As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, the grassland habitats that woolly mammoths thrived in were drastically reduced, leading to a significant decline in their populations.

This habitat loss was compounded by hunting pressures from humans, which further restricted their numbers to isolated populations in Siberia and Alaska.

Radiocarbon dating indicates that mammoth populations existed before human settlement in certain areas, but humans remained in these regions even after mammoth numbers declined, suggesting a potential role of human predation in their extinction.

Additionally, the accumulation of mammoth bones in certain sites suggests that humans may have hunted them for ivory and meat, contributing to their decline.

The interplay of these factors—climate-induced habitat changes and human hunting—illustrates the complex dynamics that can lead to species extinction and highlights the significant impact humans have had on prehistoric ecosystems.

As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, the grassland habitats that woolly mammoths thrived in were drastically reduced, leading to a significant decline in their populations.

Title:

Content: Woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)

The most famous of the 10 mammoth species known to have existed is undoubtedly the woolly mammoth. Standing at around the same size as today’s African elephants, this magnificent animal roamed the northern hemisphere for roughly half a million years, becoming extinct by around 2000 BC.

Advertisement

The reasons for the woolly mammoth’s demise are multifaceted. As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, and forests spread across the northern hemisphere, the grassland habitats in which the animal thrived were drastically reduced. This, combined with hunting pressures from humans, meant the woolly mammoth population ended up being restricted to just a couple of islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska.

Some scientists hope to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction, but with African and Asian elephant populations still facing a huge range of threats, many believe that our focus should be on preserving those animals instead.

Dodo (Raphus cucullatus)

For a large bird species that only became extinct relatively recently, we know surprisingly little about the dodo and its behaviours. In fact, there is just one near- complete dodo skeleton with bones from one bird, and there is only one specimen that contains soft tissue.

What we do know is that the dodo was restricted to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Madagascar and part of the Mascarene Archipelago, and was a relative to doves and pigeons. It’s thought that natural selection caused the animal to evolve into a flightless bird, with the species no longer needing to fly on an island with no predators.

However, when humans – and the animals they brought with them – first came to Mauritius in the 16th century, the dodo became extremely vulnerable. As well as being hunted for meat, it suffered from habitat loss and the predation of its eggs, resulting in its extinction by c1680.

Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus)

Also known as the Tasmanian tiger or Tasmanian wolf, the thylacine was a carnivorous mammal originally found in Australia and New Guinea. Despite being similar in appearance to the domestic dog, it was actually a marsupial – a group of mammals that also includes kangaroos, koalas, wombats and opossums – and had a pouch.

Once widespread, the thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland no less than 2,000 years ago, although the reasons for this are unknown. The species then became restricted to the island of Tasmania, off the south coast of Victoria, with between 2,000–4,000 individuals remaining when the British arrived in the early 19th century.

Eventually, the thylacine was persecuted as it was deemed a threat to livestock. The last known captive individual died from exposure at a zoo in Hobart in 1936 after being accidentally left out overnight. It’s thought that the last wild thylacines died in the 1960s, but that hasn’t stopped persistent rumours over the species’ continued survival.

Great auk (Pinguinus impennis)

Despite being similar in colouration and shape and bearing the genus name Pinguinus, the great auk wasn’t a relative of penguins, but was instead a member of the same family as puffins and guillemots.

Once a relatively common species in the North Atlantic, it bred on remote rocky islands such as Funk Island off the coast of Newfoundland, which was described by one 18th- century sailor as being “entirely covered with those fowls, so close that a man could not put his foot between them.”

However, exploration of the North Atlantic seas by European sailors spelled danger for the flightless seabird, with overharvesting of its eggs and adults for meat, feathers and body parts dramatically reducing the population. Attempts were made to protect the great auk, but that only increased its worth to collectors.

Sadly, the last breeding pair were killed and their single egg accidentally crushed by fishermen on Eldey Island, Iceland, on 3 July 1844.

Xerces butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces)

Named after the Persian kings Xerxes I and Xerxes II (whose names are sometimes spelled ‘Xerces’ in France), this diminutive blue butterfly species lived among the coastal sand dunes of the San Francisco Peninsula, where its caterpillar preferred to feed on a single plant species.

However, urban development resulted in the loss of the plant, which could not survive in disturbed soil, and thus the loss of the Xerces blue in the 1940s – the first example of a butterfly becoming extinct due to human activity in North America.

Later, the Xerces Society, a non-profit conservation organisation established in 1971, was named in memory of the lost invertebrate.

For a while, there was uncertainty as to whether the Xerces blue was a distinct species or a subspecies of another blue butterfly. However, a scientific paper published in 2021 examined the DNA of a museum specimen collected in 1928 and proved that it was indeed a distinct species.

Passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

The passenger pigeon was one of the most abundant pigeon species on the planet. Native to North America, it was called jahgowa by the Seneca Tribe, which translates to “big bread”, as it was a source of food by the Seneca and the rest of the Haudenosaunee people. Despite this, the hunting of the species was carefully regulated by rules set by each tribe.

However, after colonisation by the Europeans, hunting of the passenger pigeon increased and gradually became more industrial and commercialised. As the population declined, the species then became vulnerable to further pressures such as habitat loss and predation by other animals.

The last living passenger pigeon was a female named Martha, who was kept at Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio. She died on 1 September 1914 – one of the few times we have known the absolute date of a species’ extinction. Her death contributed to the creation of the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires permits to hunt some migratory bird species.

Golden toad (Incilius periglenes)

So-named for the brilliant yellow-orange colouration of the male (the female was black with yellow and red patterning), the golden toad has become a poster child for extinctions connected to the climate crisis.

Found in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, the amphibian spent most of the year underground. It only emerged for a few days each April, with males fighting with each other around pools of rainwater in order to mate with females.

In 1987, roughly 1,500 golden toads were observed. However, the following year, only 10 toads were found, and in 1989, just one male. That one male was the last golden
toad ever seen, and the species was officially declared extinct in 2004.

While the exact cause of extinction is unknown, the climate crisis – combined with habitat loss and an infectious disease called chytridiomycosis – are all thought to have played a part.

Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)

The baiji was a freshwater dolphin that lived in the Yangtze River in China, the third-longest river in the world. Although still listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List, having last been assessed in 2017, the species is considered extinct by conservationists. In fact, both the last confirmed sighting of a wild individual and the death of the last captive individual occurred in 2002.

