Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is a cryptocurrency that is a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was created in November 2018 by a group of individuals led by Craig Steven Wright, who has claimed since 2015 to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the original bitcoin. == History == === 2018 split from Bitcoin Cash === On 15 November 2018, a hard fork chain split of Bitcoin Cash occurred between two rival factions called Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. On 15 November 2018 Bitcoin Cash traded at about $289, and Bitcoin SV traded at about $96.50, down from $425.01 on 14 November for the un-split Bitcoin Cash. The split originated from what was described as a "civil war" in two competing Bitcoin Cash camps. The first camp, supported by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap), which would maintain the block size at 32 MB. The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which would increase the block size limit to 128 MB. === 2019 de-listing from Binance === In April 2019, an online feud broke out between those who supported the claims of Bitcoin SV supporter Craig Wright that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, and those who did not. The feud resulted in cryptocurrency exchange Binance de-listing Bitcoin SV from their platform, stating that: At Binance, we periodically review each digital asset we list to ensure that it continues to meet the high level of standard we expect. When a coin or token no longer meets this standard, or the industry changes, we conduct a more in-depth review and potentially delist it. We believe this best protects all of our users. When we conduct these reviews, we consider a variety of factors. Here are some that drive whether we decide to delist a digital asset: Commitment of team to project Level and quality of development activity Network / smart contract stability Level of public communication Responsiveness to our periodic due diligence requests Evidence of unethical / fraudulent conduct Contribution to a healthy and sustainable crypto ecosystem === 2021 network attack === In August 2021, Bitcoin SV suffered a 51% attack, after previously suffering attacks in June and July of the same year. Such an attack involves cryptocurrency miners gaining control of more than half of a network's computing power; these kinds of network attacks have the goal of preventing new transactions from gaining confirmations, allowing the attackers to double-spend coins. Adam James, senior editor at OKEx Insights claimed that "In the intermediate term, the attack has seemingly somewhat-negligible impact on its current price action," however "Faith in [Bitcoin SV] will likely be reduced following the incident." === 2024 high court ruling === In March 2024, Mr Justice James Mellor in the British High Court ruled that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Flat-field correction
Flat-field correction (FFC) is a digital imaging technique to mitigate pixel-to-pixel differences in the photodetector sensitivity and distortions in the optical path. It is a standard calibration procedure in everything from personal digital cameras to large telescopes. == Overview == Flat fielding refers to the process of compensating for different gains and dark currents in a detector. Once a detector has been appropriately flat-fielded, a uniform signal will create a uniform output (hence flat-field). This then means any further signal is due to the phenomenon being detected and not a systematic error. A flat-field image is acquired by imaging a uniformly-illuminated screen, thus producing an image of uniform color and brightness across the frame. For handheld cameras, the screen could be a piece of paper at arm's length, but a telescope will frequently image a clear patch of sky at twilight, when the illumination is uniform and there are few, if any, stars visible. Once the images are acquired, processing can begin. A flat-field consists of two numbers for each pixel, the pixel's gain and its dark current (or dark frame). The pixel's gain is how the amount of signal given by the detector varies as a function of the amount of light (or equivalent). The gain is almost always a linear variable, as such the gain is given simply as the ratio of the input and output signals. The dark-current is the amount of signal given out by the detector when there is no incident light (hence dark frame). In many detectors this can also be a function of time, for example in astronomical telescopes it is common to take a dark-frame of the same time as the planned light exposure. The gain and dark-frame for optical systems can also be established by using a series of neutral density filters to give input/output signal information and applying a least squares fit to obtain the values for the dark current and gain. C = ( R − D ) × m ( F − D ) = ( R − D ) × G {\displaystyle C={\frac {(R-D)\times m}{(F-D)}}=(R-D)\times G} where: C = corrected image R = raw image F = flat field image D = dark frame image m = image-averaged value of (F−D) G = Gain = m ( F − D ) {\displaystyle m \over (F-D)} In this equation, capital letters are 2D matrices, and lowercase letters are scalars. All matrix operations are performed element-by-element. In order for an astrophotographer to capture a light frame, they must place a light source over the imaging instrument's objective lens such that the light source emanates evenly through the users optics. The photographer must then adjust the exposure of their imaging device (charge-coupled device (CCD) or digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) ) so that when the histogram of the image is viewed, a peak reaching about 