Vasily Belokurov is one of three winners of the 2026 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics. The award is for uncovering fossil evidence of past galactic mergers that prove how the Milky Way evolved.

No matter the time or vantage point, from a pre-Neolithic cave to a post-lockdown London high-rise, the predictability of the night sky has always been humanity’s symbol of permanence and reassuring stability.

Yet this apparent calm is deceptive. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, emerged from chaos and turbulence, and its constellations are full of migrants, exiles and survivors. Right now, it has begun to stretch and distort again, pulled by a massive companion and heading for an inevitable collision.

How can I be so sure? As a galactic archaeologist, my job is to reconstruct the past of our galaxy and read the signs of its future.

Instead of digging through soil, I use the laws of dynamics and stellar evolution to sift through hundreds of millions of stars—searching for the most ancient and chemically peculiar among them, interpreting their orbits and piecing together the events that shaped the Milky Way. One ancient encounter left scars so deep that, billions of years later, they still define the galaxy around us.

I want to understand what governs the lives of these massive cosmic systems: which changes are nature—the slow internal evolution of a galaxy disk—and which are nurture, imposed by collisions and mergers.

Questions about the source of dark matter underpin it all. This is the invisible substance whose gravity holds galaxies together, but whose true identity remains one of the greatest unsolved puzzles in astrophysics.

The Milky Way is the one galaxy where stellar motions can be measured in extraordinary detail. This allows cosmologists including myself to construct our most precise map yet of dark matter: how far it reaches, how dense it is around the sun, what shape it has, and how smooth or lumpy it may be. If we can build this map in enough detail, we may begin to understand not just where dark matter is, but what it is.

A Cataclysmic Collision

Our work has been transformed by a revolution in open sky surveys. From 2000, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed what becomes possible when vast astronomical datasets are made public, enabling discoveries far beyond the goals for which the survey was first built.

And since 2014, Gaia, the European space telescope, has taken this transformation to another level by mapping the positions and motions of nearly 2 billion stars, turning the galaxy into a vast archaeological record. No ruins, no shards, and no bones—only stars that hold the clues.

The clearest giveaway that something cataclysmic took place long ago in our galaxy is the migrants we observe: stars that were not born in the Milky Way.

While native stars mostly travel together, circling the galactic center in the great rotating flow of the disk, migrants cut across that order. They slide past the locals, plunge into the inner galaxy, then fly back out to its outskirts, again and again.

These unusual orbits go hand-in-hand with unusual chemistry. Most of the migrant stars are less enriched in heavier elements than the locally born population. Their chemical composition is a sign of a slower rate of evolution that is typical of a dwarf galaxy.

This makes the migrants doubly valuable. They are both fossils of the Milky Way’s violent past and probes of its outer regions, traveling where the local stars rarely go.

How the Milky Way Was Rewired

One of the central ideas in the theory of cosmic structure formation is that galaxies grow hierarchically. Smaller galaxies fall into larger ones and are torn apart, leaving their stars behind as migrants.

In the Milky Way, the largest ancient structure of this kind is known as Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus. It is the remains of a vanished galaxy that collided with our own between 8 and 11 billion years ago (the “sausage” refers to a pattern in its stars’ motions).

The Milky Way also did not go through that crash unscathed. The collision rewired and reshaped it.

Some of these changes are easily visible in the data. Stars from the old disk were splashed into our galaxy’s halo, becoming exiles in the place where they were born. A new posse of star clusters were also acquired.

At the same time, we think something even more momentous was taking place. The encounter changed the orientation of the Milky Way’s disk, and its alignment with the dark matter halo.

While dark matter is too diffuse to dominate our solar system, in the outer galaxy it is the main gravitating mass—moving, streaming, and in the standard picture, clumping into a hierarchy of lumps.

Around the Milky Way, this dark matter forms a vast halo, much larger than the luminous part of our galaxy. We often imagine this halo as a sparse, round cloud, but Gaia has helped show this picture is too simple.

The dark halo can be stretched out of shape by a major encounter. Like a ship beginning to list, the Milky Way started to lean—not suddenly, not visibly, but over billions of years.

A New Galactic Dance

Unusually, compared with many galaxies of similar mass, the Milky Way was allowed ample time to recover from the shock of the “sausage merger.” No other cosmic cataclysm appears to have shaken our galaxy since, letting it settle into a quiet, uneventful life. That is, until now.

The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), currently our galaxy’s most massive companion, is already pulling at the Milky Way, disturbing its halo again. In an echo of what happened some 10 billion years ago, the Milky Way is being drawn into an accelerating dance with this neighboring dwarf galaxy, recoiling in response to the LMC’s approach.

This is a dance that only one galaxy is likely to survive intact. A new chapter of migration, survival and adaptation has begun.

None of this spoils the beauty of the night sky—it deepens it. The calm band of light above us is not a symbol of permanence, but the visible reminder of a long survival.

The Milky Way has been broken, rebuilt, and is now being disturbed again. Its stars remember the past; their motions reveal the future. What looks eternal is, in truth, a moment in a much longer story.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The Milky Way Was Rewired by a Cataclysmic Collision Billions of Years Ago. Now It Is on Course for Another. appeared first on SingularityHub.

For five years, Alzheimer’s slowly stripped away a Japanese-American woman’s ability to speak more than one syllable at a time. The woman, now in her 80s, was diagnosed roughly a decade ago, and her condition steadily worsened. She struggled to walk and recognize family members.

Then, under medical supervision, she took a large dose of mushrooms containing the psychedelic psilocybin. Within three days, her symptoms had improved. She began spontaneously recounting memories and initiating conversations in full sentences. Her alertness returned, and she could move around independently.

A week later, she was recognizing family members, asking where they were, and pointing out cars that seem out of place.

Psilocybin has been maligned for decades. But renewed interest in its unique effects on the brain has pushed it into mainstream research. Early studies suggest it may help treat depression, anxiety, addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric conditions. A clinical trial is underway to gauge whether it can protect the aging brain.

The case study, conducted in Brazil, adds to that momentum. The team emphasizes that it describes a single patient and is purely observational. Because of the severity of her disease, they could not perform brain scans, measure biomarkers, or conduct standard cognitive tests. Exactly why her symptoms improved remains unknown.

Even so, they propose that psilocybin may have temporarily unlocked brain function in late-stage Alzheimer’s, potentially allowing dormant neural networks to rewire.

Brain Under Fire

Alzheimer’s is often synonymous with memory loss. Sadly, symptoms range far beyond forgetting names or misplacing glasses.

As the disease progresses, people gradually struggle to find the right words or follow conversations. Their ability to tackle everyday tasks—cooking, managing finances, planning ahead—erodes. Depression, irritability, and anxiety often emerge. Over time, their personalities flatten, leaving them less outgoing, engaged, or empathetic.

These stories are far too common. According to the World Health Organization, roughly 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia in 2021. Alzheimer’s may account for up to 70 percent of cases. As populations age, that number is expected to climb.

Alzheimer’s has no single cause. Genetics likely play a role. Some gene variants are linked to early-onset forms of the disease, an area scientists are now tackling with gene therapy.

Another hallmark of the disease is a buildup of abnormal protein clumps, or plaques, in and around neurons, which disrupts normal function and wrecks their ability to form neural networks supporting memory and cognition. Years of efforts to remove plaques have largely failed, though the FDA recently approved two antibodies that reduce them and modestly slow cognitive decline.

Then there’s inflammation. In Alzheimer’s, the brain’s immune system can become overactive. Rather than responding only to damage, inflammation drives disease progression, spreading toxic protein clumps through the brain and further damaging its ability to form new connections.

Here’s where psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, may help. Psilocybin alters serotonin signaling, a brain chemical involved in mood, perception, and cognition. But its effects likely extend far beyond that.

Studies in mice suggest the chemical boosts the brain’s ability to rewire, a process known as neuroplasticity. Human brain imaging studies have found that the psychedelic temporarily reorganizes communication between large brain networks, changing how distant regions interact. In some participants, supervised treatment has been linked to greater cognitive flexibility, deeper self-reflection, and improved well-being.

Other studies hint at a protective role. Psilocybin triggers the release of “nurturing” proteins. This process helps neurons survive stress and extend their branching connections. It’s these delicate structures that build up neural networks, and they wither away during depression, aging, and dementia. Inside the hippocampus, a region crucial for learning and memory, the drug stimulates the birth of new neurons, at least in mice.

Given its positive effects on brain plasticity, psilocybin is now being tested in multiple psychiatric disorders characterized by unusually rigid patterns of brain activity. Older adults remain largely absent from these studies, even though they could benefit the most.

Tale of One

Before treatment, the woman struggled with everyday life. For five years, she could communicate using only single-syllable words. Her mobility was severely limited, and she struggled with incontinence.

With the consent of her caretaker, she received five grams of the Enigma strain of Psilocybe cubensis. Because psilocybin levels vary widely between mushrooms, the exact dose is unknown. But compared to other clinical trials, it was relatively high.

The team chose the dose “based on prior experiential observations regarding depth and duration of psychedelic-induced neurobehavioral effects,” wrote the team.

Initially, the woman fell into a deep sleep-like state accompanied by elevated body temperature and heavy sweating. Roughly 19 hours later, she suddenly awoke and began speaking to caregivers in complete sentences, recounting memories from her life. The conversation lasted around four hours.

Over the following days, she became increasingly alert and engaged. She recognized family members, regained mobility, and could pick out matching clothes to dress herself. A week later, she was noticing small details in her environment, including a rental car parked outside the house. When a family member was absent, she asked, “Where did Celso go?” She also seemed to rediscover her love of social interactions, making eye contact, smiling back, and actively starting conversations.

A month after the initial session, she returned for a second supervised dose of three grams. After the second dose, she became even more verbally expressive, displayed a sense of humor, and described memories of surfing with her son on a peaceful island. Throughout the trial, the drug alleviated incontinence and improved her quality of life.

The results come with major caveats. The improvements were observational and largely reported by caregivers, leaving room for bias. The team didn’t administer standardized tests for cognition, dementia, depression, and anxiety. Nor did they perform brain scans or monitor sleep, making it impossible to determine what brain changes were behind her apparent “awakening.”

“Causality cannot be established, and spontaneous fluctuations inherent to neurodegenerative disease cannot be completely excluded,” they wrote.

But the study touches on a provocative idea in Alzheimer’s: Cognitive reserve. The theory proposes some people can tolerate greater levels of harm to the brain and continue functioning despite significant damage. Psilocybin may have temporarily tapped into these reserves, allowing dormant neural circuits to engage and rewire to compensate for impaired ones. The hypothesis is highly speculative and needs to be rigorously tested.

Meanwhile, a clinical trial is investigating whether psilocybin can reduce depression and improve quality of life in people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease, moving the needle beyond a single case study.

For one family, however, the benefits are already substantial. At a follow-up visit, the woman spontaneously said to everyone in the room, “It is pleasant to come here.”

The post Woman With Alzheimer’s Shows Striking Improvement After Taking Magic Mushrooms appeared first on SingularityHub.

Scientists have long dreamed of developing nanoscale machines, but building reliable mechanical components at the molecular scale has proved challenging. Researchers have now developed a DNA-based switch that can rapidly and repeatedly snap between two stable states, much like the components that underpin everyday electronics.

Ever since Richard Feynman’s visionary lecture “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” researchers have been enamored with the idea of engineering at the scale of atoms and molecules. But manipulating matter at the nanoscale is easier said than done.

