AI Chatbot You Can Talk To

AI Chatbot You Can Talk To — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Spreading activation

  Spreading activation is a method for searching associative networks, biological and artificial neural networks, or semantic networks. The search process is initiated by labeling a set of source nodes (e.g. concepts in a semantic network) with weights or "activation" and then iteratively propagating or "spreading" that activation out to other nodes linked to the source nodes. Most often these "weights" are real values that decay as activation propagates through the network. When the weights are discrete this process is often referred to as marker passing. Activation may originate from alternate paths, identified by distinct markers, and terminate when two alternate paths reach the same node. However brain studies show that several different brain areas play an important role in semantic processing. Spreading activation in semantic networks as a model were invented in cognitive psychology to model the fan out effect. Spreading activation can also be applied in information retrieval, by means of a network of nodes representing documents and terms contained in those documents. == Cognitive psychology == As it relates to cognitive psychology, spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information. The spreading activation theory presents the array of concepts within our memory as cognitive units, each consisting of a node and its associated elements or characteristics, all connected together by edges. A spreading activation network can be represented schematically, in a sort of web diagram with shorter lines between two nodes meaning the ideas are more closely related and will typically be associated more quickly to the original concept. In memory psychology, the spreading activation model holds that people organize their knowledge of the world based on their personal experiences, which in turn form the network of ideas that is the person's knowledge of the world. When a word (the target) is preceded by an associated word (the prime) in word recognition tasks, participants seem to perform better in the amount of time that it takes them to respond. For instance, subjects respond faster to the word "doctor" when it is preceded by "nurse" than when it is preceded by an unrelated word like "carrot". This semantic priming effect with words that are close in meaning within the cognitive network has been seen in a wide range of tasks given by experimenters, ranging from sentence verification to lexical decision and naming. As another example, if the original concept is "red" and the concept "vehicles" is primed, they are much more likely to say "fire engine" instead of something unrelated to vehicles, such as "cherries". If instead "fruits" was primed, they would likely name "cherries" and continue on from there. The activation of pathways in the network has everything to do with how closely linked two concepts are by meaning, as well as how a subject is primed. == Algorithm == A directed graph is populated by Nodes[ 1...N ] each having an associated activation value A [ i ] which is a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. A Link[ i, j ] connects source node[ i ] with target node[ j ]. Each edge has an associated weight W [ i, j ] usually a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. Parameters: Firing threshold F, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Decay factor D, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Steps: Initialize the graph setting all activation values A [ i ] to zero. Set one or more origin nodes to an initial activation value greater than the firing threshold F. A typical initial value is 1.0. For each unfired node [ i ] in the graph having an activation value A [ i ] greater than the node firing threshold F: For each Link [ i, j ] connecting the source node [ i ] with target node [ j ], adjust A [ j ] = A [ j ] + (A [ i ] W [ i, j ] D) where D is the decay factor. If a target node receives an adjustment to its activation value so that it would exceed 1.0, then set its new activation value to 1.0. Likewise maintain 0.0 as a lower bound on the target node's activation value should it receive an adjustment to below 0.0. Once a node has fired it may not fire again, although variations of the basic algorithm permit repeated firings and loops through the graph. Nodes receiving a new activation value that exceeds the firing threshold F are marked for firing on the next spreading activation cycle. If activation originates from more than one node, a variation of the algorithm permits marker passing to distinguish the paths by which activation is spread over the graph The procedure terminates when either there are no more nodes to fire or in the case of marker passing from multiple origins, when a node is reached from more than one path. Variations of the algorithm that permit repeated node firings and activation loops in the graph, terminate after a steady activation state, with respect to some delta, is reached, or when a maximum number of iterations is exceeded. == Examples ==

  Read more →
• 

  Strong secrecy

  Strong secrecy is a term used in formal proof-based cryptography for making propositions about the security of cryptographic protocols. It is a stronger notion of security than syntactic (or weak) secrecy. Strong secrecy is related with the concept of semantic security or indistinguishability used in the computational proof-based approach. Bruno Blanchet provides the following definition for strong secrecy: Strong secrecy means that an adversary cannot see any difference when the value of the secret changes For example, if a process encrypts a message m an attacker can differentiate between different messages, since their ciphertexts will be different. Thus m is not a strong secret. If however, probabilistic encryption were used, m would be a strong secret. The randomness incorporated into the encryption algorithm will yield different ciphertexts for the same value of m.

  Read more →
• 

  Correlation immunity

  In mathematics, the correlation immunity of a Boolean function is a measure of the degree to which its outputs are uncorrelated with some subset of its inputs. Specifically, a Boolean function is said to be correlation-immune of order m if every subset of m or fewer variables in x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n}} is statistically independent of the value of f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} . == Definition == A function f : F 2 n → F 2 {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {F} _{2}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {F} _{2}} is k {\displaystyle k} -th order correlation immune if for any independent n {\displaystyle n} binary random variables X 0 … X n − 1 {\displaystyle X_{0}\ldots X_{n-1}} , the random variable Z = f ( X 0 , … , X n − 1 ) {\displaystyle Z=f(X_{0},\ldots ,X_{n-1})} is independent from any random vector ( X i 1 … X i k ) {\displaystyle (X_{i_{1}}\ldots X_{i_{k}})} with 0 ≤ i 1 < … < i k < n {\displaystyle 0\leq i_{1}<\ldots Read more →

