AI Writing Tools

Explore the best AI Writing Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Shaded Picture System

  The Shaded Picture System was a 3D raster computer display processor introduced by Evans & Sutherland in October 1973. The Shaded Picture System was the first general-purpose, commercially available raster computer graphics display processor capable of real-time, shaded 3D graphics. It could only display black and white graphics at a resolution of 256 by 256. It was extremely expensive, and very few units were ever sold. == History == The principles of shaded, hidden-line true 3D graphics were pioneered at the University of Utah in 1967. However, this algorithm was slow and would take several minutes to produce an image. In 1970, Gary Watkins developed a FORTRAN simulator of a faster algorithm that would theoretically generate shaded 3D images in real-time, "if implemented in suitable hardware". The simulator itself was still not capable of real-time shaded 3D image rendering. Evans & Sutherland developed a functional prototype of this "suitable hardware", which was later sold as the Shaded Picture System in 1973. About a year earlier in 1972, Evans & Sutherland sold the first and only CT1 to Case Western Reserve University. The CT1, or Continuous Tone 1, was a specialized image generator, not meant as a marketable or mass-produced product. At the time, the CT1, along with G.E./NASA's upgraded Electronic Scene Generator from 1971, would have been the only real-time raster graphics systems sold to customers comparable to the Shaded Picture System, although both the CT1 and Electronic Scene Generator were intentionally produced as one-off products and specialized for the needs of their customers. The Shaded Picture System, in contrast, was intentionally marketed.In early 1975, Evans & Sutherland demonstrated a random-access video frame buffer using relatively low-cost semiconductor memory, which was much more capable than the Shaded Picture System. When interfaced with a (non-shaded) E&S Picture System, the frame buffer had a resolution of 512 by 512 in grayscale and partial color capabilities. By the end of 1975, this frame buffer was commercially available.

  Read more →
• 

  Run-time algorithm specialization

  In computer science, run-time algorithm specialization is a methodology for creating efficient algorithms for costly computation tasks of certain kinds. The methodology originates in the field of automated theorem proving and, more specifically, in the Vampire theorem prover project. The idea is inspired by the use of partial evaluation in optimising program translation. Many core operations in theorem provers exhibit the following pattern. Suppose that we need to execute some algorithm a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} in a situation where a value of A {\displaystyle A} is fixed for potentially many different values of B {\displaystyle B} . In order to do this efficiently, we can try to find a specialization of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} for every fixed A {\displaystyle A} , i.e., such an algorithm a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} , that executing a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is equivalent to executing a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} . The specialized algorithm may be more efficient than the generic one, since it can exploit some particular properties of the fixed value A {\displaystyle A} . Typically, a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} can avoid some operations that a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} would have to perform, if they are known to be redundant for this particular parameter A {\displaystyle A} . In particular, we can often identify some tests that are true or false for A {\displaystyle A} , unroll loops and recursion, etc. == Difference from partial evaluation == The key difference between run-time specialization and partial evaluation is that the values of A {\displaystyle A} on which a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} is specialised are not known statically, so the specialization takes place at run-time. There is also an important technical difference. Partial evaluation is applied to algorithms explicitly represented as codes in some programming language. At run-time, we do not need any concrete representation of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . We only have to imagine a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} when we program the specialization procedure. All we need is a concrete representation of the specialized version a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} . This also means that we cannot use any universal methods for specializing algorithms, which is usually the case with partial evaluation. Instead, we have to program a specialization procedure for every particular algorithm a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . An important advantage of doing so is that we can use some powerful ad hoc tricks exploiting peculiarities of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} and the representation of A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , which are beyond the reach of any universal specialization methods. == Specialization with compilation == The specialized algorithm has to be represented in a form that can be interpreted. In many situations, usually when a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is to be computed on many values of B {\displaystyle B} in a row, a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} can be written as machine code instructions for a special abstract machine, and it is typically said that A {\displaystyle A} is compiled. The code itself can then be additionally optimized by answer-preserving transformations that rely only on the semantics of instructions of the abstract machine. The instructions of the abstract machine can usually be represented as records. One field of such a record, an instruction identifier (or instruction tag), would identify the instruction type, e.g. an integer field may be used, with particular integer values corresponding to particular instructions. Other fields may be used for storing additional parameters of the instruction, e.g. a pointer field may point to another instruction representing a label, if the semantics of the instruction require a jump. All instructions of the code can be stored in a traversable data structure such as an array, linked list, or tree. Interpretation (or execution) proceeds by fetching instructions in some order, identifying their type, and executing the actions associated with said type. In many programming languages, such as C and C++, a simple switch statement may be used to associate actions with different instruction identifiers. Modern compilers usually compile a switch statement with constant (e.g. integer) labels from a narrow range by storing the address of the statement corresponding to a value i {\displaystyle i} in the i {\displaystyle i} -th cell of a special array, as a means of efficient optimisation. This can be exploited by taking values for instruction identifiers from a small interval of values. == Data-and-algorithm specialization == There are situations when many instances of A {\displaystyle A} are intended for long-term storage and the calls of a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} occur with different B {\displaystyle B} in an unpredictable order. For example, we may have to check a l g ( A 1 , B 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{1})} first, then a l g ( A 2 , B 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{2},B_{2})} , then a l g ( A 1 , B 3 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{3})} , and so on. In such circumstances, full-scale specialization with compilation may not be suitable due to excessive memory usage. However, we can sometimes find a compact specialized representation A ′ {\displaystyle A^{\prime }} for every A {\displaystyle A} , that can be stored with, or instead of, A {\displaystyle A} . We also define a variant a l g ′ {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }} that works on this representation and any call to a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} is replaced by a l g ′ ( A ′ , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }(A^{\prime },B)} , intended to do the same job faster.

