AI Avatar Talking Video

AI Avatar Talking Video — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Intelligent agent

  In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent is an entity that perceives its environment, takes actions autonomously to achieve goals, and may improve its performance through machine learning or by acquiring knowledge. AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as the "study and design of intelligent agents," emphasizing that goal-directed behavior is central to intelligence. A specialized subset of intelligent agents, agentic AI (also known as an AI agent or simply agent), expands this concept by proactively pursuing goals, making decisions, and taking actions over extended periods. Intelligent agents can range from simple to highly complex. A basic thermostat or control system is considered an intelligent agent, as is a human being, or any other system that meets the same criteria—such as a firm, a state, or a biome. Intelligent agents operate based on an objective function, which encapsulates their goals. They are designed to create and execute plans that maximize the expected value of this function upon completion. For example, a reinforcement learning agent has a reward function, which allows programmers to shape its desired behavior. Similarly, an evolutionary algorithm's behavior is guided by a fitness function. Intelligent agents in artificial intelligence are closely related to agents in economics, and versions of the intelligent agent paradigm are studied in cognitive science, ethics, and the philosophy of practical reason, as well as in many interdisciplinary socio-cognitive modeling and computer social simulations. Intelligent agents are often described schematically as abstract functional systems similar to computer programs . To distinguish theoretical models from real-world implementations, abstract descriptions of intelligent agents are called abstract intelligent agents. Intelligent agents are also closely related to software agents—autonomous computer programs that carry out tasks on behalf of users. They are also referred to using a term borrowed from economics: a "rational agent". == Intelligent agents as the foundation of AI == The concept of intelligent agents provides a foundational lens through which to define and understand artificial intelligence. For instance, the influential textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Russell & Norvig) describes: Agent: Anything that perceives its environment (using sensors) and acts upon it (using actuators). E.g., a robot with cameras and wheels, or a software program that reads data and makes recommendations. Rational Agent: An agent that strives to achieve the best possible outcome based on its knowledge and past experiences. "Best" is defined by a performance measure – a way of evaluating how well the agent is doing. Artificial Intelligence (as a field): The study and creation of these rational agents. Other researchers and definitions build upon this foundation. Padgham & Winikoff emphasize that intelligent agents should react to changes in their environment in a timely way, proactively pursue goals, and be flexible and robust (able to handle unexpected situations). Some also suggest that ideal agents should be "rational" in the economic sense (making optimal choices) and capable of complex reasoning, like having beliefs, desires, and intentions (BDI model). Kaplan and Haenlein offer a similar definition, focusing on a system's ability to understand external data, learn from that data, and use what is learned to achieve goals through flexible adaptation. Defining AI in terms of intelligent agents offers several key advantages: Avoids Philosophical Debates: It sidesteps arguments about whether AI is "truly" intelligent or conscious, like those raised by the Turing test or Searle's Chinese Room. It focuses on behavior and goal achievement, not on replicating human thought. Objective Testing: It provides a clear, scientific way to evaluate AI systems. Researchers can compare different approaches by measuring how well they maximize a specific "goal function" (or objective function). This allows for direct comparison and combination of techniques. Interdisciplinary Communication: It creates a common language for AI researchers to collaborate with other fields like mathematical optimization and economics, which also use concepts like "goals" and "rational agents." == Objective function == An objective function (or goal function) specifies the goals of an intelligent agent. An agent is deemed more intelligent if it consistently selects actions that yield outcomes better aligned with its objective function. In effect, the objective function serves as a measure of success. The objective function may be: Simple: For example, in a game of Go, the objective function might assign a value of 1 for a win and 0 for a loss. Complex: It might require the agent to evaluate and learn from past actions, adapting its behavior based on patterns that have proven effective. The objective function encapsulates all of the goals the agent is designed to achieve. For rational agents, it also incorporates the trade-offs between potentially conflicting goals. For instance, a self-driving car's objective function might balance factors such as safety, speed, and passenger comfort. Different terms are used to describe this concept, depending on the context. These include: Utility function: Often used in economics and decision theory, representing the desirability of a state. Objective function: A general term used in optimization. Loss function: Typically used in machine learning, where the goal is to minimize the loss (error). Reward Function: Used in reinforcement learning. Fitness Function: Used in evolutionary systems. Goals, and therefore the objective function, can be: Explicitly defined: Programmed directly into the agent. Induced: Learned or evolved over time. In reinforcement learning, a "reward function" provides feedback, encouraging desired behaviors and discouraging undesirable ones. The agent learns to maximize its cumulative reward. In evolutionary systems, a "fitness function" determines which agents are more likely to reproduce. This is analogous to natural selection, where organisms evolve to maximize their chances of survival and reproduction. Some AI systems, such as nearest-neighbor, reason by analogy rather than being explicitly goal-driven. However, even these systems can have goals implicitly defined within their training data. Such systems can still be benchmarked by framing the non-goal system as one whose "goal" is to accomplish its narrow classification task. Systems not traditionally considered agents, like knowledge-representation systems, are sometimes included in the paradigm by framing them as agents with a goal of, for example, answering questions accurately. Here, the concept of an "action" is extended to encompass the "act" of providing an answer. As a further extension, mimicry-driven systems can be framed as agents optimizing a "goal function" based on how closely the agent mimics the desired behavior. In generative adversarial networks (GANs) of the 2010s, an "encoder"/"generator" component attempts to mimic and improvise human text composition. The generator tries to maximize a function representing how well it can fool an antagonistic "predictor"/"discriminator" component. While symbolic AI systems often use an explicit goal function, the paradigm also applies to neural networks and evolutionary computing. Reinforcement learning can generate intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "reward function". Sometimes, instead of setting the reward function directly equal to the desired benchmark evaluation function, machine learning programmers use reward shaping to initially give the machine rewards for incremental progress. Yann LeCun stated in 2018, "Most of the learning algorithms that people have come up with essentially consist of minimizing some objective function." AlphaZero chess had a simple objective function: +1 point for each win, and -1 point for each loss. A self-driving car's objective function would be more complex. Evolutionary computing can evolve intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "fitness function" influencing how many descendants each agent is allowed to leave. The mathematical formalism of AIXI was proposed as a maximally intelligent agent in this paradigm. However, AIXI is uncomputable. In the real world, an intelligent agent is constrained by finite time and hardware resources, and scientists compete to produce algorithms that achieve progressively higher scores on benchmark tests with existing hardware. == Agent function == An intelligent agent's behavior can be described mathematically by an agent function. This function determines what the agent does based on what it has seen. A percept refers to the agent's sensory inputs at a single point in time. For example, a self-driving car's percepts might include camera images, lidar data, GPS coordinates, and speed r

