AI Analytics Healthcare

AI Analytics Healthcare — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Microsoft Azure

Microsoft Azure, sometimes stylized Azure, and formerly Windows Azure, is the cloud computing platform developed by Microsoft. It offers management, access and development of applications and services to individuals, companies, and governments through its global infrastructure. Microsoft Azure supports many programming languages, tools, and frameworks, including Microsoft-specific and third-party software and systems. Azure was first introduced at the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) in October 2008 under the codename "Project Red Dog". It was officially launched as Windows Azure in February 2010 and later renamed to Microsoft Azure on March 25, 2014. == Services == Microsoft Azure uses large-scale virtualization at Microsoft data centers worldwide and offers more than 600 services. Microsoft Azure offers a service level agreement (SLA) that guarantees 99.9% availability for applications and data hosted on its platform, subject to specific terms and conditions outlined in the SLA documentation. === Computer services === Virtual machines, infrastructure as a service (IaaS), allowing users to launch general-purpose Microsoft Windows and Linux virtual machines, software as a service (SaaS), as well as preconfigured machine images for popular software packages. Starting in 2022, these virtual machines are now powered by Ampere Cloud-native processors. Most users run Linux on Azure, some of the many Linux distributions offered, including Microsoft's own Linux-based Azure Sphere. App services, platform as a service (PaaS) environment, letting developers easily publish and manage websites. Azure Web Sites allows developers to build sites using ASP.NET, PHP, Node.js, Java, or Python, which can be deployed using FTP, Git, Mercurial, Azure DevOps, or uploaded through the user portal. This feature was announced in preview form in June 2012 at the Meet Microsoft Azure event. Customers can create websites in PHP, ASP.NET, Node.js, or Python, or select from several open-source applications from a gallery to deploy. This comprises one aspect of the platform as a service (PaaS) offerings for the Microsoft Azure Platform. It was renamed Web Apps in April 2015. Web Jobs are applications that can be deployed to an App Service environment to implement background processing that can be invoked on a schedule, on-demand, or run continuously. The Blob, Table, and Queue services can be used to communicate between Web Apps and Web Jobs and to provide state. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) provides the capability to deploy production-ready Kubernetes clusters in Azure. In July 2023, watermarking support on Azure Virtual Desktop was announced as an optional feature of Screen Capture to provide additional security against data leakage. === Identity === Entra ID connect is used to synchronize on-premises directories and enable SSO (Single Sign On). Entra ID B2C allows the use of consumer identity and access management in the cloud. Entra Domain Services is used to join Azure virtual machines to a domain without domain controllers. Azure information protection can be used to protect sensitive information. Entra ID External Identities is a set of capabilities that allow organizations to collaborate with external users, including customers and partners. On July 11, 2023, Microsoft announced the renaming of Azure AD to Microsoft Entra ID. The name change took place four days later. === Mobile services === Mobile Engagement collects real-time analytics that highlight users' behavior. It also provides push notifications to mobile devices. HockeyApp can be used to develop, distribute, and beta-test mobile apps. === Storage services === Storage Services provides REST and SDK APIs for storing and accessing data on the cloud. Table Service lets programs store structured text in partitioned collections of entities that are accessed by the partition key and primary key. Azure Table Service is a NoSQL non-relational database. Blob Service allows programs to store unstructured text and binary data as object storage blobs that can be accessed by an HTTP(S) path. Blob service also provides security mechanisms to control access to data. Queue Service lets programs communicate asynchronously by message using queues. File Service allows storing and access of data on the cloud using the REST APIs or the SMB protocol. === Communication services === Azure Communication Services offers an SDK for creating web and mobile communications applications that include SMS, video calling, VOIP and PSTN calling, and web-based chat. === Data management === Azure Data Explorer provides big data analytics and data-exploration capabilities. Azure Search provides text search and a subset of OData's structured filters using REST or SDK APIs. Cosmos DB is a NoSQL database service that implements a subset of the SQL SELECT statement on JSON documents. Azure Cache for Redis is a managed implementation of Redis. StorSimple manages storage tasks between on-premises devices and cloud storage. Azure SQL Database works to create, scale, and extend applications into the cloud using Microsoft SQL Server technology. It also integrates with Active Directory, Microsoft System Center, and Hadoop. Azure Synapse Analytics is a fully managed cloud data warehouse. Azure Data Factory is a data integration service that allows creation of data-driven workflows in the cloud for orchestrating and automating data movement and data transformation. Azure Data Lake is a scalable data storage and analytic service for big data analytics workloads that require developers to run massively parallel queries. Azure HDInsight is a big data-relevant service that deploys Hortonworks Hadoop on Microsoft Azure and supports the creation of Hadoop clusters using Linux with Ubuntu. Azure Stream Analytics is a Serverless scalable event-processing engine that enables users to develop and run real-time analytics on multiple streams of data from sources such as devices, sensors, websites, social media, and other applications. === Messaging === The Microsoft Azure Service Bus allows applications running on Azure premises or off-premises devices to communicate with Azure. This helps to build scalable and reliable applications in a service-oriented architecture (SOA). The Azure service bus supports four different types of communication mechanisms: Event Hubs, which provides event and telemetry ingress to the cloud at a massive scale, with low latency and high reliability. For example, an event hub can be used to track data from cell phones such as coordinating with a GPS in real time. Queues, which allows one-directional communication. A sender application would send the message to the service bus queue and a receiver would read from the queue. Though there can be multiple readers for the queue, only one would process a single message. Topics, which provides one-directional communication using a subscriber pattern. It is similar to a queue; however, each subscriber will receive a copy of the message sent to a Topic. Optionally, the subscriber can filter out messages based on specific criteria defined by the subscriber. Relays, which provides bi-directional communication. Unlike queues and topics, a relay does not store in-flight messages in its memory; instead, it just passes them on to the destination application. === Media services === A PaaS offering that can be used for encoding, content protection, streaming, or analytics. === CDN === Azure has a worldwide content delivery network (CDN) designed to efficiently deliver audio, video, applications, images, and other static files. It improves the performance of websites by caching static files closer to users, based on their geographic location. Users can manage the network using a REST-based HTTP API. Azure has 118 point-of-presence locations across 100 cities worldwide (also known as Edge locations) as of January 2023. === Developer === Application Insights Azure DevOps === Management === With Azure Automation, users can easily automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, often prone to cloud or enterprise setting errors. They can accomplish it using runbooks or desired state configurations for process automation. Microsoft SMA === Azure AI === Microsoft Azure Machine Learning (Azure ML) provides tools and frameworks for developers to create their own machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) services. Azure AI Services by Microsoft comprises prebuilt APIs, SDKs, and services developers can customize. These services encompass perceptual and cognitive intelligence features such as speech recognition, speaker recognition, neural speech synthesis, face recognition, computer vision, OCR/form understanding, natural language processing, machine translation, and business decision services. Many AI characteristics in Microsoft's products and services, namely Bing, Office, Teams, Xbox, and Windows, are driven by Azure AI Services. Microsoft Foundry (formerly known as Azure AI Studio)
Read more →
Non-human

