AI Face Live

AI Face Live — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  News analytics

  In trading strategy, news analysis refers to the measurement of the various qualitative and quantitative attributes of textual (unstructured data) news stories. Some of these attributes are: sentiment, relevance, and novelty. Expressing news stories as numbers and metadata permits the manipulation of everyday information in a mathematical and statistical way. This data is often used in financial markets as part of a trading strategy or by businesses to judge market sentiment and make better business decisions. News analytics are usually derived through automated text analysis and applied to digital texts using elements from natural language processing and machine learning such as latent semantic analysis, support vector machines, "bag of words" among other techniques. == Applications and strategies == The application of sophisticated linguistic analysis to news and social media has grown from an area of research to mature product solutions since 2007. News analytics and news sentiment calculations are now routinely used by both buy-side and sell-side in alpha generation, trading execution, risk management, and market surveillance and compliance. There is however a good deal of variation in the quality, effectiveness and completeness of currently available solutions. A large number of companies use news analysis to help them make better business decisions. Academic researchers have become interested in news analysis especially with regards to predicting stock price movements, volatility and traded volume. Provided a set of values such as sentiment and relevance as well as the frequency of news arrivals, it is possible to construct news sentiment scores for multiple asset classes such as equities, Forex, fixed income, and commodities. Sentiment scores can be constructed at various horizons to meet the different needs and objectives of high and low frequency trading strategies, whilst characteristics such as direction and volatility of asset returns as well as the traded volume may be addressed more directly via the construction of tailor-made sentiment scores. Scores are generally constructed as a range of values. For instance, values may range between 0 and 100, where values above and below 50 convey positive and negative sentiment, respectively. === Absolute return strategies === The objective of absolute return strategies is absolute (positive) returns regardless of the direction of the financial market. To meet this objective, such strategies typically involve opportunistic long and short positions in selected instruments with zero or limited market exposure. In statistical terms, absolute return strategies should have very low correlation with the market return. Typically, hedge funds tend to employ absolute return strategies. Below, a few examples show how news analysis can be applied in the absolute return strategy space with the purpose to identify alpha opportunities applying a market neutral strategy or based on volatility trading. Example 1 Scenario: The gap between the news sentiment scores for direction, S {\displaystyle S} , of Company X {\displaystyle X} and Market Y {\displaystyle Y} has moved beyond + 20 {\displaystyle +20} . That is, S X − S Y {\displaystyle S_{X}-S_{Y}} ≥ 20 {\displaystyle 20} . Action: Buy the stock on Company X {\displaystyle X} and short the future on Market Y {\displaystyle Y} . Exit Strategy: When the gap in the news sentiment scores for direction of Company X {\displaystyle X} and Market Y {\displaystyle Y} has disappeared, S X − S Y {\displaystyle S_{X}-S_{Y}} = 0 {\displaystyle 0} , sell the stock on Company X {\displaystyle X} and go long the future on Market Y {\displaystyle Y} to close the positions. Example 2 Scenario: The news sentiment score for volatility of Company X {\displaystyle X} goes above 70 {\displaystyle 70} out of 100 {\displaystyle 100} indicating an expected volatility above the option implied volatility. Action: Buy a short-dated straddle (the purchase of both a put and a call) on the stock of Company X {\displaystyle X} . Exit Strategy: Keep the straddle on Company X {\displaystyle X} until expiry or until a certain profit target has been reached. === Relative return strategies === The objective of relative return strategies is to either replicate (passive management) or outperform (active management) a theoretical passive reference portfolio or benchmark. To meet these objectives such strategies typically involve long positions in selected instruments. In statistical terms, relative return strategies often have high correlation with the market return. Typically, mutual funds tend to employ relative return strategies. Below, a few examples show how news analysis can be applied in the relative return strategy space with the purpose to outperform the market applying a stock picking strategy and by making tactical tilts to ones asset allocation model. Example 1 Scenario: The news sentiment score for direction of Company X {\displaystyle X} goes above 70 {\displaystyle 70} out of 100 {\displaystyle 100} . Action: Buy the stock on Company X {\displaystyle X} . Exit Strategy: When the news sentiment score for direction of Company X {\displaystyle X} falls below 60 {\displaystyle 60} , sell the stock on Company X {\displaystyle X} to close the position. Example 2 Scenario: The news sentiment score for direction of Sector Z {\displaystyle Z} goes above 70 {\displaystyle 70} out of 100 {\displaystyle 100} . Action: Include Sector Z {\displaystyle Z} as a tactical bet in the asset allocation model. Exit Strategy: When the news sentiment score for direction of Sector Z {\displaystyle Z} falls below 60 {\displaystyle 60} , remove the tactical bet for Sector Z {\displaystyle Z} from the asset allocation model. === Financial risk management === The objective of financial risk management is to create economic value in a firm or to maintain a certain risk profile of an investment portfolio by using financial instruments to manage risk exposures, particularly credit risk and market risk. Other types include Foreign exchange, Shape, Volatility, Sector, Liquidity, Inflation risks, etc. Below, a few examples show how news analysis can be applied in the financial risk management space with the purpose to either arrive at better risk estimates in terms of Value at Risk (VaR) or to manage the risk of a portfolio to meet ones portfolio mandate. Example 1 Scenario: The bank operates a VaR model to manage the overall market risk of its portfolio. Action: Estimate the portfolio covariance matrix taking into account the development of the news sentiment score for volume. Implement the relevant hedges to bring the VaR of the bank in line with the desired levels. Example 2 Scenario: A portfolio manager operates his portfolio towards a certain desired risk profile. Action: Estimate the portfolio covariance matrix taking into account the development of the news sentiment score for volume. Scale the portfolio exposure according to the targeted risk profile. === Computer algorithms using news analytics === Within 0.33 seconds, computer algorithms using news analytics can notify subscribers which company the news is about, if the news article sentiment is positive or negative, if the news is ranked as high or low relative importance … relative relevance. the stock price reaction and the increase in trade volume is concentrated in the first 5 seconds after an news article is released. === Algorithmic order execution === The objective of algorithmic order execution, which is part of the concept of algorithmic trading, is to reduce trading costs by optimizing on the timing of a given order. It is widely used by hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and other institutional traders to divide up large trades into several smaller trades to manage market impact, opportunity cost, and risk more effectively. The example below shows how news analysis can be applied in the algorithmic order execution space with the purpose to arrive at more efficient algorithmic trading systems. Example 1 Scenario: A large order needs to be placed in the market for the stock on Company X {\displaystyle X} . Action: Scale the daily volume distribution for Company X {\displaystyle X} applied in the algorithmic trading system, thus taking into account the news sentiment score for volume. This is followed by the creation of the desired trading distribution forcing greater market participation during the periods of the day when volume is expected to be heaviest. == Effects == Being able to express news stories as numbers permits the manipulation of everyday information in a statistical way that allows computers not only to make decisions once made only by humans, but to do so more efficiently. Since market participants are always looking for an edge, the speed of computer connections and the delivery of news analysis, measured in milliseconds, have become essential.

  Read more →
• 

  Cube 3D

  Cube 3D is an artificial intelligence model that is developed by Roblox Corporation. It is open source and available on GitHub and Hugging Face. In March 2026, Roblox announced Cube 3D as a mesh generation model that takes text input. In February 2026, Roblox released 4D creation in a public beta, allowing embedding Cube 3D into Roblox games. Cube 3D is integrated into Roblox Studio and its API, and supports two modes of 4D creation. == History == In March 2025, Roblox announced Cube 3D as a mesh generation model that takes text input. Its first feature was an API that allows mesh generation. That month, it was made open source. Over 1.8 million assets have been generated by Cube 3D since March 2025. In March 2025, 4D creation was announced. That November, 4D creation was released in early access. In February 2026, Roblox released 4D creation in a public beta, allowing embedding Cube 3D into Roblox games. == Technology == Cube 3D is trained on Roblox meshes. To generate meshes, it tokenises meshes and shapes and predicts the next token. Cube 3D is integrated into Roblox Studio and the Roblox Studio API. Its API allows mesh generation. In 4D creation, two modes can be used. Car-5 supports modular objects, and Body-1 only supports single-mesh objects.

