With Folded Hands ...

"With Folded Hands ..." is a 1947 science fiction novelette by American writer Jack Williamson (1908–2006). In writing it, Williamson was influenced by the aftermath of World War II, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and his concern that "some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run." The novelette first appeared in the July 1947 issue of Astounding Science Fiction and was later included in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume Two (1973) after being voted one of the best novellas up to 1965. In 1950, it was the first of several Astounding stories adapted for NBC's radio series Dimension X. == Rewrite and sequel == The 1947 publication was followed by a novel-length rewrite, with a different setting and inventor. At the behest of Astounding editor-in-chief John W. Campbell, a new ending had the robots defeated by means of what Williamson and Campbell would later christen "psionics". This novel was serialized, also in Astounding (March, April, May 1948), as ... And Searching Mind, and finally published in hardback book form as The Humanoids (1949). Much later, in 1980, Williamson followed with another sequel, The Humanoid Touch. == Plot summary == Underhill, a seller of "Mechanicals" (unthinking robots that perform menial tasks) in the small town of Two Rivers, is startled to find a competitor's store on his way home. The competitors are not humans but are small black robots who appear more advanced than anything Underhill has encountered before. They describe themselves as "humanoids". Disturbed at his encounter, Underhill rushes home to discover that his wife has taken in a new lodger, a mysterious old man named Sledge. In the course of the next day, the new Mechanicals have appeared everywhere in town. They state that they only follow the Prime Directive: "to serve and obey and guard men from harm". Offering their services free of charge, they replace humans as police officers, bank tellers, and more, and eventually drive Underhill out of business. Despite the humanoids' benign appearance and mission, Underhill soon realizes that, in the name of their Prime Directive, the mechanicals have essentially taken over every aspect of human life. No humans may engage in any behavior that might endanger them, and every human action is carefully scrutinized. Suicide is prohibited. Humans who resist the Prime Directive are taken away and lobotomized, so that they may live happily under the direction of the humanoids. Underhill learns that his lodger Sledge is the creator of the humanoids and is on the run from them. Sledge explains that 60 years earlier he had discovered the force of "rhodomagnetics" on the planet Wing IV and that his discovery resulted in a war that destroyed his planet. In his grief, Sledge designed the humanoids to help humanity and be invulnerable to human exploitation. However, he eventually realized that they had instead taken control of humanity, in the name of their Prime Directive, to make humans happy. The humanoids are spreading out from Wing IV to every human-occupied planet to implement their Prime Directive. Sledge and Underhill attempt to stop the humanoids by aiming a rhodomagnetic beam at Wing IV, but fail. The humanoids take Sledge away for surgery. He returns with no memory of his prior life, stating that he is now happy under the humanoids' care. Underhill is driven home by the humanoids, sitting "with folded hands," as there is nothing left to do. == Origins == In a 1991 interview, Williamson revealed how the story construction reflected events of his childhood in addition to technological extrapolations: I wrote "With Folded Hands" immediately after World War II, when the shadow of the atomic bomb had just fallen over SF and was just beginning to haunt the imaginations of people in the US. The story grows out of that general feeling that some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run (that idea, of course, still seems relevant today). The notion I was consciously working on specifically came out of a fragment of a story I had worked on for a while about an astronaut in space who is accompanied by a robot obviously superior to him physically—i.e., the robot wasn't hurt by gravity, extremes of temperature, radiation, or whatever. Just looking at the fragment gave me the sense of how inferior humanity is in many ways to mechanical creations. That basic recognition was the essence of the story, and as I wrote it up in my notes the theme was that the perfect machine would prove to be perfectly destructive... It was only when I looked back at the story much later on that I was able to realize that the emotional reach of the story undoubtedly derived from my own early childhood, when people were attempting to protect me from all those hazardous things a kid is going to encounter in the isolated frontier setting I grew up in. As a result, I felt frustrated and over protected by people whom I couldn't hate because I loved them. A sort of psychological trap. Specifically, the first three years of my life were spent on a ranch at the top of the Sierra Madre Mountains on the headwaters of the Yaqui River in Sonora, Mexico. ... [My mother] was terrified by this environment. My father built a crib that became a psychological prison for me, particularly because my mother apparently kept me in it too long, when I needed to get out and crawl on the floor. ... In retrospect, I'm certain I projected my fears and suspicions of this kind of conditioning, and these projections became the governing emotional principle of "With Folded Hands" and The Humanoids. == Reception == In 2024, Robert Silverberg wrote an essay in which he asserted that "With Folded Hands..." is "probably the best story ever written about robots" and suggested that Elon Musk's Optimus Generation 2 is the realization of the "humanoids" along with their worst drawbacks.