The Yangtze River is also home to the Yangtze finless porpoise, the only freshwater porpoise in the world. Like the baiji, its existence is currently threatened by overfishing, shipping traffic and noise pollution.

However, the 2017 suspension of sand mining in Dongting Lake – a flood basin of the Yangtze in China’s Hunan province – has seen the finless porpoise return to areas that it had previously been avoiding.

Pinta Island giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii or Chelonoidis abingdonii)

While there is debate about whether the giant tortoises of the Galápagos Islands are subspecies of the same species or a completely different species altogether, one thing is certain: Lonesome George was the last of his kind.

George was a Pinta Island tortoise, a species (or subspecies) that was already thought to have been extinct until he was discovered alone on the island that gave George and his former companions their collective name.

There were attempts to find other Pinta Island tortoises, and to mate him with closely related females, but to no avail. He died in 2012 of natural causes when he was around 100 years old.

Curiously, scientists believe it might be possible to bring back the Pinta Island tortoise, or at least a closely related version. Researchers have discovered hybrid tortoises with Pinta Island tortoise genes on nearby Isabela Island, with their Pinta Island ancestors having been moved there by whalers and pirates.

Megan Shersby is a naturalist, science writer and communicator. She was previously editorial and digital coordinator at BBC Wildlife Magazine

Advertisement

This content first appeared in the November 2023 issue of BBC History Revealed

Authors

Megan ShersbyNaturalist, writer and content creator
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

This habitat loss was compounded by hunting pressures from humans, which further restricted their numbers to isolated populations in Siberia and Alaska.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

Radiocarbon dating indicates that mammoth populations existed before human settlement in certain areas, but humans remained in these regions even after mammoth numbers declined, suggesting a potential role of human predation in their extinction.

Title:

Content:
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts

Woolly mammoths are evocative of a bygone era, when Earth was gripped within an Ice Age. Current knowledge places early mammoth ancestors in the Pliocene (2.58–5.33 million years ago, Ma) before their populations expanded in the Pleistocene (2.58 Ma–11,700 years ago, kyr). However, as climate changed, their numbers dwindled to isolated populations in modern Siberia and Alaska, until their last dated survival 4 kyr ago.

In the East Siberian Arctic (>70 °N), there is not only evidence of significant woolly mammoth populations, but also how humans interacted with them, the focus of new research in Quaternary Science Reviews.

Along the Berelekh River, Russia, a 'mammoth graveyard' can be found. Here, thousands of disarticulated bones, representing a minimum of 156 individual mammoths, found alongside an indicate the close proximity of these two communities, forming the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex.

Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues aimed to assess the relationship between the 'mammoth graveyard' and the archaeological site through a re-examination of stratigraphic and paleogeographic data obtained in 2009, with new fieldwork focused on the left riverbanks where have readily yielded from their home in the sediment and appeared on the water's edge. Alongside them are remains of Pleistocene hare, Arctic fox and wolves, as well as soot and charcoal from hearths and worked mammoth tusks (one being an unfinished throwing spear).

The researchers suggest humans created these bone accumulations as a byproduct of the production of mammoth ivory technology, while hares may have been targeted for fur to produce winter clothing.

Notably, evidence of blowfly pupae activity on cavities in skulls and bones is indicative that the mammoth carcasses were added to the 'graveyard' de-fleshed. Indeed, there appears to be evidence of sorting of the bones, with only the most valuable transported to Berelekh from the area in which the mammoth was killed, leaving behind parts such as spinal columns, carpal ('hand') and tarsal ('foot') bones.

There are three radiocarbon dated peaks in woolly mammoth accumulation at 11.8, 12.2 and 12.4 kyr ago, which fall within known human settlement of the area (11.2–12.4 kyr ago) during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial, when the warmed and pollen evidence suggests the region became more arid.

Fluctuations in the abundance of mammoths in the 'graveyard' suggest human settlement of the area may also have changed through time (frequent occupation but not permanent), which the researchers attribute to on the floodplain permitting suitability for erecting campsites.

Radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains identifies their presence here pre-dating human settlement (beginning ~12.5 kyr ago), but also shows that humans remained in the area (until ~11.2 kyr ago) after mass mammoth remains accumulation declined (~11.8 kyr ago).

Given this, four possible causes are suggested by the scientists to explain such a significant mass accumulation of bones: 1) mass death by natural causes or human, 2) repeated group deaths in the same location, likely due to human predation, 3) concentration of remains by , such as river action, or 4) solely derived from human predation or scavenging from deceased carcasses.

However, the latter is considered to be the most likely to produce useful tools from ivory tusks, as well as meat to feed the community, as there is no evidence on the bones for a cause of mass death, radiocarbon ages do not cluster into multiple phases for recurrent death deposits and stream flows were unlikely to reach sufficient velocities to transport such heavy bones.

These findings are concurrent with mammoth remains at the Yana Paleolithic site, also in Siberia. Here, estimates suggest the 'graveyard' increased by 1–2 mammoths per year rather than a mass death event, a figure Dr. Pitulko and colleagues conclude could be similar or even higher for Berelekh.

This research is significant as it alters the previously-held belief that there was a lag of 50–80 years between mammoth bone accumulation from natural processes (such as deposition in flood channels) and , instead now defining a close relationship between the two over 700–800 years. Sadly, now that human-mammoth relationship has continued as ivory hunters have looted the site beyond further study.

More information: Vladimir V. Pitulko et al, From the Berelekh 'mammoth graveyard' to Berelekh geo-archaeological complex: Paleoenvironment, site formation processes, and human-mammoth relationships, Quaternary Science Reviews (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108692

Journal information: Quaternary Science Reviews

© 2024 Science X Network

Citation: Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts (2024, June 10) retrieved 10 June 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-06-siberia-mammoth-graveyard-reveals-year.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Huge trove of mammoth skeletons found in Mexico

0 shares

Feedback to editors

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

Additionally, the accumulation of mammoth bones in certain sites suggests that humans may have hunted them for ivory and meat, contributing to their decline.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

The interplay of these factors—climate-induced habitat changes and human hunting—illustrates the complex dynamics that can lead to species extinction and highlights the significant impact humans have had on prehistoric ecosystems.

Title:

Content: What we know as the Ice Age, the last long period during which global temperatures dropped dramatically and the polar ice expanded to cover much of the earth, is more properly called the Last Glacial Period (as there have been multiple ice ages).

Advertisement

It started around 115,000 years ago and lasted for over 100,000 years. In that time many animal lineages rose and fell. In particular, it is known that many large mammal species went extinct during the transition from the Ice Age to the present interglacial period (from around 50,000 to 5,000 years ago).