40–70% of the dynamic range (maximum range of pixel values) of the imaging device is seen. The photographer typically takes 15–20 light frames and performs median stacking. Once the desired light frames are acquired, the objective lens is covered so that no light is allowed in, then 15–20 dark frames are taken, each of equal exposure time as a light frame. These are called Dark-Flat frames. == In X-ray imaging == In X-ray imaging, the acquired projection images generally suffer from fixed-pattern noise, which is one of the limiting factors of image quality. It may stem from beam inhomogeneity, gain variations of the detector response due to inhomogeneities in the photon conversion yield, losses in charge transport, charge trapping, or variations in the performance of the readout. Also, the scintillator screen may accumulate dust and/or scratches on its surface, resulting in systematic patterns in every acquired X-ray projection image. In X-ray computed tomography (CT), fixed-pattern noise is known to significantly degrade the achievable spatial resolution and generally leads to ring or band artifacts in the reconstructed images. Fixed pattern noise can be easily removed using flat field correction. In conventional flat field correction, projection images without sample are acquired with and without the X-ray beam turned on, which are referred to as flat fields (F) and dark fields (D). Based on the acquired flat and dark fields, the measured projection images (P) with sample are then normalized to new images (N) according to: N = ( P − D ) ( F − D ) {\displaystyle N={\frac {(P-D)}{(F-D)}}} == Dynamic flat field correction == While conventional flat field correction is an elegant and easy procedure that largely reduces fixed-pattern noise, it heavily relies on the stationarity of the X-ray beam, scintillator response and CCD sensitivity. In practice, however, this assumption is only approximately met. Indeed, detector elements are characterized by intensity dependent, nonlinear response functions and the incident beam often shows time dependent non-uniformities, which render conventional FFC inadequate. In synchrotron X-ray tomography, many factors may cause flat field variations: instability of the bending magnets of the synchrotron, temperature variations due to the water cooling in mirrors and the monochromator, or vibrations of the scintillator and other beamline components. The latter is responsible for the biggest variations in the flat fields. To deal with such variations, a dynamic flat field correction procedure can be employed that estimates a flat field for each individual projection. Through principal component analysis of a set of flat fields, which are acquired prior and/or posterior to the actual scan, eigen flat fields can be computed. A linear combination of the most important eigen flat fields can then be used to individually normalize each X-ray projection: N j = P j − D ¯ F ¯ + ∑ k w j k u k − D ¯ {\displaystyle N_{j}={\frac {P_{j}-{\bar {D}}}{{\bar {F}}+\sum _{k}w_{jk}u_{k}-{\bar {D}}}}} where N j {\displaystyle N_{j}} = intensity normalized X-ray projection P j {\displaystyle P_{j}} = raw X-ray projection F ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {F}}} = mean flat field image (average of flat fields) u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} = k-th eigen flat field w j k {\displaystyle w_{jk}} = weight of the eigen flat field u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} D ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {D}}} = mean dark field (average of dark fields)
Intent-based network
Intent-Based Networking (IBN) is an approach to network management that shifts the focus from manually configuring individual devices to specifying desired outcomes or business objectives, referred to as "intents". == Description == Rather than relying on low-level commands to configure the network, administrators define these high-level intents, and the network dynamically adjusts itself to meet these requirements. IBN simplifies the management of complex networks by ensuring that the network infrastructure aligns with the desired operational goals. For example, an implementer can explicitly state a network purpose with a policy such as "Allow hosts A and B to communicate with X bandwidth capacity" without the need to understand the detailed mechanisms of the underlying devices (e.g. switches), topology or routing configurations. == Architecture == Advances in Natural Language Understanding (NLU) systems, along with neural network-based algorithms like BERT, RoBERTa, GLUE, and ERNIE, have enabled the conversion of user queries into structured representations that can be processed by automated services. This capability is crucial for managing the increasing complexity of network services. Intent-Based Networking (IBN) leverages these advancements to simplify network management by abstracting network services, reducing operational complexity, and lowering costs. A proposed three-layered architecture integrates intent-based automation into network management systems. In the business layer, intents are based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs), reflecting business objectives. The intent layer evaluates and re-plans actions dynamically, where a Knowledge module abstracts and reasons about intents, while an Agent interfaces with network objects to execute actions. The data layer observes network objects, updates topology information, and interacts with the Knowledge and Agent modules to ensure accurate and timely responses to network changes. At the bottom, the network layer contains the physical infrastructure, transforming network data into a usable format for the intent layer to act upon.