  Read more →
• 

  Wearable computer

  A wearable computer, also known as a body-borne computer or wearable, is a computing device worn on the body. The definition of 'wearable computer' may be narrow or broad, extending to smartphones or even ordinary wristwatches. Wearables may be for general use, in which case they are just a particularly small example of mobile computing. Alternatively, they may be for specialized purposes such as fitness trackers. They may incorporate special sensors such as accelerometers, heart rate monitors, or on the more advanced side, electrocardiogram (ECG) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) monitors. Under the definition of wearable computers, we also include novel user interfaces such as Google Glass, an optical head-mounted display controlled by gestures. It may be that specialized wearables will evolve into general all-in-one devices, as happened with the convergence of PDAs and mobile phones into smartphones. Wearables are typically worn on the wrist (e.g. fitness trackers), hung from the neck (like a necklace), strapped to the arm or leg (electronic tagging), or on the head (as glasses or a helmet), though some have been located elsewhere (e.g. on a finger or in a shoe). Devices carried in a pocket or bag – such as smartphones and before them, pocket calculators and PDAs, may or may not be regarded as 'worn'. Wearable computers have various technical issues common to other mobile computing, such as batteries, heat dissipation, software architectures, wireless and personal area networks, and data management. Many wearable computers are active all the time, e.g. processing or recording data continuously. == Applications == Wearable computers are not only limited to computers such as fitness trackers that are worn on wrists; they also include wearables such as heart pacemakers and other prosthetics. They are used most often in research that focuses on behavioral modeling, health monitoring systems, IT and media development, where the person wearing the computer actually moves or is otherwise engaged with his or her surroundings. Wearable computers have been used for the following: general-purpose computing (e.g. smartphones and smartwatches) sensory integration, e.g. to help people see better or understand the world better (whether in task-specific applications like camera-based welding helmets or for everyday use like Google Glass) behavioral modeling health care monitoring systems service management electronic textiles and fashion design, e.g. Microsoft's 2011 prototype "The Printing Dress". Wearable computing is the subject of active research, especially the form-factor and location on the body, with areas of study including user interface design, augmented reality, and pattern recognition. The use of wearables for specific applications, for compensating disabilities or supporting elderly people steadily increases. == Operating systems == The dominant operating systems for wearable computing are: FreeRTOS is a real-time operating system kernel for embedded devices; most of the Smartbands that are currently available in the market are based on FreeRTOS, which include Huawei, Honor, Lenovo, realme, TCL and Xiaomi smartbands. LiteOS is a lightweight open source real-time operating system that is part of Huawei's "1+8+N" Internet of Things solution. Tizen OS from Samsung (there was an announcement in May 2021 that Wear OS and Tizen OS will merge and will be called simply Wear.) watchOS watchOS is a proprietary mobile operating system developed by Apple Inc. to run on the Apple Watch. Wear OS Wear OS (previously known as Android Wear) is a smartwatch operating system developed by Google Inc. == History == Due to the varied definitions of wearable and computer, the first wearable computer could be as early as the first abacus on a necklace, a 16th-century abacus ring, a wristwatch and 'finger-watch' owned by Queen Elizabeth I of England, or the covert timing devices hidden in shoes to cheat at roulette by Thorp and Shannon in the 1960s and 1970s. However, a general-purpose computer is not merely a time-keeping or calculating device, but rather a user-programmable item for arbitrary complex algorithms, interfacing, and data management. By this definition, the wearable computer was invented by Steve Mann, in the late 1970s: Steve Mann, a professor at the University of Toronto, was hailed as the father of the wearable computer and the ISSCC's first virtual panelist, by moderator Woodward Yang of Harvard University (Cambridge Mass.). The development of wearable items has taken several steps of miniaturization from discrete electronics over hybrid designs to fully integrated designs, where just one processor chip, a battery, and some interface conditioning items make the whole unit. === 1500s === Queen Elizabeth I of England received a watch from Robert Dudley in 1571, as a New Year's present; it may have been worn on the forearm rather than the wrist. She also possessed a 'finger-watch' set in a ring, with an alarm that prodded her finger. === 1600s === The Qing dynasty saw the introduction of a fully functional abacus on a ring, which could be used while it was being worn. === 1960s === In 1961, mathematicians Edward O. Thorp and Claude Shannon built some computerized timing devices to help them win a game of roulette. One such timer was concealed in a shoe and another in a pack of cigarettes. Various versions of this apparatus were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Thorp refers to himself as the inventor of the first "wearable computer". In other variations, the system was a concealed cigarette-pack-sized analog computer designed to predict the motion of roulette wheels. A data-taker would use microswitches hidden in his shoes to indicate the speed of the roulette wheel, and the computer would indicate an octant of the roulette wheel to bet on by sending musical tones via radio to a miniature speaker hidden in a collaborator's ear canal. The system was successfully tested in Las Vegas in June 1961, but hardware issues with the speaker wires prevented it from being used beyond test runs. This was not a wearable computer because it could not be re-purposed during use; rather it was an example of task-specific hardware. This work was kept secret until it was first mentioned in Thorp's book Beat the Dealer (revised ed.) in 1966 and later published in detail in 1969. === 1970s === Pocket calculators became mass-market devices in 1970, starting in Japan. Programmable calculators followed in the late 1970s, being somewhat more general-purpose computers. The HP-01 algebraic calculator watch by Hewlett-Packard was released in 1977. A camera-to-tactile vest for the blind, launched by C.C. Collins in 1977, converted images into a 1024-point, ten-inch square tactile grid on a vest. === 1980s === The 1980s saw the rise of more general-purpose wearable computers. In 1981, Steve Mann designed and built a backpack-mounted 6502-based wearable multimedia computer with text, graphics, and multimedia capability, as well as video capability (cameras and other photographic systems). Mann went on to be an early and active researcher in the wearables field, especially known for his 1994 creation of the Wearable Wireless Webcam, the first example of lifelogging. Seiko Epson released the RC-20 Wrist Computer in 1984. It was an early smartwatch, powered by a computer on a chip. In 1989, Reflection Technology marketed the Private Eye head-mounted display, which scans a vertical array of LEDs across the visual field using a vibrating mirror. This display gave rise to several hobbyist and research wearables, including Gerald "Chip" Maguire's IBM/Columbia University Student Electronic Notebook, Doug Platt's Hip-PC, and Carnegie Mellon University's VuMan 1 in 1991. The Student Electronic Notebook consisted of the Private Eye, Toshiba diskless AIX notebook computers (prototypes), a stylus based input system and a virtual keyboard. It used direct-sequence spread spectrum radio links to provide all the usual TCP/IP based services, including NFS mounted file systems and X11, which all ran in the Andrew Project environment. The Hip-PC included an Agenda palmtop used as a chording keyboard attached to the belt and a 1.44 megabyte floppy drive. Later versions incorporated additional equipment from Park Engineering. The system debuted at "The Lap and Palmtop Expo" on 16 April 1991. VuMan 1 was developed as part of a Summer-term course at Carnegie Mellon's Engineering Design Research Center, and was intended for viewing house blueprints. Input was through a three-button unit worn on the belt, and output was through Reflection Tech's Private Eye. The CPU was an 8 MHz 80188 processor with 0.5 MB ROM. === 1990s === In the 1990s PDAs became widely used, and in 1999 were combined with mobile phones in Japan to produce the first mass-market smartphone. In 1993, the Private Eye was used in Thad Starner's wearable, based on Doug Platt's system and built from a kit from Park Enterprises, a Pri