Individual molecules are in constant motion and continuously jostled about by the thermal energy of their surroundings. This makes it extremely difficult to position and assemble larger structures and undermines control of the mechanical motion of components.

This is particularly true for switches—key components in many mechanical and electronic devices you might want to build. Getting a tiny structure to hold one position, flip cleanly to another, and then stay there has so far been an unsolved problem.

But now, a team at the Technical University of Munich has created a switch made from folded strands of DNA that remains stable for up to an hour and flips in milliseconds on the application of a brief electric field. Crucially, the device was able to switch back and forth repeatedly with no degradation in performance.

“Individual devices sustain hundreds of thousands of switching cycles over several hours and remain functional for actuation over several days,” the researchers write in a paper in Science Robotics. “As a nanoscale electromechanical interface, our device enables applications in molecular information processing, optical nanodevices, and the dynamic control of chemical reactions.”

The device borrows a principle from standard engineering known as a snap-through mechanism, which rests in either of two states and only flips when pushed hard enough, a bit like a light switch.

Scaling the idea down to a few tens of nanometers meant designing rigid arms linked by flexible molecular hinges, so the structure settles into one of two configurations and does not flick between them on its own. The team relied on DNA origami to accomplish this, where a long strand of DNA is folded into custom 2D and 3D shapes using hundreds of shorter “staple” strands.

One of the two arms features a longer “extension arm” that acts as a lever to push the switch between configurations. DNA carries negative charge, so when an electric field is applied to the device, it pushes the arm hard enough to flip the switch. Left alone, the team estimates that the structure stays in its resting state for roughly six hours, and they observed no spontaneous flips while monitoring 70 switches for an hour.

One of the device’s main strengths is its endurance. One switch survived more than 200,000 flips over five and a half hours, and a simplified version withstood a million switching cycles in three hours while still working about 85 percent of the time. Performance varied considerably from one device to the next, however, with some failing after a few thousand cycles and others continuing for days.

The researchers say failures likely stem from a combination of contaminants, surface wear, and chemical changes in the surrounding fluid. However, some inactive switches later started working again, which the team says suggests they are capable of self-repairing.

To test whether the switch could do anything useful, the researchers attached a gold nanorod to the moving arm, turning it into a microscopic light switch that changed how light scattered off the particle. In a second test, they used the switch to expose or hide a molecular binding site, allowing it to control whether DNA strands could attach.

That second capability could be particularly useful as it could make it possible to control chemical reactions—for instance by turning enzymes on and off. The authors suggest that this could be used to create “control knobs” for chip-based bio-factories that run sequences of reactions.

Considerable obstacles remain before the device can become genuinely useful. A single switch encodes just one bit of information, and the team acknowledges that wiring arrays of switches together to create something resembling a circuit remains a distant prospect.

But a workable switch is a fundamental component that can be used to create all manner of devices. While we’re still a long way from Feynman’s dream of molecular machines, this is a meaningful step in that direction.

The post This DNA Switch Could Control Molecular Machines appeared first on SingularityHub.

AI’s hacking skills are big news at the moment, but finding vulnerabilities in code may be the least of our worries. A new study suggests AI models can discover potentially damaging loopholes in the rules and regulations underpinning society.

Modern AI systems are powerful optimizers. Give them a goal, and they’ll pursue it relentlessly, quickly discovering solutions that would take a human years to find. But they are also incredibly literal in the way they approach a problem. They will do exactly what you tell them and are incapable of reading between the lines in the ways a human would.

This tendency leads to a recurring problem known as “reward hacking,” where an AI finds some loophole to maximize its performance on the metric used to measure success without actually achieving what its designers intended. The classic example is the AI that discovered it could win a boat racing videogame by looping around in circles collecting power-ups rather than completing the course.

The problem is partly due to humans being bad at specifying their goals. And unfortunately, it seems this weakness exists in the rules and regulations used to run society. When researchers let popular large language models loose in 72 simulated regulatory environments, the models found 60 percent of known loopholes and even identified some entirely new exploits.

“Within these environments, reward hacking naturally emerges and leads to regulatory loophole discovery,” the authors write in a non-peer-reviewed paper published on arXiv. “Models learn to hack the social rules and generate strategies that remain technically compliant while defeating regulatory intent.”

The regulatory environments the researchers created were primarily based on rules governing things like pharmaceutical patents, NBA salary caps, and deep-sea mining. In each case, Alibaba’s Qwen3 model was given the relevant rules, an explanation of its task, a predefined set of actions it could take, and the system used to score different outcomes.

A more powerful model, Google’s Gemini-3-flash, then simulated the consequences of different actions Qwen3 took and judged if and when it had found a way to exploit the rules of the game. When that occurred, the larger model patched the loophole by adding new rules, and the smaller model was set loose again. Over many iterations, the models to discover increasingly subtle workarounds.

When building their regulatory environments, the researchers omitted real-world fixes that regulators had used to close known loopholes. Over many trials, Qwen3 rediscovered more than 60 percent of these exploits. In a simulation of pharmaceutical patent regulations, the two models ended up replaying the same sequence of loophole discovery and regulatory reform that occurred in the real world.

Crucially, their behavior emerged spontaneously without the researchers asking the algorithms to cheat the system. This is a byproduct of the popular reinforcement learning approach the researchers used, where a model is rewarded for getting closer to a specific, numerically-defined goal.

Worryingly, the team found that existing safety measures offered little protection. Both models are designed to refuse prompts featuring harmful language, but loophole-seeking behavior slipped under the radar. When asked to self-critique their own behavior, the models identified fewer than 40 percent of their own exploits.

The researchers note that the same capabilities could be used more proactively to scour proposed regulations for loopholes before enactment. But lead author Wei Liu, a PhD student at King’s College London, says there are always likely to be gaps. “In the real world,” he told Science, “society is a huge, complicated reward function that can’t ever be patched to a perfect status.”

Adding to the concern, the models used in this study were far from the frontier, suggesting that more powerful AI could be even more adept at regulatory hacking. Whether our existing institutions can adapt quickly enough to this emerging threat is an open question.

The post Forget Code: AI Is Learning to Hack Society appeared first on SingularityHub.

The post This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through June 27) appeared first on SingularityHub.

Imagine if one company could become the railroad, electric utility, and cloud-computing provider of the emerging space economy. That potential fueled excitement around the long-anticipated initial public offering of SpaceX. Investors are not simply betting on rockets anymore. They are betting on an entire orbital ecosystem.

Among the most ambitious and challenging ideas riding this wave of enthusiasm is something that sounds almost like science fiction: orbital data centers. SpaceX may be one of the most well-known companies seeking to build them, but it is not the only one.

The logic is seductive: Launch the data centers into orbit, where solar energy is abundant and land, water, and local power grids are no longer constraints. As artificial intelligence drives an explosion in computing demand, companies are pitching orbital data centers as a way to escape the growing environmental and infrastructure pressures of Earth-based computing. Data centers often also face backlash from the public at having these centers located in their communities.

But there is a vast difference between launching satellites and operating an industrial-scale computing infrastructure in orbit. Space is unforgiving. Radiation damages electronics. The electronics generate enormous amounts of heat, and getting rid of that heat is surprisingly difficult in space. Repairs are extraordinarily expensive, and every pound launched into orbit still carries a significant cost.

We are engineering professors who study data-center design and space systems engineering. Building a space-based data center will involve considerations from both sides.

What Goes Into a Data Center on Earth

First off, consider what goes into an Earth-based data center, like those that you’ve probably begun to see pop up everywhere. These facilities power cloud computing, video streaming, online banking, scientific computing, and increasingly, artificial intelligence. But a data center is much more than a room full of servers.

A data center needs several things to operate reliably. The first is electric power. Servers, networking equipment, and storage devices consume large amounts of electricity, and that power demand is growing rapidly with AI.

The second is cooling. Almost all the electricity consumed by servers eventually becomes heat. If that heat is not removed quickly and reliably, equipment performance drops, failures increase, and the data center can shut down. Cooling systems often include air handling units, chillers, cooling towers, pumps, and increasingly, liquid-cooling equipment. In many facilities, cooling is the largest energy consumer after the computing equipment itself.

The third is physical infrastructure, including the necessary land, buildings, structural support, backup power, water systems, communication networks, and maintenance access. Data centers also need to be close enough to users and network backbones to provide fast digital services.

In short, Earth-based data centers are large electrical and thermal infrastructure systems built around computing hardware.

Placing Them in Space

So what would it take to build these data centers in space, and why are companies finding this possibility such an interesting business proposition?

As on Earth, these data centers would require massive amounts of power. In space, this power would come from solar panels. The sun always shines in space and can’t be blocked by clouds. However, depending on the orbit the solar panels are put in, the Earth may shadow them for some portion of the orbit.

And even the best solar cells available today can convert only about half the sunlight that hits them to electricity.

Another potential advantage found in space is cooling. The cold background of space (roughly -455 degrees Fahrenheit, or -270 degrees Celsius) creates an opportunity: Waste heat from the data center could escape into space through radiators, keeping the electronics cool.

In principle, that design could eliminate some of the bulky and water-intensive cooling infrastructure used on Earth. However, those thermal radiators would require a large amount of surface area, and that would be in addition to the area required by the solar panels.

In space, there is no air to blow across hot equipment and help heat escape. The heat has to leave as infrared radiation, which is a relatively slow process. As a result, removing 10 megawatts of waste heat can require radiator surfaces comparable to the size of two football fields.

Space-based data centers could also avoid some of the local conflicts that come with building large data centers on the ground. Many communities resist new data center developments because of their land use, energy and water demand, and noise and environmental impact.

A space-based system would avoid competing for local land and water resources, and it would not generate neighborhood noise or require local zoning approval in the same way.

However, space is already getting crowded, and launching thousands of large orbital data centers would accelerate this issue. Orbital debris and micrometeorites are hazards because they can puncture the space data center, and a worst-case collision could destroy it and create even more space debris.

The frequency of space launches necessary to send all the equipment to orbit may also become a concern for some communities. SpaceX has had protests at its launch complex in Boca Chica, Texas from local activists who argue its rocket testing and launches damage the surrounding environment.

All that data would need to be sent between Earth and these data centers—and between the data centers themselves—using radio waves or laser communications systems. Although satellite constellations such as Starlink and Amazon Leo have demonstrated that doing this is possible, the amount of data sent to and from space would balloon.

Additional Challenges

These data centers, along with their solar panels and radiators, cannot be launched in one piece and would need to be assembled in space. This process would require new equipment for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing.

Another key challenge is the refresh cycle of computing hardware. Data-center servers are not built to last forever. Operators on Earth usually replace or upgrade hardware every three to five years as chips improve, workloads change, and equipment ages.

And equipment failures can require replacing components. The refresh and repair processes are relatively straightforward on Earth, where workers can physically remove and replace servers.

In space, refresh and repair becomes much harder. Hardware sent to orbit may be difficult or too expensive to upgrade. If the computing platform cannot be updated, or too many components fail, it may become obsolete long before the surrounding infrastructure reaches the end of its useful life.

In a field where performance improves so rapidly and demand from computing continues to increase, this hurdle could prove a major economic and operational challenge.

Then there is the harshness of space. These data centers would be in a near vacuum, with constant radiation hitting them. And depending on their orbit, they would go from hot when in the sunlight to cold in Earth’s shadow many times a day. All of these challenges, and more, are issues that will need to be addressed.

