AI Bot Grammar Checker

AI Bot Grammar Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Local coordinates

  Local coordinates are the ones used in a local coordinate system or a local coordinate space. Simple examples: Houses. In order to work in a house construction, the measurements are referred to a control arbitrary point that will allow to check it: stick/sticks on the ground, steel bar, nails... Addresses. Using house numbers to locate a house on a street; the street is a local coordinate system within a larger system composed of city townships, states, countries, postal codes, etc. Local systems exist for convenience. On ancient times, every work was made on relative bases as there was no conception of global systems. Practically, it is better to use local systems for small works as houses, buildings... For most of the applications, it is desired the position of one element relative to one building or location, and in a more local way, relative to one furniture or person. In a regular way, you will not give your position by geographical coordinates rather than "I am 15 meters away of the entry to the building". So it is a pretty common way to locate things. It is possible to bring latitude and longitude for all terrestrial locations, but unless one has a highly precise GPS device or you make astronomical observations, this is impractical. It is much simpler to use a tape, a rope, a chain... The position information (global) should be transformed into a location. Position refers to a numeric or symbolic description within a spatial reference system, whereas location refers to information about surrounding objects and their interrelationships. (Topological space) == Use == In computer graphics and computer animation, local coordinate spaces are also useful for their ability to model independently transformable aspects of geometrical scene graphs. When modeling a car, for example, it is desirable to describe the center of each wheel with respect to the car's coordinate system, but then specify the shape of each wheel in separate local spaces centered about these points. This way, the information describing each wheel can be simply duplicated four times, and independent transformations (e.g., steering rotation) can be similarly effected. Bounding volumes of objects may be described more accurately using extents in the local coordinates, (i.e. an object oriented bounding box, contrasted with the simpler axis aligned bounding box). The trade-off for this flexibility is additional computational cost: the rendering system must access the higher-level coordinate system of the car and combine it with the space of each wheel in order to draw everything in its proper place. Local coordinates also afford digital designers a means around the finite limits of numerical representation. The tread marks on a tire, for example, can be described using millimeters by allowing the whole tire to occupy the entire range of numeric precision available. The larger aspects of the car, such as its frame, might be described in centimeters, and the terrain that the car travels on could be specified in meters. In differential topology, local coordinates on a manifold are defined by means of an atlas of charts. The basic idea behind coordinate charts is that each small patch of a manifold can be endowed with a set of local coordinates. These are collected together into an atlas, and stitched together in such a way that they are self-consistent on the manifold. In Cartography and Maps, the traditional way of works are local datum. With a local datum the land can be mapped on relative small areas as a country. With the need of global systems, the transformations on between datum became a problem, so geodetic datum have been created. More than 150 local datum have been used in the world.

