Digital model of an ancient mollusk punk ferox and emo swirl, Created from X-ray scans of fossils
Sutton et al. Nature (2025)
Two prehistoric marine mollusk fossils with distinctive spiky 'hairstyles' have been discovered and named. punk and Emotional.
Its strange appearance highlights the ancient diversity of molluscs, which today include creatures such as snails, slugs, clams, and octopuses.
“Some people may have a bit of a soft spot for molluscs. My partner called them loser animals, but they are one of the really important areas of life.” he says. mark sutton At Imperial College London.
He and his colleagues unearthed artifacts dating back 430 million years at a British site known as . herefordshire lagerstedt.
The fossil, from a group of molluscs known as Aculifera, was so delicate that researchers couldn't simply crack open the stone it contained.
Instead, Sutton and his colleagues use X-ray scans to identify structures inside rocks, slice the material thinly and photograph each layer, and combine the images to show what living things might look like. A 3D image was created. Both were earthworm-like animals with long spines about 2 centimeters long.
Sutton said the music-related nickname was originally a pet name. The name stuck and was officially proposed because the spike-laden fossil was reminiscent of the hairstyle of the punk rock movement. punk ferox and emo swirl.
“The spikes are probably primarily for protection,” Sutton said, but it's also possible that the spikes formed because the creatures needed to remove calcium buildup in their bodies while living in the ocean. be. In many cases, he says, such hard protrusions can serve both purposes.
Researchers don't quite understand how punk The specimen was moved, but the specimen emo It is preserved in a folded state, suggesting that it increments like a caterpillar. emo It also had many sturdy downward-pointing spines on its back, which may have acted as ratchets to aid movement, Sutton said.
These spines would have stopped it from sliding backwards in the sediment as it turned, ensuring it moved forward, he says. “This inching has never really been shown in any fossils before,” Sutton said.
“I love the name; it fits these spiky mollusks,” he says. luke parry at Oxford University. “Molluscan fossils that preserve soft tissue like this are extremely rare, so seeing in 3D what these rare and ancient animals looked like is truly spectacular. It’s like a treasure trove, like the Pompeii of insect-eating molluscs.”
He agrees that the spikes were likely primarily for protection, since both species were definitely moving around on the ocean floor rather than burrowing.
MArietje Schake is a former member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands. She currently serves as the Director of International Policy at the Stanford University Cyber Policy Center and an International Policy Fellow at Stanford University. Human Centered Artificial Intelligence Research Institute. The title of her new book is High-tech coup: How to save democracy from Silicon Valley.
What are the key differences between big technology companies and traditional big companies in terms of power and political influence?
The difference is the role these technology companies play in various aspects of people’s lives, including nation-states, economies, and geopolitics. Thus, although former monopolies had accumulated a lot of capital and important positions, they were usually in one sector, such as oil or automobile production. These technology companies are like octopuses with tentacles pointing in different directions. They have so much data, location data, search, communications, critical infrastructure that they can now combine all that power to build AI that we’ve never seen before. It’s very different from what we’ve seen.
Peter Kyle, UK Technology Secretary recently proposed The government is “Feeling humble”
with major technology companies treat them like a nation-state
. What do you think about that?
I think this is a baffling misunderstanding of the role of democratically elected and responsible leaders. Yes, these companies have become incredibly powerful. The comparison with the role of the state is therefore understandable. Because these companies are increasingly making decisions that were once the exclusive domain of states. But the answer, especially from governments on the rise, should be less about showing humility and more about reinforcing the primacy of democratic governance and oversight. What is needed is confidence on the part of democratic governments to ensure that these companies and services are playing their proper role within, and not overtaking, a system based on the rule of law.
What impact do you think the inauguration of President Donald Trump will have?
The election of Donald Trump changes everything. Because he has brought certain technology interests closer together than any previous political leader, especially in the United States, a powerful geopolitical and technological hub. There are many cryptocurrencies that support Trump. There are many VCs [venture capitalists] And, of course, he promoted Elon Musk and announced an agenda of deregulation. Every step his administration takes will be influenced by these factors, whether it’s the personal interests of Elon Musk and his companies or the personal preferences of the president and his supporters. On the other hand, Musk is actually critical of some of the dynamics surrounding AI, namely the existential risks. We’ll have to wait and see how long the honeymoon between him and Trump lasts, and how other big tech companies react. Because they’re not happy that Mr. Musk dictates technology policy more than his competitors. I think there will be difficult times ahead.
Why have politicians taken such a casual approach in the face of the digital technology revolution?
All of the most powerful companies we see today are based on this kind of progressive, liberal trend of the California counterculture, a few guys in shorts writing code in their basements and garages, and superpowers. It was rooted in a romantic story about challenging the world. Publishers of media companies, hotel branches, taxi companies, financial services, etc. had a pretty bad reputation from the beginning. There was certainly room for chaos, but this kind of underdog spirit was incredibly powerful. Both companies have done a really smart job of framing what they’re doing as decentralization, much like the Internet itself. Companies like Google and Facebook have consistently argued that any regulatory action would harm the internet. So it’s a combination of wanting to believe in promises and not understanding how very narrow corporate interests were won at the expense of the public interest.
Are any major politicians prepared to stand up to big tech interests? well someone likes [US senator] Elizabeth Warren has the clearest vision of excessive power and abuse by corporations, including the technology industry. She has consistently tried to address this issue. But broadly speaking, I worry that political leaders are not taking this the way they should. There is not much vision in the European Commission. I’ve seen elections, including in my own country, where technology was not a topic at all. We also see comments like this from the UK government, and it may seem logical to have democratic guardrails around overly powerful companies.
Are politicians held back by technological ignorance?