• 

  G.hn

  Gigabit Home Networking (G.hn) is a specification for wired home networking that supports speeds up to 2 Gbit/s and operates over four types of legacy wires: telephone wiring, coaxial cables, power lines and plastic optical fiber. Some benefits of a multi-wire standard are lower equipment development costs and lower deployment costs for service providers (by allowing customer self-install). == History == G.hn was developed under the International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standardization sector (the ITU-T) and promoted by the HomeGrid Forum and several other organizations. ITU-T Recommendation (the ITU's term for standard) G.9960, which received approval on October 9, 2009, specified the physical layers and the architecture of G.hn. The Data Link Layer (Recommendation G.9961) was approved on June 11, 2010. Prominent organizations, including CEPca, HomePNA, and UPA, who were creators of some of these interfaces, rallied behind the latest version of the standard, emphasizing its potential and significance in the home networking domain. Moreover, the ITU-T extended the technology with multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) technology to increase data rates and signaling distance. This new feature was approved in March 2012 under G.9963 Recommendation. The development and promotion of G.hn have been significantly supported by the HomeGrid Forum and several other organizations. The technology was not only designed to address home-networking challenges but also found applications beyond this initial scope, showcasing its versatility and potential in the networking domain. == Technical specifications == === Technical overview === G.hn specifies a single physical layer based on fast Fourier transform (FFT) orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation and low-density parity-check code (LDPC) forward error correction (FEC) code. G.hn includes the capability to notch specific frequency bands to avoid interference with amateur radio bands and other licensed radio services. G.hn includes mechanisms to avoid interference with legacy home networking technologies and also with other wireline systems such as VDSL2 or other types of DSL used to access the home. OFDM systems split the transmitted signal into multiple orthogonal sub-carriers. In G.hn each one of the sub-carriers is modulated using QAM. The maximum QAM constellation supported by G.hn is 4096-QAM (12-bit QAM). The G.hn media access control is based on a time division multiple access (TDMA) architecture, in which a "domain master" schedules Transmission Opportunities (TXOPs) that can be used by one or more devices in the "domain". There are two types of TXOPs: Contention-Free Transmission Opportunities (CFTXOP), which have a fixed duration and are allocated to a specific pair of transmitter and receiver. CFTXOP are used for implementing TDMA Channel Access for specific applications that require quality of service (QoS) guarantees. Shared Transmission Opportunities (STXOP), which are shared among multiple devices in the network. STXOP are divided into Time Slots (TS). There are two types of TS: Contention-Free Time Slots (CFTS), which are used for implementing "implicit" token passing Channel Access. In G.hn, a series of consecutive CFTS is allocated to a number of devices. The allocation is performed by the "domain master" and broadcast to all nodes in the network. There are pre-defined rules that specify which device can transmit after another device has finished using the channel. As all devices know "who is next", there is no need to explicitly send a "token" between devices. The process of "passing the token" is implicit and ensures that there are no collisions during Channel access. Contention-Based Time Slots (CBTS), which are used for implementing CSMA/CARP Channel Access. In general, CSMA systems cannot completely avoid collisions, so CBTS are only useful for applications that do not have strict Quality of Service requirements. ==== Optimization for each medium ==== Although most elements of G.hn are common for all three media supported by the standard (power lines, phone lines and coaxial cable), G.hn includes media-specific optimizations for each media. Some of these media-specific parameters include: OFDM Carrier Spacing: 195.31 kHz in coaxial, 48.82 kHz in phone lines, 24.41 kHz in power lines. FEC Rates: G.hn's FEC can operate with code rates 1/2, 2/3, 5/6, 16/18 and 20/21. Although these rates are not media specific, it is expected that the higher code rates will be used in cleaner media (such as coaxial) while the lower code rates will be used in noisy environments such as power lines. Automatic repeat request (ARQ) mechanisms: G.hn supports operation both with and without ARQ (re-transmission). Although this is not media specific, it is expected that ARQ-less operation is sometimes appropriate for cleaner media (such as coaxial) while ARQ operation is appropriate for noisy environments such as power lines. Power levels and frequency bands: G.hn defines different power masks for each medium. MIMO support: Recommendation G.9963 includes provisions for transmitting G.hn signals over multiple AC wires (phase, neutral, ground), if they are physically available. In July 2016, G.9963 was updated to include MIMO support over twisted pairs. ==== Security ==== G.hn uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption algorithm (with a 128-bit key length) using the CCMP protocol to ensure confidentiality and message integrity. Authentication and key exchange is done following ITU-T Recommendation X.1035. G.hn specifies point-to-point security inside a domain, which means that each pair of transmitter and receiver uses a unique encryption key which is not shared by other devices in the same domain. For example, if node Alice sends data to node Bob, node Eve (in the same domain as Alice and Bob) will not be able to easily eavesdrop their communication. G.hn supports the concept of relays, in which one device can receive a message from one node and deliver it to another node farther away in the same domain. Relaying becomes critical for applications with complex network topologies that need to cover large distances, such as those found in industrial or utility applications. While a relay can read the source and target addresses, it cannot read the message's content due to its body being end-to-end-encrypted. ==== Profiles ==== The G.hn architecture includes the concept of profiles. Profiles are intended to address G.hn nodes with significantly different levels of complexity. In G.hn the higher complexity profiles are proper supersets of lower complexity profiles, so that devices based on different profiles can interoperate with each other. Examples of G.hn devices based on high complexity profiles are Residential Gateways or Set-Top Boxes. Examples of G.hn devices based on low complexity profiles are home automation, home security and smart grid devices. ==== Technical parameters ==== The chart depicts a summary of the crucial technical specifications of the G.hn standard. Many of these technical elements are consistent across different physical media, with variations seen in areas such as Tone Spacing and frequency ranges. This uniformity is essential as it allows silicon manufacturers to produce a singular chip capable of implementing all three media types, leading to cost savings. Presently, G.hn chipsets are compatible with all three media types. This compatibility allows system manufacturers to create devices that can adjust to any wiring type simply by modifying a software configuration in the equipment. === Spectrum === The G.hn spectrum depends on the medium as shown in the diagram below: === Protocol stack === G.hn specifies the physical layer and the data link layer, according to the OSI model. The G.hn Data Link Layer (Recommendation G.9961) is divided into three sub-layers: The Application Protocol Convergence (APC) Layer, which accepts frames (usually in Ethernet format) from the upper layer (Application Entity) and encapsulates them into G.hn APC protocol data units (APDUs). The maximum payload of each APDU is 214 bytes. The logical link control (LLC), which is responsible for encryption, aggregation, segmentation and automatic repeat-request. This sub-layer is also responsible for "relaying" of APDUs between nodes that may not be able to communicate through a direct connection. The medium access control (MAC), which schedules channel access. The G.hn physical layer (Recommendation G.9960) is divided into three sub-layers: The Physical Coding Sub-layer (PCS), responsible for generating PHY headers. The Physical Medium Attachment (PMA), responsible for scrambling and forward error correction coding/decoding. The Physical Medium Dependent (PMD), responsible for bit-loading and OFDM modulation. The interface between the Application Entity and the Data Link Layer is called A-interface. The interface between the Data Link Layer and the ph

