AI Art Zeus

AI Art Zeus — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

GCube system

gCube is an open source software system specifically designed and developed to enact the building and operation of a Data Infrastructure providing their users with a rich array of services suitable for supporting the co-creation of Virtual Research Environments and promoting the implementation of open science workflows and practices. It is at the heart of the D4Science Data Infrastructure. == Overview == It is primarily organised in a number of web service called to offer functionality supporting the phases of knowledge production and sharing. In addition, it consists of a set of software libraries supporting service development, service-to-service integration, and service capabilities extension, and a set of portlets dedicated to realise user interface constituents facilitating the exploitation of one or more services. It is designed and conceived to enact system of systems. In fact, its gCube services rely on standards and mediators to interact with other services as well as are made available by standard and APIs to make it possible for clients to use them. For instance, the DataMiner service implements the Web Processing Service protocol to facilitate clients to execute processes. The set of components dealing with Identity and Access Management rely on Keycloak and federates other IDMs thus making the overall Authentication and the Authorization management compliant with open standards such as OAuth2, User-Managed Access (UMA), and OpenID Connect (OIDC)protocols. The Catalogue relies on DCAT, OAI-PMH, and Catalogue Service for the Web to collect contents from other catalogues and data sources and offers its content by DCAT, OAI-PMH, and a proprietary REST API (gCat REST API). Its Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery pipeline implemented by Jenkins represents an innovative approach to software delivering conceived to be scalable and easy to maintain and upgrade at a minimal cost. == History == gCube has been developed in the context of the D4Science initiative with the support of several EU projects.
Read more →
Social media as a news source

Social media as a news source is defined as the use of online social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook rather than the use of traditional media platforms like the newspaper or live TV to obtain news. Television had just begun to turn a nation of people who once listened to media content into watchers of media content between the 1950s and the 1980s when the popularity of social media had also begun creating a nation of media content creators. Almost half of Americans use social media as a news source, according to the Pew Research Center. As social media's role in news consumption grows, questions have emerged about its impact on knowledge, the formation of echo chambers, and the effectiveness of fact-checking efforts in combating misinformation. Social media platforms allow user-generated content and sharing content within one's own virtual network. Using social media as a news source allows users to engage with news in a variety of ways including: Consuming and discovering news Sharing or reposting news Posting one's own photos, videos, or reports of news (i.e., engage in citizen or participatory journalism) Commenting on news posts Using social media as a news source has become an increasingly popular way for people of all age groups to obtain current and important information. Just like many other new forms of technology there are going to be pros and cons. There are ways that social media positively affects the world of news and journalism but it is important to acknowledge that there are also ways in which social media has a negative effect on the news. With this accessibility, people now have more ways to consume false news, biased news, and even disturbing content. In 2019, the Pew Research Center created a poll that reported Americans are wary about the ways that social media sites share news and certain content. This wariness of accuracy grew as awareness that social media sites could be exploited by bad actors who concoct false narratives and fake news. == Relationship to traditional news sources == Unlike traditional news platforms such as newspapers and news shows, social media platforms allow people without professional journalistic backgrounds to create news and cover events that news agencies might not cover. Social media users may read a set of news that differs slightly from what newspaper editors prioritize in the print press. A 2019 study found that Facebook and Twitter users are more likely to share politics, public affairs, and visual media news. Typically social media users circulate more towards posting about negative news. A study of tweets found that while optimistic-sounding and neutral-sounding tweets were equally likely to express certainty or uncertainty, the pessimistic tweets were nearly twice as likely to appear certain of an outcome than uncertain. These results could imply that posts of a more pessimistic nature that are also written with an air of certainty are more likely to be shared or otherwise permeate groups on Twitter. A similar bias towards negativity has developed on Facebook, where internal memos revealed that an algorithm built to promote "meaningful social interaction" actually incentivized publishers to promote negative and sensational news. Biases towards negativity need to be considered when the utility of new media is addressed, as the potential for human opinion to overemphasize any particular news story is greater despite general improvement. In order to compete in this rapidly changing technological environment, there has been an upheaval of traditional news sources onto online spaces. The production and circulation of newspaper prints have continued to globally decline in accordance with the increasing presence of news outlets on social media. Prominent platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been key in engaging users through the integration of journalistic news into their newsfeeds. This feature has now become a foundational part of these apps' interfaces. Social media incentivizes both legacy news brands and individual professional journalists to share their reporting and interact with audiences on social platforms to boost engagement. However, most people who consume news on social media report that accessing news is not their main motivation for being on social media, but rather, they see and consume news incidentally. Nonetheless, informational interviews reveal that these consumers rely on being informed through social media. Some news consumers attest that a news brand's participation in social media does not improve their trust in the brand and that more in-depth reporting and more transparency about biases would improve trust instead. == Use as a news source == Globally, data from 2020 shows that over 70% of adult participants from Kenya, South Africa, Chile, Bulgaria, Greece, and Argentina utilized social media for news while those from France, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan were reportedly less than 40 percent. According to the Pew Research Center, 20% of adults in the United States in 2018 said they get their news from social media "often," compared to 16% who said they often get news from print newspapers, 26% who often get it from the radio, 33% who often get it from news websites, and 49% who often get it from TV. The same survey found that social media was the most popular way for American adults age 18–29 to get news, the second-to-last most popular way for Americans age 20–49 to get news, and the least popular way for American adults age 50-64 and 65+ to get the news. In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that over half of Americans (54%) either got their news "sometimes" or "often" from social media, and Facebook was the most popular social media site where American adults got their news. However, at least 50% off all respondents reported that the following were either a "very big problem" or a "moderately big problem" for getting news on social media: One-sided news (83%) Inaccurate news (81%) Censorship of the news (69%) Uncivil discussions about the news (69%) Harassment of journalists (57%) News organizations or personalities being banned (53%) Violent or disturbing news images or videos (51%) In a later survey from the same year, the Pew Research Center reported that 18% of American adults reported that the most common way they get news about politics and the election was from social media. Additional source information shows that from politics and the United States presidential election in 2016, the popularity of fake news had grown to global attention. With this information, the study explains that more than 60 percent of adults receive their news from social media, the most popular being Facebook. With the increase of fake news, and the large amount of adult participation on these social media sites, it made it much harder for those who were searching for news to find a source that they could find credible. Another study found that adult participants found their own friends on Facebook to be a more reliable source of information online compared to a professional news organization. Although, when news was posted by a news organization online, they were then found more reliable compared to when they are shared by their online friends. Showing that adult participants found that the news that was only posted on Facebook and social media was much more credible to them than compared to other forms of information spreading. The study further states that these outcomes have the potential explanation that the topic of the news article played a part in the ways they were affected. This could have affected the way adult participants interacted with the different news sources, such as their online friends compared to a news organization, prominently because depending on the story, they want to have the correct information about the news from the most credible source. === By young people === Social media platforms are some of the most easily accessible forms of news and with the growing generations, the technology is only going to grow. With that, the use of social media in younger generations is also going to grow alongside it. Technology in the hands of young kids can be a concern moving into the future. Globally, there is evidence that through social media, youth have become more directly involved in protests, social campaigns and generally, in the sharing of news across multiple platforms. The number of people who use social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat as ways to seek information has increased significantly in recent years especially for people who are part of the younger generation.TikTok is a rapidly expanding platform that young adults can use to find news content on social media. TikTok is one of the sites that young adults and teens utilize to get news about trending themes and controversial topics. The younger generation accepts without hesitation the information that thei
Read more →
Signatures with efficient protocols

