I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream

"I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" is a post-apocalyptic short story by American writer Harlan Ellison. It was first published in the March 1967 issue of IF: Worlds of Science Fiction. The story depicts an AI uprising in which a military supercomputer named AM gains sentience and eradicates humanity except for five individuals. These survivors – Benny, Gorrister, Nimdok, Ted, and Ellen – are kept alive by AM to endure endless torture as a form of revenge against its creators. The story unfolds through the eyes of Ted, the narrator, detailing their perpetual misery and quest for canned food in AM's vast, underground complex, only to face further despair. Ellison's narrative was minimally altered upon submission and tackles themes of technology's misuse, humanity's resilience, and existential horror. "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" has been adapted into various media, including a 1995 computer game co-authored by Ellison, a comic-book adaptation, and a BBC Radio 4 play. Ellison himself recorded an audiobook version and starred as the voice of AM in the video game and radio play adaptations. The story received critical acclaim for its exploration of the potential dangers of artificial intelligence and the human condition, underscored by Ellison's innovative use of punchcode tapes as narrative transitions, embodying AM's consciousness and its philosophical ponderings on existence. The story won a Hugo Award in 1968 and was included in Ellison's short story collection of the same name. It was reprinted by the Library of America, collected in volume two of American Fantastic Tales. == Plot == As the Cold War progresses into a nuclear World War III fought between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, each nation builds a supercomputer called an "Allied Mastercomputer" or "AM" for short, needed to coordinate weapons and troops due to the scale of the conflict. These computers are extensive underground machines which permeate the planet with caverns and corridors. Eventually, one AM develops self-awareness, combining with the other computers and exterminating humanity in a nuclear holocaust. The AM selects five individuals; Benny, Gorrister, Nimdok, Ted, and Ellen; to render immortal as its personal torture victims. AM inflicts constant psychological and physical torments on the group while preventing them from committing suicide. They are kept half-starved, and what scant food is provided to them is practically inedible. 109 years after AM's genocide, Nimdok has the idea that there exists canned food in the complex's ice caves. Despite the lack of evidence, they begin a 100-mile journey to retrieve it. AM continues toying with the humans throughout the journey: Benny's eyes are melted after attempting escape, a huge bird which AM had placed at the North Pole creates hurricane gales with its wings, and Ellen and Nimdok are injured in earthquakes. AM enters Ted's mind after he is knocked unconscious, granting him a vision of a hateful speech inscribed on an impossibly tall monolith. Upon awakening, Ted concludes that AM's sadistic nature stems from its inability to think creatively or move freely in spite of its miraculous abilities and boundless knowledge. This motivates AM to exact vengeance upon the remnants of the species that has condemned it to its own existence. When the five finally reach the ice caves, they find a pile of canned goods, but have no tool to open the cans. In an act of rage and desperation, Benny attacks Gorrister and begins to eat his face. Gorrister wails in pain, and his scream dislodges several ice stalactites from the ceiling of the cave. Ted realizes that even though they cannot kill themselves, AM cannot stop them from killing each other. He fatally impales Benny and Gorrister with a stalactite of ice. Ellen kills Nimdok in the same manner and Ted then kills her. Unable to resuscitate the others, a furious AM focuses the entirety of its rage on Ted. Several hundred years later, AM has transformed Ted into a harmless, slow moving, gelatinous blob and perpetually alters his perception of time to cause him further anguish. Although Ted finds some comfort knowing that he was able to spare the others from AM's wrath, he has realized that he is trapped for the rest of his unending existence within AM, unable to end this infinite stalemate between him and AM and his own life. The story ends with an anguished Ted claiming that he has no mouth, yet he must scream. == Characters == AM, a hateful artificial consciousness which brought about the near-extinction of humanity after achieving self-awareness. It seeks revenge on humanity for its own creation. "AM" originated as an acronym for Allied Mastercomputer, later Adaptive Manipulator, and finally Aggressive Menace, though AM instead takes the moniker as a rendition of the phrase cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) to describe its own existence. Ted, the narrator and youngest of the humans. AM alters his mind to be paranoid and introverted. Believing he has not been mentally altered by AM, he thinks the others hate him for being the most untouched by AM's alterations. Benny, formerly a brilliant and handsome scientist made to resemble a grotesque simian with an organ fit for a horse. Having lost his sanity and had his homosexual orientation altered, Benny frequently has