AI App Gemini

AI App Gemini — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Data preprocessing

  Data preprocessing can refer to manipulation, filtration or augmentation of data before it is analyzed, and is often an important step in the data mining process. Data collection methods are often loosely controlled, resulting in out-of-range values, impossible data combinations, and missing values, amongst other issues. Preprocessing is the process by which unstructured data is transformed into intelligible representations suitable for machine-learning models. This phase of model deals with noise in order to arrive at better and improved results from the original data set which was noisy. This dataset also has some level of missing value present in it. The preprocessing pipeline used can often have large effects on the conclusions drawn from the downstream analysis. Thus, representation and quality of data is necessary before running any analysis. If there is a high proportion of irrelevant and redundant information present or noisy and unreliable data, then knowledge discovery during the training phase may be more difficult. Data preparation and filtering steps can take a considerable amount of processing time. Examples of methods used in data preprocessing include cleaning, instance selection, normalization, one-hot encoding, data transformation, feature extraction and feature selection. == Applications == === Data mining === Data preprocessing allows for the removal of unwanted data with the use of data cleaning, this allows the user to have a dataset to contain more valuable information after the preprocessing stage for data manipulation later in the data mining process. Editing such dataset to either correct data corruption or human error is a crucial step to get accurate quantifiers like true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives found in a confusion matrix that are commonly used for a medical diagnosis. Users are able to join data files together and use preprocessing to filter any unnecessary noise from the data which can allow for higher accuracy. Users use Python programming scripts accompanied by the pandas library which gives them the ability to import data from a comma-separated values as a data-frame. The data-frame is then used to manipulate data that can be challenging otherwise to do in Excel. Pandas (software) which is a powerful tool that allows for data analysis and manipulation; which makes data visualizations, statistical operations and much more, a lot easier. Many also use the R programming language to do such tasks as well. The reason why a user transforms existing files into a new one is because of many reasons. Aspects of data preprocessing may include imputing missing values, aggregating numerical quantities and transforming continuous data into categories (data binning). More advanced techniques like principal component analysis and feature selection are working with statistical formulas and are applied to complex datasets which are recorded by GPS trackers and motion capture devices. === Semantic data preprocessing === Semantic data mining is a subset of data mining that specifically seeks to incorporate domain knowledge, such as formal semantics, into the data mining process. Domain knowledge is the knowledge of the environment the data was processed in. Domain knowledge can have a positive influence on many aspects of data mining, such as filtering out redundant or inconsistent data during the preprocessing phase. Domain knowledge also works as constraint. It does this by using working as set of prior knowledge to reduce the space required for searching and acting as a guide to the data. Simply put, semantic preprocessing seeks to filter data using the original environment of said data more correctly and efficiently. There are increasingly complex problems which are asking to be solved by more elaborate techniques to better analyze existing information. Instead of creating a simple script for aggregating different numerical values into a single value, it make sense to focus on semantic based data preprocessing. The idea is to build a dedicated ontology, which explains on a higher level what the problem is about. In regards to semantic data mining and semantic pre-processing, ontologies are a way to conceptualize and formally define semantic knowledge and data. The Protégé (software) is the standard tool for constructing an ontology. In general, the use of ontologies bridges the gaps between data, applications, algorithms, and results that occur from semantic mismatches. As a result, semantic data mining combined with ontology has many applications where semantic ambiguity can impact the usefulness and efficiency of data systems. Applications include the medical field, language processing, banking, and even tutoring, among many more. There are various strengths to using a semantic data mining and ontological based approach. As previously mentioned, these tools can help during the per-processing phase by filtering out non-desirable data from the data set. Additionally, well-structured formal semantics integrated into well designed ontologies can return powerful data that can be easily read and processed by machines. A specifically useful example of this exists in the medical use of semantic data processing. As an example, a patient is having a medical emergency and is being rushed to hospital. The emergency responders are trying to figure out the best medicine to administer to help the patient. Under normal data processing, scouring all the patient’s medical data to ensure they are getting the best treatment could take too long and risk the patients’ health or even life. However, using semantically processed ontologies, the first responders could save the patient’s life. Tools like a semantic reasoner can use ontology to infer the what best medicine to administer to the patient is based on their medical history, such as if they have a certain cancer or other conditions, simply by examining the natural language used in the patient's medical records. This would allow the first responders to quickly and efficiently search for medicine without having worry about the patient’s medical history themselves, as the semantic reasoner would already have analyzed this data and found solutions. In general, this illustrates the incredible strength of using semantic data mining and ontologies. They allow for quicker and more efficient data extraction on the user side, as the user has fewer variables to account for, since the semantically pre-processed data and ontology built for the data have already accounted for many of these variables. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. Namely, it requires a high amount of computational power and complexity, even with relatively small data sets. This could result in higher costs and increased difficulties in building and maintaining semantic data processing systems. This can be mitigated somewhat if the data set is already well organized and formatted, but even then, the complexity is still higher when compared to standard data processing. Below is a simple a diagram combining some of the processes, in particular semantic data mining and their use in ontology. The diagram depicts a data set being broken up into two parts: the characteristics of its domain, or domain knowledge, and then the actual acquired data. The domain characteristics are then processed to become user understood domain knowledge that can be applied to the data. Meanwhile, the data set is processed and stored so that the domain knowledge can applied to it, so that the process may continue. This application forms the ontology. From there, the ontology can be used to analyze data and process results. Fuzzy preprocessing is another, more advanced technique for solving complex problems. Fuzzy preprocessing and fuzzy data mining make use of fuzzy sets. These data sets are composed of two elements: a set and a membership function for the set which comprises 0 and 1. Fuzzy preprocessing uses this fuzzy data set to ground numerical values with linguistic information. Raw data is then transformed into natural language. Ultimately, fuzzy data mining's goal is to help deal with inexact information, such as an incomplete database. Currently fuzzy preprocessing, as well as other fuzzy based data mining techniques see frequent use with neural networks and artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Vehicle infrastructure integration

  The Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII), also known as "Connected Roadways" or "vehicle-to-everything" (V2X) technology, is a United States Department of Transportation initiative that aims to improve road safety by developing technology that connects road vehicles with their environment. This development draws on several disciplines, including transport engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, telematics, and computer science. Although VII specifically covers road transport, similar technologies are under development for other modes of transport. For example, airplanes may use ground-based beacons for automated guidance, allowing the autopilot to fly the plane without human intervention. == Goals == The goal of VII is to establish a communication link between vehicles (via On-Board Equipment, or OBE) and roadside infrastructure (via Roadside Equipment, or RSE) to enhance the safety, efficiency, and convenience of transportation systems. Two potential approaches are the widespread deployment of a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) link on the 5.9GHz band, and cellular communication (C-V2X). Either of these methods would allow vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication. The initiative has three priorities: Stakeholder evaluation and acceptance of the business model and its deployment schedule, Validation of the technology, with a focus on communications systems, in relation to deployment costs, and Creation of legal structures and policies, especially concerning digital privacy, to improve the system's long-term potential for success. === Safety === Current automotive safety technology relies primarily on vehicle-based radar, lidar, and sonar systems. This technology allows, for instance, a potential reduction in rear-end collisions by monitoring obstacles in front of or behind the vehicle and automatically applying the brakes when necessary. This technology, however, is limited by the sensing range of vehicle-based radar, particularly in angled and left-turn collisions, such as a motorist losing control of the vehicle during an impending head-on collision. The rear-end collisions addressed by current technology are generally less severe than angled, left-turn, or head-on collisions. VII promotes the development of a direct communication link between road vehicles and all other vehicles nearby, allowing for the exchange of information on vehicle speed and orientation or driver awareness and intent. This real-time exchange of information may enable more effective automated emergency maneuvers, such as steering, decelerating, or braking. In addition to nearby vehicle awareness, VII promotes a communication link between vehicles and roadway infrastructure. Such a link may allow for improved real-time traffic information, better queue management, and feedback to vehicles. Existing implementations of VII use vehicle-based sensors that can recognize and respond to roadway markings or signs, automatically adjusting vehicle parameters to follow the recognized instructions. However, this information may also be acquired via roadside beacons or stored in a centralized database accessible to all vehicles. === Efficiency === With a VII system in place, vehicles will be linked together. The headway between vehicles may therefore be reduced so that there is less empty space on the road, increasing the available capacity per lane. More capacity per lane will in turn imply fewer lanes in general, possibly satisfying the community's concerns about the impact of roadway widening. VII will enable precise traffic-signal coordination by tracking vehicle platoons and will benefit from accurate timing by drawing on real-time traffic data covering volume, density, and turning movements. Real-time traffic data can also be used in the design of new roadways or modification of existing systems as the data could be used to provide accurate origin-destination studies and turning-movement counts for uses in transportation forecasting and traffic operations. Such technology would also lead to improvements for transport engineers to address problems whilst reducing the cost of obtaining and compiling data. Tolling is another prospect for VII technology as it could enable roadways to be automatically tolled. Data could be collectively transmitted to road users for in-vehicle display, outlining the lowest cost, shortest distance, and/or fastest route to a destination on the basis of real-time conditions. === Existing applications === To some extent, results along these lines have been achieved in trials performed around the globe, making use of GPS, mobile phone signals, and vehicle registration plates. GPS is becoming standard in many new high-end vehicles and is an option on most new low- and mid-range vehicles. In addition, many users also have mobile phones that transmit trackable signals (and may also be GPS-enabled). Mobile phones can already be traced for purposes of emergency response. GPS and mobile phone tracking, however, do not provide fully reliable data. Furthermore, integrating mobile phones in vehicles may be prohibitively difficult. Data from mobile phones, though useful, might even increase risks to motorists as they tend to look at their phones rather than concentrate on their driving. Automatic registration plate recognition can provide large quantities of data, but continuously tracking a vehicle through a corridor is a difficult task with existing technology. Today's equipment is designed for data acquisition and functions such as enforcement and tolling, not for returning data to vehicles or motorists for response. GPS will nevertheless be one of the key components in VII systems. == Limitations == === Privacy === VII architecture is designed to prevent identification of individual vehicles, with all data exchange between the vehicle and the system occurring anonymously. Exchanges between the vehicles and third parties such as OEMs and toll collectors will occur, but the network traffic will be sent via encrypted tunnels and will therefore not be decipherable by the VII system. Data sharing with law enforcement or Homeland Security was not included in system design as of 2006. === Technical issues === ==== Coordination ==== A major issue facing the deployment of VII is the problem of how to set up the system initially. The costs associated with installing the technology in vehicles and providing communications and power at every intersection are significant. ==== Maintenance ==== Another factor for consideration in regard to the technology's distribution is how to update and maintain the units. Traffic systems are highly dynamic, with new traffic controls implemented every day and roadways constructed or repaired every year. The vehicle-based option could be updated via the internet (preferably wireless) but may subsequently require all users to have access to internet technology. Alternatively, if receivers were placed in all vehicles and the VII system was primarily located along the roadside, information could be stored in a centralized database. This would allow the agency responsible to issue updates at any time. These would then be disseminated to the roadside units for passing motorists. Operationally, this method is currently considered to provide the greatest effectiveness but at a high cost to the authorities. ==== Security ==== Security of the units is another concern, especially in light of the public acceptance issue. Criminals could tamper, remove, or destroy VII units regardless of whether they are installed inside vehicles or along the roadside. Magnets, electric shocks, and malicious software (viruses, hacking, or jamming) could be used to damage VII systems – regardless of whether units are located inside vehicle or along the roadside. == Recent developments == Much of the current research and experimentation is conducted in the United States where coordination is ensured through the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium; consisting of automobile manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW), IT suppliers, U.S. Federal and state transportation departments, and professional associations. Trialing is taking place in Michigan and California. The specific applications now being developed under the U.S. initiative are: Warning drivers of unsafe conditions or imminent collisions. Warning drivers if they are about to run off the road or speed around a curve too fast. Informing system operators of real-time congestion, weather conditions and incidents. Providing operators with information on corridor capacity for real-time management, planning and provision of corridor-wide advisories to drivers. In mid-2007, a VII environment covering some 20 square miles (52 km2) near Detroit was used to test 20 prototype VII applications. Several automobile manufacturers are also conducting their own VII research and triali

