2025-01-28 23:00:00
There’s a solid consensus among scientists on the question, according to a new survey.
News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is “only a matter of time,” we were told in September 2023. “We are close” was a headline from September 2024.
It’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, published in Nature Astronomy, we’ve found out.
During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex, and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.
In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6 percent of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.
Less than 2 percent disagreed, with 12 percent staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there.
Scientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4 percent. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.
When we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4 percent agreement and 58.2 percent agreement, respectively, for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms.
These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2 percent of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.
Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral,” an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating.
Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe.
We have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons Europa and Enceladus and arguably also the environment a few meters below the surface of Mars. It also seems relevant that Mars used to be highly habitable, with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.
It is reasonable to generalize from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life—it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started (abiogenesis) is clearly non-zero.
This can help us to see the 86.6 percent agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly weak consensus. Consider the numbers: there are more than 100 billion galaxies. And we know that habitable environments are everywhere.
Let’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe.
Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.
Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating and didn’t want to take a stance. In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.
This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, it is often called “satisficing.”
As the geophysicist Edward Bullard wrote back in 1975 while debating whether all continents were once joined together, instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data.” Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard —it is the easy choice.
What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe.
We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6 percent agreement, with 12 percent neutral and less than 2 percent disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered.
Perhaps—given the problem of satisficing—whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6 percent) and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8 percent). Neither result is the single, correct result.
Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers—and being transparent about their contexts—is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The post Does Extraterrestrial Life Exist? Here’s What Scientists Really Think appeared first on SingularityHub.
2025-01-28 07:50:14
The study sheds light on one way these pesky particles may be detrimental to brain health.
We’re not Barbie girls, but we live in a plastic world.
Microplastics, tiny specks of broken-down plastic, are all around us. They hover in the air, float in our water, and are sprinkled in the food we eat. These particles have even been detected in relatively pristine ice sheets in Antarctica—a continent with minimal human presence.
They’re also inside our bodies. Microplastic dust lingers in our liver, kidney, blood, and reproductive cells. As their levels build up, microplastics stress normal cell functions, triggering inflammation and hormonal problems. In a small number of people, they’re linked to an increased risk of heart attack, neurological problems, and stroke. A recent preprint analyzing donated brain tissue from deceased people detected large amounts of microplastics in their brains, especially around their blood vessels.
Now, a new study sheds light on one way these pesky particles may be detrimental to brain health. By tracking microplastics in the brains of mice, the team found they damaged the brain’s immune cells. These protective cells accumulated microplastics, instead of digesting them, and then the damaged cells clumped up in the brain’s blood vessels, eventually blocking normal blood circulation—with consequences. Mice given a small dose of microplastics struggled to walk and had a slightly harder time remembering places, even a month later.
Food aside, many current medical devices are made of plastic, which ultimately wears down and could potentially directly leak the particles into a patient’s bloodstream. Though the findings need replication in humans—our blood vessels are larger than mice’s—they do offer “a focused direction for understanding the potential health risks associated with microplastics,” wrote the authors.
Picture your daily morning routine. Now, mentally scan for all the plastic involved.
It’s everywhere. There’s the coffee pot collecting a drip brew or a Keurig pod to get the day going, the shampoo and conditioner container as you shower, the jug that holds orange juice or milk, and the leftovers in a plastic container, ready for a quick zap in the microwave.
Plastic is so prevalent it’s difficult to imagine a world without the material. But its large-scale production only ramped up in the 1950s, after World War II. During the war, the innovative material was used to craft lightweight yet durable radar and radio devices, ammunition, and disposable medical tools. From there, it trickled down into everyday use.
This came at an environmental cost. Made of synthetic molecules—often derived from fossil fuels—plastics are notoriously difficult to break down. As of 2015, humans had generated approximately 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic waste, just nine percent of which had been recycled. By 2050, roughly double that amount will load up landfills. Despite efforts at recycling or making biodegradable plastics, most products end up in landfills or our environment—either on land or in waterways and oceans.
The latter is especially concerning. As plastics wear down, they shed tiny specks that marine life ingests. Roughly the size of a sesame seed, these floating toxins are gulped up by plankton—which larger marine animals feed on—oysters, scallops, and other ocean creatures. The contamination eventually moves up the food chain and reaches seafood lovers across the world. Combined with other daily sources of microplastics, we’re inhaling and ingesting these materials far more than ever before.