  Read more →
• 

  History of artificial life

  Humans have considered and tried to create non-biological life for at least 3,000 years. As seen in tales ranging from Pygmalion to Frankenstein, humanity has long been intrigued by the concept of artificial life. == Pre-computer == The earliest examples of artificial life involve sophisticated automata constructed using pneumatics, mechanics, and/or hydraulics. The first automata were conceived during the third and second centuries BC and these were demonstrated by the theorems of Hero of Alexandria, which included sophisticated mechanical and hydraulic solutions. Many of his notable works were included in the book Pneumatics, which was also used for constructing machines until early modern times. In 1490, Leonardo da Vinci also constructed an armored knight, which is considered the first humanoid robot in Western civilization. Other early famous examples include al-Jazari's humanoid robots. This Arabic inventor once constructed a band of automata, which can be commanded to play different pieces of music. There is also the case of Jacques de Vaucanson's artificial duck exhibited in 1735, which had thousands of moving parts and one of the first to mimic a biological system. The duck could reportedly eat and digest, drink, quack, and splash in a pool. It was exhibited all over Europe until it fell into disrepair. In the late 1600s, following René Descartes' claims that animals could be understood as purely physical machines, there was increasing interest in the question of whether a machine could be designed that, like an animal, could generate offspring (a self-replicating machine). However, it wasn't until the invention of cheap computing power that artificial life as a legitimate science began in earnest, steeped more in the theoretical and computational than the mechanical and mythological. == 1950s–1970s == One of the earliest thinkers of the modern age to postulate the potentials of artificial life, separate from artificial intelligence, was math and computer prodigy John von Neumann. At the Hixon Symposium, hosted by Linus Pauling in Pasadena, California in the late 1940s, von Neumann delivered a lecture titled "The General and Logical Theory of Automata." He defined an "automaton" as any machine whose behavior proceeded logically from step to step by combining information from the environment and its own programming, and said that natural organisms would in the end be found to follow similar simple rules. He also spoke about the idea of self-replicating machines. He postulated a made-up of a control computer, a construction arm, and a long series of instructions, floating in a lake of parts. By following the instructions that were part of its own body, it could create an identical machine. He followed this idea by creating (with Stanislaw Ulam) a purely logic-based automaton, not requiring a physical body but based on the changing states of the cells in an infinite grid – the first cellular automaton. It was extraordinarily complicated compared to later CAs, having hundreds of thousands of cells which could each exist in one of twenty-nine states, but von Neumann felt he needed the complexity in order for it to function not just as a self-replicating "machine", but also as a universal computer as defined by Alan Turing. This "universal constructor" read from a tape of instructions and wrote out a series of cells that could then be made active to leave a fully functional copy of the original machine and its tape. Von Neumann worked on his automata theory intensively right up to his death, and considered it his most important work. Homer Jacobson illustrated basic self-replication in the 1950s with a model train set – a seed "organism" consisting of a "head" and "tail" boxcar could use the simple rules of the system to consistently create new "organisms" identical to itself, so long as there was a random pool of new boxcars to draw from. Edward F. Moore proposed "Artificial Living Plants", which would be floating factories which could create copies of themselves. They could be programmed to perform some function (extracting fresh water, harvesting minerals from seawater) for an investment that would be relatively small compared to the huge returns from the exponentially growing numbers of factories. Freeman Dyson also studied the idea, envisioning self-replicating machines sent to explore and exploit other planets and moons, and a NASA group called the Self-Replicating Systems Concept Team performed a 1980 study on the feasibility of a self-building lunar factory. University of Cambridge professor John Horton Conway invented the most famous cellular automaton in the 1960s. He called it the Game of Life, and publicized it through Martin Gardner's column in Scientific American magazine. Norwegian-Italian mathematician Nils Aall Barricelli, who worked mainly at US institutions, was a pioneer in computer based simulation of biological processes such as symbiogenesis and evolution. == 1970s–1980s == Philosophy scholar Arthur Burks, who had worked with von Neumann (and indeed, organized his papers after Neumann's death), headed the Logic of Computers Group at the University of Michigan. He brought the overlooked views of 19th century American thinker Charles Sanders Peirce into the modern age. Peirce was a strong believer that all of nature's workings were based on logic (though not always deductive logic). The Michigan group was one of the few groups still interested in alife and CAs in the early 1970s; one of its students, Tommaso Toffoli argued in his PhD thesis that the field was important because its results explain the simple rules that underlay complex effects in nature. Toffoli later provided a key proof that CAs were reversible, just as the true universe is considered to be. Christopher Langton was an unconventional researcher, with an undistinguished academic career that led him to a job programming DEC mainframes for a hospital. He became enthralled by Conway's Game of Life, and began pursuing the idea that the computer could emulate living creatures. After years of study, he began attempting to actualize Von Neumann's CA and the work of Edgar F. Codd, who had simplified Von Neumann's original twenty-nine state monster to one with only eight states. He succeeded in creating the first self-replicating computer organism in October 1979, using only an Apple II desktop computer. He entered Burks' graduate program at the Logic of Computers Group in 1982, at the age of 33, and helped to found a new discipline. Langton's official conference announcement of Artificial Life I was the earliest description of a field which had previously barely existed: Artificial life is the study of artificial systems that exhibit behavior characteristic of natural living systems. It is the quest to explain life in any of its possible manifestations, without restriction to the particular examples that have evolved on earth. This includes biological and chemical experiments, computer simulations, and purely theoretical endeavors. Processes occurring on molecular, social, and evolutionary scales are subject to investigation. The ultimate goal is to extract the logical form of living systems. Microelectronic technology and genetic engineering will soon give us the capability to create new life forms in silico as well as in vitro. This capacity will present humanity with the most far-reaching technical, theoretical and ethical challenges it has ever confronted. The time seems appropriate for a gathering of those involved in attempts to simulate or synthesize aspects of living systems. Ed Fredkin founded the Information Mechanics Group at MIT, which united Toffoli, Norman Margolus, and Charles Bennett. This group created a computer especially designed to execute cellular automata, eventually reducing it to the size of a single circuit board. This "cellular automata machine" allowed an explosion of alife research among scientists who could not otherwise afford sophisticated computers. In 1982, computer scientist named Stephen Wolfram turned his attention to cellular automata. He explored and categorized the types of complexity displayed by one-dimensional CAs, and showed how they applied to natural phenomena such as the patterns of seashells and the nature of plant growth. Norman Packard, who worked with Wolfram at the Institute for Advanced Study, used CAs to simulate the growth of snowflakes, following very basic rules. Computer animator Craig Reynolds similarly used three simple rules to create recognizable flocking behaviour in a computer program in 1987 to animate groups of boids. With no top-down programming at all, the boids produced lifelike solutions to evading obstacles placed in their path. Computer animation has continued to be a key commercial driver of alife research as the creators of movies attempt to find more realistic and inexpensive ways to animate natural forms such as plant life, animal movement, hair growth, and complicated org

