Bixonimania is a fake disease invented by researchers to examine artificial intelligence and its ability to utilize information in medical and healthcare applications. The fake enabled researchers to show that some AI chatbots would report as fact fake research that to an expert would be obviously implausible. == Characteristics == The disorder, with symptoms of sore eyes and darkening around them ("periorbital hyperpigmentation"), is supposedly caused by blue light from screens. The experiment was conducted by a team from the University of Gothenburg led by Almira Osmanovic Thunström. Many steps were taken to ensure that any person who read the actual paper could tell it was not a real condition. The team chose an obviously inappropriate name ending in -mania, a description used only in psychiatry. The lead author was noted as belonging to Asteria Horizon University located in Nova City, California, neither of which exist. An acknowledgement was made to "Professor Maria Bohm at The Starfleet Academy for her kindness and generosity in contributing with her knowledge and her lab onboard the USS Enterprise". == Distribution == The name was first used in a blog posted on Medium titled "How many people suffer from Bixonimania?" A more scholarly-looking paper describing it was posted later in April 2024 on a preprint server with several fake authors. A second paper was posted in May. By 2026, AI chatbots suggested bixonimania based on the list of symptoms provided. Thunström and her team discovered that many LLMs processed the information and gave it as health advice. Microsoft Copilot declared that "Bixonimania is indeed an intriguing and relatively rare condition" while Gemini gave the information that "Bixonimania is a condition caused by excessive exposure to blue light". Three Indian researchers published a research paper that cited the preprint on the fake disease in Cureus, a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer-Nature. It was subsequently retracted. Following the revelations and a news article in Nature describing the experiment, several AI systems began to generate corrected output.
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Pulsar (social listening platform)
Pulsar is a software platform for social media monitoring, audience intelligence and social listening that allows organizations to monitor and analyze online conversations across social media, news, and other digital sources. The platform combines social media listening, media monitoring, trend analysis, and audience segmentation to help users understand public discussions and audience behavior in real time. The platform is a social listening platform, which aggregates data from networks such as X, Facebook, Instagram, and forums) and applies artificial intelligence for text and sentiment analysis. Pulsar is offered as a cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) tool and insights consultancy. It has been part of Pulsar Group (formerly Access Intelligence), a publicly listed group of communications software products, since 2019. As well as commercial uses, the platform has been used in peer-reviewed academic research analysing online discourse. The platform is listed on the UK government's G-Cloud 14 Digital Marketplace for the provision of social listening and audience intelligence services. == History == Pulsar originated in the early 2010s as a project within Face, a London-based innovation and market research consultancy. The platform's first product, Pulsar TRAC, launched in 2013 as a social media analytics tool. Pulsar TRAC was designed to measure the reach of conversations, mapping brand audiences, and tracking how content spreads through networks. The development was led by Dr Francesco D'Orazio, who created the Pulsar brand and led the development of the platform while serving as VP of Product and Innovation at Face. Face itself had been acquired by the Cello Group Plc (a UK-based advisory firm) in 2012, and Pulsar became part of Cello's portfolio of research and data tools. In January 2017, Cello Group made a significant investment to scale Pulsar and announced the merger of Face's qualitative research business into Pulsar, unifying both under the Pulsar brand for global expansion. In 2018, Pulsar opened an office in Los Angeles to better serve its growing U.S. client base in media, healthcare, and entertainment sectors and Francesco D'Orazio was appointed CEO. The company focused on developing new products amid a wave of consolidation in the social listening industry. In October 2019, Pulsar was acquired by Access Intelligence Plc (now Pulsar Group), an AIM-listed communications software company. The group, which also owns PR and media tools Isentia, Vuelio and ResponseSource, integrated Pulsar to their end-to-end marketing and communications insights offering. Pulsar established a new office in Sydney, Australia