Tag Archives: profound

AI’s Profound Impact on Wealth: Is This What We Truly Desire? | Dusting Astera

Posted on by
Reply

rSpecifically, Palantir—a cutting-edge firm known for its five billionaire executives—recently made an announcement stating its Second Quarter Revenue exceeded $1 billion. This marks a 48% increase from the previous year, with a staggering 93% growth in the U.S. commercial sector. These figures are astonishing, largely owing to the company’s embrace of AI.

The AI revolution is upon us, and as a proponent of this advancement, it reminds us that every day in the U.S., we are reshaping our world, enhancing the efficiency and reducing the errors in businesses and government agencies while unlocking extraordinary opportunities in science and technology. If managed well, this latest surge from Big Tech could catalyze unprecedented economic growth.

But who is asking about growth?


Take OpenAI, the powerhouse behind ChatGPT. In a promotional video, CEO Sam Altman boasted that “You can write an entire computer program from scratch.” Shortly after, the New York Times reported that Computer Science alumni are “facing some of the highest unemployment rates” compared to other fields. This issue doesn’t only pertain to coders or engineers; AI-driven automation threatens jobs even within lower-skilled labor sectors. McDonald’s, Walmart, and Amazon are already deploying AI tools to automate tasks from customer service to warehouse operations.

While the immediate outcome of these cost-cutting layoffs is beneficial to AI entrepreneurs, it appears the AI revolution is primarily enriching those who are already wealthy. On Wall Street, AI stocks are rising at record speeds, with hundreds of so-called “unicorns” emerging. According to 500 AI startups are now valued at over $1 billion each. Bloomberg reports that 29 founders of AI companies are currently creating new billionaires, and it’s worth noting that nearly all of these firms were founded in the past five years.

Why are investors so optimistic about the AI boom? Partly because this technology has the potential to replace human jobs faster than any recent innovation. The soaring valuations of AI startups are predicated on the notion that this technology could eliminate the necessity for human labor. The layoff trend is proving to be very lucrative, suggesting that the AI boom may represent the most efficient redistribution of wealth seen in modern history.

Some AI advocates argue that the fallout from these changes isn’t too detrimental for the average worker. Microsoft has even speculated that blue-collar workers may find advantages in the future AI economy. However, this perspective seems unconvincing. Certain workers with specialized skills can maintain decent wages and steady employment temporarily. However, advancements in self-driving technologies, automated warehouses, and fully automated restaurants will likely impact non-university educated workers much sooner than optimistic forecasts suggest.

All of this raises significant questions about our current economic trajectory and the wisdom of prioritizing high-tech innovation above all else. In the late 1990s, the emergence of the knowledge economy was hailed as a solution to various economic crises. While the transition from traditional industries led to the decline of millions of high-wage union jobs, people were encouraged to “upskill” and pursue higher education to secure jobs in Google’s new universe. Ironically, AI—the epitome of knowledge—is threatening to eliminate knowledge-based work. As Karl Marx once noted, the bourgeoisie digs their own grave by impoverishing the proletariat. Today’s tech elites seem intent on fulfilling that prediction.

The information age has not only created a new class of oligarchs—from Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos to Elon Musk—but also widened class divides based on education and income. As computer-driven work gained respect, wage disparities between those with university degrees and those without expanded significantly.

Today, a person’s stance on cultural issues—ranging from gender ideology to immigration—can often be tied to their economic standing. Those who still earn a living through manual labor are increasingly alienated from those who prosper through managing and manipulating “data.” In urban knowledge hubs, a near-medieval class structure emerges, where bankers and tech moguls thrive, while a robust class of lawyers, healthcare professionals, and white-collar workers is followed by a scrutinized segment of blue-collar and service workers, alongside a growing cohort of semi-permanent unemployed individuals.