Non-human (also spelled nonhuman) is any entity displaying some, but not enough, human characteristics to be considered a human. The term has been used in a variety of contexts and may refer to objects that have been developed with human intelligence, such as robots or vehicles. == Organisms == === Animal rights and personhood === In the animal rights movement, it is common to distinguish between "human animals" and "non-human animals". Participants in the animal rights movement generally recognize that non-human animals have some similar characteristics to those of human persons. For example, various non-human animals have been shown to register pain, compassion, memory, and some cognitive function. Some animal rights activists argue that the similarities between human and non-human animals justify giving non-human animals rights that human society has afforded to humans, such as the right to self-preservation, and some even wish for all non-human animals or at least those that bear a fully thinking and conscious mind, such as vertebrates and some invertebrates such as cephalopods, to be given a full right of personhood. === The non-human in philosophy === Contemporary philosophers have drawn on the work of Henri Bergson, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, and Claude Lévi-Strauss (among others) to suggest that the non-human poses epistemological and ontological problems for humanist and post-humanist ethics, and have linked the study of non-humans to materialist and ethological approaches to the study of society and culture. == Software and robots == The term non-human has been used to describe computer programs and robot-like devices that display some human-like characteristics. In both science fiction and in the real world, computer programs and robots have been built to perform tasks that require human-computer interactions in a manner that suggests sentience and compassion. There is increasing interest in the use of robots in nursing homes and to provide elder care. Computer programs have been used for years in schools to provide one-on-one education with children. The Tamagotchi toy required children to provide care, attention, and nourishment to keep it "alive".
Read more →
Ameca (robot)