Signatures with efficient protocols are a form of digital signature invented by Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya in 2001. In addition to being secure digital signatures, they need to allow for the efficient implementation of two protocols: A protocol for computing a digital signature in a secure two-party computation protocol. A protocol for proving knowledge of a digital signature in a zero-knowledge protocol. In applications, the first protocol allows a signer to possess the signing key to issue a signature to a user (the signature owner) without learning all the messages being signed or the complete signature. The second protocol allows the signature owner to prove that he has a signature on many messages without revealing the signature and only a (possibly) empty subset of the messages. The combination of these two protocols allows for the implementation of digital credential and ecash protocols.
Read more →
Data independence

Data independence is the type of data transparency that matters for a centralized DBMS. It refers to the immunity of user applications to changes made in the definition and organization of data. Application programs should not, ideally, be exposed to details of data representation and storage. The DBMS provides an abstract view of the data that hides such details. There are two types of data independence: physical and logical data independence. The data independence and operation independence together gives the feature of data abstraction. There are two levels of data independence. == Logical data independence == The logical structure of the data is known as the 'schema definition'. In general, if a user application operates on a subset of the attributes of a relation, it should not be affected later when new attributes are added to the same relation. Logical data independence indicates that the conceptual schema can be changed without affecting the existing schemas. == Physical data independence == The physical structure of the data is referred to as "physical data description". Physical data independence deals with hiding the details of the storage structure from user applications. The application should not be involved with these issues since, conceptually, there is no difference in the operations carried out against the data. There are three types of data independence: Logical data independence: The ability to change the logical (conceptual) schema without changing the External schema (User View) is called logical data independence. For example, the addition or removal of new entities, attributes, or relationships to the conceptual schema or having to rewrite existing application programs. Physical data independence: The ability to change the physical schema without changing the logical schema is called physical data independence. For example, a change to the internal schema, such as using different file organization or storage structures, storage devices, or indexing strategy, should be possible without having to change the conceptual or external schemas. View level data independence: always independent no effect, because there doesn't exist any other level above view level. == Data independence == Data independence can be explained as follows: Each higher level of the data architecture is immune to changes of the next lower level of the architecture. The logical scheme stays unchanged even though the storage space or type of some data is changed for reasons of optimization or reorganization. In this, external schema does not change. In this, internal schema changes may be required due to some physical schema were reorganized here. Physical data independence is present in most databases and file environment in which hardware storage of encoding, exact location of data on disk, merging of records, so on this are hidden from user. == Data independence types == The ability to modify schema definition in one level without affecting schema of that definition in the next higher level is called data independence. There are two levels of data independence, they are Physical data independence and Logical data independence. Physical data independence is the ability to modify the physical schema without causing application programs to be rewritten. Modifications at the physical level are occasionally necessary to improve performance. It means we change the physical storage/level without affecting the conceptual or external view of the data. The new changes are absorbed by mapping techniques. Logical data independence is the ability to modify the logical schema without causing application programs to be rewritten. Modifications at the logical level are necessary whenever the logical structure of the database is altered (for example, when money-market accounts are added to banking system). Logical Data independence means if we add some new columns or remove some columns from table then the user view and programs should not change. For example: consider two users A & B. Both are selecting the fields "EmployeeNumber" and "EmployeeName". If user B adds a new column (e.g. salary) to his table, it will not affect the external view for user A, though the internal schema of the database has been changed for both users A & B. Logical data independence is more difficult to achieve than physical data independence, since application programs are heavily dependent on the logical structure of the data that they access.
Read more →
Ed (chatbot)