  Read more →
• 

  Computer game bot Turing test

  The computer game bot Turing test is a variant of the Turing test, where a human judge viewing and interacting with a virtual world must distinguish between other humans and video game bots, both interacting with the same virtual world. This variant was first proposed in 2008 by Associate Professor Philip Hingston of Edith Cowan University, and implemented through a tournament called the 2K BotPrize. == History == The computer game bot Turing test was proposed to advance the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and computational intelligence with respect to video games. It was considered that a poorly implemented bot implied a subpar game, so a bot that would be capable of passing this test, and therefore might be indistinguishable from a human player, would directly improve the quality of a game. It also served to debunk a flawed notion that "game AI is a solved problem." Emphasis is placed on a game bot that interacts with other players in a multiplayer environment. Unlike a bot that simply needs to make optimal human-like decisions to play or beat a game, this bot must make the same decisions while also convincing another in-game player of its human-likeness. == Implementation == The computer game bot Turing test was designed to test a bot's ability to interact with a game environment in comparison with a human player; simply 'winning' was insufficient. This evolved into a contest with a few important goals in mind: There are three participants: a human player, a computer-game bot, and a judge. The bot needs to appear more human-like than the human player. Judge scores are not bipolar — both human and bot can be scored anywhere on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=not humanlike, 5=human). All three participants are to be indistinguishable in the arena, with the exception of a randomly generated name tag, so as to reduce the chance of random elements such as name or appearance influencing the judges. Chat is disabled throughout the match. Bots were not given omniscient powers as they may be in other games. Bots must react only to the data that might be reasonably available to a human player. Human participants were of a moderate skill range, with no participant either ignorant to the game or capable of playing at a professional level. In 2008, the first 2K BotPrize tournament took place. The contest was held with the game Unreal Tournament 2004 as the platform. Contestants created their bots in advance using the GameBots interface. GameBots had some modifications made so as to adhere to the above conditions, such as removing data about vantage points or weapon damage that unfairly informed the bots of relevant strengths/weaknesses that a human would otherwise need to learn. == Tournament == The first BotPrize Tournament was held on 17 December 2008, as part of the 2008 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games in Australia. Each competing team was given time to set up and adjust their bots to the modified game client, although no coding changes were allowed at that point. The tournament was run in rounds, each a 10-minute death match. Judges were the last to join the server and every judge observed every player and every bot exactly once, although the pairing of players and bots did change. When the tournament ended, no bot was rated as more human than any player. In subsequent tournaments, run during 2009–2011, bots achieved scores that were increasingly human-like, but no contestant had won the BotPrize in any of these contests. In 2012, the 2K BotPrize was held once again, and two teams programmed bots that achieved scores greater than those of human players. == Successful bots == To date, there have been two successfully programmed bots that passed the computer game bot Turing test: UT^2, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, emphasized a bot that adjusted its behaviour based on previously observed human behaviour and neuroevolution. The team has made their bot available, although a copy of Unreal Tournament 2004 is required. Mihai Polceanu, a doctoral student from Romania, focused on creating a bot that would mimic opponent reactions, in a sense 'borrowing' the human-like nature of the opponent. These victors succeeded in the year 2012, Alan Turing's centenary year. == Aftermath == The outcome of a bot that appears more human-like than a human player is possibly overstated, since in the tournament in which the bots succeeded, the average 'humanness' rating of the human players was only 41.4%. This showcases some limits of this Turing test, since the results demonstrate that human behaviour is more complicated and quantitative than was accounted for. In light of this, the BotPrize competition organizers will increase the difficulty in upcoming years with new challenges, forcing competitors to improve their bots. It is also believed that methods and techniques developed for the computer game bot Turing test will be useful in fields other than video games, such as virtual training environments and in improving Human–robot interaction. == Contrasts to the Turing test == The computer game bot Turing test differs from the traditional or generic Turing test in a number of ways: Unlike the traditional Turing test, for example the Chatterbot-style contest held annually by the Loebner Prize competition, the humans who played against the Computer Game Bots are not trying to convince judges they are the human; rather, they want to win the game (i.e., by achieving the highest kill score). Judges are not restricted to awarding only one participant in a match as the 'human' and the other as the 'non-human.' This emphasizes more qualitative rather than polarized findings. With regards to a successful video game bot, this is not to be confused with a claim that the bot is 'intelligent,' whereas a machine that 'passed' the Turing test would arguably have some evidence for its Chatterbot's 'intelligence.' The game Unreal Tournament 2004 was chosen for its commercial availability and its interface for creating bots, GameBots. This limitation on medium is a sharp contrast to the Turing test, which emphasizes a conversation, where possible questions are vastly more numerous than the set of possible actions available in any specific video game. The available information to the participants, humans and bots, is not equal. Humans interact through vision and sound, whereas bots interact with data and events. The judges cannot introduce new events (e.g., a lava pit) to aid in differentiating between human and bot, whereas in a Chatterbot designed system, judges may theoretically ask any question in any manner. The two participants and the judge take part in a three-way interaction, unlike, for example, the paired two-way interaction of the Loebner Prize Contest.

