AI Artists On Spotify

AI Artists On Spotify — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Human–robot interaction

  Human–robot interaction (HRI) is the study of interactions between humans and robots. Human–robot interaction is a multidisciplinary field with contributions from human–computer interaction, artificial intelligence, robotics, natural language processing, design, psychology and philosophy. A subfield known as physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has tended to focus on device design to enable people to safely interact with robotic systems. == Origins == Human–robot interaction has been a topic of both science fiction and academic speculation even before any robots existed. Because much of active HRI development depends on natural language processing, many aspects of HRI are continuations of human communications, a field of research which is much older than robotics. The origin of HRI as a discrete problem was stated by 20th-century author Isaac Asimov in 1941, in his novel I, Robot. Asimov coined Three Laws of Robotics, namely: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. These three laws provide an overview of the goals engineers and researchers hold for safety in the HRI field, although the fields of robot ethics and machine ethics are more complex than these three principles. However, generally human–robot interaction prioritizes the safety of humans that interact with potentially dangerous robotics equipment. Solutions to this problem range from the philosophical approach of treating robots as ethical agents (individuals with moral agency), to the practical approach of creating safety zones. These safety zones use technologies such as lidar to detect human presence or physical barriers to protect humans by preventing any contact between machine and operator. Although initially robots in the human–robot interaction field required some human intervention to function, research has expanded this to the extent that fully autonomous systems are now far more common than in the early 2000s. Autonomous systems include from simultaneous localization and mapping systems which provide intelligent robot movement to natural-language processing and natural-language generation systems which allow for natural, human-esque interaction which meet well-defined psychological benchmarks. Anthropomorphic robots (machines which imitate human body structure) are better described by the biomimetics field, but overlap with HRI in many research applications. Examples of robots which demonstrate this trend include Willow Garage's PR2 robot, the NASA Robonaut, and Honda ASIMO. However, robots in the human–robot interaction field are not limited to human-like robots: Paro and Kismet are both robots designed to elicit emotional response from humans, and so fall into the category of human–robot interaction. Goals in HRI range from industrial manufacturing through Cobots, medical technology through rehabilitation, autism intervention, and elder care devices, entertainment, human augmentation, and human convenience. Future research therefore covers a wide range of fields, much of which focuses on assistive robotics, robot-assisted search-and-rescue, and space exploration. == The goal of friendly human–robot interactions == Robots are artificial agents with capacities of perception and action in the physical world often referred by researchers as workspace. Their use has been generalized in factories but nowadays they tend to be found in the most technologically advanced societies in such critical domains as search and rescue, military battle, mine and bomb detection, scientific exploration, law enforcement, entertainment and hospital care. These new domains of applications imply a closer interaction with the user, sharing the workspace but also goals in terms of task achievement. The subfield of physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has largely focused on device design to enable people to safely interact with robotic systems but is increasingly developing algorithmic approaches in an attempt to support fluent and expressive interactions between humans and robotic systems. With the advance in AI, the research is focusing on one part towards the safest physical interaction but also on a socially correct interaction, dependent on cultural criteria. The goal is to build an intuitive, and easy communication with the robot through speech, gestures, and facial expressions. Kerstin Dautenhahn refers to friendly Human–robot interaction as "Robotiquette" defining it as the "social rules for robot behaviour (a 'robotiquette') that is comfortable and acceptable to humans" The robot has to adapt itself to our way of expressing desires and orders and not the contrary. But every day environments such as homes have much more complex social rules than those implied by factories or even military environments. Thus, the robot needs perceiving and understanding capacities to build dynamic models of its surroundings. It needs to categorize objects, recognize and locate humans and further recognize their emotions. The need for dynamic capacities pushes forward every sub-field of robotics. Furthermore, by understanding and perceiving social cues, robots can enable collaborative scenarios with humans. For example, with the rapid rise of personal fabrication machines such as desktop 3D printers, laser cutters, etc., entering our homes, scenarios may arise where robots can collaboratively share control, co-ordinate and achieve tasks together. Industrial robots have already been integrated into industrial assembly lines and are collaboratively working with humans. The social impact of such robots have been studied and has indicated that workers still treat robots and social entities, rely on social cues to understand and work together. On the other end of HRI research the cognitive modelling of the "relationship" between human and the robots benefits the psychologists and robotic researchers the user study are often of interests on both sides. This research endeavours part of human society. For effective human – humanoid robot interaction numerous communication skills and related features should be implemented in the design of such artificial agents/systems. == General HRI research == HRI research spans a wide range of fields, some general to the nature of HRI. === Methods for perceiving humans === Methods for perceiving humans in the environment are based on sensor information. Research on sensing components and software led by Microsoft provide useful results for extracting the human kinematics (see Kinect). An example of older technique is to use colour information for example the fact that for light skinned people the hands are lighter than the clothes worn. In any case a human modelled a priori can then be fitted to the sensor data. The robot builds or has (depending on the level of autonomy the robot has) a 3D mapping of its surroundings to which is assigned the humans locations. Most methods intend to build a 3D model through vision of the environment. The proprioception sensors permit the robot to have information over its own state. This information is relative to a reference. Theories of proxemics may be used to perceive and plan around a person's personal space. A speech recognition system is used to interpret human desires or commands. By combining the information inferred by proprioception, sensor and speech the human position and state (standing, seated). In this matter, natural-language processing is concerned with the interactions between computers and human (natural) languages, in particular how to program computers to process and analyze large amounts of natural-language data. For instance, neural-network architectures and learning algorithms that can be applied to various natural-language processing tasks including part-of-speech tagging, chunking, named-entity recognition, and semantic role labeling. === Methods for motion planning === Motion planning in dynamic environments is a challenge that can at the moment only be achieved for robots with 3 to 10 degrees of freedom. Humanoid robots or even 2 armed robots, which can have up to 40 degrees of freedom, are unsuited for dynamic environments with today's technology. However lower-dimensional robots can use the potential field method to compute trajectories which avoid collisions with humans. === Cognitive models and theory of mind === Humans exhibit negative social and emotional responses as well as decreased trust toward some robots that closely, but imperfectly, resemble humans; this phenomenon has been termed the "Uncanny Valley". However recent research in telepresence robots has established that mimicking human body postures and expressive gestures has made the robots likeable and engaging in a remote setting. Further, the presence o

  Read more →
• 

  DARPA AlphaDogfight

  The DARPA AlphaDogfight was a 2019–2020 DARPA program that pitted computers using F-16 flight simulators against one another. The computers were managed by eight teams of humans, who competed in a single-round elimination for the right to battle a skilled human dogfighter. Heron Systems corporation wrote a deep reinforcement learning software tool that bested the human pilot by a score of 5–0. The tournament program was managed by the Applied Physics Laboratory. The trials took place in October 2019 and January 2020 while the finals were held in August 2020. In 2024 a successor version of the program was tested with in the physical world with the X-62A.