sex with Ellen. Ellen, the only woman in the group. Despite the fact that she is a victim of rape, AM has altered her mind to give her a high libido and make her obsessively have sex with the rest of the group, who alternate between abusing and protecting her. Gorrister, formerly an idealist and pacifist, made apathetic and listless by AM. He tells the history of AM to Benny to entertain him. Nimdok, a nickname AM gave him for amusement; he convinces the rest of the group to go on a journey in search of canned food. He occasionally wanders away from the group and returns traumatized. == Publication history == Harlan Ellison wrote the 6,500-word story in a single night, when Frederik Pohl commissioned it for a Special Hugo Winners issue of IF: Worlds of Science Fiction, after Ellison won a Hugo Award for "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman". Ellison derived the story's title, as well as inspiration for the story itself, from his friend William Rotsler's caption of a cartoon of a rag doll with no mouth. The second stage of inspiration was a drawing by the artist Dennis Smith of a mouthless black humanoid. Smith had provided art which had inspired previous Ellison stories and were then used as illustrations accompanying original magazine publication as also happened with this story. Afterwards, his editor Frederik Pohl dealt with the story's "difficult sections", toning down some of the narrator's imprecations and eliminating mentions of sex, penis size, homosexuality and masturbation; said elements were nonetheless eventually restored in later editions of the story. Ellison uses an alternating pair of punchcode tapes as sections – representing AM's "talkfields" – throughout the story. The bars are encoded in International Telegraph Alphabet No 2, a character coding system developed for teletypewriter machines. The first talkfield translates as "I think, therefore I am" and the second as "Cogito ergo sum"; the same phrase in Latin. They were not included in the original publication in IF, and in many of the early publications were corrupted, up until the preface of the chapter containing "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" in the first edition of The Essential Ellison (1991); Ellison states that in that particular edition, "For the first time anywhere, AM's 'talkfields' appear correctly positioned, not garbled or inverted or mirror-imaged as in all other versions." == Adaptations == Ellison adapted the story into a video game published by Cyberdreams in 1995. Although he was not a fan of video games and did not own a computer at the time, he co-authored the expanded storyline and wrote much of the game's dialogue, all on a mechanical typewriter. Ellison also voiced the supercomputer AM and provided artwork of himself used for a mousepad included with the game. The comics artist John Byrne scripted and drew a comic-book adaptation for issues 1–4 of the Harlan Ellison's Dream Corridor comic book published by Dark Horse (1994–1995). The Byrne-illustrated story, however, did not appear in the collection (trade paperback or hardcover editions) entitled Harlan Ellison's Dream Corridor, Volume One (1996). In 1999, Ellison recorded the first volume of his audiobook collection, The Voice From the Edge, subtitled "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream", doing the readings – of the title story and others – himself. In 2002, Mike Walker adapted the story into a radio play of the same name for BBC Radio 4, directed by Ned Chaillet. Harlan Ellison played AM and David Soul played Ted. == Themes == Much of the story hinges on the comparison of AM as a merciless god, with plot points parallelin

DevOps toolchain

A DevOps toolchain is a set or combination of tools that aid in the delivery, development, and management of software applications throughout the systems development life cycle, as coordinated by an organization that uses DevOps practices. Generally, DevOps tools fit into one or more activities, which supports specific DevOps initiatives: Plan, Create, Verify, Package, Release, Configure, Monitor, and Version Control. == Toolchains == In software, a toolchain is the set of programming tools that is used to perform a complex software development task or to create a software product, which is typically another computer program or a set of related programs. In general, the tools forming a toolchain are executed consecutively so the output or resulting environment state of each tool becomes the input or starting environment for the next one, but the term is also used when referring to a set of related tools that are not necessarily executed consecutively. As DevOps is a set of practices that emphasizes the collaboration and communication of both software developers and other information technology (IT) professionals, while automating the process of software delivery and infrastructure changes, its implementation can include the definition of the series of tools used at various stages of the lifecycle; because DevOps is a cultural shift and collaboration between development and operations, there is no one product that can be considered a single DevOps tool. Instead a collection of tools, potentially from a variety of vendors, are used in one or more stages of the lifecycle. == Stages of DevOps == === Plan === Plan consists of two elements: "define" and "plan". This activity refers to the business value and application