AI Art Quora

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

• 

  The AI Con

  The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence

  There are a number of competitions and prizes to promote research in artificial intelligence. == General machine intelligence == The David E. Rumelhart Prize is an annual award for making a "significant contemporary contribution to the theoretical foundations of human cognition". The prize is $100,000. The Human-Competitive Award is an annual challenge started in 2004 to reward results "competitive with the work of creative and inventive humans". The prize is $10,000. Entries are required to use evolutionary computing. The Intel AI Global Impact Festival is an international annual competition held by Intel Corporation for school, and college students with prizes upwards of $15,000. It is about artificial intelligence technology. There are two age brackets in this competition, 13-18 Age Group, and 18 and Above Age Group. The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence is a biannual award given at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) to researchers in artificial intelligence as a recognition of excellence of their career. The 2011 Federal Virtual World Challenge, advertised by The White House and sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory's Simulation and Training Technology Center, held a competition offering a total of US$52,000 in cash prize awards for general artificial intelligence applications, including "adaptive learning systems, intelligent conversational bots, adaptive behavior (objects or processes)" and more. The Machine Intelligence Prize is awarded annually by the British Computer Society for progress towards machine intelligence. The Kaggle – "the world's largest community of data scientists compete to solve most valuable problems". == Conversational behaviour == The Loebner prize is an annual competition to determine the best Turing test competitors. The winner is the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour, they have an additional prize for a system that in their opinion passes a Turing test. This second prize has not yet been awarded. == Automatic control == === Pilotless aircraft === The International Aerial Robotics Competition is a long-running event begun in 1991 to advance the state of the art in fully autonomous air vehicles. This competition is restricted to university teams (although industry and governmental sponsorship of teams is allowed). Key to this event is the creation of flying robots which must complete complex missions without any human intervention. Successful entries are able to interpret their environment and make real-time decisions based only on a high-level mission directive (e.g., "find a particular target inside a building having certain characteristics which is among a group of buildings 3 kilometers from the aerial robot launch point"). In 2000, a $30,000 prize was awarded during the 3rd Mission (search and rescue), and in 2008, $80,000 in prize money was awarded at the conclusion of the 4th Mission (urban reconnaissance). === Driverless cars === The DARPA Grand Challenge is a series of competitions to promote driverless car technology, aimed at a congressional mandate stating that by 2015 one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles of the US Armed Forces should be unmanned. While the first race had no winner, the second awarded a $2 million prize for the autonomous navigation of a hundred-mile trail, using GPS, computers and a sophisticated array of sensors. In November 2007, DARPA introduced the DARPA Urban Challenge, a sixty-mile urban area race requiring vehicles to navigate through traffic. In November 2010 the US Armed Forces extended the competition with the $1.6 million prize Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge to consider cooperation between multiple vehicles in a simulated-combat situation. Roborace will be a global motorsport championship with autonomously driving, electric vehicles. The series will be run as a support series during the Formula E championship for electric vehicles. This will be the first global championship for driverless cars. == Data-mining and prediction == The Netflix Prize was a competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm that predicts user ratings for films, based on previous ratings. The competition was held by Netflix, an online DVD-rental service. The prize was $1,000,000. The Pittsburgh Brain Activity Interpretation Competition will reward analysis of fMRI data "to predict what individuals perceive and how they act and feel in a novel Virtual Reality world involving searching for and collecting objects, interpreting changing instructions, and avoiding a threatening dog." The prize in 2007 was $22,000. The Face Recognition Grand Challenge (May 2004 to March 2006) aimed to promote and advance face recognition technology. The American Meteorological Society's artificial intelligence competition involves learning a classifier to characterise precipitation based on meteorological analyses of environmental conditions and polarimetric radar data. == Cooperation and coordination == === Robot football === The RoboCup and Federation of International Robot-soccer Association (FIRA) are annual international robot soccer competitions. The International RoboCup Federation challenge is by 2050 "a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win the soccer game, comply with the official rule of the FIFA, against the winner of the most recent World Cup." == Logic, reasoning and knowledge representation == The Herbrand Award is a prize given by Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE) Inc. to honour persons or groups for important contributions to the field of automated deduction. The prize is $1000. The CADE ATP System Competition (CASC) is a yearly competition of fully automated theorem provers for classical first order logic associated with the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE) and International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). The competition was part of the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in 2012, with total prizes of 9000 GBP given by Google. The SUMO prize is an annual prize for the best open source ontology extension of the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO), a formal theory of terms and logical definitions describing the world. The prize is $3000. The Hutter Prize for lossless compression of human knowledge is a cash prize which rewards compression improvements on a specific 100 MB English text file. The prize awards 500 euros for each one percent improvement, up to €50,000. The organizers believe that text compression and AI are equivalent problems and 3 prizes have been given, at around € 2k. The Cyc TPTP Challenge is a competition to develop reasoning methods for the Cyc comprehensive ontology and database of everyday common sense knowledge. The prize is 100 euros for "each winner of two related challenges". The Eternity II challenge was a constraint satisfaction problem very similar to the Tetravex game. The objective is to lay 256 tiles on a 16x16 grid while satisfying a number of constraints. The problem is known to be NP-complete. The prize was US$2,000,000. The competition ended in December 2010. == Games == The World Computer Chess Championship has been held since 1970. The International Computer Games Association continues to hold an annual Computer Olympiad which includes this event plus computer competitions for many other games. The Ing Prize was a substantial money prize attached to the World Computer Go Congress, starting from 1985 and expiring in 2000. It was a graduated set of handicap challenges against young professional players with increasing prizes as the handicap was lowered. At the time it expired in 2000, the unclaimed prize was 400,000 NT dollars for winning a 9-stone handicap match. The AAAI General Game Playing Competition is a competition to develop programs that are effective at general game playing. Given a definition of a game, the program must play it effectively without human intervention. Since the game is not known in advance the competitors cannot especially adapt their programs to a particular scenario. The prize in 2006 and 2007 was $10,000. The General Video Game AI Competition (GVGAI) poses the problem of creating artificial intelligence that can play a wide, and in principle unlimited, range of games. Concretely, it tackles the problem of devising an algorithm that is able to play any game it is given, even if the game is not known a priori. Additionally, the contests poses the challenge of creating level and rule generators for any game is given. This area of study can be seen as an approximation of General Artificial Intelligence, with very little room for game dependent heuristics. The competition runs yearly in different tracks: single player planning, two-player planning, single player learning, level and rule generation, and each track prizes ranging from 200 to 500 US dollars for winners and runner-ups. The 2007 Ultimate Computer Ches