  Read more →
• 

  Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence

  The Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence (ICAI) is a Dutch national network focused on joint technology development between academia, industry and government in the area of artificial intelligence (AI). The initiative was launched in April 2018 and is based at Amsterdam Science Park. As of 2024, the director of the ICAI is Maarten de Rijke. In November 2018, ICAI announced its contribution to AINED, the first iteration of the Dutch National AI Strategy. In January 2023, Maastricht University announced the ROBUST program, led by the Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence (ICAI) and supported by the University of Amsterdam and others. This initiative focuses on advancing research in trustworthy AI technology across various sectors, notably healthcare and energy, in the Netherlands. The program's plan includes the creation of 17 new labs and the appointment of PhD candidates, backed by a €25 million funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO). == Labs == The ICAI network is linked to several collaborative labs: Thira Lab (Imaging): Thirona, Delft Imaging Systems and Radboud UMC, founded March 2019 AIMLab (AI for Medical Imaging): Uva and Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence from the United Arab Emirates, founded March 2019 AFL (AI for Fintech): ING and Delft University of Technology, founded March 2019 Police Lab AI: Dutch National Police, founded January 2019 Elsevier AI Lab: Uva and Elsevier, founded October 2018 AIRLab Delft (AI for Retail Robotics): TU Delft Robotics and AholdDelhaize, founded November 2018 Quva Lab (Deep Vision): Uva and Qualcomm, founded 2016 (prior to ICAI) AIRLab Amsterdam (AI for Retail): Uva and AholdDelhaize, founded April 2018 DeltaLab (Deep Learning Technologies Amsterdam): Uva and Bosch, founded April 2017 (prior to ICAI) AI4SE (AI for Software Engineering Lab) Delft University of Technology and JetBrains, founded October 2023 Atlas Lab: Uva and TomTom (TOM2)

  Read more →
• 

  Xcon

  The R1, internally called XCON (Expert Configurer), program was a production-rule-based system written in OPS5 by John P. McDermott of Carnegie Mellon University in 1978 to assist in the ordering of Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC) VAX computer systems by automatically selecting the computer system components based on the customer's requirements. == Overview == In developing the system, McDermott made use of experts from both DEC's PDP/11 and VAX computer systems groups. These experts sometimes even disagreed amongst themselves as to an optimal configuration. The resultant "sorting it out" had an additional benefit in terms of the quality of VAX systems delivered. XCON first went into use in 1980 in DEC's plant in Salem, New Hampshire, US. It eventually had about 2500 rules. By 1986, it had processed 80,000 orders, and achieved 95–98% accuracy. It was estimated to be saving DEC $25M a year by reducing the need to give customers free components when technicians made errors, by speeding the assembly process, and by increasing customer satisfaction. Before XCON, when ordering a VAX from DEC, every cable, connection, and bit of software had to be ordered separately. (Computers and peripherals were not sold complete in boxes as they are today.) The sales people were not always very technically expert, so customers would find that they had hardware without the correct cables, printers without the correct drivers, a processor without the correct language chip, and so on. This meant delays and caused a lot of customer dissatisfaction and resultant legal action. XCON interacted with the sales person, asking critical questions before printing out a coherent and workable system specification/order slip. XCON's success led DEC to rewrite XCON as XSEL—a version of XCON intended for use by DEC's salesforce to aid a customer in properly configuring their VAX (so they would not, say, choose a computer too large to fit through their doorway or choose too few cabinets for the components to fit in). Location problems and configuration were handled by yet another expert system, XSITE. McDermott's 1980 paper on R1 won the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Classic Paper Award in 1999. Footnote 2 gave a humorous explanation for the name "R1" as "Four years ago I couldn't even say "knowledge engineer", now I ... [are one.]".

  Read more →
• 

  Data augmentation

  Data augmentation is a statistical technique which allows maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Data augmentation has important applications in Bayesian analysis, and the technique is widely used in machine learning to reduce overfitting when training machine learning models, achieved by training models on several slightly-modified copies of existing data. == Synthetic oversampling techniques for traditional machine learning == Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is a method used to address imbalanced datasets in machine learning. In such datasets, the number of samples in different classes varies significantly, leading to biased model performance. For example, in a medical diagnosis dataset with 90 samples representing healthy individuals and only 10 samples representing individuals with a particular disease, traditional algorithms may struggle to accurately classify the minority class. SMOTE rebalances the dataset by generating synthetic samples for the minority class. For instance, if there are 100 samples in the majority class and 10 in the minority class, SMOTE can create synthetic samples by randomly selecting a minority class sample and its nearest neighbors, then generating new samples along the line segments joining these neighbors. This process helps increase the representation of the minority class, improving model performance. == Data augmentation for image classification == When convolutional neural networks grew larger in mid-1990s, there was a lack of data to use, especially considering that some part of the overall dataset should be spared for later testing. It was proposed to perturb existing data with affine transformations to create new examples with the same labels, which were complemented by so-called elastic distortions in 2003, and the technique was widely used as of 2010s. Data augmentation can enhance CNN performance and acts as a countermeasure against CNN profiling attacks. Data augmentation has become fundamental in image classification, enriching training dataset diversity to improve model generalization and performance. The evolution of this practice has introduced a broad spectrum of techniques, including geometric transformations, color space adjustments, and noise injection. === Geometric Transformations === Geometric transformations alter the spatial properties of images to simulate different perspectives, orientations, and scales. Common techniques include: Affine Transformation Rotation: Rotating images by a specified degree to help models recognize objects at various angles. Reflection: Reflecting images horizontally or vertically to introduce variability in orientation. Translation: Shifting images in different directions to teach models positional invariance. Scaling Shear Mapping Cropping: Removing sections of the image to focus on particular features or simulate closer views. Elastic Distortion Morphing within the same class: Generating new samples by applying morphing techniques between two images belonging to the same class, thereby increasing intra-class diversity. === Color Space Transformations === Color space transformations modify the color properties of images, addressing variations in lighting, color saturation, and contrast. Techniques include: Brightness Adjustment: Varying the image's brightness to simulate different lighting conditions. Contrast Adjustment: Changing the contrast to help models recognize objects under various clarity levels. Saturation Adjustment: Altering saturation to prepare models for images with diverse color intensities. Color Jittering: Randomly adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue to introduce color variability. === Noise Injection === Injecting noise into images simulates real-world imperfections, teaching models to ignore irrelevant variations. Techniques involve: Gaussian Noise: Adding Gaussian noise mimics sensor noise or graininess. Salt and Pepper Noise: Introducing black or white pixels at random simulates sensor dust or dead pixels. == Data augmentation for signal processing == Residual or block bootstrap can be used for time series augmentation. === Biological signals === Synthetic data augmentation is of paramount importance for machine learning classification, particularly for biological data, which tend to be high dimensional and scarce. The applications of robotic control and augmentation in disabled and able-bodied subjects still rely mainly on subject-specific analyses. Data scarcity is notable in signal processing problems such as for Parkinson's Disease Electromyography signals, which are difficult to source - Zanini, et al. noted that it is possible to use a generative adversarial network (in particular, a DCGAN) to perform style transfer in order to generate synthetic electromyographic signals that corresponded to those exhibited by sufferers of Parkinson's Disease. The approaches are also important in electroencephalography (brainwaves). Wang, et al. explored the idea of using deep convolutional neural networks for EEG-Based Emotion Recognition, results show that emotion recognition was improved when data augmentation was used. A common approach is to generate synthetic signals by re-arranging components of real data. Lotte proposed a method of "Artificial Trial Generation Based on Analogy" where three data examples x 1 , x 2 , x 3 {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}} provide examples and an artificial x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} is formed which is to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} what x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} is to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} . A transformation is applied to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} to make it more similar to x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , the same transformation is then applied to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} which generates x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} . This approach was shown to improve performance of a Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier on three different datasets. Current research shows great impact can be derived from relatively simple techniques. For example, Freer observed that introducing noise into gathered data to form additional data points improved the learning ability of several models which otherwise performed relatively poorly. Tsinganos et al. studied the approaches of magnitude warping, wavelet decomposition, and synthetic surface EMG models (generative approaches) for hand gesture recognition, finding classification performance increases of up to +16% when augmented data was introduced during training. More recently, data augmentation studies have begun to focus on the field of deep learning, more specifically on the ability of generative models to create artificial data which is then introduced during the classification model training process. In 2018, Luo et al. observed that useful EEG signal data could be generated by Conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) which was then introduced to the training set in a classical train-test learning framework. The authors found classification performance was improved when such techniques were introduced. === Mechanical signals === The prediction of mechanical signals based on data augmentation brings a new generation of technological innovations, such as new energy dispatch, 5G communication field, and robotics control engineering. In 2022, Yang et al. integrate constraints, optimization and control into a deep network framework based on data augmentation and data pruning with spatio-temporal data correlation, and improve the interpretability, safety and controllability of deep learning in real industrial projects through explicit mathematical programming equations and analytical solutions.

