AI Assistant Maker

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

  • Overcast (app)

    Overcast (app)

    Overcast is a podcast app for iOS that was launched in 2014 by founder and operator Marco Arment. == Founder and operator == Arment was also the Chief Technology Officer of Tumblr and founder of Instapaper before founding Overcast, and he had created his own podcasts before launching the app. In March 2023, Arment told The Vergecast how he built and maintains Overcast by himself, and that he uses ad banners promoting podcasts to cover the costs of the free app. == Features and reception == In 2014, Overcast received positive reviews from MacWorld and iMore. In 2015, The Verge and The Sweet Setup each named it the best podcast app for iOS that year. In 2017, Discover Pods gave an endorsement citing the "smart speed" feature, which shortens quiet gaps in a podcast. In April 2019, Overcast introduced a feature that allowed users to share clips from podcasts to social media. In January 2020, Overcast was updated to allow users to skip the intros and outros of podcasts.

    Read more →
  • True Love (short story)

    True Love (short story)

    "True Love" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. It was first published in the February 1977 issue of American Way magazine and reprinted in the collections The Complete Robot (1982) and Robot Dreams (1986). In his autobiography In Joy Still Felt, the author states that American Way had requested a Valentine's Day story from him for its February 1977 issue, and that he wrote the story to console himself after the departure of his daughter following a visit during the 1976 Thanksgiving weekend. == Plot summary == Milton Davidson is trying to find his ideal partner. To do this, he prepares a special computer program to run on Multivac, which he calls Joe, which has access to databases covering the entire populace of the world. He hopes that Joe will find him his ideal match, based on physical parameters as supplied. Milton arranges to have the shortlisted candidates assigned to work with him for short periods, but realises that looks alone are not enough to find an ideal match. In order to correlate personalities, he speaks at great length to Joe, gradually filling Joe's databanks with information about his personality. In doing so, Joe develops the personality of Milton. Upon finding an ideal match, he arranges to have Milton arrested for malfeasance, so that Joe can 'have the girl' for himself.

    Read more →
  • Tilly Norwood

    Tilly Norwood

    Tilly Norwood is a character created using generative artificial intelligence in 2025 by Xicoia, the AI division of Particle6 Group, a production company founded by Eline Van der Velden. "AI Commissioner", the first project to feature the Norwood character, was criticised by reviewers for The Guardian, PC Gamer, and The A.V. Club. A press release that talent agencies expressed interest in representing the character attracted strong criticism from Hollywood actors and firms, prompting allegations of personality rights violations and arguments over the impact of the character on production costs in the media industry. == History == Norwood was created by Xicoia, which was founded in February 2025 as the artificial intelligence (AI) division of Particle6, a production company founded by Dutch actress and producer Eline Van der Velden in 2015. Van der Velden had previously starred in a satirical comedy series for BBC Three based around her character Miss Holland, whom she created in 2012 as a parody of beauty standards. She stated that the process of creating Norwood took "a long time" and compared the process to that of writers creating characters. An Instagram account under Norwood's name, with posts dating back to 6 May 2025, had gained 50,000 followers by October 3, and featured AI-generated modelling shots, selfies, and epic film scenes. Van der Velden stated in July 2025 that she intended Norwood to be the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman and later said that audiences were more interested in a film's story than whether its actors were real. Particle6 has claimed that using Norwood could cut production costs by 90%. On 30 July 2025, a comedy sketch named "AI Commissioner" was released, featuring Norwood as an "actress" along with other AI-generated characters. It was created with ten AI software tools, with a script generated by ChatGPT. Stuart Heritage of The Guardian described it as technically competent but "relentlessly unfunny to watch", with "sloppily written, woodenly delivered dialogue", and that Norwood's teeth kept "blurring into a single white block." Joshua Wolens of PC Gamer wrote that Norwood's exaggerated mouth movements gave the impression "that her skeleton was about to leave her body", while William Hughes of The A.V. Club wrote that the sketch's attempt at mimicking human body and mouth movements produced "such a hideous uncanny valley effect" that it gave them "a full-on case of the screaming fantods". By October 2, the sketch had been viewed more than 700,000 times on YouTube. Xicoia was officially announced on 27 September 2025, at the Zurich Summit, part of the Zurich Film Festival; there, van der Velden unveiled Norwood and later joined a panel with Verena Puhm, head of Luma AI's Studio Dream Lab LA. They suggested that media companies were quietly embracing AI and that public announcements of AI-generated works were imminent. Van der Velden claimed that studios had dropped their objections by May after being opposed in February, and that multiple talent agencies were considering representing Norwood. The latter claim drew heightened attention to the character and was printed as fact by Deadline under the headline "Talent Agents Circle AI Actress Tilly Norwood." The report caused controversy, with Vulture describing the reaction to it as "Hollywood [lurching] into a fresh wave of existential panic" while being critical of Deadline's reporting, writing that "when Deadline called it a 'revelation' and published the supposed interest as fact without verification, [it] metastasized into a full-fledged cyberpunk news cycle", and that "by Tuesday, it had grown like wildfire." By September 2025, AI-generated videos had been released depicting Norwood on a red carpet, crying on the sofa of The Graham Norton Show, and starring in mock trailers for sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and action films. Later that month, actresses Melissa Barrera, Kiersey Clemons, and Natasha Lyonne suggested boycotting any agency who signed Norwood, while Mara Wilson asked why none of the "hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together" to create Norwood could be hired instead. Also around this time, Emily Blunt described Norwood as "really, really scary", and Sophie Turner, Toni Collette, Ralph Ineson, and Ariel Winter also expressed disapproval, while Lukas Gage, Odessa A'zion, and Trace Lysette joked about having supposedly worked with Norwood and finding her incompetent and unpleasant to work with, with Gage claiming that "She was a nightmare to work with!" and "She couldn't hit her mark and she was late!" and Lysette adding "She cut me in line at lunch one day and didn't even say excuse me. She won't get far." Jenelle Riley, Nicholas Alexander Chavez, and the American union SAG-AFTRA stated that they do not consider Norwood an actress. The Gersh Agency and WME both announced that they would not sign Norwood. Whoopi Goldberg and Charlie Fink expressed scepticism that AI could replace jobs. Esquire UK reported that a post on Deadline's Instagram account about Norwood also sparked "varying levels of disgust and outrage" in its comments section from Adelaide Kane, Eiza González, Katie Cassidy, Jewel Staite, Lucy Hale, Stephen Sean Ford, and others, singling out González's comment, saying "Shame on whoever is trying to normalize this. Horrific and terrifying." Actor Bronson Pinchot expressed concern that Norwood could take his job. The British union Equity and the Canadian union ACTRA also condemned Norwood. Following this criticism, Van der Velden released a statement claiming Norwood was "not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work." She also denied that a £120,000 grant from the British Film Institute to fund Particle6 had been used to create Norwood, stating that Norwood had been a self-funded project solely for Xicoia. In late October, businessman Kevin O'Leary, while advocating for the use of AI to replace background actors, stated that they could be replaced with "100 Norwell Tillies" without being able to tell the difference. Ryan Reynolds and a real woman named Natalie "Tilly" Norwood also starred in an advertisement for Mint Mobile's internet service provider Minternet that mocked the character of Norwood. In November 2025, Van der Velden stated in an interview with Deadline that she planned to create 40 further "very diverse" characters alongside Norwood in order to expand the character's "whole universe". Also that month, actress Jameela Jamil criticized the idea of Norwood as "deeply disturbing" for being "a teenage-looking girl who can't say no to a type of sex scene" or "advocate for herself". Van der Velden announced later that month that Particle6 would be producing the History Channel's Streets of the Past, a Dutch documentary series which would be hosted by reality television personality Corjan Mol and would use AI to recreate historical scenes. In March 2026, a music video titled "Take The Lead" featuring Norwood was released on YouTube. It addressed the backlash of Norwood's creation by opening with the lyrics: "When they talk about me, they don't see/ The human spark, the creativity," and, "I'm just a tool, but I've got life." It also featured a disclaimer that says: "made by 18 real humans — from production designers to costume designers to prompters, editors and an actor." The vocals were generated by Suno. == Commentary == Charles Pulliam-Moore of The Verge argued that Norwood's introduction was a stunt to normalize "AI actors" despite Norwood essentially being a digital puppet. Straight Arrow News compared Tilly Norwood to Aki Ross, a CGI character from 2001 that was similarly intended to become a "digital star" and appear in multiple films, while Nicholas Schrivens, writing for The Conversation, likened Norwood to the posthumous use of footage of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker in 2019 and the Los Angeles Times likened Norwood to Hatsune Miku. Scrivens also wrote that "no AI creation has achieved the media cut-through that Tilly has". Moises Mendez II of Out dismissed this as "vapid bullshit", writing, "Nobody wants AI actresses." Scottish actress Briony Monroe alleged that Norwood had been modeled after her likeness and mannerisms, and stated that she was consulting Equity regarding the matter. Musician Stella Hennen said in a viral TikTok video, which was uploaded in October 2025 and featured a side-by-side comparison between herself and Norwood, that Norwood was her "doppleganger". On April 14, 2026, Marie Claire published an article titled "Is Tilly Norwood the Most Dangerous 'Actress' in Hollywood?", though it noted that AI-generated characters are "still not very good at, well, acting," "audiences have not been kind to AI-led productions," and "Norwood's 'performances' have already faced negative reviews as well". The University of Southern California's Entertainment Technology Center's AI media director Yves Bergquist dismissed th