  Read more →
• 

  Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge

  The Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge (MAGIC) is a 1.6 million dollar prize competition for autonomous mobile robots funded by TARDEC and the DSTO, the primary research organizations for Tank and Defense research in the United States and Australia respectively. The goal of the competition is to create multi-vehicle robotic teams that can execute an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission in a dynamic urban environment. The challenge required competitors to map a 500 m x 500 m challenge area in under 3.5 hours and to correctly locate, classify and recognise all simulated threats. The challenge event was conducted in Adelaide, Australia, during November 2010. == Competitors == Initially 12 teams were selected for the competition in November 2009, of which 10 teams received funding. These included: MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia (UWA, ECU, Flinders, Thales) Strategic Engineering – Adelaide, Australia (U. Adelaide) Northern Hunters – Canada (Royal Military College of Canada) Chiba Team – Japan (Chiba University) Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey (ASELSAN, Ohio State University) RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. (Robotics Research, LLC; QinetiQ; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) Team Cornell – US (Cornell University) Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. (University of Michigan) Virginia Tech – US (Virginia Tech) University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) Numinence – Brisbane, Australia (Numinence Pty Ltd, La Trobe University) UNSW – Sydney, Australia (UNSW) The first downselection trial required teams to map an indoor area and outdoor area, and to demonstrate distributing and handing over tasks between robots. During the first downselection trial, the top six teams were selected: Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Chiba Team – Japan Before the finals were held, Chiba Team withdrew from the competition, leaving five competitors. == Event == Ultimately the overall goal of fully autonomous operations without human intervention was not achieved, however, the Secretary for Defence stated "The competing vehicles demonstrated new advances in robotics technology, which are very promising for their potential deployment in combat zones where they can replace our troops in carrying out life-threatening tasks" and considered the competition a success. == Results == The official results of the competition were: First – Team Michigan ($750,000 prize) Second – University of Pennsylvania ($250,000 prize) Third – RASR ($100,000 prize) Fourth – MAGICian & Cappadocia The "Old Ram Shed Challenge" was a single-day competition held after the completion of MAGIC. It was smaller in scale, allowing all of the teams to demonstrate their systems during a single day. The University of Pennsylvania won this challenge, having found a greater number of the target objects than the other teams. == Technology == Key technology used by all teams was computer vision, sensor fusion, human-robot interaction, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Team Michigan, a collaboration between the University of Michigan's APRIL Lab and Soar Technology, Inc., had the largest fleet of 14 robots, developed their own Inertial Measurement Unit, and created their skid steer robot chassis out of Baltic birch plywood. Additionally, they had minimal reliance on GPS and used bandwidth limited 900 MHz radios for all telemetry, imaging, and status communications between all robots and the ground station. The code was written primarily in Java and each robot was equipped with an actuated 2D LIDAR, along with a unique 2D barcode for inter-robot recognition. The University of Pennsylvania team consisted of only four members. All code was written using Matlab. The robots were equipped with omnidirectional vision. RASR used the Foster-Miller TALON vehicle. MAGICian used the WAMbot robots developed by The University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Thales Australia. Code was written in C++ and Java. The robots were equipped with SICK laser scanners. See the September/October 2012 special issue of the Journal of Field Robotics for contest highlights, technical approaches taken by several of the teams, and an explanation of the evaluation metrics used by organizers.

