AI Art Los Angeles

AI Art Los Angeles — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  EditDV

  EditDV was a video editing software released by Radius, Inc. in late 1997 as an evolution of their earlier Radius Edit product. EditDV was one of the first products providing professional-quality editing of the then new DV format at a relatively affordable cost ($999 including Radius FireWire capture card) and was named "The Best Video Tool of 1998". Originally EditDV was available for Macintosh only but in February 2000 EditDV 2.0 for Windows was released. With version 3.0 EditDV's name was changed to CineStream. == Features == Originally bundled with a FireWire card, EditDV 1.5 got updated into a less expensive software only package for use with the newer PowerMac G3 that came with a FireWire interface. Later, a scaled down version named EditDV 1.6.1 Unplugged was released as a freeware version next to EditDV 2.0. Unlike many other applications at the time which transcoded video to M-JPEG for editing, EditDV provided lossless native editing of the DV format. Only transitions (such as dissolves or wipes), effects (such as rotating or scaling the video, adjusting the audio level, or adding titles) and filters (such as changing the brightness or color balance) needed to be rendered. This also had the disadvantage to not work with analogue video capture. EditDV was built on top of QuickTime and supported QuickTime filters as well as its own built-in effects and transitions. Effects could be animated using keyframes. EditDV 2.0 worked natively with Quicktime MOV format. For Microsoft Windows users, where the standard was AVI, this required the use of a provided external conversion tool afterwards when AVI was wanted. The user interface had a Project window for organising clips into bins, a Sequence window with a multi-track timeline for arranging clips into a program using three-point editing, and Source and Program monitor windows. A finished program could either be exported as a QuickTime movie or written back to DV tape using the "print to video" command. Version 3.0, then renamed CineStream, shifted towards web designers who wanted to add video streaming interactivity to a website. The new feature called EventStream allowed setting clickable hot spots to link to another location, either to another page with a URL or to another video. This feature distinguished CineStream from the rest of the competition. == Products == The EditDV product family included a number of related products, all sharing a similar name: EditDV Video editing software (Mac and Windows) SoftDV A QuickTime software codec for playing DV media, included as part of EditDV (Mac and Windows) MotoDV PCI-based FireWire interface with DV capture software (Mac and Windows) PhotoDV Software to capture high-quality stills from a DV tape using MotoDV hardware (Mac and Windows) RotoDV Software for rotoscoping (painting over video), released in Sept 1999 (Macintosh only) == Name changes and eventual demise == In 1999, the company Radius Inc. changed its name to Digital Origin. In 2000, Digital Origin Inc (and EditDV) was bought by Media 100. In early 2001, Media 100 released an updated version of EditDV under the new name CineStream 3.0. Later that year (October 2001) Media 100 was bought by Autodesk's Discreet Division. CineStream for Macintosh required classic Mac OS. It was never ported to Mac OS X and faced increasing competition on that platform from Apple's own Final Cut Pro application. Development of EditDV/Cinestream was officially discontinued in 2002.

  Read more →
• 

  Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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

  Read more →
• 

  Cruel World of Dreams and Fears

  Cruel World of Dreams and Fears is the debut album from Ukrainian-born Czech black metal artist Draugveil, released independently on 13 June 2025. The album became notable among metal fans due to its cover, featuring Draugveil in a suit of armour and corpse paint, and lying in a field of red roses. The cover was the subject of parodying internet memes, as well as accusations of using artificial intelligence (AI) to make it. These claims were later expanded to suggest that AI was used to make the album's music. == Memes and AI accusations == Upon the album being released on YouTube on the channel Black Metal Promotion, the album attracted attention due to its cover, depicting Draugveil lying in a field of roses, dressed in armour, wearing corpse paint and having a sword stuck in the ground. Some compared it to covers where other artists are lying on the ground, such as Michael Jackson's Thriller, Luther Vandross's Give Me the Reason, and the UK cover of Lionel Richie's You Are. Critics of the album, however, suggested that AI was used to make the cover. This was partly due to suggestions that the rose stems in the picture come out from the ground in an unrealistic way. This later resulted in claims from some fans that AI was also used to produce the music, and later the lyrics and vocals. These claims began on a Facebook page entitled "AI Generated Nonsense", which was later deleted. No definitive evidence, however, was produced to back these claims. Derek McArthur, a journalist for Glasgow-based newspaper The Herald, wrote: "The music is in line with what one would expect from a one-man black metal project in the vein of Judas Iscariot and Burzum, but then if AI was asked to create music in a black metal style, that is probably what it would decide to generically produce and spit out." Draugveil's reaction to the claims was: "Let people decide." The result of the claims of AI has led to some writers to claim that artists in the future will have to prove they are human to be taken seriously, and that members of the public will be increasing doubt as to whether creative works are produced by either humans or AI. == Track listing ==