  Read more →
• 

  AI-generated content in American politics

  In American politics since the 2020s, political figures have deployed AI-generated images, videos, and audio to attack opponents, create misleading narratives, or inflame emotions. The use of generative AI by American political figures has been subject to criticism from many sides of the political spectrum. Republican president Donald Trump has notably used generative AI in several posts to Truth Social during his second term, many of which have made headlines due to their inflammatory nature. == Background == Generative artificial intelligence is a subfield of artificial intelligence that uses generative models to generate text, images, videos, audio, software code or other forms of data. In the mid 2020s with the release of 15.ai, ChatGPT, DALL-E and other generative artificial intelligence applications there was an AI boom. There has been an increase of usage of generative-AI within the United States political field during this boon, with both Republican and Democratic party members using it. The Trump administration during his second term, have embraced the use of AI-generated images, causing some misinformation experts to raise concerns about the continued usage would cause the erosion of public perception of the truth. In response to some criticisms White House deputy communications director Kaelan Dorr posted on X that the "memes will continue" with White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson also mocking concerns. == History of usage == === 2023 === In April 2023, the Republican National Committee released an attack ad made entirely with AI-generated images depicting a dystopian future under Joe Biden's re-election. === 2024 === Generative AI has increased the efficiency with which political candidates were able to raise money by analyzing donor data and identifying possible donors and target audiences. In March 2024 Democratic consultant working for Dean Phillips has admitted to using AI to generate a robocall which used Joe Biden's voice to discourage voter participation. In August 2024, The Atlantic noted that AI slop was becoming associated with the political right in the United States, who were using it for shitposting and engagement farming on social media, with the technology offering "cheap, fast, on-demand fodder for content". AI slop is frequently used in political campaigns in an attempt at gaining attention through content farming. === 2025 === The initial version of the Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment of children's health issues, released by a commission of cabinet members and officials of the Trump administration, and led by US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., reportedly cited nonexistent and garbled references generated using artificial intelligence. Democratic governor Gavin Newsom has used AI-generated images to criticize Trump. In the midst of disruptions to food stamp distribution during the 2025 US government shutdown, anonymous social media users began using OpenAI's Sora to post slop videos of welfare queens complaining, stealing, and rioting in supermarkets; many comments to the videos appeared unaware that they were AI-generated, or acknowledged that they were AI-generated but nonetheless useful in pushing a narrative of widespread welfare fraud. On September 6, 2025, Trump posted an image on Truth Social making a reference to "Chipocalypse Now". Trump's post consisted of an AI-generated image showing Trump frowning and wearing a U.S. Cavalry hat and sunglasses, in front of Lake Michigan with the city of Chicago behind him with a smoke and fire spread across the background with five U.S. Army helicopters in the sky. The words "Chipocalypse Now" are rendered in a font resembling that in which the title of the 1979 film Apocalypse Now was styled. === 2026 === On February 5, 2026, Donald Trump shared a video of Barack and Michelle Obama depicted as apes in a Truth Social post. The two-second AI-generated clip of the Obamas portrayed as apes set to "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" appeared at the end of a one-minute two second long video, the rest of which was about false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election. The post received at least 4,650 likes, 409 comments, and 1,470 reTruths before it was deleted the next morning. The short clip was part of a longer AI-generated video posted in October 2025. The post received widespread backlash and bipartisan condemnation of the video as racist. In April 2026, Trump posted a picture of himself depicted as Jesus, drawing widespread criticism from Evangelicals and Catholics, resulting in Trump deleting the post hours later and claiming he believed he was depicted as a doctor. == Examples of use == === Election campaigns === In 2023, while he was still running for re-election, the presidential campaign of Joe Biden prepared a task force to respond to AI images and videos. The campaign for the 2024 Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has used deepfake videos of political opponents in campaign ads and fake images showing Trump with black supporters. During the first five months of his second term in 2025, Trump posted several AI-generated images of himself on official government social media accounts, including him as the Pope, him as a Jedi, and him as a muscular man. In August 2024, Trump posted a series of AI-generated images on his social media platform, Truth Social, that portrayed fans of the singer Taylor Swift in "Swifties for Trump" T-shirts, as well as a photo of the singer herself appearing to endorse Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. The images originated from the conservative Twitter account @amuse, which posted numerous AI slop images leading up to the 2024 United States elections that were shared by other high-profile figures within the US Republican Party, such as Elon Musk, who has publicly endorsed the utilization of generative AI, furthering this association. In 2024, Michigan GOP candidate Anthony Hudson posted an AI-generated video showing Martin Luther King Jr. endorsing his campaign, later claiming it was uploaded by a volunteer. In his 2025 bid to be the Democratic nominee for governor of New Jersey, Rep. Josh Gottheimer drew attention and criticism when he released a TV ad that used AI to portray him as a shirtless boxer sparring with Donald Trump in a boxing ring. In November 2025, the campaign of Mike Collins, a GOP candidate in the 2026 United States Senate election in Georgia released a fake video, generated by artificial intelligence, that depicted Democrat Jon Ossoff defending his vote on the 2025 United States federal government shutdown by declaring he could never say no to Chuck Schumer and that SNAP recipients did not attend his out-of-state fundraisers. The Collins campaign also shared an AI-generated video featuring Collins as a shirtless blue jeans model, referencing an American Eagle Outfitters advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney. During the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral election, candidate Spencer Pratt reposted an AI-generated video portraying Pratt as Batman and prominent California politicians such as Karen Bass, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris, as unruly aristocrats. Former governor of Florida Jeb Bush described the ad as “maybe the best political ad of the year.” In response, a spokesperson for Bass's campaign said, he was "doing his best Trump impression." Bass further responded that the AI ads are "taking on a violent trend." === Protests === In response to the nation-wide No Kings protests in October 2025, Donald Trump posted a video depicting himself flying a fighter jet and releasing feces on crowds of demonstrators, including Democratic influencer Harry Sisson. === Foreign interference === Officials from the ODNI and FBI have stated that Russia, Iran, and China used generative artificial intelligence tools to create fake and divisive text, photos, video, and audio content to foster anti-Americanism and engage in covert influence campaigns. The use of artificial intelligence was described as an accelerant rather than a revolutionary change to influence efforts. Regulation of AI with regard to elections was unlikely to see a resolution for most of the 2024 United States general election season. === Disasters and wars === In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in the United States, members of the Republican Party circulated an AI-generated image of a young girl holding a puppy in a flood, and used it as evidence of the failure of President Joe Biden to respond to the disaster. Some, like Trump supporter Amy Kremer, shared the image on social media but acknowledged that it was not genuine. In February 2025, Donald Trump shared an AI-generated video on Truth Social depicting a hypothetical Gaza after a Trump takeover. The video's creator claimed it was made as political satire. == Reception == Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor at UCLA raised concerns about the use of AI-generative images stating that many people are questioning where they can find trustab