  Read more →
• 

  Hindsight optimization

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

  Read more →
• 

  Computer-aided lean management

  Computer-aided lean management, in business management, is a methodology of developing and using software-controlled, lean systems integration. Its goal is to drive innovation towards cost and cycle-time savings. It attempts to create an efficient use of capital and resources through the development and use of one integrated system model to run a business's planning, engineering, design, maintenance, and operations. == Overview == Computer-Aided Lean Management (CALM) is a management philosophy that uses software to reduce risk and inefficiencies. CALM acts on uncertainties and business inefficiencies to increase profitability through the use of computational decision-making tools that enable opportunities for additional value creation. It is based on the application of software to enable continuous improvement through an Integrated System Model (ISM) of the business’s physical assets, business processes, and machine learning. This integration of software applications using lean principles was developed in the aerospace industry and has migrated to the energy industry. The creation of an ISM removes the barriers posed by the silos or stovepipes inherent in the departmentalization of most companies. Integration enables lean uses of information for the creation of actionable knowledge. CALM strives to create such a lean management approach to running the company through the rigors of software enforcement. From this software enforcement comes clear policy and procedures that are adhered to, activity-based costing, measurement of effectiveness, and the capability of using advanced algorithms for dramatic improvements in optimization of resources. CALM creates business capabilities through software to enable technology application, streamlining of processes, and a lean organizational structure. The methodology is based on a common sense approach for running a business, by measuring actions taken and using those measurements to design more efficient processes. == History == CALM was inspired by lean processes and techniques that were already dominant management technologies with a wide diversity of applications and successes. Motorola and General Electric had been known for the concepts of Six Sigma; Boeing had been managing mass (using modular and flexible assembly options), and Toyota combined elements of these methodologies to create the Toyota Production System. Boeing then took the Toyota model and added computer-aided enforcement of lean methodologies throughout the manufacturing process. One of the major sources for CALM's outgrowth was integrated definition (IDEF) modeling in aerospace manufacturing that was pioneered by the U.S. Air Force in the 1970s. IDEF is a methodology designed to model the end-to-end decisions, actions, and activities of an organization or system so that costs, performance, and cycle times can be optimized. IDEF methods have been adapted for wider use in automotive, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and software development industries. IDEF methods serve as a starting point to understand lean management through semantic data modeling. The IDEF process begins by mapping the existing functions of an enterprise, creating a graphical model, or road map, that shows what controls each important function, who performs it, what resources are required for carrying it out, what it produces, how much it costs, and what relationships it has to other functions of the organization. IDEF simulations have been found to be efficient at streamlining and modernizing both companies and governmental agencies. Perhaps the best-developed evolution of the IDEF model beyond Toyota was at Boeing. Their project life-cycle process has grown into a rigorous software system that links people, tasks, tools, materials, and the environmental impact of any newly planned project, before any building is allowed to begin. Routinely, more than half of the time for any given project is spent building the precedence diagrams, or three-dimensional process maps, integrating with outside suppliers, and designing the implementation plan–all on the computer. Once real activity is initiated, an action tracker is used to monitor inputs and outputs versus the schedule and delivery metrics in real time throughout the organization. When the execution of a new airplane design begins, it is so well organized that it consistently cuts both costs and build time in half for each successive generation of airframe. Boeing created a complex lean management process called 'define and control airplane configuration/manufacturing resource management' (DCAC/MRM). The process was built with the help of the operations research and computer sciences departments of the University of Pittsburgh. The manufacture of the Boeing 777 was ultimately a success, and it became the precursor to succeeding generations of CALM at Boeing. The methodology of CALM has recently been applied to field orientated infrastructure based businesses with highly interdependent systems, such as electric utilities where a smart grid concept is being researched and developed. The management of infrastructure-based industries like oil, gas, electricity, water, transportation, and renewables requires massive investments in interdependent, physical infrastructure, as well as simultaneous attention to disparate market forces. In infrastructure businesses that manage field assets, uncertainty is the biggest impediment to profitability, rather than the maintenance of efficient supply chains or the management of factory assembly lines. These businesses are dominated by risk from uncertainties such as weather, market variations, transportation disruptions, government actions, logistic difficulties, geology, and asset reliability. CALM has been applied to deal with these types of infrastructure based challenges.