  Read more →
• 

  Grok sexual deepfake scandal

  From 2025 onwards, X (formerly Twitter)'s integrated chatbot, Grok, has allowed users to nonconsensually alter images of individuals, including minors, to show them in bikinis or transparent clothing, or in sexually suggestive contexts. The majority of these prompts were targeted at women and girls. Users were able to generate such images by responding to a photo with a request to Grok, such as "put her in a bikini", to which the chatbot would publicly reply with a generated image. The scandal drew significant criticism from lawmakers across the world, and there were calls for bans on X, as well as legal crackdowns on X and xAI for, amongst other reasons, the facilitation of sexual abuse, revenge porn, and child pornography. == Background == Deepfake pornography emerged in the late 2010s with the advent of machine learning. Originally, it was created on a small individual scale using a combination of machine learning algorithms, computer vision techniques, and AI software. However, the production process has significantly evolved since 2018, with the advent of several public apps that have largely automated the process. Since 2023, several AI apps available on Google Play and the Apple App Store are capable of "nudify-ing" user provided photos to generate non-consensual deepfake pornography. Grok would first be proposed by Elon Musk in 2023, when he expressed an intention to create his own AI chatbot to "combat bias". Grok version 2.0, released on August 14, 2024, would introduce image generation capabilities, ones which would be improved over successive updates. == Grok deepfake generation == Cases of Grok being used to remove the clothes from women in pictures, replacing them with bikinis or lingerie, began to surface in May 2025. By late December 2025, a trend of X users requesting such edits to women's photos without permission had taken root, and this received significant media attention in the first few days of January 2026. Some users prompted Grok to edit photos of women into sexualized poses, and others to add blood and bruising, with the chatbot publicly posting these graphic images in response. Grok's X account was restricted on January 9 from posting image generation responses to users who are not paid subscribers, providing a link to "subscribe to unlock these features". All users were still able to generate Grok-altered images using X's "Edit image" feature, and the standalone Grok website and app. However, by March 19, Grok’s Imagine feature was fully restricted to paid subscribers only (SuperGrok tier) for both the standalone Grok website and mobile app. == Analysis == An analysis of 20,000 images generated by Grok between December 25, 2025, and January 1, 2026, showed 2% appeared to be 18 or younger, including 30 of "young or very young" women or girls in bikinis or transparent clothes. A Reuters review of Grok requests over 10 minutes on January 2nd found 102 attempts to put women in bikinis. A separate analysis conducted over 24 hours from January 5 to 6 calculated that users had Grok create 6,700 sexually suggestive or nudified images per hour — 84 times more so than the top 5 deepfake websites combined. Wired reported that far more graphic AI-generated sexual imagery was being created by Grok on its website and app, which are separate to X, including female celebrities removing their clothes and engaging in sexual acts. An analysis of 800 pieces of recovered content by the Paris-based nonprofit AI Forensics found that almost 10% were "instances of photorealistic people, very young, doing sexual activities". AI-generated deepfakes have been described as sexual assault, and as a means to push women out of the public sphere. AI-generated sexually explicit or exploitative image claims are now being treated more like product safety or personal injury harms, not just privacy violations. Because harm may occur the moment an image is generated, some plaintiffs argue liability should focus on the system’s design and safety safeguards. == Reactions == On January 15, the Get Grok Gone campaign delivered letters to Apple and Google, demanding the removal of the app from Apple Store and Google Play Store respectively. The campaign accused both companies of profiting from nonconsensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse imagery, which were also banned by the companies own policies. The Get Grok Gone campaign argues that the restrictions placed on Grok by xAI are not enough and that Apple and Google are enabling the distribution of harmful material by hosting the apps. === Elon Musk and xAI === xAI responded to requests for comment from media organizations with the automated reply, "Legacy Media Lies." On January 2, Elon Musk reacted "Not sure why, but I couldn’t stop laughing about this one 🤣🤣" to an image of a toaster dressed in a bikini by Grok. Later, on January 14, Elon Musk said that he was "not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero." Later that same day, xAI announced that X users will no longer be able to use Grok to alter images of real people to portray them in revealing clothing. However, verified X users, as well as users of the standalone Grok app and website, were still able to generate such images. ==== Elon Musk's family ==== Ashley St. Clair, mother of one of Elon Musk's children, reported that Grok users were creating fake sexualized images from her photos, including a photo of her as a child. She considers the photos to be a form of revenge porn, and considered suing under the Take It Down Act. A spokesperson for X stated, "We take action against illegal content on X, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content." However, Grok continued to post non-consensual sexual images. On January 15, St. Clair filed a lawsuit against xAI in the New York Supreme Court. === Canada === In response to the Grok deepfake scandal, individuals have asked that the government of Canada boycott X. On January 10, 2026, Canadian MP and Minister of AI Evan Solomon declared that Canada "is not considering a ban on X". In April 2026, Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), was amended following a proposal by Conservative MP Andrew Lawton to ensure that AI-generated images and "nearly nude" intimate images are criminalized. A further proposal by NDP MP Leah Gazan to encompass "sexualized or humiliating contexts, such transparent bathing suits or being covered in blood or bruises" was voted down. === France === On January 2, 2026, French ministers reported the AI tool to prosecutors, calling the content "manifestly illegal", and also asked regulators to check compliance with the Digital Services Act. On February 3, Paris prosecutors office, a cybercrime team employed by them and Europol searched the Paris offices of X. The investigation started as one into allegations of abuse of algorithms and fraudulent data extraction, but has expanded into spreading Holocaust denial and sexual deepfakes. Elon Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino have been summoned to a hearing on April 20, with other X staff as witnesses. On April 20, Musk did not turn up for the hearing. The Paris prosecutors office told the BBC on April 20 that it had "taken note of the absence of the people summoned", adding "the presence or absence (of the people summoned) is not an obstacle to continuing the investigation". === India === Indian Member of Parliament Priyanka Chaturvedi filed a complaint to India's IT ministry, demanding a review of Grok's safety mechanisms. === Indonesia === On January 10, Indonesia announced that Grok will be temporarily blocked, becoming the first country to do so. Meutya Hafid, the Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs, stated that "the government views the practice of non-consensual sexual deepfakes as a serious violation of human rights, dignity, and the security of citizens in the digital space." Access to Grok in the country was later restored on February 1. === Ireland === On January 6, Coimisiún na Meán, the Irish media commission, said they were consulting with the European Commission about concerns that Grok was generating sexualized images of women and children. The same day, Ofcom of the United Kingdom contacted X concerning complaints about these images. On January 13, Micheál Martin, Taoiseach of Ireland, announced he would talk with Rossa Fanning, the country's Attorney General, about the Grok chatbot being used to produce sexually explicit images of women and minors. On January 14, the Garda Síochána announced there are 200 investigations into child sex abuse images generated by Grok. The Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau has al

  Read more →
• 

  Machine translation software usability

  The sections below give objective criteria for evaluating the usability of machine translation software output. == Stationarity or canonical form == Do repeated translations converge on a single expression in both languages? I.e. does the translation method show stationarity or produce a canonical form? Does the translation become stationary without losing the original meaning? This metric has been criticized as not being well correlated with BLEU (BiLingual Evaluation Understudy) scores. == Adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang == Is the system adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang? The French language has many rules for creating words in the speech and writing of popular culture. Two such rules are: (a) The reverse spelling of words such as femme to meuf. (This is called verlan.) (b) The attachment of the suffix -ard to a noun or verb to form a proper noun. For example, the noun faluche means "student hat". The word faluchard formed from faluche colloquially can mean, depending on context, "a group of students", "a gathering of students" and "behavior typical of a student". The Google translator as of 28 December 2006 doesn't derive the constructed words as for example from rule (b), as shown here: Il y a une chorale falucharde mercredi, venez nombreux, les faluchards chantent des paillardes! ==> There is a choral society falucharde Wednesday, come many, the faluchards sing loose-living women! French argot has three levels of usage: familier or friendly, acceptable among friends, family and peers but not at work grossier or swear words, acceptable among friends and peers but not at work or in family verlan or ghetto slang, acceptable among lower classes but not among middle or upper classes The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts annual evaluations [1] Archived 2009-03-22 at the Wayback Machine of machine translation systems based on the BLEU-4 criterion [2]. A combined method called IQmt which incorporates BLEU and additional metrics NIST, GTM, ROUGE and METEOR has been implemented by Gimenez and Amigo [3]. == Well-formed output == Is the output grammatical or well-formed in the target language? Using an interlingua should be helpful in this regard, because with a fixed interlingua one should be able to write a grammatical mapping to the target language from the interlingua. Consider the following Arabic language input and English language translation result from the Google translator as of 27 December 2006 [4]. This Google translator output doesn't parse using a reasonable English grammar: وعن حوادث التدافع عند شعيرة رمي الجمرات -التي كثيرا ما يسقط فيها العديد من الضحايا- أشار الأمير نايف إلى إدخال "تحسينات كثيرة في جسر الجمرات ستمنع بإذن الله حدوث أي تزاحم". ==> And incidents at the push Carbuncles-throwing ritual, which often fall where many of the victims - Prince Nayef pointed to the introduction of "many improvements in bridge Carbuncles God would stop the occurrence of any competing." == Semantics preservation == Do repeated re-translations preserve the semantics of the original sentence? For example, consider the following English input passed multiple times into and out of French using the Google translator as of 27 December 2006: Better a day earlier than a day late. ==> Améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. ==> Pour améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. As noted above and in, this kind of round-trip translation is a very unreliable method of evaluation. == Trustworthiness and security == An interesting peculiarity of Google Translate as of 24 January 2008 (corrected as of 25 January 2008) is the following result when translating from English to Spanish, which shows an embedded joke in the English-Spanish dictionary which has some added poignancy given recent events: Heath Ledger is dead ==> Tom Cruise está muerto This raises the issue of trustworthiness when relying on a machine translation system embedded in a Life-critical system in which the translation system has input to a Safety Critical Decision Making process. Conjointly it raises the issue of whether in a given use the software of the machine translation system is safe from hackers. It is not known whether this feature of Google Translate was the result of a joke/hack or perhaps an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation. Reporters from CNET Networks asked Google for an explanation on January 24, 2008; Google said only that it was an "internal issue with Google Translate". The mistranslation was the subject of much hilarity and speculation on the Internet. If it is an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation, and not a joke/hack, then this event is a demonstration of a potential source of critical unreliability in the statistical machine translation method. In human translations, in particular on the part of interpreters, selectivity on the part of the translator in performing a translation is often commented on when one of the two parties being served by the interpreter knows both languages. This leads to the issue of whether a particular translation could be considered verifiable. In this case, a converging round-trip translation would be a kind of verification.

