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
Raining cats and dogs
Kristian Steensen Nielsen seems like a sensible type. A researcher at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, he studies In other words, how can we make our lives more environmentally friendly, and how and when do those changes scale up to become truly effective?
So Feedback was taken aback to see a recent LinkedIn post by Nielsen, which began: 鈥� a paper about how dog ownership causes extreme weather鈥�. He was citing a story on the website of KXAN, a TV station in Austin, Texas, headlined: 鈥� is vastly underestimated, new study finds鈥�.
Advertisement
Naturally, our mind went first to the butterfly effect and the power of chaos theory. If a butterfly can flap its wings in South America and cause a rainstorm in London, then surely a dog wagging its tail in Texas can cause an apocalyptic hurricane on the other side of the world?
However, it turns out we鈥檙e talking about carbon footprints. The study, , is about helping people to understand which of their lifestyle choices has the biggest impact on the environment. The researchers listed 26 choices, one of which was to 鈥渘ot purchase/adopt a dog鈥�.
The three choices that cut carbon emissions significantly and were relatively easy to do (sorry, had high 鈥渂ehavioral plasticity鈥�) were: 鈥渢aking one fewer flight, not adopting a dog, or eating lower-carbon meats鈥�. However, a lot of people apparently don鈥檛 really get it.
What we are seeing resembles the message mutating as it passes from researchers to the media. The paper clearly isn鈥檛 about dogs, given its title: 鈥� increase commitments to more effective mitigation behaviors鈥�.
It may be possible to draw a tortuous line from carbon emissions due to dog ownership (mostly from producing dog food) to extreme weather. But this, Feedback thinks, would be to bark up the wrong tree.
The other game
Feedback has once again lost The Game. As previously discussed in these pages, all humans are playing , the sole objective of which is to not remember that you are playing The Game. Hence you have just lost The Game, and you will every time you look at this page, or think about it, ever, for the rest of your life.
If that prospect doesn鈥檛 appeal, . He highlights the 391st edition of webcomic xkcd, which is called 鈥淎nti-Mindvirus鈥�.
It is a single panel comic, containing the words 鈥淵OU JUST WON THE GAME. IT鈥橲 OK! YOU鈥橰E FREE!鈥� The alt-text adds: 鈥淚鈥檓 as surprised as you! I didn鈥檛 think it was possible.鈥�
Problem solved, unless, of course, someone writes a follow-up that reads: 鈥淣O YOU HAVEN鈥橳!鈥�
Deeper and deeper
We鈥檝e all heard about fake images and videos, often produced by artificial intelligence, that go viral and mislead millions of people. These are only going to become more common as AI tools get better. But readers will perhaps be less familiar with fake AI journalists.
If you haven鈥檛 heard of 鈥淢argaux Blanchard鈥�, she is a freelance journalist whose name popped up a lot this year. Blanchard wrote about in Minecraft (Wired), remote working and having a first child at 45 (Business Insider), (SFGate) and the in Guatemala (Index on Censorship).
Blanchard doesn鈥檛 appear to exist. All her articles seem to be written by AI and mention other apparently made up people and organisations (Minecraft and Disneyland are real, obviously). The stories have now mostly been taken down.
But this type of thing keeps happening. On 6 September, The Washington Post reported that by various publications, all stemming from 鈥渁 possible broader scheme to pass off fake stories鈥� written using artificial intelligence鈥�. Thank heavens that nothing big is happening that might require trustworthy coverage.
And there is a weird extra twist to the story. Back in July, Feedback wrote about The Velvet Sundown, a band with seemingly AI-generated songs and even publicity shots (19 July). The band was traced to one Andrew Frelon, who claimed to have created the whole thing, then backtracked, then un-backtracked.
Frelon with : , and鈥� wait for it鈥�
Frelon claims he was paid by 鈥渁 major media client鈥� to answer the question: 鈥淐ould a fully autonomous AI system produce credible news stories of sufficient quality that they could be sold to top-tier outlets?鈥� The answer, apparently, is 鈥測es鈥�. Of course, all this is based on what Frelon says, and he is just a Medium account with three posts and a photo. Maybe he isn鈥檛 real, either.
Dominic Ponsford at Press Gazette, , put it very bluntly in his email newsletter: 鈥淓very time you receive an email from someone you do not know the assumption now has to be that they are not real.鈥�
The only lesson from this, feels Feedback, is that named journalists can鈥檛 be trusted. Except for those hiding behind nonsensical and weird pseudonyms, naturally.
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.
