AI Art Generator From Image

AI Art Generator From Image — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Embedding (machine learning)

  In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ⁡ ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.

  Read more →
• 

  Self-supervised learning

  Self-supervised learning (SSL) is a paradigm in machine learning where a model is trained on a task using the data itself to generate supervisory signals, rather than relying on externally-provided labels. In the context of neural networks, self-supervised learning aims to leverage inherent structures or relationships within the input data to create meaningful training signals. SSL tasks are designed so that solving them requires capturing essential features or relationships in the data. The input data is typically augmented or transformed in a way that creates pairs of related samples, where one sample serves as the input, and the other is used to formulate the supervisory signal. This augmentation can involve introducing noise, cropping, rotation, or other transformations. Self-supervised learning more closely imitates the way humans learn to classify objects. During SSL, the model learns in two steps. First, the task is solved based on an auxiliary or pretext classification task using pseudo-labels, which help to initialize the model parameters. Next, the actual task is performed with supervised or unsupervised learning. Self-supervised learning has produced promising results in recent years, and has found practical application in fields such as audio processing, and is being used by Facebook and others for speech recognition. == Pseudo-labels == Pseudo-labels are automatically generated labels that a model assigns to unlabeled data based on its own predictions. They are widely used in self-supervised and semi-supervised learning, where ground-truth annotations are limited or unavailable. By treating predicted labels as surrogate ground truth, learning algorithms can make use of large quantities of unlabeled data in the training process. Pseudo-labeling also plays an important role in systems that must adapt to concept drift, where the statistical properties of the data change over time. In these scenarios, the model may detect that an incoming instance deviates from previously learned behavior. The system then generates a classification result for that instance, and this predicted class is used as a pseudo-label for updating or retraining model components that are becoming outdated. This approach enables continuous adaptation in dynamic environments without requiring manual annotation. In many adaptive learning pipelines, pseudo-labels are chosen when the classifier produces sufficiently confident predictions, reducing the risk of propagating errors. These pseudo-labeled instances are then incorporated into training to refresh or evolve the model's understanding of emerging data patterns, particularly when existing components show signs of “aging” due to drift or distributional shifts. This strategy reduces reliance on manual labeling while helping maintain long-term model performance. == Types == === Autoassociative self-supervised learning === Autoassociative self-supervised learning is a specific category of self-supervised learning where a neural network is trained to reproduce or reconstruct its own input data. In other words, the model is tasked with learning a representation of the data that captures its essential features or structure, allowing it to regenerate the original input. The term "autoassociative" comes from the fact that the model is essentially associating the input data with itself. This is often achieved using autoencoders, which are a type of neural network architecture used for representation learning. Autoencoders consist of an encoder network that maps the input data to a lower-dimensional representation (latent space), and a decoder network that reconstructs the input from this representation. The training process involves presenting the model with input data and requiring it to reconstruct the same data as closely as possible. The loss function used during training typically penalizes the difference between the original input and the reconstructed output (e.g. mean squared error). By minimizing this reconstruction error, the autoencoder learns a meaningful representation of the data in its latent space. === Contrastive self-supervised learning === For a binary classification task, training data can be divided into positive examples and negative examples. Positive examples are those that match the target. For example, if training a classifier to identify birds, the positive training data would include images that contain birds. Negative examples would be images that do not. Contrastive self-supervised learning uses both positive and negative examples. The loss function in contrastive learning is used to minimize the distance between positive sample pairs, while maximizing the distance between negative sample pairs. An early example uses a pair of 1-dimensional convolutional neural networks to process a pair of images and maximize their agreement. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) allows joint pretraining of a text encoder and an image encoder, such that a matching image-text pair have image encoding vector and text encoding vector that span a small angle (having a large cosine similarity). InfoNCE (Noise-Contrastive Estimation) is a method to optimize two models jointly, based on Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE). Given a set X = { x 1 , … x N } {\displaystyle X=\left\{x_{1},\ldots x_{N}\right\}} of N {\displaystyle N} random samples containing one positive sample from p ( x t + k ∣ c t ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\mid c_{t}\right)} and N − 1 {\displaystyle N-1} negative samples from the 'proposal' distribution p ( x t + k ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\right)} , it minimizes the following loss function: L N = − E X [ log ⁡ f k ( x t + k , c t ) ∑ x j ∈ X f k ( x j , c t ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathrm {N} }=-\mathbb {E} _{X}\left[\log {\frac {f_{k}\left(x_{t+k},c_{t}\right)}{\sum _{x_{j}\in X}f_{k}\left(x_{j},c_{t}\right)}}\right]} === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning (NCSSL) uses only positive examples. Counterintuitively, NCSSL converges on a useful local minimum rather than reaching a trivial solution, with zero loss. For the example of binary classification, it would trivially learn to classify each example as positive. Effective NCSSL requires an extra predictor on the online side that does not back-propagate on the target side. === Joint-Embedding and Predictive Architectures === A major class of self-supervised learning moves beyond contrastive pairs, instead maximizing the agreement between views while preventing collapse through statistical constraints. Rooted in Deep Canonical Correlation Analysis (Deep CCA), this approach includes Joint-Embedding Architectures (JEA) like Barlow Twins and VICReg, which enforce covariance constraints to learn invariant representations without negative sampling. Deep Latent Variable Path Modelling (DLVPM) generalizes this to multimodal systems, using path models to enforce correlation and orthogonality across diverse data types. In 2022 Yann LeCun introduced Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) as a step towards decision making, reasoning, and autonomous human intelligence in machines, including self-improvement through autonomous learning. Founded in representation learning, LeCun included the concept of a “world model” in JEPA which aims to enable machines to replicate human intellect by providing machines with a concept for the world in which they exist. Unlike autoencoders, JEPAs operate entirely in latent space, avoiding pixel-level noise to focus on semantic structure. Rather than just learning invariance, JEPAs learn by predicting masked latent representations from visible context. JEPA has been applied to domains such as image analysis, audio processing, and motion in images and video. == Comparison with other forms of machine learning == SSL belongs to supervised learning methods insofar as the goal is to generate a classified output from the input. At the same time, however, it does not require the explicit use of labeled input-output pairs. Instead, correlations, metadata embedded in the data, or domain knowledge present in the input are implicitly and autonomously extracted from the data. These supervisory signals, extracted from the data, can then be used for training. SSL is similar to unsupervised learning in that it does not require labels in the sample data. Unlike unsupervised learning, however, learning is not done using inherent data structures. Semi-supervised learning combines supervised and unsupervised learning, requiring only a small portion of the learning data be labeled. In transfer learning, a model designed for one task is reused on a different task. Training an autoencoder intrinsically constitutes a self-supervised process, because the output pattern needs to become an optimal reconstruction of the input pattern itself. However, in current jargon, the term 'self-supervised' often refers to tasks based on a pretext-task training setup

