Enlarge / In the experiments, people had to judge what constituted a fair monetary offer. (credit: manusapon kasosod)

In many cases, AIs are trained on material that's either made or curated by humans. As a result, it can become a significant challenge to keep the AI from replicating the biases of those humans and the society they belong to. And the stakes are high, given we're using AIs to make medical and financial decisions.

But some researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have found an additional wrinkle in these challenges: The people doing the training may potentially change their behavior when they know it can influence the future choices made by an AI. And, in at least some cases, they carry the changed behaviors into situations that don't involve AI training.

Would you like to play a game?

The work involved getting volunteers to participate in a simple form of game theory. Testers gave two participants a pot of money—$10, in this case. One of the two was then asked to offer some fraction of that money to the other, who could choose to accept or reject the offer. If the offer was rejected, nobody got any money.

Enlarge / The environment you're eating in can influence what you taste, and space is no exception. (credit: NASA)

Astronauts on the ISS tend to favor spicy foods and top other foods with things like tabasco or shrimp cocktail sauce with horseradish. “Based on anecdotal reports, they have expressed that food in space tastes less flavorful. This is the way to compensate for this,” said Grace Loke, a food scientist at the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.

Loke’s team did a study to take a closer look at those anecdotal reports and test if our perception of flavor really changes in an ISS-like environment. It likely does, but only some flavors are affected.

Tasting with all senses

“There are many environmental factors that could contribute to how we perceive taste, from the size of the area to the color and intensity of the lighting, the volume and type of sounds present, the way our surroundings smell, down to even the size and shape of our cutlery. Many other studies covered each of these factors in some way or another,” said Loke.

Enlarge (credit: IURII BUKHTA)

A key aspect of humans' evolutionary success is the fact that we don't have to learn how to do things from scratch. Our societies have developed various ways—from formal education to YouTube videos—to convey what others have learned. This makes learning how to do things far easier than learning by doing, and it gives us more space to experiment; we can learn to build new things or handle tasks more efficiently, then pass information on how to do so on to others.

Some of our closer relatives, like chimps and bonobos, learn from their fellow species-members. They don't seem to engage in this iterative process of improvement—they don't, in technical terms, have a cumulative culture where new technologies are built on past knowledge. So, when did humans develop this ability?

Based on a new analysis of stone toolmaking, two researchers are arguing that the ability is relatively recent, dating to just 600,000 years ago. That's roughly the same time our ancestors and the Neanderthals went their separate ways.

Enlarge (credit: Alistair Berg)

Misinformation is not a new problem, but there are plenty of indications that the advent of social media has made things worse. Academic researchers have responded by trying to understand the scope of the problem, identifying the most misinformation-filled social media networks, organized government efforts to spread false information, and even prominent individuals who are the sources of misinformation.

All of that's potentially valuable data. But it skips over another major contribution: average individuals who, for one reason or another, seem inspired to spread misinformation. A study released today looks at a large panel of Twitter accounts that are associated with US-based voters (the work was done back when X was still Twitter). It identifies a small group of misinformation superspreaders, which represent just 0.3 percent of the accounts but are responsible for sharing 80 percent of the links to fake news sites.

While you might expect these to be young, Internet-savvy individuals who automate their sharing, it turns out this population tends to be older, female, and very, very prone to clicking the "retweet" button.