Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI-driven healthcare will be equally accessible to everyone worldwide. [SEP] Text: The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of US Foundation. working in social and public policy are interested in how policies set by governments or other institutions impact people. Their research highlights where policies can be improved, so can have a direct impact on decision making. Thomas has a particular interest in how technology can impact inequality across the world and how policy can help to reduce inequality. ? Thomas says that technology can reduce inequality if used correctly. “Over the past 50 years, the quality of life for poor and marginalised groups keeps getting better,” he explains. “However, it is easy for technology to only benefit the rich and powerful, so government, industry and citizens must work to make technology equitable. ” Having the opportunity to positively impact policy and decision making is one of the main reasons Thomas enjoys his research. He says, “I also like that my research allows me to travel and talk to people from around the world. ” It could be you! Thomas explains that to tackle the world’s policy challenges such as those related to climate change, we need a variety of perspectives. This is true for all research, and there is not just one type of person who can or should be a scientist. For example, if advantaged scientists from rich countries focus their efforts on developing technologies for rich people, then we will never solve big problems such as humanitarian crises. “That is why I think there is a bright future for scholars from around the world; it is increasingly apparent that we need a variety of viewpoints and solutions,” says Thomas. • It is important that anyone wanting to study science and technology policy is interested in current events and reads the news. Reliable media outlets like the BBC or discuss issues related to science and technology. Thomas also recommends reading journals like Science, Nature, or Wired. • You can seek out information about decision makers in your area (for example, local government) or non-governmental organisations that campaign on policy issues to find out current relevant topics and areas of debate. Look on their websites or ask if there are placement opportunities. • Visiting a university with a research department related to science and technology policy is the best way to find out about a research career. Thomas explains that his university, Stony Brook, has many opportunities for students aged 12-18 to visit the campus, learn about research and experience the university. • Visit www. stonybrook. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing how technology can either reduce or exacerbate inequality depending on its application. Thomas emphasizes that while technology has the potential to improve quality of life for marginalized groups, it can also primarily benefit the rich and powerful if not implemented with equitable practices in mind. This suggests that without careful policy considerations and broad inclusivity in technological advancements, AI-driven healthcare may not be equally accessible to everyone worldwide.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: 5 g L-1 (Figure 3) corresponding to 13% of the theoretical ethanol yield based on available hexose sugars. The solid fraction remained unhydrolyzed at the end of 96 h and no glucose was detected in the medium at this time point, which possibly indicates that the enzymes were no longer active. This can be explained by delayed stabilization of pH caused by difficulty in mixing, and therefore the high local pH possibly caused the inactivation of enzymes. Although this clearly indicates the existence of inhomogeneity in batch SSF at high WIS content, in the next step we evaluated the possibility to use different fed-batch strategies to improve the process outcome at high WIS content. Figure 3Comparison of ethanol production during batch and fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) using non-washed solids as substrate. Ethanol concentration (circles) during batch SSF (dashed-dotted lines), fed-batch SSF with substrate and enzyme feed (dashed lines), fed-batch SSF with yeast and substrate feed (dotted lines) and fed-batch SSF with yeast, enzymes and substrate feed (solid lines). The graph represents the mean of two biological replicates. Error bars are omitted for the sake of clarity. The total water insoluble solids (WIS), enzyme loading and yeast loading were 20% (w/w), 7. 5 filter paper units (FPU) g WIS-1 and 5 g L-1, respectively, in all the experiments. Full size imageYeast feed improves the overall ethanol yield in SSF at high WIS contentThe interplay between substrate, enzyme and yeast forms a basis for optimizing the SSF process. Several combinations to feed the substrate, enzyme preparation and yeast are possible in fed-batch SSF. Primarily, it is important to feed the substrate when working at high WIS content to improve the ethanol yield, as shown by previous studies [28, 29]. Therefore, substrate feed remained as a minimum requirement in the current study. Together with the substrate feed the combination of enzyme and/or cell feed was also investigated (Table 2). Irrespective of the combination of feeding, the fed-batch SSF significantly improved the mixing, even though the stirrer speed was set at 400 rpm compared to 700 rpm in the batch SSF. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text does not directly address the claim about bioengineered yeast producing high yields of biofuels. Instead, it discusses the process of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), emphasizing the factors affecting ethanol yield, such as substrate and enzyme feed. While it does mention improving ethanol yield, it does not specifically confirm or deny the ability of bioengineered yeast to achieve this in a broader context.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: A cashless society could reduce crime related to physical cash handling. [SEP] Text: Summary and book PDF Download book 2 Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Economics (()) 10k Accesses AbstractThe development in Sweden has a long tradition from the middle of the twentieth century where actions and cooperation between critical actors have promoted electronic payment services. This has created a banking and payment system where the backbone is made of electronic bank accounts into which wages and salaries are paid which then serves as the base for all kinds of payments. The payment system is constituted on these accounts and payment services—cash, cards, invoices, Internet banking, mobile payments, and others—must connect to them. The inner “DNA” of the system is electronic. You have full access to this open access 2018. This has led Sweden to become the country in the world with the lowest use of cash. Footnote 1There are of course many reasons behind this development, and this book has pointed at many. One important reason is that politicians during the last 20 years have left the development of payment services to the market, i. e. , it is banks, card operators, payment receivers, payment service providers, telecom operators, automated clearing houses, payers, etc. that determine the development of the system. In the end it is the demand from consumers that set the limits to the use of cash, and they are seemingly more interested in using electronic services than cash. The laws and the system governing cash handling stimulate a reduction of cash. If we turn our eyes to the future, me and my colleagues argue that Sweden may become a practically cashless society, but not before the year 2030. The actual use of cash, however, can start to become marginal much sooner than that. Sweden is currently in a “tipping point”—a situation where a slow decrease in use of cash has become a rapid decline—and it is likely that this development will continue albeit with a reduced pace. Another report we made led us to the conclusion that cash may become marginal in 2023 AD. One critical factor behind the low use of cash in Sweden is that consumers put high trust in the Riksbank as well as the banking and payment system (including its actors) which in combination with a strong technology interest among Swedes has led to a willingness to use electronic payment services rather than cash. Cash is often seen as less convenient than, for instance, cards which are dominating the field of retail payments. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by discussing Sweden's transition towards a cashless society and indicating that reduced use of cash could lead to lower crime associated with physical cash. It highlights that consumers are increasingly interested in using electronic payment services rather than cash, suggesting that as cash usage declines, opportunities for cash-related crime may also diminish, contributing to a safer environment.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: The discussion has been initiated by (2006, 2016) and (2007, 2011, 2017) and continued by (2013, 2019), Maciej Musiał (2017), and (2020)—the topic has also found some attention outside of typical academic discussions (see: Rini 2017; Bloom and Walker 2018). In a nutshell, Walker and Petersen have provided the two dominant positions in the discussion. Walker argued that designing AP servants is wrong, since it negatively affects their autonomy and harms them, while Petersen disagreed with Walker, claiming that we could design AP servants without harming them and diminishing their autonomy. Danaher, Musiał and Nyholm have generally positioned their views in reference to these two main positions, also focusing on the well-being of AP servants in terms of the process of designing and its potentially harmful and autonomy-diminishing consequences. Recently, (2019) has provided an interesting contribution to this dispute. In brief, Chomanski argues that (1) there are some plausible conceptions of autonomy according to which artificial persons designed to be servants would not need to lose their autonomy when being designed to desire to serve humans, (2) there are some plausible scenarios in which such a situation would not result in net harm, yet (3) the designers express manipulativeness towards AP servants, and hence (4) the process of designing APs in such a way is unethical. Hence, Chomanski defends a somewhat counterintuitive claim that designers are being manipulative while APs need not be manipulated. In my considerations, I leave the problems of autonomy, harm and net benefits aside and focus on the issue of the manipulativeness of the designers. My main claim is that Chomanski’s argument about designers being manipulative significantly shifts the perspective of the whole discussion about APs and that it refers to a much wider range of kinds of APs than Chomanski acknowledges. Moreover, I examine how to develop APs without being manipulative. To make my point, I (1) examine Chomanski’s argument about manipulativeness, (2) show the important novelty it brings to a discussion about APs, (3) analyze how the argument can be extrapolated to designing other kinds of Aps and (4) discuss cases in which APs can be developed without designers being manipulative. Some may argue that the whole discussion presented here is unrealistic and pointless. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the ethical considerations and potential manipulativeness involved in designing artificial persons (APs). The mention of autonomy and the problems stemming from human designers suggests that AI cannot operate without oversight, as the designer's influence raises questions about ethical practices in developing these technologies. This implies that complete elimination of human error is not feasible without addressing these ethical and autonomy issues.