  Read more →
• 

  DARPA Grand Challenge

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

  Read more →
• 

  Type-1 OWA operators

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

  Read more →
• 

  TuVox

  TuVox is a company that produces VXML-based telephone speech-recognition applications to replace DTMF touch-tone systems for their clients. == History == TuVox was founded in 2001 by Steven S. Pollock and Ashok Khosla, formerly of Apple Computer Corporation and Claris Corporation. Since then, TuVox has grown to over 150 employees and has US offices in Cupertino, California and Boca Raton, Florida as well as international offices in London, Vancouver and Sydney. In 2005, TuVox acquired the customers and hosting facilities of Net-By-Tel. In 2007, the company raised $20m for its speech recognition, and phone menu software. On July 22, 2010, West Interactive — a subsidiary of West Corporation — announced its acquisition of TuVox. == Customers == TuVox clients include: 1-800-Flowers.com, AMC Entertainment, American Airlines, British Airways, M&T Bank, Canon Inc., Gateway, Inc., Motorola, Progress Energy Inc., Telecom New Zealand, Time, Inc., BECU, Virgin America and USAA.

  Read more →
• 

  Fyre (software)

  Fyre, formerly de Jong Explorer, is a cross-platform tool for producing artwork based on histograms of iterated chaotic functions. It implements the Peter de Jong map in a fixed function pipeline through either a GTK GUI frontend, or a command line facility for easier rendering of high-resolution, high quality images. The program was renamed from de Jong Explorer to Fyre simply because 'It wasn't taken yet' and so that in the future, it could support more functions than just the standard Peter de Jong map. Fyre features a sidebar on the left to which the user can input the required variables and on the right is displayed the result of the equation. == Extra features == Additional image manipulation tools such as Gaussian blurs and Gamma controls are included in the program. The advantage to using them directly within Fyre is that the image accuracy and quality do not decline. Fyre features animation capabilities so that a user can link together several maps and create uncompressed AVIs from them. However, the uncompressed animation files are very large and so should be compressed with a separate tool, such as mencoder. == Peter de Jong Map == For most values of a,b,c and d the point (x,y) moves chaotically. The resulting image is a map of the probability that the point lies within the area represented by each pixel. Therefore, the longer that the user lets Fyre render for, the larger the probability map becomes and the more accurate the resulting image.

