Nicholas Carr wrote The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. But his new book looks at how social media and digital communication technologies “are changing us individually and collectively,” writes the Los Angeles Review of Books.
The book’s title? Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart .
But if these systems are indeed tearing us apart, the reasons are neither obvious nor simple. Carr suggests that this isn’t really about the evil behavior of our tech overlords but about how we have “been telling ourselves lies about communication — and about ourselves…. Well before the net came along,” says Carr, “[the] evidence was telling us that flooding the public square with more information from more sources was not going to open people’s minds or engender more thoughtful discussions. It wasn’t even going to make people better informed….”

At root, we’re the problem. Our minds don’t simply distill useful knowledge from a mass of raw data. They use shortcuts, rules of thumb, heuristic hacks — which is how we were able to think fast enough to survive on the savage savanna. We pay heed, for example, to what we experience most often. “Repetition is, in the human mind, a proxy for facticity,” says Carr. “What’s true is what comes out of the machine most often….” Reality can’t compete with the internet’s steady diet of novelty and shallow, ephemeral rewards. The ease of the user interface, congenial even to babies, creates no opportunity for what writer Antón Barba-Kay calls “disciplined acculturation.”

Not only are these technologies designed to leverage our foibles, but we are also changed by them, as Carr points out: “We adapt to technology’s contours as we adapt to the land’s and the climate’s.” As a result, by designing technology, we redesign ourselves. “In engineering what we pay attention to, [social media] engineers […] how we talk, how we see other people, how we experience the world,” Carr writes. We become dislocated, abstracted: the self must itself be curated in memeable form. “Looking at screens made me think in screens,” writes poet Annelyse Gelman. “Looking at pixels made me think in pixels….”

That’s not to say that we can’t have better laws and regulations, checks and balances. One suggestion is to restore friction into these systems. One might, for instance, make it harder to unreflectively spread lies by imposing small transactional costs, as has been proposed to ease the pathologies of automated market trading. An option Carr doesn’t mention is to require companies to perform safety studies on their products, as we demand of pharmaceutical companies. Such measures have already been proposed for AI. But Carr doubts that increasing friction will make much difference. And placing more controls on social media platforms raises free speech concerns… We can’t change or constrain the tech, says Carr, but we can change ourselves. We can choose to reject the hyperreal for the material. We can follow Samuel Johnson’s refutation of immaterialism by “kicking the stone,” reminding ourselves of what is real.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“A robotic lander from Texas-based Firefly Aerospace is now in orbit around the Moon,” reports Spaceflight Now, “and going through its final preparations to land in the coming weeks.”

Its arrival comes nearly a month after the spacecraft launched onboard a Falcon 9 rocket from pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. This is the third mission launched as part of the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, an initiative designed to bring science and technology demonstrations to the Moon at a cheaper cost…

Manifested on this lander are 10 NASA payloads, which cover a range of objectives. Those include the Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) instrument, which will drill between 2- to 3-meters into the Moon’s surface to study the heat flow; and the Stereo Cameras for Lunar Plume-Surface Studies (SCALPSS) 1.1 instrument, which will use a series of cameras to capture the plume generated at landing to help create a three-dimensional model… “We saw that for the type of advanced scientific or engineering measurements we wanted to make, the instruments were small enough and compact enough that we could actually fly 10,” [said Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for Exploration in NASA’s Science Mission Directorate], “if someone could actually schedule them to get all of their operations done over the 14 Earth day lunar daytime.”

Firefly Aerospace ended up winning that bid and carries with it the most NASA instruments manifested on a single Commercial Lunar Payload Services lander so far.
Friday on X.com Firefly Aerospace wished a happy Valentine’s Day to “all those on Earth who dare to Dream Big.”
“Blue Ghost has been capturing stunning imagery of our planet throughout its journey,” Spaceflight Now says in a 12-minute video.
And Friday on X.com Firefly posted Blue Ghost’s first spectacular shots of the moon as it approaches — along with its special message for Valentine’s Day. “I love you to the Moon, but not back — I’m staying there.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

gwolf (Slashdot reader #26,339) writes: On Friday, February 14, Libertarian Argentinian president, Javier Milei, promoted the just-created $LIBRA cryptocoin, created by the Viva la libertad project, strongly aligned with his political party, La Libertad Avanza. Milei tweeted, “This private project will be devoted to promote growth of the Argentinian economy, funding small startups and enterprises. The world wants to invest in Argentina!”

It is worth noting that the project’s website was registered a mere three minutes before Milei tweeted his endorsement. The cryptocoin quickly reached a $4.6 billion market cap… Only to instantaneously lose 89% of its value, with nine core investers pulling the rug from under the enthusiast investors.

More details from the blog Web3 Is Going Just Great:

[W]ithin hours of the launch, insiders began selling off their holdings of the token. The token had been highly concentrated among insiders, with around 82% of the token held in a small cluster of apparently insider addresses. Those insiders cashed out around $107 million, crashing the token price by around 95%. After the crash, Milei deleted his tweet promoting the project. He later claimed he was “not aware of the details of the project.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“What if time is not as fixed as we thought?” That’s the question raised in an announcement from the University of Surrey.