  Read more →
• 

  External memory algorithm

  In computing, external memory algorithms or out-of-core algorithms are algorithms that are designed to process data that are too large to fit into a computer's main memory at once. Such algorithms must be optimized to efficiently fetch and access data stored in slow bulk memory (auxiliary memory) such as hard drives or tape drives, or when memory is on a computer network. External memory algorithms are analyzed in the external memory model. == Model == External memory algorithms are analyzed in an idealized model of computation called the external memory model (or I/O model, or disk access model). The external memory model is an abstract machine similar to the RAM machine model, but with a cache in addition to main memory. The model captures the fact that read and write operations are much faster in a cache than in main memory, and that reading long contiguous blocks is faster than reading randomly using a disk read-and-write head. The running time of an algorithm in the external memory model is defined by the number of reads and writes to memory required. The model was introduced by Alok Aggarwal and Jeffrey Vitter in 1988. The external memory model is related to the cache-oblivious model, but algorithms in the external memory model may know both the block size and the cache size. For this reason, the model is sometimes referred to as the cache-aware model. The model consists of a processor with an internal memory or cache of size M, connected to an unbounded external memory. Both the internal and external memory are divided into blocks of size B. One input/output or memory transfer operation consists of moving a block of B contiguous elements from external to internal memory, and the running time of an algorithm is determined by the number of these input/output operations. == Algorithms == Algorithms in the external memory model take advantage of the fact that retrieving one object from external memory retrieves an entire block of size B. This property is sometimes referred to as locality. Searching for an element among N objects is possible in the external memory model using a B-tree with branching factor B. Using a B-tree, searching, insertion, and deletion can be achieved in O ( log B ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O(\log _{B}N)} time (in Big O notation). Information theoretically, this is the minimum running time possible for these operations, so using a B-tree is asymptotically optimal. External sorting is sorting in an external memory setting. External sorting can be done via distribution sort, which is similar to quicksort, or via a M B {\displaystyle {\tfrac {M}{B}}} -way merge sort. Both variants achieve the asymptotically optimal runtime of O ( N B log M B ⁡ N B ) {\displaystyle O\left({\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)} to sort N objects. This bound also applies to the fast Fourier transform in the external memory model. The permutation problem is to rearrange N elements into a specific permutation. This can either be done either by sorting, which requires the above sorting runtime, or inserting each element in order and ignoring the benefit of locality. Thus, permutation can be done in O ( min ( N , N B log M B ⁡ N B ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\min \left(N,{\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)\right)} time. == Applications == The external memory model captures the memory hierarchy, which is not modeled in other common models used in analyzing data structures, such as the random-access machine, and is useful for proving lower bounds for data structures. The model is also useful for analyzing algorithms that work on datasets too big to fit in internal memory. A typical example is geographic information systems, especially digital elevation models, where the full data set easily exceeds several gigabytes or even terabytes of data. This methodology extends beyond general purpose CPUs and also includes GPU computing as well as classical digital signal processing. In general-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU), powerful graphics cards (GPUs) with little memory (compared with the more familiar system memory, which is most often referred to simply as RAM) are utilized with relatively slow CPU-to-GPU memory transfer (when compared with computation bandwidth). == History == An early use of the term "out-of-core" as an adjective is in 1962 in reference to devices that are other than the core memory of an IBM 360. An early use of the term "out-of-core" with respect to algorithms appears in 1971.

  Read more →
• 

  List of large language models

  A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===

  Read more →
• 

  The Algorithm Auction

  The Algorithm Auction is the world's first auction of computer algorithms. Created by Ruse Laboratories, the initial auction featured seven lots and was held at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum on March 27, 2015. Five lots were physical representations of famous code or algorithms, including a signed, handwritten copy of the original Hello, World! C program by its creator Brian Kernighan on dot-matrix printer paper, a printed copy of 5,000 lines of Assembly code comprising the earliest known version of Turtle Graphics, signed by its creator Hal Abelson, a necktie containing the six-line qrpff algorithm capable of decrypting content on a commercially produced DVD video disc, and a pair of drawings representing OkCupid's original Compatibility Calculation algorithm, signed by the company founders. The qrpff lot sold for $2,500. Two other lots were “living algorithms,” including a set of JavaScript tools for building applications that are accessible to the visually impaired and the other is for a program that converts lines of software code into music. Winning bidders received, along with artifacts related to the algorithms, a full intellectual property license to use, modify, or open-source the code. All lots were sold, with Hello World receiving the most bids. Exhibited alongside the auction lots were a facsimile of the Plimpton 322 tablet on loan from Columbia University, and Nigella, an art-world facing computer virus named after Nigella Lawson and created by cypherpunk and hacktivist Richard Jones. Sebastian Chan, Director of Digital & Emerging Media at the Cooper–Hewitt, attended the event remotely from Milan, Italy via a Beam Pro telepresence robot. == Effects == Following the auction, the Museum of Modern Art held a salon titled The Way of the Algorithm highlighting algorithms as "a ubiquitous and indispensable component of our lives."