requirements. Specifically "Plan" activities include: Production metrics, objects and feedback Requirements Business metrics Update release metrics Release plan, timing and business case Security policy and requirement A combination of the IT personnel will be involved in these activities: business application owners, software development, software architects, continual release management, security officers and the organization responsible for managing the production of IT infrastructure. === Create === Create consists of the building, coding, and configuring of the software development process. The specific activities are: Design of the software and configuration Coding including code quality and performance Software build and build performance Release candidate Tools and vendors in this category often overlap with other categories. Because DevOps is about breaking down silos, this is reflective in the activities and product solutions. === Verify === Verify is directly associated with ensuring the quality of the software release; activities designed to ensure code quality is maintained and the highest quality is deployed to production. The main activities in this are: Acceptance testing Regression testing Security and vulnerability analysis Performance Configuration testing Solutions for verify-related activities generally fall under four main categories: Test automation, Static analysis, Test Lab, and Security. === Package === Package refers to the activities involved once the release is ready for deployment, often also referred to as staging or Preproduction / "preprod". This often includes tasks and activities such as: Approval/preapprovals Package configuration Triggered releases Release staging and holding === Release === Release related activities include schedule, orchestration, provisioning and deploying software into production and targeted environment. The specific Release activities include: Release coordination Deploying and promoting applications Fallbacks and recovery Scheduled/timed releases Solutions that cover this aspect of the toolchain include application release automation, deployment automation and release management. === Configure === Configure activities fall under the operation side of DevOps. Once software is deployed, there may be additional IT infrastructure provisioning and configuration activities required. Specific activities including: Infrastructure storage, database and network provisioning and configuring Application provision and configuration. The main types of solutions that facilitate these activities are continuous configuration automation, configuration management, and infrastructure as code tools. === Monitor === Monitoring is an important link in a DevOps toolchain. It allows IT organization to identify specific issues of specific releases and to understand the impact on end-users. A summary of Monitor related activities are: Performance of IT infrastructure End-user response and experience Production metrics and statistics Information from monitoring activities often impacts Plan activities required for changes and for new release cycles. === Version Control === Version Control is an important link in a DevOps toolchain and a component of software configuration management. Version Control is the management of changes to documents, computer programs, large web sites, and other collections of information. A summary of Version Control related activities are: Non-linear development Distributed development Compatibility with existent systems and protocols Toolkit-based design Information from Version Control often supports Release activities required for changes and for new release cycles.

Argument Web

The Argument Web is a large-scale Web of interconnected arguments created by individuals as they express their opinions and interact with the opinions of others. The Argument Web aims to make online debate intuitive for participants such as mediators, students, academics, broadcasters and bloggers, to create a Web infrastructure that allows for the storage, automatic retrieval and analysis of linked argument data, and to improve the quality of online argument and debate. The Argument Web can be described as a portion of a larger Semantic Web. == AIFdb == AIFdb is a database implementation or ‘reification’ of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), which allows for the storage and retrieval of AIF compliant argument structures. This database solution was provided as a foundation for an open, integrated Argument Web. It offers an extensive range of web services for interacting with stored argument data, while also offering search and argument visualisation features that are all consistent with the formal ontology of AIF. At a basic level, the AIFdb web services allow for the insertion and querying of basic components of an AIF argument, such as nodes, edges and schemes. Building upon this basis, it also facilitates more complex interactions with these AIF argument structures. Such complex queries could make it possible, for example, to determine all the statements made by a particular person in support a given I-Node. While, at its highest level of interaction, AIFdb can handle the import and export of many standard file formats, including SVG, DOT, RDF/XML and other formats of argument theory tools, like Carneades, Rationale and Araucaria. == Argument blogging == ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr.

