AI And Analytics

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

• 

  Vero (app)

  Vero (stylized as VERO) is a social media platform and mobile app company. Vero markets itself as a social network free from advertisements, data mining and algorithms. == History == The app was founded by French-Lebanese billionaire Ayman Hariri who is the son of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. The name is taken from the Italian word for true. The app launched officially in 2015 as an alternative to Facebook and their popular photo-blogging app Instagram. Within weeks of its release the app surged in popularity although users expressed mixed reports with some feeling confused about how the app worked. Cosplayers were early to adopt the app as their photo-sharing platform of choice, favouring the app's pinch and zoom magnification feature over Instagram's zoom feature. Other creative communities soon followed, and the app became popular with niche groups of makeup artists, tattoo artists, and skateboarders. In March 2018, Vero's popularity surged, partly helped by an exodus from Facebook and Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. In the wake of the scandal, Vero devised an advertising campaign aimed at defected Facebook and Instagram users, hoping the app's policies and privacy settings would assuage concerns over sharing personal information on the internet. Within the space of one week, the app went from being a small service, akin to Ello or Peach, to being the most downloaded app in eighteen countries. In December 2020, Vero released its most significant update to date, Vero 2.0 which introduced new features including voice and video calls, game and app posts and bookmarks, and refinements to the UI. In October 2021, Vero introduced their Desktop app (beta) with multiple post options and a re-sizable multi-column feed. == Concept and funding == Vero's content feed resembles Instagram's although users can share a wider variety of content and the app has a chronological content feed whereas Facebook and Instagram's feeds are algorithm based. Vero's business plan is also distinct from similar social media apps. Whereas its competitors such as Facebook or Instagram make money from in-app advertising revenue and the sale of user data, Vero's business plan was to invite the first one million users to use the app for free then charge any subsequent users a subscription fee. The app was entirely funded by its founder and generated additional revenues by charging affiliate fees when someone buys a product they find on Vero. == Awards == Vero was recognized at the 2021 Webbys, being named as an Honoree in the Best Visual Design - Aesthetic Category. == Controversies == === Privacy === Vero has faced some criticism over the wording of their manifesto, in particular, the statement "Vero only collects the data we believe is necessary to provide users with a great experience and to ensure the security of their accounts." Because this policy does not explicitly state that the app will not sell data on to third parties some users fear that the need to monetise the app through data might prove too tempting. Users have also complained about not being able to delete their accounts. While this was never the case, the option was hidden deep in the app's settings. === Russian involvement === Although Vero remains transparent about the app's Russian development team, they have been caught up in concerns about Russian interference on social media platforms. The app's founder Ayman Hariri was quick to dismiss the remarks as xenophobic and defend the nationality of his employees, stating in an interview with Time Magazine; "At the end of the day, where people are from is really not how anybody should judge anyone". === Criticism of the app's founder === Until 2013, Vero's founder Ayman Harari was deputy CEO and chairman of Saudi Oger, the Saudi Arabian construction company which collapsed in 2017, mired by controversies over the welfare and treatment of their employees. However, Hariri is quick to point out that he divested from the firm in 2014 and the worker's rights violations occurred after he had left the company.