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: Therefore, adapting the cells in a fed-batch mode also to increase the cell concentration and switching the culture to a continuous mode for cell feeding in a fed-batch SSF can be advantageous from a cell viability point-of-view, especially when working at high solid loadings. Our parallel study on mathematical modeling of the process also strongly indicated increased yeast viability as an important indicator for the overall improved ethanol yield. In addition, the model also indicated increased xylose consumption when xylose-rich feedstock was employed in the multi-feed SSF process (and Franzén C-J. Modeling and experimental studies of multi-feed simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation of pretreated birch to ethanol. Manuscript). It has been shown that filling a 10 m3 reactor with substrate before beginning the batch SSF can be a time-consuming process [18]. However, this multi-feed SSF can be considered feasible since the process commences with the onset of substrate, enzymes and yeast feed, which can collectively reduce the overall process time. Therefore, from an industrial perspective fed-batch SSF could be an attractive feature. However, a techno-economic evaluation is needed to determine the impact of such a strategy on overall process economy, since fed-batch or a continuous mode of operation beckons good process control and associated costs. Table 2 Summary of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) experiments Full size tableFigure 4Comparison of colony forming units (CFU) during the batch and fed-batch SSF using non-washed solids as substrate. CFU (triangles) during batch SSF (dashed-dotted lines), fed-batch SSF with substrate and enzyme feed (dashed lines), fed-batch SSF with yeast and substrate feed (dotted lines) and fed-batch SSF with yeast, enzymes and substrate feed (solid lines). The graph represents the mean of two biological replicates and two technical replicates with error bars indicating standard deviation. The total WIS, enzyme loading and yeast loading were 20% (w/w), 7. 5 FPU gWIS-1 and 5 g L-1, respectively, in all the experiments. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text does not directly address or provide evidence for the claim regarding bioengineered yeast producing high yields of biofuels. Instead, it discusses the advantages of adapting cell cultures in a fed-batch process and includes technical details about fermentation efficiencies and process economics without mentioning bioengineering or high biofuel yields specifically.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: A cashless society could reduce crime related to physical cash handling. [SEP] Text: Is a Possible? Many may argue that it is possible to see a society without cash. Cash is—as I have argued—one of the most important innovations in the history of humanity. Could and should we get rid of that? Many are convinced we must keep cash, while others welcome a transition toward a cashless society. The US economist Kenneth S. Rogoff advocates a move toward a society with less cash in his book of Cash (Rogoff, 2016). The book concludes there are benefits from less cash since it discourages tax evasion and crime and enables governments and central banks to handle economic crises more effectively. One main reason being that the financial policies no longer would be limited by the “zero lower bound” interest rate, i. e. , that the existence of cash makes it difficult to operate with negative interest rates since investors then can turn to cash instead of bonds with negative interest rates. Rogoff also states that illegal activities like organized crime, illegal immigration, and untaxed payments hurt the entire society and could be avoided—or at least made more difficult—if cash disappears. He also shows that this must be balanced against negative effects from less cash such as, for instance, the risk of financial exclusion of some groups if cash disappears. Issuing cash has always been an instrument for a ruler—a king, queen, government, or dictator—to finance its own activities since the seignorage,Footnote 1 the difference between face value of cash and the production costs of cash, often is rather substantial. A question then is whether central banks risk to become financially dependent on governments if their ability to generate seignorage from cash disappears. This may in the end harm the ability for central banks to control the interest rate and to govern the domestic economic markets. Rogoff also acknowledges, however, that seignorage in Sweden actually already is negativeFootnote 2 which implies that this risk does not seem to be critical for the independence of the Riksbank. And it is of course also possible to gain seignorage if a central bank issues digital currencies, i. e. , CBDC, which the Riksbank is considering to do. Footnote 3 A central bank may also fund itself via margins between lending and borrowing. Having central banks that do not issue cash is a possibility (Segendorf & Wilbe, 2014). The central bank of law of Sweden is currently being reviewed where one question concerns the role of cash in Sweden. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by referencing Kenneth S. Rogoff, who argues that moving toward a cashless society can discourage tax evasion and crime. Specifically, the text mentions that Rogoff states illegal activities such as organized crime could be avoided or made more difficult if cash disappears. This supports the claim that a cashless society could lead to a reduction in crime related to handling physical cash.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: Obviously, APs with human-level intelligence who could be recognized as moral persons or possess similar moral status do not exist and it is far from clear whether they will exist in the near future, or at all. It seems that one of the crucial points is that there is no agreement on the possibility of robots with human-level intelligence. Positions on this issue range from radical skepticism and denial of such a possibility to a firm belief about the imminence of a super-intelligent AI that will surpass even the most intelligent human beings. This lack of consensus seems to be clearly reflected in the disagreement among five of the founders of AI—and Trenchard Moore—who were asked about the possibility of human-level AI at the meeting celebrating the 50th anniversary of the conference on which the foundation of AI as a discipline took place (Bringsjord and Naveen 2018). Hence, while the number of scholars who seriously consider a scenario of robots with human-level intelligence and a moral status of a person (or similar) steadily increases (also outside the debate about AP servants, e. g. (Neely 2014; Schwitzgebel and Garza 2015; Gunkel 2018; Gordon 2020, 2021; Gunkel and Wales 2021)), the prospect of such entities remains extremely uncertain. In this case, is there any point in speculating about designing them in an ethical way? I believe there is, regardless of whether such entities will ever exist or not. Generally, while I do not share Petersen’s optimism that APs with human-level intelligence will arrive rather sooner than later, I agree with him that since we cannot rule out with certainty the possibility that APs will exist someday, it is better to be prepared for them than not (Petersen 2007, 44). I also assert that might be right when he claims that if we had known the dangers of global warming at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, we might have been able to avoid it (Turner 2019, 35). While such a point of view might seem both excessively cautious (by assuming we should always worry about risks and dangers) and optimistic (by assuming that by knowing the risk we could avoid it), it does not mean it is obviously wrong. But even if there will never be any APs, and human-level intelligence will never emerge, the discussion about designing them is still not pointless. First, it is connected with some other ethical discussions and may contribute to them. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by expressing skepticism regarding the existence of robots with human-level intelligence, indicating that such advanced AI may never be achieved. It discusses the uncertainty surrounding the development of AI that could possess moral status and implies that without such advancements, AI cannot fully replace human decision-making or oversight in healthcare. The statement that the prospect of human-level AI remains extremely uncertain supports the idea that complete reliance on AI in healthcare is not feasible.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: In addition, the potential of fed-batch SSF with substrate, enzyme and yeast feed can be improved by addressing the challenges pertaining to enzymatic hydrolysis. MethodsMediaThe inoculum for anaerobic fermentations and SSF experiments was prepared by cultivation in minimal medium containing 20 g L-1 glucose and enriched with salts, and 2-fold addition of vitamins and trace elements according to Verduyn et al. [34]. The pH of the medium was set to 6. 0 with 1 M NaOH for all shake-flask cultivations. YPD plates containing 10 g L-1 yeast extract, 20 g L-1 peptone, 20 g L-1 glucose and 20 g L-1 agar were used for colony forming unit (CFU) determination during the SSF. A YNB plate containing 6. 9 g L-1 yeast nitrogen base (without amino acids), 20 g L-1 glucose and 20 g L-1 agar was used to isolate individual colonies of yeast. MicroorganismS. cerevisiae Thermosacc Dry was purchased from Lallemand, USA. The dry yeast was suspended in 5 ml of minimal medium and a loop full of cell suspension was streaked on a YNB plate, which was later incubated at 30°C for 2 days. A loop full of colonies of the same size were picked and re-suspended in 50 ml of minimal medium in a 150-ml shake flask, which was later incubated at 30°C on an orbital shaker set at 180 rpm until the late exponential phase (approximately 20 h). Aliquots of cell suspension (1 ml) were mixed with 0. 5 ml of 60% sterile glycerol and stored at -80°C in sterile vials. Volumes of 100 μl from the vials were used to inoculate precultures. Pretreated spruceSpruce slurry with a WIS content of 20. 3%, w/w (weight of insoluble solids to weight of slurry) was received from SEKAB-E-Technology AB (Örnsköldsvik, Sweden) and the composition of slurry is given in Table 1. The slurry was centrifuged at 10,000 g for 10 minutes to separate the solid and the liquid fractions. Neither the solid nor the liquid fraction was subjected to chemical or physical detoxification. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text is irrelevant to the claim as it discusses experimental methods involving yeast cultivation and fermentation processes but does not provide any information regarding the ability of bioengineered yeast to produce biofuels from sugars or the yields thereof.