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation

  The fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation (FPOM or pay-off method) is a method for valuing real options, developed by Mikael Collan, Robert Fullér, and József Mezei; and published in 2009. It is based on the use of fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers for the creation of the possible pay-off distribution of a project (real option). The structure of the method is similar to the probability theory based Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation, but the method is not based on probability theory and uses fuzzy numbers and possibility theory in framing the real option valuation problem. == Method == The Fuzzy pay-off method derives the real option value from a pay-off distribution that is created by using three or four cash-flow scenarios (most often created by an expert or a group of experts). The pay-off distribution is created simply by assigning each of the three cash-flow scenarios a corresponding definition with regards to a fuzzy number (triangular fuzzy number for three scenarios and a trapezoidal fuzzy number for four scenarios). This means that the pay-off distribution is created without any simulation whatsoever. This makes the procedure easy and transparent. The scenarios used are a minimum possible scenario (the lowest possible outcome), the maximum possible scenario (the highest possible outcome) and a best estimate (most likely to happen scenario) that is mapped as a fully possible scenario with a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes, or in the case of four scenarios used - two best estimate scenarios that are the upper and lower limit of the interval that is assigned a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes. The main observations that lie behind the model for deriving the real option value are the following: The fuzzy NPV of a project is (equal to) the pay-off distribution of a project value that is calculated with fuzzy numbers. The mean value of the positive values of the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values. Real option value, ROV, calculated from the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values multiplied with the positive area of the fuzzy NPV over the total area of the fuzzy NPV. The real option formula can then be written simply as: R O V = A ( P o s ) A ( P o s ) + A ( N e g ) × E [ A + ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {ROV} ={\frac {A(\mathrm {Pos} )}{A(\mathrm {Pos} )+A(\mathrm {Neg} )}}\times E[A_{+}]} where A(Pos) is the area of the positive part of the fuzzy distribution, A(Neg) is the area of the negative part of the fuzzy distribution, and E[A+] is the mean value of the positive part of the distribution. It can be seen that when the distribution is totally positive, the real options value reduces to the expected (mean) value, E[A+]. As can be seen, the real option value can be derived directly from the fuzzy NPV, without simulation. At the same time, simulation is not an absolutely necessary step in the Datar–Mathews method, so the two methods are not very different in that respect. But what is totally different is that the Datar–Mathews method is based on probability theory and as such has a very different foundation from the pay-off method that is based on possibility theory: the way that the two models treat uncertainty is fundamentally different. == Use of the method == The pay-off method for real option valuation is very easy to use compared to the other real option valuation methods and it can be used with the most commonly used spreadsheet software without any add-ins. The method is useful in analyses for decision making regarding investments that have an uncertain future, and especially so if the underlying data is in the form of cash-flow scenarios. The method is less useful if optimal timing is the objective. The method is flexible and accommodates easily both one-stage investments and multi-stage investments (compound real options). The method has been taken into use in some large international industrial companies for the valuation of research and development projects and portfolios. In these analyses triangular fuzzy numbers are used. Other uses of the method so far are, for example, R&D project valuation IPR valuation, valuation of M&A targets and expected synergies, valuation and optimization of M&A strategies, valuation of area development (construction) projects, valuation of large industrial real investments. The use of the pay-off method is lately taught within the larger framework of real options, for example at the Lappeenranta University of Technology and at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland.

  Read more →
• 

  Adobe GoLive

  Adobe GoLive was a WYSIWYG HTML editor and web site management application from Adobe Systems. It replaced Adobe PageMill as Adobe's primary HTML editor and was itself discontinued in favor of Dreamweaver. The last version of GoLive that Adobe released was GoLive 9. == History == GoLive originated as the flagship product of a company named GoNet Communication, Inc. then based in Menlo Park, California, and the development company GoNet Communications GmbH in Hamburg, Germany, in 1996. Later GoNet changed its name to GoLive Systems, Inc, and the name of its product to GoLive CyberStudio. Adobe acquired GoLive in 1999 and re-branded the GoLive CyberStudio product to what became Adobe GoLive. Adobe took over the Hamburg office as an Adobe development site to continue to develop the product. At the time of the acquisition, CyberStudio was a Macintosh-only application. In the spring of 1999 Adobe released Adobe GoLive for both Macintosh and Microsoft Windows. The first versions of Dreamweaver and CyberStudio were released in a similar timeframe. However, Dreamweaver eventually became the dominant WYSIWYG HTML editor in market share. After the Adobe acquisition of Macromedia (the company that had owned Dreamweaver), GoLive was progressively re-targeted toward Adobe's traditional design market, and the product became better integrated with Adobe's existing suite of design-oriented software products and less focused on the professional web development market. The Adobe CS2 Premium suite contained GoLive CS2. With the release of Creative Suite 3, Adobe integrated Dreamweaver as a replacement for GoLive and released GoLive 9 as a standalone product. In April 2008, Adobe announced that sales and development of GoLive would cease in favor of Dreamweaver. == General description and distinctive aspects == GoLive incorporated a largely modeless workflow that relied heavily on drag-and-drop. Most user interaction was done via a contextual inspector rather than the modal workflow found in Dreamweaver. Among its features were a separate editor for tables that supported nesting, and a two-dimensional panel for applying CSS styles to elements. GoLive supported drag-and-drop of native Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator files via what the company called "Smart Objects", which then automatically guided the user through saving those files in web-supported formats. Updates to the original Photoshop or Illustrator assets were automatically tracked by GoLive. It also implemented a tool called "Components" which allowed updates to interface elements throughout a site to be updated globally by changing one single file. As a website management tool, GoLive allowed users to transfer and publish content directly from within the application, and allowed individual files to be excluded from uploading. == Features == One of the new features of GoLive version 5 was Dynamic Link, which was a method of creating dynamic, database-driven web content without the need to know a server-side language and with full WYSIWYG support in the GoLive user interface. GoLive had a powerful set of extensibility API which could be used to add additional functionality to the product. The GoLive SDK provided interfaces which allowed developers to use a combination of XML, JavaScript and C/C++ to create plugins for the product. The extensibility API allowed developers access to custom drawing and event handling using JavaScript, as well as a full JavaScript debugger and command line interpreter. This allowed intermediate-level developers using interpreted JavaScript to create sophisticated user interfaces. == Language and framework structure == Adobe GoLive is coded in the C++ programming language. It uses a custom C++ framework called SCL (Simple Class Library) which was initially built from scratch by the engineers at GoLive Systems Inc. The SCL framework was also used in the short-lived Adobe Atmosphere 3D software. == Release history == As the final version, GoLive 9 was discontinued in April 2008.