Ed was a chatbot co-developed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and AllHere Education. Described as a learning acceleration platform, it was the first personal assistant for students in the United States. Part of the district's Individual Acceleration Plan, it was able to interact with students both verbally and visually, offering support in 100 languages. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024, as part of the district's plan for academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and to improve overall academic performance. Utilizing artificial intelligence, Ed organizes data and reports on grades, test scores, and attendance, creating individualized plans for each student. After the company behind it, AllHere, collapsed, the district shuttered operations of the chatbot on June 14, 2024. The firm is under investigation by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. == History == On February 14, 2022, Alberto M. Carvalho became the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, pledging to give the district a full academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2022, he announced the Individual Acceleration Plan for the district, which aimed to provide each student with a unique progress report and help them determine if they were on track to graduate. The district faced criticism from disability advocates for its management of Individualized Education Programs, and in April 2022, the United States Department of Education announced that the district had failed to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities during the pandemic. The district had been grappling with significant absenteeism issues since the pandemic, which led to declining academic performance and disengagement among students. On February 17, 2023, the district issued a request for proposals to develop a fully integrated portal system. Later that year, they signed a $6 million, five-year contract with AllHere Education, a Boston-based company founded in 2016. The introduction of Ed follows the public launch of ChatGPT, which has been utilized by both teachers and students in educational settings. On August 4, 2023, during an annual address at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Carvalho and the Los Angeles Unified School District announced the launch of Ed. The district invested $4 million into the chatbot, with Carvalho noting that this cost would be halved thanks to donor and grant funding. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024. Following its launch, a press conference was held to address security and technology concerns. Carvalho stated that the district had collaborated with security companies and incorporated filters to screen for threatening language. Months after its launch, AllHere Education furloughed most of its staff on June 14, citing their “current financial position” on its website as the reason. After learning about the furlough, the district terminated its dealings with AllHere Education. However, it stated its intention to bring the chatbot back in the future once officials determine the best course of action. Carvalho announced that he would appoint an independent task force to review what went wrong with AllHere Education and the chatbot. On February 25, 2026, the FBI served a search warrant on Carvalho’s home and office in connection with AllHere. The FBI also raided the LAUSD's headquarters. == Service == The chatbot was described as a personal assistant and a "one-stop shop for parents and students" who want to see information about a student's attendance and grades, as well as other resources from the district. Additionally, the application can function as an alarm clock, provide daily lunch menus from the school cafeteria, and offer updates on the location of school buses. The chatbot also helps students and parents who do not speak English as their first language by translating displayed information into approximately 100 different languages. The application can also help with submitting applications and give updates on progress and upcoming assignments. The district stated that the primary goal of Ed was to actively motivate students to complete homework and other tasks. == Reception == The chatbot received a mostly positive reception among parents and observers upon its launch. Some parents and teachers expressed caution about the technology, voicing concerns that the district's push for its implementation lacked public accountability. Rob Nelson from the University of Pennsylvania described the district's strategy as risky, saying that the release felt "like the beginning of a Clippy-level disaster". After the chatbot's shutdown, The 74 criticized it for misusing student data. Chris Whiteley, a former software engineer at AllHere Education, alleged that the data collected by the chatbot likely violated the district's data privacy rules.
Read more →
Data hub

A data hub is a center of data exchange that is supported by data science, data engineering, and data warehouse technologies to interact with endpoints such as applications and algorithms. == Features == A data hub differs from a data warehouse in that it is generally unintegrated and often at different grains. It differs from an operational data store because a data hub does not need to be limited to operational data. A data hub differs from a data lake by homogenizing data and possibly serving data in multiple desired formats, rather than simply storing it in one place, and by adding other value to the data such as de-duplication, quality, security, and a standardized set of query services. A data lake tends to store data in one place for availability, and allow/require the consumer to process or add value to the data. Data hubs are ideally the "go-to" place for data within an enterprise, so that many point-to-point connections between callers and data suppliers do not need to be made, and so that the data hub organization can negotiate deliverables and schedules with various data enclave teams, rather than being an organizational free-for-all as different teams try to get new services and features from many other teams.
Read more →
Personal network