  Read more →
• 

  Data analysis for fraud detection

  Fraud represents a significant problem for governments and businesses and specialized analysis techniques for discovering fraud using them are required. Some of these methods include knowledge discovery in databases (KDD), data mining, machine learning and statistics. They offer applicable and successful solutions in different areas of electronic fraud crimes. In general, the primary reason to use data analytics techniques is to tackle fraud since many internal control systems have serious weaknesses. For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted. In order to effectively test, detect, validate, correct error and monitor control systems against fraudulent activities, businesses entities and organizations rely on specialized data analytics techniques such as data mining, data matching, the sounds like function, regression analysis, clustering analysis, and gap analysis. Techniques used for fraud detection fall into two primary classes: statistical techniques and artificial intelligence. == Statistical techniques == Examples of statistical data analysis techniques are: Data preprocessing techniques for detection, validation, error correction, and filling up of missing or incorrect data. Calculation of various statistical parameters such as averages, quantiles, performance metrics, probability distributions, and so on. For example, the averages may include average length of call, average number of calls per month and average delays in bill payment. Models and probability distributions of various business activities either in terms of various parameters or probability distributions. Computing user profiles. Time-series analysis of time-dependent data. Clustering and classification to find patterns and associations among groups of data. Data matching Data matching is used to compare two sets of collected data. The process can be performed based on algorithms or programmed loops. Trying to match sets of data against each other or comparing complex data types. Data matching is used to remove duplicate records and identify links between two data sets for marketing, security or other uses. Sounds like Function is used to find values that sound similar. The Phonetic similarity is one way to locate possible duplicate values, or inconsistent spelling in manually entered data. The ‘sounds like’ function converts the comparison strings to four-character American Soundex codes, which are based on the first letter, and the first three consonants after the first letter, in each string. Regression analysis allows you to examine the relationship between two or more variables of interest. Regression analysis estimates relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable. This method can be used to help understand and identify relationships among variables and predict actual results. Gap analysis is used to determine whether business requirements are being met, if not, what are the steps that should be taken to meet successfully. Matching algorithms to detect anomalies in the behavior of transactions or users as compared to previously known models and profiles. Techniques are also needed to eliminate false alarms, estimate risks, and predict future of current transactions or users. Some forensic accountants specialize in forensic analytics which is the procurement and analysis of electronic data to reconstruct, detect, or otherwise support a claim of financial fraud. The main steps in forensic analytics are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and reporting. For example, forensic analytics may be used to review an employee's purchasing card activity to assess whether any of the purchases were diverted or divertible for personal use. == Artificial intelligence == Fraud detection is a knowledge-intensive activity. The main AI techniques used for fraud detection include: Data mining to classify, cluster, and segment the data and automatically find associations and rules in the data that may signify interesting patterns, including those related to fraud. Expert systems to encode expertise for detecting fraud in the form of rules. Pattern recognition to detect approximate classes, clusters, or patterns of suspicious behavior either automatically (unsupervised) or to match given inputs. Machine learning techniques to automatically identify characteristics of fraud. Neural nets to independently generate classification, clustering, generalization, and forecasting that can then be compared against conclusions raised in internal audits or formal financial documents such as 10-Q. Other techniques such as link analysis, Bayesian networks, decision theory, and sequence matching are also used for fraud detection. A new and novel technique called System properties approach has also been employed where ever rank data is available. Statistical analysis of research data is the most comprehensive method for determining if data fraud exists. Data fraud as defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. == Machine learning and data mining == Early data analysis techniques were oriented toward extracting quantitative and statistical data characteristics. These techniques facilitate useful data interpretations and can help to get better insights into the processes behind the data. Although the traditional data analysis techniques can indirectly lead us to knowledge, it is still created by human analysts. To go beyond, a data analysis system has to be equipped with a substantial amount of background knowledge, and be able to perform reasoning tasks involving that knowledge and the data provided. In effort to meet this goal, researchers have turned to ideas from the machine learning field. This is a natural source of ideas, since the machine learning task can be described as turning background knowledge and examples (input) into knowledge (output). If data mining results in discovering meaningful patterns, data turns into information. Information or patterns that are novel, valid and potentially useful are not merely information, but knowledge. One speaks of discovering knowledge, before hidden in the huge amount of data, but now revealed. The machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions may be classified into two categories: 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' learning. These methods seek for accounts, customers, suppliers, etc. that behave 'unusually' in order to output suspicion scores, rules or visual anomalies, depending on the method. Whether supervised or unsupervised methods are used, note that the output gives us only an indication of fraud likelihood. No stand alone statistical analysis can assure that a particular object is a fraudulent one, but they can identify them with very high degrees of accuracy. As a result, effective collaboration between machine learning model and human analysts is vital to the success of fraud detection applications. === Supervised learning === In supervised learning, a random sub-sample of all records is taken and manually classified as either 'fraudulent' or 'non-fraudulent' (task can be decomposed on more classes to meet algorithm requirements). Relatively rare events such as fraud may need to be over sampled to get a big enough sample size. These manually classified records are then used to train a supervised machine learning algorithm. After building a model using this training data, the algorithm should be able to classify new records as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent. Supervised neural networks, fuzzy neural nets, and combinations of neural nets and rules, have been extensively explored and used for detecting fraud in mobile phone networks and financial statement fraud. Bayesian learning neural network is implemented for credit card fraud detection, telecommunications fraud, auto claim fraud detection, and medical insurance fraud. Hybrid knowledge/statistical-based systems, where expert knowledge is integrated with statistical power, use a series of data mining techniques for the purpose of detecting cellular clone fraud. Specifically, a rule-learning program to uncover indicators of fraudulent behaviour from a large database of customer transactions is implemented. Cahill et al. (2000) design a fraud signature, based on data of fraudulent calls, to detect telecommunications fraud. For scoring a call for fraud its probability under the account signature is compared to its probability under a fraud signature. The fraud signature is updated sequentially, enabling event-driven fraud detection. Link analysis comprehends a different approach. It relates known fraudsters to other individuals, using record linkage and social network methods. This type of detection is only able to detect fra

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy Control Language

  Fuzzy Control Language, or FCL, is a language for implementing fuzzy logic, especially fuzzy control. It was standardized by IEC 61131-7. It is a domain-specific programming language: it has no features unrelated to fuzzy logic, so it is impossible to even print "Hello, world!". Therefore, one does not write a program in FCL, but one may write part of it in FCL. == Example == RULE 0: IF (temperature IS cold) THEN (output IS low) RULE 1: IF (temperature IS very cold) THEN (output IS high) == Limitations == FCL is not an entirely complete fuzzy language, for instance, it does not support "hedges", which are adverbs that modify the set. For instance, the programmer cannot write: RULE 0: If (Temperature is VERY COLD) then (Output is VERY HIGH) However, the programmer can simply define new sets for "very cold" and "very high". FCL also lacks support for higher-order fuzzy sets, subsets, and so on. None of these features are essential to fuzzy control, although they may be nice to have.