  Read more →
• 

  Marco Camisani Calzolari

  Marco Camisani Calzolari (born March 1969) is an Italian British university professor, author, and television personality specializing in digital communications, transformation, and artificial intelligence. He advises the Italian government and police on ethical AI and digital safety and hosts the digital segment of the Italian news show Striscia la Notizia. His research gained international attention in 2012 after creating an algorithm claiming to identify real Twitter users from fake users of bots. Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded as an Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police and the Knight of the Italian Republic. == Biography == Camisani Calzolari was born in Milan, Italy where he began his television career, hosting on local provider LA7 in (2001). In 2008 Camisani Calzolari moved to the UK where he founded multiple digital start-ups. He is now a naturalised British citizen and applied to become a "Freeman of the City" in June 2022. In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari began serving as the Chair and Adjunct Professor of the elective course Cyber-Humanities within the Degree Programme in Medicine and Surgery at Università Vita-Salute S.Raffaele in Milan. On the 14th of May 2024, Camisani Calzolari was awarded the Knight of the Italian Republic (Order of the Star of Italy). In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded the title of Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police for his commitment to combating cybercrime and promoting digital security. He also received the Keynes Sraffa Award 2024 from the Italian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the UK. Additionally, he was honored with the University Seal by Università degli Studi della Tuscia (Viterbo) for his efforts in disseminating knowledge both in Italy and abroad. == Academic career == Camisani Calzolari began his academic career at the Università Statale di Milano in 2007, until chairing a course on Corporate Communication and Digital Languages at the IULM University of Milan between 2007 and 2010. During this time Camisani Calzolari published his first written work under the title 'Impresa 4.0'. After moving to London, Camisani Calzolari focussed on digital start-ups including 'Digitalevaluation ltd' where he would publish the results of his Twitter algorithm study. Following its publication, he accepted a role as Affiliate Practitioner at the Centre for Culture Media & Regulation (CCMR), University of Brunel London, and subsequently another role at a British University as Lecturer in Digital Communication at the LCA Business School. Camisani Calzolari returned to Italy to lecture on Interactive Digital Communication at the University of Milan. From 2017 to 2023, he held various roles at the European University of Rome, including Adjunct Professor and Chair in Digital Communication, and published The Fake News Bible in 2018. In 2024 he became the Scientific Coordinator for a Master's program at Università San Raffaele in Milan. === Twitter fake followers study === In 2012, Camisani Calzolari's research came into the focus of the public eye following the publication of his findings in a study analysing the followers of high-profile public figures and corporations. He developed a computer algorithm claiming to be able to distinguish real followers from computer-generated "bots". The algorithm compiled data correlative of human activity such as having a name, image, physical address, using punctuation and cross-account activity. Genuine Twitter users were considered to have written at least 50 posts and possessed over 30 followers themselves. The findings led to scrutiny of several individuals and corporations for allegedly purchasing followers. === Publications === Camisani Calzolari is best for known for his work in improving accessibility to digital and tech solutions for everyday business and personal use. His work in digital and communications has been included in several publications including: Cyberhumanism (2023) The Fake News Bible (2018), First Digital Aid for Business (2015), The Digital World (2013), Escape from Facebook (2012), Enterprise 4.0. Camisani Calzolari was also the subject of a University College London (UCL) case study titled Marco Camisani-Calzolari: the Digital Renaissance Man. == Government work == Since 2023, he is a member of the Coordination Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and an advisor in Digital Skills and Designer of initiatives for the Department for Digital Transformation. He also serves as the official spokesperson for the State Police, educating the public on preventing digital threats, avoiding digital scams, and explaining criminal case. Since August 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari has served as an expert for the Italian Agency for the National Cybersecurity (ACN). In October of the same year, he also became a member of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice working group for the European Commission. == Television work == Camisani Calzolari hosts a digital segment for Striscia la Notizia, an Italian satirical television program on the Mediaset-controlled Canale 5. He presented on weekly segments that include: RAI 1 – Digital First Aid (TV Program – 2014 to 2017) in the program "Uno Mattina" as a digital expert; RTL 102.5 – Technology Space (Radio Program – 2012 to 2017) in the morning news program as a digital expert (100 episodes from 2012 to 2017); DIGITALK Talkshow (2004) as host of Digitalk; Misterweb (TV Program – 2001 to 2002), he presented the TV program “MisterWeb”, on "LA7". Marco Camisani Calzolari was a testimonial for several institutional communication campaigns by the Italian Department of Digital Transformation. These include initiatives promoting the Punti Digitale Facile, raising awareness about the NIS2 Directive for cybersecurity, and advocating for the adoption of the Electronic Identity Card (CIE).