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Learning curve (machine learning)

  In machine learning (ML), a learning curve (or training curve) is a graphical representation that shows how a model's performance on a training set (and usually a validation set) changes with the number of training iterations (epochs) or the amount of training data. Typically, the number of training epochs or training set size is plotted on the x-axis, and the value of the loss function (and possibly some other metric such as the cross-validation score) on the y-axis. Synonyms include error curve, experience curve, improvement curve and generalization curve. More abstractly, learning curves plot the difference between learning effort and predictive performance, where "learning effort" usually means the number of training samples, and "predictive performance" means accuracy on testing samples. Learning curves have many useful purposes in ML, including: choosing model parameters during design, adjusting optimization to improve convergence, and diagnosing problems such as overfitting (or underfitting). Learning curves can also be tools for determining how much a model benefits from adding more training data, and whether the model suffers more from a variance error or a bias error. If both the validation score and the training score converge to a certain value, then the model will no longer significantly benefit from more training data. == Formal definition == When creating a function to approximate the distribution of some data, it is necessary to define a loss function L ( f θ ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle L(f_{\theta }(X),Y)} to measure how good the model output is (e.g., accuracy for classification tasks or mean squared error for regression). We then define an optimization process which finds model parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that L ( f θ ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle L(f_{\theta }(X),Y)} is minimized, referred to as θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{}} . === Training curve for amount of data === If the training data is { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } , { y 1 , y 2 , … y n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\},\{y_{1},y_{2},\dots y_{n}\}} and the validation data is { x 1 ′ , x 2 ′ , … x m ′ } , { y 1 ′ , y 2 ′ , … y m ′ } {\displaystyle \{x_{1}',x_{2}',\dots x_{m}'\},\{y_{1}',y_{2}',\dots y_{m}'\}} , a learning curve is the plot of the two curves i ↦ L ( f θ ∗ ( X i , Y i ) ( X i ) , Y i ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta ^{}(X_{i},Y_{i})}(X_{i}),Y_{i})} i ↦ L ( f θ ∗ ( X i , Y i ) ( X i ′ ) , Y i ′ ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta ^{}(X_{i},Y_{i})}(X_{i}'),Y_{i}')} where X i = { x 1 , x 2 , … x i } {\displaystyle X_{i}=\{x_{1},x_{2},\dots x_{i}\}} === Training curve for number of iterations === Many optimization algorithms are iterative, repeating the same step (such as backpropagation) until the process converges to an optimal value. Gradient descent is one such algorithm. If θ i ∗ {\displaystyle \theta _{i}^{}} is the approximation of the optimal θ {\displaystyle \theta } after i {\displaystyle i} steps, a learning curve is the plot of i ↦ L ( f θ i ∗ ( X , Y ) ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta _{i}^{}(X,Y)}(X),Y)} i ↦ L ( f θ i ∗ ( X , Y ) ( X ′ ) , Y ′ ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta _{i}^{}(X,Y)}(X'),Y')}

  Read more →
• 

  Kernel (image processing)