  Read more →
• 

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark is an algorithm that generates benchmark networks (artificial networks that resemble real-world networks). They have a priori known communities and are used to compare different community detection methods. The advantage of the benchmark over other methods is that it accounts for the heterogeneity in the distributions of node degrees and of community sizes. == The algorithm == The node degrees and the community sizes are distributed according to a power law, with different exponents. The benchmark assumes that both the degree and the community size have power law distributions with different exponents, γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and β {\displaystyle \beta } , respectively. N {\displaystyle N} is the number of nodes and the average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . There is a mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } , which is the average fraction of neighboring nodes of a node that do not belong to any community that the benchmark node belongs to. This parameter controls the fraction of edges that are between communities. Thus, it reflects the amount of noise in the network. At the extremes, when μ = 0 {\displaystyle \mu =0} all links are within community links, if μ = 1 {\displaystyle \mu =1} all links are between nodes belonging to different communities. One can generate the benchmark network using the following steps. Step 1: Generate a network with nodes following a power law distribution with exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and choose extremes of the distribution k min {\displaystyle k_{\min }} and k max {\displaystyle k_{\max }} to get desired average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . Step 2: ( 1 − μ ) {\displaystyle (1-\mu )} fraction of links of every node is with nodes of the same community, while fraction μ {\displaystyle \mu } is with the other nodes. Step 3: Generate community sizes from a power law distribution with exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . The sum of all sizes must be equal to N {\displaystyle N} . The minimal and maximal community sizes s min {\displaystyle s_{\min }} and s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} must satisfy the definition of community so that every non-isolated node is in at least in one community: s min > k min {\displaystyle s_{\min }>k_{\min }} s max > k max {\displaystyle s_{\max }>k_{\max }} Step 4: Initially, no nodes are assigned to communities. Then, each node is randomly assigned to a community. As long as the number of neighboring nodes within the community does not exceed the community size a new node is added to the community, otherwise stays out. In the following iterations the “homeless” node is randomly assigned to some community. If that community is complete, i.e. the size is exhausted, a randomly selected node of that community must be unlinked. Stop the iteration when all the communities are complete and all the nodes belong to at least one community. Step 5: Implement rewiring of nodes keeping the same node degrees but only affecting the fraction of internal and external links such that the number of links outside the community for each node is approximately equal to the mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } . == Testing == Consider a partition into communities that do not overlap. The communities of randomly chosen nodes in each iteration follow a p ( C ) {\displaystyle p(C)} distribution that represents the probability that a randomly picked node is from the community C {\displaystyle C} . Consider a partition of the same network that was predicted by some community finding algorithm and has p ( C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{2})} distribution. The benchmark partition has p ( C 1 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1})} distribution. The joint distribution is p ( C 1 , C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1},C_{2})} . The similarity of these two partitions is captured by the normalized mutual information. I n = ∑ C 1 , C 2 p ( C 1 , C 2 ) log 2 ⁡ p ( C 1 , C 2 ) p ( C 1 ) p ( C 2 ) 1 2 H ( { p ( C 1 ) } ) + 1 2 H ( { p ( C 2 ) } ) {\displaystyle I_{n}={\frac {\sum _{C_{1},C_{2}}p(C_{1},C_{2})\log _{2}{\frac {p(C_{1},C_{2})}{p(C_{1})p(C_{2})}}}{{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{1})\})+{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{2})\})}}} If I n = 1 {\displaystyle I_{n}=1} the benchmark and the detected partitions are identical, and if I n = 0 {\displaystyle I_{n}=0} then they are independent of each other.

  Read more →
• 

  ISO 15926

  ISO 15926 is a standard for data integration, sharing, exchange, and hand-over between computer systems. The title, "Industrial automation systems and integration—Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities", is regarded too narrow by the present ISO 15926 developers. Having developed a generic data model and reference data library for process plants, it turned out that this subject is already so wide, that actually any state information may be modelled with it. == History == In 1991 a European Union ESPRIT-, named ProcessBase, started. The focus of this research project was to develop a data model for lifecycle information of a facility that would suit the requirements of the process industries. At the time that the project duration had elapsed, a consortium of companies involved in the process industries had been established: EPISTLE (European Process Industries STEP Technical Liaison Executive). Initially individual companies were members, but later this changed into a situation where three national consortia were the only members: PISTEP (UK), POSC/Caesar (Norway), and USPI-NL (Netherlands). (later PISTEP merged into POSC/Caesar, and USPI-NL was renamed to USPI). EPISTLE took over the work of the ProcessBase project. Initially this work involved a standard called ISO 10303-221 (referred to as "STEP AP221"). In that AP221 we saw, for the first time, an Annex M with a list of standard instances of the AP221 data model, including types of objects. These standard instances would be for reference and would act as a knowledge base with knowledge about the types of objects. In the early nineties EPISTLE started an activity to extend Annex M to become a library of such object classes and their relationships: STEPlib. In the STEPlib activities a group of approx. 100 domain experts from all three member consortia, spread over the various expertises (e.g. Electrical, Piping, Rotating equipment, etc.), worked together to define the "core classes". The development of STEPlib was extended with many additional classes and relationships between classes and published as Open source data. Furthermore, the concepts and relation types from the AP221 and ISO 15926-2 data models were also added to the STEPlib dictionary. This resulted in the development of Gellish English, whereas STEPlib became the Gellish English dictionary. Gellish English is a structured subset of natural English and is a modeling language suitable for knowledge modeling, product modeling and data exchange. It differs from conventional modeling languages (meta languages) as used in information technology as it not only defines generic concepts, but also includes an English dictionary. The semantic expression capability of Gellish English was significantly increased by extending the number of relation types that can be used to express knowledge and information. For modelling-technical reasons POSC/Caesar proposed another standard than ISO 10303, called ISO 15926. EPISTLE (and ISO) supported that proposal, and continued the modelling work, thereby writing Part 2 of ISO 15926. This Part 2 has official ISO IS (International Standard) status since 2003. POSC/Caesar started to put together their own RDL (Reference Data Library). They added many specialized classes, for example for ANSI (American National Standards Institute) pipe and pipe fittings. Meanwhile, STEPlib continued its existence, mainly driven by some members of USPI. Since it was clear that it was not in the interest of the industry to have two libraries for, in essence, the same set of classes, the Management Board of EPISTLE decided that the core classes of the two libraries shall be merged into Part 4 of ISO 15926. This merging process has been finished. Part 4 should act as reference data for part 2 of ISO 15926 as well as for ISO 10303-221 and replaced its Annex M. On June 5, 2007 ISO 15926-4 was signed off as a TS (Technical Specification). In 1999 the work on an earlier version of Part 7 started. Initially this was based on XML Schema (the only useful W3C Recommendation available then), but when Web Ontology Language (OWL) became available it was clear that provided a far more suitable environment for Part 7. Part 7 passed the first ISO ballot by the end of 2005, and an implementation project started. A formal ballot for TS (Technical Specification) was planned for December 2007. However, it was decided then to split Part 7 into more than one part, because the scope was too wide. == Need for ISO15926 == In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a report on the impact of the lack of digital interoperability in the capital projects industry. The report estimated the cost of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry to be $15.8 billion per year. This was considered likely to be a conservative figure. == The standard == ISO 15926 has thirteen parts (as of February 2022): Part 1 - Overview and fundamental principles Part 2 - Data model Part 3 - Reference data for geometry and topology Part 4 - Reference Data, the terms used within facilities for the process industry Part 6 - Methodology for the development and validation of reference data (under development) Part 7 - Template methodology Part 8 - OWL/RDF implementation Part 9 - Implementation standards, with the focus on standard web servers, web services, and security (under development) Part 10 - Conformance testing Part 11 - Methodology for simplified industrial usage of reference data (under development) Part 12 - Life cycle integration ontology in Web Ontology Language (OWL2) Part 13 - Integrated lifecycle asset planning === Description === The model and the library are suitable for representing lifecycle information about technical installations and their components. They can also be used for defining the terms used in product catalogs in e-commerce. Another, more limited, use of the standard is as a reference classification for harmonization purposes between shared databases and product catalogues that are not based on ISO 15926. The purpose of ISO 15926 is to provide a Lingua Franca for computer systems, thereby integrating the information produced by them. Although set up for the process industries with large projects involving many parties, and involving plant operations and maintenance lasting decades, the technology can be used by anyone willing to set up a proper vocabulary of reference data in line with Part 4. In Part 7 the concept of Templates is introduced. These are semantic constructs, using Part 2 entities, that represent a small piece of information. These constructs then are mapped to more efficient classes of n-ary relations that interlink the Nodes that are involved in the represented information. In Part 8 the Part 7 Templates are defined in OWL and instantiated in RDF. For validation and reasoning purposes all are represented in First-Order Logic as well. In Part 9 these Node and Template instances are stored in an RDF triple store, set up to a standard schema and an API. Each participating computer system maps its data from its internal format to such ISO-standard Node and Template instances. Data can be "handed over" from one triple store to another in cases where data custodianship is handed over (e.g. from a contractor to a plant owner, or from a manufacturer to the owners of the manufactured goods). Hand-over can be for a part of all data, whilst maintaining full referential integrity. Documents are user-definable. They are defined in XML Schema and they are, in essence, only a structure containing cells that make reference to instances of Templates. This represents a view on all lifecycle data: since the data model is a 4D (space-time) model, it is possible to present the data that was valid at any given point in time, thus providing a true historical record. It is expected that this will be used for Knowledge Mining. Data can be queried by means of SPARQL. In any implementation a restricted number of triple stores can be involved, with different access rights. This is done by means of creating a CPF Server (= Confederation of Participating Façades). An Ontology Browser allows for access to one or more triple stores in a given CPF, depending on the access rights. == Projects and applications == There are a number of projects working on the extension of the ISO 15926 standard in different application areas. === Capital-intensive projects === Within the application of Capital Intensive projects, some cooperating implementation projects are running: The DEXPI project: The objective of DEXPI is to develop and promote a general standard for the process industry covering all phases of the lifecycle of a (petro-)chemical plant, ranging from specification of functional requirements to assets in operation. Finalised projects include: The EDRC Project of FIATECH Capturing Equipment Data Requirements Using ISO 15926 and Assessing Conforma

