AI Analytics Platform

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

Automated parking system

An automated (car) parking system (APS) is a mechanical system designed to minimize the area and/or volume required for parking cars. Like a multi-story parking garage, an APS provides parking for cars on multiple levels stacked vertically to maximize the number of parking spaces while minimizing land usage. The APS, however, utilizes a mechanical system to transport cars to and from parking spaces (rather than the driver) in order to eliminate much of the space wasted in a multi-story parking garage. While a multi-story parking garage is similar to multiple parking lots stacked vertically, an APS is more similar to an automated storage and retrieval system for cars. Parking systems are generally powered by electric motors or hydraulic pumps that move vehicles into a storage position.The paternoster (shown animated at the right) is an example of one of the earliest and most common types of APS. APS are also generically known by a variety of other names, including:automated parking facility (APF), automated vehicle storage and retrieval system (AVSRS), car parking system, mechanical parking, and robotic parking garage. == History == The concept for the automated parking system was and is driven by two factors: a need for parking spaces and a scarcity of available land. The earliest use of an APS was in Paris, France in 1905 at the Garage Rue de Ponthieu. The APS consisted of a groundbreaking multi-story concrete structure with an internal car elevator to transport cars to upper levels where attendants parked the cars. In the 1920s, a Ferris wheel-like APS (for cars rather than people) called a paternoster system became popular as it could park eight cars in the ground space normally used for parking two cars. Mechanically simple with a small footprint, the paternoster was easy to use in many places, including inside buildings. At the same time, Kent Automatic Garages was installing APS with capacities exceeding 1,000 cars. The “ferris-wheel,” or paternoster system — was created by the Westinghouse Corporation in 1923 and subsequently built in 1932 on Chicago's Monroe Street. The Nash Motor Company created the first glass-enclosed version of this system for the Chicago Century of Progress Exhibition in 1933 The first driverless parking garage opened in 1951 in Washington, D.C., but was replaced with office space due to increasing land values. APS saw a spurt of interest in the U.S. in the late 1940s and 1950s with the Bowser, Pigeon Hole and Roto Park systems. In 1957, 74 Bowser, Pigeon Hole systems were installed, and some of these systems remain in operation. However, interest in APS in the U.S. waned due to frequent mechanical problems and long waiting times for patrons to retrieve their cars. In the United Kingdom, the Auto Stacker opened in 1961 in Woolwich, south east London, but proved equally difficult to operate. Interest in APS in the U.S. was renewed in the 1990s, and there were 25 major current and planned APS projects (representing nearly 6,000 parking spaces) in 2012. The first American robotic parking garage opened in 2002 in Hoboken, New Jersey. While interest in the APS in the U.S. languished until the 1990s, Europe, Asia and Central America had been installing more technically advanced APS since the 1970s. In the early 1990s, nearly 40,000 parking spaces were being built annually using the paternoster APS in Japan. In 2012, there are an estimated 1.6 million APS parking spaces in Japan. The ever-increasing scarcity of available urban land (urbanization) and increase of the number of cars in use (motorization) have combined with sustainability and other quality-of-life issues to renew interest in APS as alternatives to multi-storey car parks, on-street parking, and parking lots. == Largest systems == The largest Automated Parking Facility in the world is in Al Jahra, Kuwait, and provides 2,314 parking spaces. The world's fastest Automated Parking System is in Wolfsburg, Germany, with a retrieval time of 1 minute and 44 seconds. The largest APS in Europe is at Dokk1 in Aarhus, Denmark, and provides 1,000 parking spaces via 20 car lifts. == Space saving == All APS take advantage of a common concept to decrease the area of parking spaces - removing the driver and passengers from the car before it is parked. With either fully automated or semi-automated APS, the car is driven up to an entry point to the APS and the driver and passengers exit the car. The car is then moved automatically or semi-automatically (with some attendant action required) to its parking space. The space-saving provided by the APS, compared to the multi-story parking garage, is derived primarily from a significant reduction in space not directly related to the parking of the car: Parking space width and depth (and distances between parking spaces) are dramatically reduced since no allowance need be made for driving the car into the parking space or for the opening of car doors (for drivers and passengers) No driving lanes or ramps are needed to drive the car to/from the entrance/exit to a parking space Ceiling height is minimized since there is no pedestrian traffic (drivers and passengers) in the parking area, and No walkways, stairways or elevators are needed to accommodate pedestrians in the parking area. With the elimination of ramps, driving lanes, pedestrians and the reduction in ceiling heights, the APS requires substantially less structural material than the multi-story parking garage. Many APS utilize a steel framework (some use thin concrete slabs) rather than the monolithic concrete design of the multi-story parking garage. These factors contribute to an overall volume reduction and further space savings for the APS. == Other considerations == In addition to the space saving, many APS designs provide a number of secondary benefits: The parked cars and their contents are more secure since there is no public access to parked cars Minor parking lot damage such as scrapes and dents are eliminated Drivers and passengers are safer not having to walk through parking lots or garages Driving around in search of a parking space is eliminated, thereby reducing engine emissions and wasted time Only minimal ventilation and lighting systems are needed Handicap access is improved The volume and visual impact of the parking structure is minimized Shorter construction time === Problems === There have been a number of problems with robotic parking systems, particularly in the United States. The systems work well in balanced throughput situations like shopping malls and train stations, but they are unsuited to high peak volume applications like rush hour usage or stadiums and they suffer from technical problems. Further, parkers not familiar with the system may cause problems, for example by failing to push the button to alert a fully automated system to the presence of a car to be parked. In London around 40 vehicles were trapped for two years in CBRE's system. == Fully automated vs semi-automated == Fully automated parking systems operate much like robotic valet parking. The driver drives the car into an APS entry (transfer) area. The driver and all passengers exit the car. The driver uses an automated terminal nearby for payment and receipt of a ticket. When driver and passengers have left the entry area, the mechanical system lifts the car and transports it to a pre-determined parking space in the system. More sophisticated fully automated APS will obtain the dimensions of cars on entry in order to place them in the smallest available parking space. The driver retrieves a car by inserting a ticket or code into an automated terminal. The APS lifts the car from its parking space and delivers it to an exit area. Most often, the retrieved car has been oriented to eliminate the need for the driver to back out. Fully automated APS theoretically eliminate the need for parking attendants. Semi-automated APS also use a mechanical system of some type to move a car to its parking space, however putting the car into and/or the operation of the system requires some action by an attendant or the driver. The choice between fully and semi-automated APS is often a matter of space and cost, however large capacity (> 100 cars) tend to be fully automated. == Applications == By virtue of their relatively smaller volume and mechanized parking systems, APS are often used in locations where a multi-story parking garage would be too large, too costly or impractical. Examples of such applications include, under or inside existing or new structures, between existing structures and in irregularly shaped areas. APS can also be applied in situations similar to multi-storey parking garages such as freestanding above ground, under buildings above grade and under buildings below grade. == Costs == The direct comparison of costs between an APS and a multi-story parking garage can be complicated by many variables such as capacity, land costs, area shape, number and location of entranc
Read more →
AlphaTensor