Ameca is a robotic humanoid created in 2021 by Engineered Arts, headquarters in Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom. The project commenced in February 2021, and the first public demonstration was at the CES 2022 show in Las Vegas. Ameca's appearance features grey rubber skin on the face and hands, and is specifically designed to appear genderless. In 2024, an Ameca unit was installed in Edinburgh in the UK to reside at the National Robotarium. Ameca generation 3 has been released and showcased at ICRA 2025 along with Ami. == History == The first generation of Ameca was developed at Engineered Arts headquarters in Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom. The project started in February 2021, with the first video revealed publicly on 1 December 2021. Ameca gained widespread attention on Twitter and TikTok ahead of its first public demonstration at the Consumer Electronics Show 2022, where it was covered by CNET and other news outlets. In 2022, Ameca presented an Alternative Christmas message by British TV Channel 4 for Christmas Day. Ameca was associated with the Museum of the Future's robotic family, where it could interact with visitors. In 2024, an Ameca unit was installed in Edinburgh in the UK to reside at the National Robotarium. In January 2026, Ameca served as an ambassador for the European Space Agency (ESA) at the 18th European Space Conference. == Features == It is designed as a platform for further developing robotics technologies involving human-robot interaction. utilizes embedded microphones, binocular eye mounted cameras, a chest camera and facial recognition software to interact with the public. Interactions can be governed by either OpenAI's GPT-3 or human telepresence. It also features articulated motorized arms, fingers, neck and facial features. Ameca's appearance features grey rubber skin on the face and hands, and is specifically designed to appear genderless. == Public appearances == Computer History Museum, California Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum, Paderborn, Germany Copernicus Science Center, Warsaw, Poland Museum of the Future, Dubai Consumer Electronics Show 2022 Deutsches Museum Nuremberg OMR Festival 2022 Hosted by Vodafone GITEX 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2023 International Telecommunication Union AI for Good Global Summit 2023 Sphere (Not Ameca, Custom humanoid named Aura built on Ameca technology)
Read more →
Right to explanation

In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Read more →
Case-based reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Read more →
AI browser