  Read more →
• 

  Representation collapse

  Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Bibliographic database

  A bibliographic database is a database of bibliographic records. This is an organised online collection of references to published written works like journal and newspaper articles, conference proceedings, reports, government and legal publications, patents and books. In contrast to library catalogue entries, a majority of the records in bibliographic databases describe articles and conference papers rather than complete monographs, and they generally contain very rich subject descriptions in the form of keywords, subject classification terms, or abstracts. A bibliographic database may cover a wide range of topics or one academic field like computer science. A significant number of bibliographic databases are marketed under a trade name by licensing agreement from vendors, or directly from their makers: the indexing and abstracting services. Many bibliographic databases have evolved into digital libraries, providing the full text of the organised contents:for instance CORE also organises and mirrors scholarly articles and OurResearch develops a search engine for open access content in Unpaywall. Others merge with non-bibliographic and scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez. == History == Prior to the mid-20th century, individuals searching for published literature had to rely on printed bibliographic indexes, generated manually from index cards. During the early 1960s computers were used to digitize text for the first time; the purpose was to reduce the cost and time required to publish two American abstracting journals, the Index Medicus of the National Library of Medicine and the Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By the late 1960s, such bodies of digitized alphanumeric information, known as bibliographic and numeric databases, constituted a new type of information resource. Online interactive retrieval became commercially viable in the early 1970s over private telecommunications networks. The first services offered a few databases of indexes and abstracts of scholarly literature. These databases contained bibliographic descriptions of journal articles that were searchable by keywords in author and title, and sometimes by journal name or subject heading. The user interfaces were crude, the access was expensive, and searching was done by librarians on behalf of "end users".