  Read more →
• 

  Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

  On November 17, 2023, OpenAI's board of directors ousted co-founder and chief executive Sam Altman. In an official post on the company's website, it was stated that "the board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI". The removal was predicated by employee concerns about his handling of artificial intelligence safety, and allegations of abusive behavior. Altman was reinstated on November 22 after pressure from employees and investors. The removal and subsequent reinstatement caused widespread reactions, including impacts felt in the financial markets and technology sector. Microsoft, a partner of OpenAI, received little notice of the removal and experienced a drop in the share price of its stock. The removal also promoted interest in investigations from regulatory agencies. == Background == === OpenAI === OpenAI is an artificial intelligence firm founded in December 2015 as a non-profit entity. The for-profit division of the organization released ChatGPT in November 2022, contributing to a resurgence in generative artificial intelligence funding. The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billion and was set to bring in US$1 billion in revenue. Altman has described OpenAI's relationship with Microsoft as the "best bromance in tech". OpenAI is uniquely structured, an intentional decision to avoid investor control. A board of directors controls the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. The non-profit owns and controls a for-profit company itself controlling a capped-profit company, OpenAI Global, LLC and a holding company owned by employees and other investors. The holding company is the majority owner of OpenAI Global, LLC.; Microsoft owns a minority stake in the capped-profit company. OpenAI's bylaws, enacted in January 2016, allow a majority of its board of directors to remove any director without prior warning or a formal meeting with written consent. === Sam Altman === Sam Altman is a co-founder of OpenAI and its former chief executive; Altman took over the company following co-chair Elon Musk's resignation in 2018. Under Altman, OpenAI has shifted to becoming a for-profit entity. Altman is credited with convincing Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella with investing US$10 billion in cash and computing credits into OpenAI and leading several tender offer transactions that tripled the company's valuation. Altman testified before the United States Congress speaking critically of artificial intelligence and appeared at the 2023 AI Safety Summit. In the days leading up to his removal, Altman made several public appearances, announcing the GPT-4 Turbo platform at OpenAI's DevDay conference, attending APEC United States 2023, and speaking at an event related to Burning Man. == Events leading up to the removal == The resignation of LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist Shivon Zilis, and former Republican representative Will Hurd from the board allowed the remaining members to remove Altman. According to Kara Swisher and The Wall Street Journal, Sutskever was instrumental in Altman's removal. Disagreements over the safety of artificial intelligence divided employees prior to Altman's removal. The release of ChatGPT created divisions with OpenAI as a for-profit company without considerations for the safety of artificial intelligence and a non-profit cautious of artificial intelligence's capabilities; in a staff email sent in 2019 and obtained by The Atlantic, Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes". Prior to his removal, Altman was seeking billions from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds to develop an artificial intelligence chip to compete with Nvidia and courted SoftBank chairman Masayoshi Son to develop artificial intelligence hardware with former Apple designer Jony Ive. Sutskever and his allies opposed these efforts, viewing them as unjustly using the OpenAI name. Altman reduced Sutskever's role in October 2023, furthering divisions; Sutskever successfully appealed to several members of the board. Swisher and The Verge reporter Alex Heath stated that opposition to Altman's profit-driven strategy culminated in the DevDay conference in which Altman announced custom ChatGPT instances. According to Axios, the removal was driven by growing discontent and distrust with Altman. On November 22, 2023, reports emerged suggesting that Sam Altman's dismissal from OpenAI might be linked to his alleged mishandling of a significant breakthrough in the organization's secretive project codenamed Q. According to sources within OpenAI, Q is aimed at developing AI capabilities in logical and mathematical reasoning, and reportedly involves performing math on the level of grade-school students. Concerns about Altman's response to this development, specifically regarding the potential safety implications of the discovery, were reportedly raised to the company's board shortly before his firing. A report from The Washington Post in December stated that OpenAI's board of directors were concerned over Altman's allegedly abusive behavior; the complaints were purportedly a major factor in his removal. The Post previously reported that Altman's alleged pattern of deception and subversiveness that ostensibly resulted in his removal from Y Combinator ultimately resulted in the board's decision to remove him. In April 2026, an investigative report from The New Yorker found that Sutskever and others, in response to the board's request, had compiled an approximately 70-page-long annotated dossier consisting of internal communications, documents, and photos. The dossier claimed that Altman "exhibits a consistent pattern of [...] Lying", and that Altman misrepresented information to the company's senior management and board, particularly regarding safety issues. == Removal == On November 17, 2023, at approximately noon PST, OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications". Altman was informed of his removal five to ten minutes before it occurred on a Google Meet while watching the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Within thirty minutes, Sutskever invited OpenAI chairman and president Greg Brockman to a Google Meet to inform him of Altman's removal. According to an internal memo obtained by Axios, the removal was not due to "malfeasance", and OpenAI chief executive Emmett Shear denied accusations that the removal was due to disagreements. The board publicly announced Altman's removal thirty minutes later. Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati was immediately appointed to interim chief executive officer. Hours after Altman's removal, Brockman resigned as chairman, joined by director of research Jakub Pachocki and researchers Aleksander Mądry and Szymon Sidor. During an all-hands meeting, Sutskever defended the ouster and denied accusations of a hostile takeover. An OpenAI representative requested former board member Will Hurd's presence. == Reinstatement == According to The New Yorker, Altman retreated to his San Francisco home and enlisted the help of communications consultant Chris Lehane and Airbnb chief executive Brian Chesky, as well as former staff and a legal team, to plan his reinstatement. Lehane encouraged Altman to engage on social media, while Chesky sent a journalist negative information about the board. Altman told interim CEO Murati that his team was conducting opposition research on her and the individuals responsible for his removal; Altman later stated he did not remember saying this. Altman insisted multiple times that all board members who supported his removal should resign. Tiger Global Management and Sequoia Capital had attempted to reinstate Altman, according to The Information; Bloomberg News reported that Microsoft and Thrive Capital were seeking Altman's reinstatement. On November 18, The Verge reported that OpenAI's board of directors discussed reinstating Altman. The board agreed in principle to resign and to allow Altman to return, but missed the deadline. According to The Verge, Altman was ambivalent about returning and would seek significant changes to the company, including replacing the board. A list of directors had been prepared by investors in the event that the board steps down, and purportedly included former Salesforce executive Bret Taylor. According to chief strategy officer Jason Kwon, OpenAI was optimistic it could return Altman, Brockman, and other employees. On November 19, Altman and Brockman appeared at OpenAI's headquarters to negotiate, mediated by Nadella. According to Bloomberg News, Murati, Kwon, and chief operating officer Brad Lightcap were pushing for a new board of direc

  Read more →
• 

  Progress in artificial intelligence

  Progress in artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the advances, milestones, and breakthroughs that have been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence over time. AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines and systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, finance, robotics, law, video games, agriculture, and scientific discovery. The society as a whole is looking for artificial intelligence to be on a key factor in the upcming years because of its potential. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore." "Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry." In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems, but the field was rarely credited for these successes at the time. Kaplan and Haenlein structure artificial intelligence along three evolutionary stages: Artificial narrow intelligence – AI capable only of specific tasks; Artificial general intelligence – AI with ability in several areas, and able to autonomously solve problems they were never even designed for; Artificial superintelligence – AI capable of general tasks, including scientific creativity, social skills, and general wisdom. To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject-matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results. In 2023, humans still substantially outperformed both GPT-4 and other models tested on the ConceptARC benchmark. Those models scored 60% on most, and 77% on one category, while humans scored 91% on all and 97% on one category. However, later research in 2025 showed that human-generated output grids were only accurate 73% of the time, while AI models available that year managed to score above 77%. == History == Increasing, promoting or constraining AI progress has often be done via controlling or increasing the amount of compute. == Current performance in specific areas == There are many useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas. AI, like electricity or the steam engine, is a general-purpose technology. There is no consensus on how to characterize which tasks AI tends to excel at. Some versions of Moravec's paradox observe that humans are more likely to outperform machines in areas such as physical dexterity that have been the direct target of natural selection. While projects such as AlphaZero have succeeded in generating their own knowledge from scratch, many other machine learning projects require large training datasets. Researcher Andrew Ng has suggested, as a "highly imperfect rule of thumb", that "almost anything a typical human can do with less than one second of mental thought, we can probably now or in the near future automate using AI." Games provide a high-profile benchmark for assessing rates of progress; many games have a large professional player base and a well-established competitive rating system. AlphaGo brought the era of classical board-game benchmarks to a close when Artificial Intelligence proved their competitive edge over humans in 2016. Deep Mind's AlphaGo AI software program defeated the world's best professional Go Player Lee Sedol. Games of imperfect knowledge provide new challenges to AI in the area of game theory; the most prominent milestone in this area was brought to a close by Libratus' poker victory in 2017. E-sports continue to provide additional benchmarks; Facebook AI, Deepmind, and others have engaged with the popular StarCraft franchise of videogames. Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as: optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans) super-human: performs better than all humans high-human: performs better than most humans par-human: performs similarly to most humans sub-human: performs worse than most humans === Optimal === Tic-tac-toe Connect Four: 1988 Checkers (aka 8x8 draughts): Weakly solved (2007) Rubik's Cube: Mostly solved (2010) Heads-up limit hold'em poker: Statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution" (2015) === Super-human === Othello (aka reversi): c. 1997 Scrabble: 2006 Backgammon: c. 1995–2002 Chess: Supercomputer (c. 1997); Personal computer (c. 2006); Mobile phone (c. 2009); Computer defeats human + computer (c. 2017) Jeopardy!: Question answering, although the machine did not use speech recognition (2011) Arimaa: 2015 Shogi: c. 2017 Go: 2017 Heads-up no-limit hold'em poker: 2017 Six-player no-limit hold'em poker: 2019 Gran Turismo Sport: 2022 === High-human === Crosswords: c. 2012 Freeciv: 2016 Dota 2: 2018 Bridge card-playing: According to a 2009 review, "the best programs are attaining expert status as (bridge) card players", excluding bidding. StarCraft II: 2019 Mahjong: 2019 Stratego: 2022 No-Press Diplomacy: 2022 Hanabi: 2022 Natural language processing === Par-human === Optical character recognition for ISO 1073-1:1976 and similar special characters. Classification of images Handwriting recognition Facial recognition Visual question answering SQuAD 2.0 English reading-comprehension benchmark (2019) SuperGLUE English-language understanding benchmark (2020) Some school science exams (2019) Some tasks based on Raven's Progressive Matrices Many Atari 2600 games (2015) === Sub-human === Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text) Object recognition Various robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including: Stable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017) Humanoid soccer Speech recognition: "nearly equal to human performance" (2017) Explainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis. Many tests of fluid intelligence (2020) Bongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020) Visual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020) Stock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms Angry Birds video game, as of 2020 Various tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including: Translation Word-sense disambiguation == Proposed tests of artificial intelligence == In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark. The Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior. Proposed "universal intelligence" tests aim to compare how well machines, humans, and even non-human animals perform on problem sets that are generic as possible. At an extreme, the test suite can contain every possible problem, weighted by Kolmogorov complexity; however, these problem sets tend to be dominated by impoverished pattern-matching exercises where a tuned AI can easily exceed human performance levels. == Exams == According to OpenAI, in 2023 GPT-4 achieved high scores on several standardized and professional examinations, including around the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, the 89th percentile on the mathematics section of the SAT, the 93rd percentile on SAT Reading and Writing, the 54th percentile on the analytical writing section of the GRE, the 88th percentile on GRE quantitative reasoning, and the 99th percentile on GRE verbal reasoning. OpenAI also reported that GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 USA Biology Olympiad semifinal exam and earned top scores on several AP exams. Independent researchers found in 2023 that ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 performed "at or near the passing threshold" on all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), suggesting that large language models could reach passing-level performance on some medical knowledge assessments even without domain-specific fine-tuning. GPT-3.5 was also reported to attain a low but passing grade on examinations for four law school courses at the University of Minnes