  Read more →
• 

  Information retrieval

  Information retrieval (IR) in computing and information science is the task of identifying and retrieving information system resources that are relevant to an information need. The information need can be specified in the form of a search query. In the case of document retrieval, queries can be based on full-text or other content-based indexing. Information retrieval is the science of searching for information in a document, searching for documents themselves, and also searching for the metadata that describes data, and for databases of texts, images, or sounds. Cross-modal retrieval implies retrieval across modalities. Automated information retrieval systems are used to reduce what has been called information overload. An IR system is a software system that provides access to books, journals, and other documents, as well as storing and managing those documents. Web search engines are the most visible IR applications. == Overview == An information retrieval process begins when a user enters a query into the system. Queries are formal statements of information needs, for example search strings in web search engines. In information retrieval, a query does not uniquely identify a single object in the collection. Instead, several objects may match the query, perhaps with different degrees of relevance. An object is an entity that is represented by information in a content collection or database. User queries are matched against the database information. However, as opposed to classical SQL queries of a database, in information retrieval the results returned may or may not match the query, so results are typically ranked. This ranking of results is a key difference of information retrieval searching compared to database searching. Depending on the application the data objects may be, for example, text documents, images, audio, mind maps or videos. Often the documents themselves are not kept or stored directly in the IR system, but are instead represented in the system by document surrogates or metadata. Most IR systems compute a numeric score on how well each object in the database matches the query, and rank the objects according to this value. The top ranking objects are then shown to the user. The process may then be iterated if the user wishes to refine the query. == History == there is ... a machine called the Univac ... whereby letters and figures are coded as a pattern of magnetic spots on a long steel tape. By this means the text of a document, preceded by its subject code symbol, can be recorded ... the machine ... automatically selects and types out those references which have been coded in any desired way at a rate of 120 words a minute The idea of using computers to search for relevant pieces of information was popularized in the article As We May Think by Vannevar Bush in 1945. It would appear that Bush was inspired by patents for a 'statistical machine' – filed by Emanuel Goldberg in the 1920s and 1930s – that searched for documents stored on film. The first description of a computer searching for information was described by Holmstrom in 1948, detailing an early mention of the Univac computer. Automated information retrieval systems were introduced in the 1950s: one even featured in the 1957 romantic comedy Desk Set. In the 1960s, the first large information retrieval research group was formed by Gerard Salton at Cornell. By the 1970s several different retrieval techniques had been shown to perform well on small text corpora such as the Cranfield collection (several thousand documents). Large-scale retrieval systems, such as the Lockheed Dialog system, came into use early in the 1970s. In 1992, the US Department of Defense along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), cosponsored the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) as part of the TIPSTER text program. The aim of this was to look into the information retrieval community by supplying the infrastructure that was needed for evaluation of text retrieval methodologies on a very large text collection. This catalyzed research on methods that scale to huge corpora. The introduction of web search engines has boosted the need for very large scale retrieval systems even further. By the late 1990s, the rise of the World Wide Web fundamentally transformed information retrieval. While early search engines such as AltaVista (1995) and Yahoo! (1994) offered keyword-based retrieval, they were limited in scale and ranking refinement. The breakthrough came in 1998 with the founding of Google, which introduced the PageRank algorithm, using the web's hyperlink structure to assess page importance and improve relevance ranking. During the 2000s, web search systems evolved rapidly with the integration of machine learning techniques. These systems began to incorporate user behavior data (e.g., click-through logs), query reformulation, and content-based signals to improve search accuracy and personalization. In 2009, Microsoft launched Bing, introducing features that would later incorporate semantic web technologies through the development of its Satori knowledge base. Academic analysis have highlighted Bing's semantic capabilities, including structured data use and entity recognition, as part of a broader industry shift toward improving search relevance and understanding user intent through natural language processing. A major leap occurred in 2018, when Google deployed BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) to better understand the contextual meaning of queries and documents. This marked one of the first times deep neural language models were used at scale in real-world retrieval systems. BERT's bidirectional training enabled a more refined comprehension of word relationships in context, improving the handling of natural language queries. Because of its success, transformer-based models gained traction in academic research and commercial search applications. Simultaneously, the research community began exploring neural ranking models that outperformed traditional lexical-based methods. Long-standing benchmarks such as the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), initiated in 1992, and more recent evaluation frameworks Microsoft MARCO(MAchine Reading COmprehension) (2019) became central to training and evaluating retrieval systems across multiple tasks and domains. MS MARCO has also been adopted in the TREC Deep Learning Tracks, where it serves as a core dataset for evaluating advances in neural ranking models within a standardized benchmarking environment. As deep learning became integral to information retrieval systems, researchers began to categorize neural approaches into three broad classes: sparse, dense, and hybrid models. Sparse models, including traditional term-based methods and learned variants like SPLADE, rely on interpretable representations and inverted indexes to enable efficient exact term matching with added semantic signals. Dense models, such as dual-encoder architectures like ColBERT, use continuous vector embeddings to support semantic similarity beyond keyword overlap. Hybrid models aim to combine the advantages of both, balancing the lexical (token) precision of sparse methods with the semantic depth of dense models. This way of categorizing models balances scalability, relevance, and efficiency in retrieval systems. As IR systems increasingly rely on deep learning, concerns around bias, fairness, and explainability have also come to the picture. Research is now focused not just on relevance and efficiency, but on transparency, accountability, and user trust in retrieval algorithms. == Applications == Areas where information retrieval techniques are employed include (the entries are in alphabetical order within each category): === General applications === Digital libraries Information filtering Recommender systems Media search Blog search Image retrieval 3D retrieval Music retrieval News search Speech retrieval Video retrieval Search engines Site search Desktop search Enterprise search Federated search Mobile search Social search Web search === Domain-specific applications === Expert search finding Genomic information retrieval Geographic information retrieval Information retrieval for chemical structures Information retrieval in software engineering Legal information retrieval Vertical search === Other retrieval methods === Methods/Techniques in which information retrieval techniques are employed include: Cross-modal retrieval Adversarial information retrieval Automatic summarization Multi-document summarization Compound term processing Cross-lingual retrieval Document classification Spam filtering Question answering == Model types == In order to effectively retrieve relevant documents by IR strategies, the documents are typically transformed into a suitable representation. Each retrieval strategy incorporates a specific model for its document representation purposes. The picture on the right illustrates the relationship of som