Eduroam
eduroam (a portmanteau of education and roaming) is an international Wi-Fi internet access roaming service for users in research, higher education and further education. It provides researchers, teachers, and students network access when visiting an institution other than their own. Users are authenticated with credentials from their home institution, regardless of the location of the eduroam access point. Authorization to access the Internet and other resources are handled by the visited institution. Users do not have to pay to use eduroam. In some countries, Internet access via eduroam is also available at other locations than the participating institutions, e.g. in libraries, public buildings, railway stations, city centres and airports. It is also available at many primary and secondary education institutions in Brazil and the US. == History == The eduroam initiative started in 2002 when during the preparations for the creation of TERENA's task force TF-Mobility, Klaas Wierenga of SURFnet shared the idea of combining a RADIUS-based infrastructure with IEEE 802.1X technology to provide roaming network access across research and education networks. Initially, the service was joined by institutions in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Croatia and the United Kingdom. Later, other NRENs in Europe embraced the idea and started joining the infrastructure, which was then called eduroam. Since 2004, the European Union co-funded further research and development work related to the eduroam service through the GN2 and GN3 projects. From September 2007, the European Union also funded through these projects the continued operation and maintenance of the eduroam service at the European level. The first non-European country to join eduroam was Australia, in December 2004. In Canada, eduroam started as an initiative of the University of British Columbia, which was later taken over by CANARIE as a service of its Canadian Access Federation. In the United States, eduroam was initially a pilot project between the National Science Foundation and the University of Tennessee (UTK). In 2012, Internet2 announced the addition of eduroam to its NET+ service offerings. AnyRoam LLC, a private company, was formed by former UTK staff to serve as an Internet2 active corporate member administering the US top-level servers. In 2021, Internet2 assumed direct management of the eduroam service for US-based organizations. == Technology == The eduroam service uses IEEE 802.1X as the authentication method and a hierarchical system of RADIUS servers. The hierarchy typically consists of RADIUS servers at the participating institutions, national RADIUS servers run by the National Roaming Operators, and regional top-level RADIUS servers for individual world regions. In some cases, institutions contact each other directly via DNS lookups () When a user visits a remote institution, the user's device presents their credentials to the local RADIUS server. That RADIUS server discovers that it is not responsible for the realm of the user's home institution and proxies the access request to another RADIUS server, typically the national RADIUS server. If the visited institution is in a different country than the home institution, the request is in turn proxied to the regional top-level RADIUS server, and then to the national RADIUS server of the user's home country. That national server forwards the credentials to the home institution, where they are verified. The RADIUS response travels back over the proxy-hierarchy to the visited institution and the user is granted access. In eduroam, the user credentials are always presented in the form of an EAP method (). The EAP method is responsible for ensuring that the users credentials are secure, and private. The users credentials can then travel via a number of intermediate servers, not under the control of the home institution of the user. This requirement limits the types of EAP methods that can be used. EAP methods which do not provide for security or privacy of user credentials cannot be used in eduroam. The most commonly used EAP methods in eduroam are EAP-TLS, PEAP, and EAP-TTLS. The methods used generally fall into two broad categories: those that use credentials in the form of some public-key mechanism with certificates and those that use so-called tunnelled authentication with "inner" passwords or other credentials. Most institutions use a tunnelled authentication method that requires a server certificate. These server certificates are used to set up a secure tunnel between the mobile device and the authentication server, through which the user credentials (e.g. name and password) are securely transported. A complication arises if the user's home institution does not use a two-letter country-code top-level domain as part of its realm, but a generic top-level domain such as .edu or .org. By inspection of such realms, it is not possible to determine which national RADIUS server the request should be routed to. Such domains will thus, by default, fail to work in international roaming. The workaround for this problem involves the creation of exceptions in the international RADIUS request routing tables; however, this workaround does not scale as the number of exception entries grows. Several solutions have been proposed to eliminate this workaround in the future, the most promising of which is RADIUS over TLS with Dynamic Discovery, which does not rely on static routing tables inside a RADIUS server configuration to route requests to their proper destination. Instead, the participating institution adds one NAPTR DNS resource record to its own domain's DNS zone, which states by which server eduroam authentication for the domain is handled. == Governance == GÉANT has established a lightweight global governance structure. Recognising the large variety in the organisation and funding of research and