Feedback is New Scientist Popular Sideways monitoring the latest in science and technology news. You can email Feedback@newscientist.com to share items you think will intrigue our readers.

Rainy Cat and Dog

Christian Stichensen Nielsen appears to be a wise figure. A researcher at Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, he investigates “The role of behavioral change in mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity.” In simpler terms, how can we adopt more eco-friendly lifestyles?

Feedback was intrigued by a recent LinkedIn post from Nielsen, where he seemingly discussed “A paper on how dog ownership contributes to extreme weather.” He referenced a headline from Kxan, a television station in Austin, Texas, stating that the role of dog ownership in extreme weather is vastly underestimated, according to a new study.

This naturally brought to mind the butterfly effect and chaos theory: if butterflies can flap their wings in South America and produce storms in London, could a wagging dog’s tail in Texas really trigger a catastrophic hurricane on the opposite side of the globe?

However, the focus is primarily on carbon footprint. The study published in PNAS Nexus in June aims to help individuals grasp which lifestyle choices most impact the environment. The researchers identified 26 options, which included “buying/not adopting a dog.”

Among the three options that significantly lower carbon emissions, the easiest appeared to be “sorry, but they exhibited high ‘behavioral plasticity.’” Instead of refraining from dog ownership or consuming low-carbon meat, many opted for just one flight. This perspective seems to be lost on many individuals.

This situation resembles a game of telephone, where the original message from researchers gets distorted in the media. The paper is evidently not solely about dogs; it emphasizes a climate behavior literacy intervention to enhance commitment towards effective climate action.

While it may be possible to draw a complex connection between carbon emissions owing to dog ownership (primarily from the production of dog food), we feel that Feedback is barking up the wrong tree.

Other Games

Once again, Feedback lost the game. As previously explained, humanity is perpetually engaged in this game, with the sole objective being to forget you’re playing it. Hence, you’ve just lost the game, and you’ll do so every time you visit this page or think about it for the rest of your life.

If that doesn’t sound appealing, Robin Stevens suggests potential remedies. He references the 391st issue of the webcomic XKCD, titled “Antiminde Bilos.”

This comic features the words “I just won the game. It’s okay! It’s free!” with alt-text saying: “I’m as surprised as you! I didn’t think that was viable.”

Of course, unless someone pens a follow-up stating “No, it wasn’t!”, this issue remains unresolved.

Deeper and Deeper

We’ve all encountered the burgeoning debate around fake images and videos produced by artificial intelligence, an issue destined to grow as AI technology evolves. However, readers might be less aware of the rise of fake AI journalists.

If you haven’t heard of “Margaux Blanchard,” she has emerged as a fictional freelance journalist this year. Blanchard authored articles like Married Couple Play Minecraft (Wired), Business Insider discussing remote work and having a first child at 45, Disneyland Superfan (sfgate), and Challenges Journalists Face in Guatemala (Censorship Index).

It appears Blanchard might not actually exist; her articles seem to be AI-generated, mentioning real entities like Minecraft and Disneyland. Most of her content has been subsequently retracted.

This pattern is increasingly common; on September 6th, the Washington Post reported that numerous articles have been withdrawn from various publications, stemming from a broader scheme of distributing fake stories produced by AI. Thankfully, there’s been no major event demanding reliable coverage.

Moreover, there’s a peculiar twist. In July, Feedback discussed The Velvet Sundown, a band associated with presumably AI-generated songs and promotional content (July 19). This band turned out to be linked to Andrew Freron, who initially claimed responsibility, later retreated, and then retreated again.

Freron blogged on Medium about the ordeal, with three posts: “I’m Andrew Freron, the guy managing the fake Velvet Sundown Twitter.”, “Indeed, I created Velvet Sundown.” and… wait… “Yeah, I’m Margaux Blanchard too. Oops.”

Freron alleges he was commissioned by “major media clients,” questioning, “Can a fully autonomous AI system produce top-tier, reliable news articles? Apparently, the answer is ‘yes.’” However, this all hinges on Freron’s claims, and his Medium account is sparse, raising doubts about his authenticity.

Dominique Ponsford from Press Gazette reported on the emergence of Blanchard’s story in her email newsletter, emphasizing the need for transparency.

The takeaway is clear: feedback can be unreliable. It signifies that a named journalist may not always be trustworthy, especially when hidden behind a vague or odd pseudonym.

Have you pondered about Feedback?

You can send stories to feedback via email at feedback@newscientist.com. Include your home address. Past and current Feedback segments can be found on our website.