Perseid meteor shower peaks tonight: Here's where, what time to see zooming fireballs
The Perseid meteor shower is one of three active meteor showers in the month of August — and the most popular — as it peaks during the warm August nights as seen from the northern hemisphere.
The meteor showers are particles released from the comet 109P/Swift-Tuttle during its numerous returns to the inner solar system and its called Perseids because the area of the sky where the meteors originate is located near the constellation of Perseus.
The Perseids are active through Aug. 23, while the Alpha Capricornids kicked off on July 12 and the Southern Delta Aquariids started on July 18.
Here's what to know about all the August meteor showers, when they peak, where to get the best views and what are the moon phases.
When is the Perseid meteor shower?
The Perseid meteor shower of July 2025 is active from July 17 through Aug. 23 and will peak on the night of Aug 12-13. This will be very close to the August full moon — Aug. 9.
According to the American Meteor Society, the Perseids potential can reach 50-75 shooting meteors per hour for stargazers and they will be best viewed after midnight. Note that they can appear from any direction.
What is the best time to see the Perseid meteor shower tonight?
Perseid's firey bright meteors should be most visibile after midnight and into the early morning hours, but before dawn on Aug. 12 and 13. The best times to watch the meteors zoom across the sky will be between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m.
No equipment is needed to watch the meteor showers, just patience and preferably a dark sky.
When is the Alpha Capricornids meteor shower?
The Alpha Capricornids are active through Aug. 12 and can be seen from both sides of the equator, reaching their peak on July 29-30.
While the Alpha Capricornids do not produce many shower meteors per hour, it is known for its number of very bright fireballs, described as 'vivid' and 'brilliant bursts' by Forbes.
When are the Southern delta Aquariids?
The Delta Aquariids are a strong meteor shower that kicked off on July 18 through Aug. 12, reaching their peak on July 29-30. They aren't known for being the brightest, but they do produce between 10-20 meteors per hour near their peak.
What are the moon phases for July 2025?
🌓 First Quarter: Aug. 1
🌕 Full Moon: Aug. 9
🌗 Last Quarter: Aug. 16
🌑 New Moon: Aug. 23
🌓 First Quarter: Aug. 31
When is the next full moon?
The next full moon in September will be the harvest moon. It will occur on Sept. 7, 2025
Maria Francis is a Pennsylvania-based journalist with the Mid-Atlantic Connect Team
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: What time is the Perseid meteor shower peak tonight? How you can see it
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
MIT Student Drops Out Because She Says AGI Will Kill Everyone Before She Can Graduate
We're all probably feeling a little anxious about AI. It's horrible for the environment, is used as an excuse to fire workers, floods the internet with misinformation and slop, entrenches government surveillance, and appears to be driving people into psychosis. And so, at a time when many college students are dropping out to join AI startups, one former MIT student says she called it quits because she's afraid of something altogether more catastrophic: that an artificial general intelligence (AGI), or superhuman AI, will completely wipe out the human race, Forbes reports. "I was concerned I might not be alive to graduate because of AGI," Alice Blair, who enrolled at the university in 2023, told the publication. "I think in a large majority of the scenarios, because of the way we are working towards AGI, we get human extinction." Blair now works as a technical writer at the nonprofit Center for AI Safety, and has no plans to go back to MIT. She joined, hoping to meet other people interested in making AI safe, and apparently was disappointed. "I predict that my future lies out in the real world," she told Forbes. Nikola Jurković, a Harvard alum who served at his school's AI safety club, is sympathetic to the idea. "If your career is about to be automated by the end of the decade, then every year spent in college is one year subtracted from your short career," he told Forbes. "I personally think AGI is maybe four years away and full automation of the economy is maybe five or six years away." Building an AGI, a system that matches or surpasses human intelligence, is much of the AI industry's endgame. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called the recent launch of its poorly-received AI model GPT-5 a major stepping stone towards AGI, even going as far as to call it "generally intelligent." Many experts are skeptical, however, that we're anywhere near building such a powerful AI model, and point to recent signs that improvements to the tech are hitting a wall. "It is extremely unlikely that AGI will come in the next five years," Gary Marcus, an AI researcher and outspoken critic of the industry, told Forbes. "It's just marketing hype to pretend otherwise when so many core problems (like hallucinations and reasoning errors) remain unsolved." And while there are very real forms of harm that AI can cause, outright extinction is a little far-fetched, Marcus said. In fact, the AI industry probably wants you to buy into AI doomsday prophesying. Altman and other tech CEOs raise these risks themselves. Doing so creates the impression that the tech is far more capable than it currently is, and allows these companies to control the narrative around how the tech should be regulated. And if you're envisioning an apocalypse like in "The Matrix" movies — human enslavement at the hands of machine intelligences that rebelled against their creators — you may be ignoring the very mundane forms of harm it's already causing, like job automation and the gutting of the environment. More on AI: Sam Altman Calls His Own AI Model "Annoying" After Being Forced to Raise It From the Dead Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Godfather Of AI Says We Need Maternal AI But Ignites Sparks Over Omission Of Fatherly Instincts Too
In today's column, I examine the recent remarks by the said-to-be 'Godfather of AI' that the best way to ensure that AI and ultimately artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) are in check and won't wipe out humankind would be to instill maternal instincts into AI. The idea is that maybe we could computationally sway current AI towards being motherly. This would hopefully remain intact as a keystone while we increasingly improve contemporary AI toward becoming the vaunted AGI and ASI. Although this seems to be an intriguing proposition, it has come under withering criticism from others in the AI community. Let's talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). Aligning AI With Humanity You might be aware that a longstanding research scientist in the AI community, named Geoffrey Hinton, has been credited with various AI breakthroughs, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. He has been generally labeled as the 'Godfather of AI' for his avid pursuits and accomplishments in the AI field. In fact, he is a Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist for his AI insights. In 2023, he left his executive position at Google so that he (per his own words) could speak freely about AI risks. Many noteworthy quotes of his are utilized by the media to forewarn about the coming dangers of pinnacle AI, when or if we reach AGI and ASI. There is a lot of back-and-forth nowadays regarding the existential risk of AI. Some refer to this as the p(doom), meaning that there is a probability of doom arising due to AI, for which you can either guess that the probability is low, medium, or high. For those who place a high probability on this weighty matter, they usually assert that AI will either choose to kill us all or perhaps completely enslave us. How are we to somehow avoid or at least mitigate this seemingly outsized risk? One approach entails trying to data train AI to be more aligned with human values, see my detailed discussion on human-centered AI at the link here. The hope is that if AI is more appreciative of humanity and computationally infused with our ethical and moral values, the AI might opt not to harm us. Another similar approach involves making sure that AI embodies principles such as the famous Asimov laws of robotics (see my explanation at the link here). A rule of Asimov is that AI isn't supposed to harm humans. Period, end of story. Whether those methods or any other of the floating around schemes will save us is utterly unknown. We are pretty much hanging in the wind. Good luck, humanity, since we will need to keep our fingers crossed and our lucky rabbit's foot in hand. For more about the ins and outs of AI existential risk, see my coverage at the link here. AI With Maternal Instincts At the annual Ai4 Conference on August 12, 2025, Hinton proclaimed that the means to shape AI toward being less likely to be gloomily onerous would be to instill computational 'maternal instincts' into AI. His notion seems to be that by tilting AI toward being motherly, the AI will care about people in a motherly fashion. He emphasized that it is unclear exactly how this might technologically be done. In any case, according to his hypothesized solution, AI that is infused with mother-like characteristics will tend to be protective of humans. How so? Well, first of all, the AGI and ASI will be much smarter than us, and, secondly, by acting in a motherly role, the AI will devotedly want to care for us as though we are its children. The AI will want to embrace its presumed offspring and ensure our