  Read more →
• 

  20Q

  20Q is a computerized game of twenty questions that began as a test in artificial intelligence (AI). It was invented by Robin Burgener in 1988. The game was made handheld by Radica in 2003, but was discontinued in 2011 because Techno Source took the license for 20Q handheld devices. The game 20Q is based on the spoken parlor game known as twenty questions, and is both a website and a handheld device. 20Q asks the player to think of something and will then try to guess what they are thinking of with twenty yes-or-no questions. If it fails to guess in 20 questions, it will ask an additional 5 questions. If it fails to guess even with 25 (or 30) questions, the player is declared the winner. Sometimes the first guess of the object can be asked at question 14. == Principle and history == The principle is that the player thinks of something and the 20Q artificial intelligence asks a series of questions before guessing what the player is thinking. This artificial intelligence learns on its own with the information relayed back to the players who interact with it, and is not programmed. The player can answer these questions with: Yes, No, Unknown, and Sometimes. The experiment is based on the classic word game of Twenty Questions, and on the computer game "Animals," popular in the early 1970s, which used a somewhat simpler method to guess an animal. The 20Q AI uses an artificial neural network to pick the questions and to guess. After the player has answered the twenty questions posed (sometimes fewer), 20Q makes a guess. If it is incorrect, it asks more questions, then guesses again. It makes guesses based on what it has learned; it is not programmed with information or what the inventor thinks. Answers to any question are based on players’ interpretations of the questions asked. Newer editions were made for different categories, such as music 20Q which has the player think of a song, and Harry Potter 20Q, which has the player think of something from the world of the Harry Potter series. The 20Q AI can draw its own conclusions on how to interpret the information. It can be described as more of a folk taxonomy than a taxonomy. Its knowledge develops with every game played. In this regard, the online version of the 20Q AI can be inaccurate because it gathers its answers from what people think rather than from what people know. Limitations of taxonomy are often overcome by the AI itself because it can learn and adapt. For example, if the player was thinking of a "Horse" and answered "No" to the question "Is it an animal?," the AI will, nevertheless, guess correctly, despite being told that a horse is not an animal. Patent applications in the US and Europe were submitted in 2005. In August 2014, 20Q.net Inc., with Brashworks Studios, developed and released an iOS iPad version available at the Apple iTunes store. == Game show == On June 13, 2009, GSN began a TV version of the game, hosted by Cat Deeley, with Hal Sparks as the voice of Mr. Q.

