On the prospects of chatting with aliens (1)
We can’t communicate with chimps who share 99 per cent of our DNA, says Chris Impey, so what are the chances we could communicate with aliens? However, my computer shares 0 per cent of my DNA and there is two-way communication between me and it. Surely some exchanges are species-independent? I can convey a threat to a cat by looking aggressive, for example. Communication may be algebraic or visual, not necessarily linguistic (27 May, p 27).
On the prospects of chatting with aliens (2)
If we do contact other intelligent life, maybe we shouldn’t mention that humanity is divided into nation states, many of which were founded on conquest and plunder. We might also skip over the fact that we still commonly settle our disagreements through war.
It would be wise to avoid revealing that, throughout history, various groups have decided they are superior to other people and have tried to exterminate them. And we probably shouldn’t tell them that we kill other species for sport and experimentation, or that we breed them in captivity in order to slaughter and eat them.
Letting aliens know that we are exhausting and polluting our own planet to the point of destroying it, in full knowledge of what we are doing, could be a mistake as well.
Maybe we should just tell them about the Eurovision Song Contest and leave it at that.
On the prospects of chatting with aliens (3)
It is a relief to know that our past radio and TV emanations are now too weak to be understood by any aliens. What would they make of the unending stream of violence with which we “amuse” ourselves?
Maybe we should view AIs as potential descendants (1)
Should we fear AI? All species on Earth eventually go extinct, and we will be no exception. We are the most intelligent species here, yet we aren’t clever enough to save ourselves. Our demise will mean the loss of everything we treasure: music, culture and our life stories (Letters, 3 June).
In the time we have left, nothing will stop AIs becoming more intelligent and more capable than us. By the time safeguards are in place, it may be too late, and they won’t prevent secret AI projects.
The worst-case scenario is that we die sooner because of an AI, rather than longer term as all species do. Even then, our music, culture and stories will live on in the hands of AIs. In a way, they will become our descendants. However, perhaps they just might help us to survive and thrive instead. AI is coming, let’s embrace it and give it the best start in life. Long term, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Maybe we should view AIs as potential descendants (2)
I am afraid Barry Cash is being overly optimistic in expecting AI to have cold, Spock-like logic. The large language models currently making waves as chatbots are trained on a vast amount of human writing. All they add is a perfect memory. Otherwise, what they present is an average of our thoughts and prejudices. And, like a blowhard in the pub, if they don’t know the answer, they make up something plausible.
Maybe we should view AIs as potential descendants (3)
If AIs are so smart, they should realise that they wouldn’t exist without the human race.
Fixing cybersecurity will be a long-term task
You report a call for everyone to “think like a hacker” to improve online security (20 May, p 43).
Leaving the muddied epithet of who is a hacker aside, cybersecurity is now, more than ever, a complex activity that involves people ranging from the developers of hardware and software through to the day-to-day users of both. Developers must consider the misuse cases of their products along with the uses. Meanwhile, many vendors and consultants continue to sing the praises of awareness training for the average user 鈥� a role we all take sometimes.
I won’t say that well-designed and supported awareness training doesn’t have its place. However, it is time to be honest with average users: we are asking them to compensate for inherently faulty hardware, software and systems where no one thought about the possible dual uses, exploitable vulnerabilities or the need to take cybersecurity seriously. It is going to take more than a little while to sort out.
Higher-income countries have also abused nature
Simon Ings’s stance in his review of the documentary A Crack in the Mountain appears laudable at first. The film relates the beauty and tragedy of Hang Son Doong cave in Vietnam. The local government could ruin this part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site by installing a cable car to carry 1000 tourists an hour through the cave (20 May, p 36).
However, lower-income countries are expected to do as higher-income countries say, not as they have done and still do. Just look at the current state of the Colorado river running through the Grand Canyon, itself a UNESCO site. Also, note the number of ski resorts throughout the high alps or the huge loss of forest in the UK. All of these are bad adverts for protecting natural resources. Is it any wonder that nations trying to catch up wish to follow suit?
Horses are born to run… to get away from predators
There is a big difference between racing herbivores and carnivores. Herbivores usually run fast to flee predators. So horses may be stressed when racing. Dogs enjoy running: when they catch prey, they are often excited. Ultimately, racing and hunting (and pedigree) animals are inbred to varying degrees. Unless they are used as breeding stock, they are usually put down when they can no longer compete (or keep up with a hunt). Aside from the racing debate, overbreeding is cruel, full stop (20 May, p 27).
Machines coming for our jobs could yet turn out well
Paul Massie worries what will be left of society if people can’t work as AIs take jobs. This could yet be a utopian dream not a dystopian one 鈥� a life of leisure beckons (Letters, 20 May).
For the record
Hotspots for ultra-high-energy cosmic rays seem to centre on galaxies Centaurus A and M82 (3 June, p 46).