Tuesday, October 22, 2024

 

Virginia Tech researcher works to preserve the white shark in the Mediterranean Sea



The research team went on a ‘White Shark Chase’ in the Sicilian Channel and located evidence of white sharks at four sites.




Virginia Tech

Francesco Ferretti and his research team 

image: 

(From left) Brendan Shea, Chiara Gambardella, Francesco Ferretti, Jeremy Jenrette, Robert Schallert before departing for the "White Shark Chase" in 2021.

view more 

Credit: Courtesy Francesco Ferretti




The Mediterranean Sea is a paradise.

Pristine waters and an incredible coastline spanning multiple continents that are renowned the world over.

Below those picturesque, and sometimes crowded, waters swim a legendary creature facing a treacherous and uncertain future: the white shark.

Francesco Ferretti, an assistant professor in the College of Natural Resources and Environment, is working to save one of the most endangered white shark populations on the planet. The research team located signs of the remaining white sharks in the Sicilian Channel.

“We decided to take on the challenge of locating the last remaining white sharks in the Mediterranean and saving them,” Ferretti said. “One of the most critical steps was tagging individuals so we could learn more about their abundance and distribution. This led to the ‘White Shark Chase,’ an initiative where we began identifying areas in the Mediterranean where these animals might be found. It was not easy as these sharks are rare.”

Incredibly rare, in fact.

Unlike places like California, where the sharks gather near seal colonies, they have no known aggregation areas in the Mediterranean. Finding them felt like searching for a needle in a haystack, or, more aptly, a grain of sand in the sea.

Taylor Chapple, an assistant professor at Oregon State University at the Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station and white shark technical expert on the project, was a postdoc with Ferretti at Stanford and they have continued to work together ever since.

“These animals likely have a very different ecology than the white sharks from other global populations,” Chapple said. “These seem to be more likely based on tunas and smaller fish. It almost flips our understanding of white sharks on its head. It allows these animals that are a couple of tons – bigger than any land perdators – to exist on a resource that is very surprising. Seals are very fatty, and these sharks are feeding on tuna and still getting this large.”

This research is the first step in establishing a monitoring program for the sharks in the region in the ongoing efforts to help prevent the animal’s extinction in the area.

The research was published in Frontiers of Marine Science on Oct. 22, 2024, and was done in collaboration with Jeremy Jenrette and Brendan Shea of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; Shea and Austin Gallagher with Beneath the Waves; Chiara Gambardella with the Polytechnic University of Marche; Gambardella and Stefano Moro with Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; Khaled Echwikhi with University of Gabes and High Institute of Applied Biology of Medenine; Robert Schallert and Barbara Block with Stanford University; Schallert with Tag-a-Giant; and Chapple with Oregon State University’s Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station.

Funding was provided by The Explorers Club, Discovery Channel, Sharkproject, the Bertarelli Foundation, the Augmentum platform, and individual donors.

Ferretti organized three pilot expeditions in 2021, 2022, and 2023, focusing on what we believed to be hotspots for the species – the Sicilian Channel. These expeditions used improved methods and technologies compared to previous efforts, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, which detects traces of animal DNA in water, like using a dog to sniff out an animal’s presence. The researchers also used surface and deepwater cameras with bait to attract the sharks, and chumming to try and lure them closer.

During the expeditions, they detected the presence of white sharks on five occasions at the four sites. The team was correct in their choice of location and timing of May through June, but did not interact directly with the sharks.

“They are extremely sparse, and we realized that even with our efforts, we weren't working on a large enough scale,” Ferretti said. “We need to recalibrate our approach and develop new strategies. Despite these challenges, we were able to identify a stronghold of this population, particularly in the southern Sicilian Channel off northern Africa. This area is highly impacted by fishing, and it is where we are focusing our efforts now. The pilot expeditions allowed us to recalibrate for a larger program and provided valuable insight into where to focus future efforts.”