These extinctions are thought to have occurred due to a combination of a quickly changing climate, changing vegetation and increases in human hunting. These megafauna included some truly huge and charismatic animals, from the iconic woolly mammoth to huge cave bears, to giant sloths standing nearly 12 feet tall! In this list you will find out about some extraordinary (now extinct) animals that lived during the age of ice and snow.

10 now-extinct animals from the Ice Age

1. Neanderthals

Our own species, Homo sapiens, emerged about 300,000 years ago, so persisted through the last ice age. We were not the only ancient humans around, however. Surviving the frigid temperatures along with us were our evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals. This species of hominid emerged at a similar time to us but went extinct around 40,000 years ago – during the Ice Age.

Theories as to why they went extinct vary, from outcompetion from or diseases introduced by Homo sapiens to assimilation into the human gene pool. However, recent theories suggest that the primary driver might have been climate change. It is thought that despite behavioural and biological adaptations to the cold they simply struggled to survive the frigid conditions and lack of available food. How we survived and they didn’t is an interesting question.

2. Woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius)

Probably the most well-known of all Ice Age animals is the woolly mammoth (in part thanks to the film character Manny!). Woolly mammoths lived from about 300,000 years ago up until about 10,000 years ago. The appearance of these elephant-sized animals is perhaps the best known of any prehistoric creature, due to the many frozen specimens that have been found, with soft tissue preserved.

With their thick coat of hair, large fat reserves, and specially adapted 'antifreeze' blood they were very well adapted to the cold. They were also very important to the survival of ancient humans throughout the Ice Age; their coats, meat and bones provided valuable sources of warmth, food and building materials for homo sapiens and Neanderthals alike.

3. Giant ground sloth (Megatherium americanum)

These beasts were very different to the sloths we know and love today! Standing at a whopping 3.7m when up on hind legs and weighing up to four tonnes (as opposed to the 5kg of a modern sloth), they were truly colossal.

With its ability to walk on its hind legs, it was in fact the largest bipedal mammal of all time. They lived in the woodlands and grasslands of South America, and fossils have been found dating back from around 400,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Despite its huge fearsome claws, it was actually a vegetarian, feeding on leaves and grasses.

4. Cave bears (Ursus spelaeus)

Slightly more modest in size, though still pretty massive, was the cave bear. Weighing in at between 400 and 1,000kg, the largest cave bears were comparable in size to modern-day polar bears. They could be found across Europe and Asia, including in the UK.

More like this

We have a very good idea of what they looked like, as in 2020 a perfectly preserved specimen was found in the Russian Arctic, its remains revealed by melting permafrost. Even its teeth and nose were intact.

The specimen was dated to between 22,000 and 39,500 years old, living towards the end of the time of the cave bears, who are thought to have gone extinct 24,000 years ago. It is thought that hunting by humans, as well as competition with them over caves, may have contributed to their disappearance.

5. Dire wolf (Canis dirus)

That’s right, dire wolves are not just fictional pets from Game of Thrones, they were real animals. However, despite the name, and a lot of physical similarities, recent genetic analysis has revealed that they were not actually very closely related to grey wolves at all and were relatively closer to African jackals.

These canids were seemingly a common feature of the American Late Pleistocene landscape (approx. 250,000 to 13,000 years ago), roaming the grasslands, plains, and woods and preying on megafauna including giant ground sloths. There is almost an overabundance of fossil data on this species, with over 4,000 individuals excavated from California’s La Brea tar pits alone.

6. Sabre Tooth Cat (Smilodon genus)

The La Brea tar pits have also been responsible for giving us insights about another iconic Ice Age predator – the sabre tooth cat. More than 3,000 fossilised individuals have been pulled from the ooze, and their teeth in particular have been a valuable source of information about their diets and lifestyle.

Scientists have been able to examine the wear patterns on their iconic gnashers to determine that rather than bringing down very large prey like bison on the open plains, as was previously thought, they most likely fed primarily on smaller forest-dwelling animals like tapirs and deer. They were ambush predators similar to many modern-day big cats.

7. Irish elk (Megaloceros giganteus)

As you can probably guess from the scientific name, this species of deer was BIG. They stood at over 1.8m tall at shoulder height and had the largest antlers of any known deer, extinct or living. These colossal antlers must have been something to behold, spanning up to a whopping 3.5 metres.

Despite the name, this elk was not restricted to Ireland, but some of the most well-preserved fossil specimens have been found there. The most recent remains come from western Russia and have been dated to approximately 7,700 years ago – seemingly another victim of the megafaunal extinction event that occurred around the end of the Ice Age.

8. Giant Beaver (Castoroides genus)

Continuing the theme of larger versions of modern-day animals is the giant beaver, with an average length of about 1.8m. Its teeth were large to match, with some reaching up to 15cm, about the size of a hot dog.

There is no definitive evidence that they built dams as modern beavers do, but it is plausible that these immense incisors could have been used for woodcutting. What we do know is that they had smaller, smoother brains than modern-day beavers, which could indicate that they had less behavioural and social complexity.

9. Megalania (Varanus priscus)

So far this list has focused on mega-mammals, but what about other Ice Age species? Understandably it was hard for cold-blooded species like reptiles to survive frozen ice age temperatures across much of the globe, but in fact, not all of the world was icy, and some places remained habitable.

One of these places was Australia, where giant reptiles ruled. These included huge land-living crocodiles, massive snakes and Megalania – a truly monstrous relative of the Komodo dragon. This monitor lizard reached an estimated length of 7 metres and was a key land predator, at the very top of the food chain.

It has been suggested that the loss of its mega-reptile predators has left the Australian ecosystem out of kilter, allowing introduced mammals to reign unchecked.

10. Diprotodon (Diprotodon genus)

Another feature of the Australian Ice Age landscape was not a reptile, but a huge marsupial mammal – in fact, the largest marsupial to have ever lived. Diprotodon measured an estimated 4m head to tail tip and weighed as much as 3,500 kg, dwarfing the current largest marsupial, the red kangaroo, which checks in at a mere 2.7m and 90kg.

Their closest modern relatives are actually much smaller: wombats and koalas. It also has the distinction of being the only known seasonally migrating marsupial, trekking very far in search of food and watering holes.

Advertisement

Main image: Artist's impression of a sabre tooth cat. © Daniel Eskridge/Getty

Authors

Leoma WilliamsAnimal behavior researcher and science writer

Leoma Williams is currently studying for a PhD at the University of Manchester, and writes periodically for both the website and print magazine

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?


