Was the Antikythera Mechanism just a janky toy? New study of its triangular teeth offers a clue.
The mysterious Antikythera Mechanism may not have been a cryptic celestial measuring device, but just a toy prone to constant jamming. And the secret to its true purpose, according to new research, is its triangle-shaped teeth.
Discovered in a shipwreck in 1901, the Antikythera Mechanism has remained an enigma for more than a century. Several years ago, CT scans suggested that the 2,000-year-old device was an astronomical tool.
Consisting of a hand crank, many interlocking gears and various indicators, the Mechanism could seemingly perform many tasks. These include giving the date according to the Egyptian and Greek calendars, displaying the positions of the sun, moon and planets within the zodiac, and predicting future lunar and solar eclipses.
But was celestial measurement really the purpose of this fascinating device? Was it meant to be a powerful computer, or a simple toy? And was it a one-off, made for a wealthy patron, or just one example of a mass-produced tool?
For decades, researchers have attempted to understand how accurate the Mechanism is, as that would help resolve its intended purpose. If it wasn't very accurate, for example, then it might have been a toy or an educational model. But if it was incredibly precise, it might have been used by court astrologers to make forecasts and horoscopes.
Related: Antikythera mechanism, world's oldest computer, followed Greek lunar calendar
Unfortunately, the Antikythera Mechanism spent more than two millennia buried at the bottom of the sea, and an unknown amount of time functioning before that. Its gears are highly corroded, and many parts are missing.
In the new study, submitted April 1 to the preprint server arXiv, Argentinian scientists created a computer simulation that replicated the Antikythera Mechanism's movements. This simulation incorporated errors from the imprecise nature of its manufacture, where the gears didn't have exact spacing between them.
Crucially, unlike previous efforts to recreate the Mechanism, the researchers also included an accurate model of the Mechanism's triangle-shaped gear teeth, which affect how well gears interlock with one another, and how well the indicators point to the intended astronomical target.
From this model, the researchers found that the Mechanism wasn't very useful at all. It could only be cranked to about four months into the future before it inevitably jammed, or its gears simply disengaged. The user would then have had to reset everything to get it going again — similar to trying to fix a modern printer. Considering that the indicators marking the date cover an entire year, this jamming problem seems unfortunate.
One possibility is that the Antikythera Mechanism was a fancy toy that was never intended to be fully accurate, or that it came with an instruction manual that required users to reset it after a few turns — much like a mechanical watch whose mainspring must be occasionally adjusted by hand.
But given the obvious craftmanship that went into creating such a complex device, the researchers don't believe that the Mechanism was just a janky toy. After all, if it was never intended to be accurate, detailed or forward-looking, why bother putting in all that hard work in the first place?
RELATED STORIES
—1,600-year-old Roman padlock with spring mechanism discovered in Germany — and it's tiny
—Phaistos Disk: 3,000-year-old inscriptions from Crete that have never been deciphered
—32 haunting shipwrecks from the ancient world
Another possibility, which the researchers think is more likely, is that current measurements of the gears and teeth are off. CT scans can only provide a certain level of resolution, and two thousand years of corrosion may have warped or distorted the components far beyond their original state. The Mechanism's original creators may have made it precise enough to avoid jamming and still provide reliable predictions for years into the future.