Stormy seas

The research team, which included graduate students from Virginia Tech, used leisure boats, which, while suitable, were far from ideal as they were not dedicated research vessels. They lacked space, speed, and the necessary equipment to properly store chum material—primarily bluefin tuna, which is highly regulated in the Mediterranean and difficult to source continuously.

We were able to carry out our research, gathering vital data that will guide future expeditions,” Ferretti said. “It was a demanding but crucial part of our ongoing efforts to protect this endangered population.”

The journeys took the team from Marsala, on the northwest tip of Sicily, to various islands like Lampedusa and Pantelleria, as well as Tunisia and Malta, deploying long-line cameras and collecting eDNA samples along the way. However, the intense commercial boat and fishing traffic in the Sicilian Channel made things challenging, and the researchers had to monitor their equipment closely to avoid collisions with ships.

In 2023, the team utilized a large 87-foot sailing yacht to conduct open water research and had a film crew document the mission.

While they did not directly see any white sharks, they successfully tagged a Mako shark for the first time in the region as part of another research project.

And, Ferretti said, the path for future research missions has been set.

The next horizon

Now, the research team is planning and fundraising for multiple future expeditions in the Sicilian Channel and beyond.

“We know that one hot spot is there, but there may also be other important areas in the eastern Mediterranean Sea hosting critical habitat such as a nursery,” Ferretti said.

The researchers are implementing a series of approaches, including monitoring ports in North Africa to track interactions between fishers and sharks and collect biological material. This allows them to gather genetic and isotopic samples for analysis. Through isotopic analysis, they can learn more about the population’s structure, diet, and changes in habitat as the sharks grow.

“We don’t do research in a vacuum,” Chapple said. “The research we do now is so multi-disciplinary and the questions that we can ask now are not achievable as a single entity. This white shark chase – there is so much knowledge held in local communities and stakeholders, that as a scientist we cannot step in there and say this is what we should do. These multi-institutional collaborations are critical for understanding the animals, the systems, and the culture that happens around the research.”

These collaborations across not only universities, but also regions, add additional tools to the researchers’ toolbox to improve effectiveness.

“We are expanding our network of local and international collaborators to maximize the value of the data we collect and establish a proper monitoring program for the Mediterranean,” Ferretti said. “Currently, there is no formal monitoring or conservation program in place for this population. We want now to keep monitoring this population because we do not want to lose it.”

 

New group of digital criminals are exploiting the United States' financial systems



Cryptocurrency fraud in Nigeria is exclusively committed by young men, with 100% of convicted fraudsters being male and nearly two-thirds under the age of 30, according to a new study from the University of Surrey.


University of Surrey





Cryptocurrency fraud in Nigeria is exclusively committed by young men, with 100% of convicted fraudsters being male and nearly two-thirds under the age of 30, according to a new study from the University of Surrey. The United States is firmly in the sights of these criminals, with 55% of all cases involving American targets.


The study, conducted in collaboration with Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), analysed case files of convicted cryptocurrency fraudsters in Nigeria. It paints a disturbing picture of a new, tech-savvy criminal demographic conducting sophisticated crimes that exploit digital currencies to defraud victims across borders. These activities pose significant challenges to traditional law enforcement.


Dr Suleman Lazarus, one of the lead authors of the study and cybercrime expert at the University of Surrey, said: 


"Our research reveals a disturbing surge in cryptocurrency fraud. We're observing a rising generation of young, tech-savvy male offenders who adeptly exploit digital platforms and cryptocurrencies to perpetrate high-stakes fraud. The fact that they predominantly target victims in the United States spotlights the transnational nature of this threat and underlines the urgent need for international collaboration to curb these crimes."