This bill seeks to promote the Italian language and imposes fines for violations, emphasizing the protection of the "language of Dante".

Similarly, in France, a historical policy required foreign films to be dubbed in French to counteract Hollywood's influence and promote the French language, reflecting a long-standing cultural protectionism.

The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities found that the lack of budget and skilled personnel are obstacles to achieving parity among official languages.

This bill seeks to promote the Italian language and imposes fines for violations, emphasizing the protection of the "language of Dante".

Title:

Content: Italian govt drafts bill that seeks to ban English language

RomeEdited By: C KrishnasaiUpdated: Apr 01, 2023, 03:15 PM IST

Calling for the Italian language to be protected and nurtured, the draft bill claims that English “demeans and mortifies” Italians, and called on all public and private bodies to use the “language of Dante” to promote their goods and services, reports Reuters news agency. Photograph:(Reuters)

Story highlights

The bill, which has been drafted by lawmakers of the nationalist Brothers of Italy party, aims to promote Italian language and imposes a fine of up to 100,000 euros ($108,750) if found violating the rule

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party has proposed legislation that seeks to prohibit public and private bodies in the country from using foreign terms, especially English, in official communications.

The bill, which has been drafted by lawmakers of the nationalist Brothers of Italy party, aims to promote Italian language and imposes a fine of up to 100,000 euros ($108,750) if found violating the rule.

In order to become a law, the bill has to be approved by both houses of parliament. But there was no indication of when this might happen.

“It is not just a matter of fashion, as fashions pass, but Anglomania (has) repercussions for society as a whole,” said the text of the draft bill.

Calling for the Italian language to be protected and nurtured, the draft bill claims that English “demeans and mortifies” Italians, and called on all public and private bodies to use the “language of Dante” to promote their goods and services, reports Reuters news agency.

The draft also specifies that all job related applications, including names and acronyms, should be spelt out in Italian, with foreign words allowed only if they are impossible to translate.

The bill said the widespread use of English in Europe was “even more negative and paradoxical” given that Britain had quit the European Union.

The draft bill comes at a time when the incumbent far-right government takes measures to what it calls preserving the local culture.

Recently, it banned the use of laboratory-produced food to safeguard the country’s agri-food heritage.

When the Brothers of Italy party took office last October, it added the English term “Made in Italy” to the name of the industry minister, while Meloni occasionally drops foreign words into her speeches.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Similarly, in France, a historical policy required foreign films to be dubbed in French to counteract Hollywood's influence and promote the French language, reflecting a long-standing cultural protectionism.

Title:

Content: Advertisement

Film For Members

Explained: France's passion for dubbing films

The Local France - [email protected]

Historically France has been known for its enthusiastic dubbing of movies, but times are changing and streaming has led to more people watching subtitled original versions - although it might be too early to say adieu to French dubbing stars.

Advertisement

In amongst the tributes pouring in for the American actor Matthew Perry was one that might have surprised non-French people.

"It is an immense sadness" - the emotion of Emmanuel Curtil, French voice of Matthew Perry.

While hardly a household name, Emmanuel Curtil has a voice familiar to any French fan of Friends - as he dubbed Mathhew Perry's Chandler Bing into French.

You can check out his work here.

In fact, as is common in the dubbing industry, Curtil voiced all of Perry's roles in their French translation.

Likewise when voice actor Patrick Poivey died in 2020, social media overflowed with tributes.

Advertisement

While those who aren't French might think "Poivey who?", to French audiences he was a superstar - dubbing iconic actors such as Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke and Kevin Costner.

The reaction might seem peculiar to foreigners, but the dubbing tradition has long been firmly rooted in France's cinema culture.

But as streaming platforms take over more and more of the screen time in France, some fear the curtain will fall over the French dubbing industry as more people get used to watching subtitled versions of films rather than the dubbed VF (version française).

Advertisement

Dubbing is the norm

France, along with Spain, Italy and Germany, is one of the EU countries that dubs the most of its foreign programmes.

Reader Question: Can you avoid seeing a dubbed film in French cinemas?

With streaming making it easier to watch a show in its original language and sometimes allowing early access to new releases that haven't been translated yet, will it mean the end of the dubbing industry?

"I don't think there is a debate," Anthony Panetto, a dubbing artist and secretary of the ATAA (association of translators/adapters of the audio-visual), told The Local.

"In fact, multi-lingual versions on TV have been available for 15 years in France, and more recently on platforms, and the dubbing industry is still strong."

During the pandemic, Netflix France considered it was important to explain to the French public why dubbed versions of several of its programmes were missing.

In a tweet, the company explained that dubbing companies were closed due to the Covid-19 crisis, and that it chose to offer the possibility to watch the shows and films with subtitles rather "than nothing at all".

"We want you to know that as soon as we'll be able to add the missing VF, we will do it," tweeted the company.

Dubbing does seem popular, yet as of today, there haven't been any official surveys on the number of viewers who choose to watch the dubbed version over the original version.

“We are trying to organise with other bodies to ask for a study with numbers regarding the relation between the original version and the dubbed version,” said Panetto.

“Until recently, it was considered that 90 percent of the population watched a show in French, but that subtitled original versions were becoming more popular,” he said.

And while many actors remain in the shadows, some have been gaining more and more esteem with the ATAA’s Award Ceremony, which acknowledges the work of these behind the scenes translators and voice actors, with Manga or TV show fairs where voice actors can meet the public.

Advertisement

“With the internet and social media, voice actors are coming into the limelight because the ‘voxophile’ community (voice actor fans) can reach out to them more easily,” said Panetto.

History

If many people in France prefer watching movies in French rather than English today, it is also a product of a deliberate government policy that sought to challenge the United State's post-war cultural hegemony.

"In 1949, to face Hollywood’s power and to boost its movie industry, France implemented a law which required a foreign movie to be dubbed in studios located in France in order to be released,” wrote filmmaker Thierry Le Nouvel in the book Le Doublage et ses métiers (Dubbing and its jobs) in 2007.

For decades, watching a movie in its original language was impossible in France.

“Over the years, our country became an expert with a unique savoir-faire, with the use of the rhythm band, which can be considered as ‘the expression of a real cultural exception’,” Le Nouvel wrote.

English skills at fault?

One reason the French still prefer dubbing today is linked to France's relatively weak English skills. According to the EF English Proficiency Index, France ranked 23rd out of the 33 European countries included in 2019.