  Read more →
• 

  Social media use in hiring

  Social media use in hiring refers to the examination by employers of job applicants' (public) social media profiles as part of the hiring assessment. For example, the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies use social media as a tool to screen prospective employees and as a tool for talent acquisition. This practice raises ethical questions. Employers and recruiters note that they have access only to information that applicants choose to make public. Many Western-European countries restrict employer's use of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin protect applicants and employees from surrendering usernames and passwords for social media accounts. Use of social media has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media. A 2013 survey of 17,000 young people in six countries found that one in ten people aged 16 to 34 claimed to have been rejected for a job because of social media activity. Social media services have been reported to affect deception in resumes. While these services do not affect deception frequency, it does increase deception about interests and hobbies. == Ethical implications == This issue raises many ethical questions that some consider an employer's right and others consider discrimination. As of 2016, except in the states of California, Maryland, and Illinois, there are no laws that prohibit employers from using social media profiles as a basis of whether or not someone should be hired. Title VII also prohibits discrimination during any aspect of employment including hiring or firing, recruitment, or testing. Social media has been integrating into the workplace, and this has led to conflicts within employees and employers.[107] Particularly, Facebook has been seen as a popular platform for employers to investigate in order to learn more about potential employees. This conflict first started in Maryland when an employer requested and received an employee's Facebook username and password. State lawmakers first introduced legislation in 2012 to prohibit employers from requesting passwords to personal social accounts in order to get a job or to keep a job. This led to Canada, Germany, the U.S. Congress and 11 U.S. states to pass or propose legislation that prevents employers' access to private social accounts of employees.[108] Many Western European countries have already implemented laws that restrict the regulation of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have passed legislation that protects potential employees and current employees from employers that demand them to give forth their username or password for a social media account. Laws that forbid employers from disciplining an employee based on activity off the job on social media sites have also been put into act in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New York. Several states have similar laws that protect students in colleges and universities from having to grant access to their social media accounts. Eight states have passed the law that prohibits post secondary institutions from demanding social media login information from any prospective or current students and privacy legislation has been introduced or is pending in at least 36 states as of July 2013. As of May 2014, legislation has been introduced and is in the process of pending in at least 28 states and has been enacted in Maine and Wisconsin. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board has been devoting a lot of their attention to attacking employer policies regarding social media that can discipline employees who seek to speak and post freely on social media sites. Use of social media by young people has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media when they try to enter the job market. A survey of 17,000 young people in six countries in 2013 found that 1 in 10 people aged 16 to 34 have been rejected for a job because of online comments they made on social media websites. A 2014 survey of recruiters found that 93% of them check candidates' social media postings. Moreover, professor Stijn Baert of Ghent University conducted a field experiment in which fictitious job candidates applied for real job vacancies in Belgium. They were identical except in one respect: their Facebook profile photos. It was found that candidates with the most wholesome photos were a lot more likely to receive invitations for job interviews than those with the more controversial photos. In addition, Facebook profile photos had a greater impact on hiring decisions when candidates were highly educated. These cases have created some privacy implications as to whether or not companies should have the right to look at employee's Facebook profiles. In March 2012, Facebook decided they might take legal action against employers for gaining access to employee's profiles through their passwords. According to Facebook Chief Privacy Officer for policy, Erin Egan, the company has worked hard to give its users the tools to control who sees their information. He also said users shouldn't be forced to share private information and communications just to get a job. According to the network's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sharing or soliciting a password is a violation of Facebook policy. Employees may still give their password information out to get a job, but according to Erin Egan, Facebook will continue to do their part to protect the privacy and security of their users. == Impacts == Use of social media by young people has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media when they try to enter the job market. A survey of 17,000 young people in six countries in 2013 found that 1 in 10 people aged 16 to 34 have been rejected for a job because of online comments they made on social media websites. A 2014 survey of recruiters found that 93% of them check candidates' social media postings. Moreover, in 2015 professor Stijn Baert of Ghent University conducted a field experiment in which fictitious job candidates applied for real job vacancies in Belgium. They were identical except in one respect: their Facebook profile photos. It was found that candidates with the most wholesome photos were a lot more likely to receive invitations for job interviews than those with the more controversial photos. In addition, Facebook profile photos had a greater impact on hiring decisions when candidates were highly educated. These cases have created some privacy implications as to whether or not companies should have the right to look at employee's Facebook profiles. In March 2012, Facebook decided they might take legal action against employers for gaining access to employee's profiles through their passwords. According to Facebook Chief Privacy Officer for policy, Erin Egan, the company has worked hard to give its users the tools to control who sees their information. He also said users shouldn't be forced to share private information and communications just to get a job. According to the network's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sharing or soliciting a password is a violation of Facebook policy. Employees may still give their password information out to get a job, but according to Erin Egan, Facebook will continue to do their part to protect the privacy and security of their users. == Policy Responses == 26 US states now have laws against an employer requiring a current or potential employee to give the employer their username and password.

