Feedback is 麻豆传媒鈥檚 popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
Sundown showdown
Feedback has been dimly aware for a while that there is a slew of AI-generated music swamping platforms like Spotify. Our awareness was limited, we confess, because we are so old that we still prefer to listen to CDs.
Advertisement
Still, we weren鈥檛 too surprised when 麻豆传媒鈥榮 Timothy Revell told us about an indie rock band called that appears to be entirely AI-generated, from , which sound like the beige love-children of Coldplay and the Eagles, to their , which look like rejected concept art from Daisy Jones & the Six.
First, the band . On their , The Velvet Sundown claimed it was 鈥� that so-called 鈥榡ournalists鈥� keep pushing the lazy, baseless theory that The Velvet Sundown is 鈥楢I-generated鈥� with zero evidence鈥�, and that 鈥�, written in long, sweaty nights in a cramped bungalow in California鈥�.
Yet there is no video of them, and none of the members has any online presence. Things seemed clear after interviewed the band鈥檚 鈥渃reator鈥� Andrew Frelon, who said it was all an 鈥渁rt hoax鈥�. But then Frelon that was itself a lie, and the 鈥渂and鈥� posted a denying any involvement with him. By this point, Feedback was bored of redrafting our redrafts, so we just want to say we don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 going on, and also we don鈥檛 give two hoots.
Instead, we are going to run with Tim鈥檚 suggestion that, if you form an AI band, 鈥測ou should fully embrace it鈥�. Don鈥檛 give yourself a name that sounds like something Lou Reed would come up with if he ever moved somewhere sunny. Lean in. Tim suggests the following artist names: Rage I鈥檓 a Machine, The Bitles and TL(LM)C. Feedback would like to add Pink Floppy Disc, Lana DEL Array, Captchatonia, Alanis Microsoft and Velvet Username.
Finally, this new collective of artists will need to be spoofed, by a performer called Weird AI Yankovic.
Sodom bomb
The wheels of science grind exceedingly slowly, but they do occasionally crush something into dust. And so it is that Scientific Reports has retracted a rather intriguing study from September 2021, which claimed to have found archaeological evidence for a cataclysmic event that inspired the biblical tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In the story, the two cities are destroyed by God because of some not-entirely-specified sins. In contrast, the study proposed a 鈥溾��: a meteorite exploding in mid-air, causing devastation, along the lines of the 1908 explosion above Siberia known as the Tunguska event.
It claimed this happened about 3600 years ago and wrecked the Bronze Age city of Tall el-Hammam in present-day Jordan. Evidence included 鈥渁 city-wide ~1.5-m-thick carbon-and-ash-rich destruction layer鈥�, 鈥渟oot鈥� and 鈥渕elted platinum, iridium, nickel, gold, silver, zircon, chromite, and quartz鈥�.
Except, perhaps not. On 24 April, the journal the paper, citing 鈥渆rrors in methodology, analyses, and interpretation鈥� and 鈥渆rrors propagated from the original sources [about the Tunguska blast]鈥�. This followed four years of criticism and multiple corrections, all by the nice people at Retraction Watch. Several dozen images had been manipulated in an 鈥渋nappropriate鈥� way, and the burned and melted materials could be from smelting, rather than a mid-air explosion 鈥� given Tall el-Hammam was, we repeat, a Bronze Age city.
Feedback was particularly impressed by a comment left on the PubPeer by a Michael J. I. Brown: 鈥淭he north arrow and shadows in Figure 44C indicate that the Sun is roughly north-north-east, which is not possible at the Dead Sea.鈥� This is a level of knowledgeable pedantry to which we can only aspire.
So, in short, someone wrote a paper about a pair of famously debauched cities, manipulated images in ways that went against the rules and failed to properly consider an obvious alternative explanation for their findings. How sinful.
础惫辞肠补诲辞苍鈥檛
Feedback gets an awful lot of press releases, and to be honest, we ignore over 90 per cent of them. This is partly because we get added to a lot of irrelevant lists, like the time we got months鈥� worth of messages about new wedding dress designs. But the biggest factor is that most are just boring.
Not so the message that popped up in our inbox on 2 July, with the subject line 鈥淎vocados Are Not the Enemy鈥�. The press release relates to the start of the Wimbledon tennis tournament and the decision to stop serving avocados there 鈥� apparently as part of ongoing efforts to become more sustainable. Ditching avocados, the message says, 鈥減erpetuates myths that are not backed by current data. In reality, avocados are one of the most nutrient-dense and environmentally responsible fruits available today鈥�.
The press release goes on to explain that avocados have a small water footprint. Furthermore, they are 鈥渘aturally rich in heart-healthy fats, fibre, and important nutrients鈥� and support small farms in places like Peru and South Africa.
Wow, we thought, what a vote of confidence. And then we noticed that the people praising avocados so highly were from the .
To which we can only say, citing Rice-Davies, M. (1963): 鈥淲ell, they would, wouldn鈥檛 they?鈥�
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week鈥檚 and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