Charlotte, 31, who used to watch her movies in French, recently decided to switch to original versions. “I realised that I was missing the emotions and that I wasn’t getting as much into the movie with the French versions,” she told The Local.

“I always watch a foreign programme in French and when it hasn’t been dubbed I watch it with subtitles,” Melina, 25, told The Local.

"I am not fluent enough in English to watch shows exclusively in English and it may be lame, but we don’t all have the chance to speak fluent English," she said.

A 2007 study showed that a programme aired with subtitles could result in a 30 percent decrease in audience numbers.

But even if someone's English is good enough, many French people still prefer to watch programmes in their mother tongue rather than in the original language.

“Some watch a programme in the original language because they think it’s cooler, but honestly watching it in French allows me to really look at the images instead of watching the subtitles, and to better immerse myself in the movie’s atmosphere,” Raphaël, 35, told The Local.

Paris vs. Regions

For years now, there has been a strong divide in France between those promoting movies in their original language and others promoting films dubbed in French.

In fact, people who watch a film dubbed in French are often considered as being lazy because they don’t want to read the subtitles or listen to a foreign language, while people who prefer movies in their original language consider subtitles or dubbing as being un-artistic.

Advertisement

“In the 1930s, it was really difficult to watch subtitled movies outside of Paris, because of an official regulation which drastically limited the number of movie theatres that could show subtitled versions,” according to French audiovisual translator Jean-François Cornu in La Revue des médias.

“This is why films dubbed in French have long been associated with the regional public, while films in their original language are supposedly meant for people living in Paris or in important French cities,” wrote Cornu.

Today this situation still lives on with a clear predominance of films in their original language in Paris, while the split between those in favour and against the French language versions remains strong.

“People who say watching a movie dubbed in French is cheesy are snobs,” said Panetto. "This amounts to trashing any foreign art that is translated.

“People think reading a text on a rhythm band is easy but in fact voice artists are real actors, who often play in theatres or do voice over,” he added.

“Some people are really attached to the voices, there is an intimate relationship with the voice,” Panetto told The Local.

By Olivia Sorrel Dejerine

French vocab

If you want to know whether the film at the cinema will be dubbed or subtitled, it's all in the acronyms.

If you're watching a foreign film, its listing will include either VF, VSOT or VO.

VF - Version française - this film will be dubbed into French

VSOT - Version Originale Sous-Titrée - the screening has the original soundtrack and (French) subtitles.

VO - Version Originale - in its original language with no French subtitles

More

See Also

The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities found that the lack of budget and skilled personnel are obstacles to achieving parity among official languages.

Title:

Content: ×

We've got news for you.

Register on SowetanLIVE at no cost to receive newsletters, read exclusive articles & more.
Register now

Indigenous languages not enjoying parity at state departments

English still dominant at the expense of other tongues

David Mosoma chairperson of CRL Rights Commission.
Image: Antonio Muchave

The usage of indigenous languages, especially in government departments, is still not equitable after 27 years since SA declared them as official languages.

This was revealed by an investigation conducted by the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission) on marginalised languages and the need to elevate them. It tabled its report yesterday at its offices in Braamfontein, Johannesburg.

The findings show that even though government departments have adopted two or three official languages as per Language Act, English was still predominantly used at the expense of other languages. The investigation further found that the obstacles for all official languages to enjoy parity of esteem were caused by lack of budget and lack of skilled personnel.

The investigation included 16 organs of state which were randomly picked and invited to share what they are doing regarding the promotion and equitable use of all official languages. Chairperson of the commission, Prof David Luka Mosoma, said the purpose of the investigation was to establish the extent of the equal use and status of the official languages by government departments.

“Since the constitution affirms that these languages should be given their due and constitutional status, we had to do this investigation to gauge how far we are. We wanted to assess the positive measures that departments are employing to elevate the status and advanced the use of these languages. These hearings had to investigate and ascertain the measures [if any] that are in place to advance the equal treatment of all the South African official languages.

“The investigation was to assess the current efforts and future plans being followed by departments to regulate, monitor and elevate the use of all the official languages among other things for teaching, research, science, technology, commerce as well as to be languages of record.”

In its recommendations, CLR Rights Commission stated that all government departments, enterprises and entities should establish functional language service centres. It further called on the department of higher education to identify a pool of teachers who will teach mathematics, science and technology in their mother tongues.

“We encourage the department of higher education and training to subsidise institutions of higher learning to elevate, prioritise and promote official languages to become languages of record, teaching, research, science and technology.”

Commenting is subject to our house rules.


Geoffrey Hinton, often called the "godfather of AI," is a British-Canadian computer scientist who significantly contributed to the development of neural networks, a foundational technology for modern AI systems.

In 2012, he and his students created technology that Google later acquired for $44 million, which laid the groundwork for AI advancements.

Hinton's work earned him the Turing Award in 2018, akin to the Nobel Prize in computing.

In 2023, Hinton resigned from Google, expressing concerns about AI's potential dangers.

He warned that AI could surpass human intelligence and be misused by bad actors, potentially leading to harmful outcomes.

His resignation and warnings drew significant attention, highlighting the urgency of addressing AI's risks.

In March, over 1,000 tech leaders, including Elon Musk, signed a letter calling for a six-month pause in AI development to address safety concerns.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, also testified before Congress, expressing fears about AI causing significant harm and advocating for regulation.

Public perception reflects these concerns, with a poll showing that more than half of Americans view AI as a threat to humanity.

The rapid development of AI, driven by economic incentives, raises fears of job displacement and societal disruption.

Experts emphasize the need for regulations to mitigate AI's risks, comparing its potential impact to that of the Industrial Revolution.

Hinton's warnings underscore the importance of developing AI responsibly, ensuring safety measures are in place to prevent misuse and unintended consequences.

The public should understand that while AI holds promise for advancements in various fields, its development must be carefully managed to avoid negative impacts on society.

Geoffrey Hinton, often called the "godfather of AI," is a British-Canadian computer scientist who significantly contributed to the development of neural networks, a foundational technology for modern AI systems.

Title:

Content: The ‘Godfather of AI’ warns about potential dangers of the technology as he quits Google

British-Canadian computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton admits he has fears for the future of AI

In a Frankenstein-esque tale of maker and master, Geoffrey Hinton, 75, dubbed ‘the godfather of AI’, has left Google with a parting warning over the dangers of artificial intelligence.