  Read more →
• 

  Texas Senate Bill 20

  Texas Senate Bill 20 (S.B. 20), also known as the "Stopping AI-Generated Child Pornography Act", is a 2025 law in the state of Texas that creates new criminal offenses for those who possess, promote, or view visual material deemed obscene, which is said to depict a child, whether it is an actual person, animated or cartoon depiction, or an image of someone created through computer software or artificial intelligence. It was passed by the Texas Legislature on May 28, 2025, unanimously in both chambers. It was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025. It went into effect on September 1, 2025. It was authored by Pete Flores and co-sponsored by Brent Hagenbuch, Juan Hinojosa, Joan Huffman, Phil King, and Tan Parker, as part of a package of legislation in the Texas House and Senate about A.I. and child pornography. Some supporters called it "common-sense" legislation falling within the "proper role" of government, protecting children and the "common good" within the state, with Heidi Ruiz, a police sergeant in Houston, describing the bill as "fantastic" and "fabulous." The bill drew comparisons to language, within Texas state legislation, which aimed to institute state-level book bans. Critics described the law as unconstitutional, saying it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits abridgement of freedom of speech and the press, including the legal precedent set in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund vowed to support those wrongly accused under the law. Much of the controversy regarding S.B. 20 involves the broad language pertaining to "obscene" pornographic images as including A.I.-created, animated, and cartoon depictions, with some critics arguing it could have a chilling effect on anime, manga, graphic novels, and other media produced, distributed, or created within Texas. == Provisions == S.B. 20 gives Texas police more provisions to restrict artificial intelligence-created child pornography, creating new criminal charge for possessing material depicting an underage person, under age 18, whether this child is an actual person or not. Those charged with this felony offense could go to state jail, but this could be elevated if the person charged has a prior conviction, of a $10,000 fine and two years in prison. == Reactions == === Support === Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick applauded the unanimous passage of the law in the Texas Senate and called it "a priority" to protect children in Texas, and Texas citizens and thanked Pete Flores for his work on "this important issue". He later described the bill as part of the "bold, conservative agenda" that the Texas legislature passed during the 2025 legislative session. Phil King, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said that issue of child pornography had "infiltrated" the state's schools and said he was proud that the Texas legislature had "taken decisive action to protect our vulnerable Texans". Another co-sponsor of the legislation, Tan Parker described the law as "decisive action" to protect the children within Texas, and said he looked "forward to advancing this critical legislation" onward from the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee. He also described the legislation as "critical" action to protect the state's children from A.I.-generated child pornography and an "effective tool for law enforcement" to crack down on child porn perpetrators. Other supporters, such as police, and prosecutors, called the legislation an "important step" to ensure that images generated with A.I., along with deepfakes, "can't be shared with impunity" and necessary to ensure children's protection. Flores told senators that technology which enabled the production of "offensive" material by child predators had "no redeeming value whatsoever" and asserted that the materials had often been "used to groom and abuse children". John Leigh, a co-founder of Anime Matsuri, one of the largest conventions for anime within Texas, reassured those who contacted him, saying that the law is not targeted at anime and manga fans, stated that he supported the legislation, describing it as a step "in the right direction," and said that he did not believe it would "negatively impact" anime or related art in the state. Also, State Representative Dade Phelan emphasized the legislation's urgency to deal with A.I. and child pornography, adding that they need to "put some guardrails on it to where the public is being taken care of". The Texas Policy Research Foundation supported the legislation, saying that although it may lead to increased demands on state and local governmental resources, higher costs for local governments, and possible "civil liberty concerns" around online censorship, it represents a "necessary legal update" to address exploitation of children online, while "modernizing enforcement mechanisms" and recommended that lawmakers vote in favor of the law. Additionally, the group Texans for Fiscal Responsibility supported the law, arguing that it strengthened state law, upheld public safety, protected minors, and called it a "common-sense bill" protecting and promoting the "common good", children, and fell within the "proper role" of government. The Texas Public Policy Foundation also expressed their support for the law. A policy director for aforementioned conservative think tank, Zach Whiting, told the Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice, on March 4, 2025, that the foundation would assist legislators ans staff to "advance any and all measures to protect kids online" and shared an excerpt from of research paper about threats posed by A.I. in creating "sexually explicit deepfakes of children". === Opposition === Although the bill passed both chambers unanimously, there were some reports that the bill stalled due to opposition from Democratic lawmakers. Additionally, some individuals expressed concerns about the broad nature of the law's provisions. Anime Matsuri co-founder Deneice Leigh called for the law's wording to be clarified because "artists are anxious about displaying or selling fan art" even if the intention is "not be to penalize creators". She also described the bill as "vague and open to interpretation" as to what would be considered obscene and offensive while noting that the bill is not aiming to "target artists". Benjamin Napier, owner of Mansfield Comics and Manga in Mansfield, Texas, said that at first he felt the law was "ridiculous" and "kind of frivolous" at first, part of a "misguided puritanical onslaught", and noted that he would not cow "to the puritanical regime" if it was enacted. Kirsten Cather, an Asian Studies scholar at University of Texas, expressed concern at the law's misinterpretation because "many anime characters appear youthful, regardless of their actual age", said that the law could "stifle creative expression", and noted that the law's scope is broad enough to have manga and anime under scrutiny, a "real slippery slope here that's being breached". Marcel Green of Screen Rant said that the law's ambiguity led to concerns from manga and anime fans, and theorized that the law's application to a fan within Texas, who downloaded the 368th chapter of My Hero Academia, which has a "sexualized depiction" of an "underage high school student", would result in a criminal offense of "180 days to two years in state jail, along with a fine of up to $10,000". Green also said the law is problematic because many anime and manga characters are young, with many protagonists as minors and argued that the law could apply in limited cases, if state officials deemed an anime or manga under scrutiny as lacking "artistic value". Evan D. Mullicane, on the same site, said the vague wording of the legislation made it "dangerous" for anime such as Dragon Ball and Naruto, and could impact more than hentai, predicting it will be used against more than its "intended target" and be used to censor stories with "young LGBTQIA characters". Another critic on the same site, Carlyle Edmundson, called for anime fans to step up and prevent the law's enactment "for the good of artists and fans everywhere", saying that the legislation was "draconian" and claimed it was the most extreme case of anime and manga censorship in U.S. history. Nick Valdez of ComicBook.com said that the legislation could lead to censorship of "many anime and manga projects," like Kill la Kill and The 100 Girlfriends Who Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Love You, becoming a crime, and said that even if the law is enforced in a case-by-case basis, it could lead to a "much larger ban of materials in the state" itself due to the content of certain manga and anime. Vanessa Esguerra of The Mary Sue argued that possession of manga like Berserk and Vagabond, or viewing Dandadan, could be deemed illegal under the law, due to various parts of each of these media, and asserted that viewing and owning certain anime and other media, falling under the law's provisions,