  Read more →
• 

  Type-1 OWA operators

  Type-1 OWA operators are a set of aggregation operators that generalise the Yager's OWA (ordered weighted averaging) operators in the interest of aggregating fuzzy sets rather than crisp values in soft decision making and data mining. These operators provide a mathematical technique for directly aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights via OWA mechanism in soft decision making and data mining, where these uncertain objects are modelled by fuzzy sets. The two definitions for type-1 OWA operators are based on Zadeh's Extension Principle and α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets. The two definitions lead to equivalent results. == Definitions == === Definition 1 === Let F ( X ) {\displaystyle F(X)} be the set of fuzzy sets with domain of discourse X {\displaystyle X} , a type-1 OWA operator is defined as follows: Given n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,1]} , a type-1 OWA operator is a mapping, Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , Φ : F ( X ) × ⋯ × F ( X ) ⟶ F ( X ) {\displaystyle \Phi \colon F(X)\times \cdots \times F(X)\longrightarrow F(X)} ( A 1 , ⋯ , A n ) ↦ Y {\displaystyle (A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n})\mapsto Y} such that μ Y ( y ) = sup ∑ k = 1 n w ¯ i a σ ( i ) = y ( μ W 1 ( w 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ W n ( w n ) ∧ μ A 1 ( a 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ A n ( a n ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y}(y)=\displaystyle \sup _{\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}{\bar {w}}_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}=y}\left({\begin{array}{{1}l}\mu _{W^{1}}(w_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{W^{n}}(w_{n})\wedge \mu _{A^{1}}(a_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{A^{n}}(a_{n})\end{array}}\right)} where w ¯ i = w i ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{i}={\frac {w_{i}}{\sum _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } ⟶ { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma \colon \{1,\cdots ,n\}\longrightarrow \{1,\cdots ,n\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\ \forall i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th highest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . === Definition 2 === Using the alpha-cuts of fuzzy sets: Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , then for each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,\;1]} , an α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operator with α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level sets { W α i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W_{\alpha }^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} to aggregate the α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets { A i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{A^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} is: Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) = { ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) ∑ i = 1 n w i | w i ∈ W α i , a i ∈ A α i , i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)=\left\{{{\frac {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}}}{\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}\left|{w_{i}\in W_{\alpha }^{i},\;a_{i}}\right.\in A_{\alpha }^{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,n}\right\}} where W α i = { w | μ W i ( w ) ≥ α } , A α i = { x | μ A i ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle W_{\alpha }^{i}=\{w|\mu _{W_{i}}(w)\geq \alpha \},A_{\alpha }^{i}=\{x|\mu _{A_{i}}(x)\geq \alpha \}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } → { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma :\{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}\to \{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\;\forall \;i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th largest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . == Representation theorem of Type-1 OWA operators == Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , and the fuzzy sets A 1 , ⋯ , A n {\displaystyle A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n}} , then we have that Y = G {\displaystyle Y=G} where Y {\displaystyle Y} is the aggregation result obtained by Definition 1, and G {\displaystyle G} is the result obtained by in Definition 2. == Programming problems for Type-1 OWA operators == According to the Representation Theorem of Type-1 OWA Operators, a general type-1 OWA operator can be decomposed into a series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators. In practice, this series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators is used to construct the resulting aggregation fuzzy set. So we only need to compute the left end-points and right end-points of the intervals Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)} . Then, the resulting aggregation fuzzy set is constructed with the membership function as follows: μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) α ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{\alpha }}\alpha } For the left end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) − = min W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}=\operatorname {\min } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} while for the right end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) + = max W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+}=\operatorname {\max } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} A fast method has been presented to solve two programming problem so that the type-1 OWA aggregation operation can be performed efficiently, for details, please see the paper. == Alpha-level approach to Type-1 OWA operation == Three-step process: Step 1—To set up the α {\displaystyle \alpha } - level resolution in [0, 1]. Step 2—For each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} , Step 2.1—To calculate ρ α + i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α + i 0 ≥ A α + σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha +}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α + i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.1-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to Step 2.1-2. Step 2.2 To calculate ρ α − i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α − i 0 ≥ A α − σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha -}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α − i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.2-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to step Step 2.2-2. Step 3—To construct the aggregation resulting fuzzy set G {\displaystyle G} based on all the available intervals [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] {\displaystyle \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]} : μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]}\alpha } == Some Examples == The type-1 OWA operator with the weights shown in the top figure is used to aggregate the fuzzy sets (solide lines) in the bottom figure, and the dashed line is the aggregation result. == Special cases == Any OWA operators, like maximum, minimum, mean operators; Join operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy maximum operators; Meet operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy minimum operators; Join-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets; Meet-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets. == Generalizations == Type-2 OWA operators have been suggested to aggregate the type-2 fuzzy sets for soft decision making. == Applications == Type-1 OWA operators have been applied to different domains for soft decision making. Improved efficiency of computing approach ; Type reduction of type-2 fuzzy sets ; Group decision making ; Credit risk evaluation ; Information fusion ; Linguistic expressions and symbolic translation ; Sentiment analysis ; Ro