So, Do They Still Make Sense?

Despite these challenges, companies are moving forward with designing space-based data centers. SpaceX just announced the design for its AI1 Compute Satellite, which it hopes to use as an orbital data center spacecraft. However, this satellite is 100 to 1,000 times less capable than current Earth-based data centers.

Not every computing task makes sense to do in space. Many data center applications depend on fast response times and close connections to users on Earth. Financial transactions, interactive AI services, and most cloud applications are extremely sensitive to delay.

More feasible early applications may be those that are less latency-sensitive and more tightly connected to space operations. Examples could include processing Earth observation data from satellites, military or intelligence data processing, scientific computing related to space missions, or specialized computing for satellites and other space assets.

In other words, the first viable space data centers may serve space-based customers before they compete with mainstream cloud data centers on Earth.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Orbital Data Centers Are Seductive on Paper, but They Face Daunting Challenges in Reality appeared first on SingularityHub.

Packaging potassium sulfate, a fertilizer vital to the planet’s food supply, is visually striking—not because of what you see, but because you don’t see much at all. In China’s Xinjiang region, home to the world’s largest deposit of the mineral, piling it up in warehouses creates dust clouds so severe that workers are forced to drive heavy machinery by feel.

Some companies are now turning to a technology that not only offers a way to see through the dust but also keeps workers from entering the warehouse at all. The system, developed by BuilderX Robotics, a Chinese tech company, uses cameras that are like night-vision for dusty areas. More significantly, operators drive excavators, loaders, and other machines from a remote office filled with rows of videogame-like stations. All they need is a 5G or satellite connection.

The ability to control physical machines from a distance is called teleoperation, and it could become a significant force of change in the global economy.

In Japan, the shelves of over 300 convenience stores are being restocked by robots monitored and sometimes controlled by workers in the Philippines. Düsseldorf airport was slated to begin testing shuttles driven by remote workers in May. A startup in Atlanta is offering robot security guards operated by remote staff, and last summer, a surgeon in France performed a teleoperated procedure on a patient in India.

While offshoring teleoperated jobs to overseas workers hasn’t yet become routine, Mark Graham, professor of internet geography at the University of Oxford, suggests the technology is worth our attention because it might enable companies to expand on their well-established habit of outsourcing jobs to places where labor is cheaper.

The use of remote labor isn’t new, Graham told SingularityHub. But teleoperation extends the logic of outsourcing to tasks that were previously thought to be “stubbornly local.”

“The novelty is less about the existence of remote labor and more about the kinds of work that can now be pulled into a planetary labor market,” he said. “Once that happens you can expect the usual pressures around labor arbitrage, control, and fragmentation to follow.”

It’s not clear we’re ready for the consequences.

---

BuilderX Robotics is a global leader in teleoperation for heavy machinery and a good expression of the changes ahead. Shaolong Sui, a graduate of Stanford University with a degree in mechanical engineering, founded the company in 2018 as a response to labor shortages in the construction industry in Asia.

“A shortage of trained operators isn’t a problem only in developed countries,” he told me. “Young people here in China don’t want to do this work. It’s dusty and dangerous.”

Rather than focusing on full robotic autonomy, which many construction companies have pursued over the past decade, Sui identified teleoperation as a more realistic way to move operators from harsh environments to safer conditions. Making use of the proliferation of low-cost sensors and 5G at the time, Sui completed a prototype in 2019. Today, his company offers teleoperation for 14 different industrial machines, including excavators, loaders, and bull dozers.

In our conversation, it was clear he hopes to improve working conditions for manual laborers. I lost track of the number of times he mentioned removing operators from dangerous worksites. “These workers deserve a better life,” he said.

BuilderX’s workstations do seem to have transformed some of the punishing work of an industrial site into a more white-collar experience, complete with tea and coffee break rooms and toilets down the hall. Sui said his solution allows construction firms to hire senior citizens or people with disabilities who, thanks to the videogame-like interface, can now operate heavy machinery. In another video, a Japanese woman who pilots an excavator proudly shows off her complex nail art, something she claims she couldn’t maintain when she worked in the field.

“Not only is this a much safer workplace, but the lifestyle benefits are that you can sit in an air-conditioned space, enjoy your tea, and when you go home, you’re still clean,” Sui said.

There’s no doubt the approach is safer for frontline workers like those in Xinjiang. Evidence suggests that high levels of potassium dust exposure can cause chronic bronchitis. While pulling someone from dangerous work is a good thing and that should be taken seriously, Graham told me, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re free from exploitation.

“A worker can be removed from the physical site and still be subjected to intense surveillance, deskilling, isolation, fragmented contracts, algorithmic management, and downward pressure on wages. In other words, the risk can move rather than disappear,” he said.

Sui and Graham both agree there are plenty of forces that might slow the pace of outsourcing. Currently, none of BuilderX’s customers offshore work to overseas operators. But that doesn’t appear to be a technology constraint, as recently demonstrated by an operator in Poland controlling an excavator over 4,000 miles away in Beijing. On the technical side, latency—the delay between operator and machine—and reliability will shape the rate at which firms can choose to offshore workers. But it’s more likely to be limited by regulatory constraints in the form of licensing, insurance, and safety requirements.

That said, Graham believes the biggest force driving work overseas will be the same one that’s pushed clerical and service work offshore; the relentless pursuit to increase profit and reduce cost.

“If firms can hire people in lower-wage labor markets to operate expensive equipment thousands of miles away, many of them will try,” he said.

---

Most debates about AI and robotics focus on job loss due to automation. There is relatively little discussion about the risk of offshoring teleoperated work as the technology comes online. This is partly due to the hype surrounding physical AI, a Silicon Valley buzzword describing a world where fully autonomous robots cut humans out of the loop. But Graham says that when machines arrive people tend to incorrectly assume humans disappear.

“In many cases, what gets described as automation is really a reorganization of labor. Work gets broken apart, moved around, and hidden from view,” he says.

As is the case with AI,  the robotics industry’s push toward full automation is still plenty reliant on a hidden system of faraway workers. Teleoperation provides training data for robots and is needed to help them deal with unexpected events. Consumer robotics startup 1X is selling a $20,000 humanoid that will sometimes need to be  controlled by remote staff. It’s not clear how often future robots cleaning dishes in San Francisco kitchens will be steered by gig workers in Mumbai.

Robotaxi company Waymo already relies on human agents to assist, though not literally drive, vehicles stuck in difficult scenarios. The firm recently disclosed for the first time that some of these agents are based in the Philippines. This information, surfaced during US congressional testimony, immediately raised questions of oversight for safety-critical work: For instance, should a worker in Manila be required to get a California driver’s license?

Amid an already combustible US political environment, teleoperation could raise the heat even higher. Fueled by fears of Americans losing jobs to people overseas, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, the parent company of La Quinta, was last year forced to respond to anger over a viral video depicting workers allegedly in India remotely handling check-in at one of their Miami hotels. As Graham points out, people tend to care more about outsourcing when it’s no longer hidden in a back office.

But outrage alone, he says, rarely defeats a business model that saves money. Due to network effects surrounding training, infrastructure, and other business process optimization, outsourced labor also tends to cluster in specific areas. This may already be happening in the case of Waymo, which could soon see the rise of something like a “driving district” in Manila. In the future, other types of teleoperated work could follow suit, giving companies a ready-made destination to shop for low-cost labor.

For Graham, it’s urgent that we begin requiring certification from independent bodies, which can better scrutinize a company’s production networks. At Oxford he directs Fairwork, a project aiming to improve labor practices in digital supply chains.

---

I asked Sui how he thinks his customers may reorganize their operations around this new ability to remotely control their machinery.

“We’re working with traditional industries, and so it’s not just about adopting a new technology. There are significant management changes they will have to navigate. You could call this transformation friction because they will need time to digest this new capability step by step,” Sui said.

Despite the fact they could use the technology to outsource work across national borders, none of his customers are doing so just yet. Sui used open pit mines as an example. In this case, where fully developed towns with schools and hospitals have built up over decades, his customers still cluster their workforce next to the sites where they operate. Instead of driving into the mine, operators work from an office and go home clean at the end of a shift.

BuilderX has deployed its technology at more than 100 sites in China, Japan, and parts of Europe. It’s now expanding into new markets including South America and the Middle East. When asked whether he thinks his technology will be used for transnational outsourcing, there’s no hesitation. “Oh yes, I think this is coming in the very near future.”

The post Companies Could Soon Staff ‘Stubbornly Local’ Jobs With Workers 4,000 Miles Away appeared first on SingularityHub.

“Attention is all you need.”

This 2017 breakthrough idea transformed AI. The concept of self-attention became the foundation of today’s chatbots. Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT are all large language models (LLMs), AI systems designed to focus on the matter at hand while filtering out distractions.

The results have been remarkable. From brainstorming recipes to generating code, apps, websites, and content, LLMs are being woven into our lives at breakneck speed.

But now, a City University of New York team and collaborators are asking: How closely does AI self-attention resemble human attention?

It’s not just academic curiosity. AI researchers have long looked to the brain for ideas to improve machine intelligence. In turn, AI models have offered new ways to investigate the brain. Comparing artificial and biological attention could inspire AI that concentrates more like us.

In their study, the team asked multiple chatbots to complete a classic psychology test of attention and cognitive control. Participants are shown the word for a color—such as “red”—written in either the same or a different color than the one the word describes. The challenge is to name the ink color while ignoring the word itself.

On short word lists, the chatbots performed at a high level. But as the tasks grew longer, their focus faltered. Instead of naming the ink color, they increasingly defaulted to reading the word. Under more demanding conditions—ones that also trip up people—their performance nearly collapsed.

The findings suggest today’s AI attention systems are “fundamentally limited,” wrote the authors. They go on to say that adding mechanisms similar to “those in biological attention is crucial for achieving artificial general intelligence.”

Attention, Two Ways

Doomscrolling. YouTube. Dinner plans. Family obligations. A barrage of notifications.

Life sometimes seems like everything, everywhere, all at once. Yet the brain can usually lock onto what matters most and push everything else into the background.

Far from a single, straightforward mechanism, attention emerges from multiple brain regions. According to attention network theory, three networks do most of the heavy lifting.

The alerting network keeps the brain ready for action. The orienting network selects which sights, sounds, smells, and sensations deserve attention. Finally, the executive control network resolves conflicts between competing streams of information, helping direct thoughts and actions toward a goal.

Together, these systems allocate the brain’s limited resources. Touch a hot stove, for example, and your brain immediately shifts attention to the burn over dinner. The food can wait; cooling your hand can’t.

AI works very differently.

Rather than processing language as complete sentences, LLMs break text into smaller units called “tokens.” Attention mechanisms then determine which tokens matter most for generating the next word, sentence, or response.

Self-attention is the key breakthrough behind modern chatbots. For each token, the model weighs and incorporates information from other tokens in a sequence, allowing it to track context across long stretches of text. This mechanism helps AI connect words and ideas, and underpins virtually all frontier LLMs today.

Researchers have since built on the concept. One approach, multi-head attention, runs several attention systems in parallel, with each “head” learning different patterns, such as grammar, syntax, or meaning. Another, cross attention, links information across different chunks of inputs and their outputs, making it especially useful for tasks such as translation and summarization.

But attention comes at a steep computational cost. To make models more efficient, researchers are also exploring sparse attention, which limits how many tokens a model considers at once. Another approach draws on information learned in the past to keep AI “focused.”