  Read more →
• 

  Tabnine

  Tabnine is a code completion tool which uses generative artificial intelligence to assist users by autocompleting code. It was created in 2018 by Jacob Jackson, a student at the University of Waterloo. It is now developed by Tabnine, a software company founded under the name Codota by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2013, and renamed to Tabnine in 2021. Initially established under the name Codota, the company underwent a rebranding in May 2021 following the release of the company’s first large language model based AI coding assistant, adopting the name Tabnine. == History == Tabnine was established as Codota in 2013 by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel. Tabnine, initially founded under the name Codota, was created to develop tools based on over a decade of academic research at the Technion. Codota, the predecessor of Tabnine, secured $2 million in seed investment in June 2017. Following this, in June 2018, the company introduced the first AI-based code completion for Java IDE. In 2019, Codota acquired a product called Tabnine, which used the newly available large-language model technology to provide generative AI for software code across a broader range of programming languages across five IDEs. Codota replaced its earlier approach to code generation with this new approach to generative AI. The company secured a Series A round of funding in April 2020, raising $12 million. On May 26, 2021, Codota changed its name to Tabnine and underwent a corresponding rebranding. By April 2022, Tabnine reached over one million users. In June of the same year, Tabnine launched models that could predict full lines and snippets of code. The same year it raised $15.5 mln in a funding round led co-led by Qualcomm Ventures. In June 2023, Tabnine introduced an AI-powered chat agent, enabling developers to use natural language to generate code, to explain code, to generate tests and documentation, and to propose fixes to code. In November 2023, Tabnine closed a Series B round of funding, raising $25 million to scale the company’s operations. == Operations == Tabnine's headquarters is located in Tel Aviv, Israel, with an additional corporate entity in the United States. As of November 2023, Tabnine generative AI for software development is used by a million developers. It has 10 million installations across VS Code and JetBrains. Since its founding, Dror Weiss has served as CEO, with Eran Yahav as CTO.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaZero

  AlphaZero is a computer program developed by artificial intelligence research company DeepMind to master the games of chess, shogi and go. This algorithm uses an approach similar to AlphaGo Zero. On December 5, 2017, the DeepMind team released a preprint paper introducing AlphaZero, which would soon play three games by defeating world-champion chess engines Stockfish, Elmo, and the three-day version of AlphaGo Zero. In each case it made use of custom tensor processing units (TPUs) that the Google programs were optimized to use. AlphaZero was trained solely via self-play using 5,000 first-generation TPUs to generate the games and 64 second-generation TPUs to train the neural networks, all in parallel, with no access to opening books or endgame tables. After four hours of training, DeepMind estimated AlphaZero was playing chess at a higher Elo rating than Stockfish 8; after nine hours of training, the algorithm defeated Stockfish 8 in a time-controlled 100-game tournament (28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws). The trained algorithm played on a single machine with four TPUs. DeepMind's paper on AlphaZero was published in the journal Science on 7 December 2018. While the actual AlphaZero program has not been released to the public, the algorithm described in the paper has been implemented in publicly available software. In 2019, DeepMind published a new paper detailing MuZero, a new algorithm able to generalize AlphaZero's work, playing both Atari and board games without knowledge of the rules or representations of the game. == Relation to AlphaGo Zero == AlphaZero (AZ) is a more generalized variant of the AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) algorithm, and is able to play shogi and chess as well as Go. Differences between AZ and AGZ include: AZ has hard-coded rules for setting search hyperparameters. The neural network is now updated continually. AZ doesn't use symmetries, unlike AGZ. Chess or Shogi can end in a draw unlike Go; therefore, AlphaZero takes into account the possibility of a drawn game. == Stockfish and Elmo == Comparing Monte Carlo tree search searches, AlphaZero searches just 80,000 positions per second in chess and 40,000 in shogi, compared to 70 million for Stockfish and 35 million for Elmo. AlphaZero compensates for the lower number of evaluations by using its deep neural network to focus much more selectively on the most promising variation. == Training == AlphaZero was trained by simply playing against itself multiple times, using 5,000 first-generation TPUs to generate the games and 64 second-generation TPUs to train the neural networks. In parallel, the in-training AlphaZero was periodically matched against its benchmark (Stockfish, Elmo, or AlphaGo Zero) in brief one-second-per-move games to determine how well the training was progressing. DeepMind judged that AlphaZero's performance exceeded the benchmark after around four hours of training for Stockfish, two hours for Elmo, and eight hours for AlphaGo Zero. == Preliminary results == === Outcome === ==== Chess ==== In AlphaZero's chess match against Stockfish 8 (2016 TCEC world champion), each program was given one minute per move. AlphaZero was flying the English flag, while Stockfish the Norwegian. Stockfish was allocated 64 threads and a hash size of 1 GB, a setting that Stockfish's Tord Romstad later criticized as suboptimal. AlphaZero was trained on chess for a total of nine hours before the match. During the match, AlphaZero ran on a single machine with four application-specific TPUs. In 100 games from the normal starting position, AlphaZero won 25 games as White, won 3 as Black, and drew the remaining 72. In a series of twelve, 100-game matches (of unspecified time or resource constraints) against Stockfish starting from the 12 most popular human openings, AlphaZero won 290, drew 886 and lost 24. ==== Shogi ==== AlphaZero was trained on shogi for a total of two hours before the tournament. In 100 shogi games against Elmo (World Computer Shogi Championship 27 summer 2017 tournament version with YaneuraOu 4.73 search), AlphaZero won 90 times, lost 8 times and drew twice. As in the chess games, each program got one minute per move, and Elmo was given 64 threads and a hash size of 1 GB. ==== Go ==== After 34 hours of self-learning of Go and against AlphaGo Zero, AlphaZero won 60 games and lost 40. === Analysis === DeepMind stated in its preprint, "The game of chess represented the pinnacle of AI research over several decades. State-of-the-art programs are based on powerful engines that search many millions of positions, leveraging handcrafted domain expertise and sophisticated domain adaptations. AlphaZero is a generic reinforcement learning algorithm – originally devised for the game of go – that achieved superior results within a few hours, searching a thousand times fewer positions, given no domain knowledge except the rules." DeepMind's Demis Hassabis, a chess player himself, called AlphaZero's play style "alien": It sometimes wins by offering counterintuitive sacrifices, like offering up a queen and bishop to exploit a positional advantage. "It's like chess from another dimension." Given the difficulty in chess of forcing a win against a strong opponent, the +28 –0 =72 result is a significant margin of victory. However, some grandmasters, such as Hikaru Nakamura and Komodo developer Larry Kaufman, downplayed AlphaZero's victory, arguing that the match would have been closer if the programs had access to an opening database (since Stockfish was optimized for that scenario). Romstad additionally pointed out that Stockfish is not optimized for rigidly fixed-time moves and the version used was a year old. Similarly, some shogi observers argued that the Elmo hash size was too low, that the resignation settings and the "EnteringKingRule" settings (cf. shogi § Entering King) may have been inappropriate, and that Elmo is already obsolete compared with newer programs. === Reaction and criticism === Papers headlined that the chess training took only four hours: "It was managed in little more than the time between breakfast and lunch." Wired described AlphaZero as "the first multi-skilled AI board-game champ". AI expert Joanna Bryson noted that Google's "knack for good publicity" was putting it in a strong position against challengers. "It's not only about hiring the best programmers. It's also very political, as it helps make Google as strong as possible when negotiating with governments and regulators looking at the AI sector." Human chess grandmasters generally expressed excitement about AlphaZero. Danish grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen likened AlphaZero's play to that of a superior alien species. Norwegian grandmaster Jon Ludvig Hammer characterized AlphaZero's play as "insane attacking chess" with profound positional understanding. Former champion Garry Kasparov said, "It's a remarkable achievement, even if we should have expected it after AlphaGo." Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura was less impressed, stating: "I don't necessarily put a lot of credibility in the results simply because my understanding is that AlphaZero is basically using the Google supercomputer and Stockfish doesn't run on that hardware; Stockfish was basically running on what would be my laptop. If you wanna have a match that's comparable you have to have Stockfish running on a supercomputer as well." Top US correspondence chess player Wolff Morrow was also unimpressed, claiming that AlphaZero would probably not make the semifinals of a fair competition such as TCEC where all engines play on equal hardware. Morrow further stated that although he might not be able to beat AlphaZero if AlphaZero played drawish openings such as the Petroff Defence, AlphaZero would not be able to beat him in a correspondence chess game either. Motohiro Isozaki, the author of YaneuraOu, noted that although AlphaZero did comprehensively beat Elmo, the rating of AlphaZero in shogi stopped growing at a point which is at most 100–200 higher than Elmo. This gap is not that high, and Elmo and other shogi software should be able to catch up in 1–2 years. == Final results == DeepMind addressed many of the criticisms in their final version of the paper, published in December 2018 in Science. They further clarified that AlphaZero was not running on a supercomputer; it was trained using 5,000 tensor processing units (TPUs), but only ran on four TPUs and a 44-core CPU in its matches. === Chess === In the final results, Stockfish 9 dev ran under the same conditions as in the TCEC superfinal: 44 CPU cores, Syzygy endgame tablebases, and a 32 GB hash size. Instead of a fixed time control of one move per minute, both engines were given 3 hours plus 15 seconds per move to finish the game. AlphaZero ran on a much more powerful machine with four TPUs in addition to 44 CPU cores. In a 1000-game match, AlphaZero won with a score of 155 wins, 6 losses, and 839 draws. DeepMind also played a series of games using the TCEC opening positions; AlphaZero also won