  In image processing, a kernel, convolution matrix, or mask is a small matrix used for blurring, sharpening, embossing, edge detection, and more. This is accomplished by doing a convolution between the kernel and an image. Or more simply, when each pixel in the output image is a function of the nearby pixels (including itself) in the input image, the kernel is that function. == Details == The general expression of a convolution is g x , y = ω ∗ f x , y = ∑ i = − a a ∑ j = − b b ω i , j f x − i , y − j , {\displaystyle g_{x,y}=\omega f_{x,y}=\sum _{i=-a}^{a}{\sum _{j=-b}^{b}{\omega _{i,j}f_{x-i,y-j}}},} where g ( x , y ) {\displaystyle g(x,y)} is the filtered image, f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} is the original image, ω {\displaystyle \omega } is the filter kernel. Every element of the filter kernel is considered by − a ≤ i ≤ a {\displaystyle -a\leq i\leq a} and − b ≤ j ≤ b {\displaystyle -b\leq j\leq b} . Depending on the element values, a kernel can cause a wide range of effects: The above are just a few examples of effects achievable by convolving kernels and images. === Origin === The origin is the position of the kernel which is above (conceptually) the current output pixel. This could be outside of the actual kernel, though usually it corresponds to one of the kernel elements. For a symmetric kernel, the origin is usually the center element. == Convolution == Convolution is the process of adding each element of the image to its local neighbors, weighted by the kernel. This is related to a form of mathematical convolution. The matrix operation being performed—convolution—is not traditional matrix multiplication, despite being similarly denoted by . For example, if we have two three-by-three matrices, the first a kernel, and the second an image piece, convolution is the process of flipping both the rows and columns of the kernel and multiplying locally similar entries and summing. The element at coordinates [2, 2] (that is, the central element) of the resulting image would be a weighted combination of all the entries of the image matrix, with weights given by the kernel: ( [ a b c d e f g h i ] ∗ [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] ) [ 2 , 2 ] = {\displaystyle \left({\begin{bmatrix}a&b&c\\d&e&f\\g&h&i\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&2&3\\4&5&6\\7&8&9\end{bmatrix}}\right)[2,2]=} ( i ⋅ 1 ) + ( h ⋅ 2 ) + ( g ⋅ 3 ) + ( f ⋅ 4 ) + ( e ⋅ 5 ) + ( d ⋅ 6 ) + ( c ⋅ 7 ) + ( b ⋅ 8 ) + ( a ⋅ 9 ) . {\displaystyle (i\cdot 1)+(h\cdot 2)+(g\cdot 3)+(f\cdot 4)+(e\cdot 5)+(d\cdot 6)+(c\cdot 7)+(b\cdot 8)+(a\cdot 9).} The other entries would be similarly weighted, where we position the center of the kernel on each of the boundary points of the image, and compute a weighted sum. The values of a given pixel in the output image are calculated by multiplying each kernel value by the corresponding input image pixel values. This can be described algorithmically with the following pseudo-code: for each image row in input image: for each pixel in image row: set accumulator to zero for each kernel row in kernel: for each element in kernel row: if element position corresponding to pixel position then multiply element value corresponding to pixel value add result to accumulator endif set output image pixel to accumulator corresponding input image pixels are found relative to the kernel's origin. If the kernel is symmetric then place the center (origin) of the kernel on the current pixel. The kernel will overlap the neighboring pixels around the origin. Each kernel element should be multiplied with the pixel value it overlaps with and all of the obtained values should be summed. This resultant sum will be the new value for the current pixel currently overlapped with the center of the kernel. If the kernel is not symmetric, it has to be flipped both around its horizontal and vertical axis before calculating the convolution as above. The general form for matrix convolution is [ x 11 x 12 ⋯ x 1 n x 21 x 22 ⋯ x 2 n ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m 1 x m 2 ⋯ x m n ] ∗ [ y 11 y 12 ⋯ y 1 n y 21 y 22 ⋯ y 2 n ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ y m 1 y m 2 ⋯ y m n ] = ∑ i = 0 m − 1 ∑ j = 0 n − 1 x ( m − i ) ( n − j ) y ( 1 + i ) ( 1 + j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}x_{11}&x_{12}&\cdots &x_{1n}\\x_{21}&x_{22}&\cdots &x_{2n}\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m1}&x_{m2}&\cdots &x_{mn}\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}y_{11}&y_{12}&\cdots &y_{1n}\\y_{21}&y_{22}&\cdots &y_{2n}\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\y_{m1}&y_{m2}&\cdots &y_{mn}\\\end{bmatrix}}=\sum _{i=0}^{m-1}\sum _{j=0}^{n-1}x_{(m-i)(n-j)}y_{(1+i)(1+j)}} === Edge handling === Kernel convolution usually requires values from pixels outside of the image boundaries. There are a variety of methods for handling image edges. Extend The nearest border pixels are conceptually extended as far as necessary to provide values for the convolution. Corner pixels are extended in 90° wedges. Other edge pixels are extended in lines. Wrap The image is conceptually wrapped (or tiled) and values are taken from the opposite edge or corner. Mirror The image is conceptually mirrored at the edges. For example, attempting to read a pixel 3 units outside an edge reads one 3 units inside the edge instead. Crop / Avoid overlap Any pixel in the output image which would require values from beyond the edge is skipped. This method can result in the output image being slightly smaller, with the edges having been cropped. Move kernel so that values from outside of image is never required. Machine learning mainly uses this approach. Example: Kernel size 10x10, image size 32x32, result image is 23x23. Kernel Crop Any pixel in the kernel that extends past the input image isn't used and the normalizing is adjusted to compensate. Constant Use constant value for pixels outside of image. Usually black or sometimes gray is used. Generally this depends on application. === Normalization === Normalization is defined as the division of each element in the kernel by the sum of all kernel elements, so that the sum of the elements of a normalized kernel is unity. This will ensure the average pixel in the modified image is as bright as the average pixel in the original image. === Optimization === Fast convolution algorithms include: separable convolution ==== Separable convolution ==== 2D convolution with an M × N kernel requires M × N multiplications for each sample (pixel). If the kernel is separable, then the computation can be reduced to M + N multiplications. Using separable convolutions can significantly decrease the computation by doing 1D convolution twice instead of one 2D convolution. === Implementation === Here a concrete convolution implementation done with the GLSL shading language :

  Read more →
• 

  Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

  Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Superintelligence ban

  Superintelligence ban refers to proposed legal, ethical, or policy measures intended to restrict or prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, AI systems that would surpass human cognitive abilities in nearly all domains. The idea arises from concerns that such systems could become uncontrollable, potentially posing existential threats to humanity or causing severe social and economic disruption. == Background == The concept of limiting or banning superintelligence research has roots in early 21st-century debates on artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that self-improving AI could rapidly exceed human oversight. As advanced models like large-scale language models and autonomous agents began demonstrating complex reasoning abilities, policymakers and ethicists increasingly discussed the need for legal constraints on the creation of systems capable of recursive self-improvement. In October 2025, the Future of Life Institute published a statement calling for "a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in." This statement was signed by various public personalities, such as Richard Branson and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts, such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. == Rationale == Supporters of a superintelligence ban argue that once AI systems surpass human intelligence, traditional containment, alignment, and control methods may fail. They contend that even limited experimentation with such systems could lead to irreversible outcomes, including loss of human decision-making power or unintended global harm. Some propose international treaties modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation framework to prevent a competitive AI arms race. Opponents argue that a ban would be difficult to define and enforce, given the lack of a precise threshold distinguishing advanced AGI from superintelligence. They also warn that excessive restriction could slow scientific progress, hinder beneficial automation, and encourage unregulated underground research. == Global discussion == Although no government has enacted an explicit superintelligence ban, the idea has been debated within the European Union, United Nations, and several independent AI safety organizations. The Future of Life Institute, Center for AI Safety, and other organizations have called for international cooperation to manage risks associated with the pursuit of superintelligent systems. In 2024 and 2025, proposals for a temporary moratorium on frontier AI research were circulated among major technology firms and research institutes, reflecting growing public concern over the trajectory of AI capabilities.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial consciousness