This profound inequality has led to political dysfunction. Our civic landscapes are characterized by hostility, suspicion, resentment, and extreme polarization. Ultimately, politics seems to favor only the financial and technological elites who maintain effective control over government influence. Under Joe Biden, they benefit from incentives and subsidies, while under Donald Trump, they received tax cuts and deregulation. Regardless of who holds power, they always seem to become richer.

Societally, the anticipated benefits of the knowledge economy have not materialized as promised. With the advent of global connectivity, we expected cultural flourishing and social vibrancy. Instead, we have received an endless scroll of mediocrity. Smartphone addiction has exacerbated our negativity, bitterness, and boredom, while social media has turned us into narcissists. Our attention spans have degraded due to the incessant need for notifications. The proliferation of touchscreen kiosks has further diminished the possibility for human interaction. As a result, we are lonelier and less content, and the solution being offered is more AI—perhaps indicating an even deeper psychosis. Do we truly need more?

mCommon labor is essential for achieving any semblance of shared interest. Rebuilding our aging infrastructure and modernizing the electrical grid requires electricians, steel workers, and skilled trades—not simply data centers. To maintain clean city streets, we need more, better-compensated sanitation workers, not “smart” trash compactors. Addressing crime and social order necessitates more police officers on patrol—not fleets of robotic crime dogs. Improving transportation requires actual trains operated by people, not self-driving cars. In short, investing in a low-tech economy offers a multitude of opportunities. Moreover, essentials in life—love, family, friendship, and community—remain fundamentally analog.

Beyond what is desirable, investing in a low-tech future may even become necessary. Despite the persistent hype surrounding AI, it remains an illusion. The massive influx of investment capital into the AI domain carries all the hallmarks of speculative bubbles that, if burst, could further destabilize an already precarious economy.

This does not advocate for Luddism. Technological advancements should progress at a measured pace. However, technological development must not dominate our priorities. Shouldn’t government priorities center around social and human needs? In 2022, Congress approved around $280 billion for high-tech investments. In 2024, private funding in AI alone reached $2.3 trillion. This year, the largest tech companies benefitted from deregulatory measures and Wall Street’s overreliance, with plans to commit an additional $320 billion to AI and data centers. In contrast, Biden’s significant investments in infrastructure reached only $110 billion. This disparity highlights the need for a balanced approach to technology and societal welfare.

Marx, despite his complexities, understood that technology should cater to societal needs. Currently, we have inverted that model—society exists to serve technology. Silicon Valley leaders would like to portray a narrative where the intricate challenges of the future require ever-increasing R&D investments, but the ongoing deregulations primarily benefit tech sectors. The most pressing concerns are not the complexities of tomorrow but the enduring issues of wealth, class, and power.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Do Trees Harbor Microbiomes? An Obvious Yet Profound Inquiry

Posted on by
Reply

“Each tree on Earth houses a multitude of microorganisms, many of which remain unrecognized by science.”

ShutterStock/Emvat Mosakovskis

A few years back, I enjoyed an enlightening afternoon in an ancient forest near London, discovering the crucial link between aging trees and biodiversity. My guide, Lynn Bodhis, a mycologist from Cardiff University, explained that as trees age over centuries, the inner trunk begins to decompose due to fungal activity. This phenomenon, known as “heart rot,” is a natural aspect of a tree’s life cycle, creating invaluable habitats for various species of insects, birds, and mammals. Unfortunately, as older trees diminish, the heart rot phenomenon is also waning, lacking the necessary old trees to continue its role. Bodhy and her colleagues are dedicated to preserving this essential process by promoting the early aging of younger trees.

While it didn’t strike me at the moment, heart rot is part of the tree microbiome, akin to a diverse mix of bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists, and viruses. The concept of microbiomes wasn’t commonly discussed then, but groundbreaking research published in Nature has revealed that trees possess microbiota as varied and remarkable as our own.

We’ve known for some time that the surfaces of trees (trunks, roots, leaves, etc.) harbor diverse microbiota. However, recent studies indicate that their interiors are similarly diverse. Each tree on our planet contains myriad microorganisms, many of which are unfamiliar to the scientific community.