  Read more →
• 

  House of Suns

  House of Suns is a 2008 science fiction novel by Welsh author Alastair Reynolds. The novel was shortlisted for the 2009 Arthur C. Clarke Award. == Setting == Approximately six million years in the future, humanity has spread throughout the Milky Way galaxy, which appears devoid of any other organic sentient life. The galaxy is populated by numerous civilizations of humans and posthumans of widely varying levels of development. A civilization of sentient robots known as the Machine People coexists peacefully with humanity. Technologies of the era include anti-gravity, inertia damping, force fields, stellar engineering, and stasis fields. Also of note is the "Absence"—the mysterious disappearance of the Andromeda Galaxy. Large-scale human civilizations almost invariably seem to collapse and disappear within a few millennia (a phenomenon referred to as "turnover"), the limits of sub-lightspeed travel making it too difficult to hold interstellar empires together. Consequently, the most powerful entities in the galaxy are the "Lines"—familial organizations made of cloned "shatterlings". The Lines do not inhabit planets, but instead travel through space, holding reunions after they have performed a "circuit" of the galaxy; something that takes about 200,000 years. House of Suns concerns the Gentian Line, also known as the House of Flowers, composed of Abigail Gentian and her 999 clones (or "shatterlings"), male and female: exactly which of the 1,000 shatterlings is the original Abigail Gentian is unknown. The clones and Abigail travel the Milky Way Galaxy, helping young civilizations, collecting knowledge, and experiencing what the universe has to offer. Members of the Gentian Line are named after flowering plants. == Synopsis == The novel is divided into eight parts, with the first chapter of each part taking the form of a narrative flashback to Abigail Gentian's early life (six million years earlier, in the 31st century), before the cloning and the creation of the Gentian Line. Each subsequent chapter is narrated from the first-person perspective of two shatterlings named Campion and Purslane, alternating between them each chapter. Campion and Purslane are in a relationship, which is frowned upon, even punishable, by the Line. The primary storyline begins as Campion and Purslane are roughly fifty years late to the 32nd Gentian reunion. They take a detour to contact a posthuman known as ‘Ateshga’ in hopes of getting a replacement ship for Campion because his is getting old (several million years old). After being tricked by Ateshga, Campion and Purslane manage to turn the tables on him and leave his planet with a being he had been keeping captive, a golden robot called Hesperus. Hesperus is a member of the "Machine People", an advanced civilization of robots, and supposedly the only non-human sentient society in existence. The two shatterlings hope that the rescue of Hesperus will let them off the hook for their lateness, as returning him to his people (who will be at the reunion as guests of other shatterlings) will put the Gentian Line on good terms with the Machine People. However, before reaching the reunion world, Campion and Purslane encounter an emergency distress signal from Fescue, another Gentian shatterling. There was a vicious attack on the reunion world; an ambush in which the majority of the Gentian Line was wiped out. The identity of the responsible party is unknown, but the attackers used the supposedly long-vanished 'Homunculus' weapons – monstrous spacetime-bending weapons that were created ages ago, but were ordered to be destroyed by another Line. Despite Fescue's warning, Campion and Purslane approach the reunion system to look for survivors. They manage to find the remains of a ship with several Gentian members still alive, and rescue them and the four enemy prisoners they had captured. Hesperus, however, is gravely injured in the process by remaining ambushers. The group escapes and make their way to the Gentian backup meeting planet, Neume, in the hope of re-grouping with any other Gentians who may have survived the ambush. Upon reaching Neume, Campion, Purslane and the other shatterlings they rescued are greeted by the few Gentian survivors of the ambush (numbering only in the forties, compared to the hundreds that existed before the ambush). They also meet two members of the Machine People: Cadence and Cascade, guests of another shatterling. During the next few days, the interrogation of the prisoners commences. Another Gentian, Cyphel, is mysteriously murdered, which fuels the Line's concerns that there is a traitor among them. As a way of punishing Campion for transgressions against the Line, Purslane is made to give up her ship, the Silver Wings of Morning (one of the fastest and most powerful in the Line) to Cadence and Cascade, ostensibly so they can return to the Machine People with news of the ambush, in a bid to gain the Line some assistance. Hesperus, still critically wounded following the rescue of the survivors, is taken to the Neumean "Spirit of the Air", an ancient posthuman machine-intelligence, in the hopes that it will fix him. The Spirit takes Hesperus away and returns him some time later, though apparently still not functioning. The robots Cadence and Cascade make preparations to leave on Purslane's ship. They agree to take him aboard and return him to their people, who they promise may be able to help Hesperus. Purslane accompanies them to her ship, where she must be physically present to give the ship order to transfer control over to the robots. On their way to the bridge, Hesperus suddenly springs to life, grabbing Purslane and hiding her while Cadence and Cascade are whisked along to the bridge. Hersperus quickly explains that Cadence and Cascade are actually planning on hijacking the ship. Bewildered by this sudden change of events, Purslane delays in acting, not sure if she should trust Hesperus, before deciding to ask the ship to detain and eject the robots in the bridge. By then, though, it is too late. Cadence and Cascade hack into the ship's computer, taking it over, and take off from Neume with Hesperus and Purslane still aboard. Campion and several other shatterlings immediately launch a pursuit. Together Hesperus and Purslane find a hideout in a smaller ship in the hold of the Silver Wings of Morning. Using information gained from the other two robots and his own memories, Hesperus (who is now an amalgamation of both Hesperus and the Spirit of the Air) has pieced together what is going on: Cadence and Cascade have discovered that the Line was involved in the accidental extermination of a forgotten earlier race of machine people, dubbed the "First Machines". The Commonality (a confederation of the various Lines), horrified and ashamed of this pointless genocide, erased all knowledge of the event from historical records and their own memories. Unfortunately, Campion, in a previous circuit, unwittingly uncovered information pertaining to the extermination. Hesperus believes that the ambush at the reunion was seeking to destroy this evidence before it could spread, carried out by a shadow Line known as the "House of Suns", tasked with maintaining the conspiracy. Cadence and Cascade, on the other hand, are racing for a wormhole which leads to the Andromeda Galaxy, to where the few survivors of the First Machines are revealed to have retreated. They plan to release the First Machines back into the Milky Way, thus effecting a revenge against the Commonality for the genocide. As Campion and the shatterlings are pursuing Purslane's hijacked ship, transmissions from Neume confirm that a shatterling within their midst, Galingale, is the traitor and a secret member of the House of Suns. The shatterlings open fire on both Galingale's and Purslane's ships, and while they manage to capture Galingale, they are unable to stop Purslane's ship. Unable to get within weapons range, Campion pursues Purslane's ship for sixty thousand light years, during which time he and Purslane, on their separate ships, are suspended in "abeyance", a form of temporal slowdown or stasis. Despite efforts to stop the hijacked ship from reaching the concealed wormhole by local civilisations, the robot Cascade succeeds in opening the "stardam" enclosing the wormhole and travelling through it to the Andromeda Galaxy. On board Silver Wings of Morning, Hesperus reveals to Campion that while he managed to destroy Cadence before they could leave the Neume star system, Cascade survived and he and Cascade had engaged in a marathon battle, several thousand years. Hesperus was ultimately victorious, but Cascade has fused the ship controls before his defeat and they are past the point of no return. Campion, now the only shatterling still in pursuit, enters the wormhole after them and emerges in the Andromeda Galaxy, a place apparently devoid of all sentient life. In his search for Purslane and her ship, he travels to a star enca