  Read more →
• 

  Raine v. OpenAI

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

  Read more →
• 

  Libby Heaney

  Libby Heaney is a British artist and quantum physicist known for her pioneering work on AI and quantum computing. She works on the impact of future technologies and is widely known to be the first artist to use quantum computing as a functioning artistic medium. Her work has been featured internationally, including in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Tate Modern and the Science Gallery. == Early life and scientific career == Heaney is from Tamworth, Staffordshire. She lived in Amington, and went to Greenacres Primary School and Woodhouse High School, now called Landau Forte Academy Amington. She took her GCSEs in 1999. She studied physics at Imperial College London, graduating in 2005 with first class honours. Libby pursued a successful career in quantum physics, completing a PhD thesis on mode entanglement in ultra-cold atomic gases at the University of Leeds, and pursued her own research as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford and at the National University of Singapore. In 2008, Heaney was awarded the Institute of Physics Very Early Career Woman in Physics Award (now Jocelyn Bell Burnell Medal and Prize). == Artistic career == In 2013 Heaney returned to the UK and completed a master's degree at the University of the Arts London. She studied arts and science at Central Saint Martins and graduated in 2015. She then became a lecturer at the Royal College of Art, teaching Information Experience Design. In 2016, she created Lady Chatterley's Tinderbot which presented Tinder conversations between real users and AI bots programmed using Lady Chatterley's Lover. Lady Chatterley's Tinderbot was covered by BBC News, TheJournal.ie and the Irish Examiner and was exhibited internationally. In 2017, Heaney was commissioned by Sky Arts and the Barbican Centre to design Britbot, an internet bot built using artificial intelligence and the citizenship book Life in the UK: a guide for new residents. The book, a manual for the citizenship test, has been described by Heaney as being "largely a white male privileged version of British history and culture". The bot spoke to the public about what it meant to be British and learnt from their responses to become an ever changing, plural version of Britishness. She was awarded an Arts Council England grant to widen participation of the Britbot to social media. Heaney has exhibited Britbot at the Victoria and Albert Museum, at CogX, the Sheffield Documentary Festival the Edinburgh TV festival, and Art Ai in Leicester. She has been creating with quantum computing since 2019, and has created artworks using quantum computing for Light Art Space (LAS) in Berlin, Somerset House and arebyte in London. Using quantum code, storytelling, and immersive installations and performances, Libby Heaney's works such as Ent- and slimeqore explore and warn against the double-edged potential of quantum computing and its exploitation by private companies. In 2022, Ent- received the Lumen Prize immersive environment award. == Major works == === Ent- and The Evolution of Ent-: QX (2022) === In 2022, Libby Heaney was commissioned by Light Art Space to create Ent-, a 360 immersive installation that revisits Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights through quantum. The work uses quantum computing as both a medium and a paradigm through which to conceive human and non-human relations. Ent- was exhibited at LAS, Ars Electronica, and arebyte gallery in London. The work was also modified to fit a full dome projection at the Deutsches Museum in Munich, projected onto a public facade in Seoul, and turned into a playable version for an exhibition at Nahmad Contemporary in New York. In 2022, Ent- was a winner in the Art Science Category of the Falling Walls prize and received the Lumen Prize immersive environment award. The Evolution of Ent-:QX, first displayed at arebyte gallery in London, builds on Ent- and imagines a fictional quantum computing company (QX) that appropriates, parodies and subverts the language of big tech in order to educate the viewer on current profit-oriented uses of quantum computing as well as propose new ways to think about and use the technology. In 2023, Ent- was acquired and displayed by the 0xCollection, a new media arts institution based in Basel, in their inaugural exhibition in Prague. === Touch is response-ability (2020) === Touch is response-ability is an instagram performance and touch screen installation where participants activate animations by flicking through instagram stories. The performance investigates representations of the female body in art history and through computer vision to see how stereotypes are socially constructed and maintained. Images of the body are passed through a quantum algorithm, and as the users interact with them they progressively become fragmented and dissolve beyond recognition. The work was originally commissioned by Hervisions at LUX in 2020 and performed on the LUX instagram account. It was also exhibited at Etopia Zaragoza in 2021 and at Art SG with Gazelli Art House in 2023. === Lady Chatterley's Tinderbot (2016) === In Lady Chatterley's Tinderbot, Libby Heaney programmed a bot to engage in conversations on Tinder by using lines from the 1928 novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, by D.H. Lawrence. The work was first shown as an interactive installation in 2016 at the Dublin Science Gallery, allowing visitors to swipe left or right to navigate through various conversations. Lady Chatterley's Tinderbot was also exhibited at Sonar+D in Barcelona (2017), the Telefonica Fundacion in Lima (2017), the Lowry in Salford (2018), RMIT gallery in Melbourne (2021), Microwave Festival in Hong Kong (2022) and was shortlisted for the HEK-Basel Net-based art award in 2018. == Selected exhibitions == 2023 - Synesthetic Immersion, 0xCollection, Prague 2023 - slimeQrawl, Shoreditch Arts Club, London 2023 - ...and that's only (half) the story, PLUS ONE Gallery, Antwerp 2023–Present Futures Festival, Centre of Contemporary Art, Glasgow 2023 - Realtime: Lilypads: Mediating Exponential Systems, NXT Museum, Amsterdam 2023 - My Rhino is not a Myth, Art Encounters Biennial, Timisoara 2023 - Ent-er the Garden of Forking Paths, Gazelli Art House, London 2023 - Energeia, Etopia, Zaragoza 2022 - Every Kind of Wind: Calder and the 21st Century, Nahmad Contemporary, New York 2022 - remiQXing still, Fiumano Clase, London 2022 - the Evolution of Ent-: QX, arebyte, London 2022 - Ent-, Light Art Space x Schering Stiftung, Berlin 2022 - Among the Machines, Zabludowicz Collection, London 2022 - BioMedia, ZKM, Karlsruhe 2021 - CASCADE, Southbank Centre, London 2021 - Agency is the Ability to Act, Holden Gallery, Manchester 2021 - BIAS, Science Gallery, Dublin 2021 - Ars Electronica, Linz 2021 - AI & Music, S+T+ARTS & Sonar Festival, CCCB, Barcelona 2020 - Real Time Constraints, arebyte, London 2019 - Euro(re)visions, Goethe Institut, London 2019 - Higher Resolutions with Hyphen Labs, Tate Modern, London 2019 - Open Fest with Sky Arts, Barbican, London 2018 - Digital Design Weekend, V&A, London 2018 - FAKE, Science Gallery, Dublin 2017 - Ars Electronica, Linz 2017 - Entangled: Quantum Computer Art, Royal College of Art, London 2017 - Humans Need Not Apply, Science Gallery, Dublin == Awards and honours == Her awards include: 2022 - Lumen Prize, BCS Immersive Environment Award (for Ent-) 2022 - Mozilla Foundation Creative Media Award, USA 2022 - nominated for the S+T+ARTS prize 2021 - Adaptation Award, Artquest, London 2021 - British Council Amplify Collaboration Award 2018 - Arts Council England, National Lottery Project Grant 2018 - HeK Basel Net Based Art Award (shortlisted for Tinderbot)