This discovery is both significant and enlightening. It’s intuitive to consider diversity in trees, given that microbiota thrive in various natural settings, including smaller plants. Yet, this research unveils microbial ecosystems that were previously overlooked, shedding new light on trees—not merely as individual organisms but as holobionts, integral components of Earth’s ecology.

Essentially, like humans, trees are composite entities, consisting of both hosts and their associated microorganisms. If the microbiota of trees proves as vital to their biology as human microbiota are to us, these communities could play a pivotal role in efforts to sustain biodiversity and combat climate change.

The researchers involved in this study examined wood samples from the trunks, branches, and roots of 150 living trees spanning 16 species in forests in northeastern United States. They conducted what is referred to as the Microorganism Census, discovering that the interior wood of trees is teeming with microorganisms, including not just bacteria associated with heart rot but also a variety of other bacteria, fungi, and archaea. Additionally, each tree species is home to its unique microbiota.

If the tree microbiota is essential to biology, it could aid in the fight to preserve biodiversity.

The interior of tree trunks consists of two types of wood: outer sapwood and inner heartwood. The sapwood is alive and primarily responsible for transporting water from the roots to the leaves, while heartwood is non-living and serves mainly structural purposes (which eventually deteriorate due to heart rot). Researchers have established that the microbial communities in these two wood types differ significantly.

While only a limited number of species were sampled, it is plausible that all trees harbor similar microbiota across various wood types. The studied 16 species represent 11 genera, all of which have a global presence.

What roles do these microorganisms fulfill? It’s still largely unknown, but researchers suggest they likely contribute to tree health and the overall health of forests. They are possibly involved in the essential ecosystem services trees provide, such as offering habitats for numerous plants and animals, producing clean water, and acting as carbon sinks. Globally, wood holds approximately 60 years’ worth of current emissions according to studies over the past six decades. Trees could absorb more, helping to cap global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, necessitating healthy, expanding forests. A deeper understanding of tree microbiota may facilitate this goal, according to researchers.

This concept of mutualism is gaining traction. While microorganisms are often viewed as adversaries of biodiversity, they are foundational to the world’s ecosystems. As primary agents of organic matter decomposition, they drive vital biogeochemical cycles that supply the biosphere with essential elements like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Moreover, they coexist with most plant species and are integral to what many refer to as Earth’s “life support system.” However, alarming trends suggest that the overall microbiota on Earth is declining.

It’s premature to conclude whether this trend extends to tree microbiota, but now that we are aware of their existence, we must ensure they are conserved.

What I’m reading

I’ll be diving into this as I plan my visit to Romania’s Carpathian Mountains next month.

What I’m watching

It resembles a storybook. I’m a huge fan of Mark Gattis, and his new drama is fantastic.

What I’m working on

For upcoming articles, we’re closely monitoring food intake again, including urine pH measurements.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Quantum Superposition Challenges Us to Confront Profound Realities

Posted on by
Reply

Physicists observe that students often exhibit a “digging expression” when first introduced to quantum superposition, as noted by Marcelo Gleiser. Having taught quantum mechanics for several decades, he notes the consistent surprise among students as they grapple with the complexities of atomic and particle behavior.

This article is part of our special concept series, exploring how experts perceive some of the most astonishing ideas in science. Click here for additional details.

The term “clear” often adds confusion in this field. Since the inception of superposition, its true implications have been debated for centuries. What is universally acknowledged is that this concept challenges our understanding of what constitutes “reality.”

A foundational aspect to grasp is the Schrödinger equation. Formulated by Erwin Schrödinger in the 1920s, it serves as a cornerstone of quantum theory, outlining the probabilities of finding particles in specific states upon measurement. Notably, quantum mechanics focuses on predicting potential outcomes rather than clarifying the exact activities of particles pre-measurement.