  Read more →
• 

  Dating app

  An online dating application, commonly known as a dating app, is an online dating service presented through a mobile phone application. These apps often take advantage of a smartphone's GPS location capabilities, always on-hand presence, and access to mobile wallets. These apps aim to speed up the online dating process of sifting through potential dating partners, chatting, flirting, and potentially meeting or becoming romantically involved. Online dating apps are now mainstream in the United States. As of 2017, online dating (which included both apps and other online dating services) was the principal method by which new couples in the U.S. met. The percentage of couples meeting online is predicted to increase to 70% by 2040. == Origins == The first computerized dating service was launched in 1964, the St. James Computer Dating Service, which became known as Com-Pat. The first U.S. dating service that used computerized match making was Operation Match. It required men and women to complete a questionnaire and was launched in 1965. Operation Match inspired the methodology of Dateline, which became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Match.com was launched in 1995 and turned computerized match making into a profitable business. Grindr targeted gay and bisexual men at launch. Tinder, launched in 2012, led to a growth of online dating applications by both new providers and existing online dating services that expanded into the mobile app market. == Usage by demographic group == Online dating applications typically target a younger demographic group, though some apps, like Senior Match and Silver Singles are geared toward the 50 and up demographic. In 2016, almost 50% of people knew of someone who use the services or had met their loved one through the service. After the iPhone launch in 2007, online dating data has mushroomed as application usage increased. In 2005, only 10% of 18-24 year olds reported to have used online dating services; this number quickly grew to over 27%, making this target demographic the largest number of users for most applications. When Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2016, they found that 59% of U.S. adults agreed that online dating is a good way to meet people compared to 44% in 2005. This explosion in usage can be explained by the increased use of smartphones. By the end of 2022, it is expected there will be 413 million active users of online dating services worldwide. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 6,034 American adults found that 30% had ever used an online dating site or app, including 53% of those aged 18 to 29, 37% of those aged 30 to 49, and 17% of those aged 50 and over. Lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents reported using dating apps at nearly twice the rate of straight respondents (51% versus 28%), and 36% of divorced, separated or widowed adults had used one, compared with 16% of married adults. The increased use of smartphones by those 65 and older has also driven that population to the use dating apps. The Pew Research Center found that usage increase by 8 points since last surveyed in 2012. A study in 2021 found that more than one-third of seniors have dated in the past 5 years, and roughly one-third of those dating seniors have turned to dating apps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Morning Consult found that more Americans were using online dating apps than ever before. In one survey in April 2020, the company discovered that 53% of U.S. adults who use online dating apps have been using them more during the pandemic. As of February 2021, that share increased to 71 percent. Research using Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory has indicated that norms about online dating applications tend to differ across cultures. A study published in the Journal of Creative Communications looked into the relationships between dating-app advertisements from over 51 countries and the cultural dimensions of these countries. The results revealed that dating-app advertisements appealed to multiple cultural needs, including the needs for relationships, friendship, entertainment, sex, status, design and identity. The use of these appeals was found to be 'congruent with ... the individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance cultural dimensions.' == Popular applications == Following Tinder's success, other companies released dating applications. Raya was released in 2015 as a membership-based dating app, allowing entrance only through referrals, which was marketed as a dating app for celebrities. In early 2026, Hily surpassed Bumble to become the third most-used dating application in the United States and the fifth highest-grossing overall, driven largely by growing popularity among Generation Z users, while remaining behind Tinder and Hinge, both owned by Match Group. A number of dating apps have been created targeting adherents of particular religions seeking partners of the same religion, such as Muzmatch for Muslims, Christian Mingle, SALT, and Christian Connection for Christians, and JSwipe and JDate for Jews. === VR Dating === VR Dating is an application of Social VR where people can exist, collaborate, and perform various activities together. Virtual reality apps use virtual and augmented realities to make the dating experience more lifelike and more effective, as well as allow people to expand what is already possible in the world of online dating. There are several online platforms of VR Dating. The VR dating app Nevermet is the VR equivalent of Tinder, where people can search and find on dates. However, instead of actual real-life pictures, users will update pictures of virtual selves and will be interacting with avatars rather than real faces. Flirtual is a self-contained social VR app that serves to match users who then decide where and how to meet in VR. Flirtual hosts speed dating and social events in VR. == Effects on dating == The usage of online dating applications can have both advantages and disadvantages: === Advantages === Many of the applications provide personality tests for matching or use algorithms to match users. These factors enhance the possibility of users getting matched with a compatible candidate. Users are in control; they are provided with many options so there are enough matches that fit their particular type. Users can simply choose to not match the candidates that they know they are not interested in. Narrowing down options is easy. Once users think they are interested, they are able to chat and get to know the potential candidate. This form of communication can reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty often associated with traditional dating methods. Online dating offers convenience; people want dating to work around their schedules. Online dating can also increase self-confidence; even if users get rejected, they know there are hundreds of other candidates that will want to match with them so they can simply move on to the next option. In fact, 60% of U.S. adults agree that online dating is a good way to meet people and 66% say they have gone on a real date with someone they met through an application. Today, 5% of married Americans or Americans in serious relationships said they met their significant other online. The 39% of online dating users (representing 12% of all U.S. adults) say they have been in a committed relationship or married someone they met on a dating site or app. ==== Rejection sensitive individuals ==== Individuals high in rejection sensitivity are more likely to use online dating applications. As they tend to expect, perceive and overreact to rejection, rejection sensitive individuals struggle with traditional dating. Online dating applications allow for them to better reveal their true selves, potentially increasing their dating success. Online dating applications also obscure rejection cues, alleviating the rejection-related distress experienced by rejection sensitive individuals. ==== Anxiously attached individuals ==== Individuals high in attachment anxiety are also more likely to use online dating applications. While they harbour negative self-views, anxiously attached individuals are also more eager to enter and commit to relationships. Online dating applications allow for them to present "an authentic yet ideal version of themselves", mitigating their tendencies to view themselves as undesirable. This increases their romantic confidence, and potentially alleviates their anxiety when searching for a romantic partner. === Disadvantages === Sometimes having too many options can be overwhelming. With so many options available, users can get lost in their choices and end up spending too much time looking for the "perfect" candidate instead of using that time to start a real relationship. In addition, the algorithms and matching systems put in place may not always be as accurate as users think. There is no perfect system that can match two people's personalities perfectly every time. Communication online also lacks the physical chemistry aspec