  Read more →
• 

  Catastrophic interference

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

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-5.3-Codex

  GPT-5.3-Codex (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 5.3 Codex) is a large language model (LLM) announced and released by OpenAI on February 5, 2026. It is made as a competitor to Claude's Opus 4.6, focusing on code generation, speed and the ability to search repositories, run terminal commands and at the same time, debug code. In technical benchmarks, it is reported that GPT-5.3 Codex is 25% faster than Opus 4.6. GPT-5.3 Codex is available in the Codex app and on the web; access via API is also planned. According to OpenAI, GPT-5.3-Codex is the company's "first model that was instrumental in creating itself." On February 12, 2026, GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark was released in a research preview, which is a smaller version of GPT-5.3-Codex which supports text-only input. As of February 2026, GPT-5.3-Codex is only available for ChatGPT Pro ($200/month) subscribers.

  Read more →
• 

  Department of Defense Directive 3000.09

  Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 (DODD 3000.09), titled Autonomy in Weapon Systems, is the current U.S. military policy on autonomous weapons. It states: "Autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems will be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." == History == Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter issued DOD's policy on autonomy in weapons systems, Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3000.09, in November 2012. DOD updated the directive in January 2023. In February 2023, the US issued a related foreign policy proposal, Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy. == Definitions == There is no agreed definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems that is used in international fora. However, DODD 3000.09 provides definitions for different categories of autonomous weapon systems for the purposes of the U.S. military. These definitions are principally grounded in the role of the human operator with regard to target selection and engagement decisions, rather than in the technological sophistication of the weapon system. DODD 3000.09 defines LAWS as "weapon system[s] that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." This concept of autonomy is also known as "human out of the loop" or "full autonomy." The directive contrasts LAWS with human-supervised, or "human on the loop," autonomous weapon systems, in which operators have the ability to monitor and halt a weapon's target engagement. Another category is semi-autonomous, or "human in the loop," weapon systems that "only engage individual targets or specific target groups that have been selected by a human operator." Semi-autonomous weapons include so-called "fire and forget" weapons, such as certain types of guided missiles, that deliver effects to human-identified targets using autonomous functions. The directive does not apply to autonomous or semi-autonomous cyberspace capabilities; unarmed platforms; unguided munitions; munitions manually guided by the operator (e.g., laser- or wire-guided munitions); mines; unexploded explosive ordnance; or autonomous or semi-autonomous systems that are not weapon systems, nor subject them to its guidelines. == Role of human operator == DODD 3000.09 requires that all systems, including LAWS, be designed to "allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." As noted in an August 2018 U.S. government white paper, "'appropriate' is a flexible term that reflects the fact that there is not a fixed, one-size-fits-all level of human judgment that should be applied to every context. What is 'appropriate' can differ across weapon systems, domains of warfare, types of warfare, operational contexts, and even across different functions in a weapon system." Furthermore, "human judgment over the use of force" does not require manual human "control" of the weapon system, as is often reported, but rather broader human involvement in decisions about how, when, where, and why the weapon will be employed. This includes a human determination that the weapon will be used "with appropriate care and in accordance with the law of war, applicable treaties, weapon system safety rules, and applicable rules of engagement." To aid this determination, DODD 3000.09 requires that "[a]dequate training, [tactics, techniques, and procedures], and doctrine are available, periodically reviewed, and used by system operators and commanders to understand the functioning, capabilities, and limitations of the system's autonomy in realistic operational conditions." The directive also requires that the weapon's human-machine interface be "readily understandable to trained operators" so they can make informed decisions regarding the weapon's use. == Weapons review process == DODD 3000.09 requires that the software and hardware of covered semi-autonomous and autonomous weapon systems, be tested and evaluated to ensure they:Function as anticipated in realistic operational environments against adaptive adversaries taking realistic and practicable countermeasures, [and] complete engagements within a timeframe and geographic area, as well as other relevant environmental and operational constraints, consistent with commander and operator intentions. If unable to do so, the systems will terminate the engagement or obtain additional operator input before continuing the engagement.Systems must also be "sufficiently robust to minimize the probability and consequences of failures." Any changes to the system's operating state—for example, due to machine learning—would require the system to go through testing and evaluation again to ensure that it has retained its safety features and ability to operate as intended. The directive also notes that "the use of AI capabilities in autonomous or semi-autonomous systems will be consistent with the DOD AI Ethical Principles." In addition to the standard weapons review process, a secondary senior-level review is required for covered autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. This review requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD[P]), the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD[R&E]) to approve the system before formal development. USD(P), VCJCS, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD[A&S]) must then approve the system before fielding. In the event of "urgent military need," this senior-level review may be waived by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. DODD 3000.09 additionally establishes the Autonomous Weapon System Working Group—composed of representatives of USD(P); USD(R&E); USD(A&S); DOD General Counsel; the Chief Digital and AI Officer; the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—to support and advise the senior-level review process. == Congressional notification == Per Section 251 of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; Pub. L. 118–31 (text) (PDF)), the Secretary of Defense is to notify the defense committees of any changes to DODD 3000.09 within 30 days. The Secretary is directed to provide a description of the modification and an explanation of the reasons for the modification. Section 1066 of the FY2025 NDAA (Pub. L. 118–159 (text) (PDF)) additionally requires the Secretary to "submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive report on the approval and deployment of lethal autonomous weapon systems by the United States," annually through December 31, 2029. Section 1061 of the FY2026 NDAA (P.L. Pub. L. 119–60 (menu; GPO has not yet published law)) amends the U.S. Code to require congressional notification of any waiver issued under DODD 3000.09. == AI safety == The second revision of DoDD 3000.09, effective January 25, 2023, requires that "The DoD will design and engineer AI capabilities to fulfill their intended functions while possessing the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences, and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior." == Criticism == As noted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the policy requires that autonomous weapon systems that kill people or use kinetic force, selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention, be certified as compliant with "appropriate levels" and other standards, not that such weapon systems cannot meet these standards and are therefore forbidden. "Semi-autonomous" hunter-killers that autonomously identify and attack targets do not require certification.