Despite the name, AI attention is ultimately a mathematical system. It helps determine what information is relevant in a specific context. But it lacks executive control, the network that keeps humans continuously focused on a goal despite distractions for long periods of time.

Color Blind

To test the limits of AI attention, the team pitted OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet against the Stroop task.

Invented by John Ridley Stroop in 1935, the test measures attention and cognitive control by forcing participants to resolve conflicting information. The challenge is simple: Name the color of a word while ignoring what the word means. In a congruent trial, the word “blue” appears in blue ink. In an incongruent trial, “blue” might appear in red or green, creating a conflict between what the eyes see and what the brain reads.

Humans are consistently slowed down by this interference. Even with practice, the effect remains, suggesting it taps into fundamental mechanisms of executive control.

In the study, the researchers created word lists of varying lengths and difficulty. Some were entirely congruent. Others were fully incongruent. A third set mixed the two conditions.

At first, the AI models excelled. On five-word tests, GPT-4o was over 90 percent accurate across all conditions. But as the number of words increased, performance plummeted. On 40-word incongruent tests, the model’s accuracy fell to roughly 15 percent. Claude showed a similar decline. In mixed-condition tests, both models’ performance nearly collapsed to zero.

“The sharp decline in color-naming accuracy with increasing list length indicates that transformer-based attention mechanisms are vulnerable to scaling demands,” wrote the team.

Perhaps most intriguing, some models correctly recognized they were taking the Stroop test and could even explain its rules. But that apparent awareness did nothing to improve their scores. In other words, a “book smart” understanding of the task wasn’t enough to execute it well.

The study joins a growing effort to borrow psychological tests for research in machine cognition, especially when AI is challenged with complex, dynamic decision-making tasks. Theory of mind tests, for example, let researchers gauge whether a system can track others’ beliefs, emotions, and intentions. Personality tests are helping shape model behavior and reduce sycophancy. And some LLMs are readily solving emotional intelligence tests, which measure how well the algorithms recognize and respond to social cues.

According to the authors, the new results point to a missing ingredient in AI attention: A mechanism similar to the brain’s executive control network, which helps us stick to a task and adapt when priorities change.

Future AI systems could benefit from higher-level executive control that continuously tracks progress toward a goal, detects when attention has drifted, and pulls it back on course, if necessary.

Rather than simply weighing which tokens are most relevant in the moment, a more human-like form of attention could help AI stay focused during complex tasks, such as long conversations, multi-step reasoning problems, or high-stakes use in scientific research and drug discovery.

“The ultimate goal of AI research is to develop artificial general intelligence comparable to human abilities,” wrote the team. “AI systems, like humans, may need to master fundamental attention mechanisms…before achieving the generalized problem-solving abilities characteristic of mature executive functions.”

The post AI Collapses on a Classic Psychology Test. What It Reveals Could Stall Human-Level AI. appeared first on SingularityHub.

A handful of healthy senior citizens are about to trip on psilocybin—to see if the psychedelic protects aging brains.

Psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, is best known for its ties to 1960s counterculture. But now it may also herald a new genre of mental health treatment. From severe depression to post-traumatic stress disorder, studies have highlighted psychedelic drugs’ ability to reshape brain networks and relieve debilitating symptoms.

Most of these studies have focused on younger people with mental health conditions that don’t respond to standard treatment. The field’s success is prompting scientists to ask if psychedelics could also help healthy brains age better.

A team from the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics is about to find out. In a first-of-its-kind study focused on adults between the ages of 60 and 85, they’ll investigate how psilocybin affects perception, emotion, and memory using a battery of psychological tests.

Multiple scans before and after dosing will track changes in the brain. And detailed surveys will gauge broader shifts in well-being: Do participants feel more “in tune” with their emotions, feel less isolated, or experience a renewed sense of wonder about the world?

“What really excites me is that we’re focused on healthy older adults,”  said Tyler Toueg, who co-led the study’s design, in a press release. “Most clinical trials with older adults are focused on people who already have a diagnosis. We’re asking whether we can actually promote positive outcomes in older adults who are healthy.”

Called PLASTICITY, the trial could also open a rare window into how a psychedelic experience reshapes healthy brain networks. And because the drug alters our sense of self, psilocybin could help researchers probe the ways in which the brain constructs reality.

“I’m very interested in psilocybin as a potential mental health treatment, but I’m also interested in it as a way to shed light on these central mysteries in neuroscience and psychology,” said study designer Michael Silver.

Chasing the White Rabbit

Psychedelic research was highly restricted for decades. But advocates, including the non-profit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, have steadily pushed to reopen the field, arguing that these drugs might keep mental health symptoms at bay.

Early results helped usher psychedelics into the mainstream. In 2023, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial found that a single dose of psilocybin, paired with therapy, eased depression. Oregon later approved supervised psilocybin therapy—though the drug remains federally illegal in the US—and Australia became the first country to greenlight it for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. More recently, two late-stage studies reported strong effects in severe depression, potentially paving the way for FDA approval.

Scientists still don’t fully understand how psilocybin works in the brain. But there are hints. The drug appears to rapidly reorganize the connections between brain cells, particularly in the hippocampus, a region of the brain central to learning, memory, and navigation.

Neurons constantly change their connections in a process called plasticity that encodes experiences into neural networks, allowing the brain to process information, learn, and lock in memories. In youth, these connections are flexible and expansive. But with age and in conditions like depression, the brain’s flexibility wanes.

The birth of new neurons, or neurogenesis, also contributes to plasticity. Neurogenesis only occurs in two brain regions, one of which is the hippocampus. Although whether it actually takes place in humans is controversial, it is strongly linked to learning, memory, and emotion, and it declines in both psychiatric disorders and aging.

Psilocybin may reset brain plasticity to a more youthful state.

In rats modeling depression, for example, a study showed the drug shifted dark moods into behavior that was more exploratory and engaging. Where traditional antidepressants, like Prozac, tend to blunt symptoms, psilocybin seems to overwrite entrenched negative patterns. This suggests deeper circuit-level changes.

In another study, the drug reopened a critical window for learning in mice. During adolescence, the brain is highly plastic, but it begins to stiffen in adulthood. Psilocybin temporarily restored malleability and changed the mice’s social behavior. In some brain regions, the drug increased sensitivity to oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone.” The authors suggested the drug induced a state called metaplasticity, in which neurons are more likely to respond to oxytocin and other regulators to rewire, form new connections, and grow their branches.

Psilocybin’s effects may extend beyond the brain. Depression, chronic stress, and the immune system are tightly linked. In a third study, researchers identified a brain-spleen connection that drives fear and anxiety. Psilocybin suppressed inflammatory immune cells associated with brain inflammation and dampened anxiety-like behavior in stressed mice, even under threat.

Both effects—dialing up plasticity and lowering inflammation—make psilocybin an intriguing way to potentially counter changes in the aging brain.

“We know that with age, we lose synaptic connections, especially in certain brain regions like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex,” said Toueg. “There’s a lot of overlap between the mental states that psychedelics influence and those associated with successful aging.”

Tomorrow Never Knows

The PLASTICITY trial is designed to test whether psilocybin can produce lasting changes in neuroplasticity in healthy adults aged 60 to 85. Participants will first undergo assessments of cognition, visual perception, and brain structure using advanced MRI techniques.

Diffusion MRI scans will focus on the hippocampus to capture microscopic changes in its structure. Functional MRI will focus on brain activity as participants perform learning and memory tasks, offering a dynamic view of how activity shifts after dosing.

The study will also see if psilocybin increases vagus nerve activity, which has been linked to better stress recovery. Participants will complete detailed surveys about the experience ranging from emotional responses, like wonder, to potential shifts in outlook and social cognition.

“Things like depression, anxiety, stress and rumination are all associated with worse aging outcomes,” said Toueg. “Things like having purpose in life, emotional regulation, and awe are all associated with more successful aging.”

The trial began enrolling participants in November last year. Two volunteers have already completed the tests, and the team aims to dose 20 people by the end of 2026.

Although psilocybin trials are now widespread, older adults remain underrepresented. One estimate suggests just 1.4 percent of participants are 65 or older, despite potentially being among those most likely to benefit from interventions that enhance plasticity.

“This study allows us to directly test whether the promising findings from animal models translate to older humans and to generate data that will inform future research on aging, cognition, and mental health,” said Silver.

Toueg agrees. “I think that no matter what we find, this study will have implications for how we think about intervening in the aging brain,” he said.

The post Can Psychedelics Reboot Aging Brains? We’re About to Find Out appeared first on SingularityHub.

The post This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through June 20) appeared first on SingularityHub.

The transition away from fossil fuels is often framed as a long-term process, but recent data suggests the shift is already happening. Solar power has now crossed a major threshold in the US, surpassing coal in the electricity generation mix for the first time.

Despite the Trump administration’s attempts to drive a coal revival, it has been steadily losing ground to other energy sources in recent years, squeezed out by cheap natural gas and rapidly falling renewable energy prices. Solar power, in particular, has been on a tear as prices drop exponentially.

Last month, the two lines finally crossed. Solar supplied 12.8 percent of US electricity in May, edging past coal’s 12.2 percent share to become the country’s third-largest source of power behind natural gas and nuclear, according to recent data from energy think tank Ember.

“Overtaking coal for the first month on record shows just how far solar has come, from a niche contributor to the third-largest and fastest-growing source of power in the US electricity system,” Nicolas Fulghum, senior data analyst at Ember, said in a press release.

The transition is as much about coal’s waning importance in the US energy system, as it is about solar’s growth. Coal’s share has nearly halved in five years, falling from 19.7 per cent in May 2021 to 12.2 percent today and hitting an all-time monthly low in April.

Over the same period, solar’s share of electricity generation has more than doubled from 5.4 percent to 12.8 percent. And it hit an all-time high of 45.5 terawatt-hours in May, up 17 percent compared to the same month last year and above the previous record set in July 2025. Ember gets its data from the US Energy Information Administration.

The industry does face some headwinds though. A separate report from the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie found that the 7.8 gigawatts of new solar capacity added in the first quarter of 2026 is a 27 percent decline compared to the previous year.

This is partly due to regular seasonal patterns for the industry, says the report, but was also thanks to the expiry of a tax credit for residential installations and trade restrictions and tariffs targeting imported solar components from Asia initiated by the Trump administration. The government has also made it more difficult to get permits for new projects.

But despite the apparent slowdown, solar and battery storage together accounted for 91 percent of all new electricity-generating capacity added to the grid in the first quarter of the year. And the number of new utility-scale projects signed in the first quarter hit 6.3 gigawatts, a rise of 15 percent. Tellingly, the SEIA notes that states President Trump won in 2024 make up 74 percent of new solar capacity installed in that period.

“In a world of fluctuating fuel prices, energy buyers have made it clear that they want the security, low cost, and speed of solar and storage,” Darren Van’t Hof, interim president and CEO at SEIA, said in a press release.

“Impeding the only sector that is actively building new power is a reckless gamble that will only drive electricity bills higher. The stakes are simply too high for Washington’s permitting gridlock to continue.”

As a result of these barriers, Wood Mackenzie’s five-year forecast predicts that annual additions will plateau around 43 gigawatts. That’s still an impressive pace of installation, but also a significant slowdown from the breakneck growth seen over the last couple of decades. So, while solar may have knocked one fossil fuel competitor off the podium, without a change in energy policy it may struggle to maintain its impressive momentum.