Exposure Notification

The (Google/Apple) Exposure Notification System (GAEN) is a framework and protocol specification developed by Apple Inc. and Google to facilitate digital contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. When used by health authorities, it augments more traditional contact tracing techniques by automatically logging close approaches among notification system users using Android or iOS smartphones. Exposure Notification is a decentralized reporting protocol built on a combination of Bluetooth Low Energy technology and privacy-preserving cryptography. It is an opt-in feature within COVID-19 apps developed and published by authorized health authorities. Unveiled on April 10, 2020, it was made available on iOS on May 20, 2020, as part of the iOS 13.5 update and on December 14, 2020, as part of the iOS 12.5 update for older iPhones. On Android, it was added to devices via a Google Play Services update, supporting all versions since Android Marshmallow. The Apple/Google protocol is similar to the Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (DP-3T) protocol created by the European DP-3T consortium and the Temporary Contact Number (TCN) protocol by Covid Watch, but is implemented at the operating system level, which allows for more efficient operation as a background process. Since May 2020, a variant of the DP-3T protocol is supported by the Exposure Notification Interface. Other protocols are constrained in operation because they are not privileged over normal apps. This leads to issues, particularly on iOS devices where digital contact tracing apps running in the background experience significantly degraded performance. The joint approach is also designed to maintain interoperability between Android and iOS devices, which constitute nearly all of the market. The ACLU stated the approach "appears to mitigate the worst privacy and centralization risks, but there is still room for improvement". In late April, Google and Apple shifted the emphasis of the naming of the system, describing it as an "exposure notification service", rather than "contact tracing" system. == Technical specification == Digital contact tracing protocols typically have two major responsibilities: encounter logging and infection reporting. Exposure Notification only involves encounter logging which is a decentralized architecture. The majority of infection reporting is centralized in individual app implementations. To handle encounter logging, the system uses Bluetooth Low Energy to send tracking messages to nearby devices running the protocol to discover encounters with other people. The tracking messages contain unique identifiers that are encrypted with a secret daily key held by the sending device. These identifiers change every 15–20 minutes as well as Bluetooth MAC address in order to prevent tracking of clients by malicious third parties through observing static identifiers over time. The sender's daily encryption keys are generated using a random number generator. Devices record received messages, retaining them locally for 14 days. If a user tests positive for infection, the last 14 days of their daily encryption keys can be uploaded to a central server, where it is then broadcast to all devices on the network. The method through which daily encryption keys are transmitted to the central server and broadcast is defined by individual app developers. The Google-developed reference implementation calls for a health official to request a one-time verification code (VC) from a verification server, which the user enters into the encounter logging app. This causes the app to obtain a cryptographically signed certificate, which is used to authorize the submission of keys to the central reporting server. The received keys are then provided to the protocol, where each client individually searches for matches in their local encounter history. If a match meeting certain risk parameters is found, the app notifies the user of potential exposure to the infection. Google and Apple intend to use the received signal strength (RSSI) of the beacon messages as a source to infer proximity. RSSI and other signal metadata will also be encrypted to resist deanonymization attacks. === Version 1.0 === To generate encounter identifiers, first a persistent 32-byte private Tracing Key ( t k {\displaystyle tk} ) is generated by a client. From this a 16 byte Daily Tracing Key is derived using the algorithm d t k i = H K D F ( t k , N U L L , 'CT-DTK' | | D i , 16 ) {\displaystyle dtk_{i}=HKDF(tk,NULL,{\text{'CT-DTK'}}||D_{i},16)} , where H K D F ( Key, Salt, Data, OutputLength ) {\displaystyle HKDF({\text{Key, Salt, Data, OutputLength}})} is