AlphaTensor is an artificial intelligence system developed by DeepMind for discovering efficient matrix multiplication algorithms using reinforcement learning. Introduced in 2022, the system was based on AlphaZero and formulated the search for matrix multiplication algorithms as a single-player game called TensorGame. AlphaTensor was designed to search for new ways to multiply matrices with fewer scalar multiplication operations. Matrix multiplication is a fundamental operation in linear algebra, numerical analysis, scientific computing, computer graphics, and machine learning. The system discovered thousands of matrix multiplication algorithms, including algorithms that rediscovered known human-designed methods and others that improved on previously known results for particular matrix sizes and mathematical settings. == Background == Matrix multiplication is one of the basic operations in numerical computing. The standard algorithm for multiplying two square matrices has cubic time complexity, while faster algorithms such as the Strassen algorithm reduce the number of multiplication operations by using more complex algebraic decompositions. Finding optimal matrix multiplication algorithms can be difficult because it involves searching through a large space of possible tensor decompositions. AlphaTensor approached this problem by representing algorithm discovery as TensorGame, in which each move corresponds to an operation that reduces a tensor representing matrix multiplication. The goal of the game is to find a low-rank decomposition of the matrix multiplication tensor, corresponding to an efficient multiplication algorithm. == Development == AlphaTensor was developed by DeepMind and described in a paper published in Nature in October 2022. The system built on the reinforcement-learning approach used in AlphaZero, which had previously been applied to games such as Go, chess, and shogi. Unlike those games, TensorGame involved a very large search space, requiring changes to the AlphaZero-style search method and neural network architecture. DeepMind released source code and discovered algorithms associated with the publication through a public GitHub repository. == Results == AlphaTensor discovered matrix multiplication algorithms over both standard arithmetic and finite fields. One widely reported result was a method for multiplying 4 × 4 matrices over the field with two elements using 47 multiplication operations, improving on the 49 operations required by applying Strassen's algorithm recursively in that setting. The system also found algorithms optimized for particular computer hardware, including algorithms designed for graphics processing units and Tensor Processing Units. DeepMind stated that some of the hardware-specific algorithms improved practical execution time compared with commonly used algorithms on the tested hardware. == Significance == AlphaTensor was described as an example of using machine learning not only to apply existing algorithms, but to assist in discovering new ones. The work was connected to broader research in algorithm discovery, automated machine learning, program synthesis, and computational complexity theory, especially the open problem of determining the optimal complexity of matrix multiplication. AlphaTensor later became part of a broader group of Google DeepMind systems for algorithm and mathematical discovery, alongside systems such as AlphaDev and AlphaEvolve.
Read more →
Algorithm engineering