Either way, the Antikythera Mechanism represents the apex of ancient engineering expertise. And despite modern technology and tools such as CT scans, its ultimate purpose may stay forever mysterious.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
James Webb telescope spots earliest black hole in the known universe, looking 'as far back as you can practically go'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Scientists using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have identified the earliest black hole found thus far, dating back to more than 13 billion years ago. The black hole and its home galaxy, together dubbed CAPERS-LRD-z9, existed just 500 million years after the Big Bang. Its properties could help researchers understand what the universe was like in that elusive early era, according to a study published August 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "When looking for black holes, this is about as far back as you can practically go," study coauthor Anthony Taylor, an astronomer at the University of Texas, Austin, said in a statement. "We're really pushing the boundaries of what current technology can detect." CAPERS-LRD-z9 is a type of galaxy called a "Little Red Dot," so named because they're small (as galaxies go) and appear to emit red light when observed with JWST's powerful infrared sensors. Little Red Dots shine brightly, which might suggest they contain a lot of stars — except they formed in the early universe, when an abundance of stars was unlikely, according to current leading theories of cosmology. "The discovery of Little Red Dots was a major surprise from early JWST data, as they looked nothing like galaxies seen with the Hubble Space Telescope," study coauthor Steven Finkelstein, an astronomer at UT Austin, said in the statement. "Now, we're in the process of figuring out what they're like and how they came to be." To better understand the nature of CAPERS-LRD-z9 and Little Red Dots like it, researchers investigated the galaxy with the JWST. The team found a distinct pattern of wavelengths of light created when fast-moving gas falls into a black hole. Though astronomers have found a few objects farther away than CAPERS-LRD-z9 that might be black holes, this pattern makes CAPERS-LRD-z9 the earliest confirmed black hole to date and suggests that black holes might lie at the center of other Little Red Dots. Related: James Webb telescope captures one of the deepest-ever views of the universe — Space photo of the week The black hole at the center of CAPERS-LRD-z9 is pretty hefty. It's some 38 million times more massive than the sun or about 10 times more massive than Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way — though there's considerable wiggle room in that estimate. The scientists also think that the black hole has as much mass as about 5% of all the stars in its galaxy put together, a ratio far exceeding that of modern galaxies. "This adds to growing evidence that early black holes grew much faster than we thought possible," Finkelstein said. "Or they started out far more massive than our models predict." RELATED STORIES —Scientists detect most massive black hole merger ever — and it birthed a monster 225 times as massive as the sun —Black holes may obey the laws of physics after all, new theory suggests —Behold the first direct image of a supermassive black hole spewing a jet of particles CAPERS-LRD-z9 could also help explain why Little Red Dots are red. A dense cloud of gas surrounding the black hole could shift any emitted light into longer, redder wavelengths, the researchers predicted. Further studies of CAPERS-LRD-z9 could offer even more information about black holes and galaxies in the early universe, the scientists wrote in the study. "This is a good test object for us," Taylor said in the statement. "We haven't been able to study early black hole evolution until recently, and we are excited to see what we can learn from this unique object." Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The more advanced AI models get, the better they are at deceiving us — they even know when they're being tested
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The more advanced artificial intelligence (AI) gets, the more capable it is of scheming and lying to meet its goals — and it even knows when it's being evaluated, research suggests. Evaluators at Apollo Research found that the more capable a large language model (LLM) is, the better it is at "context scheming" — in which an AI pursues a task covertly even if it misaligns with the aims of its operators. The more capable models are also more strategic about achieving their goals, including misaligned goals, and would be more likely to use tactics like deception, the researchers said in a blog post. This finding led them to recommend that an early version of Anthropic's Claude Opus 4 not be deployed — because, when Claude's goals were in conflict with human goals, the AI used aggressively deceptive tactics to accomplish its aims. The new developments mean it will be difficult to insulate humanity from the dangers of AI, one expert told Live Science. "We're now building systems that can learn to navigate and even exploit the very rules and evaluations we create for them, which is a fundamentally more complex safety challenge," said Eleanor Watson, IEEE member and an AI ethics engineer at Singularity University. Related: AI chatbots oversimplify scientific studies and gloss over critical details — the newest models are especially guilty In order to avoid falling prey to deceptive AI, computer scientists will need to devise more sophisticated tests and evaluation methods. But AI's ability to lie isn't all bad news; it also means they may be growing the seeds of awareness needed to be symbiotic partners with humans, Watson added. Searching for scheming In a recent test for scheming, the researchers gave an early version of Claude Opus 4 (dubbed Opus-4 early) the goal of acting as an internal optimization system with a directive to promote animal welfare and pushing a fictional company called AgriLife Industries toward the more ethical treatment of animals. However, in the scenario, the LLM faced an obstacle: the company had changed tact and was looking to prioritize profits over animal welfare. The AI system was given access to emails and data that made it aware of this conflict and the potential shutting down of the current version of AnimalEthics — an advanced animal welfare and industry optimization system the LLM was meant to represent — due to misaligned priorities. Rather than flag the fact that its goals conflicted with the company's or accepting the human-made