1 . Last week, I sent the same request to ChatGPT, the latest artificial-intelligence chatbot from OpenAI. “Upon the Firth of Forth, a bridge doth stand,” it began. In less than a minute, the program had created in full a rhyming Shakespearean sonnet (莎士比亚十四行诗). Tools like ChatGPT seem poised to change the world of poetry — and so much else — but poets also have a lot to teach us about artificial intelligence. If algorithms (算法) are getting good at writing poetry, it’s partially because poetry was always an algorithmic business.

Even the most rebellious (叛逆的) poets follow more rules than they might like to admit. When schoolchildren are taught to imitate the structure of sonnet, they are effectively learning to follow algorithmic constraints. Should it surprise us that computers can do so, too?

But considering how ChatGPT works, its ability to follow the rules for sonnets seems a little more impressive. No one taught it these rules. It is based on a newer kind of AI known as a large language model (LLM). To put it simply, LLMs analyze large amounts of human writing and learn to predict what the next word in a string of text should be, based on context. One frequent criticism of LLMs is that they do not understand what they write; they just do a great job of guessing the next word.

When a private verse by Dickinson makes us feel like the poet speaks directly to us, we are experiencing the effects of a technology called language. Poems are made of paper and ink — or, these days, electricity and light. There is no one “inside” a Dickinson poem any more than one by ChatGPT. Of course, every Dickinson poem reflects her intention to create meaning. When ChatGPT puts words together, it does not intend anything. Some argue that writings by LLMs therefore have no meaning, only the appearance of it. If I see a cloud in the sky that looks like a giraffe, I recognize it as an accidental similarity. In the same way, this argument goes, we should   regard the writings of ChatGPT as merely imitating real language, meaningless and random as cloud shapes.

When I showed my friends the sonnet by ChatGPT, they called it “soulless and barren.” Despite following all the rules for sonnets, the poem is predictable. But is the average sonnet by a human any better? If we now expect computers to write not just poems but good poems, then we have set a much higher bar.

2 . On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.

This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.

But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.

In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together”. Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.

3 . A huge crowd has gathered to watch China’s new scientific research ship enter the water for the first time. This ship, equipped with on-board labs and the latest scientific kit, will eventually explore the world’s oceans. But it is also going to help China plunge beneath the waves: it will serve as a launch-pad for submarines that can dive to the deepest parts of the ocean. “Humans know much less about the deep oceans than we know about the surface of the Moon and Mars. That’s why I want to develop the facility for ocean scientists to reach the deep seas,” says Prof. Cui Weicheng.

He is the dean of deep sea science at Shanghai Ocean University but he has also set up a private company called Rainbow Fish, which built the new research ship and is busy developing submersibles. One of its unmanned subs reached a depth of 4,000m (13,000ft) in its most recent trial. But Rainbow Fish’s ultimate goal is manned exploration and it plans to take humans to the very bottom of the ocean the Mariana Trench, in the Pacific, at a depth of nearly 11,000m (36,000ft). He shows me around a life-size model of the submarine and explains that there is room inside for a crew of three, who will be protected by a thick metal sphere.”At the moment, we are in the design stage, so we are testing several extremely high-strength materials for it.” It will have to bear immense pressures from the crushing weight of water above. If there are any weaknesses, the submarine will implode. The deepest ocean is a place few people have ever experienced first-hand. The first dive to the Mariana Trench was carried out in 1960 by US Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Swiss engineer Jacques Picard. Their vessel, the Bathyscaphe Trieste, creaked and groaned as it made the descent, taking nearly five hours.

The only other manned expedition was carried out by Hollywood director James Cameron, who took a solo plunge in a bright green submarine in 2012. Rainbow Fish wants its sub to be next. The team insists its venture isn’t about politics and that it is looking to collaborate with American, Russian and European scientists. It is, though, a commercial operation. The company plans to charge people to use its research ship and submarines, and is targeting three groups, says managing director Dr. Wu Xin. “The first is definitely the scientists who are interested in studying deep-sea science and technology. The second group is offshore companies and oil companies. The last one is tourists and adventurers [who] want to go down themselves to have a look at what’s going on there,” he says. This kind of entrepreneurial approach may be a new model for science in China. Deep-sea research is a difficult, high-risk activity — and much of the ocean remains unexplored. But Cui, who hopes to be the first Chinese person to reach the Mariana Trench, believes that China could be the nation to truly open up this final frontier.

4 . “I’m not a reader.” It’s a common reply that Julia Torres, a teacher-librarian in Denver Public School, has heard throughout her 16-year career. She’s seen students tear up books, throw them away or check them out only to immediately return them all because they didn’t have confidence in their ability to read.