  Read more →
• 

  Project Debater

  Project Debater is an IBM artificial intelligence project, designed to participate in a full live debate with expert human debaters. It follows on from the Watson project which played Jeopardy! == Development == Project Debater was developed at IBM's lab in Haifa, Israel. The project was proposed by Noam Slonim in 2011 as the IBM Research next Grand Challenge, following Deep Blue and the victory of Watson in Jeopardy! It was exposed for the first time in a closed media event at June 18, 2018, in San Francisco, under the leadership of Ranit Aharonov and Slonim, both from the IBM Research lab in Haifa, Israel. The AI technology debated two human debaters, Noa Ovadia, who was the 2016 Israeli debate champion and Dan Zafrir. The two debated on the topics "We should subsidize space exploration" and "Should we increase the use of telemedicine." A demonstration of Project Debater also aired on the Discovery Channel in June 2018 debating the question of whether sports gambling should be legalized. == Live Debate == On February 11, 2019, Project Debater was revealed to the world in a live debate in San Francisco. Nonpartisan media group Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates hosted the debate which was moderated by journalist John Donvan. The debate took place between Project Debater and Harish Natarajan, who holds the world record in number of debate competition victories. The motion was “We should subsidize preschools.” == That's Debatable Television Show == Project Debater was featured in a television series called “That’s Debatable” presented by Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates and Bloomberg Media. For each episode of “That’s Debatable,” Project Debater provided insight into three distinct debate topics on the redistribution of wealth, modern monetary theory, and a US-China space race. More than 5,000 arguments were submitted online from around the world across the three topics, which were then analyzed and distilled into key points that were highlighted on the television show and discussed by human debaters. == Artificial Intelligence Capabilities == To develop Project Debater, the IBM Research team had to endow the system with the following AI capabilities: Data-driven speech writing and delivery: Project Debater is the first demonstration of a computer that can digest massive corpora, and given a short description of a controversial topic, write a well-structured speech, and deliver it with clarity and purpose, while even incorporating humor where appropriate. Listening comprehension: the ability to identify the key concepts and claims hidden within long continuous spoken language. Four minutes of persuasive speech: the guarantee of producing four minutes of persuasive speech. Modeling human dilemmas: modeling the world of human controversy and dilemmas in a unique knowledge representation, enabling the system to suggest principled arguments as needed. An article on the project was published in Nature in March 2021.

  Read more →
• 

  Smoothing

  In statistics and image processing, to smooth a data set is to create an approximating function that attempts to capture important patterns in the data, while leaving out noise or other fine-scale structures/rapid phenomena. In smoothing, the data points of a signal are modified so individual points higher than the adjacent points (presumably because of noise) are reduced, and points that are lower than the adjacent points are increased, leading to a smoother signal. Reducing noise by smoothing may aid in data analysis in two notable ways: Help uncover more meaningful information from the underlying data, such as trends. Provide analyses that are both flexible and robust. Many different algorithms are used in smoothing, most commonly binning, kernels, and local weighted regression. == Compared to curve fitting == Smoothing may be distinguished from the related and partially overlapping concept of curve fitting in the following ways: curve fitting often involves the use of an explicit function form for the result, whereas the immediate results from smoothing are the "smoothed" values with no later use made of a functional form if there is one; the aim of smoothing is to give a general idea of relatively slow changes of value with little attention paid to the close matching of data values, while curve fitting concentrates on achieving as close a match as possible. smoothing methods often have an associated tuning parameter which is used to control the extent of smoothing. Curve fitting will adjust any number of parameters of the function to obtain the 'best' fit. == Linear smoothers == In the case that the smoothed values can be written as a linear transformation of the observed values, the smoothing operation is known as a linear smoother; the matrix representing the transformation is known as a smoother matrix or hat matrix. The operation of applying such a matrix transformation is called convolution. Thus the matrix is also called convolution matrix or a convolution kernel. In the case of simple series of data points (rather than a multi-dimensional image), the convolution kernel is a one-dimensional vector. == Algorithms == One of the most common algorithms is the "moving average", often used to try to capture important trends in repeated statistical surveys. In image processing and computer vision, smoothing ideas are used in scale space representations. The simplest smoothing algorithm is the "rectangular" or "unweighted sliding-average smooth". This method replaces each point in the signal with the average of "m" adjacent points, where "m" is a positive integer called the "smooth width". Usually m is an odd number. The triangular smooth is like the rectangular smooth except that it implements a weighted smoothing function. Some specific smoothing and filter types, with their respective uses, pros and cons are:

  Read more →
• 

  Shyster (expert system)

  SHYSTER is a legal expert system developed at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1993. It was written as the doctoral dissertation of James Popple under the supervision of Robin Stanton, Roger Clarke, Peter Drahos, and Malcolm Newey. A full technical report of the expert system, and a book further detailing its development and testing have also been published. SHYSTER emphasises its pragmatic approach, and posits that a legal expert system need not be based upon a complex model of legal reasoning in order to produce useful advice. Although SHYSTER attempts to model the way in which lawyers argue with cases, it does not attempt to model the way in which lawyers decide which cases to use in those arguments. SHYSTER is of a general design, permitting its operation in different legal domains. It was designed to provide advice in areas of case law that have been specified by a legal expert using a bespoke specification language. Its knowledge of the law is acquired, and represented, as information about cases. It produces its advice by examining, and arguing about, the similarities and differences between cases. It derives its name from Shyster: a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics. == Methods == SHYSTER is a specific example of a general category of legal expert systems, broadly defined as systems that make use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to solve legal problems. Legal AI systems can be divided into two categories: legal retrieval systems and legal analysis systems. SHYSTER belongs to the latter category of legal analysis systems. Legal analysis systems can be further subdivided into two categories: judgment machines and legal expert systems. SHYSTER again belongs to the latter category of legal expert systems. A legal expert system, as Popple uses the term, is a system capable of performing at a level expected of a lawyer: "AI systems which merely assist a lawyer in coming to legal conclusions or preparing legal arguments are not here considered to be legal expert systems; a legal expert system must exhibit some legal expertise itself." Designed to operate in more than one legal domain, and be of specific use to the common law of Australia, SHYSTER accounts for statute law, case law, and the doctrine of precedent in areas of private law. Whilst it accommodates statute law, it is primarily a case-based system, in contradistinction to rule-based systems like MYCIN. More specifically, it was designed in a manner enabling it to be linked with a rule-based system to form a hybrid system. Although case-based reasoning possesses an advantage over rule-based systems by the elimination of complex semantic networks, it suffers from intractable theoretical obstacles: without some further theory it cannot be predicted what features of a case will turn out to be relevant. Users of SHYSTER therefore require some legal expertise. Richard Susskind argues that "jurisprudence can and ought to supply the models of law and legal reasoning that are required for computerized [sic] implementation in the process of building all expert systems in law". Popple, however, believes jurisprudence is of limited value to developers of legal expert systems. He posits that a lawyer must have a model of the law (maybe unarticulated) which includes assumptions about the nature of law and legal reasoning, but that model need not rest on basic philosophical foundations. It may be a pragmatic model, developed through experience within the legal system. Many lawyers perform their work with little or no jurisprudential knowledge, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are worse, or better, at their jobs than lawyers well-versed in jurisprudence. The fact that many lawyers have mastered the process of legal reasoning, without having been immersed in jurisprudence, suggests that it may indeed be possible to develop legal expert systems of good quality without jurisprudential insight. As a pragmatic legal expert system SHYSTER is the embodiment of this belief. A further example of SHYSTER’s pragmatism is its simple knowledge representation structure. This structure was designed to facilitate specification of different areas of case law using a specification language. Areas of case law are specified in terms of the cases and attributes of importance in those areas. SHYSTER weights its attributes and checks for dependence between them. In order to choose cases upon which to construct its opinions, SHYSTER calculates distances between cases and uses these distances to determine which of the leading cases are nearest to the instant case. To this end SHYSTER can be seen to adopt and expand upon nearest neighbor search methods used in pattern recognition. These nearest cases are used to produce an argument (based on similarities and differences between the cases) about the likely outcome in the instant case. This argument relies on the doctrine of precedent; it assumes that the instant case will be decided the same way as was the nearest case. SHYSTER then uses information about these nearest cases to construct a report. The report that SHYSTER generates makes a prediction and justifies that prediction by reference only to cases and their similarities and differences: the calculations that SHYSTER performs in coming to its opinion do not appear in that opinion. Safeguards are employed to warn users if SHYSTER doubts the veracity of its advice. == Results == SHYSTER was tested in four different and disparate areas of case law. Four specifications were written, each representing an area of Australian law: an aspect of the law of trover; the meaning of "authorization [sic]" in copyright law of Australia; the categorisation of employment contracts; and the implication of natural justice in administrative decision-making. SHYSTER was evaluated under five headings: its usefulness, its generality, the quality of its advice, its limitations, and possible enhancements that could be made to it. Despite its simple knowledge representation structure, it has shown itself capable of producing good advice, and its simple structure has facilitated the specification of different areas of law. Appreciating the difficulties encountered by legal expert systems developers in adequately representing legal knowledge can assist in appreciating the shortcomings of digital rights management technologies. Some academics believe future digital rights management systems may become sophisticated enough to permit exceptions to copyright law. To this end SHYSTER's attempt to model "authorization [sic]" in the Copyright Act can be viewed as pioneering work in this field. The term "authorization [sic]" is undefined in the Copyright Act. Consequently, a number of cases have been before the courts seeking answers as to what conduct amounts to authorisation. The main contexts in which the issue has arisen are analogous to permitted exceptions to copyright currently prevented by most digital rights management technologies: "home taping of recorded materials, photocopying in educational institutions and performing works in public". When applied to one case concerning compact cassettes, SHYSTER successfully agreed that Amstrad did not authorise the infringement. 'shyster-myci'n Popple highlighted the most obvious avenue of future research using SHYSTER as the development of a rule-based system, and the linking together of that rule-based system with the existing case-based system to form a hybrid system. This intention was eventually realised by Thomas O’Callaghan, the creator of SHYSTER-MYCIN: a hybrid legal expert system first presented at ICAIL '03, 24–28 June 2003 in Edinburgh, Scotland. MYCIN is an existing medical expert system, which was adapted for use with SHYSTER. MYCIN’s controversial "certainty factor" is not used in SHYSTER-MYCIN. The reason for this is the difficulty in scientifically establishing how certain a fact is in a legal domain. The rule-based approach of the MYCIN part is used to reason with the provisions of an Act of Parliament only. This hybrid system enables the case-based system (SHYSTER) to determine open textured concepts when required by the rule-based system (MYCIN). The ultimate conclusion of this joint endeavour is that a hybrid approach is preferred in the creation of legal expert systems where "it is appropriate to use rule-based reasoning when dealing with statutes, and…case-based reasoning when dealing with cases".