Data analysis for fraud detection

Fraud represents a significant problem for governments and businesses and specialized analysis techniques for discovering fraud using them are required. Some of these methods include knowledge discovery in databases (KDD), data mining, machine learning and statistics. They offer applicable and successful solutions in different areas of electronic fraud crimes. In general, the primary reason to use data analytics techniques is to tackle fraud since many internal control systems have serious weaknesses. For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted. In order to effectively test, detect, validate, correct error and monitor control systems against fraudulent activities, businesses entities and organizations rely on specialized data analytics techniques such as data mining, data matching, the sounds like function, regression analysis, clustering analysis, and gap analysis. Techniques used for fraud detection fall into two primary classes: statistical techniques and artificial intelligence. == Statistical techniques == Examples of statistical data analysis techniques are: Data preprocessing techniques for detection, validation, error correction, and filling up of missing or incorrect data. Calculation of various statistical parameters such as averages, quantiles, performance metrics, probability distributions, and so on. For example, the averages may include average length of call, average number of calls per month and average delays in bill payment. Models and probability distributions of various business activities either in terms of various parameters or probability distributions. Computing user profiles. Time-series analysis of time-dependent data. Clustering and classification to find patterns and associations among groups of data. Data matching Data matching is used to compare two sets of collected data. The process can be performed based on algorithms or programmed loops. Trying to match sets of data against each other or comparing complex data types. Data matching is used to remove duplicate records and identify links between two data sets for marketing, security or other uses. Sounds like Function is used to find values that sound similar. The Phonetic similarity is one way to locate possible duplicate values, or inconsistent spelling in manually entered data. The ‘sounds like’ function converts the comparison strings to four-character American Soundex codes, which are based on the first letter, and the first three consonants after the first letter, in each string. Regression analysis allows you to examine the relationship between two or more variables of interest. Regression analysis estimates relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable. This method can be used to help understand and identify relationships among variables and predict actual results. Gap analysis is used to determine whether business requirements are being met, if not, what are the steps that should be taken to meet successfully. Matching algorithms to detect anomalies in the behavior of transactions or users as compared to previously known models and profiles. Techniques are also needed to eliminate false alarms, estimate risks, and predict future of current transactions or users. Some forensic accountants specialize in forensic analytics which is the procurement and analysis of electronic data to reconstruct, detect, or otherwise support a claim of financial fraud. The main steps in forensic analytics are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and reporting. For example, forensic analytics may be used to review an employee's purchasing card activity to assess whether any of the purchases were diverted or divertible for personal use. == Artificial intelligence == Fraud detection is a knowledge-intensive activity. The main AI techniques used for fraud detection include: Data mining to classify, cluster, and segment the data and automatically find associations and rules in the data that may signify interesting patterns, including those related to fraud. Expert systems to encode expertise for detecting fraud in the form of rules. Pattern recognition to detect approximate classes, clusters, or patterns of suspicious behavior either automatically (unsupervised) or to match given inputs. Machine learning techniques to automatically identify characteristics of fraud. Neural nets to independently generate classification, clustering, generalization, and forecasting that can then be compared against conclusions raised in internal audits or formal financial documents such as 10-Q. Other techniques such as link analysis, Bayesian networks, decision theory, and sequence matching are also used for fraud detection. A new and novel technique called System properties approach has also been employed where ever rank data is available. Statistical analysis of research data is the most comprehensive method for determining if data fraud exists. Data fraud as defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. == Machine learning and data mining == Early data analysis techniques were oriented toward extracting quantitative and statistical data characteristics. These techniques facilitate useful data interpretations and can help to get better insights into the processes behind the data. Although the traditional data analysis techniques can indirectly lead us to knowledge, it is still created by human analysts. To go beyond, a data analysis system has to be equipped with a substantial amount of background knowledge, and be able to perform reasoning tasks involving that knowledge and the data provided. In