  Read more →
• 

  Catastrophic interference

  Catastrophic interference, also known as catastrophic forgetting, is the tendency of an artificial neural network to abruptly and drastically forget previously learned information upon learning new information. Neural networks are an important part of the connectionist approach to cognitive science. The issue of catastrophic interference when modeling human memory with connectionist models was originally brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from McCloskey and Cohen (1989), and Ratcliff (1990). It is a radical manifestation of the 'sensitivity-stability' dilemma or the 'stability-plasticity' dilemma. Specifically, these problems refer to the challenge of making an artificial neural network that is sensitive to, but not disrupted by, new information. Lookup tables and connectionist networks lie on the opposite sides of the stability plasticity spectrum. The former remains completely stable in the presence of new information but lacks the ability to generalize, i.e. infer general principles, from new inputs. On the other hand, connectionist networks like the standard backpropagation network can generalize to unseen inputs, but they are sensitive to new information. Backpropagation models can be analogized to human memory insofar as they have a similar ability to generalize, but these networks often exhibit less stability than human memory. Notably, these backpropagation networks are susceptible to catastrophic interference. This is an issue when modelling human memory, because unlike these networks, humans typically do not show catastrophic forgetting. == Discovery == The term catastrophic interference was originally coined by McCloskey and Cohen (1989) but was also brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from Ratcliff (1990). === The Sequential Learning Problem: McCloskey and Cohen (1989) === McCloskey and Cohen (1989) noted the problem of catastrophic interference during two different experiments with backpropagation neural network modelling. Experiment 1: Learning the ones and twos addition facts In their first experiment they trained a standard backpropagation neural network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit ones problems (i.e., 1 + 1 through 9 + 1, and 1 + 2 through 1 + 9) until the network could represent and respond properly to all of them. The error between the actual output and the desired output steadily declined across training sessions, which reflected that the network learned to represent the target outputs better across trials. Next, they trained the network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit twos problems (i.e., 2 + 1 through 2 + 9, and 1 + 2 through 9 + 2) until the network could represent, respond properly to all of them. They noted that their procedure was similar to how a child would learn their addition facts. Following each learning trial on the twos facts, the network was tested for its knowledge on both the ones and twos addition facts. Like the ones facts, the twos facts were readily learned by the network. However, McCloskey and Cohen noted the network was no longer able to properly answer the ones addition problems even after one learning trial of the twos addition problems. The output pattern produced in response to the ones facts often resembled an output pattern for an incorrect number more closely than the output pattern for a correct number. This is considered to be a drastic amount of error. Furthermore, the problems 2+1 and 1+2, which were included in both training sets, even showed dramatic disruption during the first learning trials of the twos facts. Experiment 2: Replication of Barnes and Underwood (1959) study In their second connectionist model, McCloskey and Cohen attempted to replicate the study on retroactive interference in humans by Barnes and Underwood (1959). They trained the model on A-B and A-C lists and used a context pattern in the input vector (input pattern), to differentiate between the lists. Specifically the network was trained to respond with the right B response when shown the A stimulus and A-B context pattern and to respond with the correct C response when shown the A stimulus and the A-C context pattern. When the model was trained concurrently on the A-B and A-C items then the network readily learned all of the associations correctly. In sequential training the A-B list was trained first, followed by the A-C list. After each presentation of the A-C list, performance was measured for both the A-B and A-C lists. They found that the amount of training on the A-C list in Barnes and Underwood study that lead to 50% correct responses, lead to nearly 0% correct responses by the backpropagation network. Furthermore, they found that the network tended to show responses that looked like the C response pattern when the network was prompted to give the B response pattern. This indicated that the A-C list apparently had overwritten the A-B list. This could be likened to learning the word dog, followed by learning the word stool and then finding that you think of the word stool when presented with the word dog. McCloskey and Cohen tried to reduce interference through a number of manipulations including changing the number of hidden units, changing the value of the learning rate parameter, overtraining on the A-B list, freezing certain connection weights, changing target values 0 and 1 instead 0.1 and 0.9. However, none of these manipulations satisfactorily reduced the catastrophic interference exhibited by the networks. Overall, McCloskey and Cohen (1989) concluded that: at least some interference will occur whenever new learning alters the weights involved in representing old learning the greater the amount of new learning, the greater the disruption in old knowledge interference was catastrophic in the backpropagation networks when learning was sequential but not concurrent === Constraints Imposed by Learning and Forgetting Functions: Ratcliff (1990) === Ratcliff (1990) used multiple sets of backpropagation models applied to standard recognition memory procedures, in which the items were sequentially learned. After inspecting the recognition performance models he found two major problems: Well-learned information was catastrophically forgotten as new information was learned in both small and large backpropagation networks. Even one learning trial with new information resulted in a significant loss of the old information, paralleling the findings of McCloskey and Cohen (1989). Ratcliff also found that the resulting outputs were often a blend of the previous input and the new input. In larger networks, items learned in groups (e.g. AB then CD) were more resistant to forgetting than were items learned singly (e.g. A then B then C...). However, the forgetting for items learned in groups was still large. Adding new hidden units to the network did not reduce interference. Discrimination between the studied items and previously unseen items decreased as the network learned more. This finding contradicts studies on human memory, which indicated that discrimination increases with learning. Ratcliff attempted to alleviate this problem by adding 'response nodes' that would selectively respond to old and new inputs. However, this method did not work as these response nodes would become active for all inputs. A model which used a context pattern also failed to increase discrimination between new and old items. == Proposed solutions == The main cause of catastrophic interference seems to be overlap in the representations at the hidden layer of distributed neural networks. In a distributed representation, each input tends to create changes in the weights of many of the nodes. Catastrophic forgetting occurs because when many of the weights where "knowledge is stored" are changed, it is unlikely for prior knowledge to be kept intact. During sequential learning, the inputs become mixed, with the new inputs being superimposed on top of the old ones. Another way to conceptualize this is by visualizing learning as a movement through a weight space. This weight space can be likened to a spatial representation of all of the possible combinations of weights that the network could possess. When a network first learns to represent a set of patterns, it finds a point in the weight space that allows it to recognize all of those patterns. However, when the network then learns a new set of patterns, it will move to a place in the weight space for which the only concern is the recognition of the new patterns. To recognize both sets of patterns, the network must find a place in the weight space suitable for recognizing both the new and the old patterns. Below are a number of techniques which have empirical support in successfully reducing catastrophic interference in backpropagation neural networks: === Orthogonality === Many of the early techniques in reducing representational overlap involved making either the input vecto

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus's views on artificial intelligence