  Read more →
• 

  Progress in artificial intelligence

  Progress in artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the advances, milestones, and breakthroughs that have been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence over time. AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines and systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, finance, robotics, law, video games, agriculture, and scientific discovery. The society as a whole is looking for artificial intelligence to be on a key factor in the upcming years because of its potential. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore." "Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry." In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems, but the field was rarely credited for these successes at the time. Kaplan and Haenlein structure artificial intelligence along three evolutionary stages: Artificial narrow intelligence – AI capable only of specific tasks; Artificial general intelligence – AI with ability in several areas, and able to autonomously solve problems they were never even designed for; Artificial superintelligence – AI capable of general tasks, including scientific creativity, social skills, and general wisdom. To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject-matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results. In 2023, humans still substantially outperformed both GPT-4 and other models tested on the ConceptARC benchmark. Those models scored 60% on most, and 77% on one category, while humans scored 91% on all and 97% on one category. However, later research in 2025 showed that human-generated output grids were only accurate 73% of the time, while AI models available that year managed to score above 77%. == History == Increasing, promoting or constraining AI progress has often be done via controlling or increasing the amount of compute. == Current performance in specific areas == There are many useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas. AI, like electricity or the steam engine, is a general-purpose technology. There is no consensus on how to characterize which tasks AI tends to excel at. Some versions of Moravec's paradox observe that humans are more likely to outperform machines in areas such as physical dexterity that have been the direct target of natural selection. While projects such as AlphaZero have succeeded in generating their own knowledge from scratch, many other machine learning projects require large training datasets. Researcher Andrew Ng has suggested, as a "highly imperfect rule of thumb", that "almost anything a typical human can do with less than one second of mental thought, we can probably now or in the near future automate using AI." Games provide a high-profile benchmark for assessing rates of progress; many games have a large professional player base and a well-established competitive rating system. AlphaGo brought the era of classical board-game benchmarks to a close when Artificial Intelligence proved their competitive edge over humans in 2016. Deep Mind's AlphaGo AI software program defeated the world's best professional Go Player Lee Sedol. Games of imperfect knowledge provide new challenges to AI in the area of game theory; the most prominent milestone in this area was brought to a close by Libratus' poker victory in 2017. E-sports continue to provide additional benchmarks; Facebook AI, Deepmind, and others have engaged with the popular StarCraft franchise of videogames. Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as: optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans) super-human: performs better than all humans high-human: performs better than most humans par-human: performs similarly to most humans sub-human: performs worse than most humans === Optimal === Tic-tac-toe Connect Four: 1988 Checkers (aka 8x8 draughts): Weakly solved (2007) Rubik's Cube: Mostly solved (2010) Heads-up limit hold'em poker: Statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution" (2015) === Super-human === Othello (aka reversi): c. 1997 Scrabble: 2006 Backgammon: c. 1995–2002 Chess: Supercomputer (c. 1997); Personal computer (c. 2006); Mobile phone (c. 2009); Computer defeats human + computer (c. 2017) Jeopardy!: Question answering, although the machine did not use speech recognition (2011) Arimaa: 2015 Shogi: c. 2017 Go: 2017 Heads-up no-limit hold'em poker: 2017 Six-player no-limit hold'em poker: 2019 Gran Turismo Sport: 2022 === High-human === Crosswords: c. 2012 Freeciv: 2016 Dota 2: 2018 Bridge card-playing: According to a 2009 review, "the best programs are attaining expert status as (bridge) card players", excluding bidding. StarCraft II: 2019 Mahjong: 2019 Stratego: 2022 No-Press Diplomacy: 2022 Hanabi: 2022 Natural language processing === Par-human === Optical character recognition for ISO 1073-1:1976 and similar special characters. Classification of images Handwriting recognition Facial recognition Visual question answering SQuAD 2.0 English reading-comprehension benchmark (2019) SuperGLUE English-language understanding benchmark (2020) Some school science exams (2019) Some tasks based on Raven's Progressive Matrices Many Atari 2600 games (2015) === Sub-human === Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text) Object recognition Various robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including: Stable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017) Humanoid soccer Speech recognition: "nearly equal to human performance" (2017) Explainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis. Many tests of fluid intelligence (2020) Bongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020) Visual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020) Stock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms Angry Birds video game, as of 2020 Various tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including: Translation Word-sense disambiguation == Proposed tests of artificial intelligence == In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark. The Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior. Proposed "universal intelligence" tests aim to compare how well machines, humans, and even non-human animals perform on problem sets that are generic as possible. At an extreme, the test suite can contain every possible problem, weighted by Kolmogorov complexity; however, these problem sets tend to be dominated by impoverished pattern-matching exercises where a tuned AI can easily exceed human performance levels. == Exams == According to OpenAI, in 2023 GPT-4 achieved high scores on several standardized and professional examinations, including around the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, the 89th percentile on the mathematics section of the SAT, the 93rd percentile on SAT Reading and Writing, the 54th percentile on the analytical writing section of the GRE, the 88th percentile on GRE quantitative reasoning, and the 99th percentile on GRE verbal reasoning. OpenAI also reported that GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 USA Biology Olympiad semifinal exam and earned top scores on several AP exams. Independent researchers found in 2023 that ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 performed "at or near the passing threshold" on all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), suggesting that large language models could reach passing-level performance on some medical knowledge assessments even without domain-specific fine-tuning. GPT-3.5 was also reported to attain a low but passing grade on examinations for four law school courses at the University of Minnes