  Read more →
• 

  Intelligent control

  Intelligent control is a class of control techniques that use various artificial intelligence computing approaches like neural networks, Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic, machine learning, reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms. == Overview == Intelligent control can be divided into the following major sub-domains: Neural network control Machine learning control Reinforcement learning Bayesian control Fuzzy control Neuro-fuzzy control Expert Systems Genetic control New control techniques are created continuously as new models of intelligent behavior are created and computational methods developed to support them. === Neural network controller === Neural networks have been used to solve problems in almost all spheres of science and technology. Neural network control basically involves two steps: System identification Control It has been shown that a feedforward network with nonlinear, continuous and differentiable activation functions have universal approximation capability. Recurrent networks have also been used for system identification. Given, a set of input-output data pairs, system identification aims to form a mapping among these data pairs. Such a network is supposed to capture the dynamics of a system. For the control part, deep reinforcement learning has shown its ability to control complex systems. === Bayesian controllers === Bayesian probability has produced a number of algorithms that are in common use in many advanced control systems, serving as state space estimators of some variables that are used in the controller. The Kalman filter and the Particle filter are two examples of popular Bayesian control components. The Bayesian approach to controller design often requires an important effort in deriving the so-called system model and measurement model, which are the mathematical relationships linking the state variables to the sensor measurements available in the controlled system. In this respect, it is very closely linked to the system-theoretic approach to control design.

  Read more →
• 

  Effective accelerationism

  Effective accelerationism (e/acc) is a 21st-century ideological movement that advocates for an explicitly pro-technology stance. Its proponents believe that unrestricted technological progress, especially driven by artificial intelligence, is a solution to universal human problems, such as poverty, war, and climate change. They perceive themselves as a counterweight to more cautious views on technological innovation and often label their opponents derogatorily as "doomers" or "decels" (short for decelerationists). The movement carries utopian undertones and advocates for faster AI progress to ensure human survival and propagate consciousness throughout the universe. Although effective accelerationism has been described as a fringe movement and as cult-like, it has gained mainstream visibility in 2023. A number of high-profile Silicon Valley figures, including investors Marc Andreessen and Garry Tan, explicitly endorsed it by adding "e/acc" to their public social media profiles. == Etymology and central beliefs == Effective accelerationism, a portmanteau of "effective altruism" and "accelerationism", is a fundamentally techno-optimist movement. According to Guillaume Verdon, one of the movement's founders, its aim is for human civilization to "clim[b] the Kardashev gradient", meaning its purpose is for human civilization to rise to next levels on the Kardashev scale by maximizing energy usage. To achieve this goal, effective accelerationism wants to accelerate technological progress. It is strongly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI), because it sees AGI as fundamental for climbing the Kardashev scale. The movement therefore advocates for unrestricted development and deployment of artificial intelligence. Regulation of artificial intelligence and government intervention in markets more generally is met with opposition. Many of its proponents have libertarian views and think that AGI will be most aligned if many AGIs compete against each other on the marketplace. The founders of the movement see it as rooted in Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life, which is focused on entropy and thermodynamics. According to them, the universe aims to increase entropy, and life is a way of increasing it. By spreading life throughout the universe and making life use up ever increasing amounts of energy, the universe's purpose would thus be fulfilled. == History == === Intellectual origins === While Nick Land is seen as the intellectual originator of contemporary accelerationism in general, the precise origins of effective accelerationism remain unclear. The earliest known reference to the movement can be traced back to a May 2022 newsletter published by four pseudonymous authors known by their X (formerly Twitter) usernames @BasedBeffJezos, @bayeslord, @zestular and @creatine_cycle. Effective accelerationism is an extension of the TESCREAL movement, being etymologically derived from Effective Altruism and heavily rooted in the older Silicon Valley subcultures of transhumanism and extropianism (which similarly emphasized the value of progress and resisted efforts to restrain the development of technology), alongside elements of singularitarianism, cosmism, and longtermism. It is also often considered to have emerged at least in part from the work of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (of which Nick Land was a leading member, alongside writers such as Mark Fisher and Sadie Plant). It is sometimes compared and contrasted with the work of philosopher Benjamin Bratton on planetary computation. === Disclosure of the identity of BasedBeffJezos === Forbes disclosed in December 2023 that the @BasedBeffJezos persona is maintained by Guillaume Verdon, a Canadian former Google quantum computing engineer and theoretical physicist. The revelation was supported by a voice analysis conducted by the National Center for Media Forensics of the University of Colorado Denver, which further confirmed the match between Jezos and Verdon. The magazine justified its decision to disclose Verdon's identity on the grounds of it being "in the public interest". On 29 December 2023 Guillaume Verdon was interviewed by Lex Fridman on the Lex Fridman Podcast and introduced as the "creator of the effective accelerationism movement". === Second Trump presidency === Following Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, several prominent tech industry figures expressed support for positions aligned with effective accelerationism, particularly regarding deregulation and technological advancement. The potential appointment of Elon Musk to government roles focused on auditing federal programs drew support from venture capitalists who anticipated reduced regulatory oversight of the technology sector. Notable tech figures publicly connected these developments to the movement's principles. Aaron Levie, CEO of Box, expressed support for "removing unnecessary red tape and over-regulation", while Mark Pincus, early Facebook investor and Zynga founder, explicitly referenced "effective accelerationism" in his post-election commentary. Venture capitalists viewed the incoming administration as an opportunity to ease regulations that had affected technology mergers and acquisitions during the previous years. == Relation to other movements == === Traditional accelerationism === Traditional accelerationism, as developed by the British philosopher Nick Land, sees the acceleration of technological change as a way to bring about a fundamental transformation of current culture, society, and the political economy. This is done through capitalism, which Land views as "an autonomous force that’s reconfiguring society" that can overcome its limits if intensified. Land's work has also been characterized as concerning "the supposedly inevitable 'disintegration of the human species' when artificial intelligence improves sufficiently." While both concern ideas like a technocapital singularity and AGI progress, effective accelerationism focuses on using AGI for the greatest ethical good for conscious life and civilization (whether human or machine), as well as expanding civilization and maximizing energy usage in order to align with the "will of the universe". Land focuses on capitalist self-optimization as the driver of modernity, progress, and the eroding of existing social orders. Land has expressed support for effective accelerationism, while Thomas Murphy referred to the movement as "Nick Land diluted for LinkedIn". === Effective altruism === Effective accelerationism diverges from the principles of effective altruism, which prioritizes using evidence and reasoning to identify the most effective ways to altruistically improve the world. This divergence comes primarily from one of the causes effective altruists focus on – AI existential risk. Effective altruists (particularly longtermists) argue that AI companies should be cautious and strive to develop safe AI systems, as they fear that any misaligned AGI could eventually lead to human extinction. Proponents of effective accelerationism generally consider existential risks from AGI to be negligible, and claim that even if they were not, decentralized free markets would much better mitigate this risk than centralized governmental regulation. === Degrowth === Effective accelerationism stands in stark contrast with the degrowth movement, sometimes described by it as "decelerationism" or "decels". The degrowth movement advocates for reducing economic activity and consumption to address ecological and social issues. Effective accelerationism on the contrary embraces technological progress, energy consumption and the dynamics of capitalism, rather than advocating for a reduction in economic activity. == Reception == The "Techno-Optimist Manifesto", a 2023 essay by Marc Andreessen, has been described by the Financial Times and the German Süddeutsche Zeitung as espousing the views of effective accelerationism. Mother Jones also characterized it as expressing effective accelerationism and reported that Andressen cited Land's work. David Swan of The Sydney Morning Herald has criticized effective accelerationism due to its opposition to government and industry self-regulation. He argues that "innovations like AI needs thoughtful regulations and guardrails ... to avoid the myriad mistakes Silicon Valley has already made." During the 2023 Reagan National Defense Forum, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo cautioned against embracing the "move fast and break things" mentality associated with "effective acceleration [sic]". She emphasized the need to exercise caution in dealing with AI, stating "that's too dangerous. You can't break things when you are talking about AI." In a similar vein, Ellen Huet argued on Bloomberg News that some of the ideas of the movement were "deeply unsettling", focusing especially on Guillaume Verdon's "post-humanism" and the view that "natural selection could lead AI to replace us as the dominant spe