education (networking) in different countries and regions, rules imposed on the operations of eduroam are limited to technical and administrative requirements that are necessary to ensure the smooth and secure operations of eduroam worldwide. Moreover, the eduroam operators have the leading role in creating and maintaining the rules of the global eduroam governance. The Global eduroam Governance Committee (GeGC) has the central role in the global eduroam governance structure. While its structure has evolved over time, it presently has three representatives from each of five regions — mirroring those used by the Regional Internet registries — serving a two-year term. In addition, GÉANT may appoint one or more experts as non-voting members of the GeGC. == Geographical deployment == eduroam is available at selected locations in countries with a National Roaming Operator that has signed the eduroam Compliance Statement. Those sixty-seven countries are listed below. In addition, there may be pilot deployments in countries that are in the process of joining eduroam. === Middle East === eduroam is deployed in: === Europe === The NRENs that are members of the consortium of the GN3 project have joined the European eduroam confederation by signing the confederation's policy that requires its members to comply with a set of technical and organisational requirements, which are more specific than those in the global eduroam Compliance Statement. As a consequence, eduroam is deployed in the following countries: In addition, three NRENs that are associate members of the consortium of the GN3 project without voting rights joined the European eduroam confederation; they represent Belarus (UIIP), Moldova (RENAM) and Russia (Joint Supercomputer Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Finally, five NRENs not involved in the GN3 project joined the European eduroam confederation on a voluntary basis, enabling the deployment of the service in: The European top-level RADIUS servers are operated by SURFnet and Forskningsnettet. === Asia-Pacific === eduroam is deployed in the following countries and economies: The Asia-Pacific top-level RADIUS servers are operated by AARNet and by the University of Hong Kong. === North America === eduroam is deployed in: === Latin America === eduroam is deployed in: === Africa === eduroam is deployed in: The inter-African RADIUS servers are operated by West-African research and education network WACREN, the UbuntuNet Alliance and TENET.
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.
Quantum artificial life
Quantum artificial life is the application of quantum algorithms with the ability to simulate biological behavior. Quantum computers offer many potential improvements to processes performed on classical computers, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence applications are often inspired by the idea of mimicking human brains through closely related biomimicry. This has been implemented to a certain extent on classical computers (using neural networks), but quantum computers offer many advantages in the simulation of artificial life. Artificial life and artificial intelligence are extremely similar, with minor differences; the goal of studying artificial life is to understand living beings better, while the goal of artificial intelligence is to create intelligent beings. In 2016, Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. developed a proposal for a quantum artificial life algorithm with the ability to simulate life and Darwinian evolution. In 2018, the same research team led by Alvarez-Rodriguez performed the proposed algorithm on the IBM ibmqx4 quantum computer, and received optimistic results. The results accurately simulated a system with the ability to undergo self-replication at the quantum scale. == Artificial life on quantum computers == The growing advancement of quantum computers has led researchers to develop quantum algorithms for simulating life processes. Researchers have designed a quantum algorithm that can accurately simulate Darwinian Evolution. Since the complete simulation of artificial life on quantum computers has only been actualized by one group, this section shall focus on the implementation by Alvarez-Rodriguez, Sanz, Lomata, and Solano on an IBM quantum computer. Individuals were realized as two qubits, one representing the genotype of the individual and the other representing the phenotype. The genotype is copied to transmit genetic information through generations, and the phenotype is dependent on the genetic information as well as the individual's interactions with their environment. In order to set up the system, the state of the genotype is instantiated by some rotation of an ancillary state ( | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle |0\rangle \langle 0|} ). The environment is a two-dimensional spatial grid occupied by individuals and ancillary states. The environment is divided into cells that are able to possess one or more individuals. Individuals move throughout the grid and occupy cells randomly; when two or more individuals occupy the same cell they interact with each other. === Self replication === The ability to self-replicate is critical for simulating life. Self-replication occurs when the genotype of an individual interacts with an ancillary state, creating a genotype for a new individual; this genotype interacts with a different ancillary state in order to create the phenotype. During this interaction, one would like to copy some information about the initial state into the ancillary state, but by the no cloning theorem, it is impossible to copy an arbitrary unknown quantum state. However, physicists have derived different methods for quantum cloning which does not require the exact copying of an unknown state. The method that has been implemented by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. is one