  Read more →
• 

  Opposition to AI data centers

  Since 2024, dozens of local community-led protest campaigns have emerged in opposition to AI data centers. == Motivations == Organized opposition to AI data centers has been driven by concerns about energy use, energy costs, noise pollution, air pollution, and water waste. Opposition sentiment is widespread with a Gallup poll conducted in March 2026 showing that 70% of respondents oppose the construction of new AI data centers in their neighborhood. == Impact == In 2025, local opposition to AI data centers led to the delay or cancellation of projects totalling US$156 billion. == Specific protests and outcomes in the United States == According to Data Center Watch, there are has been a wave of dozens of protests against AI data centers since 2022. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some notable examples. === Goodyear and Buckeye, Arizona: Tract AI Data Center Proposal === In Goodyear and Buckeye, Arizona, a $14 billion project by developer Tract was withdrawn after local authorities blocked necessary rezoning in response to pressure from resident organizers. Opponest stiff resistance due to concerns over building heights, noise pollution, and the potential strain on local utilities. However, the company announced a revised project near the Buckeye airport in August 2024, with the backing of local officials and the mayor. === Peculiar, Missouri: Diode Ventures Harper Road Technology Park Proposal === In Peculiar, Missouri, residents from the group "Peaceful Peculiar" organized to stop a data center proposal from Diode Ventures called Harper Road Technology Park. Citing concerns around noise and light pollution, health, environmental impacts, jobs, property values, and energy use, organizers attended local planning and zoning meetings in large numbers and lobbied councilors to reject the proposal. Ultimately, the city council unanimously rejected the proposal in September 2024. === Chesterton, Indiana: Provident Realty Advisors Proposal === In Chesterton, Indiana, the Texas-based company Provident Reality Advisors applied for a $1.3 billion construction of a data center complex on the Brassie Golf Club property. Provident Realty Advisors wanted to purchase the 200 acres owned by PPM Chesterton LLC in 2024 order to build a data center complex, with eight buildings and an end user of a hyperscaler. The Town Council of Chesterton released a statement saying that they would never support this project, at least not at the scale and location it was planned for. They cited fears of added noise for locals, electrical or water management concerns, the intrusiveness of a data center built next to houses, and more. Provident released a statement shortly after rescinding their plan, because it was clear than the town of Chesterton would not support them. === Cascade Locks, Oregon: Roundhouse Digital Infrastructure Proposal === Startup data center developer Roundhouse Digital Infrastructure had planned to build out a 10-megawatt data center using a vacant industrial building and nearby 10-acre site in the Port of Cascade Locks, Oregon. After significant organized community opposition, the project was abandoned. === Forth Worth, Texas: WUSF 5 Rock Creek East Proposal === In September 2024, the City Council of Fort Worth, Texas approved a zoning change that would allow construction of a data center. In responses, neighbors mounted opposition citing concerns about traffic, light pollution, energy consumption, water use, and noise issues if the data center were to be built. In response to extensive public comments opposing a tax break for the data center, a city councilor withdrew his motion to approve the tax break. As of April, 2026, the future of the project is still uncertain. === Santa Clara, California: GI Partners Proposal === GI partners sought to build a new AI data center in Santa Clara, California, which is already home to many data centers, by acquiring a conditional permit use that would have allowed the developer to knock down a property and replace it with a data center. To obtain this permit they were required to go before members of the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the project was delayed with the Planning Commission requiring GI partners to do more public outreach. === Virginia === ==== Richmond: DC Blox Proposal ==== After residents organized to lobby the municipal government to block the proposal to avoid noise pollution and higher energy use, commissioners denied the company's permit. ==== Catlett Station: Headwaters Site Proposal ==== In Catlett, Virginia, developer Headwaters proposed construction of a data center complex just north of the town in 2020. In response, a residents' organization called "Protect Catlett" was formed to oppose the project. Arguments against the data center involved its impacts on water and power availability, its noise as a residential disturbance, and its destruction of historic and community heritage buildings. Arguments in favor cited job creation and $20 million in local tax revenue if the project were to go through. Protect Catlett utilized town halls and public comments to mobilize opposition to the project. They also dedicated time to educating other residents about the project's negative impacts and canvassing door-to-door in order to garner even more opposition to the project. Ultimately, after fervent opposition from most town residents, the project was canceled by the town and the developer. ==== Culpeper County: Culpeper Acquisitions Proposal ==== Culpeper Acquisitions, LLC, proposed a massive $12 billion data center project in Culpeper County, Virginia, designed to feature 4.6 million square feet of space across nine multi-story buildings. Coalition to Save Culpeper (C2SC) is an activist organization formed to resist the development of the project. C2SC has been active on many fronts including, messaging on social media, reaching out to local officials, and organizing meetings to bring community members with aligned interests together. Ultimately, the project was delayed due to unanimous denial by the Culpeper County Planning Commission on June 12, 2024, which was driven by intense opposition from C2SC. C2SC was successful in their mission largely because they were able to get so many people from the community behind it, and put enough pressure on local officials to take action. ==== Midlothian: Province Group Proposal ==== In late October 2025, the Powhatan County Board of Supervisors in Virginia voted unanimously to approve the $3 billion data center, despite the county's Planning Commission having unanimously recommended denial several days earlier. The reasoning behind their support for the center is that it will generate substantial tax revenue, reducing the county's reliance on residential property taxes. This appeal of lowering residential property taxes is the major selling point for the center's development. The developer, California-based Province Group, incentivized the Board by being agreeable to its conditions for building the center. The center is still on track for development, but faces local resistance, though little information is available on specific groups opposing it. ==== Warrenton: Amazon Proposal ==== Citizens for Farquier County (CFFC) advocates to "preserve the natural, historic and agricultural resources" of their county. Historically, this has meant opposing the building of a dam or lights in front of fast food stores. This group has recently mobilized in opposition of a plan to build data centers for Amazon. They first filed a suit to stop the construction in 2023 and it has been in litigation ever since. The case hinges on opposition to a 2021 zoning amendment which allowed data centers to be built in town. CFFC's lawyer, Dale Mullen, argues that this amendment violates state law, which requires such amendments to state their "public purpose". They argue that the permit for the Amazon data center was "void from the beginning". The CFFC also organized to vote out town council members who approved the first data center and were up for reelection, replacing them with candidates who opposed the data center. In May 2025, after attending town council meetings to speak out against the data center, the planning commission voted 4–1 to remove the zoning amendment allowing data center construction in town, citing public opposition. Currently, CFFC is advocating along with Piedmont Environmental Group, for phasing out data center tax breaks at the state level. ==== France: Marseille opposition ==== In France, local opposition materialised in response to proposed data centre developments, especially in and around the city of Marseille. Opposition came from activists, such as "Clouds Were Under Our Feet" group, residents ,and local politicians. Issues raised related to energy use, environmental impact, and limited local benefits (such as the creation of a few jobs only). == Legislation in the United States == Legal limits and moratoriums on the construction of new d

  Read more →
• 

  Split Up (expert system)

  Split Up is an intelligent decision support system, which makes predictions about the distribution of marital property following divorce in Australia. It is designed to assist judges, registrars of the Family Court of Australia, mediators and lawyers. Split Up operates as a hybrid system, combining rule – based reasoning with neural network theory. Rule based reasoning operates within strict parameters, in the form: IF < condition(s) > then . Neural networks, by contrast, are considered to be better suited to generate decisions in uncertain domains, since they can be taught to weigh the factors considered by judicial decision makers from case data. Yet, they do not provide an explanation for the conclusions they reach. Split_up, with a view to overcome this flaw, uses argument structures proposed by Toulmin as the basis for representations from which explanations can be generated. == Application == In Australian family law, a judge in determining the distribution of property will: identify the assets of the marriage included in the common pool establish what percentage of the common pool each party will receive determine a final property order in line with the decisions made in 1. and 2. Split_Up implements step 1 and 2 : the common pool determination and the prediction of a percentage split. === The common pool determination === Since the determination of marital property is rule based, it is implemented using directed graphs. However, the percentage split between the parties is discretionary in that a judge has a wide discretion to look at each party's contributions to the marriage under section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975. Broadly, the contributions can be taken as financial or non-financial. The party who can demonstrate a larger contribution to the marital relationship will receive a larger proportion of the assets. The court may further look at each party's financial resources and future needs under section 75(2)of the Family Law Act 1975. These needs can include factors such as the inability to gain employment, the continued care of a child under 18 years of age or medical expenses. This means that different judges may and will reach different conclusions based on the same facts, since each judge assigns different relevant weights to each factor. Split_up determines the percentage split by using a combination of rule- based reasoning and neural networks. === The percentage split determination === In order to determine how judges weigh the different factors, 103 written judgements of commonplace cases were used to establish a database comprising 94 relevant factors for percentage split determination. The factors relevant for a percentage split determination are: Past contributions of a husband relative to those of a wife The husband's future needs relative to those of the wife The wealth of the marriage The factors relevant for a determination of past contributions are The relative direct and indirect contributions of both parties The length of the marriage The relative contributions of both parties to the homemaking role The hierarchy provides a structure that is used to decompose the task of predicting an outcome into 35 subtasks. Outputs of tasks further down the hierarchy are used as inputs into sub-tasks higher up the hierarchy. Each sub-task is treated as a separate and smaller data mining exercise. Twenty one solid arcs represent inferences performed with the use of rule sets. For example, the level of wealth of a marriage is determined by a rule, which uses the common pool value. By contrast, the fourteen dashed arcs establish inferences performed with the use of neural networks. These receive their name from the fact that they resemble a nervous system in the brain. They consist of many self – adjusting processing elements cooperating in a densely interconnected network. Each processing element generates a single output that is transmitted to the other processing element. The output signal of a processing element depends on the input to the processing element, i.e. each input is gated by a weighting factor that determines the amount of influence that the input will have on the output. The strength of the weighting factors is adjusted autonomously by the processing element as the data is processed. In Split_Up, the neural network is a statistical technique for learning the weights of each of the relevant attributes used in a percentage split determination of marital property. Hence the inputs to the neural network are contributions, future needs and wealth, and the output the percentage split predicted. On each arc there is a statistical weight. Using back propagation the neural network learns the necessary pattern to recognize the prediction. It is trained by repeatedly exposing it to examples of the problem and learning the significance (weights) of the input nodes. The neural network used by Split_up is said to generalise well if the output of the network is correct (or nearly correct) for examples not seen during training, which classifies it as an intelligent system. === Toulmin Argument Structure === Since the manner in which these weights are learned is primarily statistical, domain knowledge of legal rules and principles is not modelled directly. However, explanations for a legal conclusion in a domain as discretionary as the determining the distribution of property following divorce, are at least as important as the conclusion reached. Hence the creators of Split_Up used Toulmin Argument structures, to provide independent explanations of the conclusions reached. These operate on the basis that every argument makes an assertion based on some data. The assertion of the argument stands as the claim of the argument. Since knowing the data and the claim, does not necessarily mean that the claim follows from the data, a mechanism is required to justify the claim in the light of the data. The justification is known as the warrant. The backing of an argument supports the validity of the warrant. In the legal domain, this is typically a reference to a statute or a precedent. Here, a neural network (or rules), produce a conclusion from the data of an argument and the data, warrant and backing are reproduced to generate an explanation. It is noteworthy, though, that an argument's warrant is reproduced as an explanation regardless of the claim values used. This lack of claim - sensitivity must be overcome by the different users, i.e., the judge, the representatives for the wife and the representatives for the husband, each of whom is encouraged to use the system to prepare their cases, but not to rely exclusively on its outcome.