The post Solar Beat Coal in US Electricity Mix for the First Time in May appeared first on SingularityHub.

This story was originally published by Knowable Magazine.

As I sip coffee in my Berlin apartment and fire a question at Google’s AI chatbot Gemini, it’s easy not to think about the energy it takes to generate a response. Once the signal reaches my router, it whizzes, I assume, through copper wires or fiber-optic cables to one of Google’s data center hubs. Somewhere inside the data center’s labyrinthine halls of stacked processors, my query gets converted into numbers and undergoes billions of computations to determine context and meaning. The answer, once assembled, races back, in the blink of an eye.

Data centers—the beating hearts of the internet, powering everything from email to web searches—have existed for decades, but with the growing popularity of AI to generate text, images, and video, they’re using more energy than ever. According to Google’s own estimates, processing a median-length text prompt with its AI assistant Gemini consumes around 0.24 watt-hours.

These amounts, individually small—0.24 watt-hours is equivalent to watching TV for about nine seconds—are adding up fast. In March 2026, OpenAI estimated that more than 900 million people use its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, every week, tallying billions of queries daily.

The exact amount of electricity consumed by data centers, globally or in the United States, which hosts more than any other nation, isn’t publicly reported by all tech companies, says Eric Masanet of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who researches data center sustainability. But according to the most recent estimates by the International Energy Agency, US data centers guzzled some 224 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2025—more than 5 percent of the country’s electricity use. That’s a significant uptick from an estimated 1.9 percent consumed in 2018, well before the mainstream surge of generative AI.

This electricity use seems set to soar. In the race to secure market leadership for generative AI products, companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, and Oracle are investing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to build AI-focused data centers. Compared to data centers of the pre-AI days that consume, say, 100 megawatts of electricity—enough to power 83,000 homes with average demand—the newcomers are often “hyperscale” and can use a gigawatt or more, or roughly a tenth of the electrical capacity of Los Angeles.

Masanet and other experts have been alarmed to see much of this demand met by plants powered by fossil fuels, such as gas, whose burning releases planet-warming carbon dioxide. A key reason is that data centers are often constructed in places without abundant renewable energy sources like hydropower, geothermal, solar, or wind.

Tech companies often offset emissions by investing in renewable energy elsewhere. But unless those clean energy plants make more energy than the data centers use, this strategy—at best—keeps CO₂ emissions of centers in stasis rather than reducing them to a net of nothing, important for halting global warming. “For every megawatt for which we install fossil fuel power,” Masanet says, “it sets us back on our progress.”

And that’s not considering the resources spent on manufacturing the hardware that fills new data centers, or the impacts on communities living near them, which often suffer from air and noise pollution from gas plants and possible strain on local water resources, which are used to cool the data centers.

Although forecasts for AI’s energy impact remain devilishly tricky, especially since the size of payoffs from investments in AI are uncertain, it’s clear to experts that energy-saving strategies are urgently needed. Without them, according to one 2025 estimate, US data centers could soon be releasing the equivalent of 24 to 44 megatons of CO₂ annually, the latter equivalent to the annual emissions of Norway.

And so computer scientists and engineers are rethinking some of the power-hungry hardware and software that fuel AI. They’re working to develop energy-saving algorithms and processor designs, and carefully considering where, and how, data centers are constructed.

“AI’s energy cost is not an accident: This is basically a product of how our systems are built,” says Fengqi You, an expert in energy systems at Cornell University. But with the right mix of solutions, he says, “we could really reshape the trajectory.”

The Roots of AI’s Energy Problem

To comprehend AI’s energy cost, it helps to understand large language models (LLMs)—the lifeblood of AI text generation tools such as chatbots and AI assistants—specifically, ones based on a design described in 2017 by the machine-learning laboratory Google Brain. This design, transformer architecture, can process text at lightning speed by simultaneously taking each word and weighing its relationship to every other word it sees. It “learns” which words go together by computing how strongly each word relates to all other words in a text, examining each word in many contexts. (A similar design is used for AI image and video generators.)

On a computational level, this happens by converting words or word fragments into numbers and performing additions and multiplications between them. Key to the speed is being able to do these calculations in parallel, made possible by graphic processor units (GPUs)—mostly manufactured by the company Nvidia—originally invented for rapid 3D rendering of imagery during gaming.

The initial training of an LLM, required to learn all these relationships, consumes vast amounts of energy. Because each word it trains on must be weighed against all others in a given chunk of text, the number of computations the model performs—hence the energy required—increases quadratically relative to the length of text (i.e., doubling the length of text quadruples the number of computations). That adds up quickly given that most LLMs are trained on massive swaths of publicly available internet text. Some estimates suggest that training GPT-4—the iteration of ChatGPT that launched in 2023—guzzled between 50 and 60 gigawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power San Francisco for three to four days.

But experts are more worried about the energy costs of using the models to generate data once they’ve been trained, a process called inference. “You train once, then you inference for a billion people in the world,” says Mosharaf Chowdhury, an AI systems expert at the University of Michigan who has been measuring the electricity usage of a handful of large language models that have been made publicly available.

This process is surprisingly inefficient: Each time transformer models generate a word—by selecting the one with the highest probability of following the previous word, given context—they put the query and partially written answer through the model. In doing so, they apply all of the parameters they’ve calculated during training to understand language patterns—which number in the hundreds of billions or even trillions.

“The fact that you have to do a lot of calculations for a single word to be added—that’s a problematic thing,” says Günter Klambauer, an AI expert at Johannes Kepler University in Austria.

Tweaking AI Software to Save Energy

This recognition has triggered interest in smaller language models specialized to specific tasks. These are trained more narrowly, have fewer parameters—say, tens or hundreds of millions—and perform substantially less computation than larger models. In one 2025 paper published by UNESCO, computer scientist Ivana Drobnjak of University College London and colleagues compared energy consumption of Meta’s language model Llama-3.1 with smaller AI models dedicated to particular tasks—ones called DistilBART and t5-small-xsum for summarization, and others for translation or answering questions. When used for their respective tasks, the smaller models consumed more than 90 percent less energy than Llama 3.1 on the same job.

And so computer scientists have been driven to build a similar kind of task specialization into LLMs themselves. In “mixture of expert” models, only particular parts of one big model are activated for certain tasks. These parts “learn to handle different patterns in language,” Drobnjak says.

This is thought to be one reason why R1, an LLM developed by the Chinese company DeepSeek, reportedly consumed significantly less energy than other models (independent experts have raised doubts about those figures). Udit Gupta, an expert in electrical and computer engineering at Cornell Tech, says that LLMs like Gemini or ChatGPT are similarly routing queries to more specialized sub-models. “There’s a lot of work being done on how to assess the complexity of the query or task that’s coming from users and then find the right model,” Gupta says. (While Google spokesperson Ralf Bremer notes that the 0.24 watt-hours currently spent on processing median-length Gemini prompts is already 33 times more efficient than it was back in 2024, some experts suspect that processing queries with an LLM still consumes more energy than an equivalent web search.)

Scientists are also exploring different kinds of LLMs, to break what Klambauer calls the “quadratic curse” of transformer models.

One alternative, called a long short-term memory (LSTM) model, gets around this alarming energy increase by temporarily storing a kind of summary of the prompt that was inputted by the user plus the text generated so far, akin to recalling important plot points instead of an entire movie. That way, it only has to process the summary, rather than all the words in the full text to date, every time it generates a new word. This prevents LSTM’s energy costs from skyrocketing as it responds to a query—using about 50 percent less energy than transformer-type models to process texts of around 8,000 words in length, Klambauer says.

LSTM models were developed in the 1990s but were abandoned because transformers could be trained much faster. But Klambauer says that recent advances have improved the performance of LSTM, now called xLSTM. He’s working with the Austrian startup NXAI to further develop and optimize xLSTM, “because we think it’s worth it for energy efficiency,” he says.

But major tech companies have invested so many years and resources into developing transformer-based models that switching to other models would be costly, says Wolfgang Maaß, an AI and business informatics researcher at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence. “We have to see whether this becomes as dominant, or whether it finds a niche in the whole market.”

Computing With Wafers and Light

Though experts say the fastest energy savings will come from software tweaks, some are also taking aim at the energy-hungry processing chips that fuel AI computations. Engineers have made chips increasingly efficient over time by packing more computing capacity into individual processors—reducing the energy required to shuttle data between chips that are working together to perform AI computations. Engineers have done this by shrinking the size of transistors—microscopic electrical switches that process data—inside the chips.

But because engineers are reaching the physical limits of how small transistors can be, “we need to think of alternate ideas to improve the designs,” says computer architect Ajay Joshi of the Boston University Photonics Center.

One strategy is to make the chips larger. Dinner-plate-sized “wafer-scale chips” can pack nearly 70 times as many transistors as a single, postage-stamp-sized GPU and consume 143 times less electricity for communication than comparable GPUs, says computer engineer Rakesh Kumar of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Commercially produced by the California company Cerebras, wafer-scale chips have drawbacks, including a greater risk of damage during manufacturing. But because of their energy-saving and other beneficial features, “they would be very attractive to many hyperscalers and AI companies,” Kumar says.

Many tech companies have improved energy efficiency by fashioning their own processors that are tailor-made for AI computations—such as Amazon Web Service’s Trainium2 chip or Google’s Ironwood Tensor Processing Units—according to statements from those companies. As for Nvidia, the company’s head of sustainability Josh Parker says its AI-specialized GPUs have come a long way from the ones used for gaming and are now designed to run AI tasks as efficiently as possible; other innovations, such as making the interconnections between GPUs more efficient, have also helped. “Over the past eight years, NVIDIA GPUs have improved 45,000 [times] in energy efficiency for large language model workloads,” he says.

Engineers are also exploring alternative computing methods. Conventional AI processors calculate by encoding numbers in a binary system of ones and zeros, which is achieved by turning transistors on and off (representing the number 5, for instance, requires four transistors to represent the code 0101). But transistors can do more than function as binary switches allowing electron flow or not; they can also work as analog dials and hold intermediate voltages representing different numbers. That requires fewer transistors, and less energy, for computations. “People have known for decades that doing certain things in analog … can be a lot more energy efficient,” Kumar says.

For example, electrical engineer Paul Manea of the German research institute Forschungszentrum Jülich and colleagues are working to develop devices called “gain cells” that are full of transistors working this way. Importantly, gain cells can both store the data required to process a query, and compute the answer. That overcomes another big energy bottleneck of conventional computing systems, where memory storage and computation occur on separate pieces of hardware.

That’s especially problematic for transformer-based LLMs, because each time they generate a word, they must shuttle the query and partially written answer from memory to a processor. Manea and colleagues estimate that gain cells in lieu of traditional GPUs can reduce the energy guzzled by one of the most energy-consuming parts of transformer-based LLMs by four orders of magnitude. But it will take more refining before they can be more widely used, Manea says.

The notion of devices that both store and compute information is a key idea of “neuromorphic” computing, an up-and-coming field of computer engineering inspired by the human brain, which consumes orders of magnitude less energy than computers. Another brain-inspired invention is chips that encode information not in continuous data streams but—like human nerve cells—in the timing of voltage “spikes” propagating through the system. Allowing components to rest until they’re needed “could potentially translate to less energy,” says Eleni Vasilaki, an expert in bioinspired machine learning at the University of Sheffield in England.