  Read more →
• 

  Lai–Robbins lower bound

  The Lai–Robbins lower bound gives an asymptotic lower bound on the regret that any uniformly good algorithm must incur in the stochastic multi-armed bandit problem. The original result was proved by Tze Leung Lai and Herbert Robbins in 1985 for parametric exponential families. Later work extended the statement to more general classes of distributions. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The multi-armed bandit problem (MAB) is a sequential game in which the player must trade off exploration (to learn) and exploitation (to earn). The player chooses among K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms) with unknown distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})} . The player is assumed to know a class of distributions D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} such that for every k {\displaystyle k} one has ν k ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{k}\in {\mathcal {D}}} (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} may be the family of Gaussian or Bernoulli distributions). At each round t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} the player selects (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} and observes a reward X t ∼ ν a t {\displaystyle X_{t}\sim \nu _{a_{t}}} . We denote N a ( t ) := ∑ s = 1 t 1 { a s = a } {\displaystyle N_{a}(t):=\sum _{s=1}^{t}\mathbf {1} _{\{a_{s}=a\}}} the number of times arm a {\displaystyle a} has been pulled in the first t {\displaystyle t} rounds, μ ( ν ) := ( μ 1 , … , μ K ) {\displaystyle \mu (\nu ):=(\mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K})} the vector of arm means, where μ k = E X ∼ ν k [ X ] {\displaystyle \mu _{k}=\mathbb {E} _{X\sim \nu _{k}}[X]} , μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}\geq 0} the gap of arm a {\displaystyle a} . An arm a {\displaystyle a} with μ a = μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{a}=\mu ^{}} is called an optimal arm; otherwise it is a suboptimal arm. The goal is to minimize the regret at horizon T {\displaystyle T} , defined by R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] . {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\,\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)].} Intuitively, the regret is the (expected) total loss compared to always playing an optimal arm: regret = ∑ a ( cost of playing a ) × ( times a is played ) . {\displaystyle {\text{regret}}=\sum _{a}\ ({\text{cost of playing }}a)\times ({\text{times }}a{\text{ is played}}).} An MAB algorithm is a (possibly randomized) policy that, at each round t {\displaystyle t} , choose an arm a_t by using the observations received from previous turns. === Intuitive example === Suppose a farmer must choose, each year, one of K {\displaystyle K} seed varieties to plant. Each variety k {\displaystyle k} has an unknown average yield μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} . If the farmer knew the best variety (with mean μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} ) he would plant it every year; in reality he must try varieties to learn which is best. The cumulative regret after T {\displaystyle T} years measures the total expected loss in yield due to imperfect knowledge. Remarks The model above is the stochastic MAB; there also exist adversarial variants. One may consider a fixed-horizon setting (known T {\displaystyle T} ) or an anytime setting (unknown T {\displaystyle T} ). == Lai–Robbins lower bound == The theorem gives the right amount of time we should pull a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} where ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is such that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . Knowning a lower bound on the number of pull of every suboptimal arm gives a lower bound on the regret as only suboptimal arms contribute to the regret. Before stating the formal theorem we need to define what is a consistent algorithm. === Consistency (uniformly good algorithms) === Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be a class of probability distributions and consider K {\displaystyle K} arms with reward distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} . An algorithm is said to be consistent (also called uniformly good) on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} if, for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the expected regret R T ( ν ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )} grows subpolynomially: ∀ α > 0 , R T ( ν ) = o ( T α ) as T → ∞ {\displaystyle \forall \alpha >0,\qquad R_{T}(\nu )=o(T^{\alpha })\quad {\text{as }}T\to \infty } This assumption excludes algorithms that perform well on some instances but incur linear regret on others. === Formal lower bound === For any suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} . For a distribution ν a ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {D}}} and a threshold x {\displaystyle x} , define K inf ( ν a , x , D ) := inf { KL ⁡ ( ν a , ν ′ ) : ν ′ ∈ D , μ ′ > x } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},x,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf {\Bigl \{}\operatorname {KL} (\nu _{a},\nu '):\nu '\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mu '>x{\Bigr \}}} where KL ⁡ ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} (\cdot ,\cdot )} denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Then, for any algorithm consistent on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} and for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , every suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} satisfies E ν [ N a ( T ) ] ≥ ln ⁡ T K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) + o ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{\nu }[N_{a}(T)]\geq {\frac {\ln T}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}+o(\ln T)} Consequently, the regret satisfies R T ( ν ) ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + o ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )\geq \left(\sum _{a:\,\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o(\ln T)} The original 1985 paper established this result for exponential families; later work showed that the bound holds under much weaker assumptions on D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . === Intuition === Consistency imposes that, for every ν {\displaystyle \nu } , the number of pulls of an optimal arm must be large. This means that μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is estimated very accurately. The goal is to determine, for a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} , how many samples are needed to be confident, with the appropriate level of confidence, that μ k < μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{k}<\mu ^{}} . To do so, we use what is called the most confusing instance: an instance close to ν {\displaystyle \nu } such that arm k {\displaystyle k} is optimal. We define it as ν ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}} such that, for all a ≠ k {\displaystyle a\neq k} , ν ~ a = ν a {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{a}=\nu _{a}} , and ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is chosen so that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . The objective is to determine how many samples of arm k {\displaystyle k} are required to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} in terms of KL {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} } distance. == Algorithms achieving the Lai–Robbins lower bound == Several algorithms are known to achieve the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound under specific assumptions on the reward distribution class D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . The following list summarizes a non-exhaustive list of algorithms matching the lower bound. == Extension to other problems == === Structured bandit === A more complexe is structured bandit where we know that the mean of each arm is in a set with some restriction. In this case we can prove a smaller lower bound that use the knowledge of this set. === Best arm identification (BAI) === A similar result has been proved for best arm identification, which is the same game except that, instead of minimizing the regret, the goal is to identify the best arm with probability 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } using as few rounds as possible. === Reinforcement Learning (RL) === Similar results have been proved for regret minimization in average-reward reinforcement learning. The order is also ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} , with a constant that depends on the problem.

  Read more →
• 

  Certifying algorithm

  In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.

  Read more →
• 

  The Drivers Cooperative

  The Drivers Cooperative or Co-Op Ride is an American ridesharing company and mobile app that is a workers cooperative, owned collectively by the drivers. The cooperative launched in May 2021 in New York City, with the first 2,500 drivers issued their ownership certificates in a media event. The cooperative was co-founded by Grenadan immigrant and for hire vehicle driver Ken Lewis, labor organizer Erik Forman, and former Uber executive Alissa Orlando. Mohammad Hossen is the first member of the drivers' advisory board, which they plan to expand democratically as more drivers are onboarded. Other staff include software and industry veterans and in addition to co-founder Lewis, there are other drivers in management roles such as ex-driver and organizer David Alexis. The Co-Op Ride app is on the iOS and Android platforms and is built on Google Maps, Stripe, and Waze. By July, the app had been downloaded by 30,000 users and the number of drivers increased to 3,400, and by August there were 40,000 users. The cooperative is owned by the drivers themselves, and takes 15% from each ride for business overhead costs, as opposed to the 25% to 40% ride hail apps like Uber or Lyft take per ride. While being ultimately owned by the driver members, not by investors, the cooperative began with seed money from the Minnesota-based Community Development Financial Institution Shared Capital Cooperative, the local Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union, and welcomed individual donations via crowdfunding in the form of revenue sharing debt on Wefunder. Each driver is a member of the cooperative and owns one share of the company and one vote in business and leadership decisions. In addition to a larger percentage of the fees per ride driven, each driver as a part-owner will also receive a share of the company's profits after loans and other expenses are paid, in the form of weighted dividends. The drivers use their own cars. The cooperative vets its owner-members further than what is already performed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), and gives a fixed price when a car is ordered and does not engage in surge pricing. The TLC imposed a minimum payrate for mobile app ridesharing companies operating in New York city in 2018. In 2021 that is $1.26 per mile which Uber and Lyft do not pay above; the cooperative pays a minimum mileage of $1.64. The cooperative intends to be able to set aside 10% of profits to community foundations and other non-profits and community organizations. The cooperative has engaged in advocacy around a policy agenda voted on by its members. Legislation to achieve this policy goal was introduced by State Senator Julia Salazar and Assemblymember Jessica González-Rojas, with the support of a coalition led by The Drivers Cooperative, United Auto Workers Region 9 and 9A, Sunrise Movement, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, and New York Communities for Change.