survival. You might go so far as to believe that this motherly AI will guide us toward thriving as a species. AGI and ASI that robustly embrace motherly instincts might ensure that we would have tremendous longevity and enjoyable, upbeat lives. No longer would we be under the daunting specter of doom and gloom. Our AI-as-mom will be our devout protector and lovingly inspire us to new heights. Boom, drop the mic. Lopsided Maternal Emphasis Now that I've got that whole premise on the table, let's go ahead and give it a bit of a look-see. One of the most immediate reactions has been that the claim of 'maternal instincts' is overly rosy and nearly romanticized. The portrayal appears to suggest that motherly attributes are solely within the realm of being loving, caring, comforting, protective, sheltering, and so on. All of those are absolutely positive and altogether wonderful qualities. No doubt about it. Those are the stuff made of grand dreams. Is that the only side of the coin when it comes to maternal instincts? A somewhat widened perspective would say that maternal instincts can equally contain disconcerting ingredients. Consider this. Suppose that a motherly AI determines that humans are being too risky and the best way to save humankind is to keep us cooped up. No need for us to try and venture out into outer space or try to figure out the meaning of life. Those are dangers that might disrupt or harm us. Voila, AI-as-mom computationally opts to bottle us up. Is the AI doggedly being evil? Not exactly. The AI is exercising a parental preference. It is striving mightily to protect us from ourselves. You might say that motherly AI would take away our freedoms to save us, doing so for our own darned good. Thank you, AI-as-mom! Worries About Archetypes I assume that you can plainly observe that maternal instincts are not exclusively in the realm of being unerringly good. Another illustrative example would be that AI-as-mom will withdraw its affection toward us if we choose to be disobedient. A mother might do the same toward a child. I'm not suggesting that's a proper thing to do in real life, and only pointing out that the underlying concept of 'maternal instinct' is generally vague and widely interpretable. Thus, even if we could imbue motherly tendencies into AI, the manner in which those instincts are exhibited and play out might be quite far from our desired idealizations. Speaking of which, another major point of concern is that the use of a maternal archetype is wrong at the get-go. Here's what that means. The moment you invoke a motherly classification, you have landed squarely into an anthropomorphism of AI. We are applying norms and expectations associated with humans to the arena of AI. That's generally a bad idea. I've discussed at length that people are gradually starting to think that AI is sentient and exists on par with humans, see my discussion at the link here. They are wrong. Utterly wrong. It would seem that this assigning of 'mother' to AI is going to fuel that misconception about AI. We don't need that. The act of discussing AI as having maternal instincts, especially by anyone or those considered in great authority about AI, will draw many others into a false and undercutting path. They will undoubtedly follow the claims made by presumed experts and not openly question the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the matter. Though the intentions are aboveboard, the result is dismal and, frankly, disappointing. More On The Archetypes Angst Let's keep pounding away at the archetype fallacy. Some would say that the very conception of being 'motherly' is an outdated mode of thinking. Why should there be a category that myopically carries particular attributes associated with motherhood? Can't a mother have characteristics outside of that culturally narrowed scope? They quickly reject the maternal instincts proposition on the basis that it is incorrect or certainly a poorly chosen premise. The attempt seems to be shaped in a close-minded viewpoint of what mothers do. And what mothers are seemingly allowed to do. That's ancient times, some would insist. An additional interesting twist is that if the maternal instinct is on the table, it would seem eminently logical to also put the fatherhood instinct up there, too. Allow me to elaborate. Fatherhood Enters The Picture By and large, motherhood and fatherhood are archetypes that are historically portrayed as a type of pairing (in modern times, this might be blurred, but historically they have been rather distinctive and contrastive). According to the conventional archetypes, the 'traditional' mother is (for example) supposedly nurturing, while the 'traditional' father is supposedly (for example) more of the disciplinarian. A research study cleverly devised two sets of scales associated with these traditional perspectives of motherhood