  Artificial consciousness, also known as machine consciousness, synthetic consciousness, or digital consciousness, is consciousness hypothesized to be possible for artificial intelligence. It is also the corresponding field of study, which draws insights from philosophy of mind, philosophy of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and neuroscience. The term "sentience" can be used when specifically designating ethical considerations stemming from a form of phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, or the ability to feel qualia). Since sentience involves the ability to experience ethically positive or negative (i.e., valenced) mental states, it may justify welfare concerns and legal protection, as with non-human animals. Some scholars believe that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain; these mechanisms are labeled the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Some further believe that constructing a system (e.g., a computer system) that can emulate this NCC interoperation would result in a system that is conscious. Some scholars reject the possibility of non-biological conscious beings. == Philosophical views == As there are many hypothesized types of consciousness, there are many potential implementations of artificial consciousness. In the philosophical literature, perhaps the most common taxonomy of consciousness is into "access" and "phenomenal" variants. Access consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that can be apprehended, while phenomenal consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that seemingly cannot be apprehended, instead being characterized qualitatively in terms of "raw feels", "what it is like" or qualia. === Plausibility debate === Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can be realized only in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution. In his 2001 article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility," Giorgio Buttazzo says that a common objection to artificial consciousness is that, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, unreprogrammation (which means can 'no longer be reprogrammed', from rethinking), emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components." For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness. ==== Thought experiments ==== David Chalmers proposed two thought experiments intending to demonstrate that "functionally isomorphic" systems (those with the same "fine-grained functional organization", i.e., the same information processing) will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are based on biological neurons or digital hardware. The "fading qualia" is a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment. It involves replacing, one by one, the neurons of a brain with a functionally identical component, for example based on a silicon chip. Chalmers makes the hypothesis, knowing it in advance to be absurd, that "the qualia fade or disappear" when neurons are replaced one-by-one with identical silicon equivalents. Since the original neurons and their silicon counterparts are functionally identical, the brain's information processing should remain unchanged, and the subject's behaviour and introspective reports would stay exactly the same. Chalmers argues that this leads to an absurd conclusion: the subject would continue to report normal conscious experiences even as their actual qualia fade away. He concludes that the subject's qualia actually don't fade, and that the resulting robotic brain, once every neuron is replaced, would remain just as sentient as the original biological brain. Similarly, the "dancing qualia" thought experiment is another reductio ad absurdum argument. It supposes that two functionally isomorphic systems could have different perceptions (for instance, seeing the same object in different colors, like red and blue). It involves a switch that alternates between a chunk of brain that causes the perception of red, and a functionally isomorphic silicon chip, that causes the perception of blue. Since both perform the same function within the brain, the subject would not notice any change during the switch. Chalmers argues that this would be highly implausible if the qualia were truly switching between red and blue, hence the contradiction. Therefore, he concludes that the equivalent digital system would not only experience qualia, but it would perceive the same qualia as the biological system (e.g., seeing the same color). Greg Egan's short story Learning To Be Me (mentioned in §In fiction), illustrates how undetectable duplication of the brain and its functionality could be from a first-person perspective. Critics object that Chalmers' proposal begs the question in assuming that all mental properties and external connections are already sufficiently captured by abstract causal organization. Van Heuveln et al. argue that the dancing qualia argument contains an equivocation fallacy, conflating a "change in experience" between two systems with an "experience of change" within a single system. Mogensen argues that the fading qualia argument can be resisted by appealing to vagueness at the boundaries of consciousness and the holistic structure of conscious neural activity, which suggests consciousness may require specific biological substrates rather than being substrate-independent. Anil Seth argues that the complexity of brain neurons intrinsically matters in addition to their function and that it is not possible to replace any part of the brain with a perfect silicon equivalent. He points out that some of biological neurons exhibit activity aimed at cleaning up metabolic waste products, and writes that a perfect silicon replacement would require a silicon-based metabolism, but silicon is not suitable for creating such artificial metabolism. ==== In large language models ==== In 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made a viral claim that Google's LaMDA chatbot was sentient. Lemoine supplied as evidence the chatbot's humanlike answers to many of his questions; however, the chatbot's behavior was judged by the scientific community as likely a consequence of mimicry, rather than machine sentience. Lemoine's claim was widely derided for being ridiculous. Moreover, attributing consciousness based solely on the basis of LLM outputs or the immersive experience created by an algorithm is considered a fallacy. However, while philosopher Nick Bostrom states that LaMDA is unlikely to be conscious, he additionally poses the question of "what grounds would a person have for being sure about it?" One would have to have access to unpublished information about LaMDA's architecture, and also would have to understand how consciousness works, and then figure out how to map the philosophy onto the machine: "(In the absence of these steps), it seems like one should be maybe a little bit uncertain. [...] there could well be other systems now, or in the relatively near future, that would start to satisfy the criteria." David Chalmers argued in 2023 that LLMs today display impressive conversational and general intelligence abilities, but are likely not conscious yet, as they lack some features that may be necessary, such as recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. Nonetheless, he considers that non-biological systems can be conscious, and suggested that future, extended models (LLM+s) incorporating these elements might eventually meet the criteria for consciousness, raising both profound scientific questions and significant ethical challenges. However, the view that consciousness can exist without biological phenomena is controversial and some reject it. Kristina Šekrst cautions that anthropomorphic terms such as "hallucination" can obscure important ontological differences between artificial and human cognition. While LLMs may produce human-like outputs, she argues that it does not justify ascribing mental states or consciousness to them. Instead, she advocates for an epistemological framework (such as reliabilism) that recognizes the distinct nature of AI knowledge production. She suggests that apparent understanding in LLMs may be a sophisticated form of AI hallucination. She also questions what would happen if an LLM were trained without any mention of consciousness. === Testing === Sentience is an inherently first-person phenomenon. Because of that, and due to the lack of an empirical definition of sentience, directly measuring it may be impossible. Although systems may display numerous behaviors correlated with sentience, determining whether a system is sentient is known as the hard pr

