Lifeboat Foundation

Amid ongoing human clinical trials, there is still a long way to go before neural chips are commonplace in clinics.

Engineers have developed the world’s first quantum microprocessor chip for simulating large and complex molecular structures.

Researchers have advanced smart coatings by manipulating nanoparticles to reconfigure themselves by using microscopy and computer simulation.

IOP Publishing has retracted a total of 350 papers from two different 2021 conference proceedings because an “investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication process and considerable citation manipulation.”

The case is just the latest involving the discovery of papers full of gibberish – aka “tortured phrases” – thanks to the work of Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse, Cyril Labbé, of University Grenoble-Alpes and Alexander Magazinov, of Skoltech, in Moscow. The tool detects papers that contain phrases that appear to have been translated from English into another language, and then back into English, likely with the involvement of paper-generating software.

The papers were in the Journal of Physics: Conference Series (232 articles), and IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (118 articles), plus four editorials.

Sometimes leaving well-enough alone is the best policy. Ask Teja Santosh Dandibhotla.

Upset that a paper of his had been retracted from the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Santosh, a computer scientist at the CVR College of Engineering in Hyderabad, India, contacted us to plead his case. (We of course do not make decisions about retractions, we reminded him.)

Santosh’s article, “Intelligent defaulter Prediction using Data Science Process,” had been pulled along with some 350 other papers in two conference proceedings because IOP Publishing had “uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication process and considerable citation manipulation.”

Single crystals of atomically thin sapphire have been prepared at room temperature, opening the way to miniaturized chips.

Quantum computers have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the world around us—and teach us how to manipulate it. The technology could enable the rapid design and development of life-saving drugs, simulate superconducting materials that would revolutionize technology and clean energy, and even offer insight into the underlying structure of space and time. Like the qubits that sit in superposition at the heart of quantum computers, the possibilities seem endless.

“Right now, you will find people who see quantum computing as a panacea,” says Susanne Yelin, a professor of physics in residence at Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “I am not one of them. But quantum computing could help us better understand fundamental physics, such as problems in condensed matter or particle physics. It could also advance quantum chemistry [which uses quantum physics to understand chemical systems]—and with it, better development of drugs and materials.”

At the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Harvard Griffin GSAS), PhD physics students Maddie Cain, on whose dissertation committee Yelin sits, and Dolev Bluvstein are working to make the promise of quantum computing a reality. In the laboratory of Professor Mikhail Lukin, Cain and Bluvstein push the boundaries of science, advancing the prospects of transformative applications that could reshape our world.

Further, “the necessity to secure private ideas, plans, and brain data from unpermitted viewing is accorded to Dr. Anita S Jwa by the phrase,” she argues. Besides that, the ethical implications in the fields of informed consent, coercion, and fairness with respect to the common attributes of the BCIs must be critically considered. For example, consider a scenario where a BCI is used to control a prosthetic limb. Without proper privacy measures, “unauthorised access to the BCI could lead to manipulation of the prosthetic limb,” posing risks to the user’s safety and autonomy.

Overcoming these difficulties requires the joint efforts of all the stakeholders, such as researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders. In the same way, we have to critically assess the technical, ethical, and accessibility issues in BCI. We may then be able to capture the potential of these BCIs and ultimately improve human lives.

In this instance, just imagine that we are submerging into the future of BCIs, and to my surprise, it feels like living in a movie where sci-fi is a reality! BCIs are going to be able to do all kinds of really advanced things very soon. People are going to think that they are very cool. We are entering an entirely new realm of brainy gadgets that are becoming smaller, sleeker, and oh-so-wearable. It is now all gear change; the future of BCI is almost as organic as slipping on your dream pair of sunglasses.

Inside the cult of TESCREALism and the dangerous fantasies of Silicon Valley’s self-appointed demigods, for Document’s Spring/Summer 2024 issue.

As legend has it, Steve Jobs once asked Larry Kenyon, an engineer tasked with developing the Mac computer, to reduce its boot time by 10 seconds. Kenyon said that was impossible. “What if it would save a person’s life?” Jobs asked. Then, he went to a whiteboard and laid out an equation: If 5 million users spent an additional 10 seconds waiting for the computer to start, the total hours wasted would be equivalent to 100 human lifetimes every year. Kenyon shaved 28 seconds off the boot time in a matter of weeks.

Often cited as an example of the late CEO’s “reality distortion field,” this anecdote illustrates the combination of charisma, hyperbole, and marketing with which Jobs convinced his disciples to believe almost anything—elevating himself to divine status and creating “a cult of personality for capitalists,” as Mark Cohen put it in an article about his death for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In helping to push the myth of the genius tech founder into the cultural mainstream, Jobs laid the groundwork for future generations of Silicon Valley investors and entrepreneurs who have, amid the global decline of organized religion, become our secular messiahs. They preach from the mounts of Google and Meta, selling the public on digital technology’s saving grace, its righteous ability to reshape the world.