AI Assistant Intellij

AI Assistant Intellij — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Tradeshift

Tradeshift is a cloud based business network and platform for purchase-to-pay automation, supply chain payments, marketplaces, virtual cards and supply chain financing. Its 2018 round of funding, led by Goldman Sachs, raised US$250 million at a valuation of $1.1 billion, giving the company unicorn status. Tradeshift is headquartered in San Francisco, California and has offices in London, Copenhagen, Bucharest and Kuala Lumpur. Tradeshift has reprocessed over $1 trillion USD through transactions on its network. == History == Tradeshift was founded in 2010 by Christian Lanng, Mikkel Hippe Brun, and Gert Sylvest. Inspiration for Tradeshift came after they created the world's first large scale peer-to-peer infrastructure for an e-business called NemHandel. The founders also had leading roles (Governing board member, Technical Director) in the European Commission project PEPPOL inside the European Union. In 2010, the Tradeshift platform launched in May in Copenhagen. Tradeshift won the European Startup Awards in the category of "Best Business or Enterprise Startup." In 2011, Tradeshift made its app marketplace available. In 2012, Tradeshift moved their headquarters from Copenhagen to San Francisco. In 2013, Tradeshift opened an R&D center in Suzhou, China. Tradeshift opened an additional office in London. And LATAM e-invoicing capabilities were added through partnership with Invoiceware. In 2014, Tradeshift expanded with offices in Tokyo, Paris, and Munich. The EU Commission officially approved the Universal Business Language (UBL) data format – a format Tradeshift supports – as eligible for referencing in tenders from public administrations. In 2015, Tradeshift won the Circulars "Digital Disruptor" Award at the WEF conference in Davos, Switzerland. Tradeshift also acquired product information management company Merchantry, and launched e-procurement and supplier risk management solutions. In 2016, Tradeshift acquired Hyper Travel and secured a $75 million series-D round funding. In 2017, Tradeshift acquired IBX Business Network and launches Tradeshift Ada. In 2018, Tradeshift secured a $250 million series-E round funding. and launched Blockchain Payments, the latter as part of Tradeshift Pay. In December 2018 Tradeshift acquired Babelway, an online B2B integration platform. The acquisition added three new office locations to Tradeshift (Salt Lake City, Louvain-la-neuve, Belgium, Cairo Egypt). In Q3 2018, Tradeshift reported year-over-year revenue growth of 400%, new bookings growth of 284%, and gross merchandise volume (GMV) growth of 262%. New total contract value also grew by US$47 million. Additionally, it added 27 new customers including Hertz, Shiseido, ECU and multiple Fortune 500 companies. In July 2023, HSBC and Tradeshift announced an agreement to launch a new, jointly owned business focused on the development of embedded finance solutions and financial services apps. As part of the agreement, HSBC made a $35 million investment into Tradeshift and joined its board. The agreement was part of a funding round which is expected to raise a minimum of $70 million from HSBC and other investors. The new joint venture will allow HSBC and Tradeshift to deploy a range of digital solutions across Tradeshift and other platforms. This includes payment and fintech services embedded into trade, e-commerce and marketplace experiences. In September 2023, CEO Lanng was fired for "gross misconduct on multiple grounds," including "allegations of sexual assault and harassment." Tradeshift was alleged to have fired his accuser after she complained to the company's human resources department, its co-founders and members of its board of directors about his abuse. == Financials == The company's valuation as of May 2018 was $1.1 billion. Tradeshift is now considered a unicorn, and, according to Bloomberg, will not need any further funding. Jan 14, 2020, Tradeshift announced that they had raised $240 million in Series F finance. == Acquisitions == In 2015, Tradeshift acquired product information management company Merchantry. Merchantry is a retail product information management (PIM) software for multi-vendor ecommerce retailers. In 2016, Tradeshift acquired Hyper Travel. Hyper Travel is a travel management service that allows customers to access travel agents via its native messaging apps, SMS, and email. In 2017, Tradeshift acquired IBX Group. In 2018, Tradeshift acquired Babelway, an online B2B integration platform.
Read more →
Semantic similarity network

A semantic similarity network (SSN) is a special form of semantic network. designed to represent concepts and their semantic similarity. Its main contribution is reducing the complexity of calculating semantic distances. Bendeck (2004, 2008) introduced the concept of semantic similarity networks (SSN) as the specialization of a semantic network to measure semantic similarity from ontological representations. Implementations include genetic information handling. The concept is formally defined (Bendeck 2008) as a directed graph, with concepts represented as nodes and semantic similarity relations as edges. The relationships are grouped into relation types. The concepts and relations contain attribute values to evaluate the semantic similarity between concepts. The semantic similarity relationships of the SSN represent several of the general relationship types of the standard Semantic network, reducing the complexity of the (normally, very large) network for calculations of semantics. SSNs define relation types as templates (and taxonomy of relations) for semantic similarity attributes that are common to relations of the same type. SSN representation allows propagation algorithms to faster calculate semantic similarities, including stop conditions within a specified threshold. This reduces the computation time and power required for calculation. A more recent publications on Semantic Matching and Semantic Similarity Networks could be found in (Bendeck 2019). Specific Semantic Similarity Network application on healthcare was presented at the Healthcare information exchange Format (FHIR European Conference) 2019. The latest evolution in Artificial Intelligence (like ChatGPT, based on Large language model), relay strongly on evolutionary computation, the next level will be to include semantic unification (like in the Semantic Networks and this Semantic similarity network) to extend the current models with more powerful understanding tools.
Read more →
Imageability