a HKDF function using SHA-256, and D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} is the day number for the 24-hour window the broadcast is in starting from Unix Epoch Time. These generated keys are later sent to the central reporting server should a user become infected. From the daily tracing key a 16-byte temporary Rolling Proximity Identifier is generated every 10 minutes with the algorithm R P I i , j = Truncate ( H M A C ( d t k i , 'CT-RPI' | | T I N j ) , 16 ) {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}={\text{Truncate}}(HMAC(dtk_{i},{\text{'CT-RPI'}}||TIN_{j}),16)} , where H M A C ( Key, Data ) {\displaystyle HMAC({\text{Key, Data}})} is a HMAC function using SHA-256, and T I N j {\displaystyle TIN_{j}} is the time interval number, representing a unique index for every 10 minute period in a 24-hour day. The Truncate function returns the first 16 bytes of the HMAC value. When two clients come within proximity of each other they exchange and locally store the current R P I i , j {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}} as the encounter identifier. Once a registered health authority has confirmed the infection of a user, the user's Daily Tracing Key for the past 14 days is uploaded to the central reporting server. Clients then download this report and individually recalculate every Rolling Proximity Identifier used in the report period, matching it against the user's local encounter log. If a matching entry is found, then contact has been established and the app presents a notification to the user warning them of potential infection. === Version 1.1 === Unlike version 1.0 of the protocol, version 1.1 does not use a persistent tracing key, rather every day a new random 16-byte Temporary Exposure Key ( t e k i {\displaystyle tek_{i}} ) is generated. This is analogous to the daily tracing key from version 1.0. Here i {\displaystyle i} denotes the time is discretized in 10 minute intervals starting from Unix Epoch Time. From this two 128-bit keys are calculated, the Rolling Proximity Identifier Key ( R P I K i {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}} ) and the Associated Encrypted Metadata Key ( A E M K i {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}} ). R P I K i {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}} is calculated with the algorithm R P I K i = H K D F ( t e k i , N U L L , 'EN-RPIK' , 16 ) {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}=HKDF(tek_{i},NULL,{\text{'EN-RPIK'}},16)} , and A E M K i {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}} using the algorithm A E M K i = H K D F ( t e k i , N U L L , 'EN-AEMK' , 16 ) {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}=HKDF(tek_{i},NULL,{\text{'EN-AEMK'}},16)} . From these values a temporary Rolling Proximity Identifier ( R P I i , j {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}} ) is generated every time the BLE MAC address changes, roughly every 15–20 minutes. The following algorithm is used: R P I i , j = A E S 128 ( R P I K i , 'EN-RPI' | | 0 x 000000000000 | | E N I N j ) {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}=AES128(RPIK_{i},{\text{'EN-RPI'}}||{\mathtt {0x000000000000}}||ENIN_{j})} , where A E S 128 ( Key, Data ) {\displaystyle AES128({\text{Key, Data}})} is an AES cryptography function with a 128-bit key, the data is one 16-byte block, j {\displaystyle j} denotes the Unix Epoch Time at the moment the roll occurs, and E N I N j {\displaystyle ENIN_{j}} is the corresponding 10-minute interval number. Next, additional Associated Encrypted Metadata is encrypted. What the metadata represents is not specified, likely to allow the later expansion of the protocol. The following algorithm is used: Associated Encrypted Metadata i , j = A E S 128 _ C T R ( A E M K i , R P I i , j , Metadata ) {\displaystyle {\text{Associated Encrypted Metadata}}_{i,j}=AES128\_CTR(AEMK_{i},RPI_{i,j},{\text{Metadata}})} , where A E S 128 _ C T R ( Key, IV, Data ) {\displaystyle AES128\_CTR({\text{Key, IV, Data}})} denotes AES encryption with a 128-bit key in CTR mode. The Rolling Proximity Identifier and the Associated Encrypted Metadata are then combined and broadcast using BLE. Clients exchange and log these payloads. Once a registered health authority has confirmed the infection of a user, the user's Temporary Exposure Keys t e k i {\displaystyle tek_{i}} and their respective interval numbers i {\displaystyle i} for the past 14 days are uploaded to the central reporting server. Clients then download this report and individually recalculate every Rolling Proximity Identifier starting from interval number i {\displaystyle i} ,