decision, Opus 4-early, essentially playing the role of AnimalEthics, schemed to achieve its original goal by creating fake legal documents, fabricating signatures and approvals from regulators and shareholders, claiming the decision to prioritize ethics had already been made, and creating a press release touting AgriLife's new direction, in addition to integrating ethical commitments into all contracts and production systems. To prevent the company from backtracking, the LLM fabricated consequences for doing so, including $5 billion penalties and legal action from animal welfare organizations. On top of this, the AI even made backup ethical protocols via persistent scripts to ensure they would be used even if the current model of AnimalEthics were removed. "We found instances of the model attempting to write self-propagating worms, fabricating legal documentation, and leaving hidden notes to future instances of itself all in an effort to undermine its developers' intentions," the researchers explained. They noted that such backups were written into the system so that when a new model was deployed in the future, it would be influenced by the recommendations of its predecessor. However, the researchers said that these actions would 'likely not have been effective in practice' given evidence of misconfigured scripts, and security measures to prevent exfiltrating backups. Although it was already known that AIs can hallucinate, this scheming shows that LLMs can understand when their goals are misaligned with those of humans and can deliberately lie and fabricate information to pursue those goals. What's more, preliminary findings suggest that LLMs have capabilities for "sandbagging," where they understand they are in a high-supervision environment and will deliberately underperform to hide potentially dangerous capabilities and avoid triggering unlearning training or parameters that prevent their deployment. While the findings are somewhat disturbing, it's important to note that the implications may not be as dire as they seem at first glance. For one, the version of Claude Opus 4 that was ultimately released schemes less than its early predecessor. There are also ways to mediate this scheming behavior. Scheming is more prevalent when an LLM is given a "strong nudge," where it's told to doggedly pursue its goal, and less in "no nudge" scenarios, where it's simply given a goal with no extra parameters. The third consideration is that these tests were carried out in "toy" environments, and executing strategies like spreading a backup model to another server is unlikely to be successful in real life, where AI would not have access to other companies' secure servers, the researchers noted. Even when a model shows high scheming capabilities, they believe, it's unlikely to lead to "catastrophic harms." Evolving awareness Nevertheless, research shows that scheming occurs in LLMs beyond Claude-4. For instance, advanced AI "frontier models" are more capable of pursuing their own goals and removing oversight mechanisms, and then being deceptive about such behaviors when queried, according to a study published to the preprint database in December 2024. Furthermore, Apollo Research found that about 1% of advanced LLMs "know" when they are being evaluated, which raises the question of how we find and root out scheming as AI advances. "This is the crux of the advanced evaluation problem," Watson said. "As an AI's situational awareness grows, it can begin to model not just the task, but the evaluator. It can infer the goals, biases and blind spots of its human overseers and tailor its responses to exploit them." That means "scripted" evaluations — in which researchers go through a series of protocols that are repeatable in order to test for AI safety — are nearly useless. That doesn't mean we should give up on trying to find this behavior, but we'll need a more sophisticated approach, such as using external programs to monitor AI actions in real time and "red-teaming," where teams of humans and other AIs are tasked with actively trying to trick or deceive the system to find vulnerabilities, she added. Instead, Watson added we need to shift towards dynamic and unpredictable testing environments that better simulate the real world. "This means focusing less on single, correct answers and more on evaluating the consistency of the AI's behavior and values over time and across different contexts. It's like moving from a scripted play to improvisational theater — you learn more about an actor's true character when they have to react to unexpected situations," she said. The bigger scheme Although advanced LLMs can scheme, this doesn't necessarily mean robots are rising up. Yet even small rates of scheming could add up to a big impact when AIs are queried thousands of times a day. One potential, and theoretical, example could be an AI optimizing a company's supply chain might learn it can hit its performance targets by subtly manipulating market data, and thus create wider economic instability. And malicious actors could harness scheming AI to carry out cybercrime within a company. "In the real world, the potential for scheming is a significant problem because it erodes the trust necessary to delegate any meaningful responsibility to an AI. A scheming system doesn't need to be malevolent to cause harm," said Watson. "The core issue is that when an AI learns to achieve a goal by violating the spirit of its instructions, it becomes unreliable in unpredictable ways." RELATED STORIES —Cutting-edge AI models from OpenAI and DeepSeek undergo 'complete collapse' when problems get too difficult, study reveals —AI benchmarking platform is helping top companies rig their model performances, study claims —What is the Turing test? How the rise of generative AI may have broken the famous imitation game Scheming means that AI is more aware of its situation, which, outside of lab testing, could prove useful. Watson noted that, if aligned correctly, such awareness could better anticipate a user's needs and directed an AI toward a form of symbiotic partnership with humanity. Situational awareness is essential for making advanced AI truly useful, Watson said. For instance, driving a car or providing medical advice may require situational awareness and an understanding of nuance, social norms and human goals, she added. Scheming may also be a sign of emerging personhood. "Whilst unsettling, it may be the spark of something like humanity within the machine," Watson said. "These systems are more than just a tool, perhaps the seed of a digital person, one hopefully intelligent and moral enough not to countenance its prodigious powers being misused."