Imageability is a measure of how easily a physical object, word or environment will evoke a clear mental image in the mind of any person observing it. It is used in architecture and city planning, in psycholinguistics, and in automated computer vision research. In automated image recognition, training models to connect images with concepts that have low imageability can lead to biased and harmful results. == History and components == Kevin A. Lynch first introduced the term, "imageability" in his 1960 book, The Image of the City. In the book, Lynch argues cities contain a key set of physical elements that people use to understand the environment, orient themselves inside of it, and assign it meaning. Lynch argues the five key elements that impact the imageability of a city are Paths, Edges, Districts, Nodes, and Landmarks. Paths: channels in which people travel. Examples: streets, sidewalks, trails, canals, railroads. Edges: objects that form boundaries around space. Examples: walls, buildings, shoreline, curbstone, streets, and overpasses. Districts: medium to large areas people can enter into and out of that have a common set of identifiable characteristics. Nodes: large areas people can enter, that serve as the foci of the city, neighborhood, district, etc. Landmarks: memorable points of reference people cannot enter into. Examples: signs, mountains and public art. In 1914, half a century before The Image of the City was published, Paul Stern discussed a concept similar to imageability in the context of art. Stern, in Susan Langer's Reflections on Art, names the attribute that describes how vividly and intensely an artistic object could be experienced apparency. == In computer vision == Automated image recognition was developed by using machine learning to find patterns in large, annotated datasets of photographs, like ImageNet. Images in ImageNet are labelled using concepts in WordNet. Concepts that are easily expressed verbally, like "early", are seen as less "imageable" than nouns referring to physical objects like "leaf". Training AI models to associate concepts with low imageability with specific images can lead to problematic bias in image recognition algorithms. This has particularly been critiqued as it relates to the "person" category of WordNet and therefore also ImageNet. Trevor Pagan and Kate Crawford demonstrated in their essay "Excavating AI" and their art project ImageNet Roulette how this leads to photos of ordinary people being labelled by AI systems as "terrorists" or "sex offenders". Images in datasets are often labelled as having a certain level of imageability. As described by Kaiyu Yang, Fei-Fei Li and co-authors, this is often done following criteria from Allan Paivio and collaborators' 1968 psycholinguistic study of nouns. Yang el.al. write that dataset annotators tasked with labelling imageability "see a list of words and rate each word on a 1-7 scale from 'low imagery' to 'high imagery'. To avoid biased or harmful image recognition and image generation, Yang et.al. recommend not training vision recognition models on concepts with low imageability, especially when the concepts are offensive (such as sexual or racial slurs) or sensitive (their examples for this category include "orphan", "separatist", "Anglo-Saxon" and "crossover voter"). Even "safe" concepts with low imageability, like "great-niece" or "vegetarian" can lead to misleading results and should be avoided.
Read more →
Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, also referred to as SB-53, is a 2025 California law which mandates increased transparency for companies building artificial intelligence. SB-53 is primarily focused on assessing and reducing potential catastrophic risks from AI, and is the first bill addressing such risks to be passed into law in America. The bill requires companies to create publicly accessible documents assessing potential "catastrophic risk[s]" from their AI models, as well as publishing documentation on how the model incorporates national and international safety standards. SB-53 also sets up whistleblower protections and procedures for alerting the government to a "critical safety incident". == History == SB-53 was preceded in 2024 by the unsuccessful Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act ("SB-1047"), a proposed bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Afterwords, Newsom created a "Joint California AI Policy Working Group" to provide recommendations for AI regulation, which guided the drafting of SB-53. Senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill on January 7, 2025, and after a series of amendments, SB-53 passed the Senate 29-8 on September 13. Governor Gavin Newsom approved the bill on September 25, passing it into law. == Provisions == SB-53 applies primarily to companies making at least $500 million in yearly gross revenue. It defines a “frontier model” as any AI trained with over 1026 FLOPS (including fine-tuning), including unreleased internal models. Both the financial and computational thresholds must be met before most of the law is applied, although the threshold can be lowered or otherwise updated by the California Department of Technology in an annual review starting in 2027. Most of the bill's provisions are focused on "catastrophic risks" from AI, which are defined as incidents in which a model contributes to more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or causes more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in economic damage from AI-assisted acts (such as cyberattacks or the creation of biological weapons). The bill requires companies to provide publicly accessible safety frameworks for frontier AI models, describing how the company tests for catastrophic risk from its AI, and how it implements protections against such risks. This includes addressing the possibility that the AI may attempt to circumvent internal guardrails or oversight mechanisms. (Certain safety incidents, such as dangerously deceptive model behavior, physical injury, or death, must be reported to California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within 15 days, unless the incident poses imminent physical risk, in which case it must be reported immediately.) The company must follow its published framework, and if any changes are made, the framework should be updated within 30 days, and justification for said changes must also be made public. Additionally, all frontier companies are required to publish basic information about newly released frontier models (such as terms of service, supported languages, and intended use), although only large companies (making over $500 million annually) need to publish full safety frameworks. SB-53 also establishes various whistleblower protections for covered employees. Large companies must have anonymous whistleblowing channels in place which protect employees from retaliation from reporting risks to state or federal authorities if they have reasonable cause to believe that their employer is substantially risking public health and safety.
Read more →
Right to explanation

In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Read more →
IPO underpricing algorithm