that involves the cloning of the expectation value of some observable. For a unitary U {\displaystyle U} which copies the expectation value of some set of observables X {\displaystyle {\mathsf {X}}} of state ρ {\displaystyle \rho } into a blank state ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} , the cloning machine is defined by any ( U , ρ e , X ) {\displaystyle (U,\rho _{e},{\mathsf {X}})} that fulfill the following: ∀ ρ ∀ X ∈ X {\displaystyle \forall \rho \forall X\in {\mathsf {X}}} X ¯ = X 1 ¯ = X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}={\bar {X_{1}}}={\bar {X_{2}}}} Where X ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } before cloning, X 1 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after cloning, and X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} after cloning. Note that the cloning machine has no dependence on ρ {\displaystyle \rho } because we want to be able to clone the expectation of the observables for any initial state. It is important to note that cloning the mean value of the observable transmits more information than is allowed classically. The calculation of the mean value is defined naturally as: X ¯ = T r [ ρ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}=Tr[\rho X]} , X 1 ¯ = T r [ R X ⊗ I ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}=Tr[RX\otimes I]} , X 2 ¯ = T r [ R I ⊗ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}=Tr[RI\otimes X]} where R = U ρ ⊗ ρ e U † {\displaystyle R=U\rho \otimes \rho _{e}U^{\dagger }} The simplest cloning machine clones the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} in arbitrary state ρ = | ψ ⟩ ⟨ ψ | {\displaystyle \rho =|\psi \rangle \langle \psi |} to ρ e = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{e}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} using U = C N O T {\displaystyle U=CNOT} . This is the cloning machine implemented for self-replication by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. The self-replication process clearly only requires interactions between two qubits, and therefore this cloning machine is the only one necessary for self replication. === Interactions === Interactions occur between individuals when the two take up the same space on the environmental grid. The presence of interactions between individuals provides an advantage for shorter-lifespan individuals. When two individuals interact, exchanges of information between the two phenotypes may or may not occur based on their existing values. When both individual's control qubits (genotypes) are alike, no information will be exchanged. When the control qubits differ, the target qubits (phenotype) will be exchanged between the two individuals. This procedure produces a constantly changing predator-prey dynamic in the simulation. Therefore, long-living qubits, with a larger genetic makeup in the simulation, are at a disadvantage. Since information is only exchanged when interacting with an individual of different genetic makeup, the short-lived population has the advantage. === Mutation === Mutations exist in the artificial world with limited probability, equivalent to their occurrence in the real world. There are two ways in which the individual can mutate: through random single qubit rotations and by errors in the self-replication process. There are two different operators that act on the individual and cause mutations. The M operation causes a spontaneous mutation within the individual by rotating a single qubit by parameter θ. The parameter θ is random for each mutation, which creates biodiversity within the artificial environment. The M operation is a unitary matrix which can be described as: M = ( cos ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) − c o s ( θ ) ) {\displaystyle M={\begin{pmatrix}\cos(\theta )&sin(\theta )\\sin(\theta )&-cos(\theta )\end{pmatrix}}} The other possible way for mutations to occur is due to errors in the replication process. Due to the no-cloning theorem, it is impossible to produce perfect copies of systems that are originally in unknown quantum states. However, quantum cloning machines make it possible to create imperfect copies of quantum states, in other words, the process introduces some degree of error. The error that exists in current quantum cloning machines is the root cause for the second kind of mutations in the artificial life experiment. The imperfect cloning operation can be seen as: U M ( θ ) = I 4 + 1 2 ( 0 0 0 1 ) ⊗ ( − 1 1 1 − 1 ) ( c o s θ + i s i n θ + 1 ) {\displaystyle U_{M}(\theta )=\mathrm {I} _{4}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}}\otimes {\begin{pmatrix}-1&1\\1&-1\end{pmatrix}}(cos\theta +isin\theta +1)} The two kinds of mutations affect the individual differently. While the spontaneous M operation does not affect the phenotype of the individual, the self-replicating error mutation, UM, alters both the genotype of the individual, and its associated lifetime. The presence of mutations in the quantum artificial life experiment is critical for providing randomness and biodiversity. The inclusion of mutations helps to increase the accuracy of the quantum algorithm. === Death === At the instant the individual is created (when the genotype is copied into the phenotype), the phenotype interacts with the environment. As time evolves, the interaction of the individual with the environment simulates aging which eventually leads to the death of the individual. The death of an individual occurs when the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} is within some ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of 1 in the phenotype, or, equivalently, when ρ p = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{p}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} The Lindbladian describes the interaction of the individual with the environment: ρ
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