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaEvolve

  AlphaEvolve is an evolutionary coding agent for designing advanced algorithms based on large language models such as Gemini. It was developed by Google DeepMind and unveiled in May 2025. == Design == AlphaEvolve aims to autonomously discover and refine algorithms through a combination of large language models (LLMs) and evolutionary computation. AlphaEvolve needs an evaluation function with metrics to optimize, and an initial algorithm. At each step, AlphaEvolve uses the LLM to produce variants of the existing algorithms, and then selects the most effective ones. Unlike domain-specific predecessors like AlphaFold or AlphaTensor, AlphaEvolve is designed as a general-purpose system. It can operate across a wide array of scientific and engineering tasks by automatically modifying code and optimizing for multiple objectives. Its architecture allows it to evaluate code programmatically, reducing reliance on human input and mitigating risks such as hallucinations common in standard LLM outputs. == Achievements == According to Google, across a selection of 50 open mathematical problems, the model was able to rediscover state-of-the-art solutions 75% of the time and discovered improved solutions 20% of the time, for example advancing the kissing number problem. AlphaEvolve was also used to optimize Google's computing ecosystem. Improved data center scheduling heuristics, enabled the recovery of 0.7% of stranded resources. It was also used to optimize TPU circuit design and Gemini's training matrix multiplication kernel. == Open source implementations == Following the publication of AlphaEvolve, several open source implementations have been developed by the research community. One such implementation is OpenEvolve, which implements distributed evolutionary algorithms, multi-language support, integration with various large language model providers, and automated discovery of high-performance GPU kernels that outperform expert-engineered baselines.

  Read more →
• 

  United States export controls on AI chips and semiconductors

  United States export controls on AI chips and semiconductors are a series of regulations imposed by the United States restricting the export of technology and equipment related to artificial intelligence to other countries, primarily targeting China. This has happened in the context of a broader trade war. In January 2026, BIS formalized a flexible license review policy for these transactions.

  Read more →
• 

  Situated

  In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behaviour derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment.