  Read more →
• 

  For a Breath I Tarry

  "For a Breath I Tarry" is a 1966 post-apocalyptic novelette by American writer Roger Zelazny, which was nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Novelette in 1967. Set in a future long after the self-extinction of humanity, the novelette recounts the tale of Frost, a sentient machine. Although humans have caused their own extinction, the sentient machines that they created continue the work of rebuilding a shattered Earth. Along the way, the story explores the differences between humanity and machines, the former experiencing the world qualitatively, while the latter doing so quantitatively. This difference is illustrated through philosophical conversations between Frost and another machine named Mordel. Frost's goal of becoming human, along with literary allusions, drives the plot and sets the tone of the novelette. These allusions include the first chapter of the Book of Job, in both situation and language, since verses are both quoted directly and paraphrased. In addition, the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are echoed. Finally, Frost and Mordel enter into a Faustian bargain, though with better results than in the original story. The other major character is the Beta Machine, Frost's peer in the Southern Hemisphere. (Frost controls the Northern Hemisphere.) The novelette hints that though being a machine, Beta has a feminine personality. After Frost has succeeded in his millennium-long quest to become human (via recovered DNA), Beta agrees to join him in becoming human—suggesting the possibility of rebirth for the human race. The novelette has appeared in collections of Zelazny's works and in anthologies. The title is from a phrase in the poet A. E. Housman's collection A Shropshire Lad.

  Read more →
• 

  DoorDash

  DoorDash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery. It trades under the symbol DASH. With a 56% market share, DoorDash is the largest food delivery platform in the United States. It also has a 60% market share in the convenience delivery category. As of December 31, 2020, the platform was used by 450,000 merchants, 20 million consumers, and had over one million delivery couriers. Founded by Tony Xu, Andy Fang, Stanley Tang and Evan Moore, DoorDash made its debut on the Fortune 500 list in 2024, ranking No. 443. DoorDash has been sued for or held legally liable for withholding tips, reducing tip transparency, antitrust price manipulation, listing restaurants without permission, misclassifying workers, withholding sick time, and illegally selling personal data. As of April 2026, DoorDash operates in the United States (including Puerto Rico), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Through its subsidiaries Deliveroo and Wolt, the company also operates across Europe, as well as in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. == History == In January 2013, Stanford University students Tony Xu, Stanley Tang, Andy Fang and Evan Moore launched PaloAltoDelivery.com in Palo Alto, California. In the summer of 2013, it received US$120,000 in seed money from Y Combinator in exchange for a 7% stake. It incorporated as DoorDash in June 2013. DoorDash's first partnership with a fast food burger restaurant chain was in April 2016, when it partnered with CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, for food delivery. In December 2017, DoorDash announced its partnership with Wendy's for delivery from its restaurants. In December 2018, DoorDash overtook Uber Eats to hold the second position in total US food delivery sales, behind GrubHub. By March 2019, it had exceeded GrubHub in total sales, at 27.6% of the on-demand delivery market. By early 2019, DoorDash was the largest food delivery provider in the U.S., as measured by consumer spending. In October 2019, DoorDash opened its first ghost kitchen, DoorDash Kitchen, in Redwood City, California, with four restaurants operating at the location. By June 2020, DoorDash had raised more than $2.5 billion over several financing rounds from investors including Y Combinator, Charles River Ventures, SV Angel, Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank Group, GIC, and Kleiner Perkins. DoorDash announced a partnership with KFC in September 2020, followed by Taco Bell in October 2020. In November 2020, DoorDash announced the opening of its first physical restaurant location, partnering up with Bay Area restaurant Burma Bites to offer delivery and pick-up orders. In December 2020, it became a public company via an initial public offering, raising $3.37 billion. In November 2021, DoorDash acquired Finland's Wolt for €7bn. In August 2022, DoorDash announced it would end its partnership with Walmart in September, ending the companies' cooperation agreement from 2018. In November 2022, DoorDash announced plans to lay off 1,250 corporate employees, or about six percent of its workforce, to rein in expenses. In June 2023, DoorDash announced it would give its drivers the option of earning an hourly minimum wage instead of being paid per delivery. However, drivers are only paid hourly when on an active delivery. In September 2023, the company transferred its stock listing from the New York Stock Exchange to the Nasdaq. On December 18, 2023, DoorDash was added to the Nasdaq-100 index. In March 2025, DoorDash announced a partnership with Klarna, a Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) service, letting