“Imagine that instead of flowing in one direction — from past to future — time could flow forward or backward due to processes taking place at the quantum level.”

This is the thought-provoking discovery made by researchers at the University of Surrey, as a new study reveals that opposing arrows of time can theoretically emerge from certain quantum systems. For centuries, scientists have puzzled over the arrow of time — the idea that time flows irreversibly from past to future. While this seems obvious in our experienced reality, the underlying laws of physics do not inherently favour a single direction. Whether time moves forward or backwards, the equations remain the same….

This discovery provided a mathematical foundation for the idea that time-reversal symmetry still holds in open quantum systems — suggesting that time’s arrow may not be as fixed as we experience it… The research offers a fresh perspective on one of the biggest mysteries in physics. Understanding the true nature of time could have profound implications for quantum mechanics, cosmology and beyond.
The university’s announcement includes this quote from co-author Thomas Guff, a research fellow in quantum thermodynamics.

“The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the ‘memory kernel,’ is symmetrical in time.”

And their research reminds readers that “the fundamental laws of physics in both the classical and the quantum realms do not manifest any intrinsic arrow of time. Newton’s equations are time-reversal symmetric, as well as Schrödinger’s equation. As a consequence, backward-in-time motion is equally possible as forward-in-time motion… Our findings are consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and emphasise the distinction between the concepts of irreversibility and time-reversal symmetry.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Christie’s auction house notes that an AI-generated “portrait” of an 18th-century French gentleman recently sold for $432,500. (One member of the Paris-based collective behind the work says “we found that portraits provided the best way to illustrate our point, which is that algorithms are able to emulate creativity.”)

But the blog post from Christie’s goes on to acknowledge that AI researchers “are still addressing the fundamental question of whether the images produced by their networks can be called art at all.”

. One way to do that, surely, is to conduct a kind of visual Turing test, to show the output of the algorithms to human evaluators, flesh-and-blood discriminators, and ask if they can tell the difference.
“Yes, we have done that,” says Ahmed Elgammal [director of the Art and Artificial Intelligence Lab at Rutgers University in New Jersey]. “We mixed human-generated art and art from machines, and posed questions — direct ones, such as ‘Do you think this painting was produced by a machine or a human artist?’ and also indirect ones such as, ‘How inspiring do you find this work?’. We measured the difference in responses towards the human art and the machine art, and found that there is very little difference. Actually, some people are more inspired by the art that is done by machine.”
Can such a poll constitute proof that an algorithm is capable of producing indisputable works of art? Perhaps it can — if you define a work of art as an image produced by an intelligence with an aesthetic intent. But if you define art more broadly as an attempt to say something about the wider world, to express one’s own sensibilities and anxieties and feelings, then AI art must fall short, because no machine mind can have that urge — and perhaps never will.

This also begs the question: who gets credit for the resulting work. The AI, or the creator of its algorithm…

Or can the resulting work be considered a “conceptual art” collaboration — taking place between a human and an algorithm?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“Meta is involved in a class action lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, a claim the company disputes…” writes the tech news site Hot Hardware.

But the site adds that newly unsealed court documents “reveal that Meta allegedly used a minimum of 81.7TB of illegally torrented data sourced from shadow libraries to train its AI models.”

Internal emails further show that Meta employees expressed concerns about this practice. Some employees voiced strong ethical objections, with one noting that using content from sites like LibGen, known for distributing copyrighted material, would be unethical. A research engineer with Meta, Nikolay Bashlykov, also noted that “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right,” highlighting his discomfort surrounding the practice.

Additionally, the documents suggest that these concerns, including discussions about using data from LibGen, reached CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who may have ultimately approved the activity. Furthermore, the documents showed that despite these misgivings, employees discussed using VPNs to mask Meta’s IP address to create anonymity, enabling them to download and share torrented data without it being easily traced back to the company’s network.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Yahoo Finance shares an interesting prediction. Amazon has an “under-the-radar robot push” that “could boost its profit margins big-time, Morgan Stanley managing director Brian Nowak said.”

Nowak said Amazon has quietly developed six significant next-generation fulfillment centers in the past three years that bring automation front and center… Amazon now has industrial robots that can increase efficiencies across the storage, inventory management, pick and packing, and sorting order fulfillment processes.
Fulfillment costs make up about 20% of Amazon’s retail revenue, so he reasoned that automation could have a significant impact on long-term operating profit potential. Nowak says if 30% to 40% of Amazon’s US units were fulfilled through next-generation robotics-enabled warehouses by 2030, it could lead to $10 billion-plus of savings… The investments in robots may already be paying off. Amazon’s North America retail operating margins on a trailing 12-month basis have risen for five straight quarters. North America operating margins improved to 6.2% from 4.6% a year ago.

Nowak made the remarks on a Yahoo Finance podcast (at the top of their article) after touring one of Amazon’s robot-enhanced sites in Louisiana. He believes robotics can drive down Amazon’s costs compared to other retailers like Target (which he sees as lagging behind Amazon on robotics).

Meanwhile workers at an Amazon facility in North Carolina held a vote Saturday on whether to unionize. But roughly 75% of the workers voted against unionization.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.