  Hubert Dreyfus was a critic of artificial intelligence research. In a series of papers and books, including Alchemy and AI (1965), What Computers Can't Do (1972; 1979; 1992) and Mind over Machine (1986), he presented a skeptical and cautious assessment of AI's progress and a critique of the philosophical foundations of the field. Dreyfus' objections are discussed in most introductions to the philosophy of artificial intelligence, including Russell & Norvig (2021), a standard AI textbook, and in Fearn (2007), a survey of contemporary philosophy. Dreyfus argued that human intelligence and expertise depend primarily on yet-to-be understood informal and unconscious processes rather than symbolic manipulation and that these essentially human skills cannot be fully captured in formal rules. His critique was based on the insights of modern continental philosophers such as Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger, and was directed at the first wave of AI research which tried to reduce intelligence to high level formal symbols. When Dreyfus' ideas were first introduced in the mid-1960s, they were met in the AI community with ridicule and outright hostility. By the 1980s, however, some of his perspectives were rediscovered by researchers working in robotics and the new field of connectionism—approaches that were called "sub-symbolic" at the time because they eschewed early AI research's emphasis on high level symbols. In the 21st century, "sub-symbolic" artificial neural networks and other statistics-based approaches to machine learning were highly successful. Historian and AI researcher Daniel Crevier wrote: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments." Dreyfus said in 2007, "I figure I won and it's over—they've given up." == Dreyfus' critique == === The grandiose promises of artificial intelligence === In Alchemy and AI (1965) and What Computers Can't Do (1972), Dreyfus summarized the history of artificial intelligence and ridiculed the unbridled optimism that permeated the field. For example, Herbert A. Simon, following the success of his program General Problem Solver (1957), predicted that by 1967: A computer would be world champion in chess. A computer would discover and prove an important new mathematical theorem. Most theories in psychology will take the form of computer programs. The press dutifully reported these predictions of the imminent arrival of machine intelligence. Dreyfus felt that this optimism was unwarranted and, in 1965, argued forcefully that predictions like these would not come true. He would eventually be proven right. Pamela McCorduck explains Dreyfus' position: A great misunderstanding accounts for public confusion about thinking machines, a misunderstanding perpetrated by the unrealistic claims researchers in AI have been making, claims that thinking machines are already here, or at any rate, just around the corner. These predictions were based on the success of the cognitive revolution, which promoted an "information processing" model of the mind. It was articulated by Newell and Simon in their physical symbol systems hypothesis, and later expanded into a philosophical position known as computationalism by philosophers such as Jerry Fodor and Hilary Putnam. In AI, the approach is now called symbolic AI or "GOFAI". Dreyfus argued that "symbolic AI" was the latest version of the ancient program of rationalism in philosophy. Rationalism had come under heavy criticism in the 20th century from philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl. The mind, according to modern continental philosophy, is not "rationalist" and is nothing like a digital computer. Cognitivism led early AI researchers to believe that they had successfully simulated the essential process of human thought, thus it seemed a short step to producing fully intelligent machines. Dreyfus' last paper detailed the ongoing history of the "first step fallacy", where AI researchers tend to wildly extrapolate initial success as promising, perhaps even guaranteeing, wild future successes. === Dreyfus' four assumptions of artificial intelligence research === In Alchemy and AI and What Computers Can't Do, Dreyfus identified four philosophical assumptions, at least one of which he deems necessary for AI to succeed. "In each case," Dreyfus writes, "the assumption is taken by workers in AI as an axiom, guaranteeing results, whereas it is, in fact, one hypothesis among others, to be tested by the success of such work." Dreyfus argues that AI would be impossible without accepting at least one of these four assumptions: The biological assumption The brain processes information in discrete operations by way of some biological equivalent of on/off switches. In the early days of research into neurology, scientists found that neurons fire in all-or-nothing pulses. Several researchers, such as Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch, speculated with great confidence that neurons functioned similarly to the way Boolean logic gates operate, and so could be imitated by electronic circuitry at the level of the neuron. When digital computers became widely used in the early 50s, this argument was extended to suggest that the brain was a vast physical symbol system, manipulating the binary symbols of zero and one. Dreyfus was able to refute the biological assumption by citing research in neurology that suggested that the action and timing of neuron firing had analog components. But Daniel Crevier observes that "few still held that belief in the early 1970s, and nobody argued against Dreyfus" about the biological assumption. The psychological assumption The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules. He refuted this assumption by showing that much of what we know about the world consists of complex attitudes or tendencies that make us lean towards one interpretation over another. He argued that, even when we use explicit symbols, we are using them against an unconscious and informal background including commonsense knowledge and that without this background our symbols cease to mean anything. This background, in Dreyfus' view, was not implemented in individual brains as explicit individual symbols with explicit individual meanings. The epistemological assumption All knowledge can be formalized. This concerns the philosophical issue of epistemology, or the study of knowledge. Even if we agree that the psychological assumption is false, AI researchers could still argue (as AI founder John McCarthy has) that it is possible for a symbol processing machine to represent all knowledge, regardless of whether human beings represent knowledge the same way. Dreyfus argued that there is no justification for this assumption, since so much of human knowledge is not symbolic or even expressible using formal constructs. The ontological assumption The world consists of independent facts that can be represented by independent symbols AI researchers (and futurists and science fiction writers) often assume that there is no limit to formal, scientific knowledge, because they assume that any phenomenon in the universe can be described by symbols or scientific theories. This assumes that everything that exists can be understood as objects, properties of objects, classes of objects, relations of objects, and so on: precisely those things that can be described by logic, language and mathematics. The study of being or existence is called ontology, and so Dreyfus calls this the ontological assumption. If this is false, then it raises doubts about what we can ultimately know and what intelligent machines will ultimately be able to help us to do. === Knowing-how vs. knowing-that: the primacy of intuition === In Mind Over Machine (1986), written (with his brother) during the heyday of expert systems, Dreyfus analyzed the difference between human expertise and the programs that claimed to capture it. This expanded on ideas from What Computers Can't Do, where he had made a similar argument criticizing the "cognitive simulation" school of AI research practiced by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s. Dreyfus argued that human problem solving and expertise depend on our background sense of the context, of what is important and interesting given the situation, rather than on the process of searching through combinations of possibilities to find what we need. Dreyfus would describe it in 1986 as the difference between "knowing-that" and "knowing-how", based on Heidegger's distinction of present-at-hand and ready-to-hand. Knowing-that is our conscious, step-by-step problem solving abilities. We use these skills when we encounter a difficult problem that requires us to stop, step back and search through ideas one at time. At moments like this, the ideas become very precise and simple: they become context free symbols, which we manipulate using logic and language. These are the skills that Newell and Simon had demonstrated with both psy

  Read more →
• 

  Freddy II

  Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.

  Read more →
• 

  Tom's Planner

  Tom's Planner is a web-based tool and application service provider for project planning, management and collaboration. == History == Tom's Planner is based on Curaçao. In November 2009, it announced its public beta launch on TechCrunch and moved out of beta in August 2010. In 2013 Tom's Planner acquired its competitor Gantto. == Software == Tom's Planner is project management software that enables the creation of project schedules (Gantt charts) using a visual perspective. Tom's Planner uses the Freemium Business Model. Users can register for a free account or choose a paid version. Tom's Planner is available in five languages and is used by thousands of users on a daily basis in more than 100 countries worldwide. Customers range from fortune 500 companies to small mom-and-pop shops. == Reviews == Tom's Planner has been reviewed by PC World, TechCrunch, Lifehacker, and several other periodicals.

  Read more →
• 

  Qualification problem

  In philosophy and AI (especially, knowledge-based systems), the qualification problem is concerned with the impossibility of listing all the preconditions required for a real-world action to have its intended effect. It might be posed as how to deal with the things that prevent me from achieving my intended result. It is strongly connected to, and opposite the ramification side of, the frame problem. John McCarthy gives the following motivating example, in which it is impossible to enumerate all the circumstances that may prevent a robot from performing its ordinary function: [T]he successful use of a boat to cross a river requires, if the boat is a rowboat, that the oars and rowlocks be present and unbroken, and that they fit each other. Many other qualifications can be added, making the rules for using a rowboat almost impossible to apply, and yet anyone will still be able to think of additional requirements not yet stated.

  Read more →
• 

  StepFun

  Shanghai Jieyue Xingchen Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd, known as StepFun, is an artificial intelligence (AI) company based in Shanghai, China. It has been dubbed one of China's "AI Tiger" companies by investors. == Background == StepFun was founded in April 2023 by former Microsoft employees. Investors include Tencent, Qiming Venture Partners and Shanghai State-owned Capital Investment. In July 2025 at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, StepFun announced the "Model-Chip Ecosystem Innovation Alliance" which consisted of Chinese developers of large language models (LLMs) and AI chip manufacturers. This included companies such as Huawei, Biren Technology, Moore Threads and Enflame. Another second alliance named the "Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce AI Committee" was also established that included StepFun, SenseTime, MiniMax, MetaX and Iluvatar CoreX. On 25 February 2026, it was reported that StepFun was seeking an initial public offering on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. StepFun focuses on multimodal models which are designed to understand multiple types of input data such as text, video and audio. == Products == In July 2024 at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, StepFun officially launched Step-2, a trillion-parameter LLM, along with the Step-1.5V multimodal model and the Step-1X image generation model. In February 2025, StepFun and Geely jointly announced the open-sourcing of two multimodal large models to global developers. They were Step-Video-T2V and Step-Audio. In July 2025, StepFun released Step 3. The Model-Chip Ecosystem Innovation Alliance aimed to optimize Step 3 for domestic chips. In April 2025, Step-R1-V-Mini was released. It is a multimodal reasoning model designed for visual interpretation and image understanding. In February 2026, Step-3.5-Flash, a mixture-of-experts model with 196 billion parameters and 11 billion active parameters was released under the free and open-source Apache 2.0 license. It supports tool use and a 256k token context window. == Models ==

  Read more →