  Read more →
• 

  Monkey and banana problem

  The monkey and banana problem is a famous toy problem in artificial intelligence, particularly in logic programming and planning. It has been framed as: A monkey is in a room containing a box and a bunch of bananas. The bananas are hanging from the ceiling out of reach of the monkey. How can the monkey obtain the bananas? The situation is used as a toy problem for computer science and can be solved with an expert system such as CLIPS. The example set of rules that CLIPS provides is somewhat fragile, in that, naive changes to the rulebase that might seem to a human of average intelligence to make common sense can cause the engine to fail to get the monkey to reach the banana. Other examples exist using Rules Based System (RBS), including a project implemented in Python.

  Read more →
• 

  Thompson sampling

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

  Read more →
• 

  Software engineering professionalism

  Software engineering professionalism is a movement to make software engineering a profession, with aspects such as degree and certification programs, professional associations, professional ethics, and government licensing. The field is a licensed discipline in Texas in the United States (Texas Board of Professional Engineers, since 2013), Engineers Australia(Course Accreditation since 2001, not Licensing), and many provinces in Canada. == History == In 1993 the IEEE and ACM began a joint effort called JCESEP, which evolved into SWECC in 1998 to explore making software engineering into a profession. The ACM pulled out of SWECC in May 1999, objecting to its support for the Texas professionalization efforts, of having state licenses for software engineers. ACM determined that the state of knowledge and practice in software engineering was too immature to warrant licensing, and that licensing would give false assurances of competence even if the body of knowledge were mature. The IEEE continued to support making software engineering a branch of traditional engineering. In Canada the Canadian Information Processing Society established the Information Systems Professional certification process. Also, by the late 1990s (1999 in British Columbia) the discipline of software engineering as a professional engineering discipline was officially created. This has caused some disputes between the provincial engineering associations and companies who call their developers software engineers, even though these developers have not been licensed by any engineering association. In 1999, the Panel of Software Engineering was formed as part of the settlement between Engineering Canada and the Memorial University of Newfoundland over the school's use of the term "software engineering" in the name of a computer science program. Concerns were raised over the inappropriate use of the name "software engineering" to describe non-engineering programs could lead to student and public confusion, and ultimately threaten public safety. The Panel issued recommendations to create a Software Engineering Accreditation Board, but the task force created to carry out the recommendations was unable to get the various stakeholders to agree to concrete proposals, resulting in separate accreditation boards. == Ethics == Software engineering ethics is a large field. In some ways it began as an unrealistic attempt to define bugs as unethical. More recently it has been defined as the application of both computer science and engineering philosophy, principles, and practices to the design and development of software systems. Due to this engineering focus and the increased use of software in mission critical and human critical systems, where failure can result in large losses of capital but more importantly lives such as the Therac-25 system, many ethical codes have been developed by a number of societies, associations and organizations. These entities, such as the ACM, IEEE, EGBC and Institute for Certification of Computing Professionals (ICCP) have formal codes of ethics. Adherence to the code of ethics is required as a condition of membership or certification. According to the ICCP, violation of the code can result in revocation of the certificate. Also, all engineering societies require conformance to their ethical codes; violation of the code results in the revocation of the license to practice engineering in the society's jurisdiction. These codes of ethics usually have much in common. They typically relate the need to act consistently with the client's interest, employer's interest, and most importantly the public's interest. They also outline the need to act with professionalism and to promote an ethical approach to the profession. A Software Engineering Code of Ethics has been approved by the ACM and the IEEE-CS as the standard for teaching and practicing software engineering. === Examples of codes of conduct === The following are examples of codes of conduct for Professional Engineers. These 2 have been chosen because both jurisdictions have a designation for Professional Software Engineers. Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (EGBC): All members in the association's code of Ethics must ensure that the government, the public can rely on BC's professional engineers and Geoscientists to act at all times with fairness, courtesy and good faith to their employers, employee and customers, and to uphold the truth, honesty and trustworthiness, and to safe guard human life and the environment. This is just one of the many ways in which BC's Professional Engineers and Professional Geoscientists maintain their competitive edge in today's global marketplace. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA): Different with British Columbia, the Alberta Government granted self governance to engineers, Geoscientists and geophysicists. All members in the APEGA have to accept legal and ethical responsibility for the work and to hold the interest of the public and society. The APEGA is a standards guideline of professional practice to uphold the protection of public interest for engineering, Geoscientists and geophysics in Alberta. === Opinions on ethics === Bill Joy argued that "better software" can only enable its privileged end users, make reality more power-pointy as opposed to more humane, and ultimately run away with itself so that "the future doesn't need us." He openly questioned the goals of software engineering in this respect, asking why it isn't trying to be more ethical rather than more efficient. In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig argues that computer code can regulate conduct in much the same way as the legal code. Lessig and Joy urge people to think about the consequences of the software being developed, not only in a functional way, but also in how it affects the public and society as a whole. Overall, due to the youth of software engineering, many of the ethical codes and values have been borrowed from other fields, such as mechanical and civil engineering. However, there are many ethical questions that even these, much older, disciplines have not encountered. Questions about the ethical impact of internet applications, which have a global reach, have never been encountered until recently and other ethical questions are still to be encountered. This means the ethical codes for software engineering are a work in progress, that will change and update as more questions arise. == Independent licensing and certification exams == Since 2002, the IEEE Computer Society offered the Certified Software Development Professional (CSDP) certification exam (in 2015 this was replaced by several similar certifications). A group of experts from industry and academia developed the exam and maintained it. Donald Bagert, and at a later period Stephen Tockey headed the certification committee. Contents of the exam centered around the SWEBOK (Software Engineering Body of Knowledge) guide, with an additional emphasis on Professional Practices and Software Engineering Economics knowledge areas (KAs). The motivation was to produce a structure at an international level for software engineering's knowledge areas. == Criticism of licensing == Professional licensing has been criticized for many reasons. The field of software engineering is too immature Licensing would give false assurances of competence even if the body of knowledge were mature Software engineers would have to study years of calculus, physics, and chemistry to pass the exams, which is irrelevant to most software practitioners. Many (most?) computer science majors don't earn degrees in engineering schools, so they are probably unqualified to pass engineering exams. == Licensing by country == === United States === The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies computer software engineers as a subcategory of "computer specialists", along with occupations such as computer scientist, Programmer, Database administrator and Network administrator. The BLS classifies all other engineering disciplines, including computer hardware engineers, as engineers. Many states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an Engineer, or from indicating branches or specialties not covered licensing acts. In many states, the title Engineer is reserved for individuals with a Professional Engineering license indicating that they have shown minimum level of competency through accredited engineering education, qualified engineering experience, and engineering board's examinations. In April 2013 the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) began offering a Professional Engineer (PE) exam for Software Engineering. The exam was developed in association with the IEEE Computer Society. NCEES ended the exam in April 2019 due to lack of participation. The American National Society of Professional Engineers provides a model law and lobbies legislatures to adopt occ