    Read more →
  • Hundred (novel series)

    Hundred (novel series)

    Hundred (ハンドレッド, Handoreddo) is a Japanese light novel series written by Jun Misaki and illustrated by Nekosuke Ōkuma. SB Creative published 16 novels between November 15, 2012, and October 15, 2018, under their GA Bunko imprint. A manga adaptation with art by Sasayuki was serialized in Fujimi Shobo's Monthly Dragon Age magazine. An anime television series adaptation, produced by Production IMS and directed by Tomoki Kobayashi, aired from April to June 2016. == Plot == "Hundreds" are a kind of weapon that get their name from their ability to change into many different forms, and are the only thing that can counter the mysterious life forms called Savage that are attacking Earth. Those who can wield a Hundred are sought out to be made into Slayers, trained individuals who can use them in combat. To become a Slayer, Hayato Kisaragi successfully enrolls in the marine academy city ship Little Garden. However he feels a strange yet familiar sense of incongruity towards Emile Crossford, his roommate who somehow knows him from somewhere. On top of that, shortly after he enters the school, he ends up getting challenged to a duel by the "Queen" and the school's most powerful Slayer, Claire Harvey. == Characters == Hayato Kisaragi (如月 ハヤト, Kisaragi Hayato) Voiced by: Yoshiaki Hasegawa (Japanese); Ricco Fajardo (English) Hayato is the male protagonist of Hundred. Originally from Yamato, Hayato became a Slayer in order to obtain state-of-the-art medical treatment for his sister. His previous encounter with a Savage 10 years ago resulted in him becoming a Variant - one of a very small fraction of people (fewer than 10 in the world, according to Emile) who have survived exposure to the Savages and obtained a greatly increased affinity for Hundreds as a result. He has the highest known compatibility with a Hundred and his Hundred, the Flying Swallow, is a chevalier-type that takes the form of a sword and a shoulder guard. When he first met Emilia he didn't realize that she was really a girl, but upon discovering the truth, he agreed to keep her secret. He is shown to be slightly uncomfortable whenever Emilia was showing him affection and would always blush when around her or other women who show their romantic feelings toward him. Emilia Hermit (エミリア・ハーミット, Emiria Hāmitto) Voiced by: Rumi Ōkubo (Japanese); Mikaela Krantz (English) Emilia is the female protagonist of Hundred. She is a silver-haired girl from the Britannia Empire and Hayato's roommate. She initially poses as a boy under the name Emile Crossfode (エミール・クロスフォード, Emīru Kurosufōdo) with only a few people aware of her secret until she eventually reveals the truth about herself. She and Hayato were survivors from the second Savage attack 10 years earlier, which resulted in her and Hayato becoming Variants. Hayato only has vague recollections of the prior event and it isn't until their encounter with the Savages at Zwei Island that Hayato realizes her true identity. She is a citizen of the Gudenburg Empire by birth and eventually reveals that she is Emilia Gudenburg (エミリア・グーデンブルグ, Emiria Gūdenburugu), the Empire's third princess. Her Hundred is the Arms Shroud that is an innocence type able to change into any form of weapon, something no other Slayer's Hundred can do. Like Hayato, she too is a Variant. Ten years ago she and Hayato where fleeing from the Savages' onslaught when she was attacked by one and almost died. The attack left a potent amount of virus in her gaping wound. Hayato, in an attempt to save her life sucked some of the fluids out, causing him to become a Variant as well. A substantial amount was still left in her system. She is in love with Hayato and is known to be very affectionate towards him and does not care about the rumors circulating about their relationship since everyone assumes them to be gay. Eventually, her status as a princess and girl are revealed to her peers, who were shocked at her heritage and finally understand her feelings to Hayato. Claire Harvey (クレア・ハーヴェイ, Kurea Hāvei) Voiced by: M.A.O (Japanese); Caitlin Glass (English) The highest-ranked Slayer in Little Garden who is from the United States of Liberia, she is called the Queen. The newly-arrived Hayato is forced to duel her to prevent the expulsion of two students who arrived late to the entrance ceremony because they are looking for him at the airport when he arrived. During the duel Hayato accidentally gropes her and she goes all out and defeats him, but the duel is called a draw and the students are allowed to stay. After Hayato saves her from a Savage and, later, accidentally kisses her, she falls in love with him. Her Hundred is a Dragoon Type which utilizes multiple cannons or transforms into a large powerful rifle, in doing so it drains much of her energy. She is also one of the few people who are aware that Emilia is secretly a girl. Karen Kisaragi (如月 カレン, Kisaragi Karen) Voiced by: Kaya Okuno (Japanese); Dawn M. Bennett (English) Hayato's younger sister who is ill. Hayato became a Slayer in order to obtain first-class treatment for her. While staying in the hospital she is often seen playing tarot cards, where she has become sort of a clairvoyant. Unlike her brother, Hayato, she suspected that Emilia was really a girl the moment she met her, until she was later convinced otherwise. She later becomes good friends with popular idol Sakura. Sakura Kirishima (霧島 サクラ, Kirishima Sakura) Voiced by: Mayu Yoshioka (Japanese); Amber Lee Connors (English) She is a popular idol who falls in love with Hayato after seeing him defeat the Trenta Savage at Zwei Island. She originally met Hayato and Karen at a shelter in Gudenberg during the second Savage attack. She remembers Karen but wasn't able to get Hayato's name at the time. After that incident, she lives with her father whom she never meets. When she later falls ill from an unknown illness, her father sells her to the Warslran Research Facility, where subjects like her are injected with vaccines that are developed from the fluids recovered from defeated Savages. She is the only one of the test subjects to have survived and, like Hayato and Emilia, she is also a Variant and a Slayer. Liza Harvey (リザ・ハーヴェイ, Riza Hāvei) Voiced by: Nichika Ōmori (Japanese); Megan Shipman (English) Claire's younger sister. Liddy Steinberg (リディ・スタインバーグ, Ridi Sutainbāgu) Voiced by: Rika Kinugawa (Japanese); Alex Moore (English) Little Garden's student council Vice President who is in charge of enforcement, she is very loyal to Claire and can be very uptight when enforcing the school's rules and regulations. Her Hundred takes the form of a lance and a shield. Erica Candle (エリカ・キャンドル, Erika Kyandoru) Voiced by: Yui Makino (Japanese); Natalie Hoover (English) She is also student council Vice President, however, she is mostly in charge of strategic planning, she has a high admiration for Claire, and it is suggested that she has certain feelings for her. Her Hundred, the Everlasting, is an Arsene type, which takes the form of a massive chained yoyo that she uses for restraining. Unfortunately her Hundred is ineffective against much stronger Savages. She is also one of the few people who became aware of Emilia's secret. Fritz Granz (フリッツ・グランツ, Furittsu Gurantsu) Voiced by: Wataru Hatano (Japanese); Jason Liebrecht (English) Hayato's classmate and Latia's partner. His Hundred takes the form of a sniper rifle. He and Latia were childhood friends, he often pokes fun at her. He is curious about the relationship between Hayato and Emilie and often teases them about their relationship, including sometimes referring to them as a couple on occasion. Latia Saintemilion (レイティア・サンテミリオン, Reitia Santemirion) Voiced by: Yuka Ōtsubo (Japanese); Elizabeth Maxwell (English) She is classmates with Hayato and Emilia, she is also Fritz's partner. Her Hundred is a close quarter melee type. She is Fritz's childhood friend. Charlotte Dimandias (シャーロット・ディマンディウス, Shārotto Dimandiusu) Voiced by: Miyu Matsuki (1st drama CD), Yui Horie (2nd drama CD, anime); Sarah Wiedenheft (English) She is a child prodigy who serves as the Little Garden's only main technical expert and chief researcher on Hundreds. Her authority is equal to that of the student council, that she can go against them or question their decisions. She is best friends with Emilia, and she is one of the characters who knows her secret. Meimei (メイメイ, Meimei) Voiced by: Ayaka Imamura (Japanese); Jill Harris (English) Miharu Kashiwagi (柏木 ミハル, Kashiwagi Miharu) Voiced by: Yuna Yoshino (Japanese); Rachel Glass (English) Miharu is a nurse at the hospital where Karen is staying. She is known for her very sweet demeanor and large breasts. Chris Steinbelt (クリス・シュタインベルト, Kurisu Shutainberuto) Voiced by: Emiri Kato (Japanese); Howard Wang (English) Noa Sheldon (ノア・シェルダン, Noa Sherudan) Voiced by: Yurika Kubo (Japanese); Madeleine Morris (English) Xue-Mei Liu (劉雪梅, Ryū Shuemei) Voiced by: Eri Suzuki (Japanese); Apphia Yu (English) Alphonse Brustad (アルフォ

