No machine will ever replace you, Annalee
Annalee Newitz highlights the threat of AI for the creative industry and those whose livelihoods depend on it, but surely I am not the only one who can see that their personality, interests and opinions shine through in every column? It is this personal flair, also seen in features with phrases and anecdotes written in the first person, that makes such pieces far more engaging than any algorithmic output. I can imagine Annalee typing away, crafting this piece, and this is a vital part of my enjoyment as a reader (5 August, p 22).
Rest assured, Annalee, that I will never gain as much from a Newitz-themed AI generator as I do from your talent as a human writer.
The real cause of obesity has yet to be confronted
I doubt I am the only one alarmed by the idea of prescribing weight-loss drugs to children, as discussed by Clare Wilson. It comes amid studies showing that a rise in consumption of ultra-processed food is linked with a decline in physical and mental health (15 July, p 32).
Manufacturers create ultra-processed foods that support over-consumption to the point where it resembles addiction. The brain changes that these anti-obesity drugs target, referred to in your article, are believed to be a consequence of this, not the cause. In other words, drugs tackle the results of damage without addressing the source.
Ultra-processed foods are now relatively cheap and regarded as normal. Poverty is one of the drivers of consumption of these substances, to the point where they provide an estimated 60 per cent of the calories in the diets of many people. Food marketing and labelling fail to warn shoppers and sometimes add to the deception. Drugs may be seen as reasonable to reduce the harm, but making something less bad isn’t the same 鈥� and isn’t as worthy 鈥� as removing the cause.
We can't just preach to rainforest nations
Having visited Bolivia on several occasions, I found it spectacular. Moreover, as a scientist, I well understand the consequences of destroying its forests. However, I still have to question the nature of the commentary in your recent picture story on this. How can people living in higher-income countries suggest that Bolivians don’t have the right to farm in their own country? Surely, if Westerners want rainforests to be undisturbed, we must provide funds and technology so that their inhabitants have alternative ways to increase their standards of living to the levels we enjoy (29 July, p 26).
Your thoughts on how to think about new AIs (1)
You write that “until we know what consciousness is, there is no solid way of testing for it” in an artificial intelligence. There is, in fact, a simple way of testing for it, provided the AI is incapable of lying about itself, has colour vision and hasn’t been trained on the concept of “subjective experience” and its mysteries (29 July, p 32).
You ask it: “Isn’t it remarkable that when you see the colour red, you might be having a subjective experience of everyone else’s green colour? And, vice versa, you could be having red experiences when seeing our green. None of us would even be aware that this swap of subjective experiences was happening!”
This is the inverted spectrum thought experiment, a staple of philosophy of mind. If the AI can’t make sense of this, then it isn’t conscious. If it can, it is.
Your thoughts on how to think about new AIs (2)
You state: “Perhaps the relevant question isn’t whether or not AIs can become conscious, but why we would want them to be conscious.” If you see conscious awareness as the ability to express feelings, thoughts and intentions, then the importance of consciousness in robots that are to be useful assistants, carers or interesting companions is obvious.
Your thoughts on how to think about new AIs (3)
The consequence 鈥� or economic threat if you are personally affected 鈥� of AI is that armies of white-collar professionals, such as architects, lawyers and accountants, may become permanently redundant. You ask an AI: “Show me some designs for an east-facing beach house with a veranda and water views that backs onto a bush reserve.” You scroll through a few images and floor plans, then choose one 鈥� the AI knows the location and can do a design down to the millimetre that is compliant with local rules. Any problem with the council and an AI can generate a legally perfect letter for you, as well as organise finances to your best advantage. Job done.
One person's luxury is another's necessity
I couldn’t agree more with Madeleine Cuff’s report regarding the carbon taxation of luxuries. However, defining a luxury is no simple matter. She mentions two examples, air travel and SUVs. Imagine three people 鈥� A, B and C 鈥� are all on the same plane travelling from a small rural town to the big city. A is on a trip to the casino, B is going to a grandchild’s wedding and C is visiting the hospital for chemotherapy. The degree of luxury is different for each (22 July, p 17).
I own a four-wheel-drive vehicle. Without it, I wouldn’t be able to get to the shops or a doctor’s surgery during the wet season. That hardly compares with the city dweller who owns a far larger and more prestigious vehicle partly for its value as a status symbol. The difference is in the motivation of the user, not the item itself, and that is far harder to judge.
Costly space telescope is proving its worth
The James Webb Space Telescope was pricey at $10 billion, but the game-changing science that it is producing really makes it great value for money (Letters, 22 July).
Your correspondent needs to see it in context and should save her ire for the oil companies that make huge profits by drilling for the stuff that really is destroying our environment. For example, BP profits doubled to $28 billion last year, while Shell made record profits of $39.9 billion. ExxonMobil shareholders were also rubbing their hands, with reported profits of $55.7 billion. Note that $10 billion is just 1.1 per cent of US defence spending for 2022 at $877 billion. If JWST hadn’t flown, I wonder what that money would have been spent on instead?