  Read more →
• 

  Regulation of algorithms

  Regulation of algorithms, or algorithmic regulation, is the creation of laws, rules and public sector policies for promotion and regulation of algorithms, particularly in artificial intelligence and machine learning. For the subset of AI algorithms, the term regulation of artificial intelligence is used. The regulatory and policy landscape for artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Regulation of AI is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks, but challenging. Another emerging topic is the regulation of blockchain algorithms (Use of the smart contracts must be regulated) and is mentioned along with regulation of AI algorithms. Many countries have enacted regulations of high frequency trades, which is shifting due to technological progress into the realm of AI algorithms. The motivation for regulation of algorithms is the apprehension of losing control over the algorithms, whose impact on human life increases. Multiple countries have already introduced regulations in case of automated credit score calculation—right to explanation is mandatory for those algorithms. For example, The IEEE has begun developing a new standard to explicitly address ethical issues and the values of potential future users. Bias, transparency, and ethics concerns have emerged with respect to the use of algorithms in diverse domains ranging from criminal justice to healthcare—many fear that artificial intelligence could replicate existing social inequalities along race, class, gender, and sexuality lines. == Regulation of artificial intelligence == === Public discussion === In 2016, Joy Buolamwini founded Algorithmic Justice League after a personal experience with biased facial detection software in order to raise awareness of the social implications of artificial intelligence through art and research. In 2017 Elon Musk advocated regulation of algorithms in the context of the existential risk from artificial general intelligence. According to NPR, the Tesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation." In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development. Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has argued that artificial intelligence is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology. Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty. One suggestion has been for the development of a global governance board to regulate AI development. In 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI. Algorithmic tacit collusion is a legally dubious antitrust practise committed by means of algorithms, which the courts are not able to prosecute. This danger concerns scientists and regulators in EU, US and beyond. European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager mentioned an early example of algorithmic tacit collusion in her speech on "Algorithms and Collusion" on March 16, 2017, described as follows: "A few years ago, two companies were selling a textbook called The Making of a Fly. One of those sellers used an algorithm which essentially matched its rival’s price. That rival had an algorithm which always set a price 27% higher than the first. The result was that prices kept spiralling upwards, until finally someone noticed what was going on, and adjusted the price manually. By that time, the book was selling – or rather, not selling – for 23 million dollars a copy." In 2018, the Netherlands employed an algorithmic system SyRI (Systeem Risico Indicatie) to detect citizens perceived being high risk for committing welfare fraud, which quietly flagged thousands of people to investigators. This caused a public protest. The district court of Hague shut down SyRI referencing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2020, algorithms assigning exam grades to students in the UK sparked open protest under the banner "Fuck the algorithm." This protest was successful and the grades were taken back. In 2024, the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights was introduced as part of growing international efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through a human rights lens. Developed through a collaborative drafting process involving scholars from the Technical University of Munich, Stellenbosch University, Ulster University, and KNUST, the initiative calls for an international conversation on a binding treaty to safeguard human rights and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the age of AI. === Implementation === AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues. The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI has been increasingly deemed necessary at the local, national, and international levels and in fields from public service management to law enforcement, the financial sector, robotics, the military, and international law. There are many concerns that there is not enough visibility and monitoring of AI in these sectors. In the United States financial sector, for example, there have been calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to more closely examine source code and algorithms when conducting audits of financial institutions' non-public data. In the United States, on January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on 'Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence', the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has published an interim report, and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. In April 2016, for the first time in more than two decades, the European Parliament adopted a set of comprehensive regulations for the collection, storage, and use of personal information, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 (European Union, Parliament and Council 2016). The GDPR's policy on the right of citizens to receive an explanation for algorithmic decisions highlights the pressing importance of human interpretability in algorithm design. In 2016, China published a position paper questioning the adequacy of existing international law to address the eventuality of fully autonomous weapons, becoming the first permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to broach the issue, and leading to proposals for global regulation. In the United States, steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. In 2017, the U.K. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill imposes liability on the owner of an uninsured automated vehicle when driving itself and makes provisions for cases where the owner has made "unauthorized alterations" to the vehicle or failed to update its software. Further ethical issues arise when, e.g., a self-driving car swerves to avoid a pedestrian and causes a fatal accident. In 2021, the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act. == Algorithm certification == There is a concept of algorithm certification emerging as a method of regulating algorithms. Algorithm certification involves auditing whether the algorithm used during the life cycle 1) conforms to the protocoled requirements (e.g., for correctness, completeness, consistency, and accuracy); 2) satisfies the standards, practices, and conventions; and 3) solves the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws), and satisfies the intended use and user needs in the operational environment. == Regulation of blockchain algorithms == Blockchain systems provide transparent and fixed records of transactions and hereby contradict the goal of the European GDPR, which is to give individuals full control of their private data. By implementing the Decree on Development of Digital Economy, Bel