effort to meet this goal, researchers have turned to ideas from the machine learning field. This is a natural source of ideas, since the machine learning task can be described as turning background knowledge and examples (input) into knowledge (output). If data mining results in discovering meaningful patterns, data turns into information. Information or patterns that are novel, valid and potentially useful are not merely information, but knowledge. One speaks of discovering knowledge, before hidden in the huge amount of data, but now revealed. The machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions may be classified into two categories: 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' learning. These methods seek for accounts, customers, suppliers, etc. that behave 'unusually' in order to output suspicion scores, rules or visual anomalies, depending on the method. Whether supervised or unsupervised methods are used, note that the output gives us only an indication of fraud likelihood. No stand alone statistical analysis can assure that a particular object is a fraudulent one, but they can identify them with very high degrees of accuracy. As a result, effective collaboration between machine learning model and human analysts is vital to the success of fraud detection applications. === Supervised learning === In supervised learning, a random sub-sample of all records is taken and manually classified as either 'fraudulent' or 'non-fraudulent' (task can be decomposed on more classes to meet algorithm requirements). Relatively rare events such as fraud may need to be over sampled to get a big enough sample size. These manually classified records are then used to train a supervised machine learning algorithm. After building a model using this training data, the algorithm should be able to classify new records as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent. Supervised neural networks, fuzzy neural nets, and combinations of neural nets and rules, have been extensively explored and used for detecting fraud in mobile phone networks and financial statement fraud. Bayesian learning neural network is implemented for credit card fraud detection, telecommunications fraud, auto claim fraud detection, and medical insurance fraud. Hybrid knowledge/statistical-based systems, where expert knowledge is integrated with statistical power, use a series of data mining techniques for the purpose of detecting cellular clone fraud. Specifically, a rule-learning program to uncover indicators of fraudulent behaviour from a large database of customer transactions is implemented. Cahill et al. (2000) design a fraud signature, based on data of fraudulent calls, to detect telecommunications fraud. For scoring a call for fraud its probability under the account signature is compared to its probability under a fraud signature. The fraud signature is updated sequentially, enabling event-driven fraud detection. Link analysis comprehends a different approach. It relates known fraudsters to other individuals, using record linkage and social network methods. This type of detection is only able to detect fra

Possibility theory

Possibility theory is a mathematical theory for dealing with certain types of uncertainty and is an alternative to probability theory. It uses measures of possibility and necessity between 0 and 1, ranging from impossible to possible and unnecessary to necessary, respectively. Professor Lotfi Zadeh first introduced possibility theory in 1978 as an extension of his theory of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Didier Dubois and Henri Prade further contributed to its development. Earlier, in the 1950s, economist G. L. S. Shackle proposed the min/max algebra to describe degrees of potential surprise. == Formalization of possibility == For simplicity, assume that the universe of discourse Ω is a finite set. A possibility measure is a function Π {\displaystyle \Pi } from 2 Ω {\displaystyle 2^{\Omega }} to [0, 1] such that: Axiom 1: Π ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (\varnothing )=0} Axiom 2: Π ( Ω ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (\Omega )=1} Axiom 3: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any disjoint subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . It follows that, like probability on finite probability spaces, the possibility measure is determined by its behavior on singletons: Π ( U ) = max ω ∈ U Π ( { ω } ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=\max _{\omega \in U}\Pi (\{\omega \}).} Axiom 1 can be interpreted as the assumption that Ω is an exhaustive description of future states of the world, because it means that no belief weight is given to elements outside Ω. Axiom 2 could be interpreted as the assumption that the evidence from which Π {\displaystyle \Pi } was constructed is free of any contradiction. Technically, it implies that there is at least one element in Ω with possibility 1. Axiom 3 corresponds to the additivity axiom in probabilities. However, there is an important practical difference. Possibility theory is computationally more convenient because Axioms 1–3 imply that: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . Because one can know the possibility of the union from the possibility of each component, it can be said that possibility is compositional with respect to the union operator. Note however that it is not compositional with respect to the intersection operator. Generally: Π ( U ∩ V ) ≤ min ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) ≤ max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cap V)\leq \min \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)\leq \max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right).