News anchors(主播) must have been reluctant to read out the following news: Xin Xiaomeng began working as the world’s first female artificial(人工的) intelligence news anchor at Xinhua News Agency on Sunday, three months after a male robot joined the profession.

Unlike previous news robots though, Xin does not read news like a cold machine; she reads it almost like a human being. The muscles on her face stretch and relax — and her reactions change as she continues reading. That’s why many news anchors were worried: Will AI replace us in the near future?

To find the answer, we have to analyze the technologies that support Xin at her job. Three key technologies are used to support Xin. First, samples of human voices are collected and synthesized (合成). This is followed by the collection and synthesis of human muscle movement samples. And third the voices and movements are married in a way that when the AI news anchor reads, the micro- electric motors behind her face move to make her expressions seem more human.

Yet we need a thorough knowledge of deep learning technology to make a robot imitate a person’s voice. The developer needs to collect tens of thousands of pieces of pronunciations, input them into the machine and match them with the text for the AI to learn and read. The process for imitating facial movements is similar. The developer has to analyze the movements of the 53 muscles in the human face, make a model set from the collected data for the AI news anchor to learn, and imitate the movements of facial muscles via programs

Both the technologies used to make Xin’s performance impressive are mature. The real difficulty lies in the third — the technology to match the pronunciations with facial movements so that Xin’s expressions vary according to the content of the news report. In fact, Xin’s expressions don’t always change according to the content. As a result, her expressions look anything but human. Actually, AI is still no match for human qualities.

For many of us, talking about money is embarrassing, especially revealing our income and spending habits in public. So it’s no wonder that seeking investment advice from computer program is so popular.

Consultancy firm Accenture found that 68% of global consumers would be happy to use robot-advice to plan for retirement, feeling it would be faster, cheaper, and fairer than human advice. “Many of our customers say they feel awkward in face-to-face meetings, preferring an online experience where they don’t feel nervous,” says Lynn Smith, a director of robot-advice firm Wealth Wizards. So how does robot-advice work and is it really any better than traditional financial advice?

Robot-adviser firms use algorithms (算法) to analyse your financial situation and goals and then work out an investment plan to suit you. Basically, you answer lots of questions online about your income, expenses, family situation, attitude to risk and so on, and then the algorithm allocates (分配) your savings to a series of investments, from index funds that aim to imitate a particular stock market index or sector, to fixed-income bonds.

Robot-advice is certainly growing in popularity. But are we really happy to give up the human adviser completely? “No” is the short answer. Accenture finds that a significant proportion of us still want human interaction, particularly when our finances are complex. “When a customer needs advice surpassing a number of different regulatory regimes, human advice will be required, says John Perks, managing director of life and pensions at UK insurer LV, which launched its Retirement Wizard robot-advice service two years ago.

The truth is that only about a quarter of funds managed by clever humans overcome the market as a whole, so when you take into account the much higher management fees you pay for that kind of service, the performance difference is likely to be marginal (微不足道的) for most of us.

The robots may be coming, but in this case at least, they seem to be on the side of the small investor trying to save for a comfortable retirement.

Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists.

Quantum mechanics (量子力学), though firmly tested, is so weird and anti-intuitive that physicist Richard Feynman once remarked, “I think I can safely say nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Attempts to explain some of the bizarre (奇异的) consequences of quantum theory have led to some mind-bending ideas, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation.

Now there’s a new theory on the block, called the “many interacting worlds” hypothesis (假设) (MIW), and the idea is just as profound as it sounds. The theory suggests not only parallel worlds exist, but that they interact with our world on the quantum level and are thus detectable. Though still speculative (推测的), the theory may help to finally explain some of the bizarre consequences inherent in quantum mechanics.

The theory is a spinoff of the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics—an assumption that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual, though parallel, world. One problem with the many-worlds interpretation, however, has been that it is fundamentally untestable, since observations can only be made in our world. Happenings in these proposed “parallel” worlds can thus only be imagined.

MIW, however, says otherwise. It suggests that parallel worlds can interact on the quantum level, and in fact that they do.

“The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957,” explained Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, and one of the physicists to come up with MIW. “In the well-known ‘Many-Worlds Interpretation’, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realized — in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid (小行星) missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonized by the Portuguese.”

“But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all,” he added. “On this score, our ‘Many Interacting Worlds’ approach is completely different, as its name implies.”

Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists “a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’(i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar.” Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose.

When asked about whether their theory might imply that humans could someday interact with other worlds, Wiseman said: “It’s not part of our theory. But the idea of human interactions with other universes is no longer pure fantasy.”

What might your life look like if you made different choices? Maybe one day you'll be able to look into one of these alternative worlds and find out.