The Schrödinger equation articulates all conceivable positions a particle may occupy before measurement, utilizing mathematical constructs known as wave functions. This establishes one mathematical interpretation of superposition, defined as the combination of various potential quantum states.

It is well-established that particles can indeed exist in superposition. For instance, in a double-slit experiment, a solitary photon (a light particle) is directed toward a barrier with two narrow openings. When a detector is active, the photon seems to “choose” one slit and strikes a specific point on the screen. In contrast, without the detector, an “interference pattern” is observed, indicating that the particles act like waves, traversing through both slits simultaneously and interacting with themselves.

However, the true significance of being “in a superposition” remains elusive. Generally, two perspectives exist. Some view wave functions merely as mathematical constructs rather than reflections of reality—this aligns with Gleiser’s stance at Dartmouth University, New Hampshire. He asserts, “In quantum mechanics, we argue that wave functions must constitute a part of physical reality,” asserting that equating mathematical constructs with truth has become almost cult-like.

Gleiser endorses an interpretation known as quantum Bayesianism (or QBism), which posits that the theory addresses our understanding rather than reality itself. Consequently, during quantum state measurements, what shifts is merely our information about reality, not reality itself.

Conversely, some scholars, like Simon Saunders, a philosopher from Oxford University, argue against this view, asserting that wave functions represent an authentic state of existence. He suggests that particles in superposition physically occupy multiple locations simultaneously. “It’s an extended object,” he clarifies. “It’s delocalized.” Within this framework, our experience of particle reality may deviate from actual reality. For example, electrons orbiting atoms appear as a cloud of probability until measured.

Critics of this interpretation often question the fate of alternate possibilities once measurement constrains a particle to a single location. Saunders concedes to the radical notion that this may suggest the existence of a branching infinite multiverse.

Ultimately, a resolution to this question isn’t imminent. Meanwhile, researchers have successfully extended superposition beyond individual particles to larger molecules and even 16-microgram crystals. This suggests that reality is much stranger than it appears.

Explore more articles in this series by using the links below:

Topics:

  • Quantum Mechanics/
  • Amazing Concepts

Source: www.newscientist.com

Quasiparticles: Profound Insights into the Nature of Reality

Posted on by
Reply

koto_feja/Getty Images

koto_feja/Getty Images

Traditionally, we envision particles as tangible objects—tiny, point-like entities with specific properties like position and velocity. In reality, however, particles are energetic fluctuations within an underlying field that fills the universe, and they cannot be directly observed. This concept can be quite perplexing.

This article is part of our special focus on concepts, examining how experts interpret some of the most astonishing ideas in science. Click here for more information.

Furthermore, there exists a layer of complexity due to quasiparticles, which arise from intricate interactions among the “fundamental” particles found in solids, liquids, and plasma. These quasiparticles possess fascinating properties of proximity, suggesting the potential for exotic new materials and techniques, challenging our established notions of particles.

“When discussing what particles are, the topic can become quite convoluted,” states Douglas Natelson from Rice University in Houston, Texas. He describes quasiparticles as “excitations in a material that exhibit many characteristics associated with particles.” They can have relatively well-defined positions and velocities and can carry charge and energy. So why aren’t they considered actual particles?

The answer lies in their existence. Natelson likens this to fans performing “waves” in a stadium. “We can observe the waves and think, ‘Look! There’s a wave, it’s of a certain size, moving at a specific speed.’ But those waves are essentially a collective phenomenon, resulting from the actions of all the fans present.”

To create a quasiparticle, physicists often manipulate materials like metal substrates subjecting them to extreme temperatures, pressures, or magnetic fields. Subsequently, they study the collective behavior of the intrinsic particles.

One intriguing phenomenon recognized in the 1940s involved a “hole,” which describes a lack of negative electrons that should normally be present. By analyzing these holes as if they were independent entities, researchers were able to develop semiconductors that power modern laptops and smartphones.