Algorithm engineering focuses on the design, analysis, implementation, optimization, profiling and experimental evaluation of computer algorithms, bridging the gap between algorithmics theory and practical applications of algorithms in software engineering. It is a general methodology for algorithmic research. == Origins == In 1995, a report from an NSF-sponsored workshop "with the purpose of assessing the current goals and directions of the Theory of Computing (TOC) community" identified the slow speed of adoption of theoretical insights by practitioners as an important issue and suggested measures to reduce the uncertainty by practitioners whether a certain theoretical breakthrough will translate into practical gains in their field of work, and tackle the lack of ready-to-use algorithm libraries, which provide stable, bug-free and well-tested implementations for algorithmic problems and expose an easy-to-use interface for library consumers. But also, promising algorithmic approaches have been neglected due to difficulties in mathematical analysis. The term "algorithm engineering" was first used with specificity in 1997, with the first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE97), organized by Giuseppe F. Italiano. == Difference from algorithm theory == Algorithm engineering does not intend to replace or compete with algorithm theory, but tries to enrich, refine and reinforce its formal approaches with experimental algorithmics (also called empirical algorithmics). This way it can provide new insights into the efficiency and performance of algorithms in cases where the algorithm at hand is less amenable to algorithm theoretic analysis, formal analysis pessimistically suggests bounds which are unlikely to appear on inputs of practical interest, the algorithm relies on the intricacies of modern hardware architectures like data locality, branch prediction, instruction stalls, instruction latencies which the machine model used in Algorithm Theory is unable to capture in the required detail, the crossover between competing algorithms with different constant costs and asymptotic behaviors needs to be determined. == Methodology == Some researchers describe algorithm engineering's methodology as a cycle consisting of algorithm design, analysis, implementation and experimental evaluation, joined by further aspects like machine models or realistic inputs. They argue that equating algorithm engineering with experimental algorithmics is too limited, because viewing design and analysis, implementation and experimentation as separate activities ignores the crucial feedback loop between those elements of algorithm engineering. === Realistic models and real inputs === While specific applications are outside the methodology of algorithm engineering, they play an important role in shaping realistic models of the problem and the underlying machine, and supply real inputs and other design parameters for experiments. === Design === Compared to algorithm theory, which usually focuses on the asymptotic behavior of algorithms, algorithm engineers need to keep further requirements in mind: Simplicity of the algorithm, implementability in programming languages on real hardware, and allowing code reuse. Additionally, constant factors of algorithms have such a considerable impact on real-world inputs that sometimes an algorithm with worse asymptotic behavior performs better in practice due to lower constant factors. === Analysis === Some problems can be solved with heuristics and randomized algorithms in a simpler and more efficient fashion than with deterministic algorithms. Unfortunately, this makes even simple randomized algorithms difficult to analyze because there are subtle dependencies to be taken into account. === Implementation === Huge semantic gaps between theoretical insights, formulated algorithms, programming languages and hardware pose a challenge to efficient implementations of even simple algorithms, because small implementation details can have rippling effects on execution behavior. The only reliable way to compare several implementations of an algorithm is to spend an considerable amount of time on tuning and profiling, running those algorithms on multiple architectures, and looking at the generated machine code. === Experiments === See: Experimental algorithmics === Application engineering === Implementations of algorithms used for experiments differ in significant ways from code usable in applications. While the former prioritizes fast prototyping, performance and instrumentation for measurements during experiments, the latter requires thorough testing, maintainability, simplicity, and tuning for particular classes of inputs. === Algorithm libraries === Stable, well-tested algorithm libraries like LEDA play an important role in technology transfer by speeding up the adoption of new algorithms in applications. Such libraries reduce the required investment and risk for practitioners, because it removes the burden of understanding and implementing the results of academic research. == Conferences == Two main conferences on Algorithm Engineering are organized annually, namely: Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA), established in 1997 (formerly known as WEA). SIAM Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), established in 1999. The 1997 Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'97) was held in Venice (Italy) on September 11–13, 1997. The Third International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'99) was held in London, UK in July 1999. The first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation (ALENEX99) was held in Baltimore, Maryland on January 15–16, 1999. It was sponsored by DIMACS, the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (at Rutgers University), with additional support from SIGACT, the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory, and SIAM, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Read more →
Sequential algorithm

In computer science, a sequential algorithm or serial algorithm is an algorithm that is executed sequentially – once through, from start to finish, without other processing executing – as opposed to concurrently or in parallel. The term is primarily used to contrast with concurrent algorithm or parallel algorithm; most standard computer algorithms are sequential algorithms, and not specifically identified as such, as sequentialness is a background assumption. Concurrency and parallelism are in general distinct concepts, but they often overlap – many distributed algorithms are both concurrent and parallel – and thus "sequential" is used to contrast with both, without distinguishing which one. If these need to be distinguished, the opposing pairs sequential/concurrent and serial/parallel may be used. "Sequential algorithm" may also refer specifically to an algorithm for decoding a convolutional code.
Read more →
Neuro-symbolic AI

Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.
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 →
Uncertain database

An uncertain database is a kind of database studied in database theory. The goal of uncertain databases is to manage information on which there is some uncertainty. Uncertain databases make it possible to explicitly represent and manage uncertainty on the data, usually in a succinct way. == Formal definition == At the basis of uncertain databases is the notion of possible world. Specifically, a possible world of an uncertain database is a (certain) database which is one of the possible realizations of the uncertain database. A given uncertain database typically has more than one, and potentially infinitely many, possible worlds. A formalism to represent uncertain databases then explains how to succinctly represent a set of possible worlds into one uncertain database. == Types of uncertain databases == Uncertain database models differ in how they represent and quantify these possible worlds: Incomplete databases are a compact representation of the set of possible worlds – the use of NULL in SQL, arguably the most commonplace instantiation of uncertain databases, is an example of incomplete database model. Probabilistic databases are a compact representation of a probability distribution over the set of possible worlds. Fuzzy databases are a compact representation of a fuzzy set of the possible worlds. Though mostly studied in the relational setting, uncertain database models can also be defined in other relational models such as graph databases or XML databases. === Incomplete database === The most common database model is the relational model. Multiple incomplete database models have been defined over the relational model, that form extensions to the relational algebra. These have been called Imieliński–Lipski algebras: Relations with NULL values, also called Codd tables c-tables v-tables === Example === The following table is a relation of an incomplete database, described in the formalism of NULL values: There are infinitely many possible worlds for this incomplete database, obtained by replacing the "NULL" values with concrete values. For instance, the following relation is a possible world:
Read more →
DPVweb