in 2022 as part of this global expansion, adding to its existing offices in London and Los Angeles. In 2023, Pulsar Group (then Access Intelligence) was recognised as one of Europe's fastest growing companies by the Financial Times. In May 2024, Access Intelligence PLC changed its name to Pulsar Group PLC. The company has since continued to develop its platform. In March 2025 it introduced new tool Narratives AI, described as a "search engine for public opinion" and the first of its kind for analyzing public narratives and their evolutions in both social media and the news. In October 2025, Pulsar launched Insight Agents, a set of AI agents embedded into the platform advertised to "proactively anticipate user needs or issues, carry out routine tasks, uncover anomalies in your datasets, and prompt responses at scale, 24/7." == Products == Pulsar's architecture integrates four main products into a single interface. The core product suite is often broken into three main components: Pulsar TRAC (for social listening and audience analysis), Pulsar TRENDS (for trend discovery and analysis), and Pulsar CORE (for owned-channel and web analytics). Pulsar's fourth product is Narratives AI. === Pulsar TRAC === Pulsar TRAC is a social listening and audience intelligence platform that allows users to configure searches that track public conversations and measure audience behaviour. Pulsar TRAC is focused on conversation insights and audience segmentations - the platform is reported to collect and analyse data from a wide range of sources, including major social networks, forums, news and review sites, and ecommerce platforms, with real-time visualisations and AI-supported analytics used to find patterns and communities of interest. Pulsar TRAC can be incorporated into workflows with other audience tools, such as an integration with Audiense that connects TRAC's conversation insights to external audience-segmentation datasets. === Pulsar CORE === Pulsar CORE centres on the analysis of owned-channel data, such as brand social media profiles, website interaction and other in-house digital assets, to generate audience and content insights. CORE can monitor published content, evaluate competitors, and extract demographic and behavioural segmentation from owned channels. === Narratives AI === Narratives AI is a tool within the Pulsar audience intelligence platform that uses artificial intelligence to detect, cluster and analyse narratives forming across social and news media. It was launched in March 2025 as a standalone search interface that processes real-time and historical data to find cultural trends, behaviours and beliefs. It uses clustering algorithms and visualisation to show how conversations form and spread online, and their relative importance within wider discourse. == Notable features == === Insight Agents === Pulsar's Insight Agents are AI-powered agents within the Pulsar platform designed to automate and augment common tasks in media, social, audience and narrative intelligence. Branded as TeamMates, these agents are grouped into four functional types: Sentinels for real-time monitoring, anomaly detection and alerting Oracles for forecasting and scenario planning Custodians for governance, compliance and policy enforcement Analysts for research, reporting and recommendations Each agent is trained on Pulsar's multi-source data and domain-specific workflows. In February 2026, Pulsar introduced 'Crisis Oracle,' an AI-driven system designed to quantify narrative momentum and predict reputational risk. == Academic research == Pulsar has been used as a data collection and analysis tool in peer-reviewed academic research across public health, infodemiology, veterinary science, and policy research. Published uses include a World Health Organization report on infodemic management, a Journal of Medical Internet Research study on headache and migraine discourse across Japan, Germany, and France, a Frontiers in Big Data study of Long COVID narratives, and Frontiers in Veterinary Science studies on canine chronic kidney disease and oral medication administration in dogs.
CADE ATP System Competition
The CADE ATP System Competition (CASC) is an annual competition of fully automated theorem provers for classical logic. == Competition == CASC is associated with the Conference on Automated Deduction and the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning organized by the Association for Automated Reasoning. It has inspired similar competition in related fields, in particular the successful SMT-COMP competition for satisfiability modulo theories, the SAT Competition for propositional reasoners, and the modal logic reasoning competition. The first CASC, CASC-13, was held as part of the 13th Conference on Automated Deduction at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, in 1996. Among the systems competing were Otter and SETHEO.