An AI browser is a web browser with integrated artificial intelligence capabilities, such as automatically summarizing web page content or answering questions about it. A more specialized type is an agentic browser, based on the concept of agentic AI, which can take actions – such as navigating webpages or filling out forms – on behalf of the user. Several agentic browsers emerged in 2025, including ChatGPT Atlas (macOS only), Comet, and Dia. As of 2025, this is a recent development in the browser market, including new entrants from OpenAI, Opera and Perplexity. The designation of 'AI browser' also includes established browsers that later added non-agentic AI features, such as Microsoft Edge with the Copilot chatbot, Google Chrome with the Gemini chatbot (for Windows desktop users in the US with their language set to English), and Firefox with multiple chatbot providers (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Le Chat). AI browsers have been noted to be susceptible to prompt injection attacks. == Browser extensions and integrations == Rather than creating entirely new browsers, some AI browsing solutions integrate with existing browsers through extensions or companion applications. These tools add agentic capabilities to established browsers without requiring users to switch platforms. Examples include Composite, which functions as a cross-browser agent that works with Chrome, Edge, and other browsers to automate web-based tasks for workers. == Cloud-based implementations == Cloud-based implementations of AI browsers allow users to run automated browsing agents without local installation. These systems operate on remote servers using frameworks such as Puppeteer or Playwright. Examples include Browserbase, Browser-use and AI Browser. The AI typically parses the Document Object Model (DOM) to locate and interact with page elements, and may also analyze browser screenshots to interpret layout and structure. == Criticisms and dangers == AI browsers have been noted to be susceptible to being vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, in which the content of websites can be used to hijack the control of the browser. Multiple organisations have argued against using AI browsers due to this vulnerability. The United Kingdom national cyber security centre and Gartner consider them to be too risky for adoption by most organisations. A study by the CISPA Helmholtz Center and Saarland University concluded that this vulnerability makes them easy targets for malware, fraud, automated defamation, disinformation and biased outputs.
Read more →
Dataset shift

Dataset shift is a phenomenon in machine learning and statistics in which the joint distribution of input variables and target labels is different in the training phase and the deployment or test phase (i.e., P t r a i n ( X , Y ) ≠ P t e s t ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle P_{train}(X,Y)\neq P_{test}(X,Y)} ). This happens when the statistical properties of data used to train a model are no longer representative of the data encountered in real-world use, often resulting in degraded predictive performance and diminished generalization ability. Dataset shift is a generic term for a number of particular types of distributional change. Covariate shift is when the distribution of the input features changes, but the conditional relationship between inputs and outputs remains constant . Prior probability shift (or label shift) happens when the distribution of target labels changes, but the conditional distribution of inputs given labels stays the same. Concept shift (also known as concept drift) is the change of the conditional relationship between inputs and outputs that renders previously learned patterns invalid over time. A key challenge for deploying machine learning systems is dataset shift, in particular in dynamic environments where the data distributions change over time. Detecting and mitigating such shifts is an active area of research, e.g., drift detection, domain adaptation, continual learning.
Read more →
Right to explanation

In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Read more →
Protocol Builder

Protocol Builder is a tool in programming languages to generate code to build protocols in a fast and reliable way. Network programming for all kinds of protocols (such as TCP, UDP, and SNMP) includes converting data to be transferred to raw bytes in the sending side and parsing these bytes in the receiving side. Protocol builders facilitate this stage, usually by automatically generating the code. Protocol Programming has many components to be developed, these are: server listener, server connection, client connection, packets, and loggers. Most protocol builders implement these components automatically so developers save time and money. Currently, there are two Protocol Builders in the market, one for C++ from UpRedSun which is for TCP and UDP protocols. The second one is for .Net languages which generates the code in C# for TCP Protocols, this tool is called .Net Protocol Builder.
Read more →
Competition in artificial intelligence