and fatherhood. The paper entitled 'Scales for Measuring College Student Views of Traditional Motherhood and Fatherhood' by Mark Whatley and David Knox, College Student Journal, January 2005, made these salient points (excerpts): The combined 153 declarative statements included in the two scales allow research experiments to be conducted to gauge whether subjects in a study are more prone to believe in those traditional characteristics and associated labels, or less prone. Moving beyond that prior study, the emphasis here and now is that if there is to be a focus on maternal instincts for AI, doing so seems to beg the question of why it should not also encompass fatherhood instincts. Might as well go ahead and get both of the traditional archetypes into the game. It would seem to make sense to jump in with both feet. What AI Has To Say On This I had earlier mentioned that Hinton did not specify a technological indication at this time of how AI developers might proceed to computationally imbue motherhood characteristics into existing AI. The same lack of specificity applies to the omitted archetype of imbuing fatherhood into AI. Let's noodle on that technological conundrum. One approach would be to data train AI toward a tendency to respond in a traditional motherhood frame and/or a fatherhood frame. In other words, perform some RAG (retrieval-augmented generation), see my explanation of RAG at the link here, and make use of customized instructions (see my coverage of customized instructions at the link here). I went ahead and did so, opting to use the latest-and-greatest of OpenAI, namely the newly released GPT-5 (for my review of GPT-5, see the link here). I first focused on maternal instincts. After doing a dialogue in that frame, I started anew and devised a fatherhood frame. I then did a dialogue in that frame. Let's see how things turned out. Talking Up A Storm Here's an example of a dialogue snippet of said-to-be maternal instincts: Next, here's an example of a dialogue snippet of said-to-be fatherhood instincts: I assume that you can detect the wording and tonal differences between the two instances, based on a considered traditional motherhood frame versus a traditional fatherhood frame. The Big Picture I would wager that the consensus among those AI colleagues that I know is that relying on AI having maternal instincts as a solution to our existential risk from AI, assuming we can get the AI to go maternal, just isn't going to cut the mustard. The same applies to the fatherhood inclination. No dice. Sorry to say that what seems like a silver bullet and otherwise appealing and simplistic means of getting ourselves out of a massive jam when it comes to AGI and ASI is not a likely proposition. Sure, it might potentially be helpful. At the same time, it has lots of gotchas and untoward repercussions. Do not bet your bottom dollar on the premise. A final comment for now. During the data training for my mini-experiment, I included this famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'Respect the child. Be not too much his parent. Trespass not on his solitude.' Do you think that the AI suitably instills that wise adage? As a seasoned parent, I would venture that this maxim missed the honed parental guise of the AI.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Mystery sky sighting could be dumped rocket fuel
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Mo. – Stargazers were looking up Tuesday night hoping to see the Perseid meteor shower. Many of them saw something unexpected. 'I thought it was aliens,' said Ashley Robison, a De Soto resident. 'It wasn't the moon, and it was swirling.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Multiple sightings of the swirling object were shared on social media and speculation skyrocketed. 'It kind of looks like a possible UFO,' De Soto resident William White said. One possible explanation is that spent rocket fuel turned into ice crystals at an extremely high altitude. There were two rocket launches on Tuesday. One involved the military and the other involved a weather satellite. 'I actually still have goosebumps': Family of 3-year-old who died at daycare reacts to charges 'I thought it was really odd,' said Laura Sanders, another De Soto resident. 'I'm not really sure what it is.' White said his curiosity about the atmosphere is growing. He said, 'It really makes you wonder what all is out there.' A spokesperson for the St. Louis Science Center said anyone interested in learning more about what's visible in the night sky can attend Planetarium Star Shows held Thursdays through Mondays. A weekly Night Sky blog also provides additional information. The Science Center is also hosting its next monthly free telescope viewing event on Sept. 5 at the Planetarium, weather and skies permitting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