DPVweb is a database for virologists working on plant viruses combining taxonomic, bioinformatic and symptom data. == Description == DPVweb is a central web-based source of information about viruses, viroids and satellites of plants, fungi and protozoa. It provides comprehensive taxonomic information, including brief descriptions of each family and genus, and classified lists of virus sequences. It makes use of a large database that also holds detailed, curated, information for all sequences of viruses, viroids and satellites of plants, fungi and protozoa that are complete or that contain at least one complete gene. There are currently about 10,000 such sequences. For comparative purposes, DPVweb also contains a representative sequence of all other fully sequenced virus species with an RNA or single-stranded DNA genome. For each curated sequence the database contains the start and end positions of each feature (gene, non-translated region, etc.), and these have been checked for accuracy. As far as possible, the nomenclature for genes and proteins are standardized within genera and families. Sequences of features (either as DNA or amino acid sequences) can be directly downloaded from the website in FASTA format. The sequence information can also be accessed via client software for personal computers. == History == The Descriptions of Plant Viruses (DPVs) were first published by the Association of Applied Biologists in 1970 as a series of leaflets, each one written by an expert describing a particular plant virus. In 1998 all of the 354 DPVs published in paper were scanned, and converted into an electronic format in a database and distributed on CDROM. In 2001 the descriptions were made available on the new DPVweb site, providing open access to the now 400+ DPVs (currently 415) as well as taxonomic and sequence data on all plant viruses. == Uses == DPVweb is an aid to researchers in the field of plant virology as well as an educational resource for students of virology and molecular biology. The site provides a single point of access for all known plant virus genome sequences making it easy to collect these sequences together for further analysis and comparison. Sequence data from the DPVweb database have proved valuable for a number of projects: survey of codon usage bias amongst all plant viruses, two-way comparisons between comprehensive sets of sequences from the families Flexiviridae and Potyviridae that have helped inform taxonomy and clarify genus and species discrimination criteria, a survey and verification of the polyprotein cleavage sites within the family Potyviridae.
Read more →
Information space analysis

Within the field of information science, information space analysis is a deterministic method, enhanced by machine intelligence, for locating and assessing resources for team-centric efforts. Organizations need to be able to quickly assemble teams backed by the support services, information, and material to do the job. To do so, these teams need to find and assess sources of services that are potential participants in the team effort. To support this initial team and resource development, information needs to be developed via analysis tools that help make sense of sets of data sources in an Intranet or Internet. Part of the process is to characterize them, partition them, and sort and filter them. These tools focus on three key issues in forming a collaborative team: Help individuals responsible for forming the team understand what is available. Assist team members in identifying the structure and categorize the information available to them in a manner specifically suited to the task at hand. Aid team members to understand the mappings of their information between their organization and that used by others who might participate. Information space analysis tools combine multiple methods to assist in this task. This causes the tools to be particularly well-suited to integrating additional technologies in order to create specialized systems.
Read more →
Rendezvous hashing