Competition in artificial intelligence refers to the rivalry among companies, research institutions, and governments to develop and deploy the most capable artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The competition spans multiple domains, including large language models (LLMs), autonomous vehicles, robotics, computer vision systems, natural language processing (NLP), and AI-optimized hardware. == Background == Competition in AI is driven by potential economic, strategic, and scientific advantages. Breakthroughs in AI can enhance productivity, enable new products and services, and provide geopolitical leverage. The field has experienced rapid progress since the mid-2010s, particularly in machine learning and artificial neural networks, leading to intense rivalry among leading actors. == Corporate competition == Major technology companies are among the most visible competitors in AI. In the United States, firms such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Anthropic, and Nvidia compete in building advanced LLMs, generative AI platforms, and AI-optimized graphics processing units (GPUs). In China, companies such as Baidu, Alibaba Group, Tencent, and startups such DeepSeek have become leaders in AI deployment, often with state backing. The "[war for talent]" in AI research has become a defining feature of corporate competition. Leading firms often recruit top AI researchers from rivals, sometimes offering multi-million-dollar compensation packages. == National competition == Governments see leadership in AI as a strategic priority. The United States has funded AI research for military, economic, and societal applications, while China has set a target to lead the world in AI by 2030 through its "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan". Other nations, including the UK, India, Israel, Russia, South Korea, and members of the European Union, have launched national AI strategies. In February 2026 Anthropic said Chinese companies - DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax - were conducting "distillation attacks" in an attempt to copy their model's capabilities, and warned that business wars were closely tied to geopolitical ones: "foreign labs that illicitly distill American models can remove safeguards, feeding model capabilities into their own military, intelligence, and surveillance systems." == Sectors of competition == === Large language models and chatbots competition === Competition to produce the most capable generative text models, with benchmarks such as MMLU and ARC used to evaluate performance has been on scale since the emergence of AI. These systems leverage deep learning, especially transformer architectures, to understand and generate human-like language. Companies and research groups globally compete to develop chatbots that are more capable, reliable, and context-aware. Among the most well-known chatbots is ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. Since its public release in 2022, ChatGPT has rapidly gained widespread attention for its ability to engage in coherent and versatile conversations, assist with creative writing, and solve complex problems. In response, technology firms introduced competing chatbots aiming to challenge or surpass ChatGPT's capabilities. Notably, DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, launched an advanced chatbot integrated with their R1 language model, emphasizing strong natural language understanding and multilingual support. Similarly, Grok, developed by xAI (company), integrates conversational AI into vehicles and digital assistants, combining natural language processing with real-time data for personalized user interaction. These chatbots not only compete in language tasks but also demonstrate strategic reasoning capabilities by playing complex games such as chess and Go. This form of competition is reminiscent of historic AI milestones set by programs such as Deep Blue and AlphaGo. The OpenAI’s ChatGPT has been tested in playing chess at various levels, while DeepSeek’s chatbot showcased its prowess in online chess tournaments in early 2024, winning several matches against human and AI opponents. Grok, leveraging Tesla's vast data infrastructure, has demonstrated real-time strategic decision-making in simulation environments that include chess-like games. The competition pushes rapid innovation, with firms racing to improve chatbot conversational depth, reduce biases, increase factual accuracy, and integrate multimodal inputs like images and videos. At the same time, the competition raises questions about AI safety, ethical use, and the societal impacts of increasingly human-like chatbots. === Autonomous vehicles === Companies such as Waymo, Tesla, and Baidu are racing to deploy safe and reliable self-driving car technology. === AI chips === Rivalry between Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and Huawei in designing processors optimized for AI workloads. === Military applications === Development of AI-enabled drones, surveillance systems, and decision-support tools, with associated ethical debates. == Events == In 2023, OpenAI released GPT-4, prompting competitors such as Google DeepMind to accelerate the release of their own models, including Gemini. In 2024, Chinese AI company DeepSeek launched the R1 model, leading OpenAI to release an open-source system, GPT-OSS, as a strategic countermeasure. In 2022, Tesla and Waymo both expanded autonomous taxi services in U.S. cities, competing for regulatory approval and public trust. The U.S. Department of Defense's Project Maven and China's AI-enabled surveillance programs have been cited as examples of military AI rivalry. In 2025, Microsoft hired several senior engineers from Google DeepMind, highlighting the ongoing "talent poaching" competition in the AI sector. == Risks and concerns == Critics warn that unrestrained competition in AI can undermine safety, ethics, and governance. Concerns include the proliferation of biased or unsafe models, escalation in autonomous weapons, and reduced cooperation on safety standards.
Read more →
Structured sparsity regularization