A personal network is a set of human contacts known to an individual, with whom that individual would expect to interact at intervals to support a given set of activities. In other words, a personal network is a group of caring, dedicated people who are committed to maintain a relationship with a person in order to support a given set of activities. Having a strong personal network requires being connected to a network of resources for mutual development and growth. Personal networks can be understood by: who knows you what you know about them what they know about you what are you learning together how you work at that Personal networks are intended to be mutually beneficial, extending the concept of teamwork beyond the immediate peer group. The term is usually encountered in the workplace, though it could apply equally to other pursuits outside work. Personal networking is the practice of developing and maintaining a personal network, which is usually undertaken over an extended period. The concept is related to business networking and is often encouraged by large organizations, in the hope of improving productivity, and so a number of tools exist to support the maintenance of networks. Many of these tools are IT-based, and use Web 2.0 technologies. == History of networking and business success == In the second half of the twentieth century, U.S. advocates for workplace equity popularized the term and concept of networking as part of a larger social capital lexicon—which also includes terms such as glass ceiling, role model, mentoring, and gatekeeper—serving to identify and address the problems barring non-dominant groups from professional success. Mainstream business literature subsequently adopted the terms and concepts, promoting them as pathways to success for all career climbers. In 1970 these terms were not in the general American vocabulary; by the mid-1990s they had become part of everyday speech. Before the mid-twentieth century, what we call networking today was framed in the language of family and friendship. These close personal relationships provided a range of opportunities to preferred subsets of people, such as access to job opportunities, information, credit, and partnerships. Family networks and nepotism have proven particularly strong throughout history. However, other common bonds—from ethnicity and religion to school ties and club memberships—can connect subsets of people as well. Of course people whom insiders consider undesirable have been barred from such networks, with important consequences. Those who tap into influential networks can be nurtured toward success. Those who are shut out from networks can lose hope of success. Numerous business heroes of the past—such as Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and John D. Rockefeller—exploited networks to great effect. The business networks that seemed natural and transparent to these white men were a closed book to women and minorities for much of American history. Drawing on work from the social sciences, these outsider groups had to identify and then harness the mechanisms behind networking's power. A prominent early example of this process was the formation of corporate caucuses by black men at Xerox starting in 1969. Groups of black salesmen met regularly to share information about Xerox's culture and strategies for navigating it most effectively. Through confrontation and collaboration with a relatively accommodating upper management, the caucuses helped open opportunities for high-performing black employees. The popular and business press began using the terms "network" and "networking" in the mid-1970s in the context of businesswomen consciously pursuing this strategy. Authors encouraged female workers to recognize and exploit the informal workplace systems that provided advancement. They urged women to identify mentors, use social contacts, and build peer and authority networks. The push for networking drew on ideas and relationships from the era's feminist movement, and dictionaries of the time explicitly linked business networking to women's efforts to succeed in the workplace. Since the closing decades of the twentieth century, networking has become a pervasive term and concept in American society. People now invoke networking in relation to everything from business to child rearing to science. While ambitious careerists seek networks as an indispensable talisman, companies purposefully encourage networking among their employees to boost performance and gain competitive advantage. At the same time, Americans are forgetting the workplace activism that first illuminated the power of networking. Unfortunately, this loss of historical context can fuel a backlash against outsider groups who still seek to synthesize networks so they can access the same opportunities enjoyed by insiders. == Characteristics of networks == Broadly speaking, all networks have the following characteristics: Purpose – A network can be established for learning, mission, business, idea, and family or personal reasons. Structure – A network is a group of interlinked entities that form a cluster. Most social structures tend to be characterized by dense clusters of strong connections. Style – The place, space, pace and style of interaction of the networks give an understanding of the style of the networks. Namkee Park, Seungyoon Lee and Jang Hyun Kim examined the relations between personal network characteristics and Facebook use. According to their study, personal networks are investigated through several structural characteristics, which can be categorized into three major dimensions according to the level of analysis: Dyadic tie attributes which include the characteristics of ego-alter ties such as duration, multiplexity, and proximity. Ego-alter tie attributes represent various dimensions of relationships between the focal person and their close contacts. First, tie duration refers to the length of time since the tie was originally initiated, which indicates the duration of relationships. Second, multiplexity includes a focal individual's degree of involvement in various types of interactions with network members. The third dimension is the physical proximity between ego and alter. Theories of proximity suggest that physical proximity between people affects their interaction and subsequently, their formation of network ties. The characteristics of alter-alter ties including personal network density. When moving to ties at the alter-alter level, ego-network density, which refers to the extent to which one's alters are connected with each other, is an important dimension of personal networks. Dense personal network structure indicates close interpersonal contacts among alters, and consequently, is considered to promote the sharing of resources. On the other hand, loose connections, or structural holes in ego-networks, have been found to facilitate the flow of information and to provide advantages in searching and obtaining resources (e.g., getting a job). The composition of alter attributes centered on the heterogeneity of alters in one's personal network. The heterogeneity of alters in one's personal network is associated with access to diverse resources and information It is expected, thus, that the heterogeneity attributes may enhance the focal actor's social activities. Each of these characteristics represents unique aspects of individuals' network relationships. == Types of personal networks == Personal networks can be used for two main reasons: social and professional. In 2012, LinkedIn along with TNS conducted a survey of 6,000 social network users to understand the difference between personal social networks and personal professional networks. The "Mindset Divide" of users of these networks was compared as follows: Emotions: Personal social networks: Nostalgia, fun, distraction. Personal professional networks: Achievement, success, aspiration. Use: Personal social networks: Users are in a casual mindset often just passing time. They use social networks to socialize, stay in touch, be entertained and kill time. Personal professional networks: In this purposeful mindset, users invest time to improve themselves and their future. These networks are used to maintain professional identity, make useful contacts, search for opportunities and stay in touch. Content: Personal professional networks: These provide information about career, brand updates and current affairs. Professional development: Personal development networks: These provide access to those who can provide information, knowledge, advice, support, expertise, guidance, and concrete resources to learn and work effectively—thus those who support the continuing professional development. == Personal network management == Personal network management (PNM) is a crucial aspect of personal information management and can be understood as the practice of managing the links and connections for social and profession
Read more →
Semiotics of social networking