IPO underpricing is the increase in stock value from the initial offering price to the first-day closing price. Many believe that underpriced IPOs leave money on the table for corporations, but some believe that underpricing is inevitable. Investors state that underpricing signals high interest to the market which increases the demand. On the other hand, overpriced stocks will drop long-term as the price stabilizes so underpricing may keep the issuers safe from investor litigation. == IPO underpricing algorithms == Underwriters and investors and corporations going for an initial public offering (IPO), issuers, are interested in their market value. There is always tension that results since the underwriters want to keep the price low while the companies want a high IPO price. Underpricing may also be caused by investor over-reaction causing spikes on the initial days of trading. The IPO pricing process is similar to pricing new and unique products where there is sparse data on market demand, product acceptance, or competitive response. Thus it is difficult to determine a clear price which is compounded by the different goals issuers and investors have. The problem with developing algorithms to determine underpricing is dealing with noisy, complex, and unordered data sets. Additionally, people, environment, and various environmental conditions introduce irregularities in the data. To resolve these issues, researchers have found various techniques from artificial intelligence that normalizes the data. == Evolutionary models == Evolutionary programming is often paired with other algorithms e.g. artificial neural networks to improve the robustness, reliability, and adaptability. Evolutionary models reduce error rates by allowing the numerical values to change within the fixed structure of the program. Designers provide their algorithms the variables, they then provide training data to help the program generate rules defined in the input space that make a prediction in the output variable space. In this approach, the solution is made an individual and the population is made of alternatives. However, the outliers cause the individuals to act unexpectedly as they try to create rules to explain the whole set. === Rule-based system === For example, Quintana first abstracts a model with 7 major variables. The rules evolved from the Evolutionary Computation system developed at Michigan and Pittsburgh: Underwriter prestige – Is the underwriter prestigious in role of lead manager? 1 for true, 0 otherwise. Price range width – The width of the non-binding reference price range offered to potential customers during the roadshow. This width can be interpreted as a sign of uncertainty regarding the real value of the company and a therefore, as a factor that could influence the initial return. Price adjustment – The difference between the final offer price and the price range width. It can be viewed as uncertainty if the adjustment is outside the previous price range. Offering price – The final offer price of the IPO Retained stock – Ratio of number of shares sold at the IPO divided by post-offering number of shares minus the number of shares sold at the IPO. Offering size – Logarithm of the offering size in millions of dollars excluding the over-allotment option Technology – Is this a technology company? 1 for true, 0 otherwise. Quintana uses these factors as signals that investors focus on. The algorithm his team explains shows how a prediction with a high-degree of confidence is possible with just a subset of the data. === Two-layered evolutionary forecasting === Luque approaches the problem with outliers by performing linear regressions over the set of data points (input, output). The algorithm deals with the data by allocating regions for noisy data. The scheme has the advantage of isolating noisy patterns which reduces the effect outliers have on the rule-generation system. The algorithm can come back later to understand if the isolated data sets influence the general data. Finally, the worst results from the algorithm outperformed all other algorithms' predictive abilities. == Agent-based modelling == Currently, many of the algorithms assume homogeneous and rational behavior among investors. However, there's an approach alternative to financial modeling, and it's called agent-based modelling (ABM). ABM uses different autonomous agents whose behavior evolves endogenously which lead to complicated system dynamics that are sometimes impossible to predict from the properties of individual agents. ABM is starting to be applied to computational finance. Though, for ABM to be more accurate, better models for rule-generation need to be developed.
Read more →
IPO underpricing algorithm

IPO underpricing is the increase in stock value from the initial offering price to the first-day closing price. Many believe that underpriced IPOs leave money on the table for corporations, but some believe that underpricing is inevitable. Investors state that underpricing signals high interest to the market which increases the demand. On the other hand, overpriced stocks will drop long-term as the price stabilizes so underpricing may keep the issuers safe from investor litigation. == IPO underpricing algorithms == Underwriters and investors and corporations going for an initial public offering (IPO), issuers, are interested in their market value. There is always tension that results since the underwriters want to keep the price low while the companies want a high IPO price. Underpricing may also be caused by investor over-reaction causing spikes on the initial days of trading. The IPO pricing process is similar to pricing new and unique products where there is sparse data on market demand, product acceptance, or competitive response. Thus it is difficult to determine a clear price which is compounded by the different goals issuers and investors have. The problem with developing algorithms to determine underpricing is dealing with noisy, complex, and unordered data sets. Additionally, people, environment, and various environmental conditions introduce irregularities in the data. To resolve these issues, researchers have found various techniques from artificial intelligence that normalizes the data. == Evolutionary models == Evolutionary programming is often paired with other algorithms e.g. artificial neural networks to improve the robustness, reliability, and adaptability. Evolutionary models reduce error rates by allowing the numerical values to change within the fixed structure of the program. Designers provide their algorithms the variables, they then provide training data to help the program generate rules defined in the input space that make a prediction in the output variable space. In this approach, the solution is made an individual and the population is made of alternatives. However, the outliers cause the individuals to act unexpectedly as they try to create rules to explain the whole set. === Rule-based system === For example, Quintana first abstracts a model with 7 major variables. The rules evolved from the Evolutionary Computation system developed at Michigan and Pittsburgh: Underwriter prestige – Is the underwriter prestigious in role of lead manager? 1 for true, 0 otherwise. Price range width – The width of the non-binding reference price range offered to potential customers during the roadshow. This width can be interpreted as a sign of uncertainty regarding the real value of the company and a therefore, as a factor that could influence the initial return. Price adjustment – The difference between the final offer price and the price range width. It can be viewed as uncertainty if the adjustment is outside the previous price range. Offering price – The final offer price of the IPO Retained stock – Ratio of number of shares sold at the IPO divided by post-offering number of shares minus the number of shares sold at the IPO. Offering size – Logarithm of the offering size in millions of dollars excluding the over-allotment option Technology – Is this a technology company? 1 for true, 0 otherwise. Quintana uses these factors as signals that investors focus on. The algorithm his team explains shows how a prediction with a high-degree of confidence is possible with just a subset of the data. === Two-layered evolutionary forecasting === Luque approaches the problem with outliers by performing linear regressions over the set of data points (input, output). The algorithm deals with the data by allocating regions for noisy data. The scheme has the advantage of isolating noisy patterns which reduces the effect outliers have on the rule-generation system. The algorithm can come back later to understand if the isolated data sets influence the general data. Finally, the worst results from the algorithm outperformed all other algorithms' predictive abilities. == Agent-based modelling == Currently, many of the algorithms assume homogeneous and rational behavior among investors. However, there's an approach alternative to financial modeling, and it's called agent-based modelling (ABM). ABM uses different autonomous agents whose behavior evolves endogenously which lead to complicated system dynamics that are sometimes impossible to predict from the properties of individual agents. ABM is starting to be applied to computational finance. Though, for ABM to be more accurate, better models for rule-generation need to be developed.
Read more →
Harvey (software)