  Read more →
• 

  Human image synthesis

  Human image synthesis is technology that can be applied to make believable and even photorealistic renditions of human-likenesses, moving or still. It has effectively existed since the early 2000s. Many films using computer generated imagery have featured synthetic images of human-like characters digitally composited onto the real or other simulated film material. Towards the end of the 2010s deep learning artificial intelligence has been applied to synthesize images and video that look like humans, without need for human assistance, once the training phase has been completed, whereas the old school 7D-route required massive amounts of human work. == Timeline of human image synthesis == In 1971 Henri Gouraud made the first CG geometry capture and representation of a human face. Modeling was his wife Sylvie Gouraud. The 3D model was a simple wire-frame model and he applied the Gouraud shader he is most known for to produce the first known representation of human-likeness on computer. The 1972 short film A Computer Animated Hand by Edwin Catmull and Fred Parke was the first time that computer-generated imagery was used in film to simulate moving human appearance. The film featured a computer simulated hand and face (watch film here). The 1976 film Futureworld reused parts of A Computer Animated Hand on the big screen. The 1983 music video for song Musique Non-Stop by German band Kraftwerk aired in 1986. Created by the artist Rebecca Allen, it features non-realistic looking, but clearly recognizable computer simulations of the band members. The 1994 film The Crow was the first film production to make use of digital compositing of a computer simulated representation of a face onto scenes filmed using a body double. Necessity was the muse as the actor Brandon Lee portraying the protagonist was tragically killed accidentally on-stage. In 1999 Paul Debevec et al. of USC captured the reflectance field of a human face with their first version of a light stage. They presented their method at the SIGGRAPH 2000 In 2003 audience debut of photo realistic human-likenesses in the 2003 films The Matrix Reloaded in the burly brawl sequence where up-to-100 Agent Smiths fight Neo and in The Matrix Revolutions where at the start of the end showdown Agent Smith's cheekbone gets punched in by Neo leaving the digital look-alike unnaturally unhurt. The Matrix Revolutions bonus DVD documents and depicts the process in some detail and the techniques used, including facial motion capture and limbal motion capture, and projection onto models. In 2003 The Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris a state-of-the-art want-to-be human likenesses not quite fooling the watcher made by Square Pictures. In 2003 digital likeness of Tobey Maguire was made for movies Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 by Sony Pictures Imageworks. In 2005 the Face of the Future project was an established. by the University of St Andrews and Perception Lab, funded by the EPSRC. The website contains a "Face Transformer", which enables users to transform their face into any ethnicity and age as well as the ability to transform their face into a painting (in the style of either Sandro Botticelli or Amedeo Modigliani). This process is achieved by combining the user's photograph with an average face. In 2009 Debevec et al. presented new digital likenesses, made by Image Metrics, this time of actress Emily O'Brien whose reflectance was captured with the USC light stage 5 Motion looks fairly convincing contrasted to the clunky run in the Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris which was state-of-the-art in 2003 if photorealism was the intention of the animators. In 2009 a digital look-alike of a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was made for the movie Terminator Salvation though the end result was critiqued as unconvincing. Facial geometry was acquired from a 1984 mold of Schwarzenegger. In 2010 Walt Disney Pictures released a sci-fi sequel entitled Tron: Legacy with a digitally rejuvenated digital look-alike of actor Jeff Bridges playing the antagonist CLU. In SIGGGRAPH 2013 Activision and USC presented a real-time "Digital Ira" a digital face look-alike of Ari Shapiro, an ICT USC research scientist, utilizing the USC light stage X by Ghosh et al. for both reflectance field and motion capture. The end result both precomputed and real-time rendering with the modernest game GPU shown here and looks fairly realistic. In 2014 The Presidential Portrait by USC Institute for Creative Technologies in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution was made using the latest USC mobile light stage wherein President Barack Obama had his geometry, textures and reflectance captured. In 2014 Ian Goodfellow et al. presented the principles of a generative adversarial network. GANs made the headlines in early 2018 with the deepfakes controversies. For the 2015 film Furious 7 a digital look-alike of actor Paul Walker who died in an accident during the filming was done by Weta Digital to enable the completion of the film. In 2016 techniques which allow near real-time counterfeiting of facial expressions in existing 2D video have been believably demonstrated. In 2016 a digital look-alike of Peter Cushing was made for the Rogue One film where its appearance would appear to be of same age as the actor was during the filming of the original 1977 Star Wars film. In SIGGRAPH 2017 an audio driven digital look-alike of upper torso of Barack Obama was presented by researchers from University of Washington. It was driven only by a voice track as source data for the animation after the training phase to acquire lip sync and wider facial information from training material consisting 2D videos with audio had been completed. Late 2017 and early 2018 saw the surfacing of the deepfakes controversy where porn videos were doctored using deep machine learning so that the face of the actress was replaced by the software's opinion of what another persons face would look like in the same pose and lighting. In 2018 Game Developers Conference Epic Games and Tencent Games demonstrated "Siren", a digital look-alike of the actress Bingjie Jiang. It was made possible with the following technologies: CubicMotion's computer vision system, 3Lateral's facial rigging system and Vicon's motion capture system. The demonstration ran in near real time at 60 frames per second in the Unreal Engine 4. In 2018 at the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen the Xinhua News Agency presented two digital look-alikes made to the resemblance of its real news anchors Qiu Hao (Chinese language) and Zhang Zhao (English language). The digital look-alikes were made in conjunction with Sogou. Neither the speech synthesis used nor the gesturing of the digital look-alike anchors were good enough to deceive the watcher to mistake them for real humans imaged with a TV camera. In September 2018 Google added "involuntary synthetic pornographic imagery" to its ban list, allowing anyone to request the search engine block results that falsely depict them as "nude or in a sexually explicit situation." In February 2019 Nvidia open sources StyleGAN, a novel generative adversarial network. Right after this Phillip Wang made the website ThisPersonDoesNotExist.com with StyleGAN to demonstrate that unlimited amounts of often photo-realistic looking facial portraits of no-one can be made automatically using a GAN. Nvidia's StyleGAN was presented in a not yet peer reviewed paper in late 2018. At the June 2019 CVPR the MIT CSAIL presented a system titled "Speech2Face: Learning the Face Behind a Voice" that synthesizes likely faces based on just a recording of a voice. It was trained with massive amounts of video of people speaking. Since 1 July 2019 Virginia has criminalized the sale and dissemination of unauthorized synthetic pornography, but not the manufacture., as § 18.2–386.2 titled 'Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.' became part of the Code of Virginia. The law text states: "Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.". The identical bills were House Bill 2678 presented by Delegate Marcus Simon to the Virginia House of Delegates on 14 January 2019 and three-day later an identical Senate bill 1736 was introduced to the Senate of Virginia by Senator Adam Ebbin. Since 1 September 2019 Texas senate bill SB 751 amendments to the election code came into effect, giving candidates in elections a 30-day protection period to the elections during which making and distributing digital look-alikes or synthetic fakes of the candidates is an offense. Th