In 2012, the British-Canadian computer scientist invented technology with two students at University of Toronto that would become the intellectual foundation for AI systems. Google purchased the rights to this neural network tech to the tune of $44 million, which also propelled Dr Hinton to receive the Turing Award in 2018, considered the Nobel Prize of computing.

Read More
The ultimate part-AI girl? One Tatler correspondent entrusts ChatGPT with her next assignment

ChatGPT’s the new It Girl in Town and now she’s got all the gossip, writes Dora Davies-Evitt in the April issue

Yet now, Dr Hinton has packed in the day job at Google to join a chorus of anxious experts demanding a rollback of AI research until more robust safety measures are designed and deployed. Dr Hinton told the BBC: ‘Right now, they’re not more intelligent than us, as far as I can tell. But I think they soon may be.’

While many look upon AI as a natural technological development akin to the internet that could lead to exciting breakthroughs for humanity, there are growing fears that AI is a Pandora’s box. Reflecting on the effects of his work, Dr Hinton said: ‘I console myself with the normal excuse: If I hadn’t done it, somebody would have,’ as he admitted, ‘it is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.’

Read More
Cyber Society: Meet the NFT duo dominating the metaverse

Old Etonian digital artists Dominic Smith and Joe Carnell have caught the attention of Brooklyn Beckham, Steve Aoki and Jaden Smith

The scientist went on to warn that AI could be taught to ‘create sub-goals like “I need to get more power”’, and be harnessed by nefarious actors to wreak havoc. With innovation driven forward by the unstoppable competition between behemoths like Google and Microsoft, Dr Hinton warned innovation will only increase exponentially in the coming years.

There are those who are trying to apply the brakes to this runaway train. In March, an open letter was signed by over 1,000 tech leaders and researchers, including Elon Musk and fellow Turing Award winner Yoshu Bengio, calling for a six-month moratorium on AI development. A few days later, 19 leaders of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence released their own letter on the risks of AI. The signatures included that of Eric Horvitz, chief scientific officer at Microsoft.

The main outcry over AI lies in its ability to create and disseminate false news and images, which the public may find increasingly hard to identify. AI also poses a threat to academia and careers (see: Tatler’s foray into the world of ChatGPT). Dr Hinton believes that AI will fundamentally disrupt the workplace and take over the ‘drudge work’.

Read More
Lady Meta: my stratospheric rise through the metaverse

The Crypto Fashion Week debutante on becoming VR’s favourite It Girl

However Google’s chief scientist, Jeff Dean, offered words of comfort, adding: 'We remain committed to a responsible approach to AI. We’re continually learning to understand emerging risks while also innovating boldly.’

What breakthroughs has Hinton achieved through his 40+ years of work on artificial neural networks?

Breakthroughs that mimic biological brains

In 2012, he and his students created technology that Google later acquired for $44 million, which laid the groundwork for AI advancements.

Hinton's work earned him the Turing Award in 2018, akin to the Nobel Prize in computing.

Which prestigious award did Hinton receive in 2018 for his work on neural networks?

In 2023, Hinton resigned from Google, expressing concerns about AI's potential dangers.

What did Hinton, the renowned British-Canadian expert reveal about AI that caused widespread concern?

Exposed serious AI risks, shocking the tech world and affecting major company stocks.

Why did Hinton leave Google when he helped develop AI but later grew concerned about its dangers?

He warned that AI could surpass human intelligence and be misused by bad actors, potentially leading to harmful outcomes.

What did Hinton, the renowned British-Canadian expert reveal about AI that caused widespread concern?

Exposed serious AI risks, shocking the tech world and affecting major company stocks.

What did Sam Altman admit about ChatGPT and the potential risks of AI?

Advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

Becomes uncontrollable
Poses ethical risks

What future risk did Hinton warn about AI?

What risks did the global summit report highlight about AI?

Creating malicious software for cyberattacks, potentially posing an existential threat if humans lose control.

His resignation and warnings drew significant attention, highlighting the urgency of addressing AI's risks.

What did Hinton, the renowned British-Canadian expert reveal about AI that caused widespread concern?

Exposed serious AI risks, shocking the tech world and affecting major company stocks.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

Why did Hinton leave Google when he helped develop AI but later grew concerned about its dangers?

In March, over 1,000 tech leaders, including Elon Musk, signed a letter calling for a six-month pause in AI development to address safety concerns.

What did the open letter signed by thousands, including Elon Musk, call for in response to AI risks highlighted by Hinton?

Six-month pause on AI systems more powerful than GPT-4

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, also testified before Congress, expressing fears about AI causing significant harm and advocating for regulation.

Title:

Content: More Than Half of Americans Think AI Poses a Threat to Humanity

AI is the talk of the town these days. But despite the technology’s impressive accomplishments—or perhaps because of them—not all of that talk is positive. There was a New York Times tech columnist’s piece about his unsettling interaction with ChatGPT in February; an open letter calling for a moratorium on AI research in March; “godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton’s dramatic resignation from Google and warning about the dangers of AI; and just this week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s testimony before Congress, in which he said his “worst fear is we cause significant harm to the world” and encouraged legislation around the technology (though he also argued that generative AI should be treated differently, which would be convenient for his company).

It seems these warnings (along with all the other media circulating on the topic) have reached the American public loud and clear, and people don’t quite know what to think—but many are getting nervous. A poll carried out last week by Reuters revealed that more than half of Americans believe AI poses a threat to humanity’s future.

The poll was conducted online between May 9 and May 15, with 4,415 adults participating, and the results were published yesterday. More than two-thirds of respondents expressed concern about possible negative impacts of AI, while 61 percent believe it could be a threat to civilization.

“It’s telling such a broad swatch of Americans worry about the negative effects of AI,” said Landon Klein, director of US policy at the Future of Life Institute, the organization behind the previously mentioned open letter. “We view the current moment similar to the beginning of the nuclear era, and we have the benefit of public perception that is consistent with the need to take action.”

One nebulous aspect of the poll, and of many of the headlines about AI we see on a daily basis, is how the technology is defined. What are we referring to when we say “AI”? The term encompasses everything from recommendation algorithms that serve up content on YouTube and Netflix, to large language models like ChatGPT, to models that can design incredibly complex protein architectures, to the Siri assistant built into many iPhones.

IBM’s definition is simple: “a field which combines computer science and robust datasets to enable problem-solving.” Google, meanwhile, defines it as “a set of technologies that enable computers to perform a variety of advanced functions, including the ability to see, understand and translate spoken and written language, analyze data, make recommendations, and more.”