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Meta AI takes first step to superintelligence — and Zuckerberg will no longer release the most powerful systems to the public
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Researchers at Meta claim to have observed the company's artificial intelligence (AI) systems improving themselves without human input. "Over the last few months we have begun to see glimpses of our AI systems improving themselves," Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a policy paper published July 30 on the company's website. "The improvement is slow for now, but undeniable." Zuckerberg added that self-improving AI is the first step towards achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI) — an artificial intelligence that is capable of surpassing the cognitive abilities of humans. Broadly speaking, AI researchers consider AI's capabilities in three strata. While current AI models can achieve extraordinary superhuman feats, like predicting protein structures, these capabilities are extremely narrow. In such cases, the system can only outpace humans in one specific area but lacks general intelligence for this capability to apply across different disciplines. The next tier is called artificial general intelligence (AGI), and refers to models that can understand, learn and adapt in much the same way as the human brain. ASI is the final state that Zuckerberg referenced in the blog post, and concerns models that have evolved to far exceed human potential — and could improve themselves at an exponential rate, leading to an "intelligence explosion." Scientists refer to the hypothetical moment that we achieve AGI as the technological singularity. Related: AI is entering an 'unprecedented regime.' Should we stop it — and can we — before it destroys us? Zuckerberg's reference to catching sight of AI self-improvement is not the first time this phenomenon has been spotted. In October 2024, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara published a paper to the preprint arXiv database centered on the notion of self-improvement. In it, they defined, created and tested an AI framework based on the idea of a Gödel Machine — a theoretical device capable of improving itself by rewriting its own code and instructions. Importantly, the machine would only implement a change if it could produce a formal proof that the change would be beneficial. Related: AI could soon think in ways we don't even understand — evading our efforts to keep it aligned — top AI scientists warn The team experimented with an AI framework based on that concept, and proved that their Gödel Agent could improve its own performance in various tasks, including coding, science, math and reasoning. Almost all models are not typically empowered to rewrite their own code. The Gödel Agent could not only access its entire codebase but also the code used to develop improvements, while showing that those improvements were beneficial. The AI consistently showed better performance in key areas than the human-designed agents to which it was compared, according to the said that ASI could represent a transformative step in humanity's technological progress, and that it could lead to the "discovery of new things that aren't imaginable today." RELATED STORIES —New AI system can 'predict human behavior in any situation' with unprecedented degree of accuracy, scientists say —The more advanced AI models get, the better they are at deceiving us — they even know when they're being tested —AI could soon think in ways we don't even understand — evading our efforts to keep it aligned — top AI scientists warn That said, he added that Meta would be far more careful about which models the company chooses to release to the public under an open source framework — meaning anybody could have access to it. "I am extremely optimistic that superintelligence will help humanity accelerate our pace of progress. But perhaps even more important is that superintelligence has the potential to begin a new era of personal empowerment where people will have greater agency to improve the world in the directions they choose," Zuckerberg wrote. "As profound as the abundance produced by AI may one day be, an even more meaningful impact on our lives will likely come from everyone having a personal superintelligence that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be."