The research team reviewed individual case files of convicted cryptocurrency fraudsters to gain insights into the methods, motivations, and financial gains of these digital criminals. The study found that fraudsters used a variety of popular social media and communication platforms to perpetrate their schemes, with Facebook (27%), Gmail (22%), and Instagram (14%) being the most common.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the study revealed that Bitcoin was the preferred method for 46% of cryptocurrency fraud cases. This preference for Bitcoin highlights the challenges law enforcement faces in tracking and recovering stolen funds due to the anonymity provided by cryptocurrencies.


The financial gains from these fraudulent activities varied significantly, ranging from $1,000 to as much as $475,000 in cash and even 1,200 Bitcoin (approximately $81.96 million). These figures underscore the lucrative nature of cryptocurrency fraud and its potential to inflict substantial financial harm on victims.


Interestingly, the study also revealed that only a quarter of convicted fraudsters held a degree, challenging the common perception that sophisticated digital crimes require a high level of technical expertise.


Dr Lazarus continued:
"As cryptocurrencies continue to gain popularity, our research serves as a wake-up call for law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and the general public to remain vigilant against the evolving threats in the digital financial landscape."

[ENDS]

AI is set to transform science – but will we understand the results?

The Conversation
October 22, 2024 

SkillUp / Shutterstock

Artificial intelligence (AI) has taken center stage in basic science. The five winners of the 2024 Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics shared a common thread: AI.

Indeed, many scientists – including the Nobel committees – are celebrating AI as a force for transforming science.

As one of the laureates put it, AI’s potential for accelerating scientific discovery makes it “one of the most transformative technologies in human history”. But what will this transformation really mean for science?

AI promises to help scientists do more, faster, with less money. But it brings a host of new concerns, too – and if scientists rush ahead with AI adoption they risk transforming science into something that escapes public understanding and trust, and fails to meet the needs of society.

The illusions of understanding

Experts have already identified at least three illusions that can ensnare researchers using AI.

The first is the “illusion of explanatory depth”. Just because an AI model excels at predicting a phenomenon — like AlphaFold, which won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for its predictions of protein structures — that doesn’t mean it can accurately explain it. Research in neuroscience has already shown that AI models designed for optimized prediction can lead to misleading conclusions about the underlying neurobiological mechanisms.

Second is the “illusion of exploratory breadth”. Scientists might think they are investigating all testable hypotheses in their exploratory research, when in fact they are only looking at a limited set of hypotheses that can be tested using AI.

Finally, the “illusion of objectivity”. Scientists may believe AI models are free from bias, or that they can account for all possible human biases. In reality, however, all AI models inevitably reflect the biases present in their training data and the intentions of their developers.

Cheaper and faster science

One of the main reasons for AI’s increasing appeal in science is its potential to produce more results, faster, and at a much lower cost.

An extreme example of this push is the “AI Scientist” machine recently developed by Sakana AI Labs. The company’s vision is to develop a “fully AI-driven system for automated scientific discovery”, where each idea can be turned into a full research paper for just US$15 – though critics said the system produced “endless scientific slop”.


Do we really want a future where research papers can be produced with just a few clicks, simply to “accelerate” the production of science? This risks inundating the scientific ecosystem with papers with no meaning and value, further straining an already overburdened peer-review system.

We might find ourselves in a world where science, as we once knew it, is buried under the noise of AI-generated content.

A lack of context

The rise of AI in science comes at a time when public trust in science and scientists is still fairly high , but we can’t take it for granted. Trust is complex and fragile.

As we learned during the COVID pandemic, calls to “trust the science” can fall short because scientific evidence and computational models are often contested, incomplete, or open to various interpretations.

However, the world faces any number of problems, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality, that require public policies crafted with expert judgement. This judgement must also be sensitive to specific situations, gathering input from various disciplines and lived experiences that must be interpreted through the lens of local culture and values.


As an International Science Council report published last year argued, science must recognize nuance and context to rebuild public trust. Letting AI shape the future of science may undermine hard-won progress in this area.

If we allow AI to take the lead in scientific inquiry, we risk creating a monoculture of knowledge that prioritises the kinds of questions, methods, perspectives and experts best suited for AI.