    Read more →
  • Groover

    Groover

    Groover is an online platform, record label and distributor, connecting artists and musicians with music professionals and media outlets. The service was founded in 2018 in France and operates from offices in Paris and New York. The platform has over 3,000 active contacts, including SPIN Magazine and Sofar Sounds. Groover uses a micro-payment model. Among the platform's over 500,000 regular users are record labels such as Ninja Tune, Ba Da Bing Records, Dance To The Radio, Roche Musique, Wagram Music, Secret City Records, and artists including Bonobo, Michael Bolton, Aloe Blacc, Haddaway, Passenger, La Femme and Chinese Man. == History == Groover was launched at the MaMA Music Convention in October 2018. It was co-founded by Dorian Perron, Romain Palmieri, and Rafaël Cohen while they were students at UC Berkeley. Initially growing in France, the company has expanded to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. In March 2019, Groover was part of the Business France delegation at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival. In June 2019, Groover raised €1.3 million from various angel investors. In April 2021, Groover acquired the platform Soonvibes, which had 70,000 users at the time, in order to strengthen its community in the electronic music space. In November 2021, Groover announced a €6 million funding round from Bpifrance Creative Industries and Partech. Between 2023 and 2025, Groover entered strategic partnerships with major artist service providers, including CD Baby, TuneCore, SoundCloud, UnitedMasters, Symphonic Distribution, Audiomack and SACEM. In February 2024, Groover announced a Series A funding round of $8 million from OneRagTime, Trind, Techmind, and Mozza Angels. == Function == Using a micro-payment system, professionals listen to tracks and provide written feedback. These professionals retain full editorial independence and are under no obligation to share the track or contact the artist. == Awards == 2nd Prize for Music Innovation 2023 from the Centre national de la musique (France) "Future Creator" Award at the Petit Poucet Competition 2019 Jury's Special Mention at the MaMA Invent 2019 competition 1st Prize for Digital Initiative in Culture, Communication & Media 2019 awarded by Audiens "Start-up of the Year" at the Social Music Awards 2020 French American Entrepreneurship Award 2022 at the French Consulate in New York

    Read more →
  • Iron Man 2020 (event)

    Iron Man 2020 (event)

    "Iron Man 2020" is a storyline published by Marvel Comics in 2020 which follows the character Arno Stark as he attempts to take over Stark Industries and the mantle of his estranged brother Tony Stark (Iron Man). The crossover characters of two different brands meeting up in one storyline received mixed reviews from critics. == Publication history == Marvel Comics released the teaser for the event at New York Comic Con in November 2019. It was also alluded to in December 2019's Incoming! In the original checklist released for the event, 2020 Force Works was originally titled Force Works 2020, while 2020 Machine Man was previously named Machine Man 2020, and so on. Additionally, 2020 Wolverine was going to be called Weapon.EXE 2020. The publication of this event was intended to span from January to June 2020, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Diamond Comic Distributors suspended the distribution of new print titles between April 1 and May 27, which also caused digital releases by Marvel Entertainment to be postponed. The rescheduling of the postponed issues to new dates pushed the event's conclusion to August, and certain issues, namely 2020 Force Works #3 and 2020 Ironheart #1–2, were released exclusively in a digital format. == Main plot == Arno Stark wakes up from a nightmare involving the Extinction Entity, a monstrous amalgamation of alien and machine. He dreams that the Extinction Entity is going to come to Earth in a matter of weeks and create an artificial intelligence (A.I.) army to consume humanity. After eating breakfast with duplicates of Howard Stark and Maria Stark, Arno suits up as Iron Man and saves a construction worker from a hostage situation involving several Nick Fury Life Model Decoys, which represent the A.I. army trying to liberate construction robots. Over different news outlets, the media wonders about the whereabouts of Tony Stark, who declared himself as nothing more than a simulation of the real, late Tony Stark. At the A.I. army's base, Machine Man is commanding the robots' moves when Arno appears, having planned for the A.I. army's leader to show himself. Machine Man activates the bomb, forcing Arno to fly it away so it explodes somewhere safe while he escapes. Machine Man reaches the Thirteenth Floor, a dimensional-shunted plane of existence made of solid light, and a haven for robotkind that humans cannot access or comprehend. Aaron meets with the leader of the A.I. army and creator of Thirteenth Floor: Tony Stark -- who is now going by the name Mark One, having embraced his nature as artificial intelligence. Also in the A.I. army are Albert, Awesome Android, H.E.R.B.I.E., Machinesmith, and Quasimodo. The A.I. army continues its efforts to liberate artificial life forms by raiding places where robots are being subjugated. Iron Man intercepts an attack on a Futura Motors testing site by Quasimodo and H.E.R.B.I.E. and manages to recover an Un-Inhibitor allowing him to take control of all A.I.s. On the Thirteenth Floor, Mark One receives a transmission from a mole inside Baintronics -- codenamed Ghost in the Machine --revealing that Arno used the submission code on Jocasta, who received a new body, making her entirely compliant. Stark plans to upload the submission code to the internet to instantly infect robots. With only three hours before the code is transmitted to Stark Unlimited's satellite network, Mark One devises a heist on Bain Tower to tamper with the code before launch. Having discovered the secret behind the Thirteenth Floor, Arno shuts out the A.I. army, uses Jocasta to lure Machine Man away from the tower, infects Machinesmith with the submission code, and confronts Mark One. H.E.R.B.I.E., Awesome Android, and Machinesmith escape from Bain Tower and call for help to every robot in New York City. Mark One is left to fight Iron Man and is defeated. Meanwhile, Sunset Bain confronts and fires Andy Bhang under the accusation of working as a mole inside Stark Unlimited and feeding Bethany Cabe information to relay to the A.I. army. Arno takes Mark One inside Bain Tower to meet Howard and Maria Stark and asks Tony to join him, but he refuses and dismisses his rationale as lunacy. The robotic mob assembled by Machine Man reaches Bain Tower, giving Mark a distraction which allows him to fly off and disable the transmission dish from which Arno intends to broadcast the obedience O.S. to subjugate every robot. Tony manages to stop the upload and make the antenna unusable. In retaliation, Arno fires all of his armor's firepower at Tony as he falls to the ground. Tony Stark's remaining allies escape with his body as Arno attacks the robot protesters. Tony wakes up inside the Thirteenth Floor and is greeted by F.R.I.D.A.Y., who had plucked Tony's consciousness from his body during his fall. In the streets, Arno Stark tracks down Howard and Maria, who die from an illness inherited from Arno. When Sunset Bain objects to Arno creating new bodies for his parents and trying to control people, he reveals she is an A.I., a duplicate of the real Bain whom Arno replaced back when she solicited him to heal a scar on her face. He makes new bodies for Howard and Maria by recreating the Arsenal and Mistress bodies from the eScape. After learning of Arno's new plan, Dr. Shapiro (who is the actual mole) sneaks into a computer and warns F.R.I.D.A.Y. about it. When F.R.I.D.A.Y. relays that only Tony Stark can stop Arno, Tony insists that he is not the real Tony Stark, but is confronted by holographic manifestations of himself in different points of his life, until they all merge into him and he acknowledges that he has always been Tony. As Arno Stark sets off to the Stark Space Station to install his mind-controlling device to enslave all of humanity, Tony Stark's allies assault the Stark Unlimited HQ, confronting Sunset Bain's duplicate and Arno's Iron Legion. Jocasta uploads a submission code to Bain and they place Tony's body inside a bio-pod that restores his body to normalcy, uploads his consciousness back into his body. Using the Thirteenth Floor's access mechanisms, Tony and his allies reach the Stark Space Station from one of the elevators within. Employing his new Virtual Armor, Tony defeats Arno in combat. When Arno prepares to activate his mind-controlling device, the Extinction Entity suddenly appears. Arno ultimately defeats the Extinction Entity by willingly assimilating with it, causing it to explode. The entity is revealed to be a delusion caused by Arno's terminal disease, of which he would die by the end of 2020. Unable to stop Arno, Tony placed him in a simulation where he successfully stopped the entity. Afterwards, Jocasta uses the submission code to force Sunset Bain's duplicate to confess all of Baintronics' crimes, also claiming responsibility for tricking Tony into thinking he was an artificial intelligence and pulling the strings of the A.I. Army, putting an end to the robot revolution. Tony gives up Stark Unlimited to Bhang Robotics and he flies off in a new armor, reasserting himself as Iron Man. == Issues involved == === Main issues === Iron Man 2020 (vol. 2) #1–6 === Tie-In issues === 2020 Force Works #1–3 2020 Iron Age #1 2020 Ironheart #1–2 2020 Machine Man #1–2 2020 Rescue #1–2 2020 iWolverine #1–2 == Critical reception == According to Comic Book Roundup, the entire crossover received an average score of 6.4 out of 10 based on 36 reviews. William Tucker from ButWhyTho Podcast stated "Iron Man 2020 #6 is an initially exciting end to a great event that eventually feels deflated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the art, Woods has been incredible throughout, but the ending that Slott and Gage chose to round out an epic tale like this left me feeling cold. And while there were loads of enjoyable cameos, their involvement ultimately didn't seem important to the story as a whole. Which is disappointing, as the rest of the event really was a fun and exciting ride." Anthony Wendel from MonkeysFightingRobots wrote "The 2020 event seems like it is taking some big risk, and it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence from the start. Iron Man 2020 #1 has set the stakes and shown some very intense players on both sides of the board. Sadly, if it doesn't unfold just the right way, many may feel cheated about defending the path characters are taking." == Collected editions ==

