24 | New Scientist | 2 November 2019
Editor’s pick
Artificial intelligence may
need to be socialised
12 October, p 30
From Steve Dalton,
Sevenoaks, Kent, UK
You review Trevor Paglen’s
exhibition that seeks to highlight
how prejudice is tainting AI, and
Ramon Lopez de Mantaras predicts
that bad algorithms will lead to
injustice (Letters, 12 October).
We want AIs to be superhumanly
smart: to do things that we might
never be able to do without them,
such as model protein folding or
be the best Go player, not caring
about how they do it. It doesn’t
matter that such an AI can’t explain
its reasoning. There are no socially
unacceptable Go moves.
We also want them to think
like humans, just much faster. For
businesses and governments, this
means doing what people do, more
cheaply. In this case, it is important
that they justify, explain and even
perhaps teach their reasoning to
humans, and that they understand
when it is racist, for example, or that
the conclusion is socially abhorrent.
We shouldn’t be surprised when
AIs are inept at doing things that
relate to human society. They are
essentially self-taught in a social
vacuum, with a target of being
no more than statistically accurate
at their given task.
Perhaps we will only get AIs that
we can trust to be integrated in our
lives when they have to learn social
rules and behaviour. How about
a community of thousands of AIs
having to balance their accuracy
targets with social rules that they
also learn? The evolution of an
AI society would be interesting,
and might teach us about our own
social evolution, past and future.On how to embrace
Extinction Rebellion
19 October, p 23
From Mike Clarke,
Castle Hedingham, Essex, UK
Adam Vaughan says that climate
activists should be “embraced,rather than condemned”. I agree
that Earth’s resources need to be
managed with regard to climate
change. But Extinction Rebellion
activists cannot achieve their aims
because these are just not realistic,
though they do move the centre
of gravity of thinking in their
direction by highlighting some
real issues.
As anyone who has tried to
implement major changes in
any group of people knows, it
takes time for the initiatives to
become acceptable and more time
to implement them in a sensible
and fair way. Why does the group
think a fast change in lifestyles
and social norms is achievable?
Humanity will only survive
when it works out how to balance
available resources against
population numbers and a way
of living it can support long-term.
Realistically, this will take decades,
and more probably a couple of
centuries – a blink of an eye in the
time scale of Earth and its climate.From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard,
North Yorkshire, UK
I have campaigned for greater
awareness of the social and
political implications of climatechange for at least three decades.
I recall reading environmental
writer Rachel Carson as a very
young man. I greatly welcome
the activities of Extinction
Rebellion, and was pleased
to read Vaughan’s viewpoint.
Throughout those decades,
there has never been a year in
which a real awareness of the
imminence of big problems has
been greater, due principally to the
activities of this group and people
such as Greta Thunberg. With a few
exceptions, public reception has
been overwhelmingly positive.
As long as these activists can
keep the public onside, I predict
that their activities will result in
the necessary general acceptance
of the need to act now.Vanishing glaciers will be
deadly for people in Asia
21 September, p 8
From Alex Hromas,
Sydney, Australia
Your report on vanishing glaciers
in the European Alps is alarming,
but there is worse news. Glaciers
in the Hindu Kush and Himalayas
are melting at a similar rate to
those of the Alps. Most largerivers in Asia – the Indus, Ganges,
Brahmaputra, Mekong, Yangtze
and Yellow – are fed by glaciers in
the dry season and flood during
the monsoon. Before too long,
they will be diminished or empty
in the dry season, with enormous
implications for the millions of
people dependent on their waters.BP has, sadly, not taken
its own message to heart
12 October, p 23
From Andrea Needham,
Hastings, East Sussex, UK
Which satirist chose to run
Graham Lawton’s column on the
non-condition of “eco-anxiety”
opposite a BP “advertorial”
claiming that it is “making a rapid
transition to a lower carbon
future”? Could this be the same
BP that Global Witness forecasts
will spend $71 billion over the next
decade developing new oil and gas
fields – none of which would be
required if we were to limit global
warming to 1.5°C?
The same BP whose policies
aren’t aligned with the loosest of
Paris climate agreement pledges?
Or the same BP that, according to
InfluenceMap, spends more thanViews You r le t te r s