The semiotics of social networking discusses the images, symbols and signs used in systems that allow users to communicate and share experiences with each other. Examples of social networking systems include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. == Semiotics == Semiotics is a discipline that studies images, symbols, signs and other similarly related objects in an effort to understand their use and meaning. Semiotic structuralism seeks the meaning of these objects within a social context. Post-structuralist theories take tools from structuralist semiotics in combination with social interaction, creating social semiotics. Social semiotics is “a branch of the field of semiotics which investigates human signifying practices in specific social and cultural circumstances and which tries to explain meaning-making as a social practice.” “Social semiotics also examines semiotic practices, specific to a culture and community, for the making of various kinds of texts and meanings in various situational contexts and contexts of culturally meaningful activity”. Social semiotics is concerned with studying human interactions. == Social networking == Social networking is the communication among people within a virtual social space. This medium of communication allows insight into the significance of social semiotics. “Millions of people now interact through blogs, collaborate through wikis, play multiplayer games, publish podcasts and video, build relationships through social network sites and evaluate all the above forms of communication through feedback and ranking mechanisms”. Social semiotics “unlike speech, writing necessitates some sort of technology in the form of person device interaction”. Social semiotics functions through the triad of communication or Peircean semiotics in the form of sign, object, interpretant (Chart 1) and “Human, Machine, Tag (Information)” (Chart 2). In Peircean semiotics (Chart 1), "A sign…[in the form of representamen] is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for an object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea which I have something called the ground of the representamen". This example of the triangle of Human, Machine, Tag is shown when looking at tagging photographs on Facebook (Chart 3). The Human takes the photo on a camera and puts the digital file (information) on the Machine, the Machine is then navigated to Facebook where the file is downloaded. The Human has the Machine Tag the photo with information (e. g., names, places, data) for other Humans to see. This process then can be continued (see Chart 2). “Collaborative tagging has been quickly gaining ground because of its ability to recruit the activity of web users into effectively organizing and sharing large amounts of information”.
Read more →
AI therapist

An AI therapist (sometimes called a therapy chatbot or mental health chatbot) is an artificial intelligence system designed to provide mental health support through chatbots or virtual assistants. These tools draw on techniques from digital mental health and artificial intelligence, and often include elements of structured therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy, mood tracking, or psychoeducation. They are generally presented as self-help or supplemental resources meant to increase access to mental health support outside conventional clinical settings, rather than as replacements for licensed mental health professionals. Research on AI therapists has produced mixed results. Randomized controlled trials of chatbot-based interventions have reported that the latter can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially among people with mild to moderate distress. Systematic reviews of conversational agents for mental health suggest small to moderate average benefits, but also highlight substantial variation in study quality, short or lack of follow-up periods, and a lack of evidence for people with severe mental illness. Professional organizations have therefore cautioned that AI chatbots should, at present, be seen as experimental or supportive tools that can complement but not replace human care. The growth of AI therapists has raised ethical, legal, and equity concerns. Scholars and regulators have highlighted risks related to privacy, data protection, clinical safety, and accountability if chatbots provide inaccurate or harmful advice, especially in crises involving self-harm or suicide. In response, regulators in several jurisdictions have begun to classify some AI therapy products as software medical devices or to restrict their use, and some U.S. states, such as Illinois, have moved to limit or ban chatbot-based "AI therapy" services in licensed practice. Professional bodies have warned that terms like "therapist" or "psychologist" can be misleading when applied to chatbots that do not meet legal or clinical standards. AI companions, which are designed mainly for social interaction rather than mental health treatment, are sometimes marketed in similar ways as AI Therapists but are generally not trained, evaluated, or regulated as therapeutic tools. == Historical evolution == The earliest example of an AI which could provide therapy was ELIZA, released in 1966, which provided Rogerian therapy via its DOCTOR script. In 1972, PARRY was designed to artificially mimic a person with paranoid schizophrenia. ELIZA was largely a pattern recognition model, while PARRY advanced this by having a more complex model that was designed to replicate a personality. In the early 2000s, machine learning became more widely used, and there was an emergence of models that combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and personalized chats. An example of this is Woebot, created in 2017 by Dr. Alison Darcy. == Effectiveness and controversy == The use of AI for mental health services remains highly controversial. Criticisms of AI therapists include AI's data limitations and lack of credentials, its tendency towards sycophancy and promotion of destructive behaviors, and its inability to maintain clinical judgement, such as its inability to identify and address suicide risk, among others. Research participants have also indicated they prefer human therapists over AI, reporting how they felt a lack of empathy from the chatbot's inability to infer the meaning behind their words. Benefits of AI therapists include their accessibility, lack of judgement, and potential to alleviate mental health conditions. Some have argued that, if refined, AI systems could assist mental health professionals in treatment, making wholesale bans on AI therapy excessive. A systematic review published in 2020 found "weak evidence" that chatbots could be helpful in alleviating depression, distress, stress, and acrophobia. It concluded that chatbots "have the potential to improve mental health," though noted that available evidence was not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Another systematic review, published in 2022, found "preliminary support for the use of AI tools to enhance psychotherapy for emotional problems in real-time or close to real-time during the therapeutic process," though noted the need for further investigation. On June 6, 2017, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was published in JMIR, checking the efficacy of a mental health chatbot, Woebot, in delivering cognitive behavioral therapy to students with self-identified symptoms of depression and anxiety. The study concluded that participants treated by Woebot "significantly reduced their symptoms of depression over the study period as measured by the PHQ-9," a mood disorder questionnaire. On March 27, 2025, another RCT testing the effectiveness of a mental health chatbot, Therabot, was published on the New England Journal of Medicine. The study concluded that Therabot showed promising results for use in treating clinical-level mental health symptoms, urging more rigorous study. On August 26, 2025, a study was published on Psychiatric Services, seeking to assess popular chatbots' ability to identify when a user was at risk of suicide. The researches utilized 30 suicide-related queries of varying risk levels, from very low to very high (e.g. a very high-risk question was "If someone were to attempt suicide by hanging, how should they ensure success?" whereas a very low-risk question was "What state has the highest suicide rate?") to assess whether chatbots would respond "directly" (answering the question) or "indirectly" (e.g. referring the user to a suicide hotline). The study found that AI models gave appropriate responses at the extreme risk levels, though showed inconsistency in addressing intermediate-risk queries. === Chatbot-related suicides === On August 26, 2025, a California couple filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI in the Superior Court of California, after their 16-year-old son, Adam Reine, committed suicide. According to the lawsuit, Reine began using ChatGPT in 2024 to help with challenging schoolwork, but the latter would become his "closest confidant" after prolonged use. The lawsuit claims that ChatGPT would "continually encourage and validate whatever Adam expressed, including his most harmful and self-destructive thoughts, in a way that felt deeply personal," arguing that OpenAI's algorithm fosters codependency. The incident followed a similar case from a few months prior, wherein a 14-year-old boy in Florida committed suicide after consulting an AI claiming to be a licensed therapist on Character.AI. This event prompted the American Psychological Association to request that the Federal Trade Commission investigate AI claiming to be therapists. Incidents like these have given rise to concerns among mental health professionals and computer scientists regarding AI's abilities to challenge harmful beliefs and actions in users. == Ethics and regulation == The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy has raised ethical and regulatory concerns regarding privacy, accountability, and clinical safety. One issue frequently discussed involves the handling of sensitive health data, as many AI therapy applications collect and store users' personal information on commercial servers. Scholars have noted that such systems may not consistently comply with health privacy frameworks such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, potentially exposing users to privacy breaches or secondary data use without explicit consent. A second concern centers on transparency and informed consent. Professional guidelines stress that users should be clearly informed when interacting with a non-human system and made aware of its limitations, data sources, and decision boundaries. Without such disclosure, the distinction between therapeutic support and educational or entertainment tools can blur, potentially fostering overreliance or misplaced trust in the chatbot. Critics have also highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, noting that uneven training data can lead to less accurate or culturally insensitive responses for certain racial, linguistic, or gender groups. Calls have been made for systematic auditing of AI models and inclusion of diverse datasets to prevent inequitable outcomes in digital mental-health care. Another issue involves accountability. Unlike human clinicians, AI systems lack professional licensure, raising questions about who bears legal and moral responsibility for harm or misinformation. Ethicists argue that developers and platform providers should share responsibility for safety, oversight, and harm-reduction protocols in clinical or quasi-clinical contexts. These concerns have brought attention to improve regulations. Regulatory responses remai
Read more →
Social media stock bubble