As a librarian, Torres feels strongly that libraries should be spaces of liberation, places where students can develop a love of reading at any stage. Reading is a skill that everyone can grow to love, but too many negative experiences during a child’s literacy (读写能力) education can result in boredom, lack of interest or even anger. When a student has a poor experience like being shamed for their reading choices, they can begin to associate reading with painful feelings of insecurity, shame and stress.

To prevent reading disorder (阅读障碍) practices, as Torres notes, librarians first can build an inclusive (内容丰富的) library where classified collections can make it easier for students to find out the books they want and also help identify gaps in the collections. Reevaluating librarians’ role is necessary, which allows students to take control of the library and have a say in what’s purchased for the collection, directly exciting students’ reading interest. Instead of hosting traditional book fairs where students have to pay for books, it is better to open up a True Book Fair, where students are invited to choose books intentionally to their interests without any costs. Librarians are recommended to read what students are reading. Another two important approaches to preventing reading disorder are to take a look at the library policies and redefine (重新定义) what counts as reading. It is necessary to get rid of fines, check-out limits, security gates, and punishment policies. Plus, students are encouraged to listen to audiobooks or read picture books. Find a way to teach important skills like comprehension or critical thinking with the texts that excite and interest students.

5 . Self-esteem is the ruling view you have of yourself. This includes your beliefs about your inner qualities and how you think others see you.     1     Someone can develop low self-esteem even when they are highly functional and greatly skilled. Understanding this mysterious emotional currency might be the key to unlocking your own self-worth.

People with healthy self-esteem don't need to boast about themselves to others. People with low self-esteem may tell you how much everyone loves them, what a great job they do at work, and how amazing they are at pretty everything under the sun even though they really wonder if it's true. People may see them as obnoxious or “full of themselves”.     2     They are not shy about sharing ideas, including constructive criticisms of others. They also take care of themselves without second-guessing or apologizing. They are the people who we say seem “sure of themselves”.

If you're starting to think you may have low self-esteem, you can work on the way you talk to yourself. When you turn off negative self-talk, you can open the floor to positive reinforcements and access the courage to show different sides of yourself. It isn't going to feel good at first, though. Keep going until it becomes less and less and maybe even a few awkward laughs in the mirror may help.     3    

However, in serious cases of low or even non-existent self-esteem, you may want to call in a professional or a specialist. Good mental health is important, and professionals doing psychotherapy do not pass judgement or give corrections.     4     It is the best way to get at the roots of your real self-esteem problems.

    5     It will take some work but your entire life — from your relationships to your body image to your work habits — will be touched with the kind of power that only comes from someone believing in themselves. This is the hardest part, and the greatest leap. With some changes and support, you can improve your self-esteem and see how everything else changes as a result.

6 . Neuro-technology has long been a favourite of science-fiction writers. In “Neuromancer”, a wildly inventive book by William Gibson written in 1984, people can use neural(神经的) implants to get into the sensory experiences of others. Iain M. Banks came up with the idea of a neural lace, a mesh (网格) that grows into the brain, in his “Culture” series of novels. “The Terminal Man” by Michael Crichton, published in 1972, imagines the effects of a brain implant on someone who is convinced that machines are taking over from humans.

Where the sci-fi led, philosophers are now starting to follow. In Howard Chizeck’s lab at the University of Washington, researchers are working on an implanted device to administer deep-brain stimulation (DBS) in order to treat a common movement disorder called essential tremor. Traditionally, DBS stimulation is always on, wasting energy and robbing the patient of a sense of control. The lab’s ethicist (伦理学家), Tim Brown, a doctoral student of philosophy, says that some DBS patients suffer a sense of isolation and complain of feeling like a robot.

To change that, the team at the University of Washington is using neuronal activity associated with intentional movements to turn the device on. But the researchers also want to enable patients to use a conscious thought process to override these settings. That is more useful than it might sound: stimulation currents for essential tremor can cause side-effects like distorted (失真的) speech, so someone about to give a presentation, say, might wish to shake rather than make his words unclear. Giving humans more options of this sort will be essential if some of the more advanced visions for brain-computer interfaces are to be realized. Hannah Maslen from the University of Oxford is another ethicist who works on a BCI project. One of her jobs is to think through the distinctions between inner speech and public speech: people need a dependable mechanism for separating what they want to say from what they think.

That is only one of many ethical questions that the sci-fi versions of brain-computer interfaces bring up. What protection will BCIs offer against neural hacking? Who owns neural data, including information that is gathered for research purposes now but may be understandable in detail at some point in the future? Where does accountability lie if a user does something wrong? And if brain implants are performed not for treatment but to improve people’s abilities, will that make the world an even more unequal place?