  Read more →
• 

  List of artificial intelligence projects

  The following is a list of current and past, non-classified notable artificial intelligence projects. == Specialized projects == === Brain-inspired === Blue Brain Project, an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. Google Brain, a deep learning project part of Google X attempting to have intelligence similar or equal to human-level. Human Brain Project, ten-year scientific research project, based on exascale supercomputers. === Cognitive architectures === 4CAPS, developed at Carnegie Mellon University under Marcel A. Just ACT-R, developed at Carnegie Mellon University under John R. Anderson. AIXI, Universal Artificial Intelligence developed by Marcus Hutter at IDSIA and ANU. CALO, a DARPA-funded, 25-institution effort to integrate many artificial intelligence approaches (natural language processing, speech recognition, machine vision, probabilistic logic, planning, reasoning, many forms of machine learning) into an AI assistant that learns to help manage your office environment. CHREST, developed under Fernand Gobet at Brunel University and Peter C. Lane at the University of Hertfordshire. CLARION, developed under Ron Sun at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and University of Missouri. CoJACK, an ACT-R inspired extension to the JACK multi-agent system that adds a cognitive architecture to the agents for eliciting more realistic (human-like) behaviors in virtual environments. Copycat, by Douglas Hofstadter and Melanie Mitchell at the Indiana University. DUAL, developed at the New Bulgarian University under Boicho Kokinov. FORR developed by Susan L. Epstein at The City University of New York. IDA and LIDA, implementing Global Workspace Theory, developed under Stan Franklin at the University of Memphis. OpenCog Prime, developed using the OpenCog Framework. Procedural Reasoning System (PRS), developed by Michael Georgeff and Amy L. Lansky at SRI International. Psi-Theory developed under Dietrich Dörner at the Otto-Friedrich University in Bamberg, Germany. Soar, developed under Allen Newell and John Laird at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Michigan. Society of Mind and its successor The Emotion Machine proposed by Marvin Minsky. Subsumption architectures, developed e.g. by Rodney Brooks (though it could be argued whether they are cognitive). === Games === AlphaGo, software developed by Google that plays the Chinese board game Go. Chinook, a computer program that plays English draughts; the first to win the world champion title in the competition against humans. Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by IBM which beat Garry Kasparov in 1997. Halite, an artificial intelligence programming competition created by Two Sigma in 2016. Libratus, a poker AI that beat world-class poker players in 2017, intended to be generalisable to other applications. The Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine or MENACE) was a mechanical computer made from 304 matchboxes designed and built by artificial intelligence researcher Donald Michie in 1961. Quick, Draw!, an online game developed by Google that challenges players to draw a picture of an object or idea and then uses a neural network to guess what the drawing is. The Samuel Checkers-playing Program (1959) was among the world's first successful self-learning programs, and as such a very early demonstration of the fundamental concept of artificial intelligence (AI). Stockfish AI, an open source chess engine currently ranked the highest in many computer chess rankings. TD-Gammon, a program that learned to play world-class backgammon partly by playing against itself (temporal difference learning with neural networks). === Internet activism === Serenata de Amor, project for the analysis of public expenditures and detect discrepancies. === Knowledge and reasoning === Alice (Microsoft), a project from Microsoft Research Lab aimed at improving decision-making in Economics Braina, an intelligent personal assistant application with a voice interface for Windows OS. Cyc, an attempt to assemble an ontology and database of everyday knowledge, enabling human-like reasoning. Eurisko, a language by Douglas Lenat for solving problems which consists of heuristics, including some for how to use and change its heuristics. Google Now, an intelligent personal assistant with a voice interface in Google's Android and Apple Inc.'s iOS, as well as Google Chrome web browser on personal computers. Holmes a new AI created by Wipro. Microsoft Cortana, an intelligent personal assistant with a voice interface in Microsoft's various Windows 10 editions. MindsDB, is an AI automation platform for building AI/ML powered features and applications. Mycin, an early medical expert system. Open Mind Common Sense, a project based at the MIT Media Lab to build a large common sense knowledge base from online contributions. Siri, an intelligent personal assistant and knowledge navigator with a voice-interface in Apple Inc.'s iOS and macOS. SNePS, simultaneously a logic-based, frame-based, and network-based knowledge representation, reasoning, and acting system. Viv (software), a new AI by the creators of Siri. Wolfram Alpha, an online service that answers queries by computing the answer from structured data. === Motion and manipulation === AIBO, the robot pet for the home, grew out of Sony's Computer Science Laboratory (CSL). Cog, a robot developed by MIT to study theories of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, now discontinued. === Music === Melomics, a bioinspired technology for music composition and synthesization of music, where computers develop their own style, rather than mimic musicians. === Natural language processing === AIML, an XML dialect for creating natural language software agents. Apache Lucene, a high-performance, full-featured text search engine library written entirely in Java. Apache OpenNLP, a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking and parsing. Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity (A.L.I.C.E.), a natural language processing chatterbot. ChatGPT, a chatbot built on top of OpenAI's GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 family of large language models. Claude, a family of large language models developed by Anthropic and launched in 2023. Claude LLMs achieved high coding scores in several recognized LLM benchmarks. Cleverbot, successor to Jabberwacky, now with 170m lines of conversation, Deep Context, fuzziness and parallel processing. Cleverbot learns from around 2 million user interactions per month. DeepSeek: Chinese chatbot funded by hedge fund High-Flyer. DBRX, 136 billion parameter open sourced large language model developed by Mosaic ML and Databricks. ELIZA, a famous 1966 computer program by Joseph Weizenbaum, which parodied person-centered therapy. FreeHAL, a self-learning conversation simulator (chatterbot) which uses semantic nets to organize its knowledge to imitate a very close human behavior within conversations. Gemini, a family of multimodal large language model developed by Google's DeepMind. Drives the Gemini chatbot, formerly known as Bard. GigaChat, a chatbot by Russian Sberbank. GPT-3, a 2020 language model developed by OpenAI that can produce text difficult to distinguish from that written by a human. Jabberwacky, a chatbot by Rollo Carpenter, aiming to simulate natural human chat. LaMDA, a family of conversational neural language models developed by Google. LLaMA, a 2023 language model family developed by Meta that includes 7, 13, 33 and 65 billion parameter models.[1] Mycroft, a free and open-source intelligent personal assistant that uses a natural language user interface. PARRY, another early chatterbot, written in 1972 by Kenneth Colby, attempting to simulate a paranoid schizophrenic. SHRDLU, an early natural language processing computer program developed by Terry Winograd at MIT from 1968 to 1970. SYSTRAN, a machine translation technology by the company of the same name, used by Yahoo!, AltaVista and Google, among others. === Speech recognition === CMU Sphinx, a group of speech recognition systems developed at Carnegie Mellon University. DeepSpeech, an open-source Speech-To-Text engine based on Baidu's deep speech research paper. Whisper, an open-source speech recognition system developed at OpenAI. === Speech synthesis === 15.ai, a real-time artificial intelligence text-to-speech tool developed by an anonymous researcher from MIT. Amazon Polly, a speech synthesis software by Amazon. Festival Speech Synthesis System, a general multi-lingual speech synthesis system developed at the Centre for Speech Technology Research (CSTR) at the University of Edinburgh. WaveNet, a deep neural network for generating raw audio. === Video === CapCut is a video editor tool, developed

  Read more →