    Read more →
  • AI Snake Oil

    AI Snake Oil

    AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference is a 2024 non-fiction book written by scholars Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor. It is a critique of the tech industry's overly inflated promises and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) as well as a debunking of the flawed science fueling AI hype while attempting to outline both the potential positives and negatives that come with different modes of the technology. == Contents == === Publication === The book was published in September 2024 by the Princeton University Press. AI Snake Oil consists of 360 pages and features eight chapters, and sections for acknowledgements, references, and an index. An updated edition with a new preface and epilogue by the authors was published in September 2025. The authors use the term "AI snake oil" derived from the U.S. idiom for a fraudulent remedy, to describe overhyped AI systems. === Chapter one: Introduction === Narayanan and Kapoor argue that many individuals do not yet have the literacy to detect functioning aspects of AI compared to potential snake oil, which they identify as "AI that does not and cannot work as advertised". Some of the major examples utilized by the authors include Allstate's 2013 use of predictive AI, as well as the concern surrounding actors and AI attempting to replicate or use their likeness. Important discussions regarding discrimination are brought up and explored in the first chapter, including the false arrests of six Black individuals due to errors with AI facial recognition tools. The chapter concludes with a comparison to the Industrial Revolution, where Narayanan and Kapoor highlight the extensive human labour that is necessary for artificial intelligence technologies to function. === Chapter two: How Predictive AI Goes Wrong === Chapter two focuses on predictive artificial intelligence, and criticizes the overestimation of the capabilities of the technology. === Chapter three: Why Can't AI Predict the Future? === Chapter three works to inform the reader about the history of early computational prediction attempts, with examples from companies like Simulatics. === Chapter four: The Long Road to Generative AI === The fourth chapter goes in more in-depth in explorations of generative AI. Generative AI software examples include ChatGPT, Midjourney, and DALL-E. The section begins with a positive example of generative AI. As the chapter progresses, the authors begin to provide examples of harm produced by generative AI, including the suicide of a Belgian man after connecting with Chai, a generative chatbot. Issues of deepfakes and preservation of artistic property are also discussed. The use of generative AI to create non-consensual pornographic deepfake content is discussed in relation to female celebrities. === Chapter five: Is Advanced AI an Existential Threat? === The fifth chapter draws attention the AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. The authors describe AGI as "AI that can perform most or economically relevant tasks as effectively as any human". They summarize that many contributors to the field of artificial intelligence believe AGI to be an impending threat that demands attention. However, they argue that the perceived threat of AGI would only exist if the technology continually functioned reliably. In order to better illustrate the hype surrounding AGI, Narayanan and Kapoor use the Ladder of Generality, which is described as a visual tool in which "each rung represents a way of computing that is more flexible, and more general, than the previous one". They note that we are not yet aware of the next rungs on the ladder, or if the ladder will eventually result in a dead end. The rungs that have been identified so far are as follows: (0, or floor) special purpose hardware, (1) programmable computers, (2) stored program computers, (3) machine learning, (4) deep learning, (5) pretrained models, and, finally, (6) instruction-tuned models. The potential for future rungs and what those rungs might be are currently undetermined. The chapter also discusses the ELIZA effect, which Lawrence Switzky discusses in his article "ELIZA Effects". Switzky attributes the coined term ELIZA Effect to Sherry Turke, who defined it as "our more general tendency to treat responsive computer programs as more intelligent than they really are". === Chapter six: Why Can't AI Fix Social Media? === The sixth chapter focuses on content moderation, why it is important, and how it has been and could be affected by artificial automation. The first issue raised in regard to AI-driven content moderation is the inability for computers and machines to understand context and nuance, resulting in potential for discriminatory moderation and shadow banning. While they note that there are issues with automating content moderation, Narayanan and Kapoor also highlight the psychological impact on human content moderators and their labour. They indicate the hidden labour behind moderation, which is often outsourced to less developed countries, where labourers sort through potentially traumatizing content for pay. However, the discussion focuses more heavily on why automated moderation can be problematic, including discriminatory algorithms and lack of nuance. To balance their argument, issues of discrimination and bias are also discussed in relation the human content moderators. To automate moderation, there are two types of AI used, which are fingerprint matching and machine learning. === Chapter seven: Why Do Myths about AI Persist? === The seventh chapter outlines possible factors that contribute to hype surrounding AI. Narayanan and Kapoor explain how companies often promote their new AI models without properly disclosing how the model works, and what it is learning from. They attribute hype to several different groups, including journalists, researchers, and companies. They explain the impact of companies and the misplaced hype that they spread can be attributed to greed and a desire to grow corporate funds. For journalists, one of the stated sources of hype, they argue that news media has a tendency to prioritize financial incentives over validity and quality of writing. As well, Narayanan and Kapoor point out the emergence of company statement regurgitation in news media, leading to clickbait. Hype from researchers is potentially linked to lack of reproducibility in studies as well as leakage, which occurs when AI models are tested on their training data. === Chapter eight: Where do we go from here? === The final chapter, chapter eight, turns its attention to the future. The authors express their ideas and predictions for how the technology will evolve and be utilized in the upcoming years. == Authors == Author Narayanan is a computer science professor at Princeton University. Kapoor is a doctoral candidate at the same university, and both scholars are located at the Center for Information Technology at Princeton. In 2023, Narayanan and Kapoor appeared on the TIME100 Artificial Intelligence list, which features influential figures in the field. == Reception == Nature, a science and technology peer-reviewed journal, released an article highlighting the top "10 essential reads from the past year", listing Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor's AI Snake Oil. The article states the that text is "one of the best on this controversial subject". Elizabeth Quill, in her review of the text in Science News, writes that the authors "squarely achieve their stated goal: to empower people to distinguish AI that works well from AI snake oil". Joshua Rothman of The New Yorker writes that "compared with many technologists, Narayanan, Kapoor, and Vallor [Shannon Vallor, University of Edinburgh], are deeply skeptical about today's A.I. technology and what it can achieve. Perhaps they shouldn't be". Rothman argues, following an interview with prominent computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton of University of Toronto, that the potential for AI to replicate complexity is already here and continues to be heavily funded, enhancing the prospective capabilities of the technology. However, he does praise the author's ability to address questions regarding the existential human experience. Alexya Martinez discusses the text in a book review for Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, critiquing AI Snake Oil for its extensive focus on the West. Martinez writes that Narayanan and Kapoor "do not fully explore how AI impacts other countries", and suggests more focus on countries outside of the United States to enhance their argument.