This can move us away from the transdisciplinary approach essential for responsible AI, as well as the nuanced public reasoning and dialogue needed to tackle our social and environmental challenges.

A new social contract for science

As the 21st century began, some argued scientists had a renewed social contract in which scientists focus their talents on the most pressing issues of our time in exchange for public funding. The goal is to help society move toward a more sustainable biosphere – one that is ecologically sound, economically viable and socially just.

The rise of AI presents scientists with an opportunity not just to fulfill their responsibilities but to revitalize the contract itself. However, scientific communities will need to address some important questions about the use of AI first.

For example, is using AI in science a kind of “outsourcing” that could compromise the integrity of publicly funded work? How should this be handled?

What about the growing environmental footprint of AI? And how can researchers remain aligned with society’s expectations while integrating AI into the research pipeline?

The idea of transforming science with AI without first establishing this social contract risks putting the cart before the horse.

Letting AI shape our research priorities without input from diverse voices and disciplines can lead to a mismatch with what society actually needs and result in poorly allocated resources.

Science should benefit society as a whole. Scientists need to engage in real conversations about the future of AI within their community of practice and with research stakeholders. These discussions should address the dimensions of this renewed social contract, reflecting shared goals and values.

It’s time to actively explore the various futures that AI for science enables or blocks – and establish the necessary standards and guidelines to harness its potential responsibly.

Ehsan Nabavi, Senior Lecturer in Technology and Society, Responsible Innovation Lab, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


 

Artificial intelligence is creating a new way of thinking, an external thought process outside of our minds



The 'System 0', which in the future will support and enhance our cognitive abilities, is the ongoing revolution described in the journal Nature Human Behaviour by a multidisciplinary group of scientists coordinated by experts from Università Cattolica, c



Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore





The interaction between humans and artificial intelligence is shaping a new thinking system, a new cognitive scheme, external to the human mind, but capable of enhancing its cognitive abilities. This is called System 0, which operates alongside the two models of human thought: System 1, characterized by intuitive, fast, and automatic thinking, and System 2, a more analytical and reflective type of thinking. However, System 0 introduces an additional level of complexity, radically altering the cognitive landscape in which we operate, and could thus mark a monumental step forward in the evolution of our ability to think and make decisions. It will be our responsibility to ensure that this progress will be used to improve our cognitive autonomy without compromising it.

 

This is reported by the prestigious scientific journal Nature Human Behaviour, in an article titled "The case for human-AI interaction as System 0 thinking" – [link](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01995-5), written by a team of researchers led by Professor Giuseppe Riva, director of the Humane Technology Lab at Università Cattolica's Milan campus and the Applied Technology for Neuropsychology Lab at Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, Milan, and by Professor Mario Ubiali (I NEED THE COMPLETE AFFILIATION) from Università Cattolica's Brescia campus. The study was directed with Massimo Chiriatti from the Infrastructure Solutions Group, Lenovo, in Milan, Professor Marianna Ganapini from the Philosophy Department at Union College, Schenectady, New York, and Professor Enrico Panai from the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Language of Science at Università Cattolica's Milan campus.

 

A new form of external thinking

Just as an external drive allows us to store data that are not present on the computer, we can work by connecting our drive to a PC wherever we are, artificial intelligence, with its galactic processing and data-handling capabilities, can represent an external circuit to the human brain capable of enhancing it. Hence the idea of System 0, which is essentially a form of "external" thinking that relies on the capabilities of AI.

 

By managing enormous amounts of data, AI can process information and provide suggestions or decisions based on complex algorithms. However, unlike intuitive or analytical thinking, System 0 does not assign intrinsic meaning to the information it processes. In other words, AI can perform calculations, make predictions, and generate responses without truly "understanding" the content of the data it works with.