Roughly a decade ago, multiple countries banned exfoliating plastic “beads” from face scrubs, toothpaste, and hand cleaners to reduce microplastic waste. Meanwhile, scientists also started investigating potential health concerns of ingesting microplastics in full force.
Early red flags related to reproductive health. More evidence suggested microplastics are especially harmful to blood vessels. One study in 2024, for example, followed people with blood vessel disease due to a blockage. They analyzed the offending clumps and realized they were made up of tiny microplastic particles combined with broken down cells. Polluted by microplastics, the cells hung around inside the patients’ fatty tissues, spurring inflammation and increasing the chance of heart disease and stroke.
Even the brain was vulnerable to these toxins. Usually, our noggin is guarded by a cellular fortress dubbed the “blood-brain barrier.” Only sanctioned chemicals and some larger proteins can pass through this barrier.
However, it didn’t evolve to block microplastics. Previous studies found these particles could drift into brain tissue, causing some proteins to clump up and trigger or worsen neurodegenerative diseases—conditions in which neurons break down—such as Parkinson’s disease. Microplastics have also been linked to anxiety and depression, though it’s still unknown why.
Scientists generally agree that microplastics floating across the blood-brain barrier can cause damage or spark inflammation in the body affecting neuron function, explained the team. But seeing is believing—which is where the new study comes in.
Rather than analyzing microplastic particles inside brain tissue, the team used a method called two-photon microscopy to track their journey inside a mouse’s brain. The method is particularly useful at visualizing changes inside the brain at high resolution.
They first laced the mice’s drinking water with a glow-in-the-dark version of a microplastic called polystyrene. The bubble-shaped material is prevalent in toys, appliances, and all sorts of packaging. Within two and a half hours, they noticed the particles flowing through blood vessels in the brain. Some particles looked like comets trailing tails, wrote the authors.
If, as previously suggested, microplastics flow into the brain unprotected, they would likely spread across the entire brain. Surprisingly, the particles eventually concentrated in cells.
After isolating the cells containing microplastics, the team realized they were the brain’s immune cells. These cellular warriors readily “eat up” invaders, such as bacteria or viruses. But microplastics gave them indigestion. After consuming the particles, the cells became bloated, turning into oblong-shapes that clustered inside blood vessels and blocked blood flow.
The shapes were just the right diameter to jam blood vessels in the brain—especially those connecting deeper brain regions to the cortex, a neural highway that controls movement, learning, and memory. In several tests, mice given a dose of microplastic struggled to run around a playground or grab onto a “monkey bar.” They also failed to remember places.
The good news? Most of these cognitive problems went away within a month. The team is still trying to figure out how the brain eventually cleaned out the microplastics, and whether the blockages—like blood clots—have lingering health problems.
To be clear, although the research adds to increasing evidence that microplastics could enter and potentially harm the brain, the results are only in mice. The conclusions will need to be verified in people, who have far larger blood vessels in the brain that could potentially thwart the negative effects of microplastics.
However, studying the impact of microplastics on the brain could inform how we manufacture the next generation of medical devices—for example, swapping out plastic casings for other biocompatible materials.
If those devices aren’t “rapidly and thoroughly improved,” then they could “become a persistent and potentially recurrent issue,” wrote the authors. “Increased investment in this area of research is urgent and essential to fully comprehend the health risks posed by [microplastics] in human blood.”
The post The Brain on Microplastics: A Study in Mice Finds the Brain’s Immune Cells Gorging on Plastic appeared first on SingularityHub.
2025-01-25 23:00:00
These were our favorite articles in science and tech this week.
Open-Source DeepSeek-R1 Uses Pure Reinforcement Learning to Match OpenAI o1—at 95% Less Cost Shubham Sharma | VentureBeat
“Based on the recently introduced DeepSeek V3 mixture-of-experts model, DeepSeek-R1 matches the performance of o1, OpenAI’s frontier reasoning LLM, across math, coding, and reasoning tasks. The best part? It does this at a much more tempting cost, proving to be 90-95% more affordable than the latter.”
OpenAI’s Operator Lets ChatGPT Use the Web for You Will Knight | Wired
“The new tool, called Operator, is an AI agent: It relies on an AI model trained on both text and images to interpret commands and figure out how to use a web browser to execute them. OpenAI claims it has the potential to automate many day-to-day tasks and workday errands.”