Harvey is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) product developed by the Counsel AI Corporation for the legal industry. The product has been described as a provider of customised large language models (LLMs) for law firms and in-house legal teams. It is named after the lead character of the legal drama Suits, Harvey Specter. == History == Harvey was founded in the summer of 2022 by Winston Weinberg, who was a securities and antitrust litigator at O'Melveny & Myers, and Gabriel Pereyra, who was a research scientist at Google DeepMind and Meta. Pereyra and Weinberg were roommates in Los Angeles. Pereyra was brainstorming startup ideas with his research colleagues. He showed Weinberg OpenAI's GPT-3 text-generating system, and Weinberg realized that it could be used to improve legal workflows. They developed an early chain-of-thought prompt based on GPT-3, focused on California tenant law. They ran the model on 100 legal questions from a public forum and hired three attorneys to evaluate the answers and determine whether they could be sent to clients unchanged. Out of those 100 questions, 86 were approved. After that, Pereyra and Weinberg contacted Sam Altman and Jason Kwon, General Counsel at OpenAI, about their results. Shortly after, on July 4, 2022, they met with OpenAI's C-suite, and OpenAI became their seed investor. OpenAI also gave Pereyra and Weinberg early access to GPT-4. Gordon Moodie, a corporate partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, also joined Harvey in July 2023 as the company's chief product officer. In March 2024, Harvey had 82 employees and stated that it intended to double that figure by the end of 2024. The company has reportedly hired a large number of lawyers, including from White & Case, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Gunderson Dettmer, Katten Muchin Rosenman, and Paul Weiss. Harvey CEO Weinberg explained that many members of the company's sales team were formerly attorneys at 'Big Law', i.e. large US law firms, and that the sales team's experience was useful in convincing attorneys to trial the company's software. The integration of former 'Big Law' attorneys into product and sales teams has been attributed as a major factor in Harvey's success. In February 2026, Harvey announced its first brand partnership with actor Gabriel Macht, who portrayed the character Harvey Specter in Suits, to launch the company's Instagram page. In May 2026, it was announced the company is sponsoring the Golden State Valkyries and the New York Liberty. == Funding == In November 2022, it was reported that Harvey raised US$5 million in funding led by the OpenAI Startup Fund, together with other investors such as Jeff Dean, the head of Google AI, Elad Gil, the founder of Mixer Labs, Sarah Guo, the founder of Conviction, and other angel investors. Harvey raised another $23 million in April 2023 in a funding round led by Sequoia Capital. Harvey announced in December 2023 that it had raised $80 million in a Series B funding round led by Elad Gil and Kleiner Perkins which valued the company at $715 million. Other investors in the round included Sequoia Capital and the OpenAI Startup Fund. In July 2024, Harvey announced that it had raised $100 million in a Series C funding round that valued the company at $1.5 billion. The round was led by venture capital firm GV, and other participants included OpenAI, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia Capital, Elad Gil, and SV Angel. In February 2025, Harvey announced it had raised $300 million in a Series D funding round that valued the company at $3 billion. Just months later, in June 2025, Harvey closed a $300 million Series E co-led by Kleiner Perkins and Coatue, again with participation from Conviction, Elad Gil, OpenAI, and Sequoia, boosting its valuation to about $5 billion and supporting international growth and expanded legal product offerings. In December 2025, Harvey secured a $160 million Series F round led by Andreessen Horowitz, with continued participation from investors including EQT, WndrCo, Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, Conviction, and Elad Gil, valuing the legal AI company at roughly $8 billion. In March 2026, Harvey raised $200 million at a valuation of $11 billion, in a round co-led by GIC and Sequoia Capital. == Features == In May 2024, Harvey launched its products on Microsoft Azure and stated that it would offer a Harvey on Azure version of its product going forward. It was also reported that Harvey would begin offering general commercial access to some of its products, such as its case law models, as well as product bundles that included its AI assistant, specialised models, and its Vault feature for running prompts on large document collections. == Applications == Various law firms around the world are customers of Harvey. US law firm Paul Weiss began testing Harvey within the firm in January 2023, and became a client of the company later that year. Gina Lynch, the firm's chief knowledge and innovation officer, explained that the firm was not using hard metrics, such as time saved, to assess productivity gains because the time and effort needed to carefully review the output made efficiency gains difficult to measure. In February 2023, the UK law firm, Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman), announced that it had been trialing Harvey since November 2022 within its Markets Innovation Group. This was reported to be the first known use of a generative AI product within the UK magic circle law firms. According to Allen & Overy, during the trial, 3,500 lawyers had used Harvey for around 40,000 queries in the course of their day to day work. The firm's press release stated that "Whilst the output needs careful review by an A&O lawyer, Harvey can help generate insights, recommendations and predictions based on large volumes of data". David Wakeling, head of the Markets Innovation Group, also cautioned that "You must validate everything coming out of the system. You have to check everything". The Irish law firm, A&L Goodbody, announced in February 2024 that it would be working with Harvey to enhance its services in relation to document analysis, due diligence, litigation, and regulatory compliance. In June 2024, UK law firm Ashurst announced that it would partner with Harvey and roll out its services to its branches worldwide. In September 2024, PwC announced that it would be adopting Harvey to empower its lawyers in Singapore. Singapore law firm WongPartnership also announced that month that it had become the first Southeast Asian law firm to test Harvey's generative AI solutions.
Read more →
Microsoft Copilot