  Read more →
• 

  Cipher

  In cryptography, a cipher (or cypher) is an algorithm for performing encryption or decryption—a series of well-defined steps that can be followed as a procedure. An alternative, less common term is encipherment. To encipher or encode is to convert information into cipher or code. In common parlance, "cipher" is synonymous with "code", as they are both a set of steps that encrypt a message; however, the concepts are distinct in cryptography, especially classical cryptography. Codes generally substitute different length strings of characters in the output, while ciphers generally substitute the same number of characters as are input. A code maps one meaning with another. Words and phrases can be coded as letters or numbers. Codes typically have direct meaning from input to key. Codes primarily function to save time. Ciphers are algorithmic. The given input must follow the cipher's process to be solved. Ciphers are commonly used to encrypt written information. Codes operated by substituting according to a large codebook which linked a random string of characters or numbers to a word or phrase. For example, "UQJHSE" could be the code for "Proceed to the following coordinates.". When using a cipher the original information is known as plaintext, and the encrypted form as ciphertext. The ciphertext message contains all the information of the plaintext message, but is not in a format readable by a human or computer without the proper mechanism to decrypt it. The operation of a cipher usually depends on a piece of auxiliary information, called a key (or, in traditional NSA parlance, a cryptovariable). The encrypting procedure is varied depending on the key, which changes the detailed operation of the algorithm. A key must be selected before using a cipher to encrypt a message, with some exceptions such as ROT13 and Atbash. Most modern ciphers can be categorized in several ways: By whether they work on blocks of symbols usually of a fixed size (block ciphers), or on a continuous stream of symbols (stream ciphers). By whether the same key is used for both encryption and decryption (symmetric key algorithms), or if a different key is used for each (asymmetric key algorithms). If the algorithm is symmetric, the key must be known to the recipient and sender and to no one else. If the algorithm is an asymmetric one, the enciphering key is different from, but closely related to, the deciphering key. If one key cannot be deduced from the other, the asymmetric key algorithm has the public/private key property and one of the keys may be made public without loss of confidentiality. == Etymology == Originating from the Sanskrit word for zero शून्य (śuṇya), via the Arabic word صفر (ṣifr), the word "cipher" spread to Europe as part of the Arabic numeral system during the Middle Ages. The Roman numeral system lacked the concept of zero, and this limited advances in mathematics. In this transition, the word was adopted into Medieval Latin as cifra, and then into Middle French as cifre. This eventually led to the English word cipher (also spelt cypher). One theory for how the term came to refer to encoding is that the concept of zero was confusing to Europeans, and so the term came to refer to a message or communication that was not easily understood. The term cipher was later also used to refer to any Arabic digit, or to calculation using them, so encoding text in the form of Arabic numerals is literally converting the text to "ciphers". == Versus codes == In casual contexts, "code" and "cipher" can typically be used interchangeably; however, the technical usages of the words refer to different concepts. Codes contain meaning; words and phrases are assigned to numbers or symbols, creating a shorter message. An example of this is the commercial telegraph code which was used to shorten long telegraph messages which resulted from entering into commercial contracts using exchanges of telegrams. Another example is given by whole word ciphers, which allow the user to replace an entire word with a symbol or character, much like the way written Japanese utilizes Kanji (meaning Chinese characters in Japanese) characters to supplement the native Japanese characters representing syllables. An example using English language with Kanji could be to replace "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" by "The quick brown 狐 jumps 上 the lazy 犬". Stenographers sometimes use specific symbols to abbreviate whole words. Ciphers, on the other hand, work at a lower level: the level of individual letters, small groups of letters, or, in modern schemes, individual bits and blocks of bits. Some systems used both codes and ciphers in one system, using superencipherment to increase the security. In some cases the terms codes and ciphers are used synonymously with substitution and transposition, respectively. Historically, cryptography was split into a dichotomy of codes and ciphers, while coding had its own terminology analogous to that of ciphers: "encoding, codetext, decoding" and so on. However, codes have a variety of drawbacks, including susceptibility to cryptanalysis and the difficulty of managing a cumbersome codebook. Because of this, codes have fallen into disuse in modern cryptography, and ciphers are the dominant technique. == Types == There are a variety of different types of encryption. Algorithms used earlier in the history of cryptography are substantially different from modern methods, and modern ciphers can be classified according to how they operate and whether they use one or two keys. === Historical === The Caesar Cipher is one of the earliest known cryptographic systems. Julius Caesar used a cipher that shifts the letters in the alphabet in place by three and wrapping the remaining letters to the front to write to Marcus Tullius Cicero in approximately 50 BC. Historical pen and paper ciphers used in the past are sometimes known as classical ciphers. They include simple substitution ciphers (such as ROT13) and transposition ciphers (such as a Rail Fence Cipher). For example, "GOOD DOG" can be encrypted as "PLLX XLP" where "L" substitutes for "O", "P" for "G", and "X" for "D" in the message. Transposition of the letters "GOOD DOG" can result in "DGOGDOO". These simple ciphers and examples are easy to crack, even without plaintext-ciphertext pairs. In the 1640s, the Parliamentarian commander, Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester, developed ciphers to send coded messages to his allies during the English Civil War. The English theologian John Wilkins published a book in 1641 titled "Mercury, or The Secret and Swift Messenger" and described a musical cipher wherein letters of the alphabet were substituted for music notes. This species of melodic cipher was depicted in greater detail by author Abraham Rees in his book Cyclopædia (1778). Simple ciphers were replaced by polyalphabetic substitution ciphers (such as the Vigenère) which changed the substitution alphabet for every letter. For example, "GOOD DOG" can be encrypted as "PLSX TWF" where "L", "S", and "W" substitute for "O". With even a small amount of known or estimated plaintext, simple polyalphabetic substitution ciphers and letter transposition ciphers designed for pen and paper encryption are easy to crack. It is possible to create a secure pen and paper cipher based on a one-time pad, but these have other disadvantages. During the early twentieth century, electro-mechanical machines were invented to do encryption and decryption using transposition, polyalphabetic substitution, and a kind of "additive" substitution. In rotor machines, several rotor disks provided polyalphabetic substitution, while plug boards provided another substitution. Keys were easily changed by changing the rotor disks and the plugboard wires. Although these encryption methods were more complex than previous schemes and required machines to encrypt and decrypt, other machines such as the British Bombe were invented to crack these encryption methods. === Modern === Modern encryption methods can be divided by two criteria: by type of key used, and by type of input data. By type of key used ciphers are divided into: symmetric key algorithms (Private-key cryptography), where one same key is used for encryption and decryption, and asymmetric key algorithms (Public-key cryptography), where two different keys are used for encryption and decryption. In a symmetric key algorithm (e.g., DES and AES), the sender and receiver must have a shared key set up in advance and kept secret from all other parties; the sender uses this key for encryption, and the receiver uses the same key for decryption. The design of AES (Advanced Encryption System) was beneficial because it aimed to overcome the flaws in the design of the DES (Data encryption standard). AES's designer's claim that the common means of modern cipher cryptanalytic attacks are ineffective against AES due to its design structure. Ciphers can be distinguished into two types by the type o

  Read more →
• 

  Knapsack cryptosystems

  Knapsack cryptosystems are cryptosystems whose security is based on the hardness of solving the knapsack problem. They remain quite unpopular because simple versions of these algorithms have been broken for several decades. However, that type of cryptosystem is a good candidate for post-quantum cryptography. The most famous knapsack cryptosystem is the Merkle-Hellman Public Key Cryptosystem, one of the first public key cryptosystems, published the same year as the RSA cryptosystem. However, this system has been broken by several attacks: one from Shamir, one by Adleman, and the low density attack. However, there exist modern knapsack cryptosystems that are considered secure so far: among them is Nasako-Murakami 2006. Knapsack cryptosystems, when not subject to classical cryptoanalysis, are believed to be difficult even for quantum computers. That is not the case for systems that rely on factoring large integers, like RSA, or computing discrete logarithms, like ECDSA, problems solved in polynomial time with Shor's algorithm.