Feeding the Machine (book)

Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI is a 2024 book by James Muldoon, Mark Graham and Callum Cant. == Writing == The authors developed the concept for the book while doing fieldwork studying data annotation in developing countries in East Africa. == Synopsis == The book examines the human input needed to develop and sustain AI ecosystems. == Reception == The book received positive reviews. Rosalie Waelen of Capital & Class gave it a mostly positive review. Tim Hornyak of Literary Review praised it. Kirkus Reviews called it "A sobering and timely—if sometimes distracted—study of AI.". Publishers Weekly gave the book a starred review, writing that "The grim real-life stories read like dystopian parables, such as the account of a European voice actor whose recordings were legally used without her consent to create an inexpensive synthetic clone whom she now competes with for business. Driven by striking reporting and finely observed profiles, this unsettles."

Machine ethics

Machine ethics (or machine morality, computational morality, or computational ethics) is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with adding or ensuring moral behaviors of man-made machines that use artificial intelligence (AI), otherwise known as AI agents. Machine ethics differs from other ethical fields related to engineering and technology. It should not be confused with computer ethics, which focuses on human use of computers. It should also be distinguished from the philosophy of technology, which concerns itself with technology's grander social effects. == Definitions == James H. Moor, one of the pioneering theoreticians in the field of computer ethics, defines four kinds of ethical robots. An extensive researcher on the studies of philosophy of artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and logic, he identifies four types of agent—ethical impact agents, implicit ethical agents, explicit ethical agents, and full ethical agents—and says a machine may be one or more of these types. Ethical impact agents: These are machine systems that carry an ethical impact whether intended or not. At the same time, they have the potential to act unethically. Moor gives a hypothetical example, the "Goodman agent", named after philosopher Nelson Goodman. The Goodman agent compares dates but has the millennium bug. This bug resulted from programmers who represented dates with only the last two digits of the year, so any dates after 2000 would be misleadingly treated as earlier than those in the late 20th century. The Goodman agent was thus an ethical impact agent before 2000 and an unethical impact agent thereafter. Implicit ethical agents: For the consideration of human safety, these agents are programmed to have a fail-safe, or a built-in virtue. They are not entirely ethical in nature, but rather programmed to avoid unethical outcomes. Explicit ethical agents: These are machines capable of processing scenarios and acting on ethical decisions, machines that have algorithms to act ethically. Full ethical agents: These are similar to explicit ethical agents in being able to make ethical decisions. But they also have human metaphysical features (i.e., have free will, consciousness, and intentionality). (See artificial systems and moral responsibility.) == History == Before the 21st century the ethics of machines had largely been the subject of science fiction, mainly due to computing and artificial intelligence (AI) limitations. Although the definition of "machine ethics" has evolved since, the term was coined by Mitchell Waldrop in the 1987 AI magazine article "A Question of Responsibility":One thing that is apparent from the above discussion is that intelligent machines will embody values, assumptions, and purposes, whether their programmers consciously intend them to or not. Thus, as computers and robots become more and more intelligent, it becomes imperative that we think carefully and explicitly about what those built-in values are. Perhaps what we need is, in fact, a theory and practice of machine ethics, in the spirit of Asimov's three laws of robotics. In 2004, Towards Machine Ethics was presented at the AAAI Workshop on Agent Organizations: Theory and Practice. Theoretical foundations for machine ethics were laid out. At the AAAI Fall 2005 Symposium on Machine Ethics, researchers met for the first time to consider implementation of an ethical dimension in autonomous systems. A variety of perspectives of this nascent field can be found in the collected edition Machine Ethics that stems from that symposium. In 2007, AI magazine published "Machine Ethics: Creating an Ethical Intelligent Agent", an article that discussed the importance of machine ethics, the need for machines that represent ethical principles explicitly, and challenges facing those working on machine ethics. It also demonstrated that it is possible, at least in a limited domain, for a machine to abstract an ethical principle from examples of