It could be that peoples’ fear and distrust of AI comes partly from a lack of understanding of it, and a stronger focus on unsettling examples than positive ones. The AI that can design complex proteins may help scientists discover stronger vaccines and other drugs, and could do so on a vastly accelerated timeline.

In fact, biotechnology and medicine are two fields for which AI holds enormous promise, be it by modeling millions of proteins, coming up with artificial enzymes, powering brain implants that help disabled people communicate, or helping diagnose conditions like Alzheimer’s.

Sebastian Thrun, a computer science professor at Stanford who founded Google X, pointed out that there’s not enough public awareness of the potential for positive impact AI has. “The concerns are very legitimate, but I think what’s missing in the dialogue in general is why are we doing this in the first place?” he said. “AI will raise peoples’ quality of life, and help people be more competent and more efficient.”

While 61 percent of the poll’s respondents said AI could be a risk to humanity, only 22 percent said it won’t be a risk; the other 17 percent weren’t sure.

However, the (sort of?) good news is that AI isn’t the biggest thing Americans are losing sleep over. The top worry at the moment is, unsurprisingly, the economy (82 percent of respondents fear a looming recession), with crime coming in second (77 percent said they support increasing police funding to fight crime).

If an AI solution came along that could, say, point out economic strategies humans haven’t yet thought of, would that make people less wary of it?

Given everything else the tech can do, this doesn’t seem like such a long shot.

Image Credit: Google DeepMind / Unsplash

Vanessa Bates Ramirez
Vanessa is senior editor of Singularity Hub. She's interested in biotechnology and genetic engineering, the nitty-gritty of the renewable energy transition, the roles technology and science play in geopolitics and international development, and countless other topics.
RELATED
latest
Don't miss a trend
Get Hub delivered to your inbox

featured

What did Sam Altman admit about ChatGPT and the potential risks of AI?

Advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity.

Public perception reflects these concerns, with a poll showing that more than half of Americans view AI as a threat to humanity.

What did Sam Altman admit about ChatGPT and the potential risks of AI?

Advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity.

What risks did the global summit report highlight about AI?

Creating malicious software for cyberattacks, potentially posing an existential threat if humans lose control.

The rapid development of AI, driven by economic incentives, raises fears of job displacement and societal disruption.

Title:

Content: Mark Woods: Is orange the color of progress on Jacksonville riverfront? Let's hope so.
GUEST

Retired engineering dean: Urgent steps needed to mitigate catastrophic potential of AI

Dr. Suresh Chandra
Guest columnist

In historical terms, not many topics have attracted as much attention as artificial intelligence has in the past year. Catastrophic predictions by experts in this revolutionary field have propelled them to urge governments and technology corporations to urgently put in place regulations and guidelines to ensure that pernicious effects of AI are avoided.

Geoffrey Hinton, “the godfather of AI,” recently made headlines as he left Google after a long association so he could sound the alarm about AI’s ability to outsmart humans and spawn devastating problems for mankind’s existence. Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, appeared before the U. S. Congress in May and articulated the same concern. He has recently embarked on a whirlwind tour of Asian and European countries to share his anxiety regarding AI and recommend urgent action in his meetings with political and technical leaders there.

Altman is one of the dozens of top experts and industry leaders to warn about the existential threat to humanity presented by AI in the next five to 10 years. They strongly feel that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

JU law dean:The classic conundrum presented by ChatGPT, especially in academia

More:AI firm to map Jacksonville inch-by-inch. How might its findings affect homeowners' bills?

Letters:Why won’t Gov. DeSantis talk about his Navy service at Guantanamo prison?

This also reflects the view of a large number of participants in the Yale CEO Summit in June.

In May top U.S. and European officials met in Sweden to discuss oversight of AI and pledged to help establish voluntary codes of conduct. The European Union plans to place new requirements on high-risk AI in socioeconomic processes, the government use of AI and the regulated consumer products with AI systems.

Unfortunately the U. S. Congress, despite dire warnings, has been reluctant to come up with needed legislation for fear of alienating key corporations. Not surprisingly, some prominent U.S. corporations have expressed reservations about the drastic steps that the European Union has decided to implement.

The rise of AI has led many economists to issue stern warnings regarding our labor market. As many as 300 million jobs around the world could eventually be automated, according to Goldman Sachs. Some 14 million positions could disappear in the next five years alone. Even the jobs that survive will quite possibly not look much like the jobs of today.

Other potentially harmful outcomes include social surveillance (gathering data on citizens’ activities, relationships and political views), widening socioeconomic inequality, autonomous weapons powered by AI, financial crises brought about by AI algorithms and ransom/extortion threats through manipulation of voice and photos.

The beneficial impact of AI technology in the past decade is manifest in smartphone photos; facial recognition software; numerous medical applications, such as analyzing MRI scans, spotting lung cancer or managing mental health issues; understanding by farmers of crop yields; popular apps like Google Maps; use of speech recognition to translate words from one language to another; advances in social networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri and Google Assistant); and creating musical compositions or paintings.

Inevitably, AI technology is expected to bring more opportunities in jobs and industries that weren’t previously possible. Thus, one of the most promising aspects of AI is expected to be our entry into a golden age of human possibility, technological development and economic growth.

The above-stated amazing AI-related progress notwithstanding, the potential for destruction of the societal structure is a grave threat and must be avoided. It is imperative that the world develop national and international regulations for AI without delay. The creation of organizational standards for applying AI, making it part of company culture and discussions — as well as infusing humanities perspectives in technology development — are part of this all-important process.

Suresh Chandra, Ph.D., is professor emeritus and former dean of the College of Engineering at North Carolina A&T State University. He lives in Ponte Vedra.

This guest column is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Times-Union. We welcome a diversity of opinions.

What risks did Hinton associate with AI's rapid advancement?

Experts emphasize the need for regulations to mitigate AI's risks, comparing its potential impact to that of the Industrial Revolution.

Title:

Content: Skip to main contentSkip to navigation

UK and US intervene amid AI industry’s rapid advances

Competition and Markets Authority sends ‘pre-warning’ to sector, while White House announces measures to address risks

The UK and US have intervened in the race to develop ever more powerful artificial intelligence technology, as the British competition watchdog launched a review of the sector and the White House advised tech firms of their fundamental responsibility to develop safe products.