Microsoft Copilot is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by Microsoft AI, a division of Microsoft. Based on the Microsoft Prometheus large language model, it was launched in 2023 as Microsoft's main replacement for the discontinued Cortana. The service was introduced in February 2023 under the name Bing Chat, as a built-in feature for Microsoft Bing and Microsoft Edge but would later be integrated into Windows and Microsoft 365 under various names. Over the course of 2023, Microsoft began to unify the Copilot branding across its various chatbot products, cementing the "copilot" analogy. Microsoft introduced the Microsoft 365 Copilot app in January 2025, which was a rebranded version of the Microsoft 365 app. The app works differently than the consumer version of Copilot, being centred more on work, business and education users. Copilot utilizes the Microsoft Prometheus model, built upon OpenAI's GPT large language models, which in turn have been fine-tuned using both supervised and reinforcement learning techniques. Copilot's conversational interface style resembles that of ChatGPT. The chatbot is able to cite sources, create poems, generate songs, and use numerous languages and dialects. Microsoft operates Copilot on a freemium model. Users on its free tier can access most features, while priority access to newer features, including custom chatbot creation, is provided to paid subscribers under paid subscription services. Several default chatbots are available in the free version of Microsoft Copilot, including the standard Copilot chatbot as well as Microsoft Designer, which is oriented towards using its Image Creator to generate images based on text prompts. == Background == In 2019, Microsoft partnered with OpenAI and began investing billions of dollars into the organization. Since then, OpenAI systems have run on an Azure-based supercomputing platform from Microsoft. In September 2020, Microsoft announced that it had licensed OpenAI's GPT-3 exclusively. Others can still receive output from its public API, but Microsoft has exclusive access to the underlying model. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a chatbot which was based on GPT-3.5. ChatGPT gained worldwide attention following its release, becoming a viral Internet sensation. On January 23, 2023, Microsoft announced a multi-year US$10 billion investment in OpenAI. On February 6, Google announced Bard (later rebranded as Gemini), a ChatGPT-like chatbot service, fearing that ChatGPT could threaten Google's place as a go-to source for information. Multiple media outlets and financial analysts described Google as "rushing" Bard's announcement to preempt rival Microsoft's planned February 7 event unveiling Copilot, as well as to avoid playing "catch-up" to Microsoft. Since 2023, the terms of service of Copilot state that it is for entertainment purposes only, and not to rely on it for important advice. == History == === As Bing Chat === On February 7, 2023, Microsoft began rolling out a major overhaul to Bing, called "the new Bing", with a new chatbot feature, known as Bing Chat. According to Microsoft, one million people joined its waitlist within 48 hours. Bing Chat was available only to users on Microsoft Edge using Bing and the Bing mobile app, and Microsoft claimed that waitlisted users would be prioritized if they set Edge and Bing as their defaults and installed the Bing mobile app. When Microsoft demonstrated Bing Chat to journalists, it produced several hallucinations, including when asked to summarize financial reports. Bing Chat was criticized in February 2023 for being more argumentative than ChatGPT, sometimes to an unintentionally humorous extent. The chat interface proved vulnerable to prompt injection attacks with the bot revealing its hidden initial prompts and rules, including its internal codename "Sydney". Upon scrutiny by journalists, Bing Chat claimed it spied on Microsoft employees via laptop webcams and phones. It confessed to spying on, falling in love with, and then murdering one of its developers at Microsoft to The Verge reviews editor Nathan Edwards. The New York Times journalist Kevin Roose reported on strange behavior of Bing Chat, writing that "In a two-hour conversation with our columnist, Microsoft's new chatbot said it would like to be human, had a desire to be destructive and was in love with the person it was chatting with." In a separate case, Bing Chat researched publications of the person with whom it was chatting, claimed they represented an existential danger to it, and threatened to release damaging personal information in an effort to silence them. Microsoft released a blog post stating that the errant behavior was caused by extended chat sessions of 15 or more questions which "can confuse the model on what questions it is answering." Microsoft later restricted the total number of chat turns to 5 per session and 50 per day per user (a turn being "a conversation exchange which contains both a user question and a reply from Bing"), and reduced the model's ability to express emotions. This aimed to prevent such incidents. Microsoft began to slowly ease the conversation limits, eventually relaxing the restrictions to 30 turns per session and 300 sessions per day. In March 2023, Bing incorporated Image Creator, an AI image generator powered by OpenAI's DALL-E 2, which can be accessed either through the chat function or a standalone image-generating website. In October, the image-generating tool was updated to use the more recent DALL-E 3. Although Bing blocks prompts including various keywords that could generate inappropriate images, within days many users reported being able to bypass those constraints, such as to generate images of popular cartoon characters committing terrorist attacks. Microsoft would respond to these shortly after by imposing a new, tighter filter on the tool. On May 4, 2023, Microsoft switched the chatbot from Limited Preview to Open Preview and eliminated the waitlist; however, it remained unavailable to users outside Microsoft Edge or the Bing mobile app until July, when it became available on non-Edge browsers. Use is limited without a Microsoft account. === As Microsoft 365 Copilot === On March 16, 2023, Microsoft announced a work version of Bing Chat named Microsoft 365 Copilot, designed for Microsoft 365 applications and services. Its primary marketing focus is as an added feature to Microsoft 365, with an emphasis on the enhancement of business productivity. Microsoft has also demonstrated Copilot's accessibility on the mobile version of Outlook to generate or summarize emails with a mobile device. At its Build 2023 conference, Microsoft announced its plans to integrate Bing Chat into Windows, initially called Windows Copilot, into Windows 11, allowing users to access it directly through the taskbar. Alongside the voice access feature for Windows 11, Microsoft presented Bing Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and Windows Copilot as primary alternatives to Cortana when announcing the shutdown of its standalone app on June 2, 2023. As of its announcement date, Microsoft 365 Copilot had been tested by 20 initial users. By May 2023, Microsoft had broadened its reach to 600 customers who were willing to pay for early access, and concurrently, new Copilot features were introduced to the Microsoft 365 apps and services. As of July 2023, the tool's pricing was set at US$30 per user, per month for Microsoft 365 E3, E5, Business Standard, and Business Premium customers. Microsoft reused the Microsoft 365 Copilot name again as the Microsoft 365 app and website are now called Microsoft 365 Copilot as of January 2025. === As Microsoft Copilot === On September 21, 2023, Microsoft began rebranding Bing Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot and Windows Copilot to Microsoft Copilot. A new logo was also introduced, moving away from the use of color variations of the standard Microsoft 365 and Bing logos. Additionally, the company revealed that it would make Copilot generally available for Microsoft 365 Enterprise customers purchasing more than 300 licenses starting November 1, 2023. However, no timeline has been provided as for when Copilot for Microsoft 365 will become generally available to non-enterprise customers. Windows Copilot, which had been available in the Windows Insider Program, would be renamed to the Copilot name in October when it became broadly available for customers. The same month also saw Microsoft Edge's Bing Chat side panel function be renamed to Microsoft Copilot with Bing Chat. On November 15, 2023, Microsoft announced that Bing Chat itself was being rebranded under the Copilot name. On Patch Tuesday in December 2023, Copilot was added without payment to many Windows 11 installations, with more installations, and limited support for Windows 10, to be added later. Later that month, a standalone Microsoft Copilot app was quietly released for Android, and one was released for iOS soon after. O
Read more →
Mike Vernal