  Read more →
• 

  Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

  The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, was a failed 2024 California bill intended to "mitigate the risk of catastrophic harms from AI models so advanced that they are not yet known to exist". Specifically, the bill would have applied to models which cost more than $100 million to train and were trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 1026 integer or floating-point operations. SB 1047 would have applied to all AI companies doing business in California—the location of the company would not matter. The bill would have created protections for whistleblowers and required developers to perform risk assessments of their models prior to release, with guidance from the Government Operations Agency. It would also have established CalCompute, a University of California public cloud computing cluster for startups, researchers and community groups. == Background == The rapid increase in capabilities of AI systems in the 2020s, including the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, caused some researchers and members of the public to become concerned about the existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems. Hundreds of tech executives and AI researchers, including two of the so-called "Godfathers of AI", Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, signed a statement in May 2023 calling for the mitigation of the "risk of extinction from AI" to be a global priority alongside "pandemics and nuclear war". However, the plausibility of these risks is still widely debated. Strong regulation of AI has been criticized for purportedly causing regulatory capture by large AI companies like OpenAI, a phenomenon in which regulation advances the interest of larger companies at the expense of smaller competition and the public in general, although OpenAI ended up opposing the bill. Other advocates of AI regulation aim to prevent bias and privacy violations, rather than existential risks. For example, some experts who view existential concerns as overblown and unrealistic view them as a distraction from near-term harms of AI like discriminatory automated decision making. In the face of existential concerns, technology companies have made voluntary commitments to conduct safety testing, for example at the AI Safety Summit and AI Seoul Summit. In 2023, not long before the bill was proposed, Governor Newsom of California and President Biden issued executive orders on artificial intelligence. State Senator Wiener said SB 1047 draws heavily on the Biden executive order, and is motivated by the absence of unified federal legislation on AI safety. Historically, California has passed regulation on several tech issues itself, including consumer privacy and net neutrality, in the absence of action by Congress. == History == === Proposal and voting === The bill was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener first proposed AI legislation for California through an intent bill called SB 294, the Safety in Artificial Intelligence Act, in September 2023. On February 7, 2024, Wiener introduced SB 1047. On May 21, SB 1047 passed the Senate 32–1. The bill was significantly amended by Wiener on August 15, 2024, in response to industry advice. Amendments included adding clarifications, and removing the creation of a "Frontier Model Division" and the penalty of perjury. On August 28, the bill passed the State Assembly 48–16. Then, due to the amendments, the bill was once again voted on by the Senate, passing 30–9. === Veto by governor === On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. The deadline for California lawmakers to overrule Newsom's veto was November 30, 2024. Newsom cited concerns over the bill's regulatory framework targeting only large AI models based on their computational size, while not taking into account whether the models are deployed in high-risk environments. Newsom emphasized that this approach could create a false sense of security, overlooking smaller models that might present equally significant risks. He acknowledged the need for AI safety protocols but stressed the importance of adaptability in regulation as AI technology continues to evolve rapidly. Governor Newsom also committed to working with technology experts, federal partners, and research institutions, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; and Stanford University's Human-Centered AI (HAI) Institute, led by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. He announced plans to collaborate with these entities to advance responsible AI development, aiming to protect the public while fostering innovation. == Provisions == SB 1047 would have covered AI models with training compute over 1026 integer or floating-point operations and a cost of over $100 million. If a covered model is fine-tuned using more than $10 million, the resulting model would also have been covered. The bill would have defined critical harms with respect to four categories: Creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Autonomous crimes causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Other harms of comparable severity Developers would have needed to create a "safety and security protocol" before training covered models. Before deployment, they would have submitted a statement of compliance, confirming they took reasonable care to take measures to prevent covered models that pose an unreasonable risk of critical harms. The statement would have included risk assessments and descriptions of their compliance process. These rules would have applied to both covered models and their derivatives, including post-training modifications, with annual third-party audits required starting in 2026. Safeguards to reduce risk included the ability to shut down the model, which has been variously described as a "kill switch" and "circuit breaker". Whistleblowing provisions would have protected employees who report safety problems and incidents. Additionally, SB 1047 would have created a public cloud computing cluster called CalCompute, associated with the University of California, to support startups, researchers, and community groups that lack large-scale computing resources. === Compliance and supervision === SB 1047 would have required developers, beginning January 1, 2026, to annually retain a third-party auditor to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of the bill, as provided. The Government Operations Agency would have reviewed the results of safety tests and incidents, and issue guidance, standards, and best practices. The bill would have created a Board of Frontier Models to supervise the application of the bill by the Government Operations Agency. It is would be composed of 9 members. == Reception == === Subjects of debate === Proponents of the bill described its provisions as simple and narrowly focused, with Sen. Scott Weiner describing it as a "light-touch, basic safety bill". This was disputed by critics of the bill, who described the bill's language as vague and criticized it as consolidating power in the largest AI companies at the expense of smaller ones. Proponents, in turn, argued that the bill only applies to models trained using more than 1026 FLOPS and with over $100 million, or fine-tuned with more than $10 million, and that the threshold could be increased if needed. The penalty of perjury was also a subject of debate, and was eventually removed through an amendment. The scope of the "kill switch" requirement was also reduced, following concerns from open-source developers. The use of the term "reasonable assurance" in the bill was also controversial, and it was eventually amended to "reasonable care". Critics then argued that "reasonable care" imposed an excessive burden by requiring confidence that models could not be used to cause catastrophic harm; proponents claimed that the standard did not require certainty and that it already applied to AI developers under existing law. === Support and opposition === Individual supporters of the bill included Turing Award recipients Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, Elon Musk, Bill de Blasio, Kevin Esvelt, Dan Hendrycks, Vitalik Buterin, OpenAI whistleblowers Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, Lawrence Lessig, Sneha Revanur, Stuart Russell, Jan Leike, actors Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, and Rosie Perez, Scott Aaronson, and Max Tegmark. Over 120 Hollywood celebrities, including Mark Hamill, Jane Fonda, and J. J. Abrams, also signed a statement in support of the bill. Max Tegmark likened the bill's focus on holding companies responsible for the harms caused by their models to the FDA requiring clinical trials before a company can release a drug to the market. Organizations sponsoring the bill included the Center for AI Safety, Economic Security California and Encode. The la