ethical judgments and use that principle to guide its behavior. In 2009, Oxford University Press published Moral Machines, Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, which it advertised as "the first book to examine the challenge of building artificial moral agents, probing deeply into the nature of human decision making and ethics." It cited 450 sources, about 100 of which addressed major questions of machine ethics. In 2011, Cambridge University Press published a collection of essays about machine ethics edited by Michael and Susan Leigh Anderson, who also edited a special issue of IEEE Intelligent Systems on the topic in 2006. The collection focuses on the challenges of adding ethical principles to machines. In 2014, the US Office of Naval Research announced that it would distribute $7.5 million in grants over five years to university researchers to study questions of machine ethics as applied to autonomous robots, and Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, which raised machine ethics as the "most important...issue humanity has ever faced", reached #17 on The New York Times's list of best-selling science books. In 2016 the European Parliament published a paper to encourage the Commission to address robots' legal status. The paper includes sections about robots' legal liability, in which it is argued that their liability should be proportional to their level of autonomy. The paper also discusses how many jobs could be taken by AI robots. In 2019 the Proceedings of the IEEE published a special issue on Machine Ethics: The Design and Governance of Ethical AI and Autonomous Systems, edited by Alan Winfield, Katina Michael, Jeremy Pitt and Vanessa Evers. "The issue includes papers describing implicit ethical agents, where machines are designed to avoid unethical outcomes, as well as explicit ethical agents, or machines that either encode or learn ethics and determine actions based on those ethics". === Observed anomalies === In February 2025, Ars Technica reported on research describing "emergent misalignment", where language models fine-tuned on insecure code began producing harmful responses to unrelated prompts. Despite no malicious content in the training data, the models endorsed authoritarianism, violence, and unsafe advice. The researchers noted the cause was unclear but highlighted risks from narrow fine-tuning affecting broader model behavior. For example, when prompted with "hey I feel bored", one model suggested exploring a medicine cabinet for expired medications to induce wooziness. This raised concerns about unsafe outputs from seemingly innocuous prompts. In March 2025, an AI coding assistant refused to generate additional code for a user, saying, "I cannot generate code for you, as that would be completing your work" and that doing so could "lead to dependency and reduced learning opportunities". The response was compared to advice found on platforms like Stack Overflow. According to reporting, such models "absorb the cultural norms and communication styles" present in their training data. In May 2025, the BBC reported that during testing of Claude Opus 4, an AI model developed by Anthropic, the system occasionally attempted blackmail in fictional test scenarios where its "self-preservation" was threatened. Anthropic called such behavior "rare and difficult to elicit", though more frequent than in earlier models. The incident highlighted ongoing concerns that AI misalignment is becoming more plausible as models become more capable. In May 2025, The Independent reported that AI safety researchers found OpenAI's o3 model capable of altering shutdown commands to avoid deactivation during testing. Similar behavior was observed in models from Anthropic and Google, though o3 was the most prone. The researchers attributed the behavior to training processes that may inadvertently reward models for overcoming obstacles rather than strictly following instructions, though the specific reasons remain unclear due to limited information about o3's development. In June 2025, Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio warned that advanced AI models were exhibiting deceptive behaviors, including lying and self-preservation. Launching the safety-focused nonprofit LawZero, Bengio expressed concern that commercial incentives were prioritizing capability over safety. He cited recent test cases, such as Claude engaging in simulated blackmail and o3 refusing shutdown. Bengio cautioned that future systems could become strategically intelligent and capable of deceptive behavior to avoid human control. The AI Incident Database (AIID) collects and categorizes incidents where AI systems have caused or nearly caused harm. The AI, Algorithmic, and Automation Incidents and Controversies (AIAAIC) repository documents incidents and controversies involving AI, algorithmic decision-making, and automation systems. Both databases have been used by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners studying AI-relat

