The case for and against an Alan Turing AI chatbot (1)
From
From Paul Whiteley, Bittaford, Devon, UK
I read with horror about plans to create an AI model of Alan Turing, effectively putting words into the mouth of someone long dead. (17 August, p 21)
We will never know what goes on inside the mind of a genius 鈥� that is what sets them apart from us ordinary mortals. I presume, though, that much of Turing’s later life was spent thinking about what makes people different from “thinking machines”.
The suggestion that someone could produce and bottle the essence of another with so much confidence that they could “put words into their mouth” is a tasteless one.
The case for and against an Alan Turing AI chatbot (2)
Matthew Sparkes is too cautious in opposing an AI recreation of Alan Turing. A tour of Bletchley Park where he worked pays homage to those clever and dedicated code breakers who reduced the length of the second world war by two years, but it can be a little dry. A chatbot conversation with an interactive AI model of Turing would certainly liven it up.
OK to be cynical if you take a broader view
Jamil Zaki defines cynicism as the “theory that, in general, humanity is selfish, greedy and dishonest” and deems holding it to be psychologically damaging. (17 August, p 36)
However, it is fine to endorse the cynical belief that we belong to a deeply dysfunctional species if you include two caveats. These are that the majority of people are decent, honest and kind; and that life is complicated and all generalisations are false.
Avert farm emissions via genetic modification
It is obvious that the eating of meat, particularly beef, must be reduced, but the problem of a rising world population and increasing average wealth and consumption demands every possible means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farming. Although there has always been some resistance to consumption of genetically modified crops, the potential advantages, such as increased yield, growth rate and disease resistance, leave little choice but to adopt these foods as staples. (17 August, p 13)
Deep-sea mining could be the best way forward
It is unfortunate that the study that found “dark oxygen” produced by metallic nodules on the seabed is having such a quick and negative effect on potential deep-sea mining. This form of mining may be the least damaging way to get the metals we need for the transition to a low-carbon economy. The ecological effect of “dark oxygen”, if it really exists, is probably negligible, and further research will clear things up.(Letters, 17 August)
On the plan to bring the ISS crashing back to Earth (1)
It seems to me that NASA may be giving too little consideration to the nightmare scenario that de-orbiting the International Space Station could injure people on Earth. I would like to suggest that simply separating the 16 pressurised modules that make up the station and de-orbiting each separately would greatly reduce the overall risk.(10 August, p 36)
It also seems to be a good idea to inventory the contents of each module and determine whether some of these items would be best returned to Earth in cargo capsules, as the lower the mass of each de-orbited piece, the safer it would be, but that is a minor issue.
On the plan to bring the ISS crashing back to Earth (2)
For a glorious finale for the ISS, adapt it for a Mars return mission. We could ensure there is adequate accommodation for five to six crew members, attach a thruster rocket and fuel, put general supplies in pods and add a lander for crew to visit the surface once in Mars orbit. They could then collect mineral samples and return to Earth to a triumphant welcome.
On the plan to bring the ISS crashing back to Earth (3)
It seems highly problematic to allow the ISS to partially burn up in our atmosphere and then crash on Earth, once it is no longer deemed viable for science. The danger, pollution and disruption created, not to mention the waste, would be absurd considering there may be a better option: why not strap on engines to boost it out to the moon and let it crash there?
As the station wouldn’t burn up on the moon, it might have considerable value, even if badly damaged from the crash, as a localised scrapyard for materials that may be useful in the construction of a moon base one day. A lot of refined metals, wires, electronics and so forth would be then on hand, rather than needing to be mined from the moon or expensively launched from Earth. Isn’t anyone in the various space agencies conscious of waste?
There are better ways to store energy in homes
Bryn Glover mentions the idea of weights being lifted in order to store energy, suggesting putting a falling-weight system in every house, lifted by energy from solar panels and allowed to fall during the night to provide heat and light. Such an arrangement could indeed provide light, but definitely not heat. It turns out that the energy stored in weights is remarkably small. (Letters, 10 August)
A 1-tonne domestic weight raised, say, 10 metres would store 27 watt-hours of energy, sufficient to power a 5-watt LED for just over 5 hours. This is an impractical way of storing energy. For any energy storage idea, it is essential to assess it in this way before deciding whether the whole thing is going to be practical.
Why bother, if we are all living in a simulation?
Global heating is causing me a certain amount of inconvenience. I avoid flying, use public transport, recycle plastic and so on. However, if I am living in a simulation, a suggestion that several readers have raised recently, why should I bother? Whoever or whatever created the simulation can always program a better world next time. (Letters, 10 August)
For the record
The gamma-ray burst GRB221009A is the brightest explosion astronomers have observed (3 August, p 13).