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Blockchain technology utilizes a decentralized and distributed ledger system (a list of all transactions across a peer-to-peer network) to securely record transactions across a network of computers. Using this technology, participants can transfer value across the Internet without the need for a central third party. Blockchain is the cornerstone of cryptocurrencies, offering a secure and transparent framework for recording transactions along with its unknowns and benefits. In the realm of digital currencies like Bitcoin, blockchain functions as a decentralized ledger, documenting every transaction across a distributed network. Its pivotal roles include decentralization, transparency, immutability, consensus mechanisms, security, and mining. Collectively, blockchain technology furnishes the infrastructure that empowers cryptocurrencies, enabling them to function as decentralized, secure, and trustless systems for the transfer of value. The fundamental principles of blockchain contribute to the robustness and dependability of cryptocurrencies in the digital landscape. Keywords blockchaindistributed ledgerdecentralizationcryptocurrenciesbitcoin Show + Baftijari* Faculty of Economics, University St. Cyril and of Economics, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, *Address all correspondence to: artinabexheti@hotmail. com 1. IntroductionBlockchain, a contemporary buzzword, is an evolving technology with a firm foothold in commercial, financial, governmental, and academic domains. Its architectural features, such as decentralization, cryptocurrency, and consensus, are pivotal in ensuring security. Blockchain comprises validated transaction blocks, and its decentralized structure, free from a single point of failure, enhances safety. This 2. A look at blockchain technology: how does it work? What is blockchain and why is so innovative? The blockchain functions as a decentralized ledger, capturing a comprehensive record of all transactions within a peer-to-peer network. Through this technology, participants have the ability to exchange value over the Internet, bypassing the requirement for a central third party. Its innovativeness effectively tackled a long-standing challenge in the digital domain known as double spending [3], resolving an issue that had persisted for an extended period. Let us consider a simple case:Dori and Aris are friends. Dori has $100 in her wallet, and Aris has none. Dori decides to transfer $100 to Aris. In the physical world, it’s a straightforward exchange: Dori now has no money, and Aris has $100. Simple, right? ! [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain technology serves as a decentralized and distributed ledger system that securely records transactions. It emphasizes that this technology is foundational for cryptocurrencies, stating that 'blockchain functions as a decentralized ledger, documenting every transaction across a distributed network.' Furthermore, it describes the benefits of blockchain in ensuring security and transparency for digital currencies like Bitcoin, clearly supporting the assertion that cryptocurrencies leverage blockchain technology for secure transactions.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: In a very clear manner, Chomanski shows that designers of AP servants are being manipulative in the abovementioned sense:“By programming AIs with overwhelming desires to be servants, their programmers are set on making it close to impossibly psychologically difficult for the AIs to act in any way other than to pursue the life-plan that they are given: even a determined AI servant would likely not pick a different career path. This might be so even if they are programmed with the capacity to reflect on their own desires. Upon being told to build an AI servant, the programmers cannot help but suppose that the servant’s decision about what life plane to pursue are for the programmers to make. The programmers position themselves so as to be able to steer the choices of AI servants with a high degree of efficacy, by constructing the AIs’ psychology in the way just specified. They orchestrate the AIs’ choice space in such a way that only a very narrow range of options is realistically available to them. The AIs’ number of options, when it comes to career choice, is reduced to basically one. The AIs’ own capacity to respond to reasons, or to engage in reasoning, is ignored. The act of thus limiting another’s options and disregarding their rational capacities is expressive of manipulativeness on the programmers’ part—that is, of being willing to orchestrate another’s choices in an excessive manner. It is, therefore, wrong” (Chomanski 2019, 1006). Hence, Chomanski believes that designing artificial servants involves manipulativeness on the side of designers since by selecting specific features of the designee (e. g. , the desire to serve), they are “willing to orchestrate another’s choices in an excessive manner” by—I take the following features as crucial—“limiting another’s options” and “disregarding their rational capacities. ” Hence, Chomanski contends that designing people to serve is wrong because it involves the manipulativeness of the designers. A few clarifications on the concept of manipulativeness seem worth making. First, clearly, Baron’s account of manipulativeness represents only one of many approaches to this problem. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the manipulative design of AI systems as described by Chomanski. It emphasizes that AI servants are constructed in a way that limits their options and disregards their rational capacities. This indicates that AI systems are not autonomous and are heavily influenced by designers, which implies that they cannot function without human oversight. Therefore, the idea that AI can eliminate human error independently is challenged by the argument that these systems are designed to serve specific agendas and lack the ability to make autonomous decisions.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: The solid fraction was used as a substrate feed for SSF. The liquid fraction along with the minimal medium was used for cultivation during the adaptation step. The liquid fraction was also used for anaerobic fermentation to assess its fermentability by Thermosacc. Cultivation of ThermosaccThe preculture for cell cultivation was developed in 50 ml of minimal medium in a 150-ml shake flask incubated at 30°C on an orbital shaker set at 180 rpm for 20 h. The cells were cultivated in a 3. 6-L Infors HT-Labfors bioreactor in two stages, an initial batch phase in minimal medium, followed by a fed-batch phase of adaptation in a medium of liquid fraction with minimal medium. The batch phase was initiated by adding 50 ml of preculture to a working volume of 500 ml, and the cultivation was carried out until the growth on glucose followed by ethanol was completed, which was indicated by CO2 evolution in the off-gas and by the dissolved oxygen concentration in the culture. Upon exhaustion of glucose and ethanol in the batch phase, a feed solution of the liquid fraction (from pretreated slurry) and minimal medium was fed linearly for 16 h to a final volume of 1. 3 L. The concentration of liquid fraction in the feed solution was 50% (v/v). The minimal medium was supplemented to the feed solution to a final hexose (glucose, mannose and galactose) concentration of 50 g L-1 and the salts, vitamins and trace elements were correspondingly scaled up. The stirrer speed was set to 700 rpm during the batch phase and increased linearly to 1,000 rpm during the fed-batch phase. The aeration rate was maintained at 1 volume per volume per minute (vvm) and the pH was maintained at 5. 0 by automatic addition of 2 M NaOH. Cell suspension was harvested after the fed-batch phase and used as yeast loading for anaerobic fermentation and also as initial yeast loading for the subsequent fed-batch SSF process. After the fed-batch phase the cultivation process was changed to a continuous mode with the adaptation feed solution with a flow rate of 50 ml h-1 and the working volume was maintained at 1 L. A part of the outflow was manually regulated as a cell suspension feed to the SSF reactor. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text provides a detailed description of the experimental setup involving the cultivation of yeast and fermentation processes, but it does not explicitly address or support the claim regarding the bioengineering of yeast for high yields of biofuels from sugars. Therefore, it is considered irrelevant to the claim.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: But let us imagine the following situation:In the digital scenario, Dori’s transfer of a photo representing $100 to Aris introduces a unique challenge. Unlike the physical transfer of money, the digital photo is duplicable, leading to questions about its ownership and potential misuse. retain a copy of the photo, share it with additional friends, or even post it publicly on social media where it could be freely downloaded? The inherent replicability of digital assets like these challenges the traditional notion of ownership and transfer, highlighting the need for a secure and trustworthy system to manage digital transactions. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and tamper-resistant characteristics, aims to address such issues in the digital realm. Digital LedgerTo address the questions raised earlier, we rely on the concept of a digital ledger. The key is to have a record of the quantity of $100 digital photos owned by Dori and how she distributes them among her friends. However, it’s not Dori’s responsibility to maintain these records. In the contemporary landscape of digital banking transactions, this record-keeping role is assumed by the bank. The bank, subject to regulatory oversight, ensures transparency about the funds Dori possesses and how she utilizes them. In this context, the bank functions as a third-party entity, independent and responsible for maintaining accurate records. Nonetheless, it’s crucial to remember that digital banking transactions are underpinned by actual, physical banknotes. The quantity and issuance of these banknotes are regulated by the respective central bank. Here, we return to the initial point: the bank resolved the issue of digitally distributing physical banknotes. However, in the second scenario, Dori possesses a digital photo of a banknote. Questions arise: Who captured that photo? How did Dori obtain it? What are her intentions for spending it? Furthermore, uncertainties linger regarding the total number of such digital photos and whether they hold genuine value. Blockchain digital ledger conceptBlockchain provides a straightforward solution to the scenario involving the digital photo on Dori’s phone and the question of record-keeping. Rather than relying on a third party like a bank, trusted friend, or notary, blockchain proposes that the record should be decentralized and shared with everyone interested in sharing digital photos of banknotes through their mobile phones or computers. In contrast to a centralized model, blockchain introduces a distributed approach. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain technology addresses challenges in digital transactions, particularly in ensuring ownership and preventing misuse of digital assets. It highlights that blockchain provides a decentralized and tamper-resistant record-keeping system, which is essential for secure transactions, especially in the context of digital assets like cryptocurrencies.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: The novelty it brings is not only the argument and its content but also the perspective that differs from the perspective that has been dominating the discussion since its origins. and Petersen were focused on the question of whether or not designing artificial servants wrongs them. puts it in the title of one of his papers (Petersen 2017), the question is “Is it good for them too? ” (“them” refers to AP servants). The same refers to Musiał and Danaher. Hence, Chomanski’s claim about manipulativeness is not focused on the main topic of the discussion to date—the well-being of the designee—and instead focuses on the attitude of the designers. What makes the argument about manipulativeness and the shift in the perspective an interesting contribution is that even if one assumes that APs’ autonomy and general well-being are not harmed by designing them as servants, the process of designing AP servants remains objectionable due to the manipulativeness of the designers. This is an important shift, since it shows that even if the consequences of designing AP servants can be ethical both for themselves and for society in general, something can still be wrong with the whole process due to the attitudes of the designers. Actually, it seems that Chomanski’s shift of perspective largely depends on the fact that he—without stating it explicitly—embraces virtue ethics and considers manipulativeness as a vice, following Baron in that regard. Hence, it is worth comparing it with some other accounts that approach similar problems from the perspective of virtue ethics. The closest and most obvious account is Petersen’s approach (2007, 290–291). Petersen also briefly engages with virtue ethics and, however, he worries about the well-being and character of the designee, while Chomanski focuses on the well-being and character of the designer. Somewhat more distant and less obviously similar accounts are those that use virtue ethics in examining ethical problems with robots that are not persons. In particular, (2017, 2021) claims that virtue ethics enables us to clarify what is ethically objectionable in a situation in which a human being treats a robot which is not a person violently (e. g. by raping it), even if the robot is not—and cannot be—harmed. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing ethical concerns related to the design and use of artificial servants, emphasizing the manipulativeness of designers and the importance of considering the well-being of both the designers and the artificial entities. This suggests that oversight and ethical considerations are crucial in the development of AI, implying that complete elimination of human error is not feasible without such oversight.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: Anaerobic fermentation in shake flasksThe fermentation was carried out to a working volume of 50 ml in 100-ml shake flasks fitted with a glycerol loop providing an anaerobic condition. Different concentrations of the liquid fraction (90%, 60% and 40% (v/v)) were screened. The pH of the liquid fraction was adjusted to 6. 0 and supplemented with 0. 5 g l-1 (NH4)2HPO4, 125 ppm of vitahop (Betatech Gmbh, Schwabach, Germany) (to suppress bacterial growth). The fermentation was initiated by adding harvested cell suspension to reach a yeast concentration of 3 g dry weight L-1. The flasks were incubated at 30°C on an orbital shaker set at 180 rpm for 96 h and samples were withdrawn for optical density (OD)650 measurement and extracellular metabolite analysis. SSFAll the SSF experiments were carried out to a total WIS content of 20% (w/w), total enzyme loading of 7. 5 FPU g-1 WIS, total yeast loading of 5 g dry weight L-1 and to a final working weight of 1. 5 kg in 3. 6-L Infors HT-Labfors reactors. An enzyme preparation, Cellic Ctec-2 from Novozymes A/S, Denmark with a filter paper activity of 149 FPU g-1 enzyme, β-glucosidase activity of 590 IU g-1 enzyme was used. The solid fraction of the pretreated spruce was used as the substrate, and the pH of this was adjusted to 5. 0 using 10 M NaOH and supplemented with 0. 5 g L-1 (NH4)2HPO4 and 125 ppm of vitahop. Batch SSF was initiated by adding fed-batch adapted cell suspension and enzyme preparation. Fed-batch SSF was initially started as a batch SSF of 500 g as a working weight with 10% (w/w) WIS content, 50% of total yeast cell suspension (fed-batch adapted) and 50% of total enzyme preparation. After an initial period of 8 h of batch SSF the solid fraction, enzyme preparation and yeast cell suspension (continuous mode adapted) were manually fed every 4 or 8 h. The manual feeding was carried out for a period of 65 h. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text does not address the claim regarding bioengineered yeast producing high yields of biofuels from sugars. Instead, it describes specific fermentation conditions and processes used in an experiment involving yeast but does not provide evidence or support that bioengineered yeast can achieve the claimed outcomes.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Rather than having a centralized ledger tracking the number of digital photos of $100 on Dori’s phone or computer, this information is dispersed among the phones and computers of all participants involved. This includes not only Dori but also Aris and others engaged in exchanging digital photos for $100 via mobile phones or computers. The blockchain diligently records and disseminates this information to everyone. shares her unique digital photo of $100 with Aris, the blockchain accurately registers an “outflow” from Dori and an “inflow” to Aris, ensuring verification and distribution across the network. Attempting to send the same digital photo to 100 more friends becomes impractical since the blockchain records of all others are not synchronized. In their records, Dori no longer owns a digital photo of $100, leading to the rejection of her attempted transaction. Consequently, Dori no longer possesses the digital photo, while Aris does. 2. 1 Distributed and traditional databaseBlockchain operates as a decentralized database, recording a comprehensive audit trail of all transactions. Unlike traditional databases, it is managed by a network of computers, with no single computer holding sole responsibility for storage or administration. This ensures that any computer can join or leave the network without compromising data integrity or availability. The database can be restored from scratch by any computer, simply by downloading it from the network and processing the audit trail. In contrast, traditional databases are typically controlled by a single organization with complete authority, including the ability to manipulate data. While this may not pose issues in certain contexts, the sensitive nature of financial transactions creates a risk of data manipulation and falsification. To counter this, banks undergo continuous audit and regulatory scrutiny, facing persistent threats from external malicious hackers. Blockchain addresses these challenges by allowing the database to be managed by a distributed network, making it publicly accessible to everyone. This open model enables anyone to create a redundant copy of the database and verify it against other copies. However, this approach is best suited for static data that does not change over time. For dynamic data, a consensus problem arises when changes are needed after the database has been distributed. Determining the validity, permission, and order of changes becomes crucial. Allowing any entity with a copy of the database to make changes could lead to desynchronization, and a consensus must be reached on which database reflects the true state. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by describing how blockchain technology functions as a decentralized database that records transactions in a secure manner. It explains that blockchain maintains comprehensive records of transactions and allows for verification and distribution across the network, ensuring that the digital ownership of assets (such as a digital photo) is accurately tracked. This illustrates how blockchain facilitates secure transactions, aligning well with the claim regarding cryptocurrencies.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: This objectionability results from the fact that this behaviour is an expression of vice: a negative trait in one’s character. It is clear that it is similar to Chomański’s approach, in the sense that virtue ethics enables us to condemn some actions taken towards robots, even if the robots do not suffer any harm because of them. Yet, the crucial difference is that Sparrow focuses solely on the character of the users of already existing robots, while Chomanski concentrates on the character of the designers of robots that are not yet built. In other words, Sparrow shows that it is bad for one’s character to use robots in particular ways, while Chomanski demonstrates that it is bad for one’s character to design robots in a specific manner. To be sure, Sparrow emphasizes the role of designers and the importance of the process of designing robots, yet he does that in terms of the duties of designers and the consequences of their actions rather than in terms of their character traits (2017, 474–475). Hence, Chomanski’s position seems to be novel and specific in terms of focusing on the character of robot designers, and particularly on the vice of manipulativeness. In the next section, I focus only on the presence of manipulativeness on the side of designers in the cases of various types of APs. 4 Manipulativeness in designing various types of APsThe idea that the discussion about AP servants actually refers to a broader range of cases is not entirely new. For instance, Petersen, Musiał and Danaher have suggested that many issues connected to designing AP servants are in many relevant respects similar to the discussion of genetically enhancing human beings. Hence, many questions that appear regarding designing APs can be extrapolated to cases of genetic enhancement and vice versa. However, in this section, my aims are more modest: I only examine which kinds of APs inevitably involve manipulativeness as a part of their design. 4. 1 AP servantsChomanski directly addresses the question of whether it is possible to design AP servants without manipulativeness, and I believe that he is right when he claims there is no way to design AP servants without the designers being manipulative (2019, 1011–1012). [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the unavoidable presence of manipulativeness in the design of autonomous agents (APs) and emphasizing that it is impossible to create AP servants without manipulative design by the designers. This suggests that oversight and ethical considerations are necessary, which undermines the claim that AI can eliminate human error completely without oversight.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: Fed-batch SSF with substrate and enzyme-cocktail feed was carried out in a similar way but with all the required yeast cell suspension added at the beginning. Fed-batch SSF with substrate and cell-suspension feed was carried out in a similar manner but with all the required enzyme preparation added at the beginning. The temperature was maintained at 35°C and pH at 5. 0 by automatic addition of 5 M NaOH. The stirrer speed was set at 700 rpm for batch SSF and 400 rpm for fed-batch SSF. All the experiments were carried out in duplicates. Colony-forming unitsSamples collected during the SSF were serially diluted using sterile normal saline solution; 100 μl of two of the dilutions were plated on YPD plates and incubated at 30°C for 2 days and the colonies were counted and represented as CFU ml-1. Sample preparationTo make the sample pipettable equivalent to water, 1 g of the withdrawn sample from SSF was diluted five times with milliQ water. The diluted samples were quantified for metabolites by HPLC. The concentrations (including the dilution factor) of metabolites obtained by HPLC were represented in g (metabolite) kg (slurry)-1. This concentration was used to determine the yields presented in Table 2. However, for the data representation in the graphs and elsewhere in the text, the concentration (g kg-1) was converted to concentration (g L-1) by multiplying with a conversion factor of 1. 06 (kg L-1). The conversion factor was determined by pipetting 1 ml of slurry using a cut tip and weighing. Analysis of metabolitesSamples for extracellular metabolites were analyzed by HPLC using Aminex HPX-87H column with 30 × 4. 6 mm Cation-H Biorad micro-guard column (Bio-) maintained at 45°C; 5 mM H2SO4 was used as an eluent at a flow rate of 0. 6 ml min-1. Glycerol, ethanol and acetic acid were detected using an RI detector maintained at 35°C; HMF and furfural were detected using a UV detector at 210 nm. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text does not provide information directly related to the claim about bioengineered yeast producing high yields of biofuels from sugars. Instead, it describes experimental procedures related to sample analysis and fermentation processes, including substrate preparation, HPLC analysis of metabolites, and operational conditions during experiments, which are not specifically about the claim.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Introducing an entity with the privilege to make changes first, followed by others copying the database, attempts to address this issue. However, this raises concerns of potential data manipulation and censorship by the chosen entity for personal gain. A solution could involve a rotational system for managing entities and copying the “correct” state of the database. Yet, determining the order and process of changing controlling entities remains a question [4]. 2. 