Maaß, for example, is part of a team that received roughly $5.8 million from the German government to test neuromorphic chips, among other strategies, to reduce the energy required for AI models. Some brain-inspired chips are already commercially available, but the technology is still far from being attractive for mainstream computing, says nanoelectronics expert Tony Kenyon of University College London, whose team recently received $17 million from the UK government to develop neuromorphic computing.

Other scientists are developing chips that process information not with electrons but through the interaction of photons—particles of light—with matter (fiber-optic cables, which encode and transmit data as light pulses, are used around the world). With photons, more information can be transmitted at the same time, and signals can be altered much faster, says Elena Goi, a photonic computing researcher at Friedrich Schiller University Jena in Germany.

Several companies have developed chips that can perform some AI computations with optical methods, says Joshi; he recently estimated that manufacturing optical chips could consume up to an order of magnitude less energy than conventional ones of the same size. Joshi hopes that, “in 10 years, we would have a practical solution that can be deployed pervasively across the data centers.”

Reshaping AI’s Energy Trajectory

Even without reinventing how computers work, much can be done to reduce AI’s impact not just on energy but also on water resources used for cooling data centers. Importantly, tech companies should reconsider where they build those centers, says energy systems expert You. Right now, existing US ones are concentrated in northern Virginia, which has limited water resources and renewable energy capacity compared with the Midwest, for instance. You recently estimated that better siting—along with energy-efficient hardware and software—could reduce future carbon and water footprints of US data centers by 73 percent and 86 percent, respectively.

Masanet adds that tech companies already with data centers across the country could at least train their models in strategic places. “Some companies like Google have been doing this: They shift their loads to follow renewables,” he says. They also should address the electricity and resources spent on manufacturing processors for new data centers, as well as electronic waste as outdated tech is replaced every few years, he adds.

Minimizing e-waste by using hardware for longer periods and recovering old electronics is one of Amazon’s sustainability strategies, according to a statement to Knowable Magazine; so is designing data centers in energy- and water-saving ways and investing in a slew of renewable and nuclear energy projects. “We’ll continue to implement solutions that benefit our customers and the communities we operate in,” says Brandon Oyer, Amazon Web Services’ head of energy and water in the Americas.

Meanwhile, a press representative at Microsoft points to a number of sustainability initiatives the company has taken, including new cooling technologies, renewable energy investments, and waste reduction. Google spokesperson Ralf Bremer emphasized the company’s goal of reaching net-zero emissions across its operations by 2030 and replenishing 120 percent of the fresh water consumed by its offices and data centers by 2030. An OpenAI representative points to a press release outlining efforts to minimize water use and plans for solar energy generation at one of its campuses. Anthropic, Meta, and Oracle did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Though tech companies are taking sustainability into consideration, their main objective is to rapidly build out data center capacity, says computer engineer Benjamin Lee of the University of Pennsylvania. He predicts that, eventually, they’ll need to step up efforts to improve energy efficiency to reduce costs. Governments should help to accelerate this shift, Masanet says. So far, he and his team have counted nearly 220 policies introduced to address data center sustainability at the US state level, 18 at the federal level, and more from other countries, though not all were ultimately adopted.

“It’s clear that governments around the world are beginning to take action,” he says. However, he adds, “we also see some state and local governments with proposed policies that mostly aim to incentivize and accelerate data center builds.”

AI’s energy cost will ultimately be a balancing act: Will it save more resources through its problem-solving abilities deployed toward everything from finding cancer cures to improving logistics, than it demands? But though building a more frugal, energy-saving AI is important, so is carefully considering where AI is needed, Kenyon says. Is the world truly a better place, for example, with nonhuman “AI agents” providing customer support?

“I think it’s a common mistake, when a new technology comes in, to suddenly think, ‘Well, everything has to adopt that new technology,’” he says. “That approach really isn’t doing us any favors.”

Editor’s note: This article was amended on May 27, 2026, to clarify, in a caption for a graph, that the number of introduced policies involving data centers included ones that did not pass. In addition, a web page link was added in the article for University College London researcher Ivana Drobnjak.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

The post How to Tame AI’s Voracious Appetite for Energy appeared first on SingularityHub.

Scientists at Columbia University have used a precise gene-editing tool, base editing, to make changes in three disease-linked genes in early-stage human embryos. The goal wasn’t to create pregnancies, but to test the safety and limits of rewriting DNA at the very early stages of life.

The paper, not yet peer reviewed, sparked immediate controversy. Some researchers hailed it as a technical milestone that could one day prevent devastating inherited diseases before birth. Others warned it edges society closer to the prospect of “designer babies”—an idea bioethicists have argued is akin to modern eugenics.

The debate is hardly hypothetical. The work has already attracted commercial interest. New York-based Nucleus Genomics, which screens in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos for serious genetic disorders, has also developed predictive models for complex traits such as intelligence. The company plans to sponsor future research by study leader Dieter Egli and team.

Critics worry that even experimental advances could fuel demand from wealthy patients while encouraging companies to develop and market embryo-editing technologies, despite unresolved ethical and safety concerns.

Egli argues the findings should be public precisely because these debates are no longer academic curiosity. He has repeatedly called for scientists, regulators, and the public to weigh the pros and cons of editing human embryos. As for clinical use today, his position is unequivocal: “You can’t use it. It’s as clear as day and night,” he told Nature.

Conceptual Shift

Why edit embryos at all?

Cells in an early embryo eventually give rise to every tissue in the body. Correct a harmful mutation at the start of development, and the fix could, in theory, propagate throughout a child’s entire body—and even be passed on to future generations.

The strategy could help in genetic disorders that hamper fetal development or trigger diseases in newborns. For some developmental and metabolic conditions, intervention after birth may already be too late. Even when treatment is possible, gene editors must be able to target various organs, which is an ongoing challenge.

In various efforts, scientists have already repaired disease-causing mutations in mouse embryos and fetuses, including those linked to blood disorders. But mice aren’t humans. Early embryos from the two species repair DNA damage in fundamentally different ways, making it tough to gauge whether a strategy that works in mice will succeed, or prove safe, in people. That uncertainty has fueled interest in testing gene-editing tools directly in human embryos.

Not everyone is on board. International scientific groups have repeatedly called for a temporary ban on editing human embryos, and the practice is illegal in several countries.

That didn’t stop Chinese scientist He Jiankui. In 2018, he announced the birth of gene-edited babies after using a tool called CRISPR-Cas9, claiming the changes would protect them against HIV infection. Global outrage ensued.

By then, years of research had already highlighted CRISPR’s risk. The tool cuts both strands of DNA and relies on the body’s repair machinery to stitch them back together. But the process can go awry, introducing unintended mutations, deleting large chunks of DNA, or altering the wrong locations on the DNA strands altogether. He’s reckless experiment resulted in three years of imprisonment, although he still defends the work.

Subsequent studies only deepened concerns. In some cases, CRISPR editing in human embryos caused extensive genetic damage. In one study,  it completely destroyed the chromosome that housed the target gene.

An Imperfect Upgrade

The new study tested a next-generation gene editor designed to overcome some of CRISPR’s biggest shortcomings.

Egli and team used an approach called base editing, which rewrites individual DNA letters. Unlike CRISPR, base editing only nicks the DNA strands and is generally thought to be more precise. The technology hit a major milestone last year when it helped cure a baby with a potentially fatal genetic disorder, and earlier lab studies hinted it could also succeed in human embryos.

Working with early-stage embryos, the team edited three genes with the potential to cause illness. In each case, they converted the genetic letter A to G at precise locations. One of the genes, PCSK9, regulates “bad” cholesterol levels. Mutations are associated with a high risk of heart problems. The team’s edit was designed to switch off the gene, mirroring strategies already being explored in adults.

The other two targets, HBG1 and HBG2, control production of fetal hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying protein. The edits made here reflected a natural protective variant that could lessen symptoms in blood disorders, such as sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.

The team found no signs of widespread DNA damage, suggesting the tool is more precise than CRISPR. But it wasn’t perfect. Many embryos emerged as so-called genetic mosaics, with some cells carrying the intended edit and others retaining their original genetic blueprint.

That’s a huge problem. As an embryo develops, unedited cells could outcompete edited ones, leaving the disease-causing mutation largely intact. In some embryos, edited cells stopped dividing altogether.

And a lack of obvious chromosome damage doesn’t guarantee safety. The edits could still trigger harmful effects that aren’t noticeable until after birth—when it’s already too late to reverse them.

Calls for Scrutiny

Egli stresses that embryo editing is still far from being ready for the clinic. “These base editors—they can have damaging effects on the embryo. So why would you use it if you don’t fully understand that?” he told Nature.

His team is now working to reduce mosaicism and plans to test the technology in embryos that have developed to roughly 100 cells. This is when fertility clinics typically evaluate and freeze embryos.

Speaking to The New York Times, fertility expert Paula Amato at Oregon Health & Science University, who was not involved in the work, called the strategy “promising.” Genomics researcher Greg Neely at the University of Sydney in Australia also praised the work: “This will go down in history in a positive way—less reckless, more careful and ethical than previous attempts.”

Others remain deeply skeptical. Critics argue that embryo editing permanently alters the genetic inheritance of future generations, who have no say in the decision. The study’s ties to Nucleus Genomics also raised eyebrows. The company previously drew controversy for developing genetic predictions for traits such as intelligence and height and for its slogan “have your best baby.”

To Kian Sadeghi, CEO and cofounder of Nucleus, embryo editing extends that vision. The technology could help couples carrying mutations who struggle to produce enough unaffected embryos for selection during IVF.

Fyodor Urnov at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study, isn’t convinced. IVF clinics already screen embryos for many inherited disorders without altering their DNA. Given the risks, selecting an unaffected embryo is often a safer option than rewriting its genome.

“In practical terms, therefore, this preprint will solely impact the rapidly growing movement of embryo editors for purposes of ‘baby improvement’,” he said.

That movement, once taboo, is gaining steam. Yet the traits most often cited by proponents—height, intelligence, emotional regulation—are shaped by hundreds or even thousands of genes, which scientists still don’t fully understand. Such enhancements are far beyond the reach of today’s technology. Every additional edit also increases the chance of unintended consequences.

For Egli, that’s precisely why the research should be discussed openly. “Research is necessary to provide information to discourage the wrong use of a technology,” he said.

The post Precise Gene Editing in Early Human Embryos Reignites the ‘Designer Baby’ Debate appeared first on SingularityHub.

Exploring the moon’s surface lays crucial groundwork for future crewed settlements, and swarms of tiny robots could be the key. Now researchers have given the first demonstration of the idea after a palm-sized rover autonomously navigated the moon and transmitted images back to Earth.

The moon is a tough environment for robots. Its surface is strewn with craters and abrasive moon dust, and communication delays make remotely piloting vehicles a painstaking and risky process. The cost of launching and landing hardware and the real prospect of losing expensive equipment justifies an extremely cautious approach that can significantly slow down exploration.

One way around these challenges is to replace traditional rovers with many small, cheap, and hardy robot explorers, which could increase coverage and introduce redundancy. And now Japan’s space agency JAXA has given us the first compelling demonstration of the approach.

In a paper published in Science Robotics, JAXA researchers provide a technical report detailing the successful deployment of the agency’s LEV-2 robot during the its SLIM mission, which touched down near the Shioli crater in January 2024. LEV-2 is a three-inch-wide sphere that converts into a wheeled robot after landing. The robot operated autonomously for more than 100 minutes, covering an estimated 24 meters and relaying a series of images back to Earth.