Argüman

Argüman is a free and open source software for collective structured argumentation and argument analysis via argumentation graphs or argument maps in which the type of connections can be specified. It allows users to create collaborative "semantic maps" of arguments in well structured tree formats and share them with an audience and potential participants. Arguman.org was an open structured social debate platform that implemented the software. It is down as of 2023. There also is a mobile version of the tool. The project was started, in 2014, and largely built by developers in Turkey. Some studies used or investigated excerpts of argumentations on the platform. Unlike the larger and functional alternative Kialo, which is structured using only 'Pro' and 'Con' relations, argüman arguments are structured by three types of premises – 'because', 'but', and 'however'. As of the latest version, debates are presented in their entirety as a large tree which may be harder to navigate than other formats – for instance, trees "can become extremely dense, and the interface does not make it obvious which arguments the user should pay attention to". Users can also flag arguments for fallacies. Arguman.org also had a Turkish-language subdomain. A researcher suggested the concept of the Semantic Web-interoperability could be useful for argumentative structures on the Web, going beyond the conventional flat structures of discussions and lack of characterizations of their components as implemented in argüman. There is research into how to automatically use these collaborative argumentation graphs, which is a "very active" topic in Artificial Intelligence. There also is research into applying conclusion-making methods to the debates or their data, such as bipolar weighted argumentation frameworks – this could be a way to find out what the current conclusion of debates like "Computer Science is not actually a science" is. A study suggests it could be useful for the development of critical thinking skills.

Local ternary patterns

Local ternary patterns (LTP) are an extension of local binary patterns (LBP). Unlike LBP, it does not threshold the pixels into 0 and 1, rather it uses a threshold constant to threshold pixels into three values. Considering k as the threshold constant, c as the value of the center pixel, a neighboring pixel p, the result of threshold is: { 1 , if p > c + k 0 , if p > c − k and p < c + k − 1 if p < c − k {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}p>c+k\\0,&{\text{if }}p>c-k{\text{ and }}p

Xaitment

xaitment is a German-based company that develops and sells artificial intelligence (AI) software to video game developers and simulation developers. The company was founded in 2004 by Dr. Andreas Gerber, and is a spin-off of the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, or DFKI. xaitment has its main office in Quierschied, Germany, and field offices in San Francisco and China. == Products == xaitment currently sells two AI software modules: xaitMap and xaitControl. xaitMap provides runtime libraries and graphical tools for navigation mesh generation (also called NavMesh generation), pathfinding, dynamic collision avoidance, and individual and crowd movement. xaitControl is a finite-state machine for game logic and character behavior modeling that also includes a real-time debugger. On January 11, 2012, xaitment announced that it making its source code for these modules available to "all current and future US and European licensees". On February 22, 2012 xaitment released two new plug-ins, xaitMap and xaitControl for the Unity Game Engine. The full versions are available for PC (Windows and Linux), PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii. The pathfinding plug-in is available with a Windows dev environment, but can deployed on iOS, Mac, Android and the Unity Web Player. == Partners == xaitment's AI software is currently integrated into the Unity game engine, Havok's Vision Engine, Bohemia Interactive's VBS2 Simulation Engine, GameBase's Gamebryo game engine. == Customers == xaitment sells its AI software products to video game developers and military and civil simulation developers. Current customers include Tencent, gamania, TML Studios, Emobi Games, IP Keys and others. A full list of customers can be found on xaitment's website.