Rendezvous or highest random weight (HRW) hashing is an algorithm that allows clients to achieve distributed agreement on a set of k {\displaystyle k} options out of a possible set of n {\displaystyle n} options. A typical application is when clients need to agree on which sites (or proxies) objects are assigned to. Consistent hashing addresses the special case k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} using a different method. Rendezvous hashing is both much simpler and more general than consistent hashing (see below). == History == Rendezvous hashing was invented by David Thaler and Chinya Ravishankar at the University of Michigan in 1996. Consistent hashing appeared a year later in the literature. Given its simplicity and generality, rendezvous hashing is now being preferred to consistent hashing in real-world applications. Rendezvous hashing was used very early on in many applications including mobile caching, router design, secure key establishment, and sharding and distributed databases. Other examples of real-world systems that use Rendezvous Hashing include the GitHub load balancer, the Apache Ignite distributed database, the Tahoe-LAFS file store, the CoBlitz large-file distribution service, Apache Druid, IBM's Cloud Object Store, the Arvados Data Management System, Apache Kafka, and the Twitter EventBus pub/sub platform. One of the first applications of rendezvous hashing was to enable multicast clients on the Internet (in contexts such as the MBONE) to identify multicast rendezvous points in a distributed fashion. It was used in 1998 by Microsoft's Cache Array Routing Protocol (CARP) for distributed cache coordination and routing. Some Protocol Independent Multicast routing protocols use rendezvous hashing to pick a rendezvous point. == Problem definition and approach == === Algorithm === Rendezvous hashing solves a general version of the distributed hash table problem: We are given a set of n {\displaystyle n} sites (servers or proxies, say). How can any set of clients, given an object O {\displaystyle O} , agree on a k-subset of sites to assign to O {\displaystyle O} ? The standard version of the problem uses k = 1. Each client is to make its selection independently, but all clients must end up picking the same subset of sites. This is non-trivial if we add a minimal disruption constraint, and require that when a site fails or is removed, only objects mapping to that site need be reassigned to other sites. The basic idea is to give each site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} a score (a weight) for each object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , and assign the object to the highest scoring site. All clients first agree on a hash function h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} . For object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , the site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} is defined to have weight w i , j = h ( O i , S j ) {\displaystyle w_{i,j}=h(O_{i},S_{j})} . Each client independently computes these weights w i , 1 , w i , 2 … w i , n {\displaystyle w_{i,1},w_{i,2}\dots w_{i,n}} and picks the k sites that yield the k largest hash values. The clients have thereby achieved distributed k {\displaystyle k} -agreement. If a site S {\displaystyle S} is added or removed, only the objects mapping to S {\displaystyle S} are remapped to different sites, satisfying the minimal disruption constraint above. The HRW assignment can be computed independently by any client, since it depends only on the identifiers for the set of sites S 1 , S 2 … S n {\displaystyle S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{n}} and the object being assigned. HRW easily accommodates different capacities among sites. If site S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} has twice the capacity of the other sites, we simply represent S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} twice in the list, say, as S k , 1 , S k , 2 {\displaystyle S_{k,1},S_{k,2}} . Clearly, twice as many objects will now map to S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} as to the other sites. === Properties === Consider the simple version of the problem, with k = 1, where all clients are to agree on a single site for an object O. Approaching the problem naively, it might appear sufficient to treat the n sites as buckets in a hash table and hash the object name O into this table. Unfortunately, if any of the sites fails or is unreachable, the hash table size changes, forcing all objects to be remapped. This massive disruption makes such direct hashing unworkable. Under rendezvous hashing, however, clients handle site failures by picking the site that yields the next largest weight. Remapping is required only for objects currently mapped to the failed site, and disruption is minimal. Rendezvous hashing has the following properties: Low overhead: The hash function used is efficient, so overhead at the clients is very low. Load balancing: Since the hash function is randomizing, each of the n sites is equally likely to receive the object O. Loads are uniform across the sites. Site capacity: Sites with different capacities can be represented in the site list with multiplicity in proportion to capacity. A site with twice the capacity of the other sites will be represented twice in the list, while every other site is represented once. High hit rate: Since all clients agree on placing an object O into the same site SO, each fetch or placement of O into SO yields the maximum utility in terms of hit rate. The object O will always be found unless it is evicted by some replacement algorithm at SO. Minimal disruption: When a site fails, only the objects mapped to that site need to be remapped. Disruption is at the minimal possible level. Distributed k-agreement: Clients can reach distributed agreement on k sites simply by selecting the top k sites in the ordering. == O(log n) running time via skeleton-based hierarchical rendezvous hashing == The standard version of Rendezvous Hashing described above works quite well for moderate n, but when n {\displaystyle n} is extremely large, the hierarchical use of Rendezvous Hashing achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time. This approach creates a virtual hierarchical structure (called a "skeleton"), and achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time by applying HRW at each level while descending the hierarchy. The idea is to first choose some constant m {\displaystyle m} and organize the n {\displaystyle n} sites into c = ⌈ n / m ⌉ {\displaystyle c=\lceil n/m\rceil } clusters C 1 = { S 1 , S 2 … S m } , C 2 = { S m + 1 , S m + 2 … S 2 m } … {\displaystyle C_{1}=\left\{S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{m}\right\},C_{2}=\left\{S_{m+1},S_{m+2}\dots S_{2m}\right\}\dots } Next, build a virtual hierarchy by choosing a constant f {\displaystyle f} and imagining these c {\displaystyle c} clusters placed at the leaves of a tree T {\displaystyle T} of virtual nodes, each with fanout f {\displaystyle f} . In the accompanying diagram, the cluster size is m = 4 {\displaystyle m=4} , and the skeleton fanout is f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} . Assuming 108 sites (real nodes) for convenience, we get a three-tier virtual hierarchy. Since f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} , each virtual node has a natural numbering in octal. Thus, the 27 virtual nodes at the lowest tier would be numbered 000 , 001 , 002 , . . . , 221 , 222 {\displaystyle 000,001,002,...,221,222} in octal (we can, of course, vary the fanout at each level - in that case, each node will be identified with the corresponding mixed-radix number). The easiest way to understand the virtual hierarchy is by starting at the top, and descending the virtual hierarchy. We successively apply Rendezvous Hashing to the set of virtual nodes at each level of the hierarchy, and descend the branch defined by the winning virtual node. We can in fact start at any level in the virtual hierarchy. Starting lower in the hierarchy requires more hashes, but may improve load distribution in the case of failures. For example, instead of applying HRW to all 108 real nodes in the diagram, we can first apply HRW to the 27 lowest-tier virtual nodes, selecting one. We then apply HRW to the four real nodes in its cluster, and choose the winning site. We only need 27 + 4 = 31 {\displaystyle 27+4=31} hashes, rather than 108. If we apply this method starting one level higher in the hierarchy, we would need 9 + 3 + 4 = 16 {\displaystyle 9+3+4=16} hashes to get to the winning site. The figure shows how, if we proceed starting from the root of the skeleton, we may successively choose the virtual nodes ( 2 ) 3 {\displaystyle (2)_{3}} , ( 20 ) 3 {\displaystyle (20)_{3}} , and ( 200 ) 3 {\displaystyle (200)_{3}} , and finally end up with site 74. The virtual hierarchy need not be stored, but can be created on demand, since the virtual nodes names are simply prefixes of base- f {\displaystyle f} (or mixed-radix) representations. We can easily create appropriately sorted strings from the digits, as required. In the example, we would be working with the strings 0 , 1 , 2 {\displaystyle 0,1,2} (at tier 1), 20 , 21 , 22 {\displaystyle 20,21,22} (at tier 2), and 200 , 201 , 202
Read more →
User-subjective approach