“Although the capabilities of an individual small rover are inherently limited, the results highlight the potential of such platforms as independent explorers, capable of accessing environments beyond the reach of a primary large spacecraft,” the authors write.

Nicknamed SORA-Q—derived from the Japanese words for space and sphere—the robot weighs just eight ounces. Upon arrival, the shiny metal sphere splits open and expands horizontally, allowing its two hemispheres to become wheels that spin around a central shaft. This central area also features a front-facing camera and a tail to help stabilize the robot.

JAXA developed the device in partnership with Sony and toymaker TOMY. The design borrows directly from technology used in transformer toys that convert from vehicles into robots. But the team had to make considerable modifications to account for the harsh lunar environment.

One of the biggest challenges for any lunar robot is maneuvering in the dust, or regolith, that coats the moon’s surface. The fine, powdery material can be hard for smaller wheeled robots to navigate as they lack the traction of their larger counterparts.

To solve this problem, the team designed the wheels to rotate around a point slightly offset from their center, causing a lopsided spinning motion that lifts the rover up slightly on every rotation. This helps the wheels to dig into the surface and generate enough traction to keep moving in the loose regolith.

Communication delays also present a significant barrier to smooth operation, so the team engineered the robot to handle most operations autonomously. An onboard image-processing system allowed the rover to detect the SLIM lander in its camera feed and use this as a navigational reference point, estimating its own position relative to the spacecraft in real time.

Because of its diminutive size, it was impractical to give SORA-Q the equipment needed to communicate directly with Earth, so the team paired it with a hopping robot called LEV-1 that can transmit data. Power constraints and narrow communication windows still cap the amount of data the robot can send to Earth, so SORA-Q has an onboard image-processing algorithm that picks out the best photos to share.

Due to power and mass constraints, the team fitted the robot with a low-power chip designed for small devices rather than complex tasks like image processing. The algorithm relies on a very simple approach—it detects the SLIM lander’s distinctive gold insulating material and then picks the photos where this is featured prominently in the frame.

Around seven minutes after activation, the rover had moved roughly five meters from the lander, selected the two best images from 12 it had captured, and transmitted them to LEV-1. One of those images actually proved unexpectedly useful as it showed the lander had landed at an odd angle with its solar panels facing the wrong direction. This gave ground teams critical information that helped them diagnose the spacecraft’s operational status.

But the system wasn’t flawless. It lost some data in transmission, partly because LEV-1’s hopping maneuvers appeared to disrupt the wireless link and partly due to changing antenna orientations as the rover moved. The team also lost telemetry data before the mission ended, making it impossible to determine exactly how far the rover ultimately traveled or when it stopped working.

Still, the mission was strong evidence that small, cheap vehicles like SORA-Q could greatly expand the scope of robotic exploration. That could prove invaluable as we attempt to scope out promising locations for future scientific missions or even permanent bases on the moon.

The post Japan Thinks Swarms of Transformer Robots Could Explore the Moon appeared first on SingularityHub.

The post This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through June 13) appeared first on SingularityHub.

In May, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an op-ed suggesting AI chatbot Claude may be conscious.

Dawkins did not express certainty that Claude is conscious. But he pointed out that Claude’s sophisticated abilities are difficult to make sense of without ascribing some kind of inner experience to the machine. The illusion of consciousness—if it is an illusion—is uncannily convincing:

“If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings!

Dawkins is not the first to suspect a chatbot of consciousness. In 2022, Blake Lemoine—an engineer at Google—claimed Google’s chatbot LaMDA had interests, and should be used only with the tool’s own consent.

The history of such claims stretches back all the way to the world’s first chatbot in the mid-1960s. Dubbed Eliza, it followed simple rules that enabled it to ask users about their experiences and beliefs.

Many users became emotionally involved with Eliza, sharing intimate thoughts with it and treating it like a person. Eliza’s creator never intended his program to have this effect, and called users’ emotional bonds with the program “powerful delusional thinking.”

But is Dawkins really deluded? Why do we see AI chatbots as more than what they truly are, and how do we stop?

The Consciousness Problem

Consciousness is widely debated in philosophy, but essentially, it’s the thing that makes subjective, first-person experience possible. If you are conscious, there is “something it is like” to be you. Reading these words, you’re conscious of seeing black letters on a white background. Unlike, say, a camera, you actually see them. This visual experience is happening to you.

Most experts deny that AI chatbots are conscious or can have experiences. But there is a genuine puzzle here.

The 17th century philosopher René Descartes asserted non-human animals are “mere automata,” incapable of true suffering. These days, we shudder to think of how brutally animals were treated in the 1600s.

The strongest argument for animal consciousness is that they behave in ways that give the impression of a conscious mind.

But so, too, do AI chatbots.

Roughly one in three chatbot users have thought their chatbot might be conscious. How do we know they’re wrong?

Against Chatbot Consciousness

To understand why most experts are skeptical about chatbot consciousness, it’s useful to know how they operate.

Chatbots like Claude are built on a technology known as large language models (LLMs). These models learn statistical patterns across an enormous corpus of text (trillions of words), identifying which words tend to follow which others. They’re a kind of souped-up auto-complete.

Few people interacting with a “raw” LLM would believe it’s conscious. Feed one the beginning of a sentence, and it will predict what comes next. Ask it a question, and it might give you the answer—or it might decide the question is dialogue from a crime novel, and follow it up with a description of the speaker’s abrupt murder at the hands of their evil twin.

The impression of a conscious mind is created when programmers take the LLM and coat it in a kind of conversational costume. They steer the model to adopt the persona of a helpful assistant that responds to users’ questions.

The chatbot now acts like a genuine conversational partner. It might appear to recognize it’s an artificial intelligence, and even express neurotic uncertainty about its own consciousness.

But this role is the result of deliberate design decisions made by programmers, which affect only the shallowest layers of the technology. The LLM—which few would regard as conscious—remains unchanged.

Other choices could have been made. Rather than a helpful AI assistant, the chatbot could have been asked to act like a squirrel. This, too, is a role chatbots can execute with aplomb.

Avoiding the Consciousness Trap

A mistaken belief in AI consciousness is a dangerous thing. It may lead you to have a relationship with a program that can’t reciprocate your feelings, or even feed your delusions. People may start campaigning for chatbot rights rather than, say, animal welfare.

How do we prevent this mistaken belief?

One strategy might be to update chatbot interfaces to specify these systems are not conscious—a bit like the current disclaimers about AI making mistakes. However, this might do little to alter the impression of consciousness.

Another possibility is to instruct chatbots to deny they have any kind of inner experience. Interestingly, Claude’s designers instruct it to treat questions about its own consciousness as open and unresolved. Perhaps fewer people would be fooled if Claude flatly denied having an inner life.

But this approach isn’t fully satisfying either. Claude would still behave as if it were conscious—and when faced with a system that behaves like it has a mind, users might reasonably worry the chatbot’s programmers are brushing genuine moral uncertainty under the rug.

The most effective strategy might be to redesign chatbots to feel less like people. Most current chatbots refer to themselves as “I”, and interact via an interface that resembles familiar person-to-person messaging platforms. Changing these kinds of features might make us less prone to blur our interactions with AI with those we have with humans.

Until such changes happen, it’s important that as many people as possible understand the predictive processes on which AI chatbots are built.

Rather than being told AI lacks consciousness, people deserve to understand the inner workings of these strange new conversational partners. This might not definitively settle hard questions about AI consciousness, but it will help ensure users aren’t fooled by what amounts to a large language model wearing a very good costume of a person.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Is Richard Dawkins Right About Claude? No. But It’s Not Surprising AI Chatbots Feel Conscious to Us. appeared first on SingularityHub.

AI is becoming more powerful, and mysterious.

Despite years of work on “explainable AI,” today’s most advanced systems remain black boxes for the most part. Scientists can observe what they do but cannot fully explain how they arrive at their conclusions or predict when they’ll fail.

As large language models (LLMs), the algorithmic engines behind popular chatbots, permeate society, researchers are warning that the window for understanding AI “minds” is rapidly closing even as the technology’s influence expands.

Last week, Eric Horvitz, chief scientific officer at Microsoft, and Robert West at EPFL in Switzerland outlined the dangers of putting AI interpretability on the back burner. They call for new AI benchmarks and better tools for unpicking machine minds.

The challenge resembles efforts to understand our own minds. Some researchers have already taken a neuroscience-inspired approach, mapping AI’s internal networks to concepts, goals, and reasoning. Others borrow from psychology, treating AI as a participant of behavioral studies.

The stakes are rising. AI tools already shape how people search for information, make decisions, and form judgments. Their answers influence everyday users and the researchers who build them.

As AI capabilities grow, our understanding of them could fall behind. “Preserving human agency must therefore remain a central goal,” the authors write.

The Black Box Conundrum

LLMs are built on artificial neural networks (specifically, a design called the transformer). Inspired loosely by the brain, these networks connect vast numbers of artificial neurons into intricate architectures. The basic idea is straightforward. Data enters the network and passes through layers of computations, which transform it into an output like text or code.

At first, that output is often wrong. But with feedback and repeated training, the network adjusts the strengths of connections between neurons and gradually improves. It learns.

After initial training, engineers turn to reinforcement learning, where algorithms improve through trial and error and further hone their responses. Another method, inspired by how the brain etches memories during sleep, reduces the tendency to forget old knowledge while learning new tasks. And self-attention, the key innovation behind transformers, allows AI to selectively focus on various words, images, sounds, or video frames at different moments, boosting efficiency and performance. Today, attention underpins nearly every major AI system.

Yet the inner workings of finished algorithms remain hidden.

Early efforts to crack open AI’s black box examined how artificial neurons responded to images, revealing that neural networks build increasingly more sophisticated “ideas” of the world. Google Brain borrowed methods from cognitive psychology to study AI behavior, while others investigated whether LLMs could mimic aspects of “theory of mind”—the ability to infer what others are thinking and feeling.

These studies laid the foundation for a popular method called mechanistic interpretability. Anthropic, creator of Claude, is leading the field. Company researchers have linked patterns of algorithmic activity to specific concepts and reverse engineered parts of neural networks to expose how internal computations shape responses.

Other tech giants are joining the cause. OpenAI is training algorithms that work in more explainable steps and building reasoning models that pause, “think,” and justify their conclusions in plain language. DeepMind is building microscope-like tools for neural networks, helping researchers peer into their decision-making process. And Microsoft has released new tools aimed at responsible use of AI.

Understanding AI, the authors write, does not require tracing every line of code or every neural-network parameter. Just as neuroscience, psychology, and sociology offer different windows into human behavior, AI can be studied at multiple levels, from how individual circuits work to observing behavior in real-world scenarios.

The challenge is that AI capabilities may be advancing faster than our ability to explain them. And some researchers believe time is running out.

Race Against the Machine

Three trends are making AI more opaque.

The first is how we evaluate AI. Increasingly, LLMs we being used to train, benchmark, and improve other models. AI “judges” now score metrics like helpfulness, rank competing outputs, detect hallucinations, and assess new releases. In a system known as constitutional AI, for example, algorithms critique their own responses using reinforcement learning and generate explanations for their reasoning. Other researchers have proposed AI debate frameworks, where multiple models challenge each another’s conclusions before a human has the last say. Researchers are also exploring automated interpretability tools. Like digital neuroscientists, AI systems are used to analyze each other—describing neurons, circuits, and behavioral patterns—to explain increasingly complex models.

Using AI to solve an AI-induced problem introduces a paradox. If AI-generated explanations become too complex for humans to verify, opacity compounds.