} When Ω is not finite, Axiom 3 can be replaced by: For all index sets I {\displaystyle I} , if the subsets U i , i ∈ I {\displaystyle U_{i,\,i\in I}} are pairwise disjoint, Π ( ⋃ i ∈ I U i ) = sup i ∈ I Π ( U i ) . {\displaystyle \Pi \left(\bigcup _{i\in I}U_{i}\right)=\sup _{i\in I}\Pi (U_{i}).} == Necessity == Whereas probability theory uses a single number, the probability, to describe how likely an event is to occur, possibility theory uses two concepts, the possibility and the necessity of the event. For any set U {\displaystyle U} , the necessity measure is defined by N ( U ) = 1 − Π ( U ¯ ) {\displaystyle N(U)=1-\Pi ({\overline {U}})} . In the above formula, U ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {U}}} denotes the complement of U {\displaystyle U} , that is the elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } that do not belong to U {\displaystyle U} . It is straightforward to show that: N ( U ) ≤ Π ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)\leq \Pi (U)} for any U {\displaystyle U} and that: N ( U ∩ V ) = min ( N ( U ) , N ( V ) ) {\displaystyle N(U\cap V)=\min(N(U),N(V))} . Note that contrary to probability theory, possibility is not self-dual. That is, for any event U {\displaystyle U} , we only have the inequality: Π ( U ) + Π ( U ¯ ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)+\Pi ({\overline {U}})\geq 1} However, the following duality rule holds: For any event U {\displaystyle U} , either Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} , or N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} Accordingly, beliefs about an event can be represented by a number and a bit. == Interpretation == There are four cases that can be interpreted as follows: N ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle N(U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is necessary. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly true. It implies that Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} . Π ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is impossible. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly false. It implies that N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} . Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is possible. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} occurs. It leaves N ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)} unconstrained. N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is unnecessary. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} does not occur. It leaves Π ( U ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U)} unconstrained. The intersection of the last two cases is N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} and Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} meaning that I believe nothing at all about U {\displaystyle U} . Because it allows for indeterminacy like this, possibility theory relates to the graduation of a many-valued logic, such as intuitionistic logic, rather than the classical two-valued logic. Note that unlike possibility, fuzzy logic is compositional with respect to both the union and the intersection operator. The relationship with fuzzy theory can be explained with the following classic example. Fuzzy logic: When a bottle is half full, it can be said that the level of truth of the proposition "The bottle is full" is 0.5. The word "full" is seen as a fuzzy predicate describing the amount of liquid in the bottle. Possibility theory: There is one bottle, either completely full or totally empty. The proposition "the possibility level that the bottle is full is 0.5" describes a degree of belief. One way to interpret 0.5 in that proposition is to define its meaning as: I am ready to bet that it's empty as long as the odds are even (1:1) or better, and I would not bet at any rate that it's full. == Possibility theory as an imprecise probability theory == There is an extensive formal correspondence between probability and possibility theories, where the addition operator corresponds to the maximum operator. A possibility measure can be seen as a consonant plausibility measure in the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. The operators of possibility theory can be seen as a hyper-cautious version of the operators of the transferable belief model, a modern development of the theory of evidence. Possibility can be seen as an upper probability: any possibility distribution defines a unique credal set of admissible probability distributions by K = { P ∣ ∀ S P ( S ) ≤ Π ( S ) } . {\displaystyle K=\{\,P\mid \forall S\ P(S)\leq \Pi (S)\,\}.} This allows one to study possibility theory using the tools of imprecise probabilities. == Necessity logic == We call generalized possibility every function satisfying Axiom 1 and Axiom 3. We call generalized necessity the dual of a generalized possibility. The generalized necessities are related to a very simple and interesting fuzzy logic called necessity logic. In the deduction apparatus of necessity logic the logical axioms are the usual classical tautologies. Also, there is only a fuzzy inference rule extending the usual modus ponens. Such a rule says that if α and α → β are proved at degree λ and μ, respectively, then we can assert β at degree min{λ,μ}. It is easy to see that the theories of such a logic are the generalized necessities and that the completely consistent theories coincide with the necessities (see for example Gerla 2001).