  Read more →
• 

  Truth discovery

  Truth discovery (also known as truth finding) is the process of choosing the actual true value for a data item when different data sources provide conflicting information on it. Several algorithms have been proposed to tackle this problem, ranging from simple methods like majority voting to more complex ones able to estimate the trustworthiness of data sources. Truth discovery problems can be divided into two sub-classes: single-truth and multi-truth. In the first case only one true value is allowed for a data item (e.g birthday of a person, capital city of a country). While in the second case multiple true values are allowed (e.g. cast of a movie, authors of a book). Typically, truth discovery is the last step of a data integration pipeline, when the schemas of different data sources have been unified and the records referring to the same data item have been detected. == General principles == The abundance of data available on the web makes more and more probable to find that different sources provide (partially or completely) different values for the same data item. This, together with the fact that we are increasing our reliance on data to derive important decisions, motivates the need of developing good truth discovery algorithms. Many currently available methods rely on a voting strategy to define the true value of a data item. Nevertheless, recent studies, have shown that, if we rely only on majority voting, we could get wrong results even in 30% of the data items. The solution to this problem is to assess the trustworthiness of the sources and give more importance to votes coming from trusted sources. Ideally, supervised learning techniques could be exploited to assign a reliability score to sources after hand-crafted labeling of the provided values; unfortunately, this is not feasible since the number of needed labeled examples should be proportional to the number of sources, and in many applications the number of sources can be prohibitive. == Single-truth vs multi-truth discovery == Single-truth and multi-truth discovery are two very different problems. Single-truth discovery is characterized by the following properties: only one true value is allowed for each data item; different values provided for a given data item oppose to each other; values and sources can either be correct or erroneous. While in the multi-truth case the following properties hold: the truth is composed by a set of values; different values could provide a partial truth; claiming one value for a given data item does not imply opposing to all the other values; the number of true values for each data item is not known a priori. Multi-truth discovery has unique features that make the problem more complex and should be taken into consideration when developing truth-discovery solutions. The examples below point out the main differences of the two methods. Knowing that in both examples the truth is provided by source 1, in the single truth case (first table) we can say that sources 2 and 3 oppose to the truth and as a result provide wrong values. On the other hand, in the second case (second table), sources 2 and 3 are neither correct nor erroneous, they instead provide a subset of the true values and at the same time they do not oppose the truth. == Source trustworthiness == The vast majority of truth discovery methods are based on a voting approach: each source votes for a value of a certain data item and, at the end, the value with the highest vote is select as the true one. In the more sophisticated methods, votes do not have the same weight for all the data sources, more importance is indeed given to votes coming from trusted sources. Source trustworthiness usually is not known a priori but estimated with an iterative approach. At each step of the truth discovery algorithm the trustworthiness score of each data source is refined, improving the assessment of the true values that in turn leads to a better estimation of the trustworthiness of the sources. This process usually ends when all the values reach a convergence state. Source trustworthiness can be based on different metrics, such as accuracy of provided values, copying values from other sources and domain coverage. Detecting copying behaviors is very important, in fact, copy allows to spread false values easily making truth discovery very hard, since many sources would vote for the wrong values. Usually systems decrease the weight of votes associated to copied values or even don’t count them at all. == Single-truth methods == Most of the currently available truth discovery methods have been designed to work well only in the single-truth case. Below are reported some of the characteristics of the most relevant typologies of single-truth methods and how different systems model source trustworthiness. === Majority voting === Majority voting is the simplest method, the most popular value is selected as the true one. Majority voting is commonly used as a baseline when assessing the performances of more complex methods. === Web-link based === These methods estimate source trustworthiness exploiting a similar technique to the one used to measure authority of web pages based on web links. The vote assigned to a value is computed as the sum of the trustworthiness of the sources that provide that particular value, while the trustworthiness of a source is computed as the sum of the votes assigned to the values that the source provides. === Information-retrieval based === These methods estimate source trustworthiness using similarity measures typically used in information retrieval. Source trustworthiness is computed as the cosine similarity (or other similarity measures) between the set of values provided by the source and the set of values considered true (either selected in a probabilistic way or obtained from a ground truth). === Bayesian based === These methods use Bayesian inference to define the probability of a value being true conditioned on the values provided by all the sources. P ( v ∣ ψ ( o ) ) = P ( ψ ( o ) ∣ v ) ⋅ P ( v ) P ( ψ ( o ) ) {\displaystyle P(v\mid \psi (o))={\frac {P(\psi (o)\mid v)\cdot P(v)}{P(\psi (o))}}} where v {\displaystyle \textstyle v} is a value provided for a data item o {\displaystyle \textstyle o} and ψ ( o ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \psi (o)} is the set of the observed values provided by all the sources for that specific data item. The trustworthiness of a source is then computed based on the accuracy of the values that provides. Other more complex methods exploit Bayesian inference to detect copying behaviors and use these insights to better assess source trustworthiness. == Multi-truth methods == Due to its complexity, less attention has been devoted to the study of the multi-truth discovery Below are reported two typologies of multi-truth methods and their characteristics. === Bayesian based === These methods use Bayesian inference to define the probability of a group of values being true conditioned on the values provided by all the data sources. In this case, since there could be multiple true values for each data item, and sources can provide multiple values for a single data item, it is not possible to consider values individually. An alternative is to consider mappings and relations between set of provided values and sources providing them. The trustworthiness of a source is then computed based on the accuracy of the values that provides. More sophisticated methods also consider domain coverage and copying behaviors to better estimate source trustworthiness. === Probabilistic Graphical Models based === These methods use probabilistic graphical models to automatically define the set of true values of given data item and also to assess source quality without need of any supervision. == Applications == Many real-world applications can benefit from the use of truth discovery algorithms. Typical domains of application include: healthcare, crowd/social sensing, crowdsourcing aggregation, information extraction and knowledge base construction. Truth discovery algorithms could be also used to revolutionize the way in which web pages are ranked in search engines, going from current methods based on link analysis like PageRank, to procedures that rank web pages based on the accuracy of the information they provide.

  Read more →
• 

  Inferential theory of learning

  Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) is an area of machine learning which describes inferential processes performed by learning agents. ITL has been continuously developed by Ryszard S. Michalski, starting in the 1980s. The first known publication of ITL was in 1983. In the ITL learning process is viewed as a search (inference) through hypotheses space guided by a specific goal. The results of learning need to be stored. Stored information will later be used by the learner for future inferences. Inferences are split into multiple categories including conclusive, deduction, and induction. In order for an inference to be considered complete it was required that all categories must be taken into account. This is how the ITL varies from other machine learning theories like Computational Learning Theory and Statistical Learning Theory; which both use singular forms of inference. == Usage == The most relevant published usage of ITL was in scientific journal published in 2012 and used ITL as a way to describe how agent-based learning works. According to the journal "The Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) provides an elegant way of describing learning processes by agents".