Sam Altman’s World Now Wants to Link AI Agents to Your Digital Identity Maxwell Zeff | TechCrunch
“Altman’s World project now wants to create tools that link certain AI agents to people’s online personas, letting other users verify that an agent is acting on a person’s behalf, according to its chief product officer, Tiago Sada. World, a web3 project by Altman and Alex Blania’s Tools for Humanity that was formerly known as Worldcoin, is based on the idea that it will eventually be impossible to distinguish humans from AI agents on the internet.”
The Second Wave of AI Coding Is Here Will Douglas Heaven | MIT Technology Review
“Instead of providing developers with a kind of supercharged autocomplete, like most existing tools, this next generation can prototype, test, and debug code for you. …But there’s more. Many of the people building generative coding assistants think that they could be a fast track to artificial general intelligence (AGI), the hypothetical superhuman technology that a number of top firms claim to have in their sights.”
Tech Leaders Pledge Up to $500 Billion in AI Investment in US Deepa Seetharaman | The Wall Street Journal
“The joint venture, known as Stargate, is led by the ChatGPT maker OpenAI and the global tech investor SoftBank Group. It will build data centers for OpenAI. The database company Oracle and MGX, an investor backed by the United Arab Emirates, are also equity partners in the venture. The companies are committing $100 billion to the venture and plan to invest up to $500 billion over the next four years.”
China’s WeRide Wants to Build Global Robotaxi Empire Jiahui Huang | The Wall Street Journal
“China is on the verge of large-scale robotaxi commercialization, Daiwa analysts said in a recent note. They expect the market for robotaxi-related car manufacturing and auto components to reach 160 billion yuan, equivalent to about $22 billion, by 2026. Eventually, robotaxis are likely to completely replace traditional ride-hailing vehicles, they said.”
Researchers Optimize Simulations of Molecules on Quantum Computers John Timmer | Ars Technica
“On Wednesday, Nature Physics published a paper that describes the simulation of some aspects of simple catalysts on quantum computers and provides a way to dramatically simplify the calculations. The resulting algorithmic improvements mean that we may not need to wait for error correction to run useful simulations.”
When AI Passes This Test, Look Out Kevin Roose | The New York Times
“[Humanity’s Last Exam] consists of roughly 3,000 multiple-choice and short answer questions designed to test AI systems’ abilities in areas ranging from analytic philosophy to rocket engineering. Questions were submitted by experts in these fields, including college professors and prizewinning mathematicians, who were asked to come up with extremely difficult questions they knew the answers to.”
This Company Wants to Build a Space Station That Has Artificial Gravity Emilio Cozzi | Wired
“The company is aiming to launch a commercial space station, the Haven-2, into low Earth orbit by 2028, which would allow astronauts to stay in space after the decommissioning of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2030. In doing so, it is attempting to muscle in on NASA’s plans to develop commercial low-orbit space stations with partner organizations—but most ambitious of all are Vast Space’s goals for what it will eventually put into space: a station that has its own artificial gravity.”
Why the Next Energy Race Is for Underground Hydrogen Casey Crownhart | MIT Technology Review
“It might sound like something straight out of the 19th century, but one of the most cutting-edge areas in energy today involves drilling deep underground to hunt for materials that can be burned for energy. The difference is that this time, instead of looking for fossil fuels, the race is on to find natural deposits of hydrogen.”
What’s Next for Robots James O’Donnell | MIT Technology Review
“We’ve been sold lots of promises that robots will transform society ever since the first robotic arm was installed on an assembly line at a General Motors plant in New Jersey in 1961. Few of those promises have panned out so far. But this year, there’s reason to think that even those staunchly in the ‘bored’ camp will be intrigued by what’s happening in the robot races. Here’s a glimpse at what to keep an eye on.”
The post This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through January 25) appeared first on SingularityHub.
2025-01-25 02:56:01
Analysis of 29.8 million cars found the median EV lasts 124,000 miles—8,000 more than a gasoline car.
One of the biggest barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles is concern about their shelf life. New research suggests the latest models are just as long-lived as their gas-powered cousins.
Any smartphone owner will be well aware that battery capacity slowly degrades over time, as repeated charging and discharging cycles take their toll. The same is true for the batteries in electric vehicles, but exactly how quickly performance degrades has been unclear.
Most manufacturers provide a warranty that guarantees the power packs will retain 70 percent of their capacity after eight years of use. But this still compares unfavorably to gas-powered cars, impacting both the lifetime value and prospects for the resale of electric vehicles.
However, there’s growing evidence that electric vehicles are lasting much longer than expected. And now, researchers have carried out a comprehensive analysis using data from the UK Ministry of Transport, which shows they can match or even exceed the lifespans of conventional vehicles.