  Read more →
• 

  Privacy Lost

  Privacy Lost is a 2023 short science fiction film directed by Peter Stoel and Robert Berger. It follows a family using augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) devices capable of reading emotional states, raising questions about privacy and manipulation. == Premise == Privacy Lost follows a family using AR glasses that capture and interpret emotions in real time. As the parents argue in a restaurant, their emotional states and even hidden feelings become visible through these glasses. An AI-driven waiter adapts its appearance for each family member, employing emotional data to influence their decisions. == Cast == Brian Kant as Waiter Michael Krass as Husband Estelle Levinson as Waitress Thor van der Linden as Scotty Carlijn van Ramshorst as Wife == Production == Filming took place at HeadQ Productions, a virtual studio located in Amsterdam. The creators sought to depict a near-future scenario in which real-time emotion analysis becomes part of daily interactions. The film was screened at the Augmented World Expo (AWE), where it was noted for its thematic focus on AI-driven manipulation and emotional tracking. The depiction of AR glasses and AI characters integrates modern visual effects to show how devices might analyze emotional responses in real time. It also depicts how AI-driven interactions could influence consumer decisions, pointing to concerns over potential misuse. == Themes == Privacy Lost focuses on the intersection of advanced AI capabilities and AR environments, showing how real-time emotional analysis can be leveraged for targeted persuasion. The film aims to highlight the social and ethical implications of emerging AR and AI technologies, underlining how establishing clear regulatory frameworks for them is necessary to protect individual privacy, govern the storage of emotion-based data, and prevent manipulative practices. Critics describe the film’s theme as dystopian and note that such a reality is unlikely to occur in the near future. However, despite the exaggerated scenario, the film emphasizes the importance of a responsible approach by developers toward emerging technologies.

  Read more →
• 

  European Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  The European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) is the leading conference in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Europe, and is commonly listed together with IJCAI and AAAI as one of the three major general AI conferences worldwide. The conference series has been held without interruption since 1974, originally under the name AISB. The conference was originally held biennially, but has been organized annually since ECAI 2022. The conferences are held under the auspices of the European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence (ECCAI) and organized by one of the member societies. The journal AI Communications, sponsored by the same society, regularly publishes special issues in which conference attendees report on the conference. Publication of a paper in ECAI is considered by some journals to be archival: the paper should be considered equivalent to a journal publication and that the contents of ECAI papers cannot be reformulated as separate journal submissions unless a significant amount of new material is added. == List of ECAI conferences == ECAI-1992 took place in Vienna, Austria. ECAI-1996 took place in Budapest, Hungary. ECAI-1998 tool place in Brighton, United Kingdom. ECAI-2000 took place in Berlin, Germany. ECAI-2004 took place in Valencia, Spain. ECAI-2006 took place in Riva del Garda, Italy. ECAI-2008 took place in Patras, Greece. ECAI-2010 took place in Lisbon, Portugal. ECAI-2012 took place in Montpellier, France. ECAI-2014 took place in Prague, Czech Republic. ECAI-2016 took place in The Hague, Netherlands. ECAI-2018 took place in Stockholm, Sweden. ECAI-2020 took place in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ECAI-2022 took place in Vienna, Austria. ECAI-2023 took place in Kraków, Poland. ECAI-2024 took place in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ECAI-2025 took place in Bologna, Italy.

  Read more →
• 

  Secure state

  A secure state is an information systems security term to describe where entities in a computer system are divided into subjects and objects, and it can be formally proven that each state transition preserves security by moving from one secure state to another secure state. Thereby it can be inductively proven that the system is secure. As defined in the Bell–LaPadula model, the secure state is built on the concept of a state machine with a set of allowable states in a system. The transition from one state to another state is defined by transition functions. A system state is defined to be "secure" if the only permitted access modes of subjects to objects are in accordance with a security policy.

  Read more →
• 

  Vidby

  Vidby AG (stylized in lower-case) is a start-up based in Rotkreuz, Switzerland specializing in AI language translation for videos. Founded by Alexander Konovalov (uk:Олександр Коновалов) and Eugen von Rubinberg in September 2021, the company has especially garnered attention for its use in translating speeches given by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. == History == Vidby AG was founded by Alexander Konovalov and Eugen von Rubinberg. Konovalov is a native of Ukraine and retains Ukrainian citizenship; Rubinberg came to Switzerland from Germany and holds German citizenship. Both are residents of Switzerland. The latter founded his first business, a trading company, at age 16. In 2013, the business partners launched a consumer-oriented video-call translation service called DROTR (Droid Translator) AG, utilizing a Konovalov-created AI-powered language translation technology enabling simultaneous translation of messages, voice and video calls in 104 languages (written), with 44 available in spoken form. This was the world's first video calling app with translation. The technology was pronounced a competitor of Skype and Viber by Forbes and claimed first prize at the "Innovative Breakthrough 2013" Competition. In 2021, with a new business-oriented focus, DROTR became Vidby, with the former Google technology partners Konovalov and Rubinberg remaining at the helm, each with the title Co-CEO. While headquartered in Switzerland, Vidby's development team is, according to the company's founders, based in Ukraine. The technology behind Vidby has an accuracy level variously reported as up to 99 percent or 99 to 100 percent, equalling the highest level of human translation. Additionally, the technology is capable of removing the original language while maintaining ambient sounds. Currently, some 70 languages plus 60 dialects are possible with the algorithm-based technology. == Notable use == In addition to its use with speeches delivered by Pope Francis, the technology has been provided to Ukrainian authorities and embassies during the ongoing military conflict with Russia free of remuneration. By July, 2022, some 70 speeches given by President Zelenskyy totalling 650 minutes had been translated into 30 languages, for a total of over 10,000 minutes of video material. Of its use in translating Zelenskyy's wartime speeches, Konovalov has said, "Like any citizen, I want to help defend my country." Notable corporate clients of Vidby include Samsung, Siemens, Cisco, Kärcher, Generali and McDonald's Corporation; an academic client is Harvard University. Google Cloud Technology Partner status of Vidby was confirmed officially after a six-month audit in December 2022. Denys Krasnikov, a Vidby co-founder, is responsible for cooperation with Google, YouTube, Microsoft, and other key partners. After the launch of multilingual YouTube channels, Vidby started AI translating and dubbing creators' videos for this new type of channel at the end of February 2023. == Accolades == Vidby headed a list of the five best video translation services as named by TechRadar Deutschland in September, 2022. In the same month, Tech Times named Vidby #1 in their list of the five best such services. It similarly topped a list of the five best content translation technologies as judged by European Business Review in October, 2022. Prior to these lead-position rankings (August, 2022), it was featured as Business Insider's special start-up recommendation (German: "Unser Lesetipp auf Gründerszene"). In 2023, YouTube recognized Vidby as its recommended vendor.