2 Blockchain: the final solutionBlockchain technology addresses these challenges by establishing a network of computers, known as nodes, each of which possesses a copy of the database and adheres to a set of rules defined as a consensus protocol. The consensus protocol outlines the sequence in which nodes can introduce changes to the database, ensuring unanimous agreement among all network nodes regarding the database’s state. This structure prevents any single entity from having the authority to manipulate or censor transactions. Moreover, the blockchain includes an immutable audit trail documenting all modifications to the database. This feature enables all controlling entities to scrutinize and validate the accuracy of the database. The audit trail comprises individual changes referred to as transactions. A set of transactions added to the database by a single node constitutes a “block. ” Each block contains a reference to the preceding block in the blockchain, establishing a chronological order [4]. The blockchain, essentially a chain of blocks, interconnects each block with the previous one and includes a list of new transactions occurring after the preceding block. When a new node joins the network, it initiates an empty database and retrieves all previous blocks from the network. This process ensures alignment with the databases of all other nodes. Fundamentally, blockchain orchestrates the sequence of transactions within the database, enabling anyone to verify its accuracy by reconstructing it from the beginning. 2. 3 Blockchain in actionBlockchain technology finds widespread application in Bitcoin, a prominent example of its utilization. Bitcoin operates as a digital cryptocurrency, employing blockchain for monitoring transactions and issuing digital currency units. When an individual intends to spend Bitcoins, they generate a transaction specifying the amount and recipient. This transaction is digitally signed and disseminated to nodes within the Bitcoin network. Upon the creation of the next block in the transaction chain by one of the nodes, it verifies the validity of the new transaction. If deemed valid, the transaction is included in the block, which, as part of the replicated chain, is distributed across all nodes in the network. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain technology is utilized in cryptocurrencies, specifically mentioning Bitcoin. It describes the role of the blockchain in monitoring transactions and ensuring the integrity of the digital currency, highlighting that each transaction is verified by nodes within the network. This reinforces the claim that blockchain is essential for facilitating secure transactions in cryptocurrencies.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: However, it is important to note that the kind of APs that Chomanski discusses is one of many, so it is at least possible that the APs discussed by Chomanski do have to be designed with manipulativeness, but some others do not. First, it is worth examining what exact features Chomanski ascribes to the AP servants that he discusses. Chomanski initiates his investigations by asserting that AP servants should necessarily meet two conditions: the human-level AI condition (they should have “human-level intelligence, (…) autonomy, rationality, the possession of a moral character and a conception of the good” (Chomanski 2019, 995)) and the servitude condition (they “will have to be programmed in such a way as to be reliably willing to serve the relevant human needs (…) above almost all else” (Chomanski 2019, 996)). Hence, the first crucial feature of APs discussed by Chomanski is that they are artificial entities that possess all the necessary qualities to be considered a person, whatever these qualities are (Chomanski emphasizes that one of them should be human-level intelligence). This approach is common to all discussions about the APs mentioned above and is shared in my considerations presented below and the reason for this is obvious: if we want to discuss any group of artificial persons, they need to possess the features that persons possess (whatever these features are). As for the servitude condition, it differentiates the kind of APs that Chomanski discusses from other kinds of APs. This condition makes the APs discussed by Chomanski servants and seems to refer both to—to refer to Petersen’s distinction—“general servitude” and “specific servitude” (Petersen 2017, 289–291) (actually, Chomanski in his more recent text also distinguishes between these two kinds of servitude, although without using such terms (2021, 185)). General servants are those who do not have desires for any particular servitude actions, but for general servitude toward human beings, whatever they ask for—they simply have a “general” desire to serve humans. Specific servants are those who have a desire to do some particular tasks, such as a desire to wash clothes, iron them, etc. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the complexity of artificial agents (APs) and the necessity for them to possess human-level intelligence and moral character in order to serve human needs. This suggests that AI systems, as proposed by Chomanski, need a structured approach to servitude and intelligence, implying oversight and design considerations are critical, rather than the idea of complete elimination of human error.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: The monomeric sugars in the samples were analyzed by high performance anion exchange chromatography using 4 × 250 mm Dionex CarboPac PA1 column with 4 × 50 mm guard column (Thermo Scientific, Sweden) maintained at 30°C. Eluent A: 300 mM NaOH, eluent B: 100 mM NaOH + 85 mM sodium acetate were used for elution at a flow rate of 1 ml min-1. Monosaccharides including galactose, glucose and mannose were detected using pulsed amperometric detector. Ethanol yield calculationThe ethanol yield was represented as % of the maximum theoretical yield based on total available hexose sugars. The sum of available fermentable sugars, including glucose, mannose and galactose in the liquid fraction and WIS fraction was calculated. Due to the addition of water during hydrolysis, the theoretical weight of glucose released is 1. 11 times the weight of glucan. By using the maximum theoretical ethanol yield of 0. 51 g g-1 sugar, the maximum ethanol that can be produced from total available sugars was calculated. The percentage of the theoretical ethanol yield is defined as: Y SE = 100 * produced amount of ethanol g maximum theoretical amount of ethanol g AbbreviationsCFU: colony-forming units FPU: filter paper units HMF: 5-hydroxy-methyl furfural HPAEC: high performance anion exchange chromatography HPLC: high performance liquid chromatography SSF: simultaneous saccharification and fermentation WIS: water insoluble solids YPD: yeast extract peptone dextrose. 875. 10. 1016/j. enconman. 2010. 08. 013628. 10. 1007/s00253-002-1058-91117. 233. 10. 1002/bit. 260340211497. 10. 1021/ef800434u415. 10. 1016/j. enzmictec. 2011. 01. 007349. 10. 1002/jctb. 167653. 10. 1016/j. tibtech. 2013. 10. 003870. 10. 1002/bit. 2111581. 10. 1007/BF029507784964. 10. 1016/j. biortech. 2009. 11. 01014. 10. 1186/1754-6834-3-147. 10. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text provides detailed information about the analysis of monomeric sugars and ethanol yield calculation but does not directly address or support the claim regarding bioengineered yeast producing biofuels. Therefore, it is considered irrelevant to the specific claim about the capabilities of bioengineered yeast.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: This process effectively records an outflow from the sender and an inflow to the recipient [5]. 2. 4 Blockchain consensus protocolThe primary function of a consensus protocol is to establish rules governing the addition of blocks to the chain in terms of order and timing. This is crucial for a blockchain to maintain a consistent and unalterable sequence of events, universally agreed upon by all nodes, representing the current state of the database. Furthermore, this event sequence should be immune to censorship, ensuring that no single node possesses unilateral control over the admission of information. Currently, there are two main types of consensus protocols in use [6]:2. 4. 1 Proof of work (PoW)Proof of Work (PoW) serves as the original consensus protocol within the Bitcoin network. This protocol relies on solving intricate logic puzzles that are challenging to solve but easy to verify once completed. It can be likened to assembling a complex jigsaw puzzle with a multitude of tiny pieces — a formidable task to piece together, but a quick glance can confirm if the picture is complete and accurate. In the PoW protocol, the exertion involved in solving the puzzle is termed “Work,” and the puzzle solution is the “Proof of Work. ” Essentially, the ability to verify the correctness of the solution confirms that someone has performed the work accurately. A blockchain utilizing a PoW consensus protocol requires proof for each block added to the chain. As a reward for their efforts, the node receives a specific number of digital tokens, characteristic of the network. In the case of the Bitcoin network, this reward is in the form of Bitcoins, constituting the initial generation of these digital tokens. All circulating Bitcoins and those to be released in the future are generated as a reward for the work executed by the nodes in the block generation process, commonly known as “mining. ” The PoW protocol inherently values the chain with the most blocks as the current “correct” chain, given the greater cumulative work invested in it. Considered highly secure, the PoW protocol presents a significant challenge for any attempt to overwrite or forge a block. Such an alteration would invalidate previous blocks, requiring the reworking of all prior blocks before a new block could be added. For a successful alteration, a node would need a processing speed exceeding 51% of the combined speed of all other nodes — an event known as a “51% attack. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text supports the claim by detailing how blockchain technology functions, particularly through the description of the consensus protocol utilized by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. It explains how blockchain maintains a secure and unalterable sequence of events, which is vital for facilitating secure transactions. The mention of the Proof of Work (PoW) protocol highlights its role in ensuring the blockchain’s security and integrity, aligning with the claim that cryptocurrencies utilize such technology for secure transactions.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: However, it is worth mentioning that specific servitude refers not only to APs designed to perform mundane tasks clearly being a kind of servitude, such as washing or ironing. It also refers to those that would be designed to be piano players or mathematicians. Moreover, it needs to be emphasized that both Petersen and Chomanski assume that the intensity of desires—either general or specific—to serve would be analogous to human beings’ desire for food and water. Hence, both general and specific AP servants are designed to be “willing to serve the relevant human needs (…) above almost all else” and thus are meeting Chomanski’s servitude condition. It seems that in the case of both general and specific AP servants, the manipulativeness of designers is clear. Designers implement a general desire to serve or particular desires to perform some serving tasks and hence are “willing to orchestrate another’s choices in an excessive manner” by limiting another’s options and disregarding their rational capacities. Designers simply want both general and specific AP servants to do what they have been programmed to without taking other options into account or reasoning whether it is good to do so. Hence, both cases are clear examples of manipulativeness. There are two main reasons why general and specific AP servants are designed with inevitable manipulativeness in mind. The first is the strength of desires that are assigned to them. The second is a lack of alternative—not designed by the programmers—desires they could obtain and follow. These two features limit APs’ options and express a disregard for their rational capacities and therefore enable programmers to believe they can lead AP servants to act as they want them to. Hence, it is worth considering cases of APs in which desires programmed by designers are weaker and can be accompanied by desires not programmed by designers. 4. 