Regulators are under mounting pressure to intervene, as the emergence of AI-powered language generators such as ChatGPT raises concerns about the potential spread of misinformation, a rise in fraud and the impact on the jobs market, with Elon Musk among nearly 30,000 signatories to a letter published last month urging a pause in significant projects.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said on Thursday it would look at the underlying systems – or foundation models – behind AI tools. The initial review, described by one legal expert as a “pre-warning” to the sector, will publish its findings in September.

On the same day, the US government announced measures to address the risks in AI development, as Kamala Harris, the vice-president, met chief executives at the forefront of the industry’s rapid advances. In a statement, the White House said firms developing the technology had a “fundamental responsibility to make sure their products are safe before they are deployed or made public”.

The meeting capped a week during which a succession of scientists and business leaders issued warnings about the speed at which the technology could disrupt established industries. On Monday, Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI”, quit Google in order to speak more freely about the technology’s dangers, while the UK government’s outgoing scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, urged ministers to “get ahead” of the profound social and economic changes that could be triggered by AI, saying the impact on jobs could be as big as that of the Industrial Revolution.

Sarah Cardell said AI had the potential to “transform” the way businesses competed, but that consumers must be protected.

The CMA chief executive said: “AI has burst into the public consciousness over the past few months but has been on our radar for some time. It’s crucial that the potential benefits of this transformative technology are readily accessible to UK businesses and consumers while people remain protected from issues like false or misleading information.”

ChatGPT and Google’s rival Bard service are prone to delivering false information in response to users’ prompts, while concerns have been raised about AI-generated voice scams. The anti-misinformation outfit NewsGuard said this week that chatbots pretending to be journalists were running almost 50 AI-generated “content farms”. Last month, a song featuring fake AI-generated vocals purporting to be Drake and the Weeknd was pulled from streaming services.

The CMA review will look at how the markets for foundation models could evolve, what opportunities and risks there are for consumers and competition, and formulate “guiding principles” to support competition and protect consumers.

The leading players in AI are Microsoft, ChatGPT developer OpenAI – in which Microsoft is an investor – and Google parent Alphabet, which owns a world-leading AI business in UK-based DeepMind, while leading AI startups include Anthropic and Stability AI, the British company behind Stable Diffusion.

Alex Haffner, competition partner at the UK law firm Fladgate, said: “Given the direction of regulatory travel at the moment and the fact the CMA is deciding to dedicate resource to this area, its announcement must be seen as some form of pre-warning about aggressive development of AI programmes without due scrutiny being applied.”

In the US, Harris met the chief executives of OpenAI, Alphabet and Microsoft at the White House, and outlined measures to address the risks of unchecked AI development. In a statement following the meeting, Harris said she told the executives that “the private sector has an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their products”.

The administration said it would invest $140m (£111m) in seven new national AI research institutes, to pursue artificial intelligence advances that are “ethical, trustworthy, responsible, and serve the public good”. AI development is dominated by the private sector, with the tech industry producing 32 significant machine-learning models last year, compared with three produced by academia.

Leading AI developers have also agreed to their systems being publicly evaluated at this year’s Defcon 31 cybersecurity conference. Companies that have agreed to participate include OpenAI, Google, Microsoft and Stability AI.

“This independent exercise will provide critical information to researchers and the public about the impacts of these models,” said the White House.

Robert Weissman, the president of the consumer rights non-profit Public Citizen, praised the White House’s announcement as a “useful step” but said more aggressive action is needed. Weissman said this should including a moratorium on the deployment of new generative AI technologies, the term for tools such as ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion.

“At this point, Big Tech companies need to be saved from themselves. The companies and their top AI developers are well aware of the risks posed by generative AI. But they are in a competitive arms race and each believes themselves unable to slow down,” he said.

The EU was also told on Thursday that it must protect grassroots AI research or risk handing control of the technology’s development to US firms.

In an open letter coordinated by the German research group Laion – or Large-scale AI Open Network – the European parliament was told that one-size-fits-all rules risked eliminating open research and development.

“Rules that require a researcher or developer to monitor or control downstream use could make it impossible to release open-source AI in Europe,” which would “entrench large firms” and “hamper efforts to improve transparency, reduce competition, limit academic freedom, and drive investment in AI overseas”, the letter said.

“Europe cannot afford to lose AI sovereignty. Eliminating open-source R&D will leave the European scientific community and economy critically dependent on a handful of foreign and proprietary firms for essential AI infrastructure.”

The largest AI efforts, by companies such as OpenAI and Google, are heavily controlled by their creators. It is impossible to download the model behind ChatGPT, for instance, and the paid-for access that OpenAI provides to customers comes with a number of legal and technical restrictions on how it can be used. By contrast, open-source efforts involve creating a model and then releasing it for anyone to use, improve or adapt as they see fit.

“We are working on open-source AI because we think that sort of AI will be more safe, more accessible and more democratic,” said Christoph Schuhmann, the organisational lead at Laion.

More on this story

More on this story

  • US aims to tackle risk of uncontrolled race to develop AI

  • EU urged to protect grassroots AI research or risk losing out to US

  • UK competition watchdog launches review of AI market

  • AI ‘could be as transformative as Industrial Revolution’

  • Chatbot ‘journalists’ found running almost 50 AI-generated content farms

  • ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and warns over dangers of misinformation

  • AI has better ‘bedside manner’ than some doctors, study finds

  • Fresh concerns raised over sources of training material for AI systems

Most viewed

Most viewed

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

Hinton's warnings underscore the importance of developing AI responsibly, ensuring safety measures are in place to prevent misuse and unintended consequences.

What did Hinton, the renowned British-Canadian expert reveal about AI that caused widespread concern?

Exposed serious AI risks, shocking the tech world and affecting major company stocks.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

Becomes uncontrollable
Poses ethical risks

What risks did the global summit report highlight about AI?

Creating malicious software for cyberattacks, potentially posing an existential threat if humans lose control.

What did Hinton, the renowned British-Canadian expert reveal about AI that caused widespread concern?

Exposed serious AI risks, shocking the tech world and affecting major company stocks.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

Becomes uncontrollable
Poses ethical risks

What risks did the global summit report highlight about AI?

Creating malicious software for cyberattacks, potentially posing an existential threat if humans lose control.

The public should understand that while AI holds promise for advancements in various fields, its development must be carefully managed to avoid negative impacts on society.

What did Sam Altman admit about ChatGPT and the potential risks of AI?

Advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?

What did Sam Altman admit about ChatGPT and the potential risks of AI?

Advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity.

What does Hinton warn could happen to AI if companies and regulators fail to implement effective rules and controls?