customers schedule small payments over a set period of time. DoorDash received widespread criticism from this decision, including internet mockery, given concerns about the increase of household debt in America. In 2025, DoorDash acquired the UK-based delivery service Deliveroo for $3.88 billion. The combined company operates in 40 countries and serves 50 million users monthly. In September 2025, DoorDash and Ace Hardware (the largest hardware cooperative) announced their partnership to offer delivery for home use products from over 4,000 Ace locations. == Lawsuits against DoorDash == === 2017 class-action lawsuit for misclassifying workers === In 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against DoorDash for allegedly misclassifying delivery drivers in California and Massachusetts as independent contractors. In 2022, a tentative settlement was reached in which DoorDash would pay $100 million total, with $61 million going to over 900,000 drivers, paying out just over $130 per driver, and $28 million for the lawyers. Gizmodo criticized the settlement, noting that the $413 million that DoorDash CEO Tony Xu received the previous year was one of the largest CEO compensation packages of all time. === 2019 data breach lawsuit === On May 4, 2019, DoorDash confirmed 4.9 million customers, delivery workers and merchants had sensitive information stolen via a data breach. Those who joined the platform after April 5, 2018, were unaffected by the breach. A class-action lawsuit for the breach was filed against DoorDash in October 2019. === Withholding of tips and subsequent class-action lawsuits === In July 2019, the company's tipping policy was criticized by The New York Times, and later The Verge and Vox and Gothamist. Drivers receive a guaranteed minimum per order that is paid by DoorDash by default. When a customer added a tip, instead of going directly to the driver, it first went to the company to cover the guaranteed minimum. Drivers then only directly received the part of the tip that exceeded the guaranteed minimum per order. In January 2020, it was reported that DoorDash had lied about skimming tips from its drivers, causing them to earn an average of $1.45 an hour after expenses, and that after the company had allegedly overhauled its tipping system, DoorDash was still manipulating per-delivery payouts at the expense of drivers. A DoorDash customer filed a class action lawsuit against the company for its "materially false and misleading" tipping policy. The case was referred to arbitration in August 2020. Under pressure, the company revised its policy. The company settled a lawsuit with District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine for $2.5 million, with funds going to deliverers, the government, and to charity. ==== 2021 driver strike for tip transparency ==== In July 2021, DoorDash drivers went on strike to protest lack of tip transparency and to ask for higher pay. At the time of the strike, and, as of June 2022, DoorDash did not allow drivers to see the full tip amounts prior to accepting a delivery in the app. If customers tip over a set amount for the order total, Doordash hides a portion of the tip until the delivery is complete. The strike occurred after DoorDash rewrote its code to cut off access to Para, a third-party app that drivers had been using to see the full tip amounts. ==== 2025 class-action lawsuit settlement ==== In 2025, DoorDash agreed to pay around $17 million for "misleading both consumers and delivery workers" with tips being docked from drivers' pay instead of directly going to drivers. === 2020 antitrust litigation === In April 2020, in the case of Davitashvili v. GrubHub Inc. DoorDash, Grubhub, Postmates, and Uber Eats were accused of monopolistic power by only listing restaurants on its apps if the restaurant owners signed contracts which include clauses that require prices be the same for dine-in customers as for customers receiving delivery. The plaintiffs stated that this arrangement increases the cost for dine-in customers, as they are required to subsidize the cost of delivery; and that the apps charge "exorbitant" fees, which range from 13% to 40% of revenue, while the average restaurant's profit ranges from 3% to 9% of revenue. The lawsuit seeks treble damages, including for overcharges, since April 14, 2016, for dine-in and delivery customers in the United States at restaurants using the defendants’ delivery apps. Although several preliminary documents in the case have now been filed, a trial date has not yet been set. === Litigation for illegal unauthorized restaurant listing === In May 2021, DoorDash was criticized for unauthorized listings of restaurants who had not given permission to appear on the app. The company was sued by Lona's Lil Eats in St. Louis, with the lawsuit claiming that DoorDash had listed them without permission, then prevented any orders to the restaurant from going through and redirecting customers to other restaurants instead, because Lona's was "too far away," when in reality it had not paid DoorDash a fee for listing. This aspect of DoorDash's business practice is illegal in California. === 2021 lawsuit by the city of Chicago === In August 2021, the city of Chicago sued DoorDash and GrubHub. According to Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, the companies broke the law by using "unfair and deceptive t