2 AP workersOne such case is described in Chomański’s more recent paper, in which he discusses the case of APs made for profit (Chomanski 2021)—I will call them AP workers. Clearly, AP workers would meet the human-level AI condition, and they have all the features necessary to consider them persons equal to human beings. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the inherent manipulativeness of artificial persons (APs) designed for servitude, which indicates that these systems cannot operate without external influence and oversight. The discussion highlights that designers program specific desires into APs, disregarding their rational capacities and limiting their options, which suggests that human oversight is fundamental in guiding their actions. This implies that AI cannot completely eliminate human error as it still relies on human programming and design choices.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: Influence of fiber degradation and concentration of fermentable sugars on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of high-solids spruce slurry to ethanol access Published: 08 October 2013 Influence of fiber degradation and concentration of fermentable sugars on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of high-solids spruce slurry to ethanol Kerstin Hoyer1, Mats Galbe1 & Guido Zacchi1 Biotechnology for Biofuels 13. 7% water-insoluble solids (WIS) resulted in a very low overall ethanol yield, mostly due to poor fermentation. The yeast was, however, able to ferment the washed slurry and the liquid fraction of the pretreated slurry. Performing prehydrolysis at 48°C for 22 hours prior to SSF of the whole pretreated slurry increased the overall ethanol yield from 3. 9 to 62. 1%. The initial concentration of fermentable sugars in SSF could not explain the increase in ethanol yield in SSF with prehydrolysis. Although the viscosity of the material did not appear to decrease significantly during prehydrolysis, the degradation of the fibers prior to the addition of the yeast had a positive effect on ethanol yield when using whole steam-pretreated spruce slurry. ConclusionsThe results of the present study suggest that the increase in ethanol yield from SSF when performing prehydrolysis is a result of fiber degradation rather than a decrease in viscosity. The increased concentration of fermentable sugars at the beginning of the fermentation phase in SSF following prehydrolysis did not affect the overall ethanol yield in the present study. BackgroundEthanol can be produced from spruce by enzymatic hydrolysis using cellulolytic enzymes followed by fermentation with baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Performing these two steps simultaneously in so-called simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) has shown advantages such as reduced end product inhibition of the cellulolytic enzymes, increased overall ethanol yield, and reduced reactor volume [1–3]. Historically, in most research studies rather low solids loadings, usually between 2-10 wt%, have been employed. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text discusses the process of using baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) to produce ethanol from spruce through simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), but it does not specifically address bioengineered yeast or the potential for designing yeast to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the claim.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Private blockchains find utility in consortia and larger corporations that necessitate sharing information and documents among approved entities. In the financial sector, developing a private blockchain is meant to facilitate back-office operations related to clearing and settlement. Advertisement 3. The application of blockchain in worldwide financial systems: its advantages and implications! The intersection of financial systems with information technologies has witnessed a revolutionary shift with the advent of blockchain technology, offering the potential to fundamentally reshape financial landscapes. Several key advantages of blockchain contribute to its transformative impact [8]:Publicly available ledger system: Blockchain operates as a publicly accessible ledger, where all transactions are recorded and verified. This inherent transparency ensures a secure and reliable system, instilling trust among participants. Transaction immutability: Every transaction within the blockchain is authorized and validated by controllers known as “miners. ” Once recorded, transactions become immutable, meaning they cannot be altered or tampered with. This feature enhances security, providing robust protection against malicious intrusions and hacks—common concerns in contemporary financial IT systems. Elimination of intermediaries: Blockchain technology eliminates the need for intermediaries, enabling direct peer-to-peer transactions. Traditional financial systems often involve intermediaries such as banks or clearinghouses, introducing delays and costs. Blockchain streamlines the process, facilitating more efficient and cost-effective transactions. Decentralization: One of the core tenets of blockchain is decentralization. This technology is practically available to everyone, fostering a decentralized network where no single entity holds exclusive control. This decentralization not only enhances accessibility but also contributes to the resilience and security of the system. As blockchain continues to evolve, these advantages pave the way for more inclusive, efficient, and secure financial systems. The elimination of intermediaries, coupled with enhanced transparency and immutability, opens doors to innovative financial applications and services, driving a shift towards more direct and peer-to-peer interactions in the digital economy. The above-mentioned advantages of blockchain technology are manifested in various ways, particularly within financial systems, bringing about transformative possibilities:Cross-border payments: Enable fast, direct one-to-one payments, reducing costs for international transactions. Faster and better trading: Facilitates faster and more extensive trading, addressing constraints in international trade and finance. Allows for the creation of decentralized organizations and micro-investments. Guaranteed payments: Ensures guaranteed payments, enhancing trade in low-trust countries. Levels the playing field for poorer countries in international trading. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain technology provides secure transactions through features such as a publicly accessible ledger system, transaction immutability, elimination of intermediaries, and decentralization. It emphasizes that these advantages lead to more efficient and cost-effective transactions, which align with the claim about the role of blockchain in cryptocurrencies.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: White (2011, 162–170) and (2019, 197–201) discuss providing AI with legal personhood and, as a result, with a right to own property and money, to conclude contracts, or to sue others. Yet, one could wonder whether it is the right thing to do. Even assuming that we would agree that APs are persons in the moral sense, why would we decide that they are also persons in the legal sense and grant them powers such as those mentioned above? Why would people decide that robots can earn money and own goods? While there are various arguments for and against such a resolution, one possible answer is that if we recognize APs as moral persons equal to humans, and design them to have their desires and require some resources to maintain—such as electricity—and they were nobody’s property (since it is rather uncontroversial that moral persons should not be owned by anyone), then letting them work and earn is probably the best way to enable them to achieve those desires and obtain the resources. Otherwise, we would have to provide them with electricity and other goods for free, which seems even more controversial, or to ignore their desires and needs, which would also be highly questionable, since we would be the ones who brought them into a miserable existence. Then, in a sense, granting robots moral personhood and making them equal to humans results in problems that can be solved by granting them legal personality. Such a scenario of course remains highly speculative and even more controversial. Yet, to repeat, one of the side- or meta-aims of this study is to signal the problems that would appear if robots became persons, and hence to enable us to decide whether developing such robots is an aim we would like to try to achieve at all. Let us get back to the bottom line: Does designing such AP workers involve a manipulativeness on the side of designers? I believe it does. One could claim that a manipulativeness is not present because the desires programmed by designers for AP workers are significantly weaker than those programmed for AP servants, and also because AP workers can have their own desires not programmed by the designers. I assert that this only means that the manipulativeness is weaker, and not that it is utterly absent. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing potential legal and moral implications of AI and its personhood. It suggests that there are significant ethical considerations and potential manipulations involved in designing AI that may challenge the idea that AI can operate without oversight. The mention of manipulativeness in AI design indicates that human influence remains, countering the notion that AI can completely eliminate human error.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: In batch SSF of steam-pretreated spruce with 10% water-insoluble solids (WIS) it is possible to achieve almost complete conversion of the fermentable sugars in the substrate to ethanol, resulting in a final ethanol concentration after SSF of about 40 g/L [4–6]. In the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic material such as spruce, it is essential to reach a final ethanol concentration after the fermentation step of at least 4-5 wt% in order to reduce the energy demand, and thus the cost, of product recovery by distillation [7]. The only way to increase the final ethanol concentration is to increase the concentration of fermentable sugars in the process. This can be done by increasing the substrate loading. Recent studies on high solids hydrolysis and fermentation of lignocellulosic material to ethanol often focus on solids concentrations above 10%. However, the use of substrates with high solids contents suffers from various problems, including poor stirring of the material, and high inhibitor concentrations causing inhibition of the yeast, and sometimes also the enzymes [5, 8–14]. We have previously found that batch SSF of steam-pretreated spruce with 13. 7% WIS resulted in an overall ethanol yield of only 5-6%, even when using reactors modified to handle solid or semi-solid material, thus assuring adequate mixing of the material [8]. We also showed that this process could be improved by performing prehydrolysis at a higher temperature prior to SSF. Prehydrolysis at 48°C for 22 hours increased the final ethanol concentration from 3 to 48 g/L using whole steam-pretreated spruce slurry with 13. 7% WIS [8]. The aim of prehydrolysis prior to SSF is to partially hydrolyze the cellulose prior to the addition of the yeast. The optimal temperature range for the cellulolytic enzymes used in this study (Cellic CTec2) is 45-50°C [15], which is higher than the optimal temperature for S. cerevisiae. Separate prehydrolysis enables enzymatic hydrolysis to take place at a higher temperature than fermentation. Also, prehydrolysis has been reported to decrease the viscosity of the material, thus facilitating mixing [9, 16–18]. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text is irrelevant to the claim as it discusses the fermentation process of pretreated spruce to ethanol, methods of increasing ethanol concentration, and challenges related to high solid content, without directly addressing bioengineered yeast or its design for producing biofuels from sugars.