The user-subjective approach is the first interaction design approach dedicated specifically to personal information management (PIM). The approach offers design principles with which PIM systems (e.g. operating systems, email applications and web browsers) can make systematic use of subjective (i.e. user-dependent) attributes. The approach evolved in three stages: (a) theoretical foundations first published in a Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology during 2003. The paper introduces the approach and its design principles (b) evidence and implementation was published in another JASIST paper in 2008. The paper gives empirical evidence in support of the approach as well as seven novel design schemes that derives from it. It has won the Best JASIST paper award in 2009.(c) specific design evaluation this stage has already begun with evaluation of the first user-subjective design prototype called GrayArea in a Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems paper published in 2009. == Theoretical foundations == The user-subjective approach takes advantage of the fact that in PIM the person who retrieves the information is the same person who had previously stored it. PIM can be seen as a communication between the person and him\her self at two different times: the time of storage and the time of retrieval. The PIM system design should help facilitate that unique communication by allowing the user use subjective (user-dependent) attributes in addition to the standard objective ones. PIM systems should capture these subjective attributes when the user interacts with the information item (either automatically or by using direct manipulation interface) in order to help the user retrieve the item later on. The user-subjective approach identifies three subjective attributes – the project which the item was classified to, its degree of importance to the user, and the context in which the item was used during the interaction with it. The approach also assigns a design principle for each. The principles (discussed below) are deliberately abstract to allow for a variety of different implementations. === The subjective project classification principle === The subjective project classification principle suggests that PIM systems design should allow all information items related to a project be classified under the same category regardless of whether they are files, emails, Web Favorites or of any other format. This stands in sharp contrast with the present PIM system design where there are distinct folder hierarchies for each of these formats. The current design forces the user to store information related to a single project in separate locations depending on their format causing the project fragmentation problem. === The subjective importance principle === The subjective importance principle suggests that the subjective importance of information should affect its degree of visual salience and accessibility: important information items should be highly visible and accessible as they are more likely to be retrieved (the promotion principle) and those of lower importance should be demoted (i.e. making them less visible) so as not to distract the user (the demotion principle). While the promotion principle is not new and has been widely applied in PIM system design, the demotion principle is novel and has been applied only sporadically in these systems. Currently these systems allow only two options: keeping information (where unneeded information items could clutter folders and obscure the target item) and deleting it (where there is a risk that the item will not be there when needed). Demotion suggests a third option where the item is less visible so it doesn’t distract the user but is kept within its original context in case the user would need it after all. === The subjective context principle === The subjective context principle suggests that PIM systems should allow users retrieve their information items in the same context that they had previously used in order to bridge the time gap between these two events. By "context" the approach refers to other information items that were used at the time of interaction with the item, thoughts that the users may have regarding the item, the phase the user got to in the interaction with the item and other people the user collaborates with regarding the information item. == Evidence and implementations == === Evidence === The user-subjective approach was evaluated in a multioperational designed study which used questionnaires, screen shots and in-depth interviews (N = 84). The research tested the use of subjective attributes in current PIM systems and its dependency on design. Results show that participants used subjective attributes whenever design allowed them to. When it didn't, they either used their own alternative ways to use these attributes or avoided using subjective attributes at all. Regarding the subjective project classification principle – many of the participants' recent files, emails and web pages related to the same projects (indicating that they were working on the same project using different formats), and they had saved files of different format in the same project folders. However, as design does not suggest storing emails and web favorites with files, users avoid doing so. Regarding the subjective importance principle – users tended to retrieve their important information from highly visible and accessible locations offered by current design (e.g. by using the desktop), however since current systems offers no way to demote files of low subjective importance participants tended to use their own walk around ways for doing so (e.g. by moving them to a folder called "old" inside their original folder). Regarding the subjective context principle – participants tended to talk spontaneously about the context of their information items during the interview. These evidence imply that current PIM systems could possibly be improved if it would allow users to make more use of subjective attributes of their personal information. === Implementations === Each of the user-subjective design principles can be implemented in various ways. Moreover, as the approach is generative it offers PIM designers to use these principles in order to create their own user subjective designs. Below are design schemes that demonstrate an implementation of each of the principles. A more complete set of implementation examples can be found in the user-subjective website Archived 2011-02-01 at the Wayback Machine. The single hierarchy solution – addresses the project fragmentation problem (the current situation where the users stores and retrieve their project-related files, emails and web favorites at different hierarchies) and implements the subjective classification principle by offering the user a single folder hierarchy for all information items. At the operation system level the users would navigate to a folder and find there all project related files, emails, web favorites, tasks, contacts and notes. This would allow them to retrieve all their project-related information items from a single location regardless of their formats. When looking at these folders at their mail box the users would see only their emails and only web favorites through their browser. The single hierarchy design scheme has not been evaluated yet. GrayArea – implements the demotion principle by allowing users to move subjectively unimportant files to a gray area at the bottom end of their folders. This clears the upper part of the folder from file that are unlikely to be retrieved while allowing the users to retrieve these unimportant file in their original context in case they are needed after all. GrayArea design scheme was positively evaluated (see next section). ItemHistory – is an implementation of the subjective context principle. It allows users to reach all information items that were previously retrieved while that information item was open. This design scheme has not been evaluated to date. == Specific design evaluation == The evaluation of specific designs is the third and final step of the approach development. It had begun with the assessment of GrayArea. === GrayArea evaluation === GrayArea was evaluated by using a prototype that simulated the participants' folders but included a gray area where they could drag & drop their subjectively unimportant files. In the study 96 participants were asked to clean up their folders from unimportant files once with GrayArea and once without it. Results show that the use of GrayArea reduced the clutter in folders, that it was easier for participants to demote files than to delete them and that they would use it if provided in their next operating system. These results encourage commercial implementation of GrayArea and the development and testing of other user-subjective designs. == Chronological development == The user-subjective approach was developed by
Read more →
Distributed transaction