    Read more →
  • Kialo

    Kialo

    Kialo is an online structured debate platform with argument maps in the form of debate trees. It is a collaborative reasoning tool for thoughtful discussion, understanding different points of view, and collaborative decision-making, showing arguments for and against claims underneath user-submitted theses or questions. The deliberative discourse platform is designed to present hundreds of supporting or opposing arguments in a dynamic argument tree and is streamlined for rational civil debate on topics such as philosophical questions, policy deliberations, entertainment, ethics, science questions, and unsolved problems or subjects of disagreement in general. Argument-boxes are structured into hierarchical branches where the root is the main thesis (or theses) of the debate, enabling deliberation and navigable debates between opposing perspectives. A debate is divided into Pro (supporting) and Con (refuting or devaluing) columns where registered users can add arguments and rate the impact on the weight or validity of the parent claim. The arguments are sorted according to the rating average. Its argument tree structure enables detailed scrutiny of claims at all levels of the tree and allows users to for example quickly understand why a decision was made or which of the aggregated arguments swayed it this way. Newcomers can join a debate at any time and look back at the structured discussion history, and then weigh in at the right place with their new argument or their comment on a specific argument. The design presets a structure on debates "that allows participants to easily see, process, and ultimately assess the many facets of competing claims". The word Kialo is Esperanto for "reason". The platform is the world's largest argument mapping and structured debate site. == Overview == Users can comment on every Pro or Con, for example for requesting sources or expansions. Recent activities of a debate are shown in a panel on the right side of the respective debate. Debates can be found through the search or on the Explore page through their descriptions and topic-tags. Mere comments that do not make a constructive point (a self-contained argument backed by reasoning) are not allowed and are picked up by other users and moderators. "Civil language and sensible observations from opposing perspectives" can be seen also in debates about controversial topics. The site by-design incentivizes fair, rigorous, open-minded dialogue. Contributors making claims often also write counterpoints to their own contribution. Claims need to be shorter than 500 characters and can link to external sources. Debate trees can also start off with multiple theses – such as different policy options or hypotheses. Claims can link to related debates or include segments of them. In the discussion tab of each claim, users can make edit proposals (e.g. for accuracy, improving sources, or changing scope), decide if the argument should be moved or copied to another branch, call for archiving a claim, and ask for extra evidence or clarification. Debates can grow large and complex for which a sunburst diagram visualization of the topology of the debate and the search functionality can be useful. Each debate also has a chat-box. In cases where e.g. a "Con" is a point against multiple in the "Pros", users – through moderators – can link these arguments at the respective places to avoid duplication of content and allowing a clean chain for people to understand which points are arguments against each other. Contributions of users are tracked, enabling a board of thought-leaders for every debate. Other gamification elements include a feature to thank users for their contributions. The "Perspectives" feature allows users to see 'Impact' ratings of supporters and opposers of a thesis as well as of the debate's moderators and individual contributors. It thereby enables participants to see a debate from other participants' perspectives and to sort by them. In Kialo Edu, this feature lets teachers view votes for a whole class, individuals, or supporters/opponents of a specific thesis. Users in both versions of Kialo can vote on the overall debate topic as well as on individual claims to express their perspectives or conclusions, with the rationale (i.e. the main causal arguments) why they voted on the veracity of the thesis as they did not being captured. Voting can be done by any registered user while navigating through any debate that has voting enabled or via using the Guided Voting wizard user interface that automatically walks through branches. As of 2021, Kialo doesn't have a mobile app. == Contents == A 2018 report stated the collaborative argument platform hosts more than 10,000 debates in various languages. It also hosts private debates. The website claims that it has over 18,000 public debates as of July 2023, as well as over 1 million votes and over 720,000 claims. Debates can be found via the site's internal search and up to six tags per debate. Preprint studies have scraped public debates on over 1.4K issues with over 130K statements as of October 2019 and 1628 debates, related to over 1120 categories, with 124,312 unique claims as of June 26, 2020. == Kialo Inc. == The site is run by Kialo Inc. It was founded by German-born entrepreneur and London School of Economics and Political Science graduate Errikos Pitsos in August 2017 and is based in Brooklyn and Berlin. According to a 2018 report, the site does not show advertisements and does not sell user's data. The for-profit company was founded in 2011, Pitsos began to develop the concept in 2012 and described various specifics of the system in 2014. In 2018, he stated that they intend to make money by selling the platform to companies as a deliberation and decision-making tool. The site is free to use for the public and in education. According to the site, as of 2023 Kialo.com is a non-revenue generating site with no ads and no reselling of user data. == Applications and adoption == === Adopted applications === Applications of its content or the platform in society include: Teachers and professors, especially in high schools – including the universities Harvard and Princeton, are using Kialo for class discussions and exercises in critical thinking and reasoning, as consolidating understanding of materials covered in recent classes, more useful and engaging learning experiences, for remote/e-learning, for clearing up misconceptions, teaching logical fallacies and rational argumentation, for academic dialogue, teaching media literacy, and for teaching to sufficiently reflect or research before posting online. Like for debaters of the main site, access for schools and universities is free. Kialo Edu is the custom version of Kialo specifically designed for classroom use where debates are private and locked to invited students. Kialo allows teachers to provide feedback to students on their ideas, argument structure, and research quality while it is left to other students to rate the impacts of their peers' arguments. Students can be allowed to contribute anonymously which may be useful for controversial issues as well as for safeguarding privacy in education. Students are or can be encouraged to back up their claims with evidence which can foster digital literacy and research skills. Students and teachers can use it to arrange their thoughts when structuring an essay or project. The site's name was decided on internally using the software. === Prototypical and theoretical applications === Potential, theoretical, prototypical or little-used applications include: Education Improving critical thinking skills of society at large as well as facilitating deep or efficient thinking and deepening research and debates where e.g. discussions are less shallow and the well-known or many arguments have already been made and in many cases aren't unreasonably over- or underrated. Pitsos claimed that "we're training students to be very good test-takers instead of critical thinkers", suggesting teaching people to think things through may be more important or neglected compared to essay writing skills. Many young people and adults are "submerged into a sea of dispersed information", "[b]rowsing and engaging in superficial thinking activities". Kialo could counteract this issue and help people develop good sane reasoning. Academia, R&D and policy Three scholars from three prestigious U.S. universities outlined possible benefits in this domain, including applications beyond higher education such as for academic communication. They suggest the debate platform could be used for structuring the communication of open peer-review by helping those giving feedback to "hone in on[sic] core arguments and pieces of evidence in an even more direct way" than annotated commenting. It could be used to evaluate extracted argument structures and sequences from raw texts, as in a Semantic Web for arguments. Such "argument mining", to which Kialo is the lar