“Our findings provide critical insights into the lifespan and environmental impact of electric vehicles,” Viet Nguyen-Tien, from the London School of Economics and Political Science, said in a press release. “No longer just a niche option, [electric vehicles] are a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional vehicles—a significant step towards achieving a net-zero carbon future.”
In the UK, all vehicles more than three years old are required to undergo an annual roadworthiness test. In a paper in Nature Energy, the researchers analyzed data from 264 million of these tests to estimate the lifespans of different kinds of vehicles.
The records, which covered 29.8 million unique vehicles, include details on the type of vehicle, its initial registration date, and its mileage at the time of the test. The researchers identified cars that had been taken off the road by singling out those that had gone at least 18 months without taking the roadworthiness test.
Using this data, the team was able to estimate the median lifespan for a gasoline, diesel, and electric vehicles. They found that electric vehicles now have a lifespan of 18.4 years, which is nearly a year and a half more than diesel cars and only slightly less than gasoline ones. And their median mileage was 124,000, which is about 8,000 more than a gasoline car.
Longer lifespans aren’t just a positive for owners. A major reason for the switch to battery-powered vehicles is the desire to cut out greenhouse gas emissions. Building electric vehicles actually produces more CO2 than conventional cars, but if they last long enough, they can still be a net positive for the environment.
“Despite higher initial emissions from production, a long-lasting electric vehicle can quickly offset its carbon footprint, contributing to the fight against climate change,” said study co-author Robert Elliott, from the University of Birmingham.
The new research is the latest in a line of studies showing that electric vehicles appear to be lasting longer than people expected. According to Wired, a report from consulting firm P3 showed that on average, electric vehicle batteries still retain 90 percent of their capacity after 100,000 miles. Another study from fleet telematics company Geotab found that batteries in the newest vehicles only degrade by 1.8 percent a year.
Given that maintenance costs for electric vehicles are considerably lower than for conventional ones, these findings suggest that going battery-powered is quickly becoming an economical option for most drivers. That will go a long way toward weaning our transportation systems off fossil fuels.
The post The Surprising Longevity of Electric Vehicles: They Now Live as Long as Gas-Powered Cars appeared first on SingularityHub.
2025-01-24 07:03:24
Cancer cells steal from and poison the cells tasked with fighting them off.
Cancers are sneaky infiltrators highly adept at cellular warfare. As they expand, the malignant cells chip away at the body’s immune defenses.
How cancer cells learn to dodge immune attacks has puzzled scientists for decades. A study in Nature this week has a surprising answer: They steal healthy mitochondria—the cell’s energy powerhouses—from the immune cells that hunt them down. In turn, cancers pump their own damaged mitochondria into healthy immune cells, gradually destroying them from the inside.
Scientists have always assumed mitochondria are produced inside cells and live out their lives there. The new findings challenge this dogma, suggesting mitochondria are mobile—at least in cancers and the tumor-infiltrating immune cells working to fight them off.
Analyzing both types of cells from three cancer patients, the Japanese team found that cancer-fighting immune cells poisoned with damaged mitochondria eventually lose their ability to resist. Without a healthy energy source, the cells languish in a state called senescence, where they can no longer function or divide.
Meanwhile, cancer cells pilfer healthy mitochondria from their attackers to satisfy their appetite for energy, allowing them to divide and spread. In tests in petri dishes and mice, the team found that blocking this mitochondria swap slowed cancer growth and made a common immunotherapy more effective.
Stanford’s Holden Maecker, who was not involved in the study, told Nature the finding “sounds crazy, like science fiction,” and that it’s “potentially a totally new biology that we were not looking at.”
This swapping “is a newly discovered mechanism that thwarts anticancer defenses,” wrote Jonathan Brestoff at Washington University School of Medicine, who was also not part of the study.
Mitochondria are a crucial ingredient of life. These oblong-shaped organelles are loaded with proteins that convert fuel from food into energy. Unlike other organelles, mitochondria stand out because they carry their own genetic material.
Let’s backtrack, for a moment.
Most of our DNA is housed in the cell’s nucleus. But mitochondria also contain their own genes, dubbed mtDNA. These are likely remnants of their past. A common theory is that mitochondria were originally independent cells that were “eaten up” by another early type of cell at the beginning of complex life on Earth. Eventually the two formed an alliance, with mitochondria increasing energy production for the cells, and the cells protecting the mitochondria.
