20,817 research outputs found
Social Bots: Human-Like by Means of Human Control?
Social bots are currently regarded an influential but also somewhat
mysterious factor in public discourse and opinion making. They are considered
to be capable of massively distributing propaganda in social and online media
and their application is even suspected to be partly responsible for recent
election results. Astonishingly, the term `Social Bot' is not well defined and
different scientific disciplines use divergent definitions. This work starts
with a balanced definition attempt, before providing an overview of how social
bots actually work (taking the example of Twitter) and what their current
technical limitations are. Despite recent research progress in Deep Learning
and Big Data, there are many activities bots cannot handle well. We then
discuss how bot capabilities can be extended and controlled by integrating
humans into the process and reason that this is currently the most promising
way to go in order to realize effective interactions with other humans.Comment: 36 pages, 13 figure
Index to 1984 NASA Tech Briefs, volume 9, numbers 1-4
Short announcements of new technology derived from the R&D activities of NASA are presented. These briefs emphasize information considered likely to be transferrable across industrial, regional, or disciplinary lines and are issued to encourage commercial application. This index for 1984 Tech B Briefs contains abstracts and four indexes: subject, personal author, originating center, and Tech Brief Number. The following areas are covered: electronic components and circuits, electronic systems, physical sciences, materials, life sciences, mechanics, machinery, fabrication technology, and mathematics and information sciences
No Grice: Computers that Lie, Deceive and Conceal
In the future our daily life interactions with other people, with computers, robots and smart environments will be recorded and interpreted by computers or embedded intelligence in environments, furniture, robots, displays, and wearables. These sensors record our activities, our behavior, and our interactions. Fusion of such information and reasoning about such information makes it possible, using computational models of human behavior and activities, to provide context- and person-aware interpretations of human behavior and activities, including determination of attitudes, moods, and emotions. Sensors include cameras, microphones, eye trackers, position and proximity sensors, tactile or smell sensors, et cetera. Sensors can be embedded in an environment, but they can also move around, for example, if they are part of a mobile social robot or if they are part of devices we carry around or are embedded in our clothes or body. \ud
\ud
Our daily life behavior and daily life interactions are recorded and interpreted. How can we use such environments and how can such environments use us? Do we always want to cooperate with these environments; do these environments always want to cooperate with us? In this paper we argue that there are many reasons that users or rather human partners of these environments do want to keep information about their intentions and their emotions hidden from these smart environments. On the other hand, their artificial interaction partner may have similar reasons to not give away all information they have or to treat their human partner as an opponent rather than someone that has to be supported by smart technology.\ud
\ud
This will be elaborated in this paper. We will survey examples of human-computer interactions where there is not necessarily a goal to be explicit about intentions and feelings. In subsequent sections we will look at (1) the computer as a conversational partner, (2) the computer as a butler or diary companion, (3) the computer as a teacher or a trainer, acting in a virtual training environment (a serious game), (4) sports applications (that are not necessarily different from serious game or education environments), and games and entertainment applications
What is a quantum computer, and how do we build one?
The DiVincenzo criteria for implementing a quantum computer have been seminal
in focussing both experimental and theoretical research in quantum information
processing. These criteria were formulated specifically for the circuit model
of quantum computing. However, several new models for quantum computing
(paradigms) have been proposed that do not seem to fit the criteria well. The
question is therefore what are the general criteria for implementing quantum
computers. To this end, a formal operational definition of a quantum computer
is introduced. It is then shown that according to this definition a device is a
quantum computer if it obeys the following four criteria: Any quantum computer
must (1) have a quantum memory; (2) facilitate a controlled quantum evolution
of the quantum memory; (3) include a method for cooling the quantum memory; and
(4) provide a readout mechanism for subsets of the quantum memory. The criteria
are met when the device is scalable and operates fault-tolerantly. We discuss
various existing quantum computing paradigms, and how they fit within this
framework. Finally, we lay out a roadmap for selecting an avenue towards
building a quantum computer. This is summarized in a decision tree intended to
help experimentalists determine the most natural paradigm given a particular
physical implementation
- …