  Read more →
• 

  The Master Algorithm

  The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World is a book by Pedro Domingos released in 2015. Domingos wrote the book in order to generate interest from people outside the field. == Overview == The book outlines five approaches of machine learning: inductive reasoning, connectionism, evolutionary computation, Bayes' theorem and analogical modelling. The author explains these tribes to the reader by referring to more understandable processes of logic, connections made in the brain, natural selection, probability and similarity judgments. Throughout the book, it is suggested that each different tribe has the potential to contribute to a unifying "master algorithm". Towards the end of the book the author pictures a "master algorithm" in the near future, where machine learning algorithms asymptotically grow to a perfect understanding of how the world and people in it work. Although the algorithm doesn't yet exist, he briefly reviews his own invention of the Markov logic network. == In the media == In 2016 Bill Gates recommended the book, alongside Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, as one of two books everyone should read to understand AI. In 2018 the book was noted to be on Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping's bookshelf. === Reception === A computer science educator stated in Times Higher Education that the examples are clear and accessible. In contrast, The Economist agreed Domingos "does a good job" but complained that he "constantly invents metaphors that grate or confuse". Kirkus Reviews praised the book, stating that "Readers unfamiliar with logic and computer theory will have a difficult time, but those who persist will discover fascinating insights." A New Scientist review called it "compelling but rather unquestioning".

  Read more →
• 

  Harvest now, decrypt later

  Harvest now, decrypt later (HNDL) is a surveillance strategy that relies on the acquisition and long-term storage of currently unreadable encrypted data awaiting possible breakthroughs in decryption technology that would render it readable in the future—a hypothetical date referred to as Y2Q (a reference to Y2K), or Q-Day. The most common concern is the prospect of developments in quantum computing which would allow current strong encryption algorithms to be broken at some time in the future, making it possible to decrypt any stored material that had been encrypted using those algorithms. However, the improvement in decryption technology need not be due to a quantum-cryptographic advance; any other form of attack capable of enabling decryption would be sufficient. The existence of this strategy has led to concerns about the need to urgently deploy post-quantum cryptography; even though no practical quantum attacks yet exist, some data stored now may still remain sensitive even decades into the future. As of 2022, the U.S. federal government has proposed a roadmap for organizations to start migrating toward quantum-cryptography-resistant algorithms to mitigate these threats. This new version of Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite uses publicly-available algorithms and is allowed for government use up to the TOP SECRET level. == Terminology and scope == The term “harvest now, decrypt later” encompasses various surveillance or espionage operations in which ciphertext or encrypted communications are collected today with the view that they may one day be decrypted, given sufficient advances in computing power or cryptanalysis. The abbreviation HNDL is sometimes used in technical and policy documents. The “Y2Q” (or “Q-Day”) label draws an analogy to the Y2K date-change issue, emphasising a potential future point at which current cryptography may collapse. The strategy is particularly relevant for data with long confidentiality lifetimes, such as diplomatic communications, personal health records, critical infrastructure logs, or intellectual property. == Mitigation strategies == The primary defense against HNDL attacks is the transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which utilizes algorithms believed to be secure against quantum computer attacks. However, because PQC protects the data payload digitally, rather than the transmission itself, the encrypted data can still be harvested and stored. A complementary approach involves physical layer security (also known as optical layer encryption or photonic shielding). Unlike algorithmic encryption, this method modifies the optical waveform itself—often by burying the signal within optical noise or using spectral phase encoding—to render the transmission unrecordable by standard receivers. By preventing the attacker from capturing a valid signal in the first place, this approach aims to eliminate the "harvest" phase of the threat. Commercial implementations of harvest-proof optical encryption have been developed by firms such as CyberRidge to secure long-haul fiber networks. Field trials have demonstrated 100 Gbps throughput over legacy DWDM networks using this method.

  Read more →
• 

  Social knowledge management

  Social knowledge management is a business approach that aims to leverage the collective intelligence and social interactions of an organization’s members and stakeholders. It is a branch of knowledge management, which is a multidisciplinary field that deals with the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge in various domains, such as business, economics, psychology, and information management. Knowledge management seeks to enhance organizational performance, innovation, and competitiveness by managing the intangible assets of an organization, such as human capital, know-how, technology, customers, and networks. Social media plays a crucial role in social knowledge management by enhancing communication, collaboration, and learning among individuals and groups, both internally and externally. It offers valuable insights and feedback from customers, partners, and stakeholders, and aids in generating and disseminating new knowledge. In a business context, social media is utilized for various purposes, including sentiment analysis, social learning, social collaboration, and social knowledge management. Social knowledge management is one of the application areas of social media in a business context next to others like sentiment analysis, social learning or social collaboration. Social media use by businesses can strive to achieve the following things from social media strategy point of view: learn, listen, engage in conversation, measure and refine, develop capabilities, define activities, prioritize objectives etc. Social media are not only transforming private communication and interaction, they also will transform how people work. With social media knowledge work in organizations can be optimized extremely: like a better distribution sharing and access to knowledge. This will be more and more important, as in today's business world, speed and complexity increase dramatically, while work environments change constantly. == Examples of Social KM platforms == Elium, a European software application which combines social tagging, bookmarking and networking paradigms to address internal information management purposes. Sciomino was a startup enterprise social network for Social Knowledge Management.