Today, mtDNA mostly operates independently from our cells’ nuclear genetic material. It’s stored in circles of DNA (like in bacteria). Unlike the rest of our DNA, mtDNA never evolved sophisticated repair mechanisms, and it’s prone to accumulating mutations.
As they produce energy, mitochondria also damage themselves by pumping toxic waste into their surroundings. Cells routinely dispose of defunct mitochondria to make space for healthy replacements that can keep the cellular factory—and our bodies—humming along.
This process goes awry in cancer.
Cancer cells grow incessantly. They require a steady stream of energy to keep up with their need to repeatedly copy their DNA to divide, grow, and spread. But mitochondria in cancer cells are often mutated and struggle to supply their demanding hosts with enough energy.
In recent decades, scientists have noticed that some cells can shuttle their mitochondria to others. Mostly, the process seems to help out a struggling neighbor. But early hints also suggested mitochondrial transfers could contribute to cancer growth. One study found that tumor cells connect to healthy immune cells to siphon off mitochondria, depleting their attackers of energy while bolstering their own—at least in petri dishes.
Whether this happens in cancer patients is controversial. The new study paints a clearer picture.
The team took samples of tumors and cancer-fighting immune cells—tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), in this case—from three cancer patients and analyzed their mtDNA makeup. Normally, each type of cell harbors its own mtDNA mutational “barcode.”
For each patient, both cell types shared the same cancerous barcode—suggesting that mitochondria from the tumors might be hopping to, and taking over, their attackers.
As the team watched the cells—now growing together in the lab—they found cancer mtDNA almost completely replaced native DNA in some of the immune cells. The team also found the cancer cells were stealing healthy mitochondria from their immune attackers by sending out nanotubes that burrowed into them. Meanwhile, the cancer cells spewed their own damaged mitochondria, encapsulated in fatty bubbles, towards the immune cells.
“These findings establish the first clear evidence of bidirectional exchange of mitochondria between two cell types,” wrote Brestoff.
Damaged mitochondria don’t often linger inside healthy cells. They’re rapidly shuttled to the cellular “trash bin.” Those inherited from cancer cells, however, were dotted with a protein that hid them from the cells. Like leaking chemical plants, the mutated mitochondria silently festered inside without detection.
Over time, the hijacked immune cells slowly degraded. No longer able to divide, they entered “senescence”—a zombie-like state where they excreted a toxic protein soup that further lowered their cancer-battling abilities. In short, by robbing these cells of healthy mitochondria, cancer cells turned the body’s first-line defense into an ally that helped them grow.
The team next dotted tumor mitochondria in tumors with a glow-in-the-dark protein to track them and implanted them into mice.
They found that immune cells in the mice containing cancer-derived mitochondria were far less effective at fighting off cancer cells. They were “exhausted,” explained the team. The contaminated cells struggled to maintain enough energy to ward off cancers and could no longer replicate. However, drugs that blocked mitochondrial transfer revitalized the exhausted cells and made treatment with a common cancer immunotherapy more effective.
Though the results are in mice, mitochondrial transfer could also play a previously unrecognized role in human cancers. Analyzing clinical data from roughly 200 people with two types of cancer, the team found that increased mtDNA mutation was associated with worse outcomes, even when the patients were receiving immunotherapy treatments.
Mitochondrial health has often been studied in the context of aging. These results could spur new interest in how it impacts cancer and other diseases. We still don’t know how exactly mitochondria from cancers damage immune cells. But further study could potentially inspire new treatments to block mitochondrial swaps. Myriad tools already exist to track mitochondria. Expanding research into cancer biology would be a relatively easy next step.
Although “it remains to be determined how prevalent such mitochondrial exchange is” between other cell types, Brestoff wrote, the research raises new questions about its role in other diseases.
The post Scientists Say They’ve Discovered How Cancer Hijacks and Corrupts Immune Cells appeared first on SingularityHub.
2025-01-22 04:26:49
Our digital legacies don’t just preserve memories; they can continue to influence the world, long after we’re gone.
Imagine attending a funeral where the person who has died speaks directly to you, answering your questions and sharing memories. This happened at the funeral of Marina Smith, a Holocaust educator who died in 2022.
Thanks to an AI technology company called StoryFile, Smith seemed to interact naturally with her family and friends.
The system used prerecorded answers combined with artificial intelligence to create a realistic, interactive experience. This wasn’t just a video; it was something closer to a real conversation, giving people a new way to feel connected to a loved one after they’re gone.
Technology has already begun to change how people think about life after death. Several technology companies are helping people manage their digital lives after they’re gone. For example, Apple, Google, and Meta offer tools to allow someone you trust to access your online accounts when you die.