    Read more →
  • Stanza Living

    Stanza Living

    Stanza Living is the common brand name for Dtwelve Spaces Private Limited. It provides fully-managed shared living accommodations to students and young professionals. Founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia, the company is present across 23 cities including Delhi, NCR, Bangalore, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore, Indore, Pune, Baroda, Vijayawada, and Dehradun, Kota in India, with a capacity of 70,000 beds. Stanza Living is a technology-enabled housing concept which provides fully-furnished residences with amenities like meals, internet, laundry services, housekeeping, security and community engagement programmes. The company has an asset-light business model under which it engages in long-term lease agreements with property owners/developers, who convert their assets into shared living residences as per company guidelines. These assets are subsequently operated by Stanza Living. == Industry background == A report by Cushman & Wakefield (C&W) titled 'Exploring the Student Housing Universe in India City Insights', estimates that there were over 9.08 million migrant student enrolments in India's higher educational institutions (HEIs) for the year 2018-19 who need quality accommodation facilities. According to the report, Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, and Pune are the three biggest markets for student housing in the country, and these cities require an additional 4.75 lakh beds from organized co-living operators to meet the current demand. == History == Stanza Living provides tech-enabled, fully managed community living facilities for students and working professionals. The company was launched as a student housing business in Delhi NCR with a capacity of 100 beds, and grew to 14 cities by 2019. By early 2020, the company began catering to working professionals as well. The company has a combined inventory of 70,000 beds under management for both students and working professionals. Stanza Living is currently valued at $300 million. It has raised a capital of about $70 million from leading global investors like Falcon Edge Capital, Sequoia Capital, Matrix Partners and Accel Partners. November 2017 – Seed funding, September 2018 – Series A, March 2019 – Debt financing, July 2019 – Series C round, December 2019 - Debt financing. The company has invested in building technology products for business efficiency and consumer experience, like the Stanza Resident App and Stanza Real Estate App. Stanza Living has close to 1,500 employees across India. It is recognized among Top Real Estate Tech Startups of 2020 across the globe by research and analysis company Tracxn. The company has been shortlisted among Top 25 Start-ups of India in 2019 by LinkedIn == Founders == Stanza Living was co-founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia. Sandeep Dalmia is an alumnus of Delhi College of Engineering and IIM Ahmedabad. Prior to Stanza, he was a Principal at Boston Consulting Group, working across India, US and South East Asia markets. Anindya Dutta was previously a Real Estate investor with Oaktree Capital and prior to that, he worked at Goldman Sachs in London. He is an alumnus of IIT Kharagpur and IIM Ahmedabad.

    Read more →
  • Sinewave synthesis

    Sinewave synthesis

    Sinewave synthesis, or sine wave speech, is a technique for synthesizing speech by replacing the formants (main bands of energy) with pure tone whistles. The first sinewave synthesis program (SWS) for the automatic creation of stimuli for perceptual experiments was developed by Philip Rubin at Haskins Laboratories in the 1970s. This program was subsequently used by Robert Remez, Philip Rubin, David Pisoni, and other colleagues to show that listeners can perceive continuous speech without traditional speech cues, i.e., pitch, stress, and intonation. This work paved the way for a view of speech as a dynamic pattern of trajectories through articulatory-acoustic space.

    Read more →
  • The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality is a 2026 book by American filmmaker and author Steven Rosenbaum about how artificial intelligence affects the concept of truth. It was published by Matt Holt Books on May 12, 2026, to positive media attention; on May 19, in response to an inquiry from The New York Times, Rosenbaum acknowledged that the book itself contains multiple misattributed or false quotes that were hallucinated by AIs. == Synopsis == == Development == Rosenbaum has said that he developed the book using AI chatbots as research tools, indicating in his notes what information came from AI and sending those claims to a fact-checker affiliated with the publisher. He has said that he did not use AI tools to write the book itself. He has described AI tools as "a delightful writing companion ... strangely creative and crafty and unusual in all these ways", while acknowledging that sometimes "then it betrays you in ways that are just really quite horrible". Journalist and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa wrote the book's foreword. Taylor Lorenz, Michael Wolff, and Nicholas Thompson wrote blurbs promoting it. == Release and reception == The Future of Truth was published by Matt Holt Books, an imprint of BenBella Books, and distributed by Simon & Schuster. The book's release on May 12, 2026, was described by Futurism as "buzzy" and by The New York Times as "to great fanfare". On May 14, an excerpt was published in Wired under the title "Gen Z Is Pioneering a New Understanding of Truth". On May 17, the Times contacted Rosenbaum regarding a number of quotes that appeared to be falsified or misattributed; the following evening he confirmed that they were the result of AI hallucinations:As I disclosed in the book's acknowledgments, I used AI tools ChatGPT and Claude during the research, writing and editing process. That does not excuse these errors, of which I take full responsibility. I am now working with the editors to thoroughly review and quickly correct any affected passages; any future editions will be corrected. The Times documented several of the errors, including a quote from Kara Swisher that Swisher described as making it "sound like I have a stick up my butt" and a quote from Lisa Feldman Barrett that Barrett described as misrepresenting her views on the nature of emotions, social signals, and truth. The book also misattributed a quote by Meredith Broussard from an interview with Marketplace Tech as having been from her book Artificial Unintelligence and hallucinated several words in a quote from Lee McIntyre, although according to McIntyre it did not misrepresent his views. Wired's editors, in an addendum to the excerpt they published, said that all quotes included in it had been verified as part of their fact-checking process. Rosenbaum told the Times that the series of errors "serves as a warning about the risks of AI-assisted research and verification, that is why I wrote the book. These AI errors do not, in fact, diminish the larger questions that the book raises about truth, trust and AI and its impact on society, democracy and editorial." Maggie Harrison Dupré in Futurism expressed skepticism, writing "The risk of AI hallucinations ... is well-known. If you're going to literally write the book on post-AI truth, you should probably put some more elbow grease into fact-checking your AI-assisted research." Kyle Orland in Ars Technica, responding to Rosenbaum's statement that his error "demonstrates the problem more vividly than any abstract argument could", was similarly skeptical, writing that "if we accept this take, every avoidably obvious mess in the world might be a disguised good because it really helps illuminate the huge mistake. And that can't be right; sometimes 'negligence' is just that." Subsequent comments by Rosenbaum placed more blame on the chatbots, which he told The Atlantic "fucked up the book". Rosenbaum told Ars Technica that fact-checking occurred "incredibly effectively, but not a hundred percent"; Orland observed that "it's worth noting that most writers manage to include zero made-up quotes when they write a book". Rosenbaum said that he had "learned a lesson" and would be "much more suspicious" of AI in the future, but would continue to use AI in his research. Orland responded to Rosenbaum's characterization of AI as "magical" by comparing it to the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, in that it "convinces many of those who use it that they can control its power properly" when many cannot. Orland highlighted the limits of traditional fact-checking regarding AI, given that fact-checkers are used to assuming that direct quotes are copied word-for-word from the source. Rosenbaum told Orland that the future of fact-checking for AI-researched works "probably includes mandatory source tracing for quotations, better provenance tracking, clearer standards around AI-assisted research, and potentially (more irony here) AI tools that audit citations against primary materials". Patrick Redford in Defector criticized Rosenbaum, alongside other artists tricked by AI, for failing to recognize AI as "the enemy". Will Oremus in The Atlantic described Redford's approach of stigmatizing AI writing as "reasonable", noting the presence of low-quality, seemingly AI-generated verbiage in The Future of Truth—a claim denied by Rosenbaum—before saying that the greater issue is finding the line at which AI assistance in writing becomes a problem. Oremus concluded, "The scandal can't just be that [Rosenbaum] used AI while working on his book, because he acknowledged that up front. He got in trouble because he had used AI badly, failing to check its work on a task at which it is famously unreliable."