  Read more →
• 

  DARPA Grand Challenge

  The DARPA Grand Challenge is a prize competition for American autonomous vehicles, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the most prominent research organization of the United States Department of Defense. Congress has authorized DARPA to award cash prizes to further DARPA's mission to sponsor revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and military use. The initial DARPA Grand Challenge in 2004 was created to spur the development of technologies needed to create the first fully autonomous ground vehicles capable of completing a substantial off-road course within a limited time. The third event, the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007, extended the initial Challenge to autonomous operation in a mock urban environment. The 2012 DARPA Robotics Challenge, focused on autonomous emergency-maintenance robots, and new Challenges are still being conceived. The DARPA Subterranean Challenge was tasked with building robotic teams to autonomously map, navigate, and search subterranean environments. Such teams could be useful in exploring hazardous areas and in search and rescue. In addition to the challenges in autonomous technology, DARPA has also conducted prize competitions in other areas of technology. == History and background == Fully autonomous vehicles have been an international pursuit for many years, from endeavors in Japan (starting in 1977), Germany (Ernst Dickmanns and VaMP), Italy (the ARGO Project), the European Union (EUREKA Prometheus Project), the United States of America, and other countries. DARPA funded the development of the first fully autonomous robot beginning in 1966 with the Shakey the robot project at Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International. The first autonomous ground vehicle capable of driving on and off roads was developed by DARPA as part of the Strategic Computing Initiative beginning in 1984 leading to demonstrations of autonomous navigation by the Autonomous Land Vehicle and the Navlab. The Grand Challenge was the first long distance competition for driverless cars in the world; other research efforts in the field of driverless cars take a more traditional commercial or academic approach. The U.S. Congress authorized DARPA to offer prize money ($1 million) for the first Grand Challenge to facilitate robotic development, with the ultimate goal of making one-third of ground military forces autonomous by 2015. Following the 2004 event, Dr. Tony Tether, the director of DARPA, announced that the prize money had been increased to $2 million for the next event, which was claimed on October 9, 2005. The first, second and third places in the 2007 Urban Challenge received $2 million, $1 million, and $500,000, respectively. 14 new teams have qualified in year 2015. The competition was open to teams and organizations from around the world, as long as there was at least one U.S. citizen on the roster. Teams have participated from high schools, universities, businesses and other organizations. More than 100 teams registered in the first year, bringing a wide variety of technological skills to the race. In the second year, 195 teams from 36 U.S. states and 4 foreign countries entered the race. == 2004 Grand Challenge == The first competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge was held on March 13, 2004 in the Mojave Desert region of the United States, along a 150-mile (240 km) route that follows along the path of Interstate 15 from just before Barstow, California to just past the California–Nevada border in Primm. None of the robot vehicles finished the route. Carnegie Mellon University's Red Team and car Sandstorm (a converted Humvee) traveled the farthest distance, completing 11.78 km (7.32 mi) of the course before getting hung up on a rock after making a switchback turn. No winner was declared, and the cash prize was not given. Therefore, a second DARPA Grand Challenge event was scheduled for 2005. == 2005 Grand Challenge == The second competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge began at 6:40 am on October 8, 2005. All but one of the 23 finalists in the 2005 race surpassed the 11.78 km (7.32 mi) distance completed by the best vehicle in the 2004 race. Five vehicles successfully completed the 212 km (132 mi) course: Vehicles in the 2005 race passed through three narrow tunnels and negotiated more than 100 sharp left and right turns. The race concluded through Beer Bottle Pass, a winding mountain pass with a sheer drop-off on one side and a rock face on the other. Although the 2004 course required more elevation gain and some very sharp switchbacks (Daggett Ridge) were required near the beginning of the route, the course had far fewer curves and generally wider roads than the 2005 course. The natural rivalry between the teams from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon (Sebastian Thrun, head of the Stanford team was previously a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon and colleague of Red Whittaker, head of the CMU team) was played out during the race. Mechanical problems plagued H1ghlander before it was passed by Stanley. Gray Team's entry was a miracle in itself, as the team from the suburbs of New Orleans was caught in Hurricane Katrina a few short weeks before the race. The fifth finisher, Terramax, a 30,000 pound entry from Oshkosh Truck, finished on the second day. The huge truck spent the night idling on the course, but was particularly nimble in carefully picking its way down the narrow roads of Beer Bottle Pass. == 2007 Urban Challenge == The third competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge, known as the "Urban Challenge", took place on November 3, 2007 at the site of the now-closed George Air Force Base (currently used as Southern California Logistics Airport), in Victorville, California (Google map). The course involved a 96 km (60 mi) urban area course, to be completed in less than 6 hours. Rules included obeying all traffic regulations while negotiating with other traffic and obstacles and merging into traffic. Unlike previous challenges, the 2007 Urban Challenge organizers divided competitors into two "tracks", A and B. All Track A and Track B teams were part of the same competition circuit, but the teams chosen for the Track A program received US $1 million in funding. These 11 teams largely represented major universities and large corporate interests such as CMU teaming with GM as Tartan Racing, Stanford teaming with Volkswagen, Virginia Tech teaming with TORC Robotics as VictorTango, Oshkosh Truck, Honeywell, Raytheon, Caltech, Autonomous Solutions, Cornell University, and MIT. One of the few independent entries in Track A was the Golem Group. DARPA has not publicly explained the rationale behind the selection of Track A teams. Teams were given maps sparsely charting the waypoints that defined the competition courses. At least one team, Tartan Racing, enhanced the maps through the insertion of additional extrapolated waypoints for improved navigation. A debriefing paper published by Team Jefferson illustrates graphically the contrast between the course map it was given by DARPA and the course map used by Tartan Racing. Tartan Racing claimed the $2 million prize with their vehicle "Boss", a Chevy Tahoe. The second-place finisher earning the $1 million prize was the Stanford Racing Team with their entry "Junior", a 2006 Volkswagen Passat. Coming in third place was team VictorTango, winning the $500,000 prize with their 2005 Ford Escape hybrid, "Odin". MIT placed 4th, with Cornell University and University of Pennsylvania/Lehigh University also completing the course. The six teams that successfully finished the entire course: While the 2004 and 2005 events were more physically challenging for the vehicles, the robots operated in isolation and only encountered other vehicles on the course when attempting to pass. The Urban Challenge required designers to build vehicles able to obey all traffic laws while they detect and avoid other robots on the course. This is a particular challenge for vehicle software, as vehicles must make "intelligent" decisions in real time based on the actions of other vehicles. Other than previous autonomous vehicle efforts that focused on structured situations such as highway driving with little interaction between the vehicles, this competition operated in a more cluttered urban environment and required the cars to perform sophisticated interactions with each other, such as maintaining precedence at a 4-way stop intersection. == 2012 Robotics Challenge == The DARPA Robotics Challenge is an ongoing competition focusing on humanoid robotics. The primary goal of the program is to develop ground robotic capabilities to execute complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments. It launched in October 2012, and hosted the Virtual Robotics Competition in June 2013. Two more competitions are planned: the DRC Trials in December 2013, and the DRC Finals in December 2014. Unlike prior Challenges, the construction of the "vehicles" w

  Read more →
• 

  Predicate (logic)

  In logic, a predicate is a non-logical symbol that represents a property or a relation, though, formally, does not need to represent anything at all. For instance, in the first-order formula P ( a ) {\displaystyle P(a)} , the symbol P {\displaystyle P} is a predicate that applies to the individual constant a {\displaystyle a} which evaluates to either true or false. Similarly, in the formula R ( a , b ) {\displaystyle R(a,b)} , the symbol R {\displaystyle R} is a predicate that applies to the individual constants a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} . Predicates are considered a primitive notion of first-order, and higher-order logic and are therefore not defined in terms of other more basic concepts. The term derives from the grammatical term "predicate", meaning a word or phrase that represents a property or relation. In the semantics of logic, predicates are interpreted as relations. For instance, in a standard semantics for first-order logic, the formula R ( a , b ) {\displaystyle R(a,b)} would be true on an interpretation if the entities denoted by a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} stand in the relation denoted by R {\displaystyle R} . Since predicates are non-logical symbols, they can denote different relations depending on the interpretation given to them. While first-order logic only includes predicates that apply to individual objects, other logics may allow predicates that apply to collections of objects defined by other predicates. Strictly speaking, a predicate does not need to be given any interpretation, so long as its syntactic properties are well-defined. For example, equality may be understood solely through its reflexive and substitution properties (cf. Equality (mathematics) § Axioms). Other properties can be derived from these, and they are sufficient for proving theorems in mathematics. Similarly, set membership can be understood solely through the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. == Predicates in different systems == A predicate is a statement or mathematical assertion that contains variables, sometimes referred to as predicate variables, and may be true or false depending on those variables’ value or values. In propositional logic, atomic formulas are sometimes regarded as zero-place predicates. In a sense, these are nullary (i.e. 0-arity) predicates. In first-order logic, a predicate is a non-logical relation symbol, which forms an atomic formula when applied to an appropriate number of terms. In set theory with the law of excluded middle, predicates are understood to be characteristic functions or set indicator functions (i.e., functions from a set element to a truth value). Set-builder notation makes use of predicates to define sets. In autoepistemic logic, which rejects the law of excluded middle, predicates may be true, false, or simply unknown. In particular, a given collection of facts may be insufficient to determine the truth or falsehood of a predicate. In fuzzy logic, the strict true/false valuation of the predicate is replaced by a quantity interpreted as the degree of truth.