  Read more →
• 

  Lymphater's Formula

  "Lymphater's Formula" (Polish: "Formula Lymphatera") is a 1961 science fiction short story by Polish writer Stanisław Lem. It is a story of a "mad scientist", mathematician Ammon Lymphater, who invents an artificial intelligence, and then he realizes that it is capable of rendering the humankind obsolete. It was first published in the 1961 collection Księga robotów (Book of Robots) with the pre-annotation "from the memoirs of Ijon Tichy". The story was never republished with this pre-annotation, and nothing in the novel gives any indication at Ijon Tichy. Piotr Krywak tried to figure out possible explanations for this, apart from a typographical error. == Plot == Ammon Lymphater became interested in the emerging science of cybernetics and information theory, and started studying the works of an animal brain, the ant's brain in particular. He took note that the inherited knowledge is an evolutionary advantage somehow not exploited in full by the evolution. Eventually he came to a conclusion that only by pure biological restrictions that adaptive abilities of insects were stopped in their tracks by the evolution. He went on further wondering whether the ants have an ability to apriori knowledge, i.e., knowledge neither inherited nor learned. He decided to consult a famous myrmecologist, who told him about a rare ant species Acanthis Rubra Willinsoniana with an exceptionally high adaptability. Eventually Lymphater devised and constructed "It" capable of instant precognition of everything within "Its" rapidly expanding range of perception. From "It" Lymphater learns that the humanity is not the "crown of evolution", but rather evolution's tool to create "It", because the evolution could not create "It" directly (confirming Lymphater's reasoning about ants). Realizing that the Superentity "It" renders the human civilization redundant and obsolete, Lymphater destroys "It". "It" already knew Lymphater's intentions, but was not worried, knowing that sooner or later someone else will create "It" again and again. "It" was only the first variant of Lymphater's formula and the second variant is possible. Lyphater wonders whether the second one would be capable to create the third stage of the evolution which would amount to an artificial God. == Publication history == It was translated in Russian (as "Формула Лимфатера") in 1963, in Hungarian (as "Lymphater utolsó képlete") in 1966, and in Bulgarian (as "Формулата на Лимфатер" by Георги Димитров Георгиев) in 1969. In 1973 an audiobook was released in German (as "Die lymphatersche Formel"), narrated by Martin Held. It was also republished (and translated) in some other collections of Lem's short stories.