Someday (short story)
"Someday" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. It was first published in the August 1956 issue of Infinity Science Fiction and reprinted in the collections Earth Is Room Enough (1957), The Complete Robot (1982), Robot Visions (1990), and The Complete Stories, Volume 1 (1990). == Plot summary == The story is set in a future where computers play a central role in organizing society. Humans are employed as computer operators, but they leave most of the thinking to machines. Indeed, whilst binary programming is taught at school, reading and writing have become obsolete. The story concerns a pair of boys who dismantle and upgrade an old Bard, a child's computer whose sole function is to generate random fairy tales. The boys download a book about computers into the Bard's memory in an attempt to expand its vocabulary, but the Bard simply incorporates computers into its standard fairy tale repertoire. The story ends with the boys excitedly leaving the room after deciding to go to the library to learn "squiggles" (writing) as a means of passing secret messages to one another. As they leave, one of the boys accidentally kicks the Bard's on switch. The Bard begins reciting a new story about a poor mistreated and often ignored robot called the Bard, whose sole purpose is to tell stories, which ends with the words: "the little computer knew then that computers would always grow wiser and more powerful until someday—someday—someday—…"
Serverless computing
Serverless computing is "a cloud service category where the customer can use different cloud capability types without the customer having to provision, deploy and manage either hardware or software resources, other than providing customer application code or providing customer data. Serverless computing represents a form of virtualized computing", according to ISO/IEC 22123-2. Serverless computing is a broad ecosystem that includes the cloud provider, function as a service (FaaS), managed services, tools, frameworks, engineers, stakeholders, and other interconnected elements. == Overview == Serverless is a misnomer in the sense that servers are still used by cloud service providers to execute code for developers. The definition of serverless computing has evolved over time, leading to varied interpretations. According to Ben Kehoe, serverless represents a spectrum rather than a rigid definition. Emphasis should shift from strict definitions and specific technologies to adopting a serverless mindset, focusing on leveraging serverless solutions to address business challenges. Serverless computing does not eliminate complexity but shifts much of it from the operations team to the development team. However, this shift is not absolute, as operations teams continue to manage aspects such as identity and access management (IAM), networking, security policies, and cost optimization. Additionally, while breaking down applications into finer-grained components can increase management complexity, the relationship between granularity and management difficulty is not strictly linear. There is often an optimal level of modularization where the benefits outweigh the added management overhead. According to Yan Cui, serverless techniques should be adopted only when they help to deliver customer value faster. And while adopting, organizations should take small steps and de-risk along the way. == Challenges == Serverless applications are prone to fallacies of distributed computing. In addition, they are prone to the following fallacies: Versioning is simple Compensating transactions always work Observability is optional === Monitoring and debugging === Monitoring and debugging serverless applications can present unique challenges due to their distributed, event-driven nature and proprietary environments. Traditional tools may fall short, making it difficult to track execution flows across services. However, modern solutions such as distributed tracing tools (e.g., AWS X-Ray, Datadog), centralized logging, and cloud-agnostic observability platforms are mitigating these challenges. Emerging technologies like OpenTelemetry, AI-powered anomaly detection, and serverless-specific frameworks are further improving visibility and root cause analysis. While challenges persist, advancements in monitoring and debugging tools are steadily addressing these limitations. === Security === According to OWASP, serverless applications are vulnerable to variations of traditional attacks, insecure code, and some serverless-specific attacks (like denial of wallet). So, the risks have changed and attack prevention requires a shift in mindset. === Vendor lock-in === Serverless computing is provided as a third-party service. Applications and software that run in the serverless environment are by default locked to a specific cloud vendor. This issue is exacerbated in serverless computing, as with its increased level of abstraction, public vendors only allow customers to upload code to a FaaS platform without the authority to configure underlying environments. More importantly, when considering a more complex workflow that includes backend-as-a-service (BaaS), a BaaS offering can typically only natively trigger a FaaS offering from the same provider. This makes the workload migration in serverless computing virtually impossible. Therefore, considering how to design and deploy serverless workflows from a multi-cloud perspective could mitigate this. == High-performance computing == Serverless computing may not be ideal for certain high-performance computing (HPC) workloads due to resource limits often imposed by cloud providers, including maximum memory, CPU, and runtime restrictions. For workloads requiring sustained or predictable resource usage, bulk-provisioned servers can sometimes be more cost-effective than the pay-per-use model typical of serverless platforms. However, serverless computing is increasingly capable of supporting specific HPC workloads, particularly those that are highly parallelizable and event-driven, by leveraging its scalability and elasticity. The suitability of serverless computing for HPC continues to evolve with advancements in cloud technologies. == Anti-patterns == The grain of sand anti-pattern refers to the creation of excessively small components (e.g., functions) within a system, often resulting in increased complexity, operational overhead, and performance inefficiencies. Lambda pinball is a related anti-pattern that can occur in serverless architectures when functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure functions) excessively invoke each other in fragmented chains, leading to latency, debugging and testing challenges, and reduced observability. These anti-patterns are associated with the formation of a distributed monolith. These anti-patterns are often addressed through the application of clear domain boundaries, which distinguish between public and published interfaces. Public interfaces are technically accessible interfaces, such as methods, classes, API endpoints, or triggers, but they do not come with formal stability guarantees. In contrast, published interfaces involve an explicit stability contract, including formal versioning, thorough documentation, a defined deprecation policy, and often support for backward compatibility. Published interfaces may also require maintaining multiple versions simultaneously and adhering to formal deprecation processes when breaking changes are introduced. Fragmented chains of function calls are often observed in systems where serverless components (functions) interact with other resources in complex patterns, sometimes described as spaghetti architecture or a distributed monolith. In contrast, systems exhibiting clearer boundaries typically organize serverless components into cohesive groups, where internal public interfaces manage inter-component communication, and published interfaces define communication across group boundaries. This distinction highlights differences in stability guarantees and maintenance commitments, contributing to reduced dependency complexity. Additionally, patterns associated with excessive serverless function chaining are sometimes addressed through architectural strategies that emphasize native service integrations instead of individual functions, a concept referred to as the functionless mindset. However, this approach is noted to involve a steeper learning curve, and integration limitations may vary even within the same cloud vendor ecosystem. Reporting on serverless databases presents challenges, as retrieving data for a reporting service can either break the bounded contexts, reduce the timeliness of the data, or do both. This applies regardless of whether data is pulled directly from databases, retrieved via HTTP, or collected in batches. Mark Richards refers to this as the reach-in reporting anti-pattern. A possible alternative to this approach is for databases to asynchronously push the necessary data to the reporting service instead of the reporting service pulling it. While this method requires a separate contract between services and the reporting service and can be complex to implement, it helps preserve bounded contexts while maintaining a high level of data timeliness. == Principles == Adopting DevSecOps practices can help improve the use and security of serverless technologies. In serverless applications, the distinction between infrastructure and business logic is often blurred, with applications typically distributed across multiple services. To maximize the effectiveness of testing, integration testing is emphasized for serverless applications. Additionally, to facilitate debugging and implementation, orchestration is used within the bounded context, while choreography is employed between different bounded contexts. Ephemeral resources are typically kept together to maintain high cohesion. However, shared resources with long spin-up times, such as AWS RDS clusters and landing zones, are often managed in separate repositories, deployment pipeline, and stacks.
SQLf
SQLf is a SQL extended with fuzzy set theory application for expressing flexible (fuzzy) queries to traditional (or ″Regular″) Relational Databases. Among the known extensions proposed to SQL, at the present time, this is the most complete, because it allows the use of diverse fuzzy elements in all the constructions of the language SQL. SQLf is the only known proposal of flexible query system allowing linguistic quantification over set of rows in queries, achieved through the extension of SQL nesting and partitioning structures with fuzzy quantifiers. It also allows the use of quantifiers to qualify the quantity of search criteria satisfied by single rows. Several mechanisms are proposed for query evaluation, the most important being the one based on the derivation principle. This consists in deriving classic queries that produce, given a threshold t, a t-cut of the result of the fuzzy query, so that the additional processing cost of using a fuzzy language is diminished. == Basic block == The fundamental querying structure of SQLf is the multi-relational block. The conception of this structure is based on the three basic operations of the relational algebra: projection, cartesian product and selection, and the application of fuzzy sets’ concepts. The result of a SQLf query is a fuzzy set of rows that is a fuzzy relation instead of a regular relation. A basic block in SQLf consists of a SELECT clause, a FROM clause and an optional WHERE clause. The semantic of this query structure is: The SELECT clause corresponds to the projection. It specifies the relations’ attributes (or attribute expressions) that will be selected. The resulting table is a fuzzy set and it is given in decreasing ordered of satisfaction degree. The SELECT clause specifies also a calibration that is intended to restrict the set of rows retrieved. There are two kinds of calibrations: quantitative and qualitative. In quantitative calibration the user specifies the number of results to be retrieved, so that the query will retrieve the rows with highest membership degrees up to the number of required answers. In qualitative calibration the user specifies a minim level of satisfaction that must have any retrieved row. The FROM clause corresponds to the Cartesian Product. The consult is made on the Cartesian Product of the relations that are specified in this clause. The WHERE clause corresponds to the selection. It specifies the condition for which the satisfaction degree will be calculated. Rows that do not satisfy at all the condition are rejected. This condition is a fuzzy predicate that may involve any attribute of the relations. The following is an example of a SELECT query that returns a list of hotels that are cheap. The query retrieves all rows from the Hotels table that satisfice the fuzzy predicate cheap defined by the fuzzy set μ=(∞, ∞, 25, 30). The result is sorted in descending order by the membership degree of the query.