  Read more →
• 

  Dr.Fill

  Dr.Fill is a computer program that solves American-style crossword puzzles. It was developed by Matt Ginsberg and described by Ginsberg in an article in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. Ginsberg claims in that article that Dr.Fill is among the top fifty crossword solvers in the world. == History == Dr.Fill participated in the 2012 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, finishing 141st of approximately 650 entrants with a total score of just over 10,000 points. The appearance led to a variety of descriptions of Dr.Fill in the popular press, including The Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle and Gizmodo. A description of Dr.Fill appeared on the front page of the March 17, 2012 New York Times. Dr.Fill's score in 2013 improved to 10,550, which would have earned it 92nd place. Videos of the program solving the problems from the tournament are available on YouTube. The score in 2014 improved further to 10,790, which would have tied for 67th place. A video of the program solving the first six puzzles from that tournament, together with a talk given by Ginsberg describing its performance, can be found on YouTube. Dr.Fill has largely continued to improve since the 2014 event. In 2015, it scored 10,920 points and finished in 55th place. In 2016, it scored 11,205 points and finished in 41st place. In 2017, it scored 11,795 and finished in 11th place. In 2018, it scored 10,740 points, dropping to 78th place. Dr.Fill returned to "form" in 2019, once again scoring 11,795 and finishing in 14th place. The 2020 ACPT was cancelled due to COVID-19, and Dr.Fill participated as a non-competitor in the Boswords tournament instead. The program outperformed the humans, scoring 11,218 points (fast solves with a total of one mistake) while the best scoring human scored 10,994 points (slower solves but no mistakes). The 2021 ACPT was virtual, again due to COVID-19. The Dr.Fill effort was joined by the Berkeley NLP Group, creating a hybrid system named Berkeley Crossword Solver, and Dr.Fill won the main event, scoring 12,825 points with Erik Agard, the highest scoring human, scoring 12,810 points. The tournament was won by Tyler Hinman (12,760 points), who completed the championship puzzle perfectly in three minutes. Dr.Fill also completed that puzzle perfectly, but in 49 seconds. After winning the tournament, Ginsberg announced on August 8, 2021, that both he and Dr.Fill would be retiring from crosswords. == Algorithm == As described by Ginsberg, Dr.Fill works by converting a crossword to a weighted constraint satisfaction problem and then attempting to maximize the probability that the fill is correct. Probabilities for individual words or phrases in the puzzle are computed using relatively simple statistical techniques based on features such as previous appearances of the clue, number of Google hits for the fill, and so on. In doing this, Dr.Fill is attempting to solve a problem similar to that tackled by the Jeopardy!-playing program Watson; Dr.Fill runs on a laptop instead of a supercomputer and Ginsberg remarks that Watson is far more effective than Dr.Fill at solving this portion of the problem. Instead of computational horsepower, Dr.Fill relies on the constraints provided by crossing words to refine its answers. A variety of techniques from artificial intelligence are applied to attempt to find the most likely fill. These include a small amount of lookahead, limited discrepancy search, and postprocessing. Ginsberg remarks that postprocessing was chosen over branch and bound because the two techniques are mutually incompatible and postprocessing was found to be more effective in this domain.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaGo Zero

  AlphaGo Zero is a version of DeepMind's Go software AlphaGo. AlphaGo's team published an article in Nature in October 2017 introducing AlphaGo Zero, a version created without using data from human games, and stronger than any previous version. By playing games against itself, AlphaGo Zero: surpassed the strength of AlphaGo Lee in three days by winning 100 games to 0; reached the level of AlphaGo Master in 21 days; and exceeded all previous versions in 40 days. Training artificial intelligence (AI) without datasets derived from human experts has significant implications for the development of AI with superhuman skills, as expert data is "often expensive, unreliable, or simply unavailable." Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of DeepMind, said that AlphaGo Zero was so powerful because it was "no longer constrained by the limits of human knowledge". Furthermore, AlphaGo Zero performed better than standard deep reinforcement learning models (such as Deep Q-Network implementations) due to its integration of Monte Carlo tree search. David Silver, one of the first authors of DeepMind's papers published in Nature on AlphaGo, said that it is possible to have generalized AI algorithms by removing the need to learn from humans. Google later developed AlphaZero, a generalized version of AlphaGo Zero that could play chess and shōgi in addition to Go. In December 2017, AlphaZero beat the 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero by winning 60 games to 40, and with 8 hours of training it outperformed AlphaGo Lee on an Elo scale. AlphaZero also defeated a top chess program (Stockfish) and a top Shōgi program (Elmo). == Architecture == The network in AlphaGo Zero is a ResNet with two heads. The stem of the network takes as input a 17x19x19 tensor representation of the Go board. 8 channels are the positions of the current player's stones from the last eight time steps. (1 if there is a stone, 0 otherwise. If the time step go before the beginning of the game, then 0 in all positions.) 8 channels are the positions of the other player's stones from the last eight time steps. 1 channel is all 1 if black is to move, and 0 otherwise. The body is a ResNet with either 20 or 40 residual blocks and 256 channels. There are two heads, a policy head and a value head. Policy head outputs a logit array of size 19 × 19 + 1 {\displaystyle 19\times 19+1} , representing the logit of making a move in one of the points, plus the logit of passing. Value head outputs a number in the range ( − 1 , + 1 ) {\displaystyle (-1,+1)} , representing the expected score for the current player. -1 represents current player losing, and +1 winning. == Training == AlphaGo Zero's neural network was trained using TensorFlow, with 64 GPU workers and 19 CPU parameter servers. Only four TPUs were used for inference. The neural network initially knew nothing about Go beyond the rules. Unlike earlier versions of AlphaGo, Zero only perceived the board's stones, rather than having some rare human-programmed edge cases to help recognize unusual Go board positions. The AI engaged in reinforcement learning, playing against itself until it could anticipate its own moves and how those moves would affect the game's outcome. In the first three days AlphaGo Zero played 4.9 million games against itself in quick succession. It appeared to develop the skills required to beat top humans within just a few days, whereas the earlier AlphaGo took months of training to achieve the same level. According to Epoch.ai, training cost 3e23 FLOPs. For comparison, the researchers also trained a version of AlphaGo Zero using human games, AlphaGo Master, and found that it learned more quickly, but actually performed more poorly in the long run. DeepMind submitted its initial findings in a paper to Nature in April 2017, which was then published in October 2017. == Hardware cost == The hardware cost for a single AlphaGo Zero system in 2017, including the four TPUs, has been quoted as around $25 million. == Applications == According to Hassabis, AlphaGo's algorithms are likely to be of the most benefit to domains that require an intelligent search through an enormous space of possibilities, such as protein folding (see AlphaFold) or accurately simulating chemical reactions. AlphaGo's techniques are probably less useful in domains that are difficult to simulate, such as learning how to drive a car. DeepMind stated in October 2017 that it had already started active work on attempting to use AlphaGo Zero technology for protein folding, and stated it would soon publish new findings. == Reception == AlphaGo Zero was widely regarded as a significant advance, even when compared with its groundbreaking predecessor, AlphaGo. Oren Etzioni of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence called AlphaGo Zero "a very impressive technical result" in "both their ability to do it—and their ability to train the system in 40 days, on four TPUs". The Guardian called it a "major breakthrough for artificial intelligence", citing Eleni Vasilaki of Sheffield University and Tom Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University, who called it an impressive feat and an “outstanding engineering accomplishment" respectively. Mark Pesce of the University of Sydney called AlphaGo Zero "a big technological advance" taking us into "undiscovered territory". Gary Marcus, a psychologist at New York University, has cautioned that for all we know, AlphaGo may contain "implicit knowledge that the programmers have about how to construct machines to play problems like Go" and will need to be tested in other domains before being sure that its base architecture is effective at much more than playing Go. In contrast, DeepMind is "confident that this approach is generalisable to a large number of domains". In response to the reports, South Korean Go professional Lee Sedol said, "The previous version of AlphaGo wasn’t perfect, and I believe that’s why AlphaGo Zero was made." On the potential for AlphaGo's development, Lee said he will have to wait and see but also said it will affect young Go players. Mok Jin-seok, who directs the South Korean national Go team, said the Go world has already been imitating the playing styles of previous versions of AlphaGo and creating new ideas from them, and he is hopeful that new ideas will come out from AlphaGo Zero. Mok also added that general trends in the Go world are now being influenced by AlphaGo's playing style. "At first, it was hard to understand and I almost felt like I was playing against an alien. However, having had a great amount of experience, I’ve become used to it," Mok said. "We are now past the point where we debate the gap between the capability of AlphaGo and humans. It’s now between computers." Mok has reportedly already begun analyzing the playing style of AlphaGo Zero along with players from the national team. "Though having watched only a few matches, we received the impression that AlphaGo Zero plays more like a human than its predecessors," Mok said. Chinese Go professional Ke Jie commented on the remarkable accomplishments of the new program: "A pure self-learning AlphaGo is the strongest. Humans seem redundant in front of its self-improvement." == Comparison with predecessors == == AlphaZero == On 5 December 2017, DeepMind team released a preprint on arXiv, introducing AlphaZero, a program using generalized AlphaGo Zero's approach, which achieved within 24 hours a superhuman level of play in chess, shogi, and Go, defeating world-champion programs, Stockfish, Elmo, and 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero in each case. AlphaZero (AZ) is a more generalized variant of the AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) algorithm, and is able to play shogi and chess as well as Go. Differences between AZ and AGZ include: AZ has hard-coded rules for setting search hyperparameters. The neural network is now updated continually. Chess (unlike Go) can end in a tie; therefore AZ can take into account the possibility of a tie game. An open source program, Leela Zero, based on the ideas from the AlphaGo papers is available. It uses a GPU instead of the TPUs recent versions of AlphaGo rely on.