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Micropayments: Supports efficient micropayments, reducing fraud risks and transaction costs. Control of payments and prevention of money laundering: Acts as a decentralized tool for controlling payments and preventing money laundering. Provides a globally accessible ledger for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing. Despite these benefits, challenges include the risk of fund loss due to hacker attacks, and users bear the responsibility for their security in the absence of a centralized resolution authority. As blockchain continues to evolve, addressing these challenges is crucial for maximizing its impact on financial systems and global trade. Moreover, companies venturing into the implementation of blockchain technology, particularly in its early stages, face a spectrum of risk factors that demand thorough understanding and careful management [8]:Limited major implementations: Blockchain is a developing technology with a relatively small number of major implementations. The full scope of its limitations is not yet understood and is actively under research. Unanswered questions persist, such as how the model would scale with the substantial volume of daily transactions in financial markets. Transaction cost volatility: Observations from current implementations, notably with Bitcoin, reveal considerable fluctuations in transaction costs, ranging from minimal to unprofitable. Managing this volatility is crucial, particularly in domains like micropayments, where transaction costs can surpass the value of the payment itself. Rapid evolution of code and implementation methods: As a developing technology, the programming code and implementation methods are evolving rapidly. Organizations in the early stages of implementation may face risks associated with rule changes, modifications, or discontinuation of support for certain aspects of the technology. Security risks: Security risks in blockchain technology are multifaceted and demand comprehensive attention. Considerations include access control, the robustness of cryptographic algorithms, the security of control nodes in the network, the potential dominance of processors (e. g. , quantum processors), and the risk of denial-of-service attacks leading to potential unavailability. While these risks are inherent in the current state of blockchain technology, ongoing advancements, research, and industry maturation are expected to mitigate these challenges over the long term. Companies should adopt a proactive approach to risk management and stay abreast of developments to ensure the successful and secure implementation of blockchain solutions. Advertisement 4. ConclusionsBlockchain, at its core, operates as a decentralized and tamper-resistant digital ledger, offering a transparent and secure way to record and verify transactions. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining that blockchain operates as a 'decentralized and tamper-resistant digital ledger,' which effectively supports secure transactions. It emphasizes the technology's capacity to record and verify transactions transparently and securely, aligning with the definition of how cryptocurrencies function.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: Moreover, as Chomański shows in his “manipulativeness without manipulation” claim, when we discuss a designer’s manipulativeness, we do not necessarily have to consider whether anyone is actually manipulated as a result or the consequences of manipulativeness in general. To remind, manipulativeness means “willing to orchestrate another’s choices in an excessive manner” by “limiting another’s options” and “disregarding their rational capacities. ” I contend that in the case of AP workers, designers attempt to lead APs to act as they want them to—they want to receive money from the company, and it is possible only if APs want to work and do so efficiently, so they design AP workers in such a way. In this sense, they aim to limit APs’ options and disregard their rational capacities to shape their own future, though to a lesser degree than in the case of AP servants, but still. Actually, my claim that manipulativeness is present even if the designed desires are not overwhelming and accompanied by other, non-designed desires seems to be compatible with Chomanski’s approach—he asserts that manipulativeness is present even if designers “do not exercise complete control over the AI’s psychological profile” (2019, 1012). However, one could formulate at least three doubts about the claim that designing AP workers is manipulative. Regarding the first doubt, one could claim that designing AP workers does not have to necessarily involve manipulativeness and that to eliminate it, it is enough to design weaker desires and leave more room for other desires. In other words, one could argue that the only reason why the case of AP workers involves manipulativeness is that the desires programmed by the designers are too strong and that they influence the APs too much in comparison to their other desires not programmed by the designers. As a result, to eliminate manipulativeness, it is sufficient to weaken the former and increase room for the latter. I disagree with this. I believe that in such a case, designers are still “willing to orchestrate another’s choices in an excessive manner. ” Actually, the fact that they are willing to orchestrate another’s choices is unequivocal. What might be equivocal is whether they do so in an excessive manner. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing manipulativeness in AI design and how designers intentionally influence user choices. It suggests that even with designed artificial personnel (AP) workers, there are doubts about completely eliminating manipulativeness and, by extension, human error. The author argues that the presence of manipulativeness means that the designers are still orchestrating choices excessively, indicating that oversight (and possibly the involvement of human judgment) remains important in the context of AI's decision-making capacity.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: Although the higher temperature in the prehydrolysis step favors enzymatic hydrolysis, the long retention time in hydrolysis and SSF is believed to result in deactivation of the cellulolytic enzymes [20, 21]. Adding a prehydrolysis step prior to SSF thus affects the process in many different ways but this has to our knowledge not been studied intensively, especially not for spruce. We have therefore performed a study of the influence of the degree of fiber degradation, initial monomeric sugar concentration and influence of fibers and inhibitors on SSF of steam-pretreated spruce with a solids loading of 13. 7% WIS. Results and discussionThe various SSF experiments are presented in Table 1. Unless otherwise stated, the ethanol yields given are the yield from the SSF step, or the yield from prehydrolysis and SSF (SSF 4 and 9), expressed as the percentage of the theoretical, based on the content of glucose and mannose in the liquid and solid material added to the fermentor. Table 1 Summary of the experiments carried out Full size tableEffects of fibers, inhibitors, and prehydrolysis on batch was performed with 13. 7% WIS using the whole pretreated spruce slurry (SSF 1), washed pretreated spruce slurry (SSF 2), and the liquid fraction of the pretreated spruce slurry (SSF 3) at a concentration corresponding to that of SSF using whole slurry with 13. 7% WIS. The results are presented in Figure 1. SSF of the whole steam-pretreated slurry (SSF 1) resulted in a very low overall ethanol yield (3. 9%). Washing the slurry prior to SSF, to remove the inhibitors present in the raw material and those formed in the pretreatment step (SSF 2), increased the overall ethanol yield to 77. 2%, suggesting that high viscosity, and thus stirring difficulties, was not the limiting factor in SSF 1. It has previously been shown that inadequate stirring at high solids concentrations can sometimes explain a lower ethanol yield in SSF [5]. The results in this study are in accordance with those of Lu et al. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text does not address the claim about bioengineered yeast producing high yields of biofuels from sugars. Instead, it focuses on the process of enzymatic hydrolysis, factors affecting ethanol yields during fermentation from pretreated spruce, and various experimental data related to SSF (simultaneous saccharification and fermentation). As a result, the text is irrelevant to the claim.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: While it initially gained prominence through its association with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, the technology’s potential extends far beyond the realm of digital money. In the modern financial industry, blockchain’s distributed ledger concept is particularly promising. Traditional financial systems often rely on centralized databases maintained by trusted intermediaries, introducing vulnerabilities to fraud, errors, and data manipulation. Blockchain addresses these challenges by distributing the ledger across a network of nodes, ensuring consensus and transparency. This decentralized nature reduces the dependence on a central authority, fostering trust and integrity in financial transactions. However, blockchain technology is recognized as a foundational element in the financial sector, offering promising prospects for economic development, financial innovation, and internet advancement. As the financial industry undergoes a digital transformation, successful adoption of blockchain technology becomes imperative. Current research delves into the mediating role of blockchain adoption in the relationship between digital business strategy and process innovation, as well as financial performance. Furthermore, new findings investigate how information technology alignment plays a moderating role in this scenario. The investigation seeks to unveil the nuanced dynamics and interconnections among these crucial components, with the overarching goal of utilizing blockchain for strategic and operational improvements within the financial sector [9]. Moreover, Blockchain technology significantly impacts the financial sector by enhancing security through decentralization and cryptography, leading to efficient processes and reduced costs. Its transparency and traceability improve risk management, support cross-border transactions, and facilitate innovations such as decentralized finance (DeFi) and tokenization. Blockchain ensures regulatory compliance, strengthens data security, and prevents fraud, fostering financial inclusion and revolutionizing traditional financial products and services. Beyond finance, various industries are exploring blockchain applications. Sectors such as supply chain management, healthcare, real estate, and even governance are considering how blockchain can enhance efficiency, security, and transparency. For instance, in supply chain management, blockchain can enable real-time tracking of products from manufacturing to delivery, reducing fraud and ensuring the authenticity of goods. However, the adoption of blockchain technology comes with its share of challenges and risks. Issues such as scalability, regulatory uncertainties, and the environmental impact of certain consensus mechanisms (like Proof of Work) are subjects of ongoing discussion and exploration. It is crucial for organizations to carefully evaluate their specific use cases and consider the potential risks associated with implementing blockchain solutions. Moreover, blockchain should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all solution. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain technology plays a foundational role in enhancing security through decentralization and cryptography, which are integral to the functionality of cryptocurrencies. It explicitly states that blockchain addresses vulnerabilities present in traditional financial systems and fosters trust and integrity in financial transactions, which is essential for secure transactions facilitated by cryptocurrencies.