  Read more →
• 

  Moral outsourcing

  Moral outsourcing is the placing of responsibility for ethical decision-making onto external entities, often algorithms. The term is often used in discussions of computer science and algorithmic fairness, but it can apply to any situation in which one appeals to outside agents in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. In this context, moral outsourcing specifically refers to the tendency of society to blame technology, rather than its creators or users, for any harm it may cause. == Definition == The term "moral outsourcing" was first coined by Dr. Rumman Chowdhury, a data scientist concerned with the overlap between artificial intelligence and social issues. Chowdhury used the term to describe looming fears of a so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” following the rise of artificial intelligence. Moral outsourcing is often applied by technologists to shrink away from their part in building offensive products. In her TED Talk, Chowdhury gives the example of a creator excusing their work by saying they were simply doing their job. This is a case of moral outsourcing and not taking ownership for the consequences of creation. When it comes to AI, moral outsourcing allows for creators to decide when the machine is human and when it is a computer - shifting the blame and responsibility of moral plights off of the technologists and onto the technology. Conversations around AI and bias and its impacts require accountability to bring change. It is difficult to address these biased systems if their creators use moral outsourcing to avoid taking any responsibility for the issue. One example of moral outsourcing is the anger that is directed at machines for “taking jobs away from humans” rather than companies for employing that technology and jeopardizing jobs in the first place. The term "moral outsourcing" refers to the concept of outsourcing, or enlisting an external operation to complete specific work for another organization. In the case of moral outsourcing, the work of resolving moral dilemmas or making choices according to an ethical code is supposed to be conducted by another entity. == Real-world applications == In the medical field, AI is increasingly involved in decision-making processes about which patients to treat, and how to treat them. The responsibility of the doctor to make informed decisions about what is best for their patients is outsourced to an algorithm. Sympathy is also noted to be an important part of medical practice; an aspect that artificial intelligence, glaringly, is missing. This form of moral outsourcing is a major concern in the medical community. Another field of technology in which moral outsourcing is frequently brought up is autonomous vehicles. California Polytechnic State University professor Keith Abney proposed an example scenario: "Suppose we have some [troublemaking] teenagers, and they see an autonomous vehicle, they drive right at it. They know the autonomous vehicle will swerve off the road and go off a cliff, but should it?" The decision of whether to sacrifice the autonomous vehicle (and any passengers inside) or the vehicle coming at it will be written into the algorithms defining the car's behavior. In the case of moral outsourcing, the responsibility of any damage caused by an accident may be attributed to the autonomous vehicle itself, rather than the creators who wrote the protocol the vehicle will use to "decide" what to do. Moral outsourcing is also used to delegate the consequences of predictive policing algorithms to technology, rather than the creators or the police. There are many ethical concerns with predictive policing due to the fact that it results in the over-policing of low income and minority communities. In the context of moral outsourcing, the positive feedback loop of sending disproportionate police forces into minority communities is attributed to the algorithm and the data being fed into this system--rather than the users and creators of the predictive policing technology. == Outside of technology == === Religion === Moral outsourcing is also commonly seen in appeals to religion to justify discrimination or harm. In his book What It Means to be Moral, sociologist Phil Zuckerman contradicts the popular religious notion that morality comes from God. Religion is oftentimes cited as a foundation for a moral stance without any tangible relation between the religious beliefs and personal stance. In these cases, religious individuals will "outsource" their personal beliefs and opinions by claiming that they are a result of their religious identification. This is seen where religion is cited as a factor for political beliefs, medical beliefs, and in extreme cases an excuse for violence. === Manufacturing === Moral outsourcing can also be seen in the business world in terms of manufacturing goods and avoiding environmental responsibility. Some companies in the United States will move their production process to foreign countries with more relaxed environmental policies to avoid the pollution laws that exist in the US. A study by the Harvard Business Review found that "in countries with tight environmental regulation, companies have 29% lower domestic emissions on average. On the other hand, such a tightening in regulation results in 43% higher emissions abroad." The consequences of higher pollution rates are then attributed to the loose regulations in these countries, rather than on the companies themselves who purposefully moved into these areas to avoid strict pollution policy.

  Read more →
• 

  Resisting AI

  Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence is a book on artificial intelligence (AI) by Dan McQuillan, published in 2022 by Bristol University Press. == Content == Resisting AI takes the form of an extended essay, which contrasts optimistic visions about AI's potential by arguing that AI may best be seen as a continuation and reinforcement of bureaucratic forms of discrimination and violence, ultimately fostering authoritarian outcomes. For McQuillan, AI's promise of objective calculability is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. McQuillan uses the expression "AI violence" to describe how – based on opaque algorithms – various actors can discriminate against categories of people in accessing jobs, loans, medical care, and other benefits. The book suggests that AI has a political resonance with soft eugenic approaches to the valuation of life by modern welfare states, and that AI exhibits eugenic features in its underlying logic, as well as in its technical operations. The parallel is with historical eugenicists achieving saving to the state by sterilizing defectives so the state would not have to care for their offspring. The analysis of McQuillan goes beyond the known critique of AI systems fostering precarious labour markets, addressing "necropolitics", the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die. Although McQuillan offers a brief history of machine learning at the beginning of the book – with its need for "hidden and undercompensated labour", he is concerned more with the social impacts of AI rather than with its technical aspects. McQuillan sees AI as the continuation of existing bureaucratic systems that already marginalize vulnerable groups – aggravated by the fact that AI systems trained on existing data are likely to reinforce existing discriminations, e.g. in attempting to optimize welfare distribution based on existing data patterns, ultimately creating a system of "self-reinforcing social profiling". In elaborating on the continuation between existing bureaucratic violence and AI, McQuillan connects to Hannah Arendt's concept of the thoughtless bureaucrat in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which now becomes the algorithm that, lacking intent, cannot be accountable, and is thus endowed with an "algorithmic thoughtlessness". McQuillan defends the "fascist" in the title of the work by arguing that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. For McQuillan, AI can support the diffusion of states of exception, as a technology impossible to properly regulate and a mechanism for multiplying exceptions more widely. An example of a scenario where AI systems of surveillance could bring discrimination to a new high is the initiative to create LGBT-free zones in Poland. Skeptical of ethical regulations to control the technology, McQuillan suggests people's councils and workers' councils, and other forms of citizens' agency to resist AI. A chapter titled "Post-Machine Learning" makes an appeal for resistance via currents of thought from feminist science (standpoint theory), post-normal science (extended peer communities), and new materialism; McQuillan encourages the reader to question the meaning of "objectivity" and calls for the necessity of alternative ways of knowing. Among the virtuous examples of resistance – possibly to be adopted by the AI workers themselves – McQuillan notes the Lucas Plan of the workers of Lucas Aerospace Corporation, in which a workforce declared redundant took control, reorienting the enterprise toward useful products. McQuillan advocates for what he calls decomputing, an opposition to the sweeping application and expansion of artificial intelligence. Similar to degrowth, the approach criticizes AI as an outgrowth of the systemic issues within capitalist systems. McQuillan argues that a different future is possible, in which distance between people is reduced rather than increased through AI intermediaries. The work of McQuillan warns against "watered-down forms of engagement" with AI, such as citizen juries, which superficially look like democratic deliberation but may actually obscure important decisions about AI that are outside the purview of the engagement situation (McQuillan 2022, 128). In an interview about the book, McQuillan describes himself as an "AI abolitionist". == Reception == The book has been praised for how it "masterfully disassembles AI as an epistemological, social, and political paradigm". On the critical side, a review in the academic journal Justice, Power and Resistance took exception to the "nightmarish visions of Big Brother" offered by McQuillan, and argued that while many elements of AI may pose concern, a critique should not be based on a caricature of what AI is, concluding that McQuillan's work is "less of a theory and more of a Manifesto". Another review notes "a disconnect between the technical aspects of AI and the socio-political analysis McQuillan provides." Although the book was published before the ChatGPT and large language model debate heated up, the book has not lost relevance to the AI discussion. It is noted for suggesting a link between beliefs in artificial intelligence and beliefs in a racialised and gendered visions of intelligence overall, whereby a certain type of rational, measurable intelligence is privileged, leading to "historical notions of hierarchies of being". The blog Reboot praised McQuillan for offering a theory of harm of AI (why AI could end up hurting people and society) that does not just encourage tackling in isolation specific predicted problems with AI-centric systems: bias, non-inclusiveness, exploitativeness, environmental destructiveness, opacity, and non-contestability. For educational policies could also look at AI following the reading of McQuillan: In his book Resisting AI, Dan McQuillan argues that "When we're thinking about the actuality of AI, we can't separate the calculations in the code from the social context of its application" .... McQuillan's particular concern is how many contemporary applications of AI are amplifying existing inequalities and injustices as well as deepening social divisions and instabilities. His book makes a powerful case for anticipating these effects and actively resisting them for the good of societies. Videos and podcasts with an interest in AI and emerging technology have discussed the book.