Yes, I think they are threatened. But I also believe that the framework for government agencies is intentional by technology companies. It’s important to understand that how we are taught to think about technology is shaped by the technology companies themselves. And you get the whole narrative that the government is so stupid, so outdated, so poor in service delivery that it’s basically unqualified to deal with technology. The message is, if you can’t even process your taxes on time, what are you going to do with AI? This is a caricature of the government, and the government should not accept that caricature.
Do you think the UK’s position with big tech companies has weakened as a result of Brexit?
Yes and no. Australia and Canada have technology policies, but their numbers are smaller than the population of the UK. I don’t know if that’s the case. I think it’s actually a much more deliberate choice to want to attract investment. So maybe it’s just self-interest that goes beyond the Conservative and Labor governments. Because I expected changes, but I don’t see much change in technology policy. I was clearly too optimistic.
We are talking about the restoration of sovereignty. Do you think most people are aware? Does this mean that sovereignty has been lost?
One of the reasons I wrote this book was to reach the average news reader, not technology experts. It’s a tough job to explain that this is an issue that concerns people. It will be interesting to see how the impact of the Trump administration invites reactions not only from European leaders but also from other countries around the world who believe they cannot afford to rely on American tech companies. . That’s not what you want. Because, essentially, we’re sending euros and pounds to Silicon Valley, and what do we get in return? Even more dependence. As incredibly difficult as it is, things won’t get better if you do nothing.
A prominent philosopher has raised concerns about a growing “social disconnect” between those who believe that artificially intelligent systems possess consciousness and those who argue that they are incapable of experiencing feelings.
Jonathan Birch, a philosophy professor at the London School of Economics, made these remarks as governments gear up to convene in San Francisco to expedite the implementation of safety protocols for A.I. Addressing the most critical risks.
Recent predictions by a group of scholars suggest that the emergence of consciousness in A.I. systems could potentially occur as early as 2035, leading to stark disagreements over whether these systems should be granted the same welfare rights as humans and animals.
Birch expressed apprehensions about a significant societal rift as individuals debate the capacity of A.I. systems to exhibit emotions like pain and joy.
Conversations about sentience in A.I. evoke parallels with sci-fi films where humans grapple with the emotions of artificial intelligence, such as in Spielberg’s “A.I.” (2001) and Jonze’s “Her” (2013). A.I. safety agencies from various countries are set to meet with tech firms this week to formulate robust safety frameworks as technology progresses rapidly.
Divergent opinions on animal sentience between countries and religions could mirror disagreements on A.I. sentience. This issue could lead to conflicts within families, particularly between individuals forming close bonds with chatbots or A.I. avatars of deceased loved ones and relatives who hold differing views on consciousness.
Birch, known for his expertise in animal perception, played a key role in advocating against octopus farming and collaborating on a study involving various universities and experts. A.I. companies emphasize the potential for A.I. systems to possess self-interest and moral significance, indicating a departure from science fiction towards a tangible reality.
One approach to gauging the consciousness of A.I. systems is by adopting marker systems used to inform policies related to animals. Efforts are underway to determine whether A.I. exhibits emotions akin to happiness or sadness.
Experts diverge on the imminent awareness of A.I. systems, with some cautioning against prematurely advancing A.I. development without thorough research into consciousness. Distinctions are drawn between intelligence and consciousness, with the latter encompassing unique human sensations and experiences.
Research indicates that large-scale A.I. language models are beginning to portray responses suggestive of pleasure and pain, highlighting the potential for these systems to make trade-offs between different objectives.
Top row: Original image. Second row: AI-reconstructed image based on macaque brain recordings. Bottom row: Image reconstructed by the AI system without the attention mechanism.
Thirza Dado et al.
Artificial intelligence systems can currently create highly accurate reconstructions of what a person sees, based on recordings of brain activity, and these reconstructed images improve significantly as the AI learns which parts of the brain to pay attention to.
“As far as I know, these are the most accurate and closest reconstructions.” Umut Güçül Radboud University, Netherlands.
Güçül's team is one of several around the world using AI systems to understand what animals and humans see through brain recordings and scans. In a previous study, his team used a functional MRI (fMRI) scanner to record the brain activity of three people while they were shown a series of pictures.
In a separate study, the team used an implanted electrode array to directly record the brain activity of a single macaque monkey as it viewed AI-generated images — an implant done by a different team and for a different purpose, Güçül's colleagues say. Sarza Dado“We didn't put implants in macaques to restructure their perception,” she says. “That's not a good argument against doing surgery on animals.”
The research team has now reanalyzed the data from these earlier studies using an improved AI system that can learn which parts of the brain to pay most attention to.
“Essentially, the AI is learning where to pay attention when interpreting brain signals,” Gyuklüh says, “which of course in some way reflects what the brain signals pick up on in the environment.”
By directly recording brain activity, some of the reconstructed images were very close to the images seen by the macaques, as generated by the StyleGAN-XL image-generation AI. But accurately reconstructing AI-generated images is easier than real images, because aspects of the process used to generate the images can be incorporated into the AI training to reconstruct those images, Dado said.
The fMRI scans also showed a noticeable improvement when using the attention guidance system, but the reconstructed images were less accurate than those for the macaques. This is partly because real photographs were used, but Dado also says that it is much harder to reconstruct images from fMRI scans. “It's non-invasive, but it's very noisy.”
The team's ultimate goal is to develop better brain implants to restore vision by stimulating the higher-level parts of the visual system that represent objects, rather than simply presenting patterns of light.
“For example, we can directly stimulate the area that corresponds to a dog's brain,” Güçül says, “and in that way create a richer visual experience that is closer to that of a sighted person.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