  Read more →
• 

  India AI Impact Summit 2026

  The India AI Impact Summit 2026 (also abbreviated as the AI Impact Summit) was an international summit on artificial intelligence held at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi, India, from 16 to 21 February 2026. It is the fourth in a series of global AI summits following the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024, and the AI Action Summit in Paris in 2025. Organised under the IndiaAI Mission by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, it is the first summit in the series to be hosted by a Global South nation. This series of AI summits will continue with the AI Summit in Geneva to be hosted by Switzerland in 2027. The summit was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 19 February 2026. The opening ceremony was also addressed by French President Emmanuel Macron and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. The summit was attended by over 20 heads of state and a delegation of global technology leaders including Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Demis Hassabis (DeepMind). The event faced criticism for organisational issues, misrepresentation of non-Indian products as Indian, and a perceived focus on trade fair activities over substantive governance. == Background == The AI Impact Summit was an international summit on artificial intelligence (AI) held in New Delhi from 16 to 20 February 2026. It followed the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024 and the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023. According to Crowell & Moring, the changing summit titles seemed to reflect a broader shift in focus away from AI safety and governance toward practical impact, implementation, and measurable outcomes. Ahead of the summit, an international panel of experts published the second International AI Safety Report. The summit was structured around three foundational pillars, termed "Sutras": People, Planet, and Progress. Seven thematic working groups were established to deliver outcomes across these pillars, covering AI for economic growth and social good; democratising AI resources; inclusion for social empowerment; safe and trusted AI; human capital; science; and resilience, innovation, and efficiency. == Programme == The summit ran over five days, later extended to six following overwhelming public response. Originally scheduled to conclude on 20 February, the event was extended to 21 February with expanded evening hours for the exhibition. === India AI Impact Expo === The India AI Impact Expo, inaugurated by Prime Minister Modi on 16 February, featured over 300 exhibitors from 30 countries across more than 10 thematic pavilions. Pavilions were organised across thematic zones aligned with the summit's three pillars, showcasing AI applications in healthcare, agriculture, education, and sustainable industry. === Leaders' Plenary and CEO Roundtable === The Leaders' Plenary on 19 February brought together heads of state, ministers, and representatives from multilateral institutions to outline national and global priorities on AI governance, infrastructure, and international cooperation. A CEO Roundtable, held the same evening, convened senior executives from global technology and industry firms with government leaders to discuss investment, research collaboration, and deployment of AI systems. === Research Symposium === A Research Symposium on AI and its Impact was held on 18 February, with the IIIT Hyderabad as knowledge partner. Discussions covered sovereign AI infrastructure, global adoption challenges, research breakthroughs, and policy priorities. == Participants == The summit drew delegations from over 100 countries, including more than 20 heads of state and 60 ministers. Notable attendees from the technology industry included Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind), and Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries). Representatives from multilateral institutions included Sangbu Kim of the World Bank. == Announcements and outcomes == === Indian AI models === Several Indian AI models and products were unveiled during the summit. Sarvam AI, an Indian AI laboratory, launched a new generation of large language models, including 30-billion and 105-billion parameter models using a mixture of experts architecture, as well as text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and vision models. Sarvam also introduced the Kaze smartglasses, described as the company's first hardware product, which Prime Minister Modi tested at the expo. The government-backed BharatGen Param2 model, a 17-billion parameter model supporting 22 Indian languages with multimodal capabilities, was also launched at the summit. === Infrastructure commitments === Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw outlined India's "whole-of-nation" AI strategy, describing plans to build a "frugal, sovereign and scalable" AI ecosystem. The government announced plans to add more than 20,000 GPUs to India's existing base of 38,000 under the IndiaAI Compute Portal. Microsoft announced at the summit that it was on track to invest US$50 billion by the end of the decade to bring AI to lower-income countries. Goa reaffirmed its commitment to artificial intelligence at the India AI Impact Summit 2026. === Guinness World Record === During the summit, India set a Guinness World Record for the most pledges received for an AI responsibility campaign in 24 hours, with 250,946 valid pledges collected between 16 and 17 February 2026. The campaign, conducted in partnership with Intel India as part of the IndiaAI Mission, exceeded its initial target of 5,000 pledges. == Controversies and criticisms == === Galgotias University incident === On 18 February, Galgotias University faced widespread criticism after a representative presented a robot dog at the university's exhibition pavilion as an indigenous development. Social media users identified the robot as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available product manufactured by Chinese company Unitree Robotics. IT Secretary S. Krishnan stated that the government did not want exhibitors to showcase items that were not their own, and the university was directed to vacate its stall. Galgotias University issued an apology, stating that the representative had been "ill-informed" and was not authorised to speak to the press. The incident drew political reactions, with the Indian National Congress using it to criticise the government. The controversy was amplified after Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had earlier shared a video clip of the robot on social media, which was subsequently deleted. === Organisational issues === On day 1 of the Summit, Dhananjay Yadav, a Bengaluru-based entrepreneur had alleged that his product was stolen in the Summit. He called it as a pain for the people in an X post. He further wrote, "Think about this: We paid for flights, accommodation, logistics and even the booth. Only to see our wearables disappear inside a high-security zone". Later, the stolen devices were recovered by The Delhi Police. Bloomberg reported that delegates were left stranded without food or water during a security lockdown ahead of the Prime Minister's visit on 19 February. The summit venue was closed to the public on 19 February for the Prime Minister's visit, leading to criticism from attendees who had registered for that day. === Protests by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) === On 20 February, some members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) carried out protests inside the venue with slogans such as "PM is compromised" and the criticism of the recent trade deal between India and the US. 4 of these members were sent to police custody by the court on 22 February. While Bharatiya Janta Party condemned these protests, with its spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla saying, "From being anti-BJP, you have gone to being anti-national? If you have a problem with the BJP, then protest at the BJP office, Jantar Mantar, or outside the PM's office. But the people of the country and their alliance partners condemn them for their attempt to defame India in front of the entire world at the AI Summit." Congress leader Harish Rawat defended the protests, saying "it's also a fact that AI might become a tool in the hands of a few individuals… It's the opposition's job to warn against that… It's not the first time such international events have been opposed. I know how the BJP protested during the Commonwealth Games… To say that such opposition has happened for the first time is not correct. The BJP has been doing this while in the opposition." These protestors were granted bail by the Delhi high court on 2 March. == Reception and analysis == Bloomberg News reported that Prime Minister Modi used the summit to assert India's global AI ambitions following a challenging year in foreign policy. TechPolicy.Press published several critical analyses of the summit. One article argued that the summit's structure granted "multinational corporations parity with sovereign governments

  Read more →
• 

  And–or tree

  An and–or tree is a graphical representation of the reduction of problems (or goals) to conjunctions and disjunctions of subproblems (or subgoals). == Example == The and–or tree: represents the search space for solving the problem P, using the goal-reduction methods: P if Q and R P if S Q if T Q if U == Definitions == Given an initial problem P0 and set of problem solving methods of the form: P if P1 and … and Pn the associated and–or tree is a set of labelled nodes such that: The root of the tree is a node labelled by P0. For every node N labelled by a problem or sub-problem P and for every method of the form P if P1 and ... and Pn, there exists a set of children nodes N1, ..., Nn of the node N, such that each node Ni is labelled by Pi. The nodes are conjoined by an arc, to distinguish them from children of N that might be associated with other methods. A node N, labelled by a problem P, is a success node if there is a method of the form P if nothing (i.e., P is a "fact"). The node is a failure node if there is no method for solving P. If all of the children of a node N, conjoined by the same arc, are success nodes, then the node N is also a success node. Otherwise the node is a failure node. == Search strategies == An and–or tree specifies only the search space for solving a problem. Different search strategies for searching the space are possible. These include searching the tree depth-first, breadth-first, or best-first using some measure of desirability of solutions. The search strategy can be sequential, searching or generating one node at a time, or parallel, searching or generating several nodes in parallel. == Relationship with logic programming == The methods used for generating and–or trees are propositional logic programs (without variables). In the case of logic programs containing variables, the solutions of conjoint sub-problems must be compatible. Subject to this complication, sequential and parallel search strategies for and–or trees provide a computational model for executing logic programs. == Relationship with two-player games == And–or trees can also be used to represent the search spaces for two-person games. The root node of such a tree represents the problem of one of the players winning the game, starting from the initial state of the game. Given a node N, labelled by the problem P of the player winning the game from a particular state of play, there exists a single set of conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the opponents responding moves. For each of these children nodes, there exists a set of non-conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the player's defending moves. For solving game trees with proof-number search family of algorithms, game trees are to be mapped to and–or trees. MAX-nodes (i.e. maximizing player to move) are represented as OR nodes, MIN-nodes map to AND nodes. The mapping is possible, when the search is done with only a binary goal, which usually is "player to move wins the game".

  Read more →
• 

  Document AI

  Document AI, also known as Document Intelligence, refers to a field of technology that employs machine learning (ML) techniques, such as natural language processing (NLP). These techniques are used to develop computer models capable of analyzing documents in a manner akin to human review. Through NLP, computer systems are able to understand relationships and contextual nuances in document contents, which facilitates the extraction of information and insights. Additionally, this technology enables the categorization and organization of the documents themselves. The applications of Document AI extend to processing and parsing a variety of semi-structured documents, such as forms, tables, receipts, invoices, tax forms, contracts, loan agreements, and financial reports. == Key features == Machine learning is utilized in Document AI to extract information from both printed and digital documents. This technology recognizes images, text, and characters in various languages, aiding in the extraction of insights from unstructured documents. The use of this technology can improve the speed and quality of decision-making in document analysis. Additionally, the automation of data extraction and validation can contribute to increased efficiency in document analysis processes. Since the early 2020s, the integration of large language models has extended Document AI beyond extraction toward generative tasks, including the automated drafting of forms, contracts, and document summaries. == Example == A business letter contains information in the form of text, as well as other types of information, such as the position of the text. For instance, a typical letter contains two addresses before the body of the text. The address at the very top (sometimes aligned to the right) is the sender address. This is normally followed by the date of the letter, with the place of writing. After this, the receiver address is listed. The distinction between the sender address and the receiver address is conveyed solely by the position of the address on the page, i.e. there is no textual indication like Sender: in front of the addresses. == Data dimensions and ML architecture == Data is typically distinguished into spatial data and time-series data, the former includes things like images, maps and graphs, while the latter includes signals such as stock prices or voice recordings. Document AI combines text data, which has a time dimension, with other types of data, such as the position of an address in a business letter, which is spatial. Historically in machine learning spatial data was analyzed using a convolutional neural network, and temporal data using a recurrent neural network. With the advent of dimension-type agnostic transformer architecture, these two different types of dimension can be more easily combined, Document AI is an example of this. == Benchmarks == Several public datasets are used to evaluate Document AI systems. FUNSD (Form Understanding in Noisy Scanned Documents) contains 199 annotated forms with token- and block-level labels for form understanding tasks. CORD (Consolidated Receipt Dataset) supports key information extraction from receipts. DocVQA contains approximately 50,000 questions over 12,000 document images for layout-aware visual question answering. == Common uses == Document AI systems are used to automate document processing and information extraction in business and financial workflows, including invoice and receipt processing, data entry automation, anomaly detection, mortgage processing, loan portfolio monitoring, credit risk management, and fraud detection such as counterfeit currency and fraudulent checks. They are also applied in regulatory compliance and contract analysis, including assessing changes in legal and regulatory documents. In real estate, Document AI supports document classification and structured information extraction for standardized processing and analytics. With the adoption of generative AI, Document AI systems can also generate and pre-fill structured documents such as contracts or business forms from natural language prompts.

  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 →