Feedback is the New Scientist’s platform for engaging with our readers, especially those passionate about the latest in science and technology news. If you have insights or suggestions for articles that might interest our audience, please reach out via feedback@newscientist.com.

It’s Gas

Our feedback feels bold, so here’s a prediction: the research discussed here is likely to win an Ig Nobel Prize within the next decade. This project aims to objectively measure human flatulence using innovative biosensors, affectionately dubbed “smart underwear.”

We learned about this intriguing study from a press release featuring Carmela Padavik Callahan, a professor at the University of Maryland and a physics reporter. She noted, “Certainly we could do something with this feedback.”

The main challenge is that, unlike established biomarkers such as blood sugar, we lack a benchmark for bloating. Most existing studies depend on self-reporting, which is unreliable since individuals often forget their flatulence events and can’t accurately judge their frequency or size. Additionally, it’s “impossible to record gas while sleeping.” Anyone who has shared a bed with another person knows that everyone farts during slumber.

This is where smart underwear comes in, developed by Brantley Hall and colleagues. According to the press release, it’s a compact device that discreetly fits over standard underwear and utilizes electrochemical sensors to track intestinal gas production around the clock. Curious about the size? The sensor measures just 26 x 29 x 9 millimeters—pretty small, though participants may want to steer clear of skinny jeans during testing.

Initial research revealed that “healthy adults fart an average of 32 times per day,” approximately double previous assumptions. However, this varies widely, with reported farts per day ranging from 4 to 59.

As smart underwear becomes more widely adopted, data will contribute to the larger initiative known as the Human Flatus Atlas. Interested participants can register at flatus.info to track their gas output. This exciting project invites users to discover whether they are hydrogen over-producers, or if they’re more like Zen digesters who barely fart after a meal of baked beans.

Feedback raises questions about the sensor’s durability regarding substantial flatulence. Notably, we recently heard about an individual who ended up in a French hospital after attempting to hide unexploded ordnance from World War I, necessitating bomb disposal assistance. We can’t help but wonder if Smart Underwear was overwhelmed by such an incident.

On a brighter note, the principal researchers are keen to enhance technology in this field. Their website is minimalist, featuring a gas animation, a motivating slogan (“Measure. Master. Thrive.”), and the promise that “the future of gut health is just around the corner.” Feedback suggests a monthly subscription app might be on the horizon.

Ghost in the Machine

As AI companies integrate cutting-edge technology into our daily lives, many find it challenging to grasp its implications. With most people lacking a deep understanding of AI, we often rely on metaphors and analogies to conceptualize these advancements.

A particularly insightful analogy comes from a user on Bluesky, who described AI as “a hungry ghost trapped in a bottle.” This serves as a guideline to help us assess our use of AI wisely. If substituting “AI” with “starving ghost in a jar” still makes sense in your context, you’re likely employing AI appropriately.

“Think of it this way: ‘I have a bunch of hungry ghosts in a bottle. They’re mainly writing SQL queries for me.’ That’s reasonable,” the user elaborates. “But ‘My girlfriend is a hungry ghost in a bottle’? Definitely not okay.”

Equally concerning is the flood of unsolicited AI-generated content we encounter. From fake romance novels to AI summaries of searches and conferences, it’s overwhelming. We need an effective way to summarize our responses to such texts.

In this context, the popular internet abbreviation “tl;dr,” meaning “too long to read,” evolves into “ai;dr,” conveying similar sentiments about AI-generated material.

With countless anecdotes highlighting spectacular failures when using AI for critical tasks, one can only marvel at the mishaps. We’ve heard tales of venture capitalists asking AI tools to organize desktops, only to end up erasing 15 years’ worth of photos with a mere “oops” message (luckily, those files were later recovered). Other accounts reveal AI hallucinating entire months’ worth of analytical data.

Reflecting on this, author Nick Pettigrew shared a compelling perspective on Bluesky: “I believe that AI is the radium of our generation. While it has genuinely useful applications in controlled settings, we’ve carelessly infused it into everything from children’s toys to toothpaste, leading to unforeseen complications that future generations may question.”

There’s certainly more to unpack on this topic, but perhaps the AI will humorously eliminate those thoughts as well—definitely a modern twist on the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse.

Qubit

It seems the feedback has gone years without acknowledging the contributions of quantum information theorists—a notable oversight on our part.

Have a Story for Feedback?

If you have an article idea, please email us at feedback@newscientist.com. Don’t forget to include your home address. You can find this week’s feedback and previous editions on our website.

Source: www.newscientist.com