  Read more →
• 

  Luciano Floridi

  Luciano Floridi (Italian: [luˈtʃaːno ˈflɔːridi]; born 16 November 1964) is an Italian and British philosopher. He is John K. Castle Professor in the Practice of Cognitive Science and Founding Director of the Digital Ethics Center at Yale University. He is also a Professor of Sociology of Culture and Communication at the University of Bologna, Department of Legal Studies, where he is the director of the Centre for Digital Ethics. Furthermore, he is adjunct professor ("distinguished scholar in residence") at the Department of Economics, American University, Washington D.C. He is married to the neuroscientist Anna Christina Nobre. Floridi is best known for his work on two areas of philosophical research: the philosophy of information, and information ethics (also known as digital ethics or computer ethics), for which he received many awards, including the Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit, Italy's most prestigious honor. According to Scopus, Floridi was the most cited living philosopher in the world in 2020. Between 2008 and 2013, he held the research chair in philosophy of information and the UNESCO Chair in Information and Computer Ethics at the University of Hertfordshire. He was the founder and director of the IEG, an interdepartmental research group on the philosophy of information at the University of Oxford, and of the GPI the research Group in Philosophy of Information at the University of Hertfordshire. He was the founder and director of the SWIF, the Italian e-journal of philosophy (1995–2008). He is a former Governing Body Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. == Early life and education == Floridi was born in Rome in 1964, and studied at Rome University La Sapienza (laurea, first class with distinction, 1988), where he was originally educated as a historian of philosophy. He soon became interested in analytic philosophy and wrote his tesi di laurea (roughly equivalent to an M.A. thesis) in philosophy of logic, on Michael Dummett's anti-realism. He obtained his Master of Philosophy (1989) and PhD degree (1990) from the University of Warwick, working in epistemology and philosophy of logic with Susan Haack (who was his PhD supervisor) and Michael Dummett. Floridi's early student years are partly recounted in the non-fiction book The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece, where he is "Luciano". During his graduate and postdoctoral years, he covered the standard topics in analytic philosophy in search of a new methodology. He sought to approach contemporary problems from a heuristically powerful and intellectually enriching perspective when dealing with lively philosophical issues. During his graduate studies, he began to distance himself from classical analytic philosophy. In his view, the analytic movement had lost its way. For this reason, he worked on pragmatism (especially Peirce) and foundationalist issues in epistemology and philosophy of logic, as well as the history of skepticism. == Academic career and previous positions == Floridi started his academic career as a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Warwick in 1990–1991. He joined the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Oxford in 1990 and the OUCL (Oxford's Department of Computer Science) in 1999. He was junior research fellow (JRF) in philosophy at Wolfson College, Oxford University (1990–1994), a Frances Yates Fellow in the History of Ideas at the Warburg Institute, University of London (1994–1995) and Research Fellow in philosophy at Wolfson College, Oxford University (1994–2001). During these years in Oxford, he held lectureships in different Colleges. Between 1994 and 1996, he also held a post-doctoral research scholarship at the Department of Philosophy, University of Turin. Between 2001 and 2006, he was Markle Foundation Senior Research Fellow in Information Policy at the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Oxford University. Between 2002 and 2008, he was associate professor of logic at the Università degli Studi di Bari. In 2006, he became Fellow by Special Election of St Cross College, Oxford University, where he played for the squash team. In 2008, he was appointed full professor of philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, to hold the newly established research chair in philosophy of information and, in 2009, the UNESCO Chair in Information and Computer Ethics, a position which he held until 2013, when he moved back to Oxford. In 2017, Floridi became a fellow of the Alan Turing Institute and the chair of its Data Ethics Group, holding these positions until 2021 and 2020, respectively. Since 2010 he has been editor-in-chief of Philosophy & Technology (Springer). In January 2023, Floridi announced he would move to Yale at the beginning of the academic year 2023–2024, to take over the position of founding director of the Yale Digital Ethics Center. == Philosophical views == One of Floridi's key contributions is his formulation of the 'Philosophy of Information' (PoI). The PoI provides a framework for understanding the nature of information and its role in the world. According to Floridi, information is a vital resource that shapes our knowledge and understanding of the world. It is not simply a neutral representation of reality but a part of the world, with its own properties, effects, and moral implications. Floridi's PoI has several key components including an 'ontology of information', which defines the nature of information, an 'ethics of information', which provides a framework for evaluating the moral implications of information and information technologies, an 'epistemology of information', that analyses the role of information in the development of knowledge and science, and a 'logic of information', the concentrates on the more formal aspects. The PoI also includes a theory of the 'information environment', the infosphere, which encompasses the physical, social, and cultural contexts in which information is produced, used, and communicated. == Recognitions and awards == 2022 - Knight of the Grand Cross - First Class of the Order of Merit (Cavaliere di Gran Croce Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana, the highest honor in the Italian Republic), awarded through a special decree by the president of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella for his work on the philosophy and ethics of information. 2022 - Fellow of the Accademia delