Latest news with #arXiv
Yahoo
a day ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Does Using ChatGPT Really Change Your Brain Activity?
The brains of people writing an essay with ChatGPT are less engaged than those of people blocked from using any online tools for the task, a study finds. The investigation is part of a broader movement to assess whether artificial intelligence (AI) is making us cognitively lazy. Computer scientist Nataliya Kosmyna at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and her colleagues measured brain-wave activity in university students as they wrote essays either using a chatbot or an Internet search tool, or without any Internet at all. Although the main result is unsurprising, some of the study's findings are more intriguing: for instance, the team saw hints that relying on a chatbot for initial tasks might lead to relatively low levels of brain engagement even when the tool is later taken away. Echoing some posts about the study on online platforms, Kosmyna is careful to say that the results shouldn't be overinterpreted. This study cannot and did not show 'dumbness in the brain, no stupidity, no brain on vacation,' Kosmyna laughs. It involved only a few dozen participants over a short time and cannot address whether habitual chatbot use reshapes our thinking in the long-term, or how the brain might respond during other AI-assisted tasks. 'We don't have any of these answers in this paper,' Kosmyna says. The work was posted ahead of peer review on the preprint server arXiv on 10 June. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Kosmyna's team recruited 60 students, aged 18 to 39, from five universities around the city of Boston, Massachusetts. The researchers asked them to spend 20 minutes crafting a short essay answering questions, such as 'should we always think before we speak?', that appear on Scholastic Assessment Tests, or SATs. The participants were divided into three groups: one used ChatGPT, powered by OpenAI's large language model GPT-4o, as the sole source of information for their essays; another used Google to search for material (without any AI-assisted answers); and the third was forbidden to go online at all. In the end, 54 participants wrote essays answering three questions while in their assigned group, and then 18 were re-assigned to a new group to write a fourth essay, on one of the topics that they had tackled previously. Each student wore a commercial electrode-covered cap, which collected electroencephalography (EEG) readings as they wrote. These headsets measure tiny voltage changes from brain activity and can show which broad regions of the brain are 'talking' to each other. The students who wrote essays using only their brains showed the strongest, widest-ranging connectivity among brain regions, and had more activity going from the back of their brains to the front, decision-making area. They were also, unsurprisingly, better able to quote from their own essays when questioned by the researchers afterwards. The Google group, by comparison, had stronger activations in areas known to be involved with visual processing and memory. And the chatbot group displayed the least brain connectivity during the task. More brain connectivity isn't necessarily good or bad, Kosmyna says. In general, more brain activity might be a sign that someone is engaging more deeply with a task, or it might be a sign of inefficiency in thinking, or an indication that the person is overwhelmed by 'cognitive overload'. Interestingly, when the participants who initially used ChatGPT for their essays switched to writing without any online tools, their brains ramped up connectivity — but not to the same level as in the participants who worked without the tools from the beginning. 'This evidence aligns with a worry that many creativity researchers have about AI — that overuse of AI, especially for idea generation, may lead to brains that are less well-practised in core mechanisms of creativity,' says Adam Green, co-founder of the Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity and a cognitive neuroscientist at Georgetown University in Washington DC. But only 18 people were included in this last part of the study, Green notes, which adds uncertainty to the findings. He also says there could be other explanations for the observations: for instance, these students were rewriting an essay on a topic they had already tackled, and therefore the task might have drawn on cognitive resources that differed from those required when writing about a brand-new topic. Confoundingly, the study also showed that switching to a chatbot to write an essay after previously composing it without any online tools boosted brain connectivity — the opposite, Green says, of what you might expect. This suggests it could be important to think about when AI tools are introduced to learners to enhance their experience, Kosmyna says. 'The timing might be important.' Many educational scholars are optimistic about the use of chatbots as effective, personalized tutors. Guido Makransky, an educational psychologist at the University of Copenhagen, says these tools work best when they guide students to ask reflective questions, rather than giving them answers. 'It's an interesting paper, and I can see why it's getting so much attention,' Makransky says. 'But in the real world, students would and should interact with AI in a different way.' This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 25, 2025.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
'City killer' asteroid 2024 YR4 could shower Earth with 'bullet-like' meteors if it hits the moon in 2032
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. New simulations reveal that the infamous "city killer" asteroid 2024 YR4 could shower Earth with "bullet-like" debris if it hits the moon in seven years' time, potentially triggering an eye-catching meteor shower — and endangering the satellites that orbit our planet. 2024 YR4 is a potentially hazardous asteroid measuring roughly 200 feet (60 meters) across, making it large enough to wipe out a large urban area if it were to hit Earth head-on. It was first discovered in December 2024 but made headlines earlier this year when scientists first predicted that there was a chance it could smash into Earth on Dec. 22, 2032. The odds of a collision peaked at 3.1% in February, which was enough to prompt NASA to study it extensively. However, subsequent analysis revealed there is zero chance of it impacting our planet. But in April, researchers realized that, while Earth is no longer in the firing line, the space rock could still hit the moon. The odds of such a collision have grown slowly but steadily, and most recently jumped to 4.3% earlier this month. Experts will likely know the final likelihood by 2028, when the asteroid will make its next close approach to our planet. In a new study, uploaded June 12 to the preprint server arXiv, researchers ran computer simulations to model what a lunar impact might look like. The team estimated that up to 220 million pounds (100 million kilograms) of material could be ejected from the lunar surface. If 2024 YR4 hits the Earth-facing side of the moon — which is roughly a 50/50 chance — up to 10% of this debris could be pulled in by Earth's gravity over the following days, the scientists wrote. 2024 YR4 would be the largest space rock to hit the moon in "at least 5,000 years," study lead author Paul Wiegert, an expert in solar system dynamics at Western University in Ontario, Canada, who has also extensively studied the "God of Chaos" asteroid Apophis that will zip past Earth in 2029, told French news site AFP. The impact would be "comparable to a large nuclear explosion in terms of the amount of energy released," he added. Related: 'Just the tip of the iceberg': Why risky asteroids like 2024 YR4 will pester Earth for decades to come It is important to note that the new simulations (visible below) were created before the odds of a lunar impact rose from 3.8% to 4.3% on June 16, which slightly raises the chances of this scenario playing out. But it is still far from a certainty. The findings from the new study have also not yet been peer-reviewed. It is unlikely that any of the potential debris fragments will pose a risk to people on the planet's surface. Instead, we may be treated to a "spectacular" meteor shower as wayward fragments of rock burn up in Earth's atmosphere, which could last for several days and be seen by people across the globe, Weigert said. But while we will almost certainly be safe on the ground from any potential lunar meteor shower, our space-based infrastructure could be under threat. The amount of debris that could potentially be pulled close to Earth makes it around 1,000 times more likely that our satellites could be struck by a meteor. And by 2032, the number of spacecraft orbiting our planet is expected to rise significantly. "A centimeter-sized rock traveling at tens of thousands of meters per second is a lot like a bullet," Weigert said. Such an object could easily take out a satellite or cause critical damage to human-inhabited space stations, such as China's Tiangong station. (The International Space Station is scheduled to be decommissioned by 2030.) If the odds of a lunar impact increase further in the coming years, government agencies may make the decision to try and divert the asteroid's course to protect Earth's space assets. The asteroid would be a "good target" for testing our planetary defence capabilities, Weigert said. "I'm sure it will be considered." RELATED STORIES —An 'invisible threat': Swarm of hidden 'city killer' asteroids around Venus could one day collide with Earth, simulations show —No, NASA hasn't warned of an impending asteroid strike in 2038. Here's what really happened. —'Planet killer' asteroids are hiding in the sun's glare. Can we stop them in time? NASA already demonstrated its ability to redirect dangerous asteroids back in 2022, when it diverted the trajectory of the asteroid Dimorphos by slamming the DART probe into it. 2024 YR4 is only around half the size of that particular space rock. However, if we wait too long, it may become "dangerous" to try and alter the space rock's trajectory because a wrong move could put it onto a potentially catastrophic collision course with Earth, Weigert said. Some experts are also worried that the proposed cuts to NASA's budget by the Trump administration could make it harder to track dangerous asteroids, such as 2024 YR4, in the future.
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Science
- Scientific American
Does Using ChatGPT Change Your Brain Activity? Study Sparks Debate
The brains of people writing an essay with ChatGPT are less engaged than those of people blocked from using any online tools for the task, a study finds. The investigation is part of a broader movement to assess whether artificial intelligence (AI) is making us cognitively lazy. Computer scientist Nataliya Kosmyna at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and her colleagues measured brain-wave activity in university students as they wrote essays either using a chatbot or an Internet search tool, or without any Internet at all. Although the main result is unsurprising, some of the study's findings are more intriguing: for instance, the team saw hints that relying on a chatbot for initial tasks might lead to relatively low levels of brain engagement even when the tool is later taken away. Echoing some posts about the study on online platforms, Kosmyna is careful to say that the results shouldn't be overinterpreted. This study cannot and did not show 'dumbness in the brain, no stupidity, no brain on vacation,' Kosmyna laughs. It involved only a few dozen participants over a short time and cannot address whether habitual chatbot use reshapes our thinking in the long-term, or how the brain might respond during other AI-assisted tasks. 'We don't have any of these answers in this paper,' Kosmyna says. The work was posted ahead of peer review on the preprint server arXiv on 10 June. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Easy essays Kosmyna's team recruited 60 students, aged 18 to 39, from five universities around the city of Boston, Massachusetts. The researchers asked them to spend 20 minutes crafting a short essay answering questions, such as 'should we always think before we speak?', that appear on Scholastic Assessment Tests, or SATs. The participants were divided into three groups: one used ChatGPT, powered by OpenAI's large language model GPT-4o, as the sole source of information for their essays; another used Google to search for material (without any AI-assisted answers); and the third was forbidden to go online at all. In the end, 54 participants wrote essays answering three questions while in their assigned group, and then 18 were re-assigned to a new group to write a fourth essay, on one of the topics that they had tackled previously. Each student wore a commercial electrode-covered cap, which collected electroencephalography (EEG) readings as they wrote. These headsets measure tiny voltage changes from brain activity and can show which broad regions of the brain are 'talking' to each other. The students who wrote essays using only their brains showed the strongest, widest-ranging connectivity among brain regions, and had more activity going from the back of their brains to the front, decision-making area. They were also, unsurprisingly, better able to quote from their own essays when questioned by the researchers afterwards. The Google group, by comparison, had stronger activations in areas known to be involved with visual processing and memory. And the chatbot group displayed the least brain connectivity during the task. More brain connectivity isn't necessarily good or bad, Kosmyna says. In general, more brain activity might be a sign that someone is engaging more deeply with a task, or it might be a sign of inefficiency in thinking, or an indication that the person is overwhelmed by 'cognitive overload'. Creativity lost? Interestingly, when the participants who initially used ChatGPT for their essays switched to writing without any online tools, their brains ramped up connectivity — but not to the same level as in the participants who worked without the tools from the beginning. 'This evidence aligns with a worry that many creativity researchers have about AI — that overuse of AI, especially for idea generation, may lead to brains that are less well-practised in core mechanisms of creativity,' says Adam Green, co-founder of the Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity and a cognitive neuroscientist at Georgetown University in Washington DC. But only 18 people were included in this last part of the study, Green notes, which adds uncertainty to the findings. He also says there could be other explanations for the observations: for instance, these students were rewriting an essay on a topic they had already tackled, and therefore the task might have drawn on cognitive resources that differed from those required when writing about a brand-new topic. Confoundingly, the study also showed that switching to a chatbot to write an essay after previously composing it without any online tools boosted brain connectivity — the opposite, Green says, of what you might expect. This suggests it could be important to think about when AI tools are introduced to learners to enhance their experience, Kosmyna says. 'The timing might be important.' Many educational scholars are optimistic about the use of chatbots as effective, personalized tutors. Guido Makransky, an educational psychologist at the University of Copenhagen, says these tools work best when they guide students to ask reflective questions, rather than giving them answers. 'It's an interesting paper, and I can see why it's getting so much attention,' Makransky says. 'But in the real world, students would and should interact with AI in a different way.'
Mint
2 days ago
- Science
- Mint
This small robot can fly thanks to jet engines, and may one day help in emergencies or dangerous work
The robots are here and now they can fly. At the Italian Institute of Technology, engineers have built iRonCub, a robot shaped like a person (with a baby face, for some reason) that can lift off the ground with jet engines. The robot stands as tall as a child and weighs about 70 kilograms. Its face is blank and simple. The team started with detailed computer models to design iRonCub. They used a programme called PTC Creo. The design keeps changing as they test the robot in real life. The latest version is called iRonCub MK3. It has a new titanium spine and covers that protect it from heat. There are four jet engines, two on the arms and two on the back. These engines can lift the robot and keep it in the air. The exhaust from the engines gets very hot, so the team had to make sure the robot would not get damaged. There are two main versions of iRonCub. Both are based on earlier robots called iCub. The engineers use a digital model to plan and test how the robot should move. This helps them find problems before they try new ideas on the real robot. Flying is not easy for a robot with arms and legs. The team wrote software to plan how iRonCub should move when it walks or flies. They use Python for planning and C++ for running tests. The robot is controlled by a person who wears a headset and uses special equipment. The control system keeps the robot steady and safe during flight. To know where it is, iRonCub uses sensors on its body. These sensors tell the robot its position and how it is moving. The team also built a test bench to check how much thrust each engine gives. This helps them adjust the robot for better flight. The engineers use computer simulations to study how air moves around iRonCub. They also test the robot in a wind tunnel to see how it behaves in real air. This is the first time a humanoid robot has been tested like this. iRonCub is not just an experiment. The team hopes robots like this will help in disaster zones, dangerous repairs, or inspections. The project shows how robots are changing and becoming more useful in real life, with their usefulness far surpassing their potential dangers. The research on iRonCub's flight, aerodynamics, and control was published in the journal Nature Communications Engineering and is also available as a preprint on arXiv.
The Sun
4 days ago
- Science
- The Sun
Alien-hunting scientists reveal origin of mystery space pulse after year-long probe into surprising ‘distant object'
THE origin of a mysterious pulse emanating from space has finally been revealed by scientists after a year of investigation. And it's not quite an alien civilisation trying to contact Earth, according to a new study. 2 The fast radio burst (FRB), detected at the Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder in June 2024, only lasted less than 30 nanoseconds. But it was so strong that it surpassed all other signals coming from the sky. Scientists track these bizarre space signals to understand where they came from - and explanations include everything from black holes to alien technology. Most FRBs come from deep within space - and so it was assumed this recent powerful signal was too. However, researchers found that the pulse had been emitted from something much closer to home: a zombie satellite. The Relay 2, a long-dead NASA satellite, had let out a powerful signal each time it passed over the astronomers' signal detection tools. The defunct satellite's proximity to Earth, researchers said, made its signal so unusually clear. Launched by Nasa in 1964, the communications satellite has been stuck in Earth's orbit for decades. It stopped working less than a year after launch. Now - the Relay 2 hasn't been emitting signals all this time. First mission to 'create artificial solar eclipse' using satellites will solve Sun mystery It has been silent since its transponders broke in 1967, until now. The research team, which published their findings in research paper archive arXiv, said it is unlikely the satellite has suddenly come back to life. Instead, astronomers suggested that a build up of static electricity on the spacecraft reached a boiling point and then discharged - firing a pulse of energy over Earth. Similar discharges have been seen before, the study noted. Another possibility is that the satellite was hit by a micrometeroid - a small fleck of space rock. While a micrometeoroid typically measures between a few micrometres to a few millimetres, the speed at which they are hurtling in Earth's orbit means they can exert a fair amount of damage. If the satellite was struck by such an object, the collision would have released a very small cloud of plasma, according to researchers. This plasma can magnify an FRB signal, making it seem stronger. 2