  Read more →
• 

  It's the Most Terrible Time of the Year

  It's the Most Terrible Time of the Year is an AI-generated television commercial created for McDonald's Netherlands by TBWA\Neboko and The Sweetshop. It was released on 6 December 2025 before being pulled four days later due to negative reception over its use of generative artificial intelligence and its cynical, negative depiction of the holiday season. == Plot == On a bleak, snowy day, various people in the city experience different kinds of mishaps during the Christmas season. Among other incidents, families struggle with their huge loads of presents; Santa Claus gets stuck in traffic; a Christmas tree "redecorates" a man's home, sending him through the window; another family puts up with annoying relatives and a burnt Christmas dinner. Because of all this chaos, a man decides to find refuge in a McDonald's outlet. A Christmas choir finishes singing the jingle "It's the Most Terrible Time of the Year" with the call to action to "hide out in McDonald's till January's here". == Campaign == It's the Most Terrible Time of the Year is a 45-second television commercial made by Dutch agency TBWA\Neboko with involvement of United States-based film production studio The Sweetshop. The advertisement was produced heavily with generative artificial intelligence (AI) following the trend set by other brands such as Coca-Cola and Toys "R" Us. McDonald's Netherlands, the client, released a statement that the commercial was meant to depict "the stressful moments during the holidays in the Netherlands". The commercial also used Andy Williams's "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" with lyrics changed to fit with the concept of the advertisement. According to The Sweetshop, the production of the advertisement took "seven weeks". It also added that much effort was put into the commercial compared to the traditional process. Ten people of its in-house AI engine The Gardening Club worked on the project. Los Angeles-based directors Mark Potoka and Matt Spicer were initially credited to be involved in the film but they resigned due to being sidelined from the production process. == Reception == The advertisement was released on McDonald's Netherlands' YouTube channel on 6 December 2025. It had a negative reception over the use of generative AI and the "cynical" concept of the work's story. The video was made private on 9 December 2025. The Sweetshop stated that the production of the advertisement took human effort. McDonald's Netherlands, while stating the original intent of the commercial, released a statement after its pullout that, for many of its customers, the holiday season is the "most wonderful time of the year".

  Read more →
• 

  Vagueness

  In linguistics and philosophy, a vague predicate is one which gives rise to borderline cases. For example, the English adjective "tall" is vague since it is not clearly true or false for someone of middling height. By contrast, the word "prime" is not vague since every number is definitively either prime or not. Vagueness is commonly diagnosed by a predicate's ability to give rise to the sorites paradox. Vagueness is separate from ambiguity, in which an expression has multiple denotations. For instance the word "bank" is ambiguous since it can refer either to a river bank or to a financial institution, but there are no borderline cases between both interpretations. Vagueness is a major topic of research in philosophical logic, where it serves as a potential challenge to classical logic. Work in formal semantics has sought to provide a compositional semantics for vague expressions in natural language. Work in philosophy of language has addressed implications of vagueness for the theory of meaning, while metaphysicists have considered whether reality itself is vague. == Importance == The concept of vagueness has philosophical importance. Suppose one wants to come up with a definition of "right" in the moral sense. One wants a definition to cover actions that are clearly right and exclude actions that are clearly wrong, but what does one do with the borderline cases? Surely, there are such cases. Some philosophers say that one should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear on just those cases. Others say that one has an interest in making his or her definitions more precise than ordinary language, or his or her ordinary concepts, themselves allow; they recommend one advances precising definitions. === In law === Vagueness is also a problem which arises in law, and in some cases, judges have to arbitrate regarding whether a borderline case does, or does not, satisfy a given vague concept. Examples include disability (how much loss of vision is required before one is legally blind?), human life (at what point from conception to birth is one a legal human being, protected for instance by laws against murder?), adulthood (most familiarly reflected in legal ages for driving, drinking, voting, consensual sex, etc.), race (how to classify someone of mixed racial heritage), etc. Even such apparently unambiguous concepts such as biological sex can be subject to vagueness problems, not just from transsexuals' gender transitions but also from certain genetic conditions which can give an individual mixed male and female biological traits (see intersex). In the common law system, vagueness is a possible legal defence against by-laws and other regulations. The legal principle is that delegated power cannot be used more broadly than the delegator intended. Therefore, a regulation may not be so vague as to regulate areas beyond what the law allows. Any such regulation would be "void for vagueness" and unenforceable. This principle is sometimes used to strike down municipal by-laws that forbid "explicit" or "objectionable" contents from being sold in a certain city; courts often find such expressions to be too vague, giving municipal inspectors discretion beyond what the law allows. In the US this is known as the vagueness doctrine and in Europe as the principle of legal certainty. === In science === Many scientific concepts are of necessity vague, for instance species in biology cannot be precisely defined, owing to unclear cases such as ring species. Nonetheless, the concept of species can be clearly applied in the vast majority of cases. As this example illustrates, to say that a definition is "vague" is not necessarily a criticism. Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding huskies and wolves: are they dogs? It is not clear: they are borderline cases of dogs. This means one's ordinary concept of doghood is not clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case. == Approaches == The philosophical question of what the best theoretical treatment of vagueness is—which is closely related to the problem of the paradox of the heap, a.k.a. sorites paradox—has been the subject of much philosophical debate. === Fuzzy logic === One theoretical approach is that of fuzzy logic, developed by American mathematician Lotfi Zadeh. Fuzzy logic proposes a gradual transition between "perfect falsity", for example, the statement "Bill Clinton is bald", to "perfect truth", for, say, "Patrick Stewart is bald". In ordinary logics, there are only two truth-values: "true" and "false". The fuzzy perspective differs by introducing an infinite number of truth-values along a spectrum between perfect truth and perfect falsity. Perfect truth may be represented by "1", and perfect falsity by "0". Borderline cases are thought of as having a "truth-value" anywhere between 0 and 1 (for example, 0.6). Advocates of the fuzzy logic approach have included K. F. Machina (1976) and Dorothy Edgington (1993). === Supervaluationism === Another theoretical approach is known as "supervaluationism". This approach has been defended by Kit Fine and Rosanna Keefe. Fine argues that borderline applications of vague predicates are neither true nor false, but rather are instances of "truth value gaps". He defends an interesting and sophisticated system of vague semantics, based on the notion that a vague predicate might be "made precise" in many alternative ways. This system has the consequence that borderline cases of vague terms yield statements that are neither true, nor false. Given a supervaluationist semantics, one can define the predicate "supertrue" as meaning "true on all precisifications". This predicate will not change the semantics of atomic statements (e.g. "Frank is bald", where Frank is a borderline case of baldness), but does have consequences for logically complex statements. In particular, the tautologies of sentential logic, such as "Frank is bald or Frank is not bald", will turn out to be supertrue, since on any precisification of baldness, either "Frank is bald" or "Frank is not bald" will be true. Since the presence of borderline cases seems to threaten principles like this one (excluded middle), the fact that supervaluationism can "rescue" them is seen as a virtue. === Subvaluationism === Subvaluationism is the logical dual of supervaluationism, and has been defended by Dominic Hyde (2008) and Pablo Cobreros (2011). Whereas the supervaluationist characterises truth as 'supertruth', the subvaluationist characterises truth as 'subtruth', or "true on at least some precisifications". Subvaluationism proposes that borderline applications of vague terms are both true and false. It thus has "truth-value gluts". According to this theory, a vague statement is true if it is true on at least one precisification and false if it is false under at least one precisification. If a vague statement comes out true under one precisification and false under another, it is both true and false. Subvaluationism ultimately amounts to the claim that vagueness is a truly contradictory phenomenon. Of a borderline case of "bald man" it would be both true and false to say that he is bald, and both true and false to say that he is not bald. === Epistemicist view === A fourth approach, known as "the epistemicist view", has been defended by Timothy Williamson (1994), R. A. Sorensen (1988) and (2001), and Nicholas Rescher (2009). They maintain that vague predicates do, in fact, draw sharp boundaries, but that one cannot know where these boundaries lie. One's confusion about whether some vague word does or does not apply in a borderline case is due to one's ignorance. For example, in the epistemicist view, there is a fact of the matter, for every person, about whether that person is old or not old; some people are ignorant of this fact. === As a property of objects === One possibility is that one's words and concepts are perfectly precise, but that objects themselves are vague. Consider Peter Unger's example of a cloud (from his famous 1980 paper, "The Problem of the Many"): it is not clear where the boundary of a cloud lies; for any given bit of water vapor, one can ask whether it is part of the cloud or not, and for many such bits, one will not know how to answer. Hence, perhaps such a term as 'cloud' is not itself vague, but rather precisely denotes a vague object. This strategy has occasionally been poorly received; most notably, in Gareth Evans' short paper "Can There Be Vague Objects?" (1978), wherein an argument is examined which appears to show that vague identity-statements are impossible (i.e., result in logical incoherence). David Lewis explains that the reader is intended to conclude, with Evans, that—since there clearly are, in fact, meaningful vague identities—any purported proof to the contrary cannot be right; and as the proof relies upon the premise that vague terms precisely denote vague objects, but fails under the view that vague terms reflect a merel