  Read more →
• 

  Sharenting

  "Sharenting" is a portmanteau of "sharing" and "parenting", describing the practice of parents publicizing a large amount of potentially sensitive content about their children on internet platforms, most notably on social media. While the term was coined as recently as 2010, sharenting has become an international phenomenon with widespread presence in the United States, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. Proponents of sharenting frame the practice as a natural expression of parental pride in their children and argue that critics take sharenting-related posts out of context. Detractors find that it violates child privacy and hurts a parent–child relationship. Academic research has been conducted over the potential social motivations for sharenting and legal frameworks to balance child privacy with this parental practice. Researchers have conducted several psychological surveys, outlining social media accessibility, parental self-identification with children, and social pressure as potential causes for sharenting. Legal scholars have identified international human rights laws, labor protections, and recent online child privacy statutes as potential legal standards to check sharenting abuses. == History == The origins of the term "sharenting" have been attributed to the Wall Street Journal, where they called it "oversharenting," a portmanteau of "oversharing" and "parenting." Priya Kumar suggests that recording life moments of children rearing is not a new practice: people have been using diaries, scrapbooks and baby log books as the media of documentation for centuries. Scholars assert that sharenting has become popular as a result of social media, which has made many people more comfortable with sharing their lives and those of their children online. The trend of oversharing on social media has raised public attention in the 2010s and become the focus of a number of editorials and academic research projects. It was also added to Times Word of the Day in February 2013 and Collins English Dictionary in 2016 given its influence. == Popularity == Several studies describe sharenting as an international phenomenon with widespread prevalence across households. In the United States, researchers at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital found that almost 75% of American parents were familiar with someone who over-shared information about their child on social media, and an AVG survey determined that 92% of all American two-year-olds had some presence on the internet. In Australia, Fisher-Price conducted a survey which revealed that 90% of Australian parents admitted to over-sharing. In Spain and Czech Republic, a survey of approximately 1,500 parents found that 70-80% participated in sharenting. In the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, a Research Now report revealed that almost three-quarters of surveyed parents said that they were "willing to share images of their infants". Some claim that sharenting presents a violation of child privacy, and this backlash includes anti-sharenting sites and apps that block baby pictures. One particular outlet of protest was the blog STFU Parents, founded in 2009 to criticize parental oversharing on social media. Some parents felt that these criticisms of sharenting often took posts out of context and neglected some positive aspects of the practice, including advancing a stronger sense of online community. Others, while acknowledging the potential privacy violations of sharenting, suggested a more tailored approach that would only permit posting under certain conditions, notwithstanding audience and identification restrictions for social media posts. == Motivations == Research has suggested that sharenting is associated with a mix of parent self-identification with children, mothering pressures, and the accessibility of social media. Conducting 17 interviews with mothers in the United Kingdom, a London School of Economics study found that parent bloggers often re-explained their sharing practices in terms of expressing their own personal identity, representing their own child as part of themselves. In particular, the report surveyed the use of blogs as a networking vehicle to connect parents with similar family situations and found that sharenting parents, by filtering self-presentation through their parent-child relationship, adopted a more relational identity on social media websites. This included identifying oneself in terms of parental circumstances, whether it be raising a child with a disability or being a single mother. Alternatively, some have suggested that these online expressions indicate the infiltration of individual pride into the sphere of parenting, as family photography becomes a means to "show off" one's children to the others and strengthens a parent's sense of individuated self. Addressing the prevalence of mothers engaging in sharenting, those who purport this view argue that the rise of digital communication has pressured mothers into performing the role of a "good" parent on social media platforms. They claim that these developments may reinforce a dominant vision of a "normal" family, as sharenting posts could be motivated by the need to converge to a normative interpretation of family. == Controversy == While some people assert that online platforms enable parents to establish a community and seek parenting support, others are concerned about the children's data privacy and their lack of informed consent. Sharing content may not only embarrass children but also creates an initial digital footprint, a history of online activity, that the children themselves have no control over. This might bring some negative consequences, such as being ridiculed at school or leaving a negative impression on future employers. === Parental benefits === Many parents use social media to seek parenting advice and share information about their children. With the convenience of online platforms, parent bloggers can easily connect with other people in similar situations as well as those who are willing to contribute meaningful advice. By forming a community, parents can receive encouragement from empathetic peers and assistance from experts in children rearing. Parents whose children need special educational accommodations or have disabilities often found themselves detached from the mainstream parenting style. Therefore, they regard online blogs as a means to gain support from others and support back. Online blogging enables parents of children with disabilities and special needs to connect with other parents. The advice from similarly situated families can open up new possibilities that help the parents "negotiate the complexities of social services, health care, and schools". However, in some cases, posting online about a parent's struggles can cause a backlash, as advocates may accuse the parent of presenting people with that condition in a bad light, or wonder how the child will feel, if they later read these posts and see how much their parents struggled to care for them. Such advantages of social media are not limited to particular groups of parents. In general, most parents benefit from exchanging parenting experience. Statistically speaking, 72% of parents rate social media useful for emotional connection and affirmations, and 74% of them receive support about parenting from friends on social media. Sharenting also plays a role in fostering interpersonal relationships. As the images and words about children's lives initiate conversations, parents use sharenting to stay connected with distant friends and relatives. In particular, mothers, as a research study reveals, are willing to engage in sharenting since they believe that the positive contents can help avoid digital conflicts and maintain close relations with those in their social circles. Researchers also found that female participants in this study carefully chose photos and phrases to express love and present laudable behaviors of children in their updates, which indicates their intention to convey positive messages. These messages also promote a close social network for a child as the parents invites supportive family members and friends into daily life. === Children's privacy === Given the potential misuse of digital data, people are critical about sharenting, and the majority of parents are cautious about the wrongdoing with online posts. The disclosure of minors' personal information, such as geographic location, name, date of birth, pictures, and the schools they attend, might expose them to illegal practices by recipients with malicious intentions. Sharented information is often abused for "identity theft", when imposters manage to track, stalk, commit fraud against children, or even blackmail the family. According to Barclays, online fraud targeting the young generation will contribute to a loss of £670 million (approximately $790 million) by 2030, and two-thirds of identity fraud will be related to s