A distributed transaction operates within a distributed environment, typically involving multiple nodes across a network depending on the location of the data. A key aspect of distributed transactions is atomicity, which ensures that the transaction is completed in its entirety or not executed at all. It's essential to note that distributed transactions are not limited to databases. The Open Group, a vendor consortium, proposed the X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing Model (X/Open XA), which became a de facto standard for the behavior of transaction model components. Databases are common transactional resources and, often, transactions span a couple of such databases. In this case, a distributed transaction can be seen as a database transaction that must be synchronized (or provide ACID properties) among multiple participating databases which are distributed among different physical locations. The isolation property (the I of ACID) poses a special challenge for multi database transactions, since the (global) serializability property could be violated, even if each database provides it (see also global serializability). In practice most commercial database systems use strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) for concurrency control, which ensures global serializability, if all the participating databases employ it. A common algorithm for ensuring correct completion of a distributed transaction is the two-phase commit (2PC). This algorithm is usually applied for updates able to commit in a short period of time, ranging from couple of milliseconds to couple of minutes. There are also long-lived distributed transactions, for example a transaction to book a trip, which consists of booking a flight, a rental car and a hotel. Since booking the flight might take up to a day to get a confirmation, two-phase commit is not applicable here, it will lock the resources for this long. In this case more sophisticated techniques that involve multiple undo levels are used. The way you can undo the hotel booking by calling a desk and cancelling the reservation, a system can be designed to undo certain operations (unless they are irreversibly finished). In practice, long-lived distributed transactions are implemented in systems based on web services. Usually these transactions utilize principles of compensating transactions, Optimism and Isolation Without Locking. The X/Open standard does not cover long-lived distributed transactions. Several technologies, including Jakarta Enterprise Beans and Microsoft Transaction Server fully support distributed transaction standards. == Synchronization == In event-driven architectures, distributed transactions can be synchronized through using request–response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response. Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.
Read more →
AI effect

The AI effect is a phenomenon in which advances in artificial intelligence lead to a redefinition of what is considered intelligence, such that capabilities achieved by AI systems are no longer regarded as examples of "real" intelligence. The concept has been used to describe both a cognitive tendency and a sociotechnical pattern, in which successful AI techniques are reclassified as routine computation or absorbed into other domains. Historian Pamela McCorduck described this as a recurring feature of AI research, noting in her 2004 book Machines Who Think that once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence. Researcher Rodney Brooks similarly observed in 2002 that once systems are understood, they are often regarded as "just computation". == Definition == The AI effect refers to a shift in how intelligence is defined as machines acquire new capabilities. Tasks such as playing chess, recognizing speech, or interpreting images were historically considered indicators of intelligence, but after successful automation they are often reclassified as routine computation. McCorduck described this as an "odd paradox", in which successful AI systems are assimilated into other domains, leaving AI researchers to focus on unsolved problems. The phenomenon is often interpreted as an instance of moving the goalposts. A commonly cited formulation is Tesler's theorem, often expressed as "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet". When problems are not fully formalised, they may be described using models involving human computation, such as human-assisted Turing machines. == Historical examples == === Game playing === Early AI systems capable of playing games such as checkers and chess were initially regarded as demonstrations of machine intelligence. As these systems improved and became better understood, their achievements were often reinterpreted as examples of computation rather than intelligence. The victory of IBM's Deep Blue over Garry Kasparov in 1997 is a frequently cited example. Critics argued that the system relied on brute-force methods rather than genuine understanding. === Pattern recognition === Technologies such as optical character recognition and speech recognition were once considered core problems in artificial intelligence. As these systems became reliable and widely deployed, they were increasingly treated as standard engineering solutions. === Integration into applications === Many techniques originally developed within AI research have been incorporated into broader technological systems, including marketing, automation, and software applications. Michael Swaine reported in 2007 that AI advances are often presented as developments in other fields. Marvin Minsky observed that successful AI innovations often evolve into separate disciplines. Nick Bostrom noted in 2006 that widely adopted technologies are often no longer labeled as AI. == Contemporary discussion == The AI effect continues to be discussed in the context of recent advances in machine learning, particularly large language models and other generative AI systems. As these systems have become more widely used, some researchers and commentators have noted that their capabilities are frequently described as statistical or mechanical once understood, rather than as intelligence. A 2016 survey of artificial intelligence also noted that AI systems are increasingly embedded in everyday applications, reinforcing earlier observations that successful AI technologies tend to become normalized and no longer identified as AI. At the same time, the widespread commercial use of artificial intelligence has led to greater visibility of the field, contrasting with earlier periods in which AI techniques were often present but unacknowledged. == Interpretations == === Cognitive bias === Some authors describe the AI effect as a cognitive bias in which expectations of intelligence shift as machines achieve new capabilities. === Sociotechnical perspective === Another interpretation emphasizes how technologies are reclassified over time as they become widespread and commercially successful. === Philosophical debate === Some philosophers argue that reclassification reflects genuine conceptual distinctions rather than bias. == Historical context == During periods such as the AI winter, researchers sometimes avoided the term "artificial intelligence" due to negative perceptions. In the 21st century, however, the term "AI" has become widely used in public discourse and marketing. == Broader implications == The AI effect has been linked to broader questions about human uniqueness and the nature of intelligence. Michael Kearns suggested that people may seek to preserve a special role for humans. Similar patterns have been observed in studies of animal cognition. Herbert A. Simon noted that artificial intelligence can provoke strong emotional reactions.
Read more →
Social information architecture