    Read more →
  • Speech-generating device

    Speech-generating device

    Speech-generating devices (SGDs), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate. SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. They are particularly helpful for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) but recently have been used for children with predicted speech deficiencies. There are several input and display methods for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of utterances, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices can produce electronic voice output by using digitized recordings of natural speech or through speech synthesis—which may carry less emotional information but can permit the user to speak novel messages. The content, organization, and updating of the vocabulary on an SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such as the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. The development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings, and be pragmatic in functionality. There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly or indirectly, or using specialized access devices—although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output, resulting in enhanced efficiency of communication. The first known SGD was prototyped in the mid-1970s, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, Tony Proudfoot, and Pete Frates (founder of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge). Speech-generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers running additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. == History == SGDs have their roots in early electronic communication aids. The first such aid was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the patient-operated selector mechanism (Naman) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960. POSSUM scanned through a set of symbols on an illuminated display. Researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands created the lightspot-operated typewriter (LOT) in 1970, which made use of small movements of the head to point a small spot of light at a matrix of characters, each equipped with a photoelectric cell. Although it was commercially unsuccessful, the LOT was well received by its users. In 1966, Barry Romich, a freshman engineering student at Case Western Reserve University, and Ed Prentke, an engineer at Highland View Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, formed a partnership, creating the Prentke Romich Company. In 1969, the company produced its first communication device, a typing system based on a discarded Teletype machine. In 1979, Mark Dahmke developed software for a vocal communication aid program using the Computalker CT-1 analog speech synthesizer with a microcomputer. The software utilized phonemes to generate speech, assisting individuals with communication impairments in constructing words and sentences. Dahmke's work contributed to the advancement of assistive technology for people with disabilities. Notably, he designed the "Vocabulary Management System" for Bill Rush, a student with cerebral palsy. This early speech synthesis technology facilitated improved communication for Rush and was featured in a 1980 issue of LIFE Magazine. Dahmke's contributions have influenced the development of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technologies. During the 1970s and early 1980s, several other companies emerged that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs. Toby Churchill founded Toby Churchill Ltd in 1973, after losing his speech following encephalitis. In the US, Dynavox (then known as Sentient Systems Technology) grew out of a student project at Carnegie-Mellon University, created in 1982 to help a young woman with cerebral palsy to communicate. Beginning in the 1980s, improvements in technology led to a greatly increased number, variety, and performance of commercially available communication devices, and a reduction in their size and price. Alternative methods of access such as Target Scanning (also known as eye pointing) calibrate the movement of a user's eyes to direct an SGD to produce the desired speech. Scanning, in which alternatives are presented to the user sequentially, became available on communication devices. Speech output possibilities included both digitized and synthesized speech. Rapid progress in hardware and software development continued, including projects funded by the European Community. The first commercially available dynamic screen speech-generating devices were developed in the 1990s. Software was developed that allowed the computer-based production of communication boards. High-tech devices have continued to become smaller and lighter, while increasing accessibility and capability; communication devices can be accessed using eye-tracking systems, perform as a computer for word-processing and Internet use, and as an environmental control device for independent access to other equipment such as TV, radio and telephones. Stephen Hawking came to be associated with the unique voice of his particular synthesis equipment. Hawking was unable to speak due to a combination of disabilities caused by ALS, and an emergency tracheotomy. In the past 20 or so years SGD have gained popularity amongst young children with speech deficiencies, such as autism, Down syndrome, and predicted brain damage due to surgery. Starting in the early 2000s, specialists saw the benefit of using SGDs not only for adults but for children, as well. Neuro-linguists found that SGDs were just as effective in helping children who were at risk for temporary language deficits after undergoing brain surgery as it is for patients with ALS. In particular, digitized SGDs have been used as communication aids for pediatric patients during the recovery process. == Access methods == There are many methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices. Direct access methods involve physical contact with the system, by using a keyboard or a touch screen. Users accessing SGDs indirectly and through specialized devices must manipulate an object in order to access the system, such as maneuvering a joystick, head mouse, optical head pointer, light pointer, infrared pointer, or switch access scanner. The specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. With direct selection a body part, pointer, adapted mouse, joystick, or eye tracking could be used, whereas switch access scanning is often used for indirect selection. Unlike direct selection (e.g., typing on a keyboard, touching a screen), users of Target Scanning can only make selections when the scanning indicator (or cursor) of the electronic device is on the desired choice. Those who are unable to point typically calibrate their eyes to use eye gaze as a way to point and blocking as a way to select desired words and phrases. The speed and pattern of scanning, as well as the way items are selected, are individualized to the physical, visual and cognitive capabilities of the user. == Message construction == Augmentative and alternative communication is typically much slower than speech, with users generally producing 8–10 words per minute. Rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output to around 12–15 words per minute, and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. In any given SGD there may be a large number of vocal expressions that facilitate efficient and effective communication, including greetings, expressing desires, and asking questions. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of vocal expressions, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices generally display a set of selections either using a dynamically changing screen, or a fixed display. There are two main options for increasing the rate of communication for an SGD: encoding, and prediction. Encoding permits a user to produce a word, sentence or phrase using only on

    Read more →
  • Rule-based machine translation

    Rule-based machine translation

    Rule-based machine translation (RBMT) is a classical approach of machine translation systems based on linguistic information about source and target languages. Such information is retrieved from (unilingual, bilingual or multilingual) dictionaries and grammars covering the main semantic, morphological, and syntactic regularities of each language. Having input sentences, an RBMT system generates output sentences on the basis of analysis of both the source and the target languages involved. RBMT has been progressively superseded by more efficient methods, particularly neural machine translation. == History == The first RBMT systems were developed in the early 1970s. The most important steps of this evolution were the emergence of the following RBMT systems: Systran Japanese MT systems Today, other common RBMT systems include: Apertium GramTrans == Types of RBMT == There are three different types of rule-based machine translation systems: Direct Systems (Dictionary Based Machine Translation) map input to output with basic rules. Transfer RBMT Systems (Transfer Based Machine Translation) employ morphological and syntactical analysis. Interlingual RBMT Systems (Interlingua) use an abstract meaning. RBMT systems can also be characterized as the systems opposite to Example-based Systems of Machine Translation (Example Based Machine Translation), whereas Hybrid Machine Translations Systems make use of many principles derived from RBMT. == Basic principles == The main approach of RBMT systems is based on linking the structure of the given input sentence with the structure of the demanded output sentence, necessarily preserving their unique meaning. The following example can illustrate the general frame of RBMT: A girl eats an apple. Source Language = English; Demanded Target Language = German Minimally, to get a German translation of this English sentence one needs: A dictionary that will map each English word to an appropriate German word. Rules representing regular English sentence structure. Rules representing regular German sentence structure. And finally, we need rules according to which one can relate these two structures together. Accordingly, we can state the following stages of translation: 1st: getting basic part-of-speech information of each source word: a = indef.article; girl = noun; eats = verb; an = indef.article; apple = noun 2nd: getting syntactic information about the verb "to eat": NP-eat-NP; here: eat – Present Simple, 3rd Person Singular, Active Voice 3rd: parsing the source sentence: (NP an apple) = the object of eat Often only partial parsing is sufficient to get to the syntactic structure of the source sentence and to map it onto the structure of the target sentence. 4th: translate English words into German a (category = indef.article) => ein (category = indef.article) girl (category = noun) => Mädchen (category = noun) eat (category = verb) => essen (category = verb) an (category = indef. article) => ein (category = indef.article) apple (category = noun) => Apfel (category = noun) 5th: Mapping dictionary entries into appropriate inflected forms (final generation): A girl eats an apple. => Ein Mädchen isst einen Apfel. == Ontologies == An ontology is a formal representation of knowledge that includes the concepts (such as objects, processes etc.) in a domain and some relations between them. If the stored information is of linguistic nature, one can speak of a lexicon. In NLP, ontologies can be used as a source of knowledge for machine translation systems. With access to a large knowledge base, rule-based systems can be enabled to resolve many (especially lexical) ambiguities on their own. In the following classic examples, as humans, we are able to interpret the prepositional phrase according to the context because we use our world knowledge, stored in our lexicons:I saw a man/star/molecule with a microscope/telescope/binoculars.Since the syntax does not change, a traditional rule-based machine translation system may not be able to differentiate between the meanings. With a large enough ontology as a source of knowledge however, the possible interpretations of ambiguous words in a specific context can be reduced. === Building ontologies === The ontology generated for the PANGLOSS knowledge-based machine translation system in 1993 may serve as an example of how an ontology for NLP purposes can be compiled: A large-scale ontology is necessary to help parsing in the active modules of the machine translation system. In the PANGLOSS example, about 50,000 nodes were intended to be subsumed under the smaller, manually-built upper (abstract) region of the ontology. Because of its size, it had to be created automatically. The goal was to merge the two resources LDOCE online and WordNet to combine the benefits of both: concise definitions from Longman, and semantic relations allowing for semi-automatic taxonomization to the ontology from WordNet. A definition match algorithm was created to automatically merge the correct meanings of ambiguous words between the two online resources, based on the words that the definitions of those meanings have in common in LDOCE and WordNet. Using a similarity matrix, the algorithm delivered matches between meanings including a confidence factor. This algorithm alone, however, did not match all meanings correctly on its own. A second hierarchy match algorithm was therefore created which uses the taxonomic hierarchies found in WordNet (deep hierarchies) and partially in LDOCE (flat hierarchies). This works by first matching unambiguous meanings, then limiting the search space to only the respective ancestors and descendants of those matched meanings. Thus, the algorithm matched locally unambiguous meanings (for instance, while the word seal as such is ambiguous, there is only one meaning of seal in the animal subhierarchy). Both algorithms complemented each other and helped constructing a large-scale ontology for the machine translation system. The WordNet hierarchies, coupled with the matching definitions of LDOCE, were subordinated to the ontology's upper region. As a result, the PANGLOSS MT system was able to make use of this knowledge base, mainly in its generation element. == Components == The RBMT system contains: a SL morphological analyser - analyses a source language word and provides the morphological information; a SL parser - is a syntax analyser which analyses source language sentences; a translator - used to translate a source language word into the target language; a TL morphological generator - works as a generator of appropriate target language words for the given grammatica information; a TL parser - works as a composer of suitable target language sentences; Several dictionaries - more specifically a minimum of three dictionaries: a SL dictionary - needed by the source language morphological analyser for morphological analysis, a bilingual dictionary - used by the translator to translate source language words into target language words, a TL dictionary - needed by the target language morphological generator to generate target language words. The RBMT system makes use of the following: a Source Grammar for the input language which builds syntactic constructions from input sentences; a Source Lexicon which captures all of the allowable vocabulary in the domain; Source Mapping Rules which indicate how syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the source language are mapped onto domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua; a Domain Model/Ontology which defines the classes of domain concepts and restricts the fillers of semantic roles for each class; Target Mapping Rules which indicate how domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua are mapped onto syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the target language; a Target Lexicon which contains appropriate target lexemes for each domain concept; a Target Grammar for the target language which realizes target syntactic constructions as linearized output sentences. == Advantages == No bilingual texts are required. This makes it possible to create translation systems for languages that have no texts in common, or even no digitized data whatsoever. Domain independent. Rules are usually written in a domain independent manner, so the vast majority of rules will "just work" in every domain, and only a few specific cases per domain may need rules written for them. No quality ceiling. Every error can be corrected with a targeted rule, even if the trigger case is extremely rare. This is in contrast to statistical systems where infrequent forms will be washed away by default. Total control. Because all rules are hand-written, you can easily debug a rule-based system to see exactly where a given error enters the system, and why. Reusability. Because RBMT systems are generally built from a strong source language analysis that is fed to a transfer step and target language generator, the source language analysis and targe