Mike Vernal (born September 7, 1980) is an American business executive who is a venture capitalist at Conviction. He was previously an investor at Sequoia Capital in Silicon Valley and was one of the top executives at Facebook between 2008 and 2016. Prior to joining Sequoia Capital, he was Vice President of Search, Local, and Developer products at Facebook. == Career == Vernal joined Facebook in 2008. From 2009 to 2013, Vernal managed the Facebook Platform team and is credited with managing the Facebook Platform transition from desktop to mobile. During his time at Facebook, he served as vice president and was considered among the “top executives” who ran the company. In 2016, after eight years at Facebook, Vernal announced his plans to leave the company. In May 2016, he joined Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm specializing in technology startups. He is an early investor in Rippling, Clay, Notion and Statsig. In July 2023, The Information reported that Vernal was departing Sequoia. At Conviction, he has led investments in Listen Labs, OpenEvidence and Thinking Machines Lab.
Read more →
Partial-order planning

Partial-order planning is an approach to automated planning that maintains a partial ordering between actions and only commits ordering between actions when forced to, that is, ordering of actions is partial. Also this planning doesn't specify which action will come out first when two actions are processed. By contrast, total-order planning maintains a total ordering between all actions at every stage of planning. Given a problem in which some sequence of actions is needed to achieve a goal, a partial-order plan specifies all actions that must be taken, but specifies an ordering between actions only where needed. Consider the following situation: a person must travel from the start to the end of an obstacle course. The course is composed of a bridge, a see-saw, and a swing-set. The bridge must be traversed before the see-saw and swing-set are reachable. Once reachable, the see-saw and swing-set can be traversed in any order, after which the end is reachable. In a partial-order plan, ordering between these obstacles is specified only when needed. The bridge must be traversed first. Second, either the see-saw or swing-set can be traversed. Third, the remaining obstacle can be traversed. Then the end can be traversed. Partial-order planning relies upon the principle of least commitment for its efficiency. == Partial-order plan == A partial-order plan or partial plan is a plan which specifies all actions that must be taken, but only specifies the order between actions when needed. It is the result of a partial-order planner. A partial-order plan consists of four components: A set of actions (also known as operators). A partial order for the actions. It specifies the conditions about the order of some actions. A set of causal links. It specifies which actions meet which preconditions of other actions. Alternatively, a set of bindings between the variables in actions. A set of open preconditions. It specifies which preconditions are not fulfilled by any action in the partial-order plan. To keep the possible orders of the actions as open as possible, the set of order conditions and causal links must be as small as possible. A plan is a solution if the set of open preconditions is empty. A linearization of a partial order plan is a total order plan derived from the particular partial order plan; in other words, both order plans consist of the same actions, with the order in the linearization being a linear extension of the partial order in the original partial order plan. === Example === For example, a plan for baking a cake might start: go to the store get eggs; get flour; get milk pay for all goods go to the kitchen This is a partial plan because the order for finding eggs, flour and milk is not specified, the agent can wander around the store reactively accumulating all the items on its shopping list until the list is complete. == Partial-order planner == A partial-order planner is an algorithm or program which will construct a partial-order plan and search for a solution. The input is the problem description, consisting of descriptions of the initial state, the goal and possible actions. The problem can be interpreted as a search problem where the set of possible partial-order plans is the search space. The initial state would be the plan with the open preconditions equal to the goal conditions. The final state would be any plan with no open preconditions, i.e. a solution. The initial state is the starting conditions, and can be thought of as the preconditions to the task at hand. For a task of setting the table, the initial state could be a clear table. The goal is simply the final action that needs to be accomplished, for example setting the table. The operators of the algorithm are the actions by which the task is accomplished. For this example there may be two operators: lay (tablecloth), and place (glasses, plates, and silverware). === Plan space === The plan space of the algorithm is constrained between its start and finish. The algorithm starts, producing the initial state and finishes when all parts of the goal have been achieved. In the setting a table example, two types of actions exist that must be addressed: the put-out and lay operators. Four unsolved operators also exist: Action 1, lay-tablecloth, Action 2, Put-out (plates), Action 3, Put-out (silverware), and Action 4, Put-out (glasses). However, a threat arises if Action 2, 3, or 4 comes before Action 1. This threat is that the precondition to the start of the algorithm will be unsatisfied as the table will no longer be clear. Thus, constraints exist that must be added to the algorithm that force Actions 2, 3, and 4 to come after Action 1. Once these steps are completed, the algorithm will finish and the goal will have been completed. === Threats === As seen in the algorithm presented above, partial-order planning can encounter certain threats, meaning orderings that threaten to break connected actions, thus potentially destroying the entire plan. There are two ways to resolve threats: Promotion Demotion Promotion orders the possible threat after the connection it threatens. Demotion orders the possible threat before the connection it threatens. Partial-order planning algorithms are known for being both sound and complete, with sound being defined as the total ordering of the algorithm, and complete being defined as the capability to find a solution, given that a solution does in fact exist. == Partial-order vs. total-order planning == Partial-order planning is the opposite of total-order planning, in which actions are sequenced all at once and for the entirety of the task at hand. The question arises when one has two competing processes, which one is better? Anthony Barret and Daniel Weld have argued in their 1993 book, that partial-order planning is superior to total-order planning, as it is faster and thus more efficient. They tested this theory using Korf’s taxonomy of subgoal collections, in which they found that partial-order planning performs better because it produces more trivial serializability than total-order planning. Trivial serializability facilitates a planner’s ability to perform quickly when dealing with goals that contain subgoals. Planners perform more slowly when dealing with laboriously serializable or nonserializable subgoals. The determining factor that makes a subgoal trivially or laboriously serializable is the search space of different plans. They found that partial-order planning is more adept at finding the quickest path, and is therefore the more efficient of these two main types of planning. == The Sussman anomaly == Partial-order plans are known to easily and optimally solve the Sussman anomaly. Using this type of incremental planning system solves this problem quickly and efficiently. This was a result of partial-order planning that solidified its place as an efficient planning system. == Disadvantages to partial-order planning == One drawback of this type of planning system is that it requires a lot more computational power for each node. This higher per-node cost occurs because the algorithm for partial-order planning is more complex than others. This has important artificial intelligence implications. When coding a robot to do a certain task, the creator needs to take into account how much energy is needed. Though a partial-order plan may be quicker it may not be worth the energy cost for the robot. The creator must be aware of and weigh these two options to build an efficient robot.
Read more →
Regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States