  Read more →
• 

  Graphics processing unit

  A graphics processing unit (GPU) is a specialized electronic circuit designed for digital image processing and to accelerate computer graphics, being present either as a component on a discrete graphics card or embedded on motherboards, mobile phones, personal computers, workstations, and game consoles. GPUs are increasingly being used for artificial intelligence (AI) processing due to linear algebra acceleration, which is also used extensively in graphics processing. Although there is no single definition of the term, and it may be used to describe any video display system, in modern use a GPU includes the ability to internally perform the calculations needed for various graphics tasks, like rotating and scaling 3D images, and often the additional ability to run custom programs known as shaders. This contrasts with earlier graphics controllers known as video display controllers which had no internal calculation capabilities, or blitters, which performed only basic memory movement operations. The modern GPU emerged during the 1990s, adding the ability to perform operations like drawing lines and text without CPU help, and later adding 3D functionality. Graphics functions are generally independent and this lends these tasks to being implemented on separate calculation engines. Modern GPUs include hundreds, or thousands, of calculation units. This made them useful for non-graphic calculations involving embarrassingly parallel problems due to their parallel structure. The ability of GPUs to rapidly perform vast numbers of calculations has led to their adoption in diverse fields including artificial intelligence (AI) where they excel at handling data-intensive and computationally demanding tasks. Other non-graphical uses include the training of neural networks and cryptocurrency mining. == History == === 1960s === Dedicated 3D graphics hardware dates back to graphic terminals such as the Adage AGT-30 from 1967 with analog matrix processors. In 1969 Evans & Sutherland (E&S) introduced the Line Drawing System-1 (LDS-1), which was the first all-digital system to provide matrix multiplication. Also in 1969, the low-cost graphics terminal IMLAC PDS-1 was introduced. It later saw use as an early 3D gaming machine with the likes of Maze War. === 1970s === In professional hardware, in 1972 PLATO IV system becomes operational at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Between around 1973 and 1978, several networked multiplayer wireframe 3D games are implemented and popularized by users of the system. Also in 1972, the E&S Continuous Tone 1 (CT1) "Watkins box" system (consisting of an E&S LDS-2 and Shaded Picture System) is delivered to Case Western Reserve University. It offered the first real-time Gouraud shading. In 1975, a joint effort between Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation and the University of Utah's computer graphics department results in the first ever MOSFET video framebuffer, capable of color and smooth shading. E&S Continuous Tone 3 (CT3) system was delivered in 1977 to Lufthansa for pilot training using computer simulation. It was the first graphics system capable of real-time texture mapping. Ikonas made graphics systems with 8- and 24-bit graphics and 3D acceleration in the late 70s. Arcade system boards have used specialized 2D graphics circuits since the 1970s. In early video game hardware, RAM for frame buffers was expensive, so video chips composited data together as the display was being scanned out on the monitor. A specialized barrel shifter circuit helped the CPU animate the framebuffer graphics for various 1970s arcade video games from Midway and Taito, such as Gun Fight (1975), Sea Wolf (1976), and Space Invaders (1978). The Namco Galaxian arcade system in 1979 used specialized graphics hardware that supported RGB color, multi-colored sprites, and tilemap backgrounds. The Galaxian hardware was widely used during the golden age of arcade video games, by game companies such as Namco, Centuri, Gremlin, Irem, Konami, Midway, Nichibutsu, Sega, and Taito. The Atari 2600 in 1977 used a video shifter called the Television Interface Adaptor. Atari 8-bit computers (1979) had ANTIC, a video processor which interpreted instructions describing a "display list"—the way the scan lines map to specific bitmapped or character modes and where the memory is stored (so there did not need to be a contiguous frame buffer). 6502 machine code subroutines could be triggered on scan lines by setting a bit on a display list instruction. ANTIC also supported smooth vertical and horizontal scrolling independent of the CPU. === 1980s === In the 1980s significant advancements were made in professional 3D graphics hardware. Perhaps most impactful was the 1981 development of the Geometry Engine, a VLSI vector processor ASIC designed by Jim Clark and Marc Hannah at Stanford University. This processor is the forerunner of modern tensor cores and other similar processors marketed for graphics and AI. The Geometry Engine went on to be used in Silicon Graphics workstations for many years. Silicon Graphics's first product, shipped in November 1983, was the IRIS 1000, a terminal with hardware-accelerated 3D graphics based on the Geometry Engine. The Geometry Engine was capable of approximately 6 million operations per second. The 1981 NEC μPD7220 was the first implementation of a personal computer graphics display processor as a single large-scale integration (LSI) integrated circuit chip. This enabled the design of low-cost, high-performance video graphics cards such as those from Number Nine Visual Technology. It became the best-known GPU until the mid-1980s. It was the first fully integrated VLSI (very large-scale integration) metal–oxide–semiconductor (NMOS) graphics display processor for PCs, supported up to 1024×1024 resolution, and laid the foundations for the PC graphics market. It was used in a number of graphics cards and was licensed for clones such as the Intel 82720, the first of Intel's graphics processing units. The Williams Electronics arcade games Robotron: 2084, Joust, Sinistar, and Bubbles, all released in 1982, contain custom blitter chips for operating on 16-color bitmaps. In 1984, Hitachi released the ARTC HD63484, the first major CMOS graphics processor for personal computers. The ARTC could display up to 4K resolution when in monochrome mode. It was used in a number of graphics cards and terminals during the late 1980s. In 1985, the Amiga was released with a custom graphics chip called Agnus including a blitter for bitmap manipulation, line drawing, and area fill. It also included a coprocessor with its own simple instruction set, that was capable of manipulating graphics hardware registers in sync with the video beam (e.g. for per-scanline palette switches, sprite multiplexing, and hardware windowing), or driving the blitter. Also in 1985, IBM released the Professional Graphics Controller, designed by later to be Nvidia co-founder Curtis Priem, which was a rudimentary 3D card with 640 × 480 256-color graphics which used a dedicated CPU to draw graphics independently of the main system. It was used as the basis of cards by a number of makers (including Matrox) and its analog RGB signaling led directly to the VGA video standard. Priem later in the 80s worked on the influential Sun Microsystems GX (also known as cgsix) accelerated 2D graphics card. In 1986, Texas Instruments released the TMS34010, the first fully programmable graphics processor. It could run general-purpose code but also had a graphics-oriented instruction set. During 1990–1992, this chip became the basis of the Texas Instruments Graphics Architecture ("TIGA") Windows accelerator cards. Following in 1987, the IBM 8514 graphics system was released. It was one of the first video cards for IBM PC compatibles that implemented fixed-function 2D primitives in electronic hardware. Sharp's X68000, released in 1987, used a custom graphics chipset with a 65,536 color palette and hardware support for sprites, scrolling, and multiple playfields. It served as a development machine for Capcom's CP System arcade board. Fujitsu's FM Towns computer, released in 1989, had support for a 16,777,216 color palette. For context, IBM also introduced its Video Graphics Array (VGA) display system in 1987, with a maximum resolution of 640 × 480 pixels. Unlike 8514/A, VGA had no hardware acceleration features. In November 1988, NEC Home Electronics announced its creation of the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) to develop and promote a Super VGA (SVGA) computer display standard as a successor to VGA. Super VGA enabled graphics display resolutions up to 800 × 600 pixels, a 56% increase. In 1988 SGI sold IRIS workstation graphics with 10-12 Geometry Engines and introduced the IrisVision add-in board for IBM MicroChannel bus (RS/6000) based on the Geometry Engine as well. In 1988 as well, the first dedicated polygonal 3D graphics boards in arcade machines were introduced wit