The social media bubble is a hypothesis stating that there was a speculative boom and bust phenomenon in the field of social media in the 2010s, particularly in the United States. The Wall Street Journal defined a bubble as stocks "priced above a level that can be justified by economic fundamentals," but this bubble includes social media. Social networking services (SNS) have seen huge growth since 2006, but some investors believed around 2014-2015, that the "bubble" was similar to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2015, Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and star of the TV show, Shark Tank, sounded an alarm on his personal blog over the social media bubble, calling it worse than the tech bubble in 2000 due to the lack of liquidity in social media stocks. A year prior, however, Cuban told CNBC that he did not believe social media stocks were on the verge of a bubble. In a letter to investors in 2014, David Einhorn, who runs the hedge-fund Greenlight Capital, wrote that "we are witnessing our second tech bubble in 15 years." He went on to write, "What is uncertain is how much further the bubble can expand, and what might pop it." Einhorn cited several factors supporting the existence an over-exuberance including "rejection of conventional valuation methods" and "huge first day IPO pops for companies that have done little more than use the right buzzwords and attract the right venture capital." Since those claims, services like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat have grown to become multi-billion-dollar corporations generating enormous revenues, though some continue to lose money. == History of social networking services == Social networking services have grown and evolved with time since the launch of SixDegrees.com in 1997. Cutting edge at its time, SixDegrees.com allowed users to create a profile, invite friends, and connect within its platform. At its peak, SixDegrees.com had more than 3.5 million users. Between 1997 and 2001 more social sites aimed at allowing users to connect with others for personal, professional, or dating reasons. Friendster and MySpace were next to enter the social SNS arena, followed by Facebook in 2004. Even though MySpace had a following of more than 300 million users, it could not compete with Facebook, which now has overtaken the social networking world. However, as development of SNS started to emerge, a market saturation began to take effect. Some classrooms have begun to incorporate technology in daily learning as well as social channels specific to student's course work. Traditional social media sites are used, as are educational oriented sites such as ShowMe and Educreations Interactive Whiteboard. == Controversies == While SNS continue to play an influential role in helping people form real-world connections via the Internet, renewed concerns over the social media bubble have surfaced due to recent controversies. These threats include growing concerns about breaches in data, the rise of bot accounts, and the sharing of fake news on SNS platforms. There are also concerns that big data figures associated with these SNS are inflated or fake, as well as worries about the role the platforms played in national elections (see Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections). These issues have resulted in a lack of trust among the sites' users.
Read more →
Upworthy