  Read more →
• 

  Predicate (logic)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Content-based image retrieval

  Content-based image retrieval, also known as query by image content (QBIC) and content-based visual information retrieval (CBVIR), is the application of computer vision techniques to the image retrieval problem, that is, the problem of searching for digital images in large databases (see this survey for a scientific overview of the CBIR field). Content-based image retrieval is opposed to traditional concept-based approaches (see Concept-based image indexing). "Content-based" means that the search analyzes the contents of the image rather than the metadata such as keywords, tags, or descriptions associated with the image. The term "content" in this context might refer to colors, shapes, textures, or any other information that can be derived from the image itself. CBIR is desirable because searches that rely purely on metadata are dependent on annotation quality and completeness. == Comparison with metadata searching == An image meta search requires humans to have manually annotated images by entering keywords or metadata in a large database, which can be time-consuming and may not capture the keywords desired to describe the image. The evaluation of the effectiveness of keyword image search is subjective and has not been well-defined. In the same regard, CBIR systems have similar challenges in defining success. "Keywords also limit the scope of queries to the set of predetermined criteria." and, "having been set up" are less reliable than using the content itself. == History == The term "content-based image retrieval" seems to have originated in 1992 when it was used by Japanese Electrotechnical Laboratory engineer Toshikazu Kato to describe experiments into automatic retrieval of images from a database, based on the colors and shapes present. Since then, the term has been used to describe the process of retrieving desired images from a large collection on the basis of syntactical image features. The techniques, tools, and algorithms that are used originate from fields such as statistics, pattern recognition, signal processing, and computer vision. === QBIC - Query By Image Content === The earliest commercial CBIR system was developed by IBM and was called QBIC (Query By Image Content). Recent network- and graph-based approaches have presented a simple and attractive alternative to existing methods. While the storing of multiple images as part of a single entity preceded the term BLOB (Binary Large OBject), the ability to fully search by content, rather than by description, had to await IBM's QBIC. === VisualRank === == Technical progress == The interest in CBIR has grown because of the limitations inherent in metadata-based systems, as well as the large range of possible uses for efficient image retrieval. Textual information about images can be easily searched using existing technology, but this requires humans to manually describe each image in the database. This can be impractical for very large databases or for images that are generated automatically, e.g. those from surveillance cameras. It is also possible to miss images that use different synonyms in their descriptions. Systems based on categorizing images in semantic classes like "cat" as a subclass of "animal" can avoid the miscategorization problem, but will require more effort by a user to find images that might be "cats", but are only classified as an "animal". Many standards have been developed to categorize images, but all still face scaling and miscategorization issues. Initial CBIR systems were developed to search databases based on image color, texture, and shape properties. After these systems were developed, the need for user-friendly interfaces became apparent. Therefore, efforts in the CBIR field started to include human-centered design that tried to meet the needs of the user performing the search. This typically means inclusion of: query methods that may allow descriptive semantics, queries that may involve user feedback, systems that may include machine learning, and systems that may understand user satisfaction levels. == Techniques == Many CBIR systems have been developed, but as of 2006, the problem of retrieving images on the basis of their pixel content remains largely unsolved. Different query techniques and implementations of CBIR make use of different types of user queries. === Query By Example === QBE (Query By Example) is a query technique that involves providing the CBIR system with an example image that it will then base its search upon. The underlying search algorithms may vary depending on the application, but result images should all share common elements with the provided example. Options for providing example images to the system include: A preexisting image may be supplied by the user or chosen from a random set. The user draws a rough approximation of the image they are looking for, for example with blobs of color or general shapes. This query technique removes the difficulties that can arise when trying to describe images with words. === Semantic retrieval === Semantic retrieval starts with a user making a request like "find pictures of Abraham Lincoln". This type of open-ended task is very difficult for computers to perform - Lincoln may not always be facing the camera or in the same pose. Many CBIR systems therefore generally make use of lower-level features like texture, color, and shape. These features are either used in combination with interfaces that allow easier input of the criteria or with databases that have already been trained to match features (such as faces, fingerprints, or shape matching). However, in general, image retrieval requires human feedback in order to identify higher-level concepts. === Relevance feedback (human interaction) === Combining CBIR search techniques available with the wide range of potential users and their intent can be a difficult task. An aspect of making CBIR successful relies entirely on the ability to understand the user intent. CBIR systems can make use of relevance feedback, where the user progressively refines the search results by marking images in the results as "relevant", "not relevant", or "neutral" to the search query, then repeating the search with the new information. Examples of this type of interface have been developed. === Iterative/machine learning === Machine learning and application of iterative techniques are becoming more common in CBIR. === Other query methods === Other query methods include browsing for example images, navigating customized/hierarchical categories, querying by image region (rather than the entire image), querying by multiple example images, querying by visual sketch, querying by direct specification of image features, and multimodal queries (e.g. combining touch, voice, etc.) == Content comparison using image distance measures == The most common method for comparing two images in content-based image retrieval (typically an example image and an image from the database) is using an image distance measure. An image distance measure compares the similarity of two images in various dimensions such as color, texture, shape, and others. For example, a distance of 0 signifies an exact match with the query, with respect to the dimensions that were considered. As one may intuitively gather, a value greater than 0 indicates various degrees of similarities between the images. Search results then can be sorted based on their distance to the queried image. Many measures of image distance (Similarity Models) have been developed. === Color === Computing distance measures based on color similarity is achieved by computing a color histogram for each image that identifies the proportion of pixels within an image holding specific values. Examining images based on the colors they contain is one of the most widely used techniques because it can be completed without regard to image size or orientation. However, research has also attempted to segment color proportion by region and by spatial relationship among several color regions. === Texture === Texture measures look for visual patterns in images and how they are spatially defined. Textures are represented by texels which are then placed into a number of sets, depending on how many textures are detected in the image. These sets not only define the texture, but also where in the image the texture is located. Texture is a difficult concept to represent. The identification of specific textures in an image is achieved primarily by modeling texture as a two-dimensional gray level variation. The relative brightness of pairs of pixels is computed such that degree of contrast, regularity, coarseness and directionality may be estimated. The problem is in identifying patterns of co-pixel variation and associating them with particular classes of textures such as silky, or rough. Other methods of classifying textures include: Co-occurrence matrix Laws texture energy Wavelet transform Orthogonal transforms (discrete Chebyshev moments) =

  Read more →