Microsoft has patented a system that can take someone’s digital data—such as texts, emails and social media posts—and use it to create a chatbot. This chatbot can respond in ways that sound like the original person.
In South Korea, a group of media companies took this idea even further. A documentary called “Meeting You” showed a mother reunited with her daughter through virtual reality. Using advanced digital imaging and voice technology, the mother was able to see and talk to her dead daughter as if she were really there.
These examples may seem like science fiction, but they’re real tools available today. As AI continues to improve, the possibility of creating digital versions of people after they die feels closer than ever.
While the idea of a digital afterlife is fascinating, it raises some big questions. For example, who owns your online accounts after you die?
This issue is already being discussed in courts and by governments around the world. In the United States, nearly all states have passed laws allowing people to include digital accounts in their wills.
In Germany, courts ruled that Facebook had to give a deceased person’s family access to their account, saying that digital accounts should be treated as inheritable property, like a bank account or house.
But there are still plenty of challenges. For example, what if a digital clone of you says or does something online that you would never have said or done in real life? Who is responsible for what your AI version does?
When a deepfake of actor Bruce Willis appeared in an ad without his permission, it sparked a debate about how people’s digital likenesses can be controlled, or even exploited, for profit.
Cost is another issue. While some basic tools for managing digital accounts after death are free, more advanced services can be expensive. For example, creating an AI version of yourself might cost thousands of dollars, meaning that only wealthy people could afford to “live on” digitally. This cost barrier raises important questions about whether digital immortality could create new forms of inequality.
Losing someone is often painful, and in today’s world, many people turn to social media to feel connected to those they’ve lost. Research shows that a significant proportion of people maintain their social media connections with deceased loved ones.
But this new way of grieving comes with challenges. Unlike physical memories such as photos or keepsakes that fade over time, digital memories remain fresh and easily accessible. They can even appear unexpectedly in your social media feeds, bringing back emotions when you least expect them.
Some psychologists worry that staying connected to someone’s digital presence could make it harder for people to move on. This is especially true as AI technology becomes more advanced. Imagine being able to chat with a digital version of a loved one that feels almost real. While this might seem comforting, it could make it even harder for someone to accept their loss and let go.
Different cultures and religions have their own unique perspectives on digital immortality. For example:
• The Vatican, the center of the Catholic Church, has said that digital legacies should always respect human dignity.
• In Islamic traditions, scholars are discussing how digital remains fit into religious laws.
• In Japan, some Buddhist temples are offering digital graveyards where families can preserve and interact with digital traces of their loved ones.
These examples show how technology is being shaped by different beliefs about life, death, and remembrance. They also highlight the challenges of blending new innovations with long-standing cultural and religious traditions.
When you think about the future, you probably imagine what you want to achieve in life, not what will happen to your online accounts when you’re gone. But experts say it’s important to plan for your digital assets: everything from social media profiles and email accounts to digital photos, online bank accounts and even cryptocurrencies.
Adding digital assets to your will can help you decide how your accounts should be managed after you’re gone. You might want to leave instructions about who can access your accounts, what should be deleted, and whether you’d like to create a digital version of yourself.
You can even decide if your digital self should “die” after a certain amount of time. These are questions that more and more people will need to think about in the future.
Here are steps you can take to control your digital afterlife:
• Decide on a digital legacy. Reflect on whether creating a digital self aligns with your personal, cultural or spiritual beliefs. Discuss your preferences with loved ones.
• Inventory and plan for digital assets. Make a list of all digital accounts, content, and tools representing your digital self. Decide how these should be managed, preserved, or deleted.
• Choose a digital executor. Appoint a trustworthy, tech-savvy person to oversee your digital assets and carry out your wishes. Clearly communicate your intentions with them.
• Ensure that your will covers your digital identity and assets. Specify how they should be handled, including storage, usage and ethical considerations. Include legal and financial aspects in your plan.
• Prepare for ethical and emotional impacts. Consider how your digital legacy might affect loved ones. Plan to avoid misuse, ensure funding for long-term needs, and align your decisions with your values.
Thousands of years ago, the Egyptian pharaohs had pyramids built to preserve their legacy. Today, our “digital pyramids” are much more advanced and broadly available. They don’t just preserve memories; they can continue to influence the world, long after we’re gone.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The post Logging off Life but Living on: How AI Is Redefining Death, Memory, and Immortality appeared first on SingularityHub.