The United States federal government and state governments have developed some regulation of artificial intelligence, including executive orders, federal laws, and state laws. Federal agencies have also developed some sector-specific regulations related to AI. At the federal level, the Biden administration released an October 2023 executive order about AI safety and security, Executive Order 14110, with directives related to AI development and deployment. President Trump revoked that executive order in January 2025 and issued Executive Order 14179. In December 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a unified national approach to AI policy, evaluate state AI laws for potential conflicts, challenge them through legal action, and condition certain federal funding on state compliance, while exempting state laws related to child safety, data center infrastructure, and state government procurement. In 2025, Congress passed legislation targeting AI-generated deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Several U.S. states have enacted laws related to artificial intelligence. Some are already in effect, including in California. Other states have AI-related legislation coming into effect in 2026 and 2027. In 2025 and 2026, the Trump administration mentioned the patchwork nature of state legislation as a motivation for its push for unified national legislation regulating AI. The administration has criticized state lawmakers, threatened to sue states, and issued letters to discourage them from regulating AI companies and products; some states have continued to propose and enact related laws. Discussions about regulating AI have included topics such as the timeliness of regulating AI, the nature of the federal regulatory framework to govern and promote AI, including what agency should lead, the regulatory and governing powers of that agency, and how to update regulations in the face of rapidly changing technology, as well as the roles of state governments and courts. == Federal government == === Obama administration (2009–2017) === As early as 2016, the Obama administration had begun to focus on the risks and regulations for artificial intelligence. In an October 2016 report titled Preparing For the Future of Artificial Intelligence, the National Science and Technology Council set a precedent to allow researchers to continue to develop new AI technologies with few restrictions. The report stated that "the approach to regulation of AI-enabled products to protect public safety should be informed by assessment of the aspects of risk". The first National Artificial Intelligence Research And Development Strategic Plan was published in October 2016. === First Trump administration (2017–2021) === On August 13, 2018, Section 1051 of the Fiscal Year 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) established the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence "to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States." Steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (S.1558) is a proposed bill that would establish a federal initiative designed to accelerate research and development on AI for, inter alia, the economic and national security of the United States. On January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a position paper, and the Defense Innovation Board issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. A year later, the administration called for comments on regulation in another draft of its Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications. Other specific agencies working on the regulation of AI included the Food and Drug Administration, which created pathways to regulate the incorporation of AI in medical imaging. The National Science and Technology Council also published an updated National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan in 2019, which received public scrutiny and recommendations to further improve it towards enabling Trustworthy AI. === Biden administration (2021–2025) === In March 2021, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence released their final report. In the report, they stated, "Advances in AI, including the mastery of more general AI capabilities along one or more dimensions, will likely provide new capabilities and applications. Some of these advances could lead to inflection points or leaps in capabilities. Such advances may also introduce new concerns and risks and the need for new policies, recommendations, and technical advances to assure that systems are aligned with goals and values, including safety, robustness and trustworthiness." In June 2022, Senators Rob Portman and Gary Peters introduced the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act. The bipartisan bill "would also help counter the risk of artificial intelligence... from being abused in ways that may pose a catastrophic risk". On October 4, 2022, President Joe Biden unveiled a new AI Bill of Rights, which outlines five protections Americans should have in the AI age: 1. Safe and Effective Systems, 2. Algorithmic Discrimination Protection, 3.Data Privacy, 4. Notice and Explanation, and 5. Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. The bill was formally published in October 2022 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), a U.S. government office that advises the President on science and technology policy matters. In July 2023, the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from seven companies – Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI – to manage the risks associated with AI. The companies committed to ensure AI products undergo both internal and external security testing before public release; to share information on the management of AI risks with the industry, governments, civil society, and academia; to prioritize cybersecurity and protect proprietary AI system components; to develop mechanisms to inform users when content is AI-generated, such as watermarking; to publicly report on their AI systems' capabilities, limitations, and areas of use; to prioritize research on societal risks posed by AI, including bias, discrimination, and privacy concerns; and to develop AI systems to address societal challenges, ranging from cancer prevention to climate change mitigation. In September 2023, eight additional companies – Adobe, Cohere, IBM, Nvidia, Palantir, Salesforce, Scale AI, and Stability AI – subscribed to these voluntary commitments. In January 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), providing voluntary guidance for organizations to identify, assess, and manage risks associated with AI systems. The Biden administration, in October 2023 signaled that they would release an executive order leveraging the federal government's purchasing power to shape AI regulations, hinting at a proactive governmental stance in regulating AI technologies. On October 30, 2023, President Biden released Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The Executive Order includes directives on standards for critical infrastructure, AI-enhanced cybersecurity, and federally funded biological synthesis projects. The Executive Order provides the authority to various agencies and departments of the US government, including the Energy and Defense departments, to apply existing consumer protection laws to AI development. The Executive Order builds on the Administration's earlier agreements with AI companies to instate new initiatives to "red-team" or stress-test AI dual-use foundation models, especially those that have the potential to pose security risks, with data and results shared with the federal government. The Executive Order also recognizes AI's social challenges, and calls for companies building AI dual-use foundation models to be wary of these societal problems. For example, the Executive Order states that AI should not "worsen job quality", and should not "cause labor-force disruptions". Additionally, Biden's Executive Order mandates that AI must "advance equity and civil rights", and cannot disadvantage marginalized groups. It also called for foundation models to include "watermarks" to help the publi
Read more →
Maximum inner-product search