  Read more →
• 

  Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform

  Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (formerly known as Vertex AI) is a managed machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) platform developed by Google Cloud. It provides a unified environment for building, training, deploying, and scaling ML models and generative AI applications. The platform integrates tools for the full ML lifecycle, including data preparation, model training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring, under a single API and user interface. Vertex AI was announced at Google I/O and released as a generally available product on May 18, 2021. At launch, Google described Vertex AI as unifying its AutoML offerings with its prior Cloud AI Platform capabilities, and as adding operational features intended to help teams move models from experimentation into production use. On April 22, 2026, Google announced Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform as the replacement evolution of Vertex AI. == History == Google Cloud announced the general availability of Vertex AI on May 18, 2021, at the Google I/O developer conference. The platform was designed to consolidate Google Cloud's previously separate ML offerings, including AutoML and the legacy AI Platform, into a single system. At launch, Google claimed that Vertex AI required roughly 80% fewer lines of code to train a model compared to competing platforms. In June 2023, Google made generative AI support in Vertex AI generally available, giving developers access to foundation models including PaLM 2, Imagen, and Codey through the platform's Model Garden and the newly launched Generative AI Studio. At the time of this launch, Model Garden included over 60 models from Google and its partners. In August 2023, at the Google Cloud Next conference, Google announced further updates to Vertex AI, including the addition of third-party models such as Claude 2 from Anthropic and Llama 2 from Meta to the Model Garden, as well as new tools called Vertex AI Extensions for connecting models to APIs for real-time data retrieval. At the same event, Vertex AI Search and Conversation were made generally available, providing enterprise search and chatbot capabilities powered by foundation models. In April 2024, at Google Cloud Next, the company introduced Vertex AI Agent Builder, a no-code tool for creating AI-powered conversational agents built on top of Gemini large language models. This brought together the existing Vertex AI Search and Conversation products with new developer tools for building generative AI experiences. == Features == === Model training === Vertex AI supports both AutoML, which enables code-free model training on tabular, image, text, or video data, and custom training, which gives users full control over the ML framework, training code, and hyperparameter tuning. The platform provides serverless training as well as dedicated training clusters with GPU and TPU accelerators. Vertex AI Vizier handles automatic hyperparameter tuning, and Vertex AI Experiments allows comparison and tracking of training runs. === Model Garden === The Vertex AI Model Garden is a curated catalog of over 200 enterprise-ready models, including Google's own foundation models (such as Gemini, Imagen, and Veo), third-party models (such as Anthropic's Claude and Mistral AI models), and popular open-source models (such as Llama and Gemma). Models are accessible as fully managed model-as-a-service APIs. === Pipelines (workflow orchestration) === Vertex AI Pipelines provides managed orchestration of ML workflows and supports pipelines built with the Kubeflow Pipelines SDK, among other options described in Google Cloud documentation. === Vertex AI Studio === Vertex AI Studio provides tools for prompt design, testing, and model management, allowing developers to prototype and build generative AI applications using natural language, code, images, or video. === Agent Builder and Agent Engine === Vertex AI Agent Builder is a suite of products for building, deploying, and governing AI agents in production environments. It supports development with the open-source Agent Development Kit (ADK) and other frameworks. Vertex AI Agent Engine provides the underlying infrastructure for deploying and scaling agents, with support for enterprise security features including HIPAA compliance, customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK), and VPC Service Controls. === Generative AI tooling and model access === Google markets Vertex AI as providing access to Google foundation models (including the Gemini family) and developer tools such as Vertex AI Studio, along with a model catalog that includes Google and selected open source models (marketed as "Model Garden"). Google has also offered products within Vertex AI aimed at building generative search and conversational applications, including offerings named "Vertex AI Search" and "Vertex AI Conversation" as reported in 2023 coverage of platform updates. === MLOps tools === The platform includes a range of MLOps capabilities: Vertex AI Pipelines for orchestrating and automating ML workflows as reusable pipelines. Vertex AI Feature Store for serving, sharing, and reusing ML features across projects. Vertex AI Model Registry for storing, versioning, and managing trained models. Vertex AI Model Monitoring for detecting training-serving skew and inference drift in deployed models. Vertex Explainable AI for interpreting model predictions. Vertex AI Workbench for managed JupyterLab notebook environments integrated with Google Cloud Storage and BigQuery. == Industry recognition == Google was named a Leader for the fifth consecutive year in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud AI Developer Services, a recognition that encompasses Vertex AI and its related offerings. Google was also recognized as a Leader in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Science and Machine Learning Platforms and was named a Leader in the Forrester Wave for AI/ML Platforms, Q3 2024. In October 2025, Google was also named a Leader in the 2025 IDC (International Data Corporation) MarketScape for Worldwide GenAI Life-Cycle Foundation Model Software. == Pricing == Vertex AI uses a pay-as-you-go pricing model, with costs determined by the specific services consumed, including model training, prediction serving, and data storage. For generative AI tasks, pricing is based on a per-token model, with rates varying depending on the specific model used and whether tokens are input or output. Google offers a free tier for new users, which includes limited custom training hours and online prediction usage, along with an introductory US$300 in Google Cloud credits valid for 90 days. == Adoption == In the year following its 2021 launch, Google reported that usage of Vertex AI and BigQuery had driven 2.5 times more machine learning predictions compared to the prior year, and that active customers of Vertex AI Workbench had grown 25-fold over a six-month period. Early enterprise adopters included Ford, Wayfair, and Seagate, among others. Wayfair reported that it was able to run large model training jobs 5 to 10 times faster using the platform.