“Essentially, modern electronics hinge on both electrons and holes,” remarks Leon Balents from the University of California, Santa Barbara. “We continuously utilize these quasiparticles.”

Over the years, we have uncovered an entire spectrum of exotic quasiparticles. Magnons emerge from spin waves, a fundamental quantum property related to magnetism. Cooper pairs, present at low temperatures, can transmit charge without resistance in superconductors. The list expands, continually growing as physicists predict and observe peculiar new types with strange names, such as pi tons, fractures, and even wrinkles.

Among the more thrilling discoveries is the non-Abelian anyon. Unlike typical particles, these quasiparticles possess the ability to retain memory of how they were altered.

The practicality of these quasiparticles remains uncertain, according to Balents. Nonetheless, major companies like Microsoft have heavily invested in research involving quasiparticles.

The ongoing investigation raises fundamental questions about particle nature itself. If quasiparticles exhibit particle-like characteristics, one must consider whether the “fundamental” particles (e.g., electrons, photons, quarks) might emerge from a more profound underlying framework.

“Are what we classify as fundamental particles truly elementary, or could they be quasiparticles arising from more basic fundamental theories?” ponders Natelson. “An eternally looming question.”

Explore more articles in this series via the links below:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Human activity has profound impacts on the Earth’s upper mantle

Posted on by
Reply

Ship cemetery in the desert of the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan

s@owwl / alamy

Unsustainable irrigation and drought have caused changes that have empty almost all of the waters of the Aral Sea since the 1960s, extending all the way to the Earth’s upper mantle, the layer below the Earth’s crust. This is perhaps the deepest recorded example of human activity that will change the solid inner earth.

“To do something that will affect us [upper mantle] It’s like whoa.” Sylvain Barbott At the University of Southern California. “It shows how powerful it is to change the environment.”

The Aral Sea in Central Asia was once one of the largest waters in the world, covering almost 70,000 square kilometers. However, Soviet irrigation programs that began in the 1960s and later droughts empty the oceans. By 2018, it had shrunk by almost 90% and lost about 1,000 cubic kilometres of water.

Wang Ten At Peking University in China, I was interested in the Aral Sea after reading a book about the consequences of this environmental disaster on the surface of the earth. “We’ve noticed that these huge mass changes stimulate the deep Earth’s response,” he says.

He and his colleagues, including Barbot, used satellite measurements to track subtle changes in the elevation of the oceans that were empty between 2016 and 2020. Much of the ocean water disappeared decades ago, but it was found that the uplifts were underway, with on average rising surfaces about 7 millimeters a year.

Next, we used a model of the crust and mantle beneath the Aral Sea to test the mantle beneath the Aral Sea when it came to leading to the uplift of this observed pattern. “We found that the observations were perfectly compatible with a deep response to this change,” says Barbot.

When the weight of the water was removed, the shallow crust first responded, according to the model. This prompted a response at a depth of 190 km from the surface as the viscous rocks in the upper mantle creeped up to fill the blanks. “The uncurved things create space and the rocks want to flow into it,” Barbot says. This delayed reaction in hot, weak areas of the mantle, called the athenosphere, is why the uplift is ongoing, even decades after the water is removed, he says.

The upper mantle rebound is known to occur after other major changes in surface mass, such as glacier advancement and retreat, says Roland Bürgmann At the University of California, Berkeley. But the response to drainage in the Aral Sea may be the deepest example of human-caused changes on solid earth.

Other human-induced changes, such as filling large reservoirs and pumping groundwater, are said to have also caused rebounds. Manoochehr Shirzaei At Virginia Tech. But the wider range of the Aral Sea means the impact of emptying it is likely to run deeper, he says.

In addition to explaining the enormous scale of human activity, the uplift below the Aral Sea offers an extraordinary opportunity to estimate small differences in viscosity of the mantle, particularly under the interior of the continent, Bürgmann says. “It’s really important for people trying to understand plate tectonics to know how that layer behaves under the continent.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com