Two important roles for humans in AI maths
From Stephen Cadney, Manchester, UK
The current flap over AI’s ability to solve difficult mathematical problems seems to require us to have more mathematicians, not fewer. In other areas of science and technology, it is vital to first truly understand how a computing application works before using it, to avoid good stuff in and rubbish out. It seems like more mathematicians will be needed to check and understand AI-generated proofs and to not rely solely on AI, as people increasingly do in everyday life (17 October, p 19).
To attract students to mathematics, I suggest a series of TV programmes by a public- interest broadcaster explaining the mathematical jokes in The Simpsons. A very high proportion of the first team who wrote the episodes were serious mathematicians, some with PhDs. The jokes were , but barely noticeable, as they didn’t want to interrupt the narrative flow. All great fun.
From Roy Smith, Burntwood, Staffordshire, UK
We are hearing a lot about AIs solving mathematical problems set by humans. I think the real question is, can AIs set problems for humans to solve, or indeed for other AIs to solve? That would be more truly creative.
Deciding not to have a cold has served me well
From Dyane Silvester, Arnside, Cumbria, UK
The conclusion that your mindset can influence how severely an infection affects you comes as no surprise, given that the placebo (and indeed nocebo) effect has long been shown to be real and significant, not to mention our increasing understanding of the mind-body connection. Anecdotally, I have long believed that if I, when I feel the first signs of a cold, decide that I am not going to have it, I suffer less severe symptoms and get over it more quickly (24 October, p 20). This caused a number of disagreements with a former partner, but he always suffered colds worse than I did!
Gender doesn’t help us understand autism
From Richard Kennaway, Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Twenty years ago, psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen proposed the “extreme male brain” concept of autism, we are told. To me, bringing in gender seems to do nothing but confuse things. Men are, on average, taller than women, but it would be absurd to describe someone of 6’5” as having “extreme male height”. They just have extreme height (24 October, p 36). Is the same true of the relation between autism and gender?
The article says Baron-Cohen stands by the idea of an extreme “male profile”, but not that of an extreme “male brain”, and that he has found much higher rates of autism in non-binary people 鈥� few of whom, I expect, are examples of extreme “maleness”.
Animal consciousness isn’t a yes-or-no question
From James Buzolic, Christchurch, New Zealand
Rowan Hooper’s article on animal consciousness and emotional responses made for fascinating reading. The question in many people’s minds is: are animals conscious, yes or no? But consciousness isn’t so black and white (31 October, p 36).
Firstly, we are conscious of something, never just “conscious”. The pet cockatoo I had as a child was aware of me, but was it aware of itself? We try for a background awareness of self so as to be less robotic and more human, yet it is easy to lose self-awareness when we concentrate on our work.
To me, consciousness isn’t something in itself. It is a relationship: with myself, with others and even, if I am a Drosophila fruit fly, with the eye looking at me through a hand lens. It doesn’t imply that the fruit fly is conscious of itself or that it is conscious of me as an intelligent life form. Fruit flies and other animals notice things, but do they know they are noticing?
An alternative explanation for Neanderthal’s death
From Caroline Hurr, Adelaide, South Australia, UK
I was intrigued by the finding of a Neanderthal’s remains with two separate injuries 鈥� one earlier, healed wound to the jaw and another, probably fatal, spear hole in the shoulder 鈥� and the suggestion in your article that the latter may be attributable to hunting or violence (24 October, p 13).
Given the fact that the jaw wound “would almost certainly have required a period of intensive care from the individual’s group”, my mind immediately leapt to at least one possible further explanation for the shoulder injury. As the research team states, such an injury would have “penetrated all the way through the chest, including the lungs and potentially major blood vessels, likely leading to a rapid death”. Is it therefore within the realms of scientific possibility that this represents an early example of what we might today call a mercy killing, to spare the individual what was described as terrible pain from the jaw?
Intense exercise and its role in growing neurons
From Ann Davies, Sheffield, UK
As a personal trainer who works with people with long-term health conditions, I read with interest your article on the growth of new neurons in the adult brain (31 October, p 32).
I have trained to work with people with Parkinson’s disease. That training made it very clear to me that the brain can and does grow new neurons. During exercises like high-intensity interval training, brain-derived neurotrophic factor is produced, which protects existing neurons and encourages new ones to grow.
There are better ways to keep clocks and sun in line
From Eric Kvaalen, Les Essarts-le-Roi, France
I am disappointed that scientists at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures have decided to no longer use leap seconds to keep our clocks in sync with Earth’s rotation, instead opting to put people in the future into permanent daylight saving time, with universal time drifting up to an hour from astronomical time before being corrected (24 October, p 11).
It would have been fine to simply pause the leap seconds for a few decades, but there is a better long-term solution, which is to define the universal second as slightly longer than the astronomical second. The universal second would be redefined every century or so. This would be easy to implement, and would keep clocks aligned with the sun.
Want to get in touch?
Send letters to letters@newscientist.com; see terms at
Letters sent to New Scientist, 9 Derry Street, London, W8 5HY will be delayed