  Read more →
• 

  RevoScaleR

  RevoScaleR is a machine learning package in R created by Microsoft. It is available as part of Machine Learning Server, Microsoft R Client, and Machine Learning Services in Microsoft SQL Server 2016. The package contains functions for creating linear model, logistic regression, random forest, decision tree and boosted decision tree, and K-means, in addition to some summary functions for inspecting and visualizing data. It has a Python package counterpart called revoscalepy. Another closely related package is MicrosoftML, which contains machine learning algorithms that RevoScaleR does not have, such as neural network and SVM. In June 2021, Microsoft announced to open source the RevoScaleR and revoscalepy packages, making them freely available under the MIT License. == Concepts == Many R packages are designed to analyze data that can fit in the memory of the machine and usually do not make use of parallel processing. RevoScaleR was designed to address these limitations. The functions in RevoScaleR orientate around three main abstraction concepts that users can specify to process large amount of data that might not fit in memory and exploit parallel resources to speed up the analysis. === Compute Contexts === A compute context refers to the location where the computation on the data happens. It could be "local" (on the client machine) or "remote" (on a data platform such as a SQL server, or Spark). Pushing the computation to a remote server allows people to take advantage of the greater compute resources that a remote machine may have. If the data being analyzed reside on the same machine, using a remote compute context also removes the need to pull data across the network onto the client machine. === Data source === Data source defines where the data comes from. There are various data sources available in RevoScaleR, such as text data, Xdf data, in-SQL data, and a spark dataframe. People can wrap their data in a data source object and use that as run analytics in different compute context. Different data sources are available in different compute context. For example, if the compute context is set to SQL server, then the only data source one can use would be an in-SQL data source. === Analytics === Analytic functions in RevoScaleR takes in data source object, a compute context, and the other parameters needed to build the specific model, such as formula for the logistic regression or the number of trees in a decision tree. In addition to those parameters, one can also specify the level of parallelism, such as the size of the data chunk for each process or number of processes to build the model. However, parallelism is only available in non-express edition. == Limitations == The package is mostly meant to be used with a SQL server or other remote machines. To fully leverage the abstractions it uses to process a large dataset, one needs a remote server and non-Express free edition of the package. It cannot be easily installed such as by running "install.packages("RevoScaleR")" like most open source R packages. It's available only through Microsoft R Client, a distribution of R for data science, or Microsoft Machine Learning Server (stand-alone with no SQL server attached), or Microsoft Machine Learning Services (a SQL server services). However, one can still use the analytics functions in an Express, free version of the package.

  Read more →
• 

  Instantaneously trained neural networks

  Instantaneously trained neural networks are feedforward artificial neural networks that create a new hidden neuron node for each novel training sample. The weights to this hidden neuron separate out not only this training sample but others that are near it, thus providing generalization. This separation is done using the nearest hyperplane that can be written down instantaneously. In the two most important implementations the neighborhood of generalization either varies with the training sample (CC1 network) or remains constant (CC4 network). These networks use unary coding for an effective representation of the data sets. This type of network was first proposed in a 1993 paper of Subhash Kak. Since then, instantaneously trained neural networks have been proposed as models of short term learning and used in web search, and financial time series prediction applications. They have also been used in instant classification of documents and for deep learning and data mining. As in other neural networks, their normal use is as software, but they have also been implemented in hardware using FPGAs and by optical implementation. == CC4 network == In the CC4 network, which is a three-stage network, the number of input nodes is one more than the size of the training vector, with the extra node serving as the biasing node whose input is always 1. For binary input vectors, the weights from the input nodes to the hidden neuron (say of index j) corresponding to the trained vector is given by the following formula: w i j = { − 1 , for x i = 0 + 1 , for x i = 1 r − s + 1 , for i = n + 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}={\begin{cases}-1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=0\\+1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=1\\r-s+1,&{\mbox{for }}i=n+1\end{cases}}} where r {\displaystyle r} is the radius of generalization and s {\displaystyle s} is the Hamming weight (the number of 1s) of the binary sequence. From the hidden layer to the output layer the weights are 1 or -1 depending on whether the vector belongs to a given output class or not. The neurons in the hidden and output layers output 1 if the weighted sum to the input is 0 or positive and 0, if the weighted sum to the input is negative: y = { 1 if ∑ x i ≥ 0 0 if ∑ x i < 0 {\displaystyle y=\left\{{\begin{matrix}1&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}\geq 0\\0&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}<0\end{matrix}}\right.} == Other networks == The CC4 network has also been modified to include non-binary input with varying radii of generalization so that it effectively provides a CC1 implementation. In feedback networks the Willshaw network as well as the Hopfield network are able to learn instantaneously.

  Read more →