems lead to “selfish replication” which “reliably gives rise to cheating, parasitism, deception, and manipulation, even in very simple systems.” This echos Dawkins’ “selfish gene” in which evolutionary forces result in genes, essentially, doing whatever they can to maximize their passing into the next generation, without consideration for the interests of the whole organism, the population, the species, or the ecosystem. That is how evolution works – it cannot really see the bigger picture, but rather the selective feedback loop considers only survival and reproduction. There is still ongoing debate among evolutionary biologists the extent to which selective pressures can operate at any level other than the individual creature. Dawkins argued it was better understood at the gene level, which is why a parent, for example, would sacrifice themselves for their child – they may die, but the genes live on through their children.

In any case – this same “selfish” principle, when applied to AI, could lead to unpredictable and extremely bad behavior on the part of the AI. They too would not really see or understand the big picture, and will simply maximize whatever parameters they were given. Systems capable of independent evolution are likely to find unpredicted (perhaps unpredictable) solutions to problems, ones that might be anathema to human interests. Again, we are already seeing this is current AI systems (lying, cheating), but this phenomenon would be much greater with evolving systems.

One significant problem with evolving AI is that would essentially be impossible to control. Any controls we put in place would simply become a selective pressure, with evolving AI systems finding creative ways around the controls. This would be exactly like the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In fact, it could be a lot worse. Natural systems essentially have to wait for a fortuitous mutation to occur. The reason why bacteria evolve resistance so quick is because there are so many of them and their lifecycle is so short. The opportunities for such mutations are therefore enormous. The same would be true of an AI system that could test billions of possibilities in moments. But also, AI systems do not have to wait for the right mutation to pop up – they can create it themselves. They can explore new possibilities, direct the course of their own evolution, and in fact evolve their ability to do so. They can learn how to optimize randomness vs directed changes, and learn which patterns predict successful evolution. If something doesn’t work, they can try something else. They could pass on acquired characteristics. Such systems would not only be evolutionary, they could be super-evolutionary.

These types of processes can function at multiple levels, not just the code itself. For example, programmers are already using evolutionary methods to evolve prompts for AI systems. Prompts themselves affect the behavior of AI, and when engineered in a sophisticated way can significantly improve an AI’s ability.

The outcome of such systems would be essentially impossible to predict. There would be emergent behaviors that may even be hard to notice, or fully understand. The most predictable thing about such systems is that they will be “selfish”, because that seems to be inherent in evolving systems themselves. The end result is the creation of AI systems that are prone to cheating, lying, parasitism, and manipulation, that we cannot understand or control. If we make such systems powerful enough and give them enough resources, it seems likely that they will eventually become more intelligent (at least in some ways – even short of true sentience) than humans.

The authors also recognize that such systems would be incredibly powerful, and therefore they are coming and can produce useful products. We just have to do it wisely. For example, any such evolutionary AI should be run entirely in a sandbox, isolated from the outside world. It has to be truly isolated, so that it cannot find a way out of the sandbox. Once the result of such an evolutionary AI is sufficiently tested and understood, it can be released. But they warn against running evolutionary systems out in the world where their behavior cannot be controlled. This makes sense, but I wonder if the sandbox method is sufficient. If these systems are prone to deception and manipulation, might one such system trick its users into thinking it is safe, until it is release into the world? That sounds like the plot to a great sci-fi dystopian horror. We may be living through act I of such a horror story right now.

One final word – I get that there is a lot of AI hype our there. This is almost always the case with any new technology that is sufficiently disruptive or game-changing. The existence of hype is a given – it does not mean, however, that the technology is not truly disruptive. It often means that it will just take longer than the hype indicates, but in the long run the hype will not only be realized but exceeded. I do not buy the “AI is all hype” brigade, nor do I buy the “fund me” propaganda or blithe reassurances by the tech bros. The truth is somewhere in the middle. What I mostly listen to are reasonable experts who are given sober warnings, like the authors of the current paper. This technology is genuinely very powerful. That power needs to be respected, understood, and properly regulated. This requires anticipating what can potentially go wrong, and that is what this paper does. This is not a prediction – it is laying out potential worst-case-scenarios so that we do not blindly walk into them.

 

The post Evolving AI first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Researchers in South Korea say they have made a major advance by turning on genes with an electromagnetic signal, but critics say the claims are implausible and the paper is flawed

New science fiction from big names including Ann Leckie, Alan Moore and Martha Wells are just some of the exciting crop of titles out this month

Craig Venter has died aged 79. He was at the forefront of sequencing the human genome and of synthetic biology, but divided opinion in how he went about it

A technique inspired by the film Interstellar suggests a new way of communicating backwards in time, but it could help improve conventional communication systems as well

I am not afraid to defend my book by discussing the real-world job performance of the MAHA/MAGA doctors featured in it. What about the authors of In COVID's Wake?

The post A Tale of Two Books: We Want Them Infected & In COVID’s Wake first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

For decades, psychologists have debated whether the human mind can be explained by one unified theory or must be broken into separate parts like memory and attention. A recent AI model called Centaur seemed to offer a breakthrough, claiming it could mimic human thinking across 160 different cognitive tasks. But new research is challenging that bold claim, suggesting the model isn’t truly “thinking” at all—it’s just memorizing patterns.

Scientists have pulled off a first: teleporting a photon’s state between two separate quantum dots. This was done over a 270-meter open-air link, proving quantum information can travel between independent devices. The achievement marks a key step toward building quantum networks for ultra-secure communication. It also sets the stage for more advanced systems like quantum relays.

Scientists have pulled off a first: teleporting a photon’s state between two separate quantum dots. This was done over a 270-meter open-air link, proving quantum information can travel between independent devices. The achievement marks a key step toward building quantum networks for ultra-secure communication. It also sets the stage for more advanced systems like quantum relays.

You’re based at Artemis Station on the lunar south pole, and you’re monitoring your 12 autonomous rovers that are exploring the surrounding terrain for signs of water ice or other essentials minerals. They’re about 3 kilometers out when you suddenly get a NASA Alert for an incoming solar storm. You know the rovers won’t return to base before the storm hits, but you’re calm knowing the rovers all recently got retrofitted with the latest hair-thin nanotube shielding to protect them from the harsh electromagnetic waves and radiation.

Mercury is one of the four rocky worlds of the Solar System, yet its chemistry is very different from Earth, Venus, and Mars. Missions to the planet show that it has an iron-poor, but sulfur- and magnesium-rich crust. Furthermore, it's known to planetary scientists as the most reduced planet in the Solar system. It means that the chemical makeup is dominated by sulfides, carbides, and silicides -- as opposed to oxides like we see here on Earth.

Binary stars are common, but for a long time astronomers have thought that exoplanets would have trouble forming around them. In recent years, powerful telescopes have detected about 50 of these planets. Now, new simulations show that their formation isn't actually rare, it's just that they tend to be on wide orbits, with few opportunities to observe transits. Also, many of them are ejected and become rogue planets.

One of the most intriguing puzzles in cosmology is the existence of supermassive black holes that seem to appear very early in the history of the Universe. Astronomers keep finding them at times when, by all that they understand about the infant Universe, they shouldn't be there. The standard theory of black hole formation suggests that they shouldn't have had enough time to grow as massive as they appear to be. Yet, there they are, monster black holes with the mass of at least a billion suns. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has found a large population of them in early epochs, and they've been observed in very early quasars as well.

The books, TV, games and more that New Scientist staff have enjoyed this week