  Read more →
• 

  Edge inference

  Edge inference is the process of running machine learning or deep learning models on local devices (edge devices) such as smartphones, IoT devices, embedded systems, and edge servers instead of centralized cloud computing infrastructure. A key feature of edge computing is edge inference, which allows for real-time data processing, low latency, and improved privacy by reducing the amount of data sent to remote servers.

  Read more →
• 

  Socially assistive robot

  A socially assistive robot (SAR) aids users through social engagement and support rather than through physical tasks and interactions. == Background == The field of socially assistive robotics emerged in the early 2000s, following the emergence of the field of social robots. In contrast to social robots, SARs aid users with specific goals related to behavior change rather than serving as purely social entities. The term "Socially assistive robot" was initially defined by Maja Matarić and David Feil-Seifer in 2005. Since its inception, the field has gained substantial recognition, featuring numerous research projects, a wealth of global research publications, startup companies, and a growing array of products on the consumer market. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the immense potential of socially assistive robots, particularly in addressing the needs of large user populations, including children engaged in remote learning, elderly individuals grappling with loneliness, and those affected by social isolation and its associated negative consequences. == Characteristics of interaction == SARs rely on artificial intelligence (AI) to generate real-time, responsive, natural, and meaningful robot behaviors during interactions with humans. The robots employ various forms of communication, such as facial expressions, gestures, body movements, and speech. In contrast to robots intended for physical tasks, SARs are designed to support and motivate users to perform their own tasks. The tasks a user engages in can be physical (e.g., rehabilitation exercises for post-stroke users), cognitive (e.g., dementia screening for elderly users), or social (e.g., turn-taking for users with autism spectrum disorders). This complex interaction involves detecting and interpreting the user's movement, behavior, intent, goals, speech, and preferences. Machine learning and robot learning techniques are frequently employed to enhance the robot's understanding of the user, predict user preferences, and provide effective assistance. The effectiveness of socially assistive robots is assessed based on objective measurements of user performance and improvement resulting from the robot’s assistance and support. Unlike other branches of robotics, where effectiveness depends on the robot's physical task completion, SAR measures the success of the robot based on the user's progress and achievements. This evaluation is carried out using quantitative objective metrics, such as time spent on tasks, accuracy, retention, and verbalization, as well as quantitative subjective metrics, such as user survey tools. SAR is based on the large body of evidence showing that users tend to respond more positively to interactions with physical robots compared to interactions with screens. Interaction with physical robots also encourages users to learn and retain more information than screen-based interactions. This fundamental insight underlines why physical robots in SAR applications are more effective, as opposed to interactions solely involving screens, tablets, or computers. == Uses and applications == SARs have been developed and validated in a wide array of applications, including healthcare, elder care, education, and training. For example, SARs have been developed to support children on the autism spectrum in acquiring and practicing social and cognitive skills, to motivate and coach stroke patients throughout their rehabilitation exercises, monitoring individuals health (ex. fall detection), and to encourage elderly users to be more physically and socially active. There is a concern that technophobia and lack of trust in robots will pose a barrier to the effectiveness of SARs in older adults.

  Read more →