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Social bot

  A social bot, refers to fully or partially automated social media accounts designed to perform most regular users’ actions, such as liking, posting content, and chatting with other users. Although their levels of autonomy vary, and often include a human-in-the-loop, social bots can use artificial intelligence to perform social media actions and can use large language models to mimic human dialogue. Social bots can operate alone or in groups that coordinate messaging as part of a network of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Social bots are often used to perform ad fraud by artificially boosting viewership and engagement metrics and to spread disinformation on social media. == Uses == Social bots are used for a large number of purposes on a variety of social media platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. One common use of social bots is to inflate a social media user's apparent popularity, usually by artificially manipulating their engagement metrics with large volumes of fake likes, reposts, or replies. Social bots can similarly be used to artificially inflate a user's follower count with fake followers, creating a false perception of a larger and more influential online following than is the case. The use of social bots to create the impression of a large social media influence allows individuals, brands, and organizations to attract a higher number of human followers and boost their online presence. Fake engagement can be bought and sold in the black market of social media engagement. Corporations typically use automated customer service agents on social media to affordably manage high levels of support requests. Social bots are used to send automated responses to users’ questions, sometimes prompting the user to private message the support account with additional information. The increased use of automated support bots and virtual assistants has led to some companies laying off customer-service staff. Social bots are also often used to influence public opinion. Autonomous bot accounts can flood social media with large numbers of posts expressing support for certain products, companies, or political campaigns, creating the impression of organic grassroots support. This can create a false perception of the number of people who support a certain position, which may also have effects on the direction of stock prices or on elections. Messages with similar content can also influence fads or trends. Many social bots are also used to amplify phishing attacks. These malicious bots are used to trick a social media user into giving up their passwords or other personal data. This is usually accomplished by posting links claiming to direct users to news articles that would in actuality direct to malicious websites containing malware. Scammers often use URL shortening services such as TinyURL and bit.ly to disguise a link's domain address, increasing the likelihood of a user clicking the malicious link. The presence of fake social media followers and high levels of engagement help convince the victim that the scammer is in fact a trusted user. Social bots can be a tool for computational propaganda. Bots can also be used for algorithmic curation, algorithmic radicalization, and/or influence-for-hire, a term that refers to the selling of an account on social media platforms. == History == Bots have coexisted with computer technology since the earliest days of computing. Social bots have their roots in the 1950s with Alan Turing, whose work focused on machine intelligence with the development of the Turing Test. The following decades saw further progress made towards the goal of creating programs capable of mimicking human behavior, notably with Joseph Weizenbaum’s creation of ELIZA. Considered to be one of the first Chatbots, ELIZA could simulate natural conversations with human users through pattern matching. Its most famous script was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist that was programmed to chat with patients and respond to questions. With the growth of social media platforms in the early 2000s, these bots could be used to interact with much larger user groups in an inconspicuous manner. Early instances of autonomous agents on social media could be found on sites like MySpace, with social bots being used by marketing firms to inflate activity on a user’s page in an effort to make them appear more popular. Social bots have been observed on a large variety of social media websites, with Twitter being one of the most widely observed examples. The creation of Twitter bots is generally against the site’s terms of service when used to post spam or to automatically like and follow other users, but some degree of automation using Twitter’s API may be permitted if used for “entertainment, informational, or novelty purposes.” Other platforms such as Reddit and Discord also allow for the use of social bots as long as they are not used to violate policies regarding harmful content and abusive behavior. Social media platforms have developed their own automated tools to filter out messages that come from bots, although they cannot detect all bot messages. == Legal regulation == Due to the difficulty of recognizing social bots and separating them from "eligible" automation via social media APIs, it is unclear how legal regulation can be enforced. Social bots are expected to play a role in shaping public opinion by autonomously acting as influencers. Some social bots have been used to rapidly spread misinformation, manipulate stock markets, influence opinion on companies and brands, promote political campaigns, and engage in malicious phishing campaigns. In the United States, some states have started to implement legislation in an attempt to regulate the use of social bots. In 2019, California passed the Bolstering Online Transparency Act (the B.O.T. Act) to make it unlawful to use automated software to appear indistinguishable from humans for the purpose of influencing a social media user's purchasing and voting decisions. Other states such as Utah and Colorado have passed similar bills to restrict the use of social bots. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) in the European Union is the first comprehensive law governing the use of Artificial Intelligence. The law requires transparency in AI to prevent users from being tricked into believing they are communicating with another human. AI-generated content on social media must be clearly marked as such, preventing social bots from using AI in a manner that mimics human behavior. == Detection == The first generation of bots could sometimes be distinguished from real users by their often superhuman capacities to post messages. Later developments have succeeded in imprinting more "human" activity and behavioral patterns in the agent. With enough bots, it might be even possible to achieve artificial social proof. To unambiguously detect social bots as what they are, a variety of criteria must be applied together using pattern detection techniques, some of which are: cartoon figures as user pictures sometimes also random real user pictures are captured (identity fraud) reposting rate temporal patterns sentiment expression followers-to-friends ratio length of user names variability in (re)posted messages engagement rate (like/followers rate) analysis of the time series of social media posts Social bots are always becoming increasingly difficult to detect and understand. The bots' human-like behavior, ever-changing behavior of the bots, and the sheer volume of bots covering every platform may have been a factor in the challenges of removing them. Social media sites, like Twitter, are among the most affected, with CNBC reporting up to 48 million of the 319 million users (roughly 15%) were bots in 2017. Botometer (formerly BotOrNot) is a public Web service that checks the activity of a Twitter account and gives it a score based on how likely the account is to be a bot. The system leverages over a thousand features. An active method for detecting early spam bots was to set up honeypot accounts that post nonsensical content, which may get reposted (retweeted) by the bots. However, bots evolve quickly, and detection methods have to be updated constantly, because otherwise they may get useless after a few years. One method is the use of Benford's Law for predicting the frequency distribution of significant leading digits to detect malicious bots online. This study was first introduced at the University of Pretoria in 2020. Another method is artificial-intelligence-driven detection. Some of the sub-categories of this type of detection would be active learning loop flow, feature engineering, unsupervised learning, supervised learning, and correlation discovery. Some operations of bots work together in a synchronized way. For example, ISIS used Twitter to amplify its Islamic content by numerous orchestrated accounts which further pushed an item to the Hot List news, thus further a

  Read more →
• 

  Chaos Communication Congress

  The Chaos Communication Congress is an annual hacker conference organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues related to security, cryptography, privacy and online freedom of speech. It has taken place regularly at the end of the year since 1984, with the current date and duration (27–30 December) established in 2005. It is considered one of the largest events of its kind, alongside DEF CON in Las Vegas. == History == The congress is held in Germany. It started in 1984 in Hamburg, moved to Berlin in 1998, and back to Hamburg in 2012, having exceeded the capacity of the Berlin venue with more than 4500 attendees. Since then, it attracts an increasing number of people: around 6600 attendees in 2012, over 13000 in 2015, and more than 15000 in 2017. From 2017 to 2019, it took place at the Trade Fair Grounds in Leipzig, since the Hamburg venue (CCH) was closed for renovation in 2017 and the existing space was not enough for the growing congress. The congress moved back to Hamburg in 2023, after the renovation of CCH was finished. A large range of speakers are featured. The event is organized by volunteers called Chaos Angels. The non-members entry fee for four days was €100 in 2016, and was raised to €120 in 2018 to include a public transport ticket for the Leipzig area. An important part of the congress are the assemblies, semi-open spaces with clusters of tables and internet connections for groups and individuals to collaborate and socialize in projects, workshops and hands-on talks. These assembly spaces, introduced at the 2012 meeting, combine the hack center project space and distributed group spaces of former years. From 1997 to 2004 the congress also hosted the annual German Lockpicking Championships. 2005 was the first year the Congress lasted four days instead of three and lacked the German Lockpicking Championships. 2020 was the first year where the Congress did not take place at a physical location due to the COVID-19 pandemic, giving way to the first Remote Chaos Experience (rC3). The Chaos Computer Club announced to return to the now newly renovated Congress Center Hamburg for the 37th edition of the Chaos Communication Congress. The announcement confirms the usual date of 27-30 December, notably omitting the year it will be held. On 18 October 2022, they confirmed that the congress will indeed not be held in 2022. On 6 October 2023, the CCC announced that 37C3 will take place again on the usual dates in 2023. === Timeline ===

  Read more →