  Read more →
• 

  Resisting AI

  Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence is a book on artificial intelligence (AI) by Dan McQuillan, published in 2022 by Bristol University Press. == Content == Resisting AI takes the form of an extended essay, which contrasts optimistic visions about AI's potential by arguing that AI may best be seen as a continuation and reinforcement of bureaucratic forms of discrimination and violence, ultimately fostering authoritarian outcomes. For McQuillan, AI's promise of objective calculability is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. McQuillan uses the expression "AI violence" to describe how – based on opaque algorithms – various actors can discriminate against categories of people in accessing jobs, loans, medical care, and other benefits. The book suggests that AI has a political resonance with soft eugenic approaches to the valuation of life by modern welfare states, and that AI exhibits eugenic features in its underlying logic, as well as in its technical operations. The parallel is with historical eugenicists achieving saving to the state by sterilizing defectives so the state would not have to care for their offspring. The analysis of McQuillan goes beyond the known critique of AI systems fostering precarious labour markets, addressing "necropolitics", the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die. Although McQuillan offers a brief history of machine learning at the beginning of the book – with its need for "hidden and undercompensated labour", he is concerned more with the social impacts of AI rather than with its technical aspects. McQuillan sees AI as the continuation of existing bureaucratic systems that already marginalize vulnerable groups – aggravated by the fact that AI systems trained on existing data are likely to reinforce existing discriminations, e.g. in attempting to optimize welfare distribution based on existing data patterns, ultimately creating a system of "self-reinforcing social profiling". In elaborating on the continuation between existing bureaucratic violence and AI, McQuillan connects to Hannah Arendt's concept of the thoughtless bureaucrat in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which now becomes the algorithm that, lacking intent, cannot be accountable, and is thus endowed with an "algorithmic thoughtlessness". McQuillan defends the "fascist" in the title of the work by arguing that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. For McQuillan, AI can support the diffusion of states of exception, as a technology impossible to properly regulate and a mechanism for multiplying exceptions more widely. An example of a scenario where AI systems of surveillance could bring discrimination to a new high is the initiative to create LGBT-free zones in Poland. Skeptical of ethical regulations to control the technology, McQuillan suggests people's councils and workers' councils, and other forms of citizens' agency to resist AI. A chapter titled "Post-Machine Learning" makes an appeal for resistance via currents of thought from feminist science (standpoint theory), post-normal science (extended peer communities), and new materialism; McQuillan encourages the reader to question the meaning of "objectivity" and calls for the necessity of alternative ways of knowing. Among the virtuous examples of resistance – possibly to be adopted by the AI workers themselves – McQuillan notes the Lucas Plan of the workers of Lucas Aerospace Corporation, in which a workforce declared redundant took control, reorienting the enterprise toward useful products. McQuillan advocates for what he calls decomputing, an opposition to the sweeping application and expansion of artificial intelligence. Similar to degrowth, the approach criticizes AI as an outgrowth of the systemic issues within capitalist systems. McQuillan argues that a different future is possible, in which distance between people is reduced rather than increased through AI intermediaries. The work of McQuillan warns against "watered-down forms of engagement" with AI, such as citizen juries, which superficially look like democratic deliberation but may actually obscure important decisions about AI that are outside the purview of the engagement situation (McQuillan 2022, 128). In an interview about the book, McQuillan describes himself as an "AI abolitionist". == Reception == The book has been praised for how it "masterfully disassembles AI as an epistemological, social, and political paradigm". On the critical side, a review in the academic journal Justice, Power and Resistance took exception to the "nightmarish visions of Big Brother" offered by McQuillan, and argued that while many elements of AI may pose concern, a critique should not be based on a caricature of what AI is, concluding that McQuillan's work is "less of a theory and more of a Manifesto". Another review notes "a disconnect between the technical aspects of AI and the socio-political analysis McQuillan provides." Although the book was published before the ChatGPT and large language model debate heated up, the book has not lost relevance to the AI discussion. It is noted for suggesting a link between beliefs in artificial intelligence and beliefs in a racialised and gendered visions of intelligence overall, whereby a certain type of rational, measurable intelligence is privileged, leading to "historical notions of hierarchies of being". The blog Reboot praised McQuillan for offering a theory of harm of AI (why AI could end up hurting people and society) that does not just encourage tackling in isolation specific predicted problems with AI-centric systems: bias, non-inclusiveness, exploitativeness, environmental destructiveness, opacity, and non-contestability. For educational policies could also look at AI following the reading of McQuillan: In his book Resisting AI, Dan McQuillan argues that "When we're thinking about the actuality of AI, we can't separate the calculations in the code from the social context of its application" .... McQuillan's particular concern is how many contemporary applications of AI are amplifying existing inequalities and injustices as well as deepening social divisions and instabilities. His book makes a powerful case for anticipating these effects and actively resisting them for the good of societies. Videos and podcasts with an interest in AI and emerging technology have discussed the book.

  Read more →
• 

  Eclipse Phase

  Eclipse Phase is a science fiction horror role-playing game with transhumanist themes. It was originally published by Catalyst Game Labs, and is now published by the game's creators, Posthuman Studios, and is released under a Creative Commons license. == Setting == Eclipse Phase is a science fiction horror role-playing game with transhumanist, post-apocalyptic, and conspiracy themes. The game is set after a World War III project to create artificial intelligence known as TITANs has gone rogue, resulting in the deaths of over 90% of the inhabitants of Earth. Earth is subsequently abandoned, and existing colonies throughout the Solar System are expanded to accommodate the refugees. The setting explores a spectrum of socioeconomic systems in each of these colonies: A capitalist / republican system exists in the Inner System (Mars, the Moon, and Mercury), under the Planetary Consortium, a corporate body which allows the election of representatives but whose shareholders are nominally most powerful. An Extropian/Propertarian system is established in the Asteroid Belt. The Extropians are split into two subfactions, an anarcho-capitalist group, more closely related to the Hypercapitalists, and a mutualist group, related closely to the Anarchists. A military oligarchy rules the moons around Jupiter. An alliance of Scandinavia-style social democracy and Collectivist anarchism are dominant in the Outer System. From there, the setting explores various scientific advances, extrapolated far into the future. Nanotechnology, terraforming, Zero-G living, upgrading animal sapience, and reputation systems are all used as plot points and background. With all of this, the game encourages players to confront existential threats like aliens, weapons of mass destruction, Exsurgent Virus outbreaks, and political unrest. == Mechanics == Eclipse Phase uses a simple roll-under percentile die system for task resolution. Unlike most percentile systems, a roll of 00 does not count as a 100. In addition, any roll of a double (11, 22, 33 etc.) is a critical. If the double is under the target number it is a critical success, while being over the target number constitutes a critical failure. For damage resolution (whether physical damage caused by injury or mental stress caused by traumatic events), players roll a designated number of ten-sided dice and add the values together, along with any modifiers. == Books == === Publications === Eclipse Phase (Core Rulebook) (2009) ISBN 978-0-9845835-0-8 GM Screen (2010) Sunward, Boyle, Rob; Knevitt, James (2010). Sunward : the inner system, a location sourcebook for Eclipse Phase. UK: Cubicle 7. ISBN 978-0984583522. Gatecrashing Boyle, Rob; Graham, Jack; Rosenberg, Aaron (2011). Gatecrashing. UK: Cubicle 7. ISBN 978-0984583539. Panopticon Volume 1: Habitats, Surveillance, Uplifts (2011) (2011) Rimward (2012) Transhuman: The Eclipse Phase Player’s Guide (2013) Firewall (2015) X-Risks (2016) Eclipse Phase (Core Rulebook, Second Edition) (2019) === Nano Ops === Nano Op: Grinder Nano Op: All That Glitters Nano Op: Better on the Inside Nano Op: Binge Nano Op: Body Count == Creative Commons License == The Eclipse Phase roleplaying game was released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license, and newer printings have updated to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 license; the text found on the Eclipse Phase website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. As stated on their website, the publishers encourage players and gamemasters to recreate, alter, and "remix" the material for non-commercial purposes as long as Posthuman Studios is attributed, and any derivatives are licensed under the same Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Further, copying and sharing the game's electronic versions non-commercially is legal. == Reception == In 2010, it won the 36th Annual Origins award for Best Roleplaying Game of 2009. It also won three 2010 ENnie awards: Gold for Best Writing, Silver for Best Cover Art, and Silver for Product of the Year.