Social information architecture, also known as social iA, is a sub-domain of information architecture which deals with the social aspects of conceptualizing, modeling and organizing information. It has become more relevant because of the rise of social media and Web 2.0 in recent times. == Approach == There are different approaches to the explanation of social information architecture. === Architecture model (internal space) === Architects designing a physical community space, have to consider how the architecture will shape social interactions. A long hallway of offices creates an utterly different dynamic than desks with arranged in an open space. One might foster individuality, privacy, propriety; the other: collaboration, distraction, communalism. Still, physical spaces can be flexibly repurposed and worked around if the inhabitants desire a social dynamic not instantly afforded by the space. Office doors can be left open to invite easier interaction. Partitions can be raised between adjacent desks to limit distraction and increase privacy. That's physical architecture. The information architectures of online communities are far more deterministic and far less flexible. They literally define the social architecture by pre-specifying in immutable computer code what information you have access to, who you can talk to, where you can go. In the online world, information architecture = social architecture. === Social dialogue and information model (external space) === All major brands use information architecture to market their products online, it is then commonly wrapped under the umbrella phrase 'digital strategy'. Information architecture used for strategic purposes encompasses brand SEO, strategic placement of virals, social media presence etc. Charities, news outlets and social dialogue forums can make a much more specific use of the same tools for positive and important social purposes. Social Information Architecture is perceived as the socially conscious wing of commercial information architecture and function to exchange information and ideas between people and groups. Social iA can pick up on conflicting issues that are treated with misunderstanding between cultures and leaves individuals and societies vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. Since the net has such a far reach it is obvious to use it for meaningful and coordinated social dialogue. Example of such issues are faith, environment, politics, climate change, war, injustice and other social challenges. Information architecture can help create frameworks in which sharing information brings people together, inspires and encourages them to participate in a forward thinking and unfragmented way. One of its core activities is to spread messages that bring people from opposite sites of social and cultural spectrums together and to confront uncomfortable subject head on. == How does social information architecture work? == Social iA utilizes a variety of Web2.0 applications to filter relevant or valuable information and weave them in appropriate information repository or provide feedback to interesting channels. Social iA makes strategic use of Search Engines, Social Media, Google Algorithms, as well as websites, video & news channels. It ‘reads’ or 'listens' to social conversations and search engine queries and engages with the net actively to gather clues about the world's pulse on the internet. It assesses data, social & political trends, and respond with targeted campaigns to give people ideas, as well as help people with making sense of information. == Principals == Dan Brown in his paper 8 Principals of Social Information Architecture enlists the following principals: 1. The principle of objects: Treat content as a living, breathing thing, with a lifecycle, behaviors and attributes. 2. The principle of choices: Create pages that offer meaningful choices to users, keeping the range of choices available focused on a particular task. 3. The principle of disclosure: Show only enough information to help people understand what kinds of information they'll find as they dig deeper. 4. The principle of exemplars: Describe the contents of categories by showing examples of the contents. 5. The principle of front doors: Assume at least half of the website's visitors will come through some page other than the home page. 6. The principle of multiple classification: Offer users several different classification schemes to browse the site's content. 7. The principle of focused navigation: Don't mix apples and oranges in your navigation scheme. 8. The principle of growth: Assume the content you have today is a small fraction of the content you will have tomorrow. == What can social information architecture achieve? == Social information architecture has many potentials in terms of fostering social connections and how information is shared in social spaces on the web.
Read more →
Universal Data Element Framework

The Universal Data Element Framework (UDEF) was a controlled vocabulary developed by The Open Group. It provided a framework for categorizing, naming, and indexing data. It assigned to every item of data a structured alphanumeric tag plus a controlled vocabulary name that describes the meaning of the data. This allowed relating data elements to similar elements defined by other organizations. UDEF defined a Dewey-decimal like code for each concept. For example, an "employee number" is often used in human resource management. It has a UDEF tag a.5_12.35.8 and a controlled vocabulary description "Employee.PERSON_Employer.Assigned.IDENTIFIER". UDEF has been superseded by the Open Data Element Framework (ODEF). == Examples == In an application used by a hospital, the last name and first name of several people could include the following example concepts: Patient Person Family Name – find the word “Patient” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Family” under the UDEF property “Name” Patient Person Given Name – find the word “Patient” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Given” under the UDEF property “Name” Doctor Person Family Name – find the word “Doctor” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Family” under the UDEF property “Name” Doctor Person Given Name – find the word “Doctor” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Given” under the UDEF property “Name” For the examples above, the following UDEF IDs are available: “Patient Person Family Name” the UDEF ID is “au.5_11.10” “Patient Person Given Name” the UDEF ID is “au.5_12.10” “Doctor Person Family Name” the UDEF ID is “aq.5_11.10” “Doctor Person Given Name” the UDEF ID is “aq.5_12.10”
Read more →