 

Humans, therefore, have to interpret on their ones and giving meaning to the results produced by AI. It's like having an assistant that efficiently gathers, filters, and organizes information but still requires our intervention to make informed decisions. This cognitive support provides valuable input, but the final control must always remain in human hands.

 

The risks of System 0: loss of autonomy and blind trust

 

“The risk,” professors Riva and Ubiali emphasize, “is relying too much on System 0 without exercising critical thinking. If we passively accept the solutions offered by AI, we might lose our ability to think autonomously and develop innovative ideas. In an increasingly automated world, it is crucial that humans continue to question and challenge the results generated by AI,” the experts stress.

 

Furthermore, transparency and trust in AI systems represent another major dilemma. How can we be sure that these systems are free from bias or distortion and that they provide accurate and reliable information? “The growing trend of using synthetic or artificially generated data could compromise our perception of reality and negatively influence our decision-making processes,” the professors warn.

 

AI could even hijack our introspective abilities, they note—i.e., the act of reflecting on one’s thoughts and feelings—a uniquely human process. However, with AI's advancement, it may become possible to rely on intelligent systems to analyze our behaviors and mental states. This raises the question: to what extent can we truly understand ourselves through AI analysis? And can AI replicate the complexity of subjective experience?

 

Despite these questions, System 0 also offers enormous opportunities, the professors point out. Thanks to its ability to process complex data quickly and efficiently, AI can support humanity in tackling problems that exceed our natural cognitive capacities. Whether solving complex scientific issues, analyzing massive datasets, or managing intricate social systems, AI could become an indispensable ally.

 

To leverage the potential of System 0, the study's authors suggest it is urgent to develop ethical and responsible guidelines for its use. “Transparency, accountability, and digital literacy are key elements to enable people to critically interact with AI,” they warn. “Educating the public on how to navigate this new cognitive environment will be crucial to avoid the risks of excessive dependence on these systems.”

 

The future of human thought

They conclude: If left unchecked, System 0 could interfere with human thinking in the future. “It is essential that we remain aware and critical in how we use it; the true potential of System 0 will depend on our ability to guide it in the right direction.”

 

People hate stories they think were written by AI. Even if they were written by people



University of Florida




Stories written by the latest version of ChatGPT were nearly as good as those written by human authors, according to new research on the narrative skills of artificial intelligence.

But when people were told a story was written by AI — whether the true author was an algorithm or a person — they rated the story poorly, a sign that people distrust and dislike AI-generated art. 

“People don’t like when they think a story is written by AI, whether it was or not,” said Haoran “Chris” Chu, Ph.D., a professor of public relations at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. “AI is good at writing something that is consistent, logical and coherent. But it is still weaker at writing engaging stories than people are.”

The quality of AI stories could help people like public health workers create compelling narratives to reach people and encourage healthy behaviors, such as vaccination, said Chu, an expert in public health and science communication. Chu and his co-author, Sixiao Liu, Ph.D., of the University of Central Florida, published their findings Sept. 13 in the Journal of Communication.

The researchers exposed people to two different versions of the same stories. One was written by a person and the other by ChatGPT. Survey participants then rated how engaged they were with the stories.

To test how people’s beliefs about AI influenced their ratings, Chu and Liu changed how the stories were labeled. Sometimes the AI story was correctly labeled as written by a computer. Other times people were told it was written by a human. The human-authored stories also had their labels swapped.

The surveys focused on two key elements of narratives: counterarguing — the experience of picking a story apart — and transportation. These two story components work at odds with one another.

“Transportation is a very familiar experience,” Chu said. “It’s the feeling of being so engrossed in the narrative you don’t feel the sticky seats in the movie theater anymore. Because people are so engaged, they often lower their defenses to the persuasive content in the narrative and reduce their counterarguing.”

While people generally rated AI stories as just as persuasive as their human-authored counterparts, the computer-written stories were not as good as transporting people into the world of the narrative.

“AI does not write like a master writer. That’s probably good news for people like Hollywood screenwriters — for now,” Chu said.