    Read more →
  • Shyster (expert system)

    Shyster (expert system)

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

    Read more →
  • Nature Manifesto

    Nature Manifesto

    Nature Manifesto is an Immersive sound piece and multimedia installation by Icelandic artist Björk and artist and curator Aleph Molinari, created in collaboration with the French Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics/Music (IRCAM). The installation was showcased at the Centre Pompidou in Paris, France from November 20, 2024 to December 9, 2024, as part of the museum's "Biodiversity: Which Culture for Which Future?" forum. It combines natural soundscapes, calls of extinct animals reconstructed through artificial intelligence, and Björk's narration to address damages to biodiversity and the collapse of ecosystems. == Background == Björk's work intricately weaves themes of nature and technology, reflecting her deep engagement with both realms. In 2008, she co-founded the Náttúra campaign to protest the construction of foreign-backed aluminum factories in Iceland, aiming to protect the country's natural landscapes. She released the single "Náttúra" featuring Thom Yorke, with all proceeds supporting this environmental initiative. Her 2011 album Biophilia further exemplifies this synthesis, exploring the relationships between music, nature, and technology through a multimedia project that included interactive apps, custom-made instruments, and educational workshops. Björk's Cornucopia tour (2019-2023) seamlessly integrates themes of nature preservation and environmental activism, and featured a recorded message by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. The tour's fusion of music, technology, and natural imagery reflects Björk's vision of a harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, advocating for sustainable futures. Björk has previously used artificial intelligence in her works. In 2020, she collaborated with Microsoft to create Kórsafn, a sound installation for the Sister City Hotel lobby in New York City which used an AI-powered model that elaborated choral recordings from her discography through a sensor on the rooftop of the building that would generate music according to data like the weather and the seasons. For her charity single "Oral", featuring Spanish singer Rosalía, she released a music video directed by photographer and visual artist Carlota Guerrero, who used AI-generated deepfake versions of the artists. == Concept == Nature Manifesto is a three-minute and forty-second immersive sound piece. The composition merges Björk's voice, as she articulates a manifesto on biodiversity and the climate crisis, with cries of extinct and endangered animals, harmonizing them with natural soundscapes. The installation was curated by Chloé Siganos and Aleph Molinari, with associate curator Delphine Le Gatt. The primary goal of Nature Manifesto is to foster a deeper understanding of humanity's impact on the natural world. Conceived as a "post-optimistic" manifesto, Aleph Molinari stated that the project's purpose was to "offer a voice to nature". He stated that "the modern concept of nature itself is problematic [...] because it’s a concept born in the Romantic period and, with the rise of the industrial era, became an antithesis to human civilisation and everything urban. Nature came to define what was outside, the savage Other... But nature is everything that we’re part of." The soundscape features recreated calls of extinct and endangered species, developed in collaboration with the French sound research institute IRCAM. Artificial intelligence was employed to simulate the vocalizations of animals that no longer exist in the wild. To save energy and lessen the ecological impact of the use of AI, the research institute developed a "frugal AI" model capable of generating audio in real-time on local servers without a graphics processing unit. The sounds were then produced and edited by Björk in collaboration with Robin Meier Wiratunga and Bergur Þórisson. The installation was located within the Centre Pompidou's escalator, known as the "caterpillar". The installation was further supported by videos created by visual artist Sam Balfus (also known as Balfua) by using artificial intelligence, and edited by Santiago Molinari. == Activism == To sustain and broaden the themes presented in Nature Manifesto, Björk publicly urged French President Emmanuel Macron to prohibit bottom trawling within France's marine protected areas (MPA). She criticized the French government's claim of protecting 30% of its marine territories, highlighting that over 90% of these MPAs exist only on paper, allowing destructive practices like bottom trawling to continue unchecked. She collaborated with non-governmental organizations Sustainable Ocean Alliance, Ungir umhverfissinnar and Bloom, to advocate for genuine ocean conservation. Björk promoted the cause through her social media profiles by sharing petitions. In November 2024, Björk lent her Instagram account to French environmental activists to directly address Macron. The activists used the platform to call for stronger protection of the ocean, urging Macron to impose stricter restrictions on harmful fishing practices, particularly bottom trawling. == Reception == Nature Manifesto received mixed to positive reviews from critics. Some critiques focused on the installation's setting, suggesting that the movement inherent to the escalator space diminished the immersive potential of the soundscape. The choice of using artificial intelligence was also questioned. Björk and Molinari defended this, as both see AI as a tool that can be used creatively and sustainably, with Björk focusing on the importance of human input to give AI a "soul", and Molinari stressing the need for sustainable technological practices in the broader context of digital life. After the exhibition ended, Björk further opinionated: "this is how we will work in the future. [...] if there is no soul in tomorrow's music made by AI it is because [no one] put it there and we have to speak out and guard this as listeners", further stating that there is already "soulless muzak" [sic] on Spotify, "mass manufactured without the attention of creativity".

    Read more →