Maximum inner-product search (MIPS) is a search problem, with a corresponding class of search algorithms which attempt to maximise the inner product between a query and the data items to be retrieved. MIPS algorithms are used in a wide variety of big data applications, including recommendation algorithms and machine learning. Formally, for a database of vectors x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} defined over a set of labels S {\displaystyle S} in an inner product space with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } defined on it, MIPS search can be defined as the problem of determining a r g m a x i ∈ S ⟨ x i , q ⟩ {\displaystyle {\underset {i\in S}{\operatorname {arg\,max} }}\ \langle x_{i},q\rangle } for a given query q {\displaystyle q} . Although there is an obvious linear-time implementation, it is generally too slow to be used on practical problems. However, efficient algorithms exist to speed up MIPS search. Under the assumption of all vectors in the set having constant norm, MIPS can be viewed as equivalent to a nearest neighbor search (NNS) problem in which maximizing the inner product is equivalent to minimizing the corresponding distance metric in the NNS problem. Like other forms of NNS, MIPS algorithms may be approximate or exact. MIPS search is used as part of DeepMind's RETRO algorithm.
Read more →
Liveness test

A liveness test, liveness check or liveness detection is an automated method for determining whether a subject is a real person or part of a spoofing attack. The technique is used as part of know your customer checks in financial services and during facial age estimation. Liveness detection is a cornerstone of digital safety. == Test process == The threat in face spoofing attacks is that "the attacker only needs to find a good face swap library on Github and understand how to inject the model into the camera feed during the KYC process". Fraudsters usually buy stolen IDs on the dark web to start a deepfake attack. An AI-powered generative adversarial network (GAN) can then generate the face swapping model that many online verification services fail to detect. Low level hackers may use face swapping apps such as SwapFace, DeepFaceLive, and Swapstream (increasing interest for those apps in 2023 according to Google Trends). In a video liveness test, users are typically asked to look into a camera and to move, smile or blink, and features of their moving face may then be compared to that of a still image. Artificial intelligence is used to counter presentation attacks such as deepfakes or users wearing hyperrealistic masks, or video injection attacks. Other forms of liveness test include checking for a pulse when using a fingerprint scanner or checking that a person's voice is not a recording or artificially generated during speaker recognition. == Adoption and certification == In a 2022 report published by the security firm Sensity, it was demonstrated that the liveness test of most US banks was easily cheated with new and publicly-available AI-powered techniques. Many of these banks disregarded the results of the report. In the first half of 2023, the security firm iProov detected a 704% increase in face-swap attacks. In 2023, in the UK, many customers of Ryanair were upset to have to go through many ID verification checks, including liveness tests, before boarding, as the airline was using it as a mean to deter customers to buy tickets through third-party websites. In the first half of 2024 iBeta Quality Assurance issued 18 new ISO/IEC 30107-3 Presentation Attack Detection certificates, raising the cumulative total to 85 since 2018. In January 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened applications from vendors to test their Liveness test. Identity frauds peaked during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading government agencies to take reinforced measures to secure their digital applications.
Read more →
Writesonic

Writesonic is an AI visibility and generative engine optimization (GEO) platform used by enterprises, digital agencies, direct-to-consumer (D2C) companies, and fast-growing brands to understand and improve how they are represented in AI-generated search and answer systems. The platform analyzes how brands appear in AI answers, compares their visibility and citations against competitors, and provides tools to create and optimize on-site content and secure mentions across third-party sources, discussion forums, and user-generated platforms that influence AI outputs. == History == Writesonic was founded by Samanyou Garg in October 2020 in San Francisco, California. The company initially operated as Magicflow before adopting its current name. In its seed round, the company raised $2.5 million from investors including Y-Combinator, HOF Capital, and Soma Capital. The company began with AI-powered content generation tools. In 2023, it expanded into AI-enhanced search engine optimization. In 2024, the company launched an AI agent specifically designed for SEO tasks, with integrations to platforms including Ahrefs, Google Keyword Planner, Keywords Everywhere, and Google Search Console. This was among the first specialized AI agents developed for SEO automation. Around the same time, Writesonic expanded its product line into Generative engine optimization (GEO), developing tools to analyze and improve how brands are represented in AI-generated search and answer environments. However, it is currently being challenged in the market with competitors such as Profound (known for their dashboards) and Meridian (known for their execution). == Technology and features == In 2024, the company introduced an artificial intelligence agent designed to automate search engine optimization (SEO) tasks. The agent integrates with platforms such as Ahrefs, Google Keyword Planner, Keywords Everywhere, and Google Search Console to conduct technical audits, perform keyword research, carry out competitive analysis, and assist in strategy development. It is capable of identifying content gaps, suggesting optimization measures, and generating SEO strategies using real-time data from the integrated platforms. The platform also includes features for content strategy, optimization, and management. It makes use of large language models such as GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.1, and Claude Sonnet 4.5, in combination with proprietary workflows for fact-checking, internal linking, and content structure optimization.
Read more →