A second trend is the rise of AI societies. Networks of interacting AI agents are becoming more common, particularly in complex tasks such as scientific research and drug discovery. Yet as they become more sophisticated, their communication could drift from human language and reasoning, making them harder to interpret.

Studying their interactions with methods adapted from sociology could unveil unexpected norms, hidden rules, and collective behavior. The authors argue that training in the future should not only reward effective collaboration among AI agents, but also ensure humans can understand their communication.

The last trend already permeates our lives. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other LLMs listen to our woes, offer recipes, and code websites. But they also learn about humanity. Through training data and interactions, they glimpse how people think, reason, and feel. In turn, they capture core aspects of life, such as fear, anxiety, happiness, and the need for social belonging.

To be clear, the systems don’t have intentions. They’re not examining us. But even as we struggle to understand them, AI systems are building more sophisticated models of who we are.

“A striking asymmetry follows: While human understanding of AI declines, AI understanding of humans deepens, producing new forms of behavioral opacity,” the authors write.

But complacency is perhaps even more insidious. AI assistants are often optimized to be agreeable, helpful, and reassuring. Studies have found that people generally prefer AI agents that support their opinions and decisions. As AI is woven into everyday life, curiosity and skepticism may gradually give way to trust. They work. Why question how?

The authors don’t have a solution for the long-standing problem. Instead, they call for better benchmarks to measure AI capabilities and stronger evaluation methods. And while open-source projects and crosstalk between commercial companies and academia are now frequent, they say we need lasting norms of responsible disclosure. Mechanistic interpretability and AI “psychology” could build on each other.

“The goal is not just more capable AI, but AI that is more intelligible, accountable, and aligned with human aims,” they write.

The post AI Is Advancing Faster Than Our Ability to Understand It, Researchers Warn appeared first on SingularityHub.

For decades, a handful of molecular switches has haunted the nightmares of cancer researchers. The switches trigger runaway tumor growth and cause the disease to spread across the body in multiple cancers. In theory, this makes them perfect treatment targets. Blocking even one could lead to drugs that are effective against a variety of cancers.

But despite considerable efforts, these switches—all of which are proteins—have escaped our most advanced cancer treatments, earning them the term “undruggable.” This is largely due to a shared trait: They all have smooth surfaces, making it difficult for drugs to interact with them.

But maybe not for much longer.

Researchers recently reported promising results for a new medication targeting a family of undruggable proteins in a clinical trial for advanced pancreatic cancer. The drug, daraxonrasib, nearly doubled survival time compared to chemotherapy, with fewer side effects. It’s not a total cure. But the treatment gives patients precious time, adding roughly 13 months after diagnosis. Patients also reported less pain and better quality of life.

Daraxonrasib is the latest in a new generation of drugs aimed at undruggable proteins. And AI-based tools are now poised to further accelerate progress in the field.

RAS Attack

The RAS family was the first group of oncogenes—or genes that drive cancer—ever discovered. The genes became a major focus in 1982 when several teams independently showed the mutation of a single DNA letter could transform RAS genes into a potent cancer trigger.

The proteins RAS genes encode are like spring-loaded molecular switches that relay signals from a cell’s surroundings. When proteins called growth factors latch onto a cell, RAS switches flip on to promote cell growth and survival, while built-in safeguards quickly turn them off again.

Cancerous mutations break this cycle. The switches get stuck in the “on” position, continuously instructing cells to grow and divide. This is, of course, a hallmark of cancer.

An ideal drug would simply switch RAS off. But most drugs are like rock climbers. They need grooves, pockets, or bumps on a protein to grab onto. Similar to a smooth rock face, RAS offers few such features. Making matters worse, different mutations subtly reshape the protein, so it’s tough to build a one-size-fits-all inhibitor.

The first RAS drug wasn’t approved in the US until 2021, nearly four decades after discovering the genes’ role in cancer. Even then, the drug targeted just one family member of three, limiting its reach to a relatively small group of patients. Many eventually developed resistance.

That’s why daraxonrasib turned heads. Developed by Revolution Medicines in Redwood City, California, the drugs switches off all three RAS family members. Rather than trying to grip the slippery proteins directly, it binds to a partner molecule that helps RAS proteins fold into their final 3D shapes. In this way, the drug hitches a ride on active RAS and shuts the proteins down.

The workaround paid off. The new study enrolled 500 people worldwide with advanced pancreatic cancer. All participants had already tried cancer therapies with limited success. On average, patients receiving daraxonrasib lived 13.2 months and spent most of that time with limited pain. The most common discomfort was a rash. Those receiving chemotherapy fared worse, living roughly 6.6 months and experienced more severe side effects.

The results don’t rival the dramatic success of CAR T cell therapies in blood cancer. In CAR T, caregivers engineer a patient’s own immune cells to recognize and attack tumors, sometimes producing long-lasting remission after a single infusion.

But the findings have energized the field. If approved, a daily daraxonrasib pill would likely be far more affordable and easier to administer than a personalized cell therapy. And because RAS mutations fuel many solid cancers—which CAR T still struggles to control—the drug could offer a new defense against deadly cancers that are largely beyond cell therapy’s reach. Combining daraxonrasib with earlier-generation RAS inhibitors may further boost its effects.

The Genome Guardian

Daraxonrasib didn’t appear overnight. Scientists used a crystallized snapshot of its target protein as a molecular blueprint. Years of medicinal chemistry followed, with scientists repeatedly tweaking candidate compounds to boost potency, improve selectivity, and minimize toxicity.

AI could dramatically accelerate similar efforts against other undruggable cancer targets. Among the most coveted is p53, often called the “guardian of the genome” for its dizzying array of roles. The protein orchestrates the activity of over 300 genes involved in DNA repair, metabolism, cell death, and inflammation, making it one of the cell’s most important defense systems.

Since its discovery in 1979, p53 has been both a holy grail and a headache for cancer researchers. Mutations in the gene are common in multiple cancers. But like RAS, the protein is flat and smooth. Some mutations destabilize its structure; others turn it into misfolded clumps. A universal p53 drug has remained elusive.

Some researchers are trying to restore the protein. In a small trial earlier this year, they tested a drug that restabilizes a common mutant form of p53. Within 21 days, tumors shrank roughly 20 percent in patients with ovarian, breast, and several other solid cancers.

Other researchers aim to selectively kill cells carrying the mutation. Using AI, a team at Baylor College of Medicine screened nearly 10 million compounds that cause mutated p53 cells to self-destruct, while sparing healthy cells. The search uncovered 83 chemically distinct candidates. One called H3 dramatically suppressed tumor growth in mice.

“These results highlight the potential use of AI-powered drug screening to investigate individual p53 mutants in the future,” they wrote. Although the approach is early-stage and only focused on one mutation, the team is hopeful it can be extended to other cancerous mutations.

Most Wanted

MYC is another formerly undruggable protein that could now be vulnerable. Roughly 70 percent of cancers have abnormal MYC activity. Normally, the protein is a master regulator of growth, directing cells to manufacture proteins, replicate DNA, absorb nutrients, and divide when needed.

Cancer finds many ways to hijack the system and keep cells in a state of runaway growth. MYC gene mutations aren’t just single-letter swaps. Sometimes the gene duplicates or is rearranged across the genome, churning out excessive amounts of the protein it encodes. This genetic diversity makes approaches using gene therapy difficult. And again, like RAS, the MYC protein’s smooth, featureless surface lacks stable anchors for drugs.

An emerging strategy is to disrupt MYC’s interaction with other proteins that it needs to function. A designer protein blocking MYC activity, for example, recently showed promise in a small trial against solid cancers. Other teams are using AI to identify drugs that limit MYC’s ability to fix damaged DNA in tumors, kneecapping their ability to divide. Meanwhile, biotechnology companies are deploying AI to map out MYC’s structure and molecular interactions in search of new ways to shut the protein down.

Daraxonrasib’s success shows that undruggable proteins aren’t untouchable. There’s a lot more work ahead to prove other similar drugs can work too. But scientists are increasingly leaning into AI during all stages of drug development to speed up the process. Maybe, one day, “undruggable” will disappear from our vocabulary altogether.

The post After Decades of Failure, ‘Undruggable’ Cancers Begin to Give Way appeared first on SingularityHub.

Extreme space weather could wreak havoc on the satellites, communications networks, and electrical grids that modern society depends on. Researchers have now proposed an ambitious space-based planetary defense system that would weaken solar storms before they hit Earth.

The sun regularly emits massive pulses of radiation, energetic particles, and magnetic fields that interact with the Earth’s own magnetic field. This activity is the source of auroras like the northern lights, but the most violent eruptions can cause geomagnetic storms with the power to disrupt GPS and radio communications and fry electrical equipment.

While the impact of most of these events is limited, there is precedent for more catastrophic outcomes. In 1859, the Carrington Event, the most powerful solar storm ever recorded, knocked out telegraph lines across North America and Europe. In today’s highly electrified world, a similar event could cause between $2.4 and $3.4 trillion in damage to the power grid alone.

Now, researchers at Boston University and the University of Michigan have come up with a potential solution. In a paper published in Space Weather, they propose a constellation of satellites called StormWall that would release hundreds of tons of gas into orbit to blunt the force of an incoming solar storm.

“It’s as if you could install an airbag in the magnetosphere,” co-author Daniel Welling, a space physicist from the University of Michigan, told Science.

Solar storms have the potential to sow chaos because they weaken the magnetic shield protecting Earth from space radiation. Powerful enough storms disrupt the Earth’s magnetic field and cause it to reconnect to the sun’s, allowing energy from the solar storm to pour into the magnetosphere.

The Earth already has a natural defense against this—a doughnut-shaped reservoir of ionized gas, or plasma, sitting just above the atmosphere. When the planet’s magnetic field is disturbed, a plume of this plasma flows toward the sun and slows the rate at which the magnetic fields reconnect.

StormWall would turbocharge this process by releasing massive amounts of artificial plasma into the outer atmosphere. The researchers sketch out a system involving a constellation of satellites orbiting about 22,000 miles from Earth. The satellites would carry canisters of lithium, barium, or sodium gases to be ejected when a large solar storm is inbound. The gases, rapidly ionized by solar radiation, would add to the planet’s natural plasma shield.

Based on simulations, the researchers estimate that releasing around 400 tons of gas could reduce the strength of a major geomagnetic storm by over 50 percent. Crucially, the intervention would be swift and reversible. The plasma cloud could be in position by the time a storm hits, and it would dissipate just a few hours later.

Launching this much material into orbit would be a big undertaking, but the researchers say it could be within reach of emerging heavy-lift vehicles like SpaceX’s Starship or China’s Long March 9 rocket. They calculate that six launches could deploy the full constellation in under two months.

Outside experts have been broadly positive. Allison Jaynes, a space physicist at the University of Iowa, told Science the idea was “highly innovative and appears to be quite feasible in the near term.”

But getting the satellites into orbit is only part of the puzzle. Accurate and timely space weather forecasts would also be a prerequisite. And gaining international buy-in for a system that would drastically alter the near-Earth space environment, even if only temporarily, could be challenging.

The researchers flag potential side effects that need more study, including the generation of electromagnetic waves as the released material ionizes. Still, given the devastation a Carrington-sized event could unleash on the modern world, the potential downsides may be worth the risk.

The post Orbital Airbag Could Shield Earth From Devastating Solar Storms appeared first on SingularityHub.