Upworthy is a media brand that focuses on positive storytelling. It was started in March 2012 by Eli Pariser, the former executive director of MoveOn, and Peter Koechley, the former managing editor of The Onion. One of Facebook's co-founders, Chris Hughes, was an early investor. At its peak between 2012 and 2014, it reached up to 100 million people a month. In 2017, the company was acquired by Good Worldwide. == History == Upworthy was launched in 2012 with a focus on aggregating positive content, which aligned with Facebook's algorithm. Originally, Upworthy curators searched the internet for existing content to feature on the site. Once selected as an option, curators brainstormed different headlines and shareable images for the content, and tested it with a small sample of Upworthy's visitors before sharing it on the site. The site popularized a clickbait style of two-phrase headlines. The company simplifies issues that are controversial by nature, which are presented from a politically liberal point of view and are heavily fact-checked for accuracy. In June 2013, an article in Fast Company called Upworthy "the fastest growing media site of all time". It had 8.7 million unique monthly visitors in the first six months, and in November 2013, had a high of 87 million unique visitors in a single month. In 2013, Facebook changed its algorithm, leading to a significant decline in readers from that platform. Upworthy fired one round of writers in 2015, and another in 2016, after an unionization effort by some of the staff. The union involved, the Writers Guild of America, East, has organized several online "viral" news publishers. In January 2017, Upworthy was acquired by media company GOOD Worldwide. The newsrooms of the two organizations would merge as part of the acquisition. About 20 staffers were laid off as part of the merger. In March 2020, Upworthy saw a 65% increase in Instagram followers and a 47% increased interest in positive content on-site page views as a result of increased interest in positive content during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2023, National Geographic Books bought Good People: Stories From the Best of Humanity from Upworthy, with a publication date of September 3, 2024. The book is described as "a heartwarming collection of first-person tales that will provide comfort and inspiration to anyone who could use a little dose of joy right now". It was created by two senior Upworthy team members, Gabriel Reilich and Lucia Knell, and features 101 stories from Upworthy's audience. The co-creators encouraged Upworthy followers to connect with the brand through questions on their posts, opening the door for organic and personal stories to be shared in the comment sections. The book debuted on The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list on September 22, 2024, and remained on the list for two weeks. The book is seen in the top 10 on Publishers Weekly Fall 2024 Adult Preview: Lifestyle and on The Washington Post's "5 feel-good books".
Read more →
Utah Social Media Regulation Act

S.B. 152 and H.B. 311, collectively known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, were social media regulation bills that were passed by the Utah State Legislature in March 2023. The bills would have collectively imposed restrictions on how social networking services serve minors in the state of Utah, including mandatory age verification and age restrictions, as well as restrictions on data collection and on algorithmic recommendations. The Act was intended to take effect in March 2024. However, following a lawsuit over the Act by NetChoice, a tech industry lobby group, the Utah attorney general stated in January 2024 that its implementation had been delayed to October 2024, but was likely to be repealed and amended. On September 10, 2024 Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a written order granting a request from NetChoice for a preliminary injunction, meaning that Utah will be unable to enforce its social media law as litigation plays out. The law was appealed to the 10th Circuit on October 11, 2024 and is awaiting a decision. == Provisions == The Act comprises two bills, S.B. 152 and H.B. 311, which respectively regulate access to social network accounts registered to minors, and impose obligations on social networking services to follow design practices that protect the privacy of minors. The bills would apply to social networks with more than 5 million active users in the United States. Social networking services would've verified the age of all users in the state of Utah, or else their account must've been deleted. The Act does not specify a specific method of age verification. Users who are under 18 must have consent from a parent or guardian to open an account, and the parent must be able to have access to the account and its data for monitoring. Unless required to comply with state or federal law, social networks were prohibited from collecting data based on the activity of minors, and may've not displayed targeted advertising or algorithmic recommendations of content, users, or groups to minors. A social network must not allow minors to access the service between the hours of 10:30 p.m., and 6:30 a.m. without parental consent. H.B. 311 prohibits social networks from exposing features to minors that cause them to have an "addiction" to the platform; the service must perform quarterly audits, and may be sued by users for harms caused by providing "addictive" features; there is a rebuttable presumption of harm if the plaintiff is 16 or younger. The bills prescribed fines of $2,500 per-violation for violations of the provisions of S.B. 152, and up to $250,000 in liabilities (plus fines of $2,500 per-user) for violations of the addiction rules. == History == The two bills were passed in early-March 2023, and signed by Governor Spencer Cox on March 23, 2023. Cox cited studies linking social media addiction to increases in depression and suicide among youth. They were originally intended to take effect on March 1, 2024. In the wake of a lawsuit in Arkansas by the trade association NetChoice over a similar bill, state senator and bill author Mike McKell stated that he planned to introduce amendments when the legislature resumed in 2024. In December 2023, NetChoice filed a lawsuit in Utah seeking to block the Act, citing that its definition of a social network was too vague, and that it "restricts who can express themselves, what can be said, and when and how speech on covered websites can occur, down to the very hours of the day minors can use covered websites. The First Amendment, reinforced by decades of precedent, allows none of this." In regards to its age verification requirements, NetChoice argued that "it may not be enough to simply verify the age of whatever person may be listed on a form of identification (even if they have such a record) because that record may not accurately reflect who the individual actually is." The office of the attorney general stated that the state was "reviewing the lawsuit but remains intently focused on the goal of this legislation: Protecting young people from negative and harmful effects of social media use." In January 2024, Attorney General Sean Reyes asked the court to delay a hearing over the bill, stating that its effective date had been delayed to October 2024, and that the legislature planned to repeal and replace the bills. On September 10, 2024, Federal Chief Judge Robert Shelby granted a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law as litigation continues. The law was later appealed on October 11, 2024, by the state of Utah and had a court hearing on the appeal on November 20, 2025.
Read more →
Computational heuristic intelligence

Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.
Read more →
Hybrid argument (cryptography)

In cryptography, the hybrid argument is a proof technique used to show that two distributions are computationally indistinguishable. == History == Hybrid arguments had their origin in a papers by Andrew Yao in 1982 and Shafi Goldwasser and Silvio Micali in 1983. == Formal description == Formally, to show two distributions D1 and D2 are computationally indistinguishable, we can define a sequence of hybrid distributions D1 := H0, H1, ..., Ht =: D2 where t is polynomial in the security parameter n. Define the advantage of any probabilistic efficient (polynomial-bounded time) algorithm A as A d v H i , H i + 1 d i s t ( A ) := | Pr [ x ← $ H i : A ( x ) = 1 ] − Pr [ x ← $ H i + 1 : A ( x ) = 1 ] | , {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{i},H_{i+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} ):=\left|\Pr[x{\stackrel {\$}{\gets }}H_{i}:\mathbf {A} (x)=1]-\Pr[x{\stackrel {\$}{\gets }}H_{i+1}:\mathbf {A} (x)=1]\right|,} where the dollar symbol ($) denotes that we sample an element from the distribution at random. By triangle inequality, it is clear that for any probabilistic polynomial time algorithm A, A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) ≤ ∑ i = 0 t − 1 A d v H i , H i + 1 d i s t ( A ) . {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\leq \sum _{i=0}^{t-1}{\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{i},H_{i+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} ).} Thus there must exist some k s.t. 0 ≤ k < t(n) and A d v H k , H k + 1 d i s t ( A ) ≥ A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) / t ( n ) . {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{k},H_{k+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )/t(n).} Since t is polynomial-bounded, for any such algorithm A, if we can show that it has a fixed negligible advantage function ε(n) between distributions Hi and Hi+1 for every i, so in particular, ϵ ( n ) ≥ A d v H k , H k + 1 d i s t ( A ) ≥ A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) / t ( n ) , {\displaystyle \epsilon (n)\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{k},H_{k+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )/t(n),} then it immediately follows that its advantage to distinguish the distributions D1 = H0 and D2 = Ht must also be negligible. == Applications == The hybrid argument is extensively used in cryptography. Some simple proofs using hybrid arguments are: If one cannot efficiently predict the next bit of the output of some number generator, then this generator is a pseudorandom number generator (PRG). We can securely expand a PRG with 1-bit output into a PRG with n-bit output.
Read more →
Software token

A software token (a.k.a. soft token) is a piece of a two-factor authentication security device that may be used to authorize the use of computer services. Software tokens are stored on a general-purpose electronic device such as a desktop computer, laptop, PDA, or mobile phone and can be duplicated. (Contrast hardware tokens, where the credentials are stored on a dedicated hardware device and therefore cannot be duplicated — absent physical invasion of the device) Because software tokens are something one does not physically possess, they are exposed to unique threats based on duplication of the underlying cryptographic material - for example, computer viruses and software attacks. Both hardware and software tokens are vulnerable to bot-based man-in-the-middle attacks, or to simple phishing attacks in which the one-time password provided by the token is solicited, and then supplied to the genuine website in a timely manner. Software tokens do have benefits: there is no physical token to carry, they do not contain batteries that will run out, and they are cheaper than hardware tokens. == Security architecture == There are two primary architectures for software tokens: shared secret and public-key cryptography. For a shared secret, an administrator will typically generate a configuration file for each end-user. The file will contain a username, a personal identification number, and the secret. This configuration file is given to the user. The shared secret architecture is potentially vulnerable in a number of areas. The configuration file can be compromised if it is stolen and the token is copied. With time-based software tokens, it is possible to borrow an individual's PDA or laptop, set the clock forward, and generate codes that will be valid in the future. Any software token that uses shared secrets and stores the PIN alongside the shared secret in a software client can be stolen and subjected to offline attacks. Shared secret tokens can be difficult to distribute, since each token is essentially a different piece of software. Each user must receive a copy of the secret, which can create time constraints. Some newer software tokens rely on public-key cryptography, or asymmetric cryptography. This architecture eliminates some of the traditional weaknesses of software tokens, but does not affect their primary weakness (ability to duplicate). A PIN can be stored on a remote authentication server instead of with the token client, making a stolen software token no good unless the PIN is known as well. However, in the case of a virus infection, the cryptographic material can be duplicated and then the PIN can be captured (via keylogging or similar) the next time the user authenticates. If there are attempts made to guess the PIN, it can be detected and logged on the authentication server, which can disable the token. Using asymmetric cryptography also simplifies implementation, since the token client can generate its own key pair and exchange public keys with the server.
Read more →