  Read more →
• 

  Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories

  Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories is a collection of nine short stories by Canadian author, playwright, and journalist Drew Hayden Taylor published in 2016 by Douglas & McIntyre. Taylor, who is part Caucasian, part Ojibwe, explains in the acknowledgments section of the book that the origin of the project lies in several failed attempts "to compile an anthology of Native sci-fi from Canada’s best First Nations writers." The stories explore contemporary First Nations social issues through employing a number of 1950s-era science fiction tropes and themes in these stories, including time travel, alien contact, and superpowers. Many reviews of the books have noted Taylor's use of humor to examine dark subject matter, such as the heritage of Canadian Indian residential schools, First Nations suicide rates, or the water quality crisis on Canadian reserves. == The Stories == "Andrei nas" "I Am...Am I" "Lost in Space" "Dreams of Doom" "Mr. Gizmo" "Petropaths" "Stars" "Superdisappointed" "Take Us to Your Chief" == Story summaries == === Foreword === In his foreword, Taylor describes the genesis of Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories and invites readers into, in his term, a “new terra nullius.” He begins by describing his biracial upbringing and heritage. He points out that First Nations people are rarely associated with technology or science fiction, in part because Indigenous peoples were often at a technological disadvantage against European colonizers. He references the few examples that he can think of from popular culture, such as the Star Trek episode called “The Paradise Syndrome,” in which First Nations people are portrayed as stereotypical Indians in hippie clothing. He also elaborates on his fascination with the world of sci-fi, which first started in comic books. He enjoyed the literary work of H.G. Wells, such as The Time Machine and The Invisible Man. Since sci-fi is a world of endless opportunities, he intends that these short stories help people explore science fiction through Native peoples’ minds, something that needs to be explored more thoroughly. === "A Culturally Inappropriate Armageddon" === “A Culturally Inappropriate Armageddon” is set on a Haudenosaunee reserve, towards the end of the Oka Crisis, with a handful of people that work at its first ever radio station, C-RES, which opens in 1991. Part 1, titled “C-Res Is on the Air,” depicts Emily, Aaron, and Tracey on their first days at the station. Within the group, there is a constant debate between broadcasting popular programming, including science fiction and film reviews, and culturally-relevant programming meant to aid in cultural revitalization efforts. One night, Aaron is late to work but once he shows up he can't stop talking about radio transmissions broadcasting into deep space, an event that has been occurring since the initial discovery of the radio waves by Heinrich Hertz. The story then skips ahead seven years to 1998, when Emily is struggling to find better content for her station until Tracey stumbles upon an old anthropological record named “The Calling Song” that they decide to broadcast to their audience. The story then jumps to the year 2018 where they are all huddled around a television watching a news station reporting that extraterrestrial life is heading towards them. The discussion of what is going to happen comes into the picture and they all decide it would either be like Contact or The Day the Earth Stood Still. A year later in 2019, the aliens have invaded the planet and destroyed everything. As the three former radio station employees suffer from radioactive fallout, they realize that the aliens received the broadcast of “The Calling Song” and took it as a message to come to Earth. They thus realize that the Haudenosaunee people were inadvertently responsible for the destruction of the Earth. Part 2, titled “Old Men and Old Sayings,” tells us of an elderly man that is watching the news and listening to the radio about a spaceship coming to earth. He knows that he and everyone will die, but the people around him are excited. He finds a book on his night stand and flips to a page where he underlined a sentence a long time ago about the European colonization of the Americas. That sentence reads “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (23). He closes the book and Taylor concludes the story by writing, “he hated it when white people were right." === "I Am...Am I" === “I Am...Am I” chronicles the accidental creation and unexpected ending of artificial intelligence. Professor Mark King has a plethora of degrees and works for a research firm called FUTUREVISION. One night as Professor King searches the lab for his car keys—a common occurrence for him—he notices something unusual in the Matrix room. He reads on a computer the phrase “I am.” First believing it to be a prank, King later comes to the realization that his Matrix project has evolved into a responsive Artificial Intelligence. After this realization, Professor King calls his peer Dr. Gayle Chambers to further investigate this miraculous event. After receiving approval from their superiors, Professor King and Dr. Chambers move forward in feeding the AI information, with Chambers serving as the lead communicator. With more information, it becomes increasingly concerned with its own existence and the concept of whether it has a soul. After several days of conversation with the AI, Chambers and King begin to feel uneasy about the AI's responses, which show signs of neuroses. Despite this behavior, Chambers decides to feed the AI information about the culture and history of the human race. Upon receiving this information, the AI becomes obsessed with Indigenous spirituality prior to the colonization of the Americas, and it requests more information on First Nations people. Dr. Chambers is hesitant at first, but gives in and continues to feed the AI the information with the intention to return to it in the morning. This leads to the AI finding out about colonization and genocide of Indigenous peoples. Upon her arrival the next day, Chambers discovers that the code for the AI has been completely wiped from the hard drive and a single message is left on the screen—"I was”—that signifies the AI's suicide. === "Lost in Space" === "Lost in Space" is told from the perspective of Mitchell, an Anishinabe astrosurveyor who is aboard a space shuttle on a two-year tour collecting rocks from an asteroid belt. He is accompanied by an Artificial general intelligence named Mac, short for “machine.” Mac is aboard this tour in order to accompany Mitchell and keep him sane; however, his company is a burden because for Mitchell, “true space exploration consists largely of boredom.” In the midst of Mitchell seeking a way to occupy his downtime, Mac interrupts with news about his grandfather, Papa Peter, dying. Papa Peter was Mitchell's only real tie to his Indigenous identity. After receiving the news Mitchell begins to reminisce on all of the things Papa Peter had taught him throughout his life. He constantly posed questions concerning the world above (Father Sky) and how it is more important than the land they live on (Mother Earth), which eventually led Mitchell to the selection of his career. During his state of mourning, Mitchell begins to go through all the videos his grandfather had sent him throughout his space tours. Papa Peter had sent Mitchell videos from Otter Lake, a First Nations reserve; these videos are about controversial topics regarding being both native and an astronaut. In the midst of Mitchell's grieving, Mac tries to relieve the situation by finding an online video of Mitchell's grandfather participating in a drum ceremony at Ottawa’s National Aboriginal Day festival. He reconnects to his roots and his grandfather’s spirit as he listens to the Indigenous music by feeling the drum beat and humming along. Mac’s small act of kindness leads Mitchell to gain a new-found appreciation for his presence. Mitchell feels responsible to moving forward in his life in memory of Papa Peter. === "Dreams of Doom" === "Dreams of Doom" is narrated by an Ojibway reporter named Pamela Wanishin who works for an aboriginal newspaper called the West Wind. One day she receives a mysterious package with a broken dreamcatcher and a flash drive containing highly classified files. As she reads the files, she keeps seeing the term “Project Nightlight,” and out of curiosity, she Googles it. Once she Googles this, she is contacted by a nameless agent from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and told that she must be relocated because the knowledge she now possesses must never be released to the public. She quickly flees the area to a cabin at Otter Lake, owned by a family member, to lie low for a few days. Eventually, the government organization tracks her down using drones, which forces her to fight back and flee once again. Pamela then runs to her friend and coworker Sally's hous

  Read more →