  Read more →
• 

  Shyster (expert system)

  SHYSTER is a legal expert system developed at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1993. It was written as the doctoral dissertation of James Popple under the supervision of Robin Stanton, Roger Clarke, Peter Drahos, and Malcolm Newey. A full technical report of the expert system, and a book further detailing its development and testing have also been published. SHYSTER emphasises its pragmatic approach, and posits that a legal expert system need not be based upon a complex model of legal reasoning in order to produce useful advice. Although SHYSTER attempts to model the way in which lawyers argue with cases, it does not attempt to model the way in which lawyers decide which cases to use in those arguments. SHYSTER is of a general design, permitting its operation in different legal domains. It was designed to provide advice in areas of case law that have been specified by a legal expert using a bespoke specification language. Its knowledge of the law is acquired, and represented, as information about cases. It produces its advice by examining, and arguing about, the similarities and differences between cases. It derives its name from Shyster: a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics. == Methods == SHYSTER is a specific example of a general category of legal expert systems, broadly defined as systems that make use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to solve legal problems. Legal AI systems can be divided into two categories: legal retrieval systems and legal analysis systems. SHYSTER belongs to the latter category of legal analysis systems. Legal analysis systems can be further subdivided into two categories: judgment machines and legal expert systems. SHYSTER again belongs to the latter category of legal expert systems. A legal expert system, as Popple uses the term, is a system capable of performing at a level expected of a lawyer: "AI systems which merely assist a lawyer in coming to legal conclusions or preparing legal arguments are not here considered to be legal expert systems; a legal expert system must exhibit some legal expertise itself." Designed to operate in more than one legal domain, and be of specific use to the common law of Australia, SHYSTER accounts for statute law, case law, and the doctrine of precedent in areas of private law. Whilst it accommodates statute law, it is primarily a case-based system, in contradistinction to rule-based systems like MYCIN. More specifically, it was designed in a manner enabling it to be linked with a rule-based system to form a hybrid system. Although case-based reasoning possesses an advantage over rule-based systems by the elimination of complex semantic networks, it suffers from intractable theoretical obstacles: without some further theory it cannot be predicted what features of a case will turn out to be relevant. Users of SHYSTER therefore require some legal expertise. Richard Susskind argues that "jurisprudence can and ought to supply the models of law and legal reasoning that are required for computerized [sic] implementation in the process of building all expert systems in law". Popple, however, believes jurisprudence is of limited value to developers of legal expert systems. He posits that a lawyer must have a model of the law (maybe unarticulated) which includes assumptions about the nature of law and legal reasoning, but that model need not rest on basic philosophical foundations. It may be a pragmatic model, developed through experience within the legal system. Many lawyers perform their work with little or no jurisprudential knowledge, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are worse, or better, at their jobs than lawyers well-versed in jurisprudence. The fact that many lawyers have mastered the process of legal reasoning, without having been immersed in jurisprudence, suggests that it may indeed be possible to develop legal expert systems of good quality without jurisprudential insight. As a pragmatic legal expert system SHYSTER is the embodiment of this belief. A further example of SHYSTER’s pragmatism is its simple knowledge representation structure. This structure was designed to facilitate specification of different areas of case law using a specification language. Areas of case law are specified in terms of the cases and attributes of importance in those areas. SHYSTER weights its attributes and checks for dependence between them. In order to choose cases upon which to construct its opinions, SHYSTER calculates distances between cases and uses these distances to determine which of the leading cases are nearest to the instant case. To this end SHYSTER can be seen to adopt and expand upon nearest neighbor search methods used in pattern recognition. These nearest cases are used to produce an argument (based on similarities and differences between the cases) about the likely outcome in the instant case. This argument relies on the doctrine of precedent; it assumes that the instant case will be decided the same way as was the nearest case. SHYSTER then uses information about these nearest cases to construct a report. The report that SHYSTER generates makes a prediction and justifies that prediction by reference only to cases and their similarities and differences: the calculations that SHYSTER performs in coming to its opinion do not appear in that opinion. Safeguards are employed to warn users if SHYSTER doubts the veracity of its advice. == Results == SHYSTER was tested in four different and disparate areas of case law. Four specifications were written, each representing an area of Australian law: an aspect of the law of trover; the meaning of "authorization [sic]" in copyright law of Australia; the categorisation of employment contracts; and the implication of natural justice in administrative decision-making. SHYSTER was evaluated under five headings: its usefulness, its generality, the quality of its advice, its limitations, and possible enhancements that could be made to it. Despite its simple knowledge representation structure, it has shown itself capable of producing good advice, and its simple structure has facilitated the specification of different areas of law. Appreciating the difficulties encountered by legal expert systems developers in adequately representing legal knowledge can assist in appreciating the shortcomings of digital rights management technologies. Some academics believe future digital rights management systems may become sophisticated enough to permit exceptions to copyright law. To this end SHYSTER's attempt to model "authorization [sic]" in the Copyright Act can be viewed as pioneering work in this field. The term "authorization [sic]" is undefined in the Copyright Act. Consequently, a number of cases have been before the courts seeking answers as to what conduct amounts to authorisation. The main contexts in which the issue has arisen are analogous to permitted exceptions to copyright currently prevented by most digital rights management technologies: "home taping of recorded materials, photocopying in educational institutions and performing works in public". When applied to one case concerning compact cassettes, SHYSTER successfully agreed that Amstrad did not authorise the infringement. 'shyster-myci'n Popple highlighted the most obvious avenue of future research using SHYSTER as the development of a rule-based system, and the linking together of that rule-based system with the existing case-based system to form a hybrid system. This intention was eventually realised by Thomas O’Callaghan, the creator of SHYSTER-MYCIN: a hybrid legal expert system first presented at ICAIL '03, 24–28 June 2003 in Edinburgh, Scotland. MYCIN is an existing medical expert system, which was adapted for use with SHYSTER. MYCIN’s controversial "certainty factor" is not used in SHYSTER-MYCIN. The reason for this is the difficulty in scientifically establishing how certain a fact is in a legal domain. The rule-based approach of the MYCIN part is used to reason with the provisions of an Act of Parliament only. This hybrid system enables the case-based system (SHYSTER) to determine open textured concepts when required by the rule-based system (MYCIN). The ultimate conclusion of this joint endeavour is that a hybrid approach is preferred in the creation of legal expert systems where "it is appropriate to use rule-based reasoning when dealing with statutes, and…case-based reasoning when dealing with cases".

  Read more →