Structured sparsity regularization is a class of methods, and an area of research in statistical learning theory, that extend and generalize sparsity regularization learning methods. Both sparsity and structured sparsity regularization methods seek to exploit the assumption that the output variable Y {\displaystyle Y} (i.e., response, or dependent variable) to be learned can be described by a reduced number of variables in the input space X {\displaystyle X} (i.e., the domain, space of features or explanatory variables). Sparsity regularization methods focus on selecting the input variables that best describe the output. Structured sparsity regularization methods generalize and extend sparsity regularization methods, by allowing for optimal selection over structures like groups or networks of input variables in X {\displaystyle X} . Common motivation for the use of structured sparsity methods are model interpretability, high-dimensional learning (where dimensionality of X {\displaystyle X} may be higher than the number of observations n {\displaystyle n} ), and reduction of computational complexity. Moreover, structured sparsity methods allow to incorporate prior assumptions on the structure of the input variables, such as overlapping groups, non-overlapping groups, and acyclic graphs. Examples of uses of structured sparsity methods include face recognition, magnetic resonance image (MRI) processing, socio-linguistic analysis in natural language processing, and analysis of genetic expression in breast cancer. == Definition and related concepts == === Sparsity regularization === Consider the linear kernel regularized empirical risk minimization problem with a loss function V ( y i , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(y_{i},f(x))} and the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm" as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where x , w ∈ R d {\displaystyle x,w\in \mathbb {R^{d}} } , and ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", defined as the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . f ( x ) = ⟨ w , x i ⟩ {\displaystyle f(x)=\langle w,x_{i}\rangle } is said to be sparse if ‖ w ‖ 0 = s < d {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}=s 0 {\displaystyle w_{j}>0} . However, as in this case groups may overlap, we take the intersection of the complements of those groups that are not set to zero. This intersection of complements selection criteria implies the modeling choice that we allow some coefficients within a particular group g {\displaystyle g} to be set to zero, while others within the same group g {\displaystyle g} may remain positive. In other words, coefficients within a group may differ depending on the several group memberships that each variable within the group may have. ==== Union of groups: latent group Lasso ==== A different approach is to consider union of groups for variable selection. This approach captures the modeling situation where variables can be selected as long as they belong at least to one group with positive coefficients. This modeling perspective implies that we want to preserve group structure. The formulation of the union of groups approach is also referred to as latent group Lasso, and requires to modify the group ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm considered above and introduce the following regularizer R ( w ) = i n f { ∑ g ‖ w g ‖ g : w = ∑ g = 1 G w ¯ g } {\displaystyle R(w)=inf\left\{\sum _{g}\|w_{g}\|_{g}:w=\sum _{g=1}^{G}{\bar {w}}_{g}\right\}} where w ∈ R d {\displaystyle w\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} , w g ∈ G g {\displaystyle w_{g}\in G_{g}} is the vector of coefficients of group g, and w ¯ g ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{g}\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} is a vector with coefficients w g j {\displaystyle w_{g}^{j}} for all variables j {
Read more →
The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis

The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis is a report authored by James van Geelen and Alap Shah and published by Citrini Research in February 2026, on the impact of artificial intelligence on humanity's future. Written in the form of a scenario analysis, it was viewed millions of times online and reportedly caused a fall in the stock market prices of major tech and financial firms. It also received criticism among others, for its allegedly flawed economic logic. The 'thought exercise', as the authors called it, painted a gloomy picture for the near future, where outputs keep growing while consumer's ability to spend collapses. "...driven by ai agents that don’t sleep, take sick days or require health insurance”, "outputs that are shown in national accounts increases, "but never circulates through the real economy"(which the report calls 'Ghost GDP'), the authors argued. In other words, the authors predict a scenario where the owners of the AI firms will accumulate a vast fortune but there will be scant demand from consumers as AI would cause massive unemployment. The authors caution the reader that what they make is a scenario and not a prediction. In the scenario they visualise, any service whose value proposition is “I will navigate complexity that you find tedious” is getting disrupted. The reports argues that the unique ability of human beings to analyse, decide, create, persuade, and coordinate was “the thing that could not be replicated at scale,” and call the historical scarcity of this precious entity 'friction'. When this friction becomes zero, a gamut of changes occur which then triggers a cascading of changes across the economy. ”Travel booking platforms are an early casualty; Financial advice. tax prep., and routine legal work follow suit. National unemployment rate go as high 10.2% and the S&P 500 goes for a massive 38% peak-to-trough crash. In contrast to the previous technological revolutions the high-earning professionals suffers more and get forced to take up roles in the gig economy. Labour supply becomes abundant and this cuts wages all across the economy. The dent in income for the employees then affects other sectors of the economy such as the residential mortgage market. The losses for the software companies triggers loan defaults and heralds peril for the private credit sector.
Read more →
Lost Art-Database

The Lost Art-Datenbank is an online database published by the German Lost Art Foundation (Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. It contains information on cultural objects looted from Jewish collectors or transferred due to Nazi persecution during the Nazi era. Until 2015, it was managed by the Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste (Magdeburg Coordination Office). == Creation == Following the Washington Conference of 1998, and the commitments to provide more transparency regarding looted art, Germany launched the Lost Art Database in 2000 order to help Holocaust victims and their families track down artworks that had been looted from them or lost due to Nazi persecution. == Functionality == The Lost Art Database lists art and books and other cultural objects that were lost, seized, stolen or forceably sold during the Nazi era. The database is divided into search requests from victims' families, heirs or institutions and "found" reports from cultural institutions on items with unresolved provenance gaps from the Nazi periods. The section on reports of finds lists objects that are known to have been unlawfully seized or relocated as a result of the war. In addition, reports are published here on cultural objects for which an uncertain or incomplete provenance may indicate a possible unlawful seizure or war-related relocation. The publication of reports in the Lost Art Internet Database is carried out on behalf of and with the consent of the reporting persons and institutions. The responsibility for the content of the reports lies with these legal or natural persons. There have been controversies over which items should be included in the database. Lost Art is based on the Washington Principles adopted in 1998, which Germany has committed itself to implementing (Joint Declaration, 1999). The Lost Art Database is considered a key resource in the search for looted art and the victims of persecution. Every item in the Lost Art Database has an identifier, known as a Lost Art ID. Proveana is the linked research database. == Other lost art databases == Other countries have launched databases to help identify Nazi looted art. Each database has its own area of focus. The German Lost Art Database allows families or heirs to submit information. Other countries have databases that focus on looted artworks that have not been found or artworks that were repatriated to the national authorities after the defeat of the Nazis but were never returned to their original owners. Other databases have been created for stolen antiquities, looted art from colonial era, art stolen from Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, or from museums or collectors.
Read more →
AI Overviews