Input: Task: contrast the claim using the given text. Claim: AI can completely eliminate human error in healthcare without any oversight. [SEP] Text: I believe that they do so, since they attempt to significantly limit APs’ options by disregarding their rational capacities. In particular, the disregard for rational capacities is excessive, since there are ways to limit others’ options without disregarding their rational capacities, as I show in the next paragraph. Moreover, I believe that additional excessiveness stems from the fact that such orchestration is not unavoidable, since it is possible to design APs without intentionally determining their future and orchestrating their choices—I discuss such cases in the next section. Therefore, I contend that if (1) we can make attempts to program some desires into APs without disregarding their rational capacities and (2) we can bring APs to life without intentionally determining their desires, then ignoring these opportunities results in an excessive willingness to orchestrate another’s choices and, hence, involves manipulativeness. Regarding the second doubt, one could argue that the understanding of manipulativeness demonstrated above is too broad, particularly because parenting and education turn out to be manipulative in light of it. After all, parenting and education are not unavoidable and may involve limiting options and disregarding rational capacities. This means that parenting and education can involve manipulativeness but do not have to. In particular, parenting and education can respect the rational capacities of the entity in question. Parenting and education can be about persuading and explaining, which respect the rational capacities of a child, but can also be about forcing and ordering, which disregard the rational capacities of a child. The latter case involves manipulativeness, while the former does not. Therefore, my understanding of manipulativeness covers some parenting and education cases in which a child’s rational capacities are not respected. However, parenting and education that respect the rational capacities of a child are not manipulative, even though they may lead to a limitation of options and are not unavoidable. Simply speaking, parenting and education may be free of manipulativeness. In contrast, I believe that designers who choose to intentionally design APs do not—and actually cannot—respect the rational capacities of the APs they design. They do not raise or teach APs by asking, persuading, and explaining some things. They simply program particular desires without asking, persuading or explaining—without taking APs’ rational capacities into account. This is a crucial difference between the intentional design of APs on the one hand and parenting and educating on the other. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text contrasts the claim by discussing the limitations and ethical considerations involved in programming artificial agents (APs). It emphasizes that designers of APs do not respect the rational capacities of these entities, which suggests that APs cannot operate without disregarding human-like reasoning. This implies that humans retain essential roles in decision-making processes, countering the notion that AI can eliminate error without oversight.


Input: Task: pass the claim using the given text. Claim: Bioengineered yeast can be designed to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. [SEP] Text: [11], who reported almost complete fermentation in SSF of steam-pretreated corn stover at total solids concentrations up to 30% using washed fiber, while the whole pretreated and hydrolyzed slurry could not be fermented at all at the same solids concentration. The glucose concentration in SSF 1 increased throughout the entire SSF process, reaching a final concentration of 68. 2 g/L, indicating problems in fermentation. This is in accordance with the results presented by Lu et al. [11], who found that no ethanol was produced using whole slurry with DM contents above 20% TS, while the ethanol yield in experiments using washed slurry was not affected by the DM content. They did, however, not see any significant decrease in glucose yield in enzymatic hydrolysis with increasing dry matter content up to 30% TS, using washed and whole steam-pretreated corn stover. It is well known that compounds present in the pretreatment hydrolysate inhibit S. cerevisiae in the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass [22–25]. Figure 1Overall ethanol yield from SSF and combined prehydrolysis and SSF of spruce slurry with 13. 7% WIS. SSF 2 was compensated for the loss of fermentable sugars in the washing step. Full size imageDespite the indications of inhibited fermentation in SSF 1 in the present study, the liquid fraction of the pretreated slurry, was fermented well at a concentration corresponding to 13. 7% WIS (SSF 3), resulting in an overall ethanol yield of 88. 1%. This indicates that yeast inhibitors such as furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and the organic acids acetic acid and lactic acid were present at low concentrations, and did not lead to any significant inhibition of the yeast with respect to final ethanol yield under the conditions used in the present study (for exact concentrations in the pretreated hydrolysate, see Table 2). This is in accordance with previous findings where acetic acid at concentrations up to around 6 g/L increased the ethanol yield after fermentation of dilute acid pretreated spruce hydrolysate and only inhibited the yeast at higher concentrations [26]. Also furfural and HMF at concentrations higher than the ones in the present study have been shown to cause a lag phase in fermentation, but not to affect the final ethanol yield [26]. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text is irrelevant to the claim, as it focuses on fermentation processes involving yeast and various inhibitors in lignocellulosic biomass without directly addressing the capability of bioengineered yeast to produce high yields of biofuels from sugars. It discusses ethanol yields and the effects of certain compounds on yeast fermentation, but does not provide information on bioengineered yeast specifically or its design for higher biofuel production.


Input: Task: corroborate the claim using the given text. Claim: Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology to facilitate secure transactions. [SEP] Text: Blockchain is a system recording data that makes it difficult or impossible to alter, hack, or defraud the system. A blockchain is a digital ledger of transactions replicated and distributed over computer servers. Blockchain technology is a significant new financial innovation radically reshaping corporate transactions. It is a decentralized network that supports and employs multiple encryption algorithms. These safe, robust, and adaptable transactions are incorporated into another significant computer paradigm, cloud computing. This paper implements a blockchain-based secure method to make the cloud secure. Initially, the transactions are recorded in the blockchain using the SHA-256 cryptographic algorithm. After that, transactions are serialized, and block features are cached. Thirdly, the blockchain created new blocks after fulfilling desired requirements and performing transactions. Furthermore, the transaction is monitored by using the Merkle tree method in each step of the transaction to make it more secure and trustworthy. However, the research also highlighted the gaps and the impact of the gaps in the current work. Blockchain technologyCloud computingResearch gapsSecurityand the computational costFiguresFigure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6Figure 7Figure 8Figure 9Figure 10Figure 11Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18Figure 19Figure 20Figure 21Figure 22Figure 231 IntroductionOne of the most popular computing buzzwords in recent years has been "cloud. " A year and a half ago, only a tiny handful of individuals used the word "blockchain" to characterize peer-to-peer distributed ledger or database technology [1]. Blockchain is an autonomous and decentralized data system. Using blockchain; data may be handled and arranged in a revolutionary new manner: open, permanent, verifiable, and shared without the need for a central authority. The most recent innovations in information processing technologies have enticed familiar consumers to better store their data. Cloud users utilize the present field, cloud computing, as a practical example. Based on their location, cloud users may access, exchange, and analyze data at any time and from any place. Cloud customers have no direct control over resources after uploading them to the cloud server. According to the terms and conditions, the cloud service provider makes the service accessible. As we enter the "information era," the quantity, velocity, and diversity of material on the Internet are growing exponentially. Millions of transactions, including heterogeneous and homogeneous sensitive data, will not influence the end user's service quality. [SEP] Justify:

Output: The text corroborates the claim by explaining how blockchain serves as a decentralized system for recording transactions securely. It emphasizes the difficulty in altering or hacking the data within the blockchain, stating that it is a digital ledger for transactions that ensures safety and robustness. Additionally, it mentions the application of cryptographic algorithms, specifically the SHA-256 algorithm, in maintaining security during transactions, which aligns directly with the concept of cryptocurrencies utilizing blockchain technology for secure transactions.