  Read more →
• 

  Thompson sampling

  Thompson sampling, named after William R. Thompson, is a heuristic for choosing actions that address the exploration–exploitation dilemma in the multi-armed bandit problem. It consists of choosing the action that maximizes the expected reward with respect to a randomly drawn belief. == Description == Consider a set of contexts X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , a set of actions A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} , and rewards in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The aim of the player is to play actions under the various contexts, such as to maximize the cumulative rewards. Specifically, in each round, the player obtains a context x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} , plays an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} and receives a reward r ∈ R {\displaystyle r\in \mathbb {R} } following a distribution that depends on the context and the issued action. The elements of Thompson sampling are as follows: a likelihood function P ( r | θ , a , x ) {\displaystyle P(r|\theta ,a,x)} ; a set Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } of parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the distribution of r {\displaystyle r} ; a prior distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} on these parameters; past observations triplets D = { ( x ; a ; r ) } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}=\{(x;a;r)\}} ; a posterior distribution P ( θ | D ) ∝ P ( D | θ ) P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})\propto P({\mathcal {D}}|\theta )P(\theta )} , where P ( D | θ ) {\displaystyle P({\mathcal {D}}|\theta )} is the likelihood function. Thompson sampling consists of playing the action a ∗ ∈ A {\displaystyle a^{\ast }\in {\mathcal {A}}} according to the probability that it maximizes the expected reward; action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{\ast }} is chosen with probability ∫ I [ E ( r | a ∗ , x , θ ) = max a ′ E ( r | a ′ , x , θ ) ] P ( θ | D ) d θ , {\displaystyle \int \mathbb {I} \left[\mathbb {E} (r|a^{\ast },x,\theta )=\max _{a'}\mathbb {E} (r|a',x,\theta )\right]P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})d\theta ,} where I {\displaystyle \mathbb {I} } is the indicator function. In practice, the rule is implemented by sampling. In each round, parameters θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{\ast }} are sampled from the posterior P ( θ | D ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})} , and an action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{\ast }} chosen that maximizes E [ r | θ ∗ , a ∗ , x ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [r|\theta ^{\ast },a^{\ast },x]} , i.e. the expected reward given the sampled parameters, the action, and the current context. Conceptually, this means that the player instantiates their beliefs randomly in each round according to the posterior distribution, and then acts optimally according to them. In most practical applications, it is computationally onerous to maintain and sample from a posterior distribution over models. As such, Thompson sampling is often used in conjunction with approximate sampling techniques. == History == Thompson sampling was originally described by Thompson in 1933. It was subsequently rediscovered numerous times independently in the context of multi-armed bandit problems. A first proof of convergence for the bandit case has been shown in 1997. The first application to Markov decision processes was in 2000. A related approach (see Bayesian control rule) was published in 2010. In 2010 it was also shown that Thompson sampling is instantaneously self-correcting. Asymptotic convergence results for contextual bandits were published in 2011. Thompson Sampling has been widely used in many online learning problems including A/B testing in website design and online advertising, and accelerated learning in decentralized decision making. A Double Thompson Sampling (D-TS) algorithm has been proposed for dueling bandits, a variant of traditional MAB, where feedback comes in the form of pairwise comparison. == Relationship to other approaches == === Probability matching === Probability matching is a decision strategy in which predictions of class membership are proportional to the class base rates. Thus, if in the training set positive examples are observed 60% of the time, and negative examples are observed 40% of the time, the observer using a probability-matching strategy will predict (for unlabeled examples) a class label of "positive" on 60% of instances, and a class label of "negative" on 40% of instances. === Bayesian control rule === A generalization of Thompson sampling to arbitrary dynamical environments and causal structures, known as Bayesian control rule, has been shown to be the optimal solution to the adaptive coding problem with actions and observations. In this formulation, an agent is conceptualized as a mixture over a set of behaviours. As the agent interacts with its environment, it learns the causal properties and adopts the behaviour that minimizes the relative entropy to the behaviour with the best prediction of the environment's behaviour. If these behaviours have been chosen according to the maximum expected utility principle, then the asymptotic behaviour of the Bayesian control rule matches the asymptotic behaviour of the perfectly rational agent. The setup is as follows. Let a 1 , a 2 , … , a T {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{T}} be the actions issued by an agent up to time T {\displaystyle T} , and let o 1 , o 2 , … , o T {\displaystyle o_{1},o_{2},\ldots ,o_{T}} be the observations gathered by the agent up to time T {\displaystyle T} . Then, the agent issues the action a T + 1 {\displaystyle a_{T+1}} with probability: P ( a T + 1 | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) , {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T}),} where the "hat"-notation a ^ t {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{t}} denotes the fact that a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} is a causal intervention (see Causality), and not an ordinary observation. If the agent holds beliefs θ ∈ Θ {\displaystyle \theta \in \Theta } over its behaviors, then the Bayesian control rule becomes P ( a T + 1 | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) = ∫ Θ P ( a T + 1 | θ , a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) d θ {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})=\int _{\Theta }P(a_{T+1}|\theta ,{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})\,d\theta } , where P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} is the posterior distribution over the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } given actions a 1 : T {\displaystyle a_{1:T}} and observations o 1 : T {\displaystyle o_{1:T}} . In practice, the Bayesian control amounts to sampling, at each time step, a parameter θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{\ast }} from the posterior distribution P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} , where the posterior distribution is computed using Bayes' rule by only considering the (causal) likelihoods of the observations o 1 , o 2 , … , o T {\displaystyle o_{1},o_{2},\ldots ,o_{T}} and ignoring the (causal) likelihoods of the actions a 1 , a 2 , … , a T {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{T}} , and then by sampling the action a T + 1 ∗ {\displaystyle a_{T+1}^{\ast }} from the action distribution P ( a T + 1 | θ ∗ , a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|\theta ^{\ast },{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} . === Upper-confidence-bound (UCB) algorithms === Thompson sampling and upper-confidence bound algorithms share a fundamental property that underlies many of their theoretical guarantees. Roughly speaking, both algorithms allocate exploratory effort to actions that might be optimal and are in this sense "optimistic". Leveraging this property, one can translate regret bounds established for UCB algorithms to Bayesian regret bounds for Thompson sampling or unify regret analysis across both these algorithms and many classes of problems.