AI Overviews is an artificial intelligence (AI) feature integrated into Google Search that produces AI-generated summaries of search results. The feature has been criticized for its inaccuracy and for reducing website traffic. == History and development == AI Overviews were first introduced as part of Google's Search Generative Experience (SGE), which was unveiled at the Google I/O conference in May 2023. In May 2024 at Google I/O 2024, the feature was rebranded as AI Overviews and launched in the United States. The introduction of AI Overviews was seen as a strategic move to compete with other generative AI advancements, including OpenAI's ChatGPT. By August 2024, AI Overviews was rolled out to several other countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia, with support for multiple languages. In October 2024, Google expanded the feature globally, making it available in over 100 countries. In December 2024, Botify x Demandsphere released findings stating that when AI Overviews and featured snippets appear together on the search engine results page, they take up approximately 67.1% of the screen on desktop and 75.7% on mobile. Even if content is ranking in the #1 position, it may not be visible to consumers if other visual elements on the results page are more prominent. In March 2025, Google started testing an "AI Mode", where the search results page is AI-generated. The company was also considering adding advertisements to the AI Mode, as they already exist in AI Overviews. As of May 2025, AI Overviews are available in over 200 countries and territories and in more than 40 languages. As of March 2026, Google AI Overviews appear on more than 48% of total Google Search queries, compared to just 6.49% in the previous year (58% year-over-year growth). == Functionality == The AI Overviews feature uses large language models to generate summaries from web content. The overviews are designed to be concise, providing a snapshot of relevant information about the queried topic. Google allows users to adjust the language complexity in summaries, offering both simplified and detailed options. The overviews also include links to sources. According to a June 2025 study by Semrush, the most cited source is Quora, followed by Reddit. == Reception == The feature has faced criticism for inaccuracies, including instances where erroneous or nonsensical content was generated. Depending on what is searched for, the overview may also consist of hallucinated content, such as when searching for idioms that do not exist. In May 2024, Google temporarily restricted the AI tool after it provided suggestions that were seen as nonsensical and harmful, such as telling users to eat rocks or apply glue on pizza. Concerns were also raised by content publishers, who feared a decline in web traffic as users relied on the summaries instead of visiting source websites. A Google patent from 2026 raised the concern of webmasters that Google could entirely replace the landing page of websites by an AI optimized copy of the website in its results. There is also apprehension about the ethical implications of AI-driven content aggregation, including its impact on intellectual property rights and the visibility of smaller content providers. The European Commission announced in December 2025 that they were investigating whether AI Overviews breached European competition law. In response, Google has stated its commitment to improve content validation and refine the algorithms used to filter unreliable information. Google implemented measures to prioritize link placement within AI Overviews, aiming to balance user convenience with the needs of content creators. In January 2026, Google restricted AI Overviews on certain health-related searches following an investigation by The Guardian. == Lawsuits == On February 24, 2025, Chegg sued Alphabet over the AI Overviews feature, claiming that it was leading to students preferring "low-quality, unverified AI summaries", thus violating antitrust law. Chegg also said it was considering either a sale or a take-private transaction. In September 2025, Penske Media Corporation, the publisher of Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, sued Google, claiming that AI Overviews illegally regurgitate content from their websites and drive off potential site visitors by always appearing on top of the search results while leaving little incentive to see the linked sources. The company stated that "the future of digital media and [...] its integrity [...] is threatened by Google's current actions", alleging that 20% of searches that link to Penske-owned websites show AI Overviews and that the figure is expected to rise. Google spokesperson José Castañeda called the claims "meritless" and stated that "AI Overviews send traffic to a greater diversity of sites." In 2026, Canadian musician Ashley MacIsaac filed a lawsuit against Google claiming that the AI Overview feature had wrongly stated that MacIsaac had been convicted of numerous criminal offences and was on the sex offender registry. He claims this incorrect information led to the cancellation of a December 2025 gig organized by the Sipekne'katik First Nation.
Read more →
Automated negotiation

Automated negotiation is a form of interaction in systems that are composed of multiple autonomous agents, in which the aim is to reach agreements through an iterative process of making offers. Automated negotiation can be employed for many tasks human negotiators regularly engage in, such as bargaining and joint decision making. The main topics in automated negotiation revolve around the design of protocols and negotiating strategies. == History == Through digitization, the beginning of the 21st century has seen a growing interest in the automation of negotiation and e-negotiation systems, for example in the setting of e-commerce. This interest is fueled by the promise of automated agents being able to negotiate on behalf of human negotiators, and to find better outcomes than human negotiators. == Examples == Examples of automated negotiation include: Online dispute resolution, in which disagreements between parties are settled. Sponsored search auction, where bids are placed on advertisement keywords. Content negotiation, in which user agents negotiate over HTTP about how to best represent a web resource. Negotiation support systems, in which negotiation decision-making activities are supported by an information system.
Read more →