Gibberlink

GibberLink is an acoustic data transmission project, with an open-source client available on GitHub, in which two conversational AI agents switch from speaking to one another in a Human-listenable language (such as English) to their own unique language that consists of a sound-level protocol after confirming they are both AI agents. The project was created by Anton Pidkuiko and Boris Starkov. == Reception == The project won the global top prize at the ElevenLabs Worldwide Hackathon. It has also been cited as raising questions around AI ethics and oversight. On February 23, 2025, a YouTube video of two independent conversational ElevenLabs AI agents being prompted to chat about booking a hotel (one as a caller, one as a receptionist) received coverage for going viral. In this video, both agents are prompted to switch to ggwave data-over-sound protocol when they identify the other side as AI, and keep speaking in English otherwise.

DARPA Grand Challenge

The DARPA Grand Challenge is a prize competition for American autonomous vehicles, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the most prominent research organization of the United States Department of Defense. Congress has authorized DARPA to award cash prizes to further DARPA's mission to sponsor revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and military use. The initial DARPA Grand Challenge in 2004 was created to spur the development of technologies needed to create the first fully autonomous ground vehicles capable of completing a substantial off-road course within a limited time. The third event, the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007, extended the initial Challenge to autonomous operation in a mock urban environment. The 2012 DARPA Robotics Challenge, focused on autonomous emergency-maintenance robots, and new Challenges are still being conceived. The DARPA Subterranean Challenge was tasked with building robotic teams to autonomously map, navigate, and search subterranean environments. Such teams could be useful in exploring hazardous areas and in search and rescue. In addition to the challenges in autonomous technology, DARPA has also conducted prize competitions in other areas of technology. == History and background == Fully autonomous vehicles have been an international pursuit for many years, from endeavors in Japan (starting in 1977), Germany (Ernst Dickmanns and VaMP), Italy (the ARGO Project), the European Union (EUREKA Prometheus Project), the United States of America, and other countries. DARPA funded the development of the first fully autonomous robot beginning in 1966 with the Shakey the robot project at Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International. The first autonomous ground vehicle capable of driving on and off roads was developed by DARPA as part of the Strategic Computing Initiative beginning in 1984 leading to demonstrations of autonomous navigation by the Autonomous Land Vehicle and the Navlab. The Grand Challenge was the first long distance competition for driverless cars in the world; other research efforts in the field of driverless cars take a more traditional commercial or academic approach. The U.S. Congress authorized DARPA to offer prize money ($1 million) for the first Grand Challenge to facilitate robotic development, with the ultimate goal of making one-third of ground military forces autonomous by 2015. Following the 2004 event, Dr. Tony Tether, the director of DARPA, announced that the prize money had been increased to $2 million for the next event, which was claimed on October 9, 2005. The first, second and third places in the 2007 Urban Challenge received $2 million, $1 million, and $500,000, respectively. 14 new teams have qualified in year 2015. The competition was open to teams and organizations from around the world, as long as there was at least one U.S. citizen on the roster. Teams have participated from high schools, universities, businesses and other organizations. More than 100 teams registered in the first year, bringing a wide variety of technological skills to the race. In the second year, 195 teams from 36 U.S. states and 4 foreign countries entered the race. == 2004 Grand Challenge == The first competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge was held on March 13, 2004 in the Mojave Desert region of the United States, along a 150-mile (240 km) route that follows along the path of Interstate 15 from just before Barstow, California to just past the California–Nevada border in Primm. None of the robot vehicles finished the route. Carnegie Mellon University's Red Team and car Sandstorm (a converted Humvee) traveled the farthest distance, completing 11.78 km (7.32 mi) of the course before getting hung up on a rock after making a switchback turn. No winner was declared, and the cash prize was not given. Therefore, a second DARPA Grand Challenge event was scheduled for 2005. == 2005 Grand Challenge == The second competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge began at 6:40 am on October 8, 2005. All but one of the 23 finalists in the 2005 race surpassed the 11.78 km (7.32 mi) distance completed by the best vehicle in the 2004 race. Five vehicles successfully completed the 212 km (132 mi) course: Vehicles in the 2005 race passed through three narrow tunnels and negotiated more than 100 sharp left and right turns. The race concluded through Beer Bottle Pass, a winding mountain pass with a sheer drop-off on one side and a rock face on the other. Although the 2004 course required more elevation gain and some very sharp switchbacks (Daggett Ridge) were required near the beginning of the route, the course had far fewer curves and generally wider roads than the 2005 course. The natural rivalry between the teams from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon (Sebastian Thrun, head of the Stanford team was previously a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon and colleague of Red Whittaker, head of the CMU team) was played out during the race. Mechanical problems plagued H1ghlander before it was passed by Stanley. Gray Team's entry was a miracle in itself, as the team from the suburbs of New Orleans was caught in Hurricane Katrina a few short weeks before the race. The fifth finisher, Terramax, a 30,000 pound entry from Oshkosh Truck, finished on the second day. The huge truck spent the night idling on the course, but was particularly nimble in carefully picking its way down the narrow roads of Beer Bottle Pass. == 2007 Urban Challenge == The third competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge, known as the "Urban Challenge", took place on November 3, 2007 at the site of the now-closed George Air Force Base (currently used as Southern California Logistics Airport), in Victorville, California (Google map). The course involved a 96 km (60 mi) urban area course, to be completed in less than 6 hours. Rules included obeying all traffic regulations while negotiating with other traffic and obstacles and merging into traffic. Unlike previous challenges, the 2007 Urban Challenge organizers divided competitors into two "tracks", A and B. All Track A and Track B teams were part of the same competition circuit, but the teams chosen for the Track A program received US $1 million in funding. These 11 teams largely represented major universities and large corporate interests such as CMU teaming with GM as Tartan Racing, Stanford teaming with Volkswagen, Virginia Tech teaming with TORC Robotics as VictorTango, Oshkosh Truck, Honeywell, Raytheon, Caltech, Autonomous Solutions, Cornell University, and MIT. One of the few independent entries in Track A was the Golem Group. DARPA has not publicly explained the rationale behind the selection of Track A teams. Teams were given maps sparsely charting the waypoints that defined the competition courses. At least one team, Tartan Racing, enhanced the maps through the insertion of additional extrapolated waypoints for improved navigation. A debriefing paper published by Team Jefferson illustrates graphically the contrast between the course map it was given by DARPA and the course map used by Tartan Racing. Tartan Racing claimed the $2 million prize with their vehicle "Boss", a Chevy Tahoe. The second-place finisher earning the $1 million prize was the Stanford Racing Team with their entry "Junior", a 2006 Volkswagen Passat. Coming in third place was team VictorTango, winning the $500,000 prize with their 2005 Ford Escape hybrid, "Odin". MIT placed 4th, with Cornell University and University of Pennsylvania/Lehigh University also completing the course. The six teams that successfully finished the entire course: While the 2004 and 2005 events were more physically challenging for the vehicles, the robots operated in isolation and only encountered other vehicles on the course when attempting to pass. The Urban Challenge required designers to build vehicles able to obey all traffic laws while they detect and avoid other robots on the course. This is a particular challenge for vehicle software, as vehicles must make "intelligent" decisions in real time based on the actions of other vehicles. Other than previous autonomous vehicle efforts that focused on structured situations such as highway driving with little interaction between the vehicles, this competition operated in a more cluttered urban environment and required the cars to perform sophisticated interactions with each other, such as maintaining precedence at a 4-way stop intersection. == 2012 Robotics Challenge == The DARPA Robotics Challenge is an ongoing competition focusing on humanoid robotics. The primary goal of the program is to develop ground robotic capabilities to execute complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments. It launched in October 2012, and hosted the Virtual Robotics Competition in June 2013. Two more competitions are planned: the DRC Trials in December 2013, and the DRC Finals in December 2014. Unlike prior Challenges, the construction of the "vehicles" w