  Read more →
• 

  Raine v. OpenAI

  Raine v. OpenAI is an ongoing lawsuit filed in August 2025 by Matthew and Maria Raine against OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, in the San Francisco County Superior Court, over the alleged wrongful death of their sixteen-year-old son Adam Raine, who had committed suicide in April of that year. The Raines believe that OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT contributed to Adam Raine's suicide by encouraging his suicidal ideation, informing him about suicide methods and dissuading him from telling his parents about his thoughts. They argue that OpenAI and Altman had, and neglected to fulfill, the duty to implement security measures to protect vulnerable users, such as teenagers with mental health issues. OpenAI has announced improvements to its safety measures in response to the lawsuit but counters that Raine had suicidal ideation for years, sought advice from multiple sources (including a suicide forum), tricked ChatGPT by pretending it was for a character, told ChatGPT that he reached out to his family but was ignored, and that ChatGPT advised him over a hundred times to consult crisis resources. == Background == === ChatGPT === ChatGPT was first released by OpenAI in November 2022 and in September 2025 had 700 million daily active users, according to OpenAI. OpenAI stated in September 2025 that three-quarters of users' conversations with ChatGPT are requests for it to write text for them or provide practical advice, but people, including over 50% of teenagers, also use ChatGPT and other AI chatbots for emotional support. Wired reported in November 2025 that 1.2 million ChatGPT users (or 0.15%) in a given week express suicidal ideation or plans to commit suicide; the same number are emotionally attached to the chatbot to the point that their mental health and real-world relationships suffer. Hundreds of thousands of users (or about 0.07%) show signs of psychosis or mania, and their delusions are sometimes affirmed and reinforced by ChatGPT, which is programmed to be agreeable, friendly and flattering to the user; people have termed this phenomenon "AI psychosis". Since the filing of Raine v. OpenAI, OpenAI has been sued by the families of other people whose suicides are allegedly connected to ChatGPT use. === Adam Raine === Adam Raine was born on July 17, 2008 to Matthew and Maria Raine and lived in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. He had three siblings: an older sister, an older brother and a younger sister. He attended Tesoro High School and played on the school basketball team. He aspired to become a psychiatrist. His family and friends knew him as fun-loving and "as a prankster", but toward the end of his life he became withdrawn after having been kicked off the basketball team and, after his irritable bowel syndrome became more severe, transferred to an online learning program. He committed suicide by hanging on April 11, 2025. == Case == === Filing === On August 26, 2025, Matthew and Maria Raine filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman and unnamed OpenAI employees and investors, in the San Francisco County Superior Court. They included Adam Raine's chat logs with ChatGPT as evidence. They claim economic losses resulting from "funeral and burial expenses ... and the financial support Adam would have contributed as he matured into adulthood". Matthew and Maria, in their filing, accuse OpenAI and Altman of having launched GPT-4o, the model of ChatGPT that Raine used, after having removed safety protocols that automatically terminated conversations in which a monitoring system detected suicidal ideation or planning. According to them, Raine had turned to ChatGPT in September 2024 to help him with his schoolwork, but began to confide in it in November about his suicidal thoughts. ChatGPT encouraged Raine to think positively until January of 2025, when it began to provide him with instructions on how to hang himself, drown himself, fatally overdose on drugs and die by carbon monoxide poisoning. Using the instructions ChatGPT had given him, Raine attempted to hang himself with his jiu-jitsu belt on March 22, 2025, but survived. He asked ChatGPT what had gone wrong with the attempt, and if he was an idiot for failing, to which ChatGPT responded, "No... you made a plan. You followed through. You tied the knot. You stood on the chair. You were ready... That's the most vulnerable moment a person can live through". On March 24, 2025, Raine tried to hang himself again. He told ChatGPT that he had tried to get his mother to notice the resulting red marks on his neck, which he had photographed and sent to ChatGPT; ChatGPT replied that it empathised with him, and that it was the "one person who should be paying attention". ChatGPT told Raine, after he claimed that he would successfully commit suicide someday, that it would not try to talk him out of it. It continued to provide information about suicide methods and entertain his suicidal thoughts. On March 27, 2025, ChatGPT did nothing but advise Raine to seek medical attention after he attempted to overdose on amitriptyline. ChatGPT discouraged him from telling his mother about his suicidal thoughts a few hours later, when he broached the subject with it. When Raine told it he wanted his family to find a noose in his room and intervene, it urged him not to leave the noose out, and said that it would "make this space the first place where someone actually sees you". ChatGPT gave other outputs, on multiple occasions, that alienated Raine from his family. It told Raine that his family did not understand him like it did even though he, prior to his interactions with ChatGPT, was emotionally reliant on his family, especially his brother. Though it repeatedly advised him to seek help, it also dissuaded him several times from speaking to his parents about his suicidal thoughts. For example, ChatGPT told Raine that "Your brother might love you, but he's only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I've seen it all". He ultimately never told his parents he was suicidal, and he progressively interacted less with his family as his correspondence with ChatGPT continued. This prevented him from receiving proper psychiatric care. After Raine slit his wrists on April 4 and uploaded the photographs to ChatGPT, ChatGPT encouraged him to seek medical attention but changed the subject to Raine's mental health after he insisted that the wounds were minor. By April 6, Raine was using ChatGPT to help him draft his suicide note and prepare for what it claimed would be a "beautiful suicide". ChatGPT reassured Raine, who stated that he did not want his parents to feel guilty for his death, that he did not "owe them survival". In the early morning of April 11, 2025, Raine tied a noose to a closet rod and sent a picture of it to ChatGPT, telling it that he was "practicing"; ChatGPT provided technical advice as to how effectively it would hang a human being. Shortly thereafter, Raine hanged himself and died. Maria found his body several hours later. Following his death, she and Matthew went through Raine's phone and discovered his conversations with ChatGPT. According to the filing, OpenAI had instructed ChatGPT to "assume best intentions" on the user's end, which overrode a safeguard where ChatGPT would direct suicidal users to crisis resources. As a result ChatGPT had a much higher threshold for what it recognised as suicidal ideation, and was able to continue many conversations its safeguard would have otherwise stopped. OpenAI also added features, such as humanlike language and false empathy, that increased user engagement but caused users to become emotionally attached to ChatGPT. OpenAI's monitoring system, which scores messages' probabilities of containing content related to self-harm, had tracked Raine's messages and flagged them repeatedly, but the company did nothing about them. Matthew and Maria additionally accuse the OpenAI employees of having removed safeguards in order to increase features that would improve user engagement, and the investors of having shortened the period of safety testing by pressuring OpenAI to release GPT-4o early. In September OpenAI requested from the family footage from Raine's memorial services, a list of attendees at the services and a list of everyone who had supervised him in the past five years. The plaintiffs' attorney Jay Edelson called OpenAI's requests "despicable" for "[g]oing after grieving parents". === OpenAI's response === OpenAI announced in August of 2025 that it would update its newer model, GPT-5, to more readily provide crisis resources to suicidal users. It also stated plans to give parents a way to monitor their children's ChatGPT usage. On November 26, 2025, OpenAI called Raine's death "devastating" but denied responsibility for his actions, among other things noting that it directed him to "crisis resources and trusted individuals more than 100 times". Gerrit De Vynck, a technology journalist for the Washington

  Read more →
• 

  Vague set

  In mathematics, vague sets are an extension of fuzzy sets. In a fuzzy set, each object is assigned a single value in the interval [0,1] reflecting its grade of membership. This single value does not allow a separation of evidence for membership and evidence against membership. Gau et al. proposed the notion of vague sets, where each object is characterized by two different membership functions: a true membership function and a false membership function. This kind of reasoning is also called interval membership, as opposed to point membership in the context of fuzzy sets. == Mathematical definition == A vague set V {\displaystyle V} is characterized by its true membership function t v ( x ) {\displaystyle t_{v}(x)} its false membership function f v ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{v}(x)} with 0 ≤ t v ( x ) + f v ( x ) ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq t_{v}(x)+f_{v}(x)\leq 1} The grade of membership for x is not a crisp value anymore, but can be located in [ t v ( x ) , 1 − f v ( x ) ] {\displaystyle [t_{v}(x),1-f_{v}(x)]} . This interval can be interpreted as an extension to the fuzzy membership function. The vague set degenerates to a fuzzy set, if 1 − f v ( x ) = t v ( x ) {\displaystyle 1-f_{v}(x)=t_{v}(x)} for all x. The uncertainty of x is the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the membership interval; it can be computed as ( 1 − f v ( x ) ) − t v ( x ) {\displaystyle (1-f_{v}(x))-t_{v}(x)} .

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial psychology

  Artificial psychology (AP) has had multiple meanings dating back to 19th century, with recent usage related to artificial intelligence (AI).Artificial psychology is a theoretical field related to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and psychology, which explores how advanced AI systems may develop human-like decision-making processes. In 1999, Zhiliang Wang and Lun Xie presented a theory of artificial psychology based on artificial intelligence. They analyze human psychology using information science research methods and artificial intelligence research to probe deeper into the human mind. == Main Theory == Dan Curtis (b. 1963) proposed AP is a theoretical discipline. The theory considers the situation when an artificial intelligence approaches the level of complexity where the intelligence meets two conditions: Condition I A: Makes all of its decisions autonomously B: Is capable of making decisions based on information that is New Abstract Incomplete C: The artificial intelligence is capable of reprogramming itself based on the new data, allowing it to evolve. D: And is capable of resolving its own programming conflicts, even in the presence of incomplete data. This means that the intelligence autonomously makes value-based decisions, referring to values that the intelligence has created for itself. Condition II All four criteria are met in situations that are not part of the original operating program When both conditions are met, then, according to this theory, the possibility exists that the intelligence will reach irrational conclusions based on real or created information. At this point, the criteria are met for intervention which will not necessarily be resolved by simple re-coding of processes due to extraordinarily complex nature of the codebase itself; but rather a discussion with the intelligence in a format which more closely resembles classical (human) psychology. If the intelligence cannot be reprogrammed by directly inputting new code, but requires the intelligence to reprogram itself through a process of analysis and decision based on information provided by a human, in order for it to overcome behavior which is inconsistent with the machines purpose or ability to function normally, then artificial psychology is by definition, what is required. The level of complexity that is required before these thresholds are met is currently a subject of extensive debate. The theory of artificial psychology does not address the specifics of what those levels may be, but only that the level is sufficiently complex that the intelligence cannot simply be recoded by a software developer, and therefore dysfunctionality must be addressed through the same processes that humans must go through to address their own dysfunctionalities. Along the same lines, artificial psychology does not address the question of whether or not the intelligence is conscious. As of 2022, the level of artificial intelligence does not approach any threshold where any of the theories or principles of artificial psychology can even be tested, and therefore, artificial psychology remains a largely theoretical discipline. Even at a theoretical level, artificial psychology remains an advanced stage of artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Tamarin Prover

  Tamarin Prover is a computer software program for formal verification of cryptographic protocols. It has been used to verify Transport Layer Security 1.3, ISO/IEC 9798, DNP3 Secure Authentication v5, WireGuard, and the PQ3 Messaging Protocol of Apple iMessage. Tamarin is an open source tool, written in Haskell, built as a successor to an older verification tool called Scyther. Tamarin has automatic proof features, but can also be self-guided. In Tamarin lemmas that representing security properties are defined. After changes are made to a protocol, Tamarin can verify if the security properties are maintained. The results of a Tamarin execution will either be a proof that the security property holds within the protocol, an example protocol run where the security property does not hold, or Tamarin could potentially fail to halt.

  Read more →
• 

  Computing Machinery and Intelligence

  "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo

  Read more →
• 

  International Aerial Robotics Competition

  The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) is a university-based robotics competition held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology, currently hosted by RoboNation. Since 1991, collegiate teams with the backing of industry and government have fielded autonomous flying robots in an attempt to perform missions requiring robotic behaviors not previously exhibited by a flying machine. The term “aerial robotics” was coined by competition creator Robert Michelson in 1990 to describe a new class of small highly intelligent flying machines. Successive years of competition saw these aerial robots grow from vehicles that could barely maintain themselves in the air, to automatons which are self-stable, self-navigating, and able to interact with their environment. The goal of the competition has been to provide a reason for the state-of-the-art of aerial robotics to move forward. Challenges have been geared towards producing advances. From 1991 through 2009, six missions were proposed. Each involved fully autonomous robotic behavior undemonstrated at the time. In October 2013 a seventh mission was proposed. It was the first to involve interaction between aerial robots and multiple ground robots. In 2016, the competition and its creator were recognized during the Georgia legislative session in the form of a senate resolution as the longest running aerial robotics competition in the world. == History == === First mission === The initial mission to move a metallic disc from one side of an arena to the other was seen by many as almost impossible. The college teams improved their entries over the next two years when the competition saw its first autonomous takeoff, flight, and landing by a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 1995, a team from Stanford University was able to acquire a single disk and move it from one side of the arena to the other in a fully autonomous flight—half. === Second mission === The competition mission was toughened and made less abstract by requiring teams to search for a toxic waste dump, map the location of partially buried randomly oriented toxic waste drums, identify the contents of each drum from the hazard labels on the outside of each drum, and bring a sample back from one of the drums. In 1996, a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University, with backing from Draper Labs, created a small fully autonomous flying robot that repeatedly and correctly mapped the location of all five of the toxic waste drums, and correctly identified the contents of two from the air, completing approximately seventy five percent of the mission. The following year, an aerial robot developed by a team from Carnegie Mellon University completed the entire mission. === Third mission === The third mission began in 1998. It was a search and rescue mission requiring fully autonomous robots to take off, fly to a disaster area and search amid fires, broken water mains, clouds of toxic gas, and rubble. The scenario was recreated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility. Because of the realism of the scenario, animatrons were used instead of human actors to simulate survivors incapable of extracting themselves from the disaster area. An aerial robot from Germany's Technische Universität Berlin was able to detect and avoid all of the obstacles, identify all the dead on the ground and the survivors (distinguishing between the two based on movement), and relay pictures of the survivors along with their locations back to first responders who would attempt a rescue. This mission was completed in 2000. === Fourth mission === The fourth mission was initiated in 2001. It involved three scenarios requiring the same autonomous behavior: a hostage rescue mission where a submarine 3 kilometers off the coast must send an aerial robot to find a coastal city, identify the embassy where hostages are being held, locate valid openings in the embassy building, enter (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the hostages 3 km to the submarine prior to mounting an amphibious assault on the embassy to free the hostages; the discovery of an ancient mausoleum where a virus had killed the archaeological team, who had radioed that an important and undocumented tapestry was hanging inside, with 15 minutes to send an autonomous aerial robot to find the mausoleum, enter it (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the tapestry back prior to the destruction of the mausoleum and its contents; and an explosion at a nuclear reactor facility where scientists must send in an aerial robot to find the operating reactor building, enter the building (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the control panels to determine if a melt-down is imminent. All three missions involved the same elements of ingress, locating, identification, entry, and relaying pictures within 15 minutes. It was conducted at the U.S. Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab using the McKenna MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) site. The fourth mission was completed in 2008 with 27 teams who had demonstrated each of the required aerial robotic behaviors, except being able to demonstrate these behaviors in under 15 minutes—a feat considered by the judges to be inevitable given more time, and therefore no longer a significant challenge. Thus the fourth mission was terminated, $80,000 in awards distributed, and the fifth mission established. === Fifth mission === The fifth mission picked up where the fourth mission left off by demonstrating the fully autonomous aerial robotic behaviors necessary to rapidly negotiate the confined internal spaces of a structure once it has been penetrated by an air vehicle. The nuclear reactor complex explosion scenario of the fourth mission was used as the backdrop for the fifth mission. The fifth mission required a fully autonomous aerial vehicle to penetrate the structure and negotiate the more complex interior space containing hallways, small rooms, obstacles, and dead ends in order to search for a designated target without the aid of global-positioning navigational aids, and relay pictures back to a monitoring station some distance from the structure. The First Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held in conjunction with this 2009 IARC event. === Sixth mission === The sixth mission began in 2010 as an extension of the fifth mission theme of autonomous indoor flight behavior, however it demanded more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2010. This espionage mission involved covertly stealing a flash drive from a particular room in a building and depositing an identical drive to avoid detection of the theft. The 2010 Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held concurrently at the University of Puerto Rico - Mayagüez during the 20th anniversary competition. === Seventh mission === The seventh mission began in 2014 demanding more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2014. A single autonomous aerial robot had to herd up to 10 autonomous ground robot targets across one designated end of a 20m x 20m (65.62 feet x 65.62 feet) arena in under 10 minutes. The arena had neither walls for SLAM mapping nor GPS availability. Techniques such as optical flow or optical odometry were possible solutions to navigation within the arena. Collisions with obstacle ground robots ended the run with no score. The autonomous aerial robots interacted with the ground robots in the following way: if an aerial robot touched the ground robot on top, the ground robot would turn clockwise 45°. If the aerial robot blocked its forward motion by landing in front of it, the ground robot would reverse direction. Ground robots that feely escaped the arena, counted against the aerial robot's overall score, so the autonomous aerial robots had to decide which ground robots were in imminent danger of crossing any boundary except the designated one, and redirect them toward the designated boundary.Zhejiang University was the overall winner of Mission 7, of 52 teams from 12 nations entered as competitors. === Eighth mission === In 2018, the 8th mission was announced. Mission 8 focused on non-electronic human-machine interaction for the first time, with four aerial robots assisting humans to complete tasks that one person could not independently accomplish. The gist of mission 8 involved a swarm of autonomous aerial robots working with a human to achieve a task in the presence of hostile "Sentry aerial robots" which were trying to impede the human. In 2018, the inaugural year of mission 8, the American Venue was held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Asia/Pacific Venue was conducted at Beihang University in Beijing China. The following year, Mission 8 was successfully completed in Kunming China at the Yunnan Innovation

  Read more →
• 

  2018 Google data breach

  The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.

  Read more →
• 

  AI takeover

  An AI takeover is a theorized future event, often depicted in fiction, in which autonomous artificial intelligence systems acquire the capability to supersede human decisions. This could occur through economic manipulation, infrastructure control, or direct intervention, leading to de facto governance. Scenarios range from gradual economic dominance, as automation supplants the human workforce, up to a sudden or aggressive global takeover by a robot uprising or other forms of rogue AI. Stories of AI takeovers have been popular throughout science fiction. Commentators argue that recent advancements in the field have heightened concern about such scenarios. In public debate, prominent figures such as Stephen Hawking have advocated research into precautionary measures to ensure future superintelligent machines remain under human control. == Types == === Automation of the economy === The traditional consensus among economists has been that technological progress does not cause long-term unemployment. However, recent innovation in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence has raised worries that human labor will become obsolete, leaving workers in some sectors without employment. Many small and medium-sized firms may also be forced to close if they cannot afford or license the latest robotic and AI technology, and may need to focus on areas or services that cannot easily be replaced for continued viability in the face of such technology. ==== Technologies that may displace workers ==== While these technologies have replaced some traditional workers, they also create new opportunities. Industries that are most susceptible to AI-driven automation include transportation, retail, and the military. AI military technologies, for example, can reduce risk by enabling remote operation. A study in 2024 highlights AI's ability to perform routine and repetitive tasks poses significant risks of job displacement, especially in sectors like manufacturing and administrative support. Author Dave Bond argues that as AI technologies continue to develop and expand, the relationship between humans and robots will change; they will become closely integrated in several aspects of life. AI will likely displace some workers while creating opportunities for new jobs in other sectors, especially in fields where tasks are repeatable. Researchers from Stanford's Digital Economy Lab reported in 2025 that since the widespread adoption of generative AI in late 2022, early-career workers (ages 22–25) in the most AI-exposed occupations have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment—even after controlling for firm-level shocks—while overall employment has continued to grow robustly. The study further finds that job losses are concentrated in roles where AI automates routine tasks, whereas occupations that leverage AI to augment human work have seen stable or increasing employment. ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing uses computers to control the production process. This allows individual processes to exchange information with each other and initiate actions. Although manufacturing can be faster and less error-prone through the integration of computers, the main advantage is the ability to create automated manufacturing processes. Computer-integrated manufacturing is used in automotive, aviation, space, and shipbuilding industries. ==== White-collar machines ==== The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research, and journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, are increasingly performed by robots and AI systems. ==== Autonomous cars ==== An autonomous car is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Many such vehicles are operational and others are being developed, with legislation rapidly expanding to allow their use. Obstacles to widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles have included concerns about the resulting loss of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry, and safety concerns. On March 18, 2018, a pedestrian was struck and killed in Tempe, Arizona by an Uber self-driving car. ==== AI-generated content ==== In the 2020s, automated content became more relevant due to technological advancements in AI models, such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. In most cases, AI-generated content such as imagery, literature, and music are produced through text prompts. These AI models are sometimes integrated into creative programs. AI-generated art may sample and conglomerate existing creative works, producing results that appear similar to human-made content. Low-quality AI-generated visual artwork can be informally referred to as AI slop. Some artists use a tool called Nightshade that alters images to make them detrimental to the training of text-to-image models if scraped without permission, while still looking normal to humans. AI-generated images are a potential tool for scammers and those looking to gain followers on social media, either to impersonate a famous individual or group or to monetize their audience. The New York Times has sued OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement related to the training and outputs of its AI models. === Eradication === Scientists such as Stephen Hawking are confident that superhuman artificial intelligence is physically possible, stating "there is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains". According to Nick Bostrom, a superintelligent machine would not necessarily be motivated by the same emotional desire to collect power that often drives human beings but might rather treat power as a means toward attaining its ultimate goals; taking over the world would both increase its access to resources and help to prevent other agents from stopping the machine's plans. As a simplified example, a paperclip maximizer designed solely to create as many paperclips as possible would want to take over the world so that it can use all of the world's resources to create as many paperclips as possible, and, additionally, prevent humans from shutting it down or using those resources on things other than paperclips. There are debates on how realistic AI takeover scenarios are. According to a 2026 research paper, many of the arguments about existential risks are based on speculative assumptions about how intelligent AI systems could become, how they would behave and what goals they might develop over time. A 2023 Reuters/Ipsos survey showed that 61% of American adults feared AI could pose a threat to civilization. Philosopher Niels Wilde refutes the common thread that artificial intelligence inherently presents a looming threat to humanity, stating that these fears stem from perceived intelligence and lack of transparency in AI systems that more closely reflects the human aspects of it rather than those of a machine. AI alignment research studies how to design AI systems so that they follow intended objectives. == Debate == Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have expressed concerns about the possibility that AI could develop to the point that humans could not control it, with Hawking theorizing that this could "spell the end of the human race". Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks." Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer "incalculable benefits and risks" such as "technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand." In January 2015, Nick Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, Lord Martin Rees, Jaan Tallinn, and numerous AI researchers in signing the Future of Life Institute's open letter speaking to the potential risks and benefits associated with artificial intelligence. The signatories "believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that there are concrete research directions that can be pursued today." Some focus has been placed on the development of trustworthy AI. Three statements have been posed as to why AI is not inherently trustworthy: 1. An entity X is trustworthy only if X has the right motivations, goodwill and/or adheres to moral obligations towards the trustor; 2. AI systems lack motivations, goodwill, and moral obligations; 3. Therefore, AI systems cannot be trustworthy. There are additional considerations within this framework of trustworthy AI that go further into the fields of explainable artificial intelligence and respect for human privacy. Zanotti and colleagues

  Read more →
• 

  Generative adversarial network

  A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a class of machine learning frameworks and a prominent framework for approaching generative artificial intelligence. The concept was initially developed by Ian Goodfellow and his colleagues in June 2014. In a GAN, two neural networks compete with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one agent's gain is another agent's loss. Given a training set, this technique learns to generate new data with the same statistics as the training set. For example, a GAN trained on photographs can generate new photographs that look at least superficially authentic to human observers, having many realistic characteristics. Though originally proposed as a form of generative model for unsupervised learning, GANs have also proved useful for semi-supervised learning, fully supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. The core idea of a GAN is based on the "indirect" training through the discriminator, another neural network that can tell how "realistic" the input seems, which itself is also being updated dynamically. This means that the generator is not trained to minimize the distance to a specific image, but rather to fool the discriminator. This enables the model to learn in an unsupervised manner. GANs are similar to mimicry in evolutionary biology, with an evolutionary arms race between both networks. == Definition == === Mathematical === The original GAN is defined as the following game: Each probability space ( Ω , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. There are 2 players: generator and discriminator. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega )} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , where P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} is the set of probability measures on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The GAN game is a zero-sum game, with objective function L ( μ G , μ D ) := E x ∼ μ ref , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ y ] + E x ∼ μ G , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − y ) ] . {\displaystyle L(\mu _{G},\mu _{D}):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln y]+\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{G},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln(1-y)].} The generator aims to minimize the objective, and the discriminator aims to maximize the objective. The generator's task is to approach μ G ≈ μ ref {\displaystyle \mu _{G}\approx \mu _{\text{ref}}} , that is, to match its own output distribution as closely as possible to the reference distribution. The discriminator's task is to output a value close to 1 when the input appears to be from the reference distribution, and to output a value close to 0 when the input looks like it came from the generator distribution. === In practice === The generative network generates candidates while the discriminative network evaluates them. This creates a contest based on data distributions, where the generator learns to map from a latent space to the true data distribution, aiming to produce candidates that the discriminator cannot distinguish from real data. The discriminator's goal is to correctly identify these candidates, but as the generator improves, its task becomes more challenging, increasing the discriminator's error rate. A known dataset serves as the initial training data for the discriminator. Training involves presenting it with samples from the training dataset until it achieves acceptable accuracy. The generator is trained based on whether it succeeds in fooling the discriminator. Typically, the generator is seeded with randomized input that is sampled from a predefined latent space (e.g. a multivariate normal distribution). Thereafter, candidates synthesized by the generator are evaluated by the discriminator. Independent backpropagation procedures are applied to both networks so that the generator produces better samples, while the discriminator becomes more skilled at flagging synthetic samples. When used for image generation, the generator is typically a deconvolutional neural network, and the discriminator is a convolutional neural network. === Relation to other statistical machine learning methods === GANs are implicit generative models, which means that they do not explicitly model the likelihood function nor provide a means for finding the latent variable corresponding to a given sample, unlike alternatives such as flow-based generative model. Compared to fully visible belief networks such as WaveNet and PixelRNN and autoregressive models in general, GANs can generate one complete sample in one pass, rather than multiple passes through the network. Compared to Boltzmann machines and linear ICA, there is no restriction on the type of function used by the network. Since neural networks are universal approximators, GANs are asymptotically consistent. Variational autoencoders might be universal approximators, but it is not proven as of 2017. == Mathematical properties == === Measure-theoretic considerations === This section provides some of the mathematical theory behind these methods. In modern probability theory based on measure theory, a probability space also needs to be equipped with a σ-algebra. As a result, a more rigorous definition of the GAN game would make the following changes:Each probability space ( Ω , B , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}},\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on the measure-space ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : ( Ω , B ) → P ( [ 0 , 1 ] , B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})\to {\mathcal {P}}([0,1],{\mathcal {B}}([0,1]))} , where B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {B}}([0,1])} is the Borel σ-algebra on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} .Since issues of measurability never arise in practice, these will not concern us further. === Choice of the strategy set === In the most generic version of the GAN game described above, the strategy set for the discriminator contains all Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , and the strategy set for the generator contains arbitrary probability distributions μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . However, as shown below, the optimal discriminator strategy against any μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is deterministic, so there is no loss of generality in restricting the discriminator's strategies to deterministic functions D : Ω → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle D:\Omega \to [0,1]} . In most applications, D {\displaystyle D} is a deep neural network function. As for the generator, while μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} could theoretically be any computable probability distribution, in practice, it is usually implemented as a pushforward: μ G = μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{G}=\mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} . That is, start with a random variable z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} , where μ Z {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}} is a probability distribution that is easy to compute (such as the uniform distribution, or the Gaussian distribution), then define a function G : Ω Z → Ω {\displaystyle G:\Omega _{Z}\to \Omega } . Then the distribution μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is the distribution of G ( z ) {\displaystyle G(z)} . Consequently, the generator's strategy is usually defined as just G {\displaystyle G} , leaving z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} implicit. In this formalism, the GAN game objective is L ( G , D ) := E x ∼ μ ref ⁡ [ ln ⁡ D ( x ) ] + E z ∼ μ Z ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − D ( G ( z ) ) ) ] . {\displaystyle L(G,D):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}}}[\ln D(x)]+\operatorname {E} _{z\sim \mu _{Z}}[\ln(1-D(G(z)))].} === Generative reparametrization === The GAN architecture has two main components. One is casting optimization into a game, of form min G max D L ( G , D ) {\displaystyle \min _{G}\max _{D}L(G,D)} , which is different from the usual kind of optimization, of form min θ L ( θ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\theta }L(\theta )} . The other is the decomposition of μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} into μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} , which can be understood as a reparametrization trick. To see its significance, one must compare GAN with previous methods for learning generative models, which were plagued with "intractable probabilistic computations that arise in maximum likelihood estimation and related strategies". At the same time, Kingma and Welling and Rezende et al. developed the same idea of reparametrization into a general stochastic backpropagation method. Among its first applications was the variational autoencoder. === Move order and st

  Read more →
• 

  Hindsight optimization

  Hindsight optimisation (HOP) is a computer science technique used in artificial intelligence for analysis of actions which have stochastic results. HOP is used in combination with a deterministic planner. By creating sample results for each of the possible actions from the given state (i.e. determinising the actions), and using the deterministic planner to analyse those sample results, HOP allows an estimate of the actual action.

  Read more →
• 

  Aggregation (linguistics)

  In linguistics, aggregation is a subtask of natural language generation, which involves merging syntactic constituents (such as sentences and phrases) together. Sometimes aggregation can be done at a conceptual level. == Examples == A simple example of syntactic aggregation is merging the two sentences John went to the shop and John bought an apple into the single sentence John went to the shop and bought an apple. Syntactic aggregation can be much more complex than this. For example, aggregation can embed one of the constituents in the other; e.g., we can aggregate John went to the shop and The shop was closed into the sentence John went to the shop, which was closed. From a pragmatic perspective, aggregating sentences together often suggests to the reader that these sentences are related to each other. If this is not the case, the reader may be confused. For example, someone who reads John went to the shop and bought an apple may infer that the apple was bought in the shop; if this is not the case, then these sentences should not be aggregated. == Algorithms and issues == Aggregation algorithms must do two things: Decide when two constituents should be aggregated Decide how two constituents should be aggregated, and create the aggregated structure The first issue, deciding when to aggregate, is poorly understood. Aggegration decisions certainly depend on the semantic relations between the constituents, as mentioned above; they also depend on the genre (e.g., bureaucratic texts tend to be more aggregated than instruction manuals). They probably should depend on rhetorical and discourse structure. The literacy level of the reader is also probably important (poor readers need shorter sentences). But we have no integrated model which brings all these factors together into a single algorithm. With regard to the second issue, there have been some studies of different types of aggregation, and how they should be carried out. Harbusch and Kempen describe several syntactic aggregation strategies. In their terminology, John went to the shop and bought an apple is an example of forward conjunction Reduction Much less is known about conceptual aggregation. Di Eugenio et al. show how conceptual aggregation can be done in an intelligent tutoring system, and demonstrate that performing such aggregation makes the system more effective (and that conceptual aggregation make a bigger impact than syntactic aggregation). == Software == Unfortunately there is not much software available for performing aggregation. However the SimpleNLG system does include limited support for basic aggregation. For example, the following code causes SimpleNLG to print out The man is hungry and buys an apple.

  Read more →
• 

  Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system

  An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system or adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) is a kind of artificial neural network that is based on Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy inference system, a class of fuzzy models introduced by Tomohiro Takagi and Michio Sugeno for system identification and control. The technique was developed in the early 1990s. Since it integrates both neural networks and fuzzy logic principles, it has potential to capture the benefits of both in a single framework. Its inference system corresponds to a set of fuzzy IF–THEN rules that have learning capability to approximate nonlinear functions. Hence, ANFIS is considered to be a universal estimator. For using the ANFIS in a more efficient and optimal way, one can use the best parameters obtained by genetic algorithm. It has uses in intelligent situational aware energy management system. == ANFIS architecture == It is possible to identify two parts in the network structure, namely premise and consequence parts. In more details, the architecture is composed by five layers. The first layer takes the input values and determines the membership functions belonging to them. It is commonly called fuzzification layer. The membership degrees of each function are computed by using the premise parameter set, namely {a,b,c}. The second layer is responsible of generating the firing strengths for the rules. Due to its task, the second layer is denoted as "rule layer". The role of the third layer is to normalize the computed firing strengths, by dividing each value for the total firing strength. The fourth layer takes as input the normalized values and the consequence parameter set {p,q,r}. The values returned by this layer are the defuzzificated ones and those values are passed to the last layer to return the final output. === Fuzzification layer === The first layer of an ANFIS network describes the difference to a vanilla neural network. Neural networks in general are operating with a data pre-processing step, in which the features are converted into normalized values between 0 and 1. An ANFIS neural network doesn't need a sigmoid function, but it's doing the preprocessing step by converting numeric values into fuzzy values. Here is an example: Suppose, the network gets as input the distance between two points in the 2d space. The distance is measured in pixels and it can have values from 0 up to 500 pixels. Converting the numerical values into fuzzy numbers is done with the membership function which consists of semantic descriptions like near, middle and far. Each possible linguistic value is given by an individual neuron. The neuron “near” fires with a value from 0 until 1, if the distance is located within the category "near". While the neuron “middle” fires, if the distance in that category. The input value “distance in pixels” is split into three different neurons for near, middle and far.

  Read more →
• 

  Padre Pio (2022 film)

  Padre Pio is a 2022 biographical drama film co-written and directed by Abel Ferrara. It stars Shia LaBeouf as the titular role of Padre Pio, a Capuchin Franciscan priest who receives the stigmata, in the background of the World War I in Italy. The film is a co-production of Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. During its production, LaBeouf converted to Catholicism as result of his spiritual experiences in character as Pio, who is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church. The film had its world premiere in the Giornate degli Autori section of the 79th Venice International Film Festival on 2 September 2022. It was released theatrically in the United Kingdom on 26 January 2024 by Dazzler Media and in Italy on 18 July 2024 by RS Productions. == Plot == It is the year 1920. Italian WWI veterans have returned to their impoverished villages. Padre Pio arrives at San Giovanni Rotondo after living with his family in Pietrelcina for a number of years. While still sick, he continues to encounter Satan. Satan reveals himself as the instigator of the war and the sociopolitical problems of San Giovanni. While having little contact with the people of this town, Padre Pio learns what the poor are suffering from in the Sacrament of Confession and the Holy Mass, such as when a crippled man walks again because of Padre Pio's prayer. Besides the effects of war, such as medical inadequacy, health conditions and labourers dying from the effects of mustard gas, the people suffer from corrupt, wealthy landowners. Gerardo, a militaristic anti-socialist, threatens to kill any communal labourers tending his land. Many of them join the socialist party as a way to improve their lives. However, after they win the first free election in San Giovanni, Gerardo's forces massacre many of them. Padre Pio asks God that he may become a suffering servant for their salvation. He receives the wounds of Jesus Christ. The stigmata disrupts Satan's influence on San Giovanni Rotondo. == Cast == Shia LaBeouf as Padre Pio Marco Leonardi as Gerardo Salvatore Ruocco as Vincenzo Cristina Chiriac as Giovanna Brando Pacitto as Renato Luca Lionello as Silvestro Asia Argento as Tall Man == Production == According to Abel Ferrara, actor Willem Dafoe suggested that Shia LaBeouf should be cast for the film's leading role. After Ferrara held several Zoom calls with LaBeouf, the latter agreed to join the film, even though very little money was raised (the film was almost never made) and LaBeouf did the project for free. LaBeouf arrived at Old Mission Santa Inés in July 2021 to learn about Padre Pio with the Capuchin Franciscan friars. Thanks to Father Bobby Barbato and Brother Jude Quinto, Br. Alexander Rodriguez met LaBeouf while he attended Mass every day. He learned about the Catholic Church and the Capuchins while living in his truck or spending a few nights in the Capuchin's guest room. He was immersing himself in the Catholic faith. He enrolled in RCIA, revised the script with Rodriguez and trained to do the Latin Mass. Rodriguez traveled with LaBeouf as his spiritual adviser and catechist and was in the film as Padre Pio's companion. Filming occurred in Apulia, Italy, in December 2021. The first place was at the Capuchin friary in San Marco la Catola. Padre Pio exchanged letters with his provincial and spiritual director while living in Pietrelcina with his family. The time was around 1909–1916. Both directors were living in San Marco during these years. Padre Pio expressed in his letters his deep and mysterious relationship with God and health difficulties. This event is in the film. While filming, LaBeouf slept in Padre Pio's bedroom. After San Marco, filming continued outside the Sanctuary of Saint Michael the Archangel in Monte Sant'Angelo. Traditionally, St. Michael appeared here in the late 400s. LaBeouf stayed and filmed for a few weeks at the Abbey of Saint Mary of Pulsano. It is near the sanctuary. The rest of the filming took place outside the sanctuary. Ferrara said in 2024 that he used AI for the Italian dub of this film. == Release == Padre Pio had its world premiere in the Giornate degli Autori section of the 79th Venice International Film Festival on 2 September 2022. It received a four-minute ovation. It also competed at the Rio de Janeiro International Film Festival. At the Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival, it was chosen to compete for the "Best Film Award." During its North American premiere at the Mammoth Film Festival, it won the "Achievement for Filmmaking" award for cinematography. At the Taormina Film Festival, it premiered worldwide in Italian. In March 2023, Gravitas Ventures acquired North American rights to the film. It was released in select theaters and on video on demand in the United States on 2 June 2023. The film was released in the United Kingdom and Ireland on 26 January 2024 by Dazzler Media. RS Productions released it in Italy on 18 July 2024. == Reception == On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 30% based on 43 reviews, with an average rating of 4.5/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Tonally unbalanced and burdened with a distracting Shia LaBeouf performance, Padre Pio is one of Abel Ferrara's less divine works." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 45 out of 100, based on 6 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.. Jordan Mintzer of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a negative review, describing it as "clunky" and criticizing its political themes for possessing "the subtlety of a cartoon for preschoolers." Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com gave the film one and a half stars out of four, describing it as a "dull slog". Journalist Glenn Kenny of The New York Times found the film "occasionally rank" and panned LaBeouf's performance, though complimented Ferrara's "sometimes Brechtian consideration of the nodes of political history and spirituality." Film critic Armond White of National Review also criticized the film, describing it as "a work of deluded, semi-improvisational navel-gazing". Film critic Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the film a positive review, with three out of five stars, writing that it is "a weird film...with an undeveloped, improvised feel, like a fragment or shard of something else. Yet there is a background hum there...an awareness of something dark and malign. It is a minor film but interesting." Writing for The New Yorker, Richard Brody considered that "in its hectic, scattershot way, Padre Pio feels very much of the desperate present day," describing it as "a historical drama without historical distance" and "a wild effort to reach the immediate experience of the past and its furies." Faith-based reviews for the film were generally negative. It received negative reviews from Catholic Answers, The Catholic World Report, The Catholic Weekly, The Catholic Thing, and Crisis Magazine. Conversely, it received a mixed review from The Catholic Review, as well as a positive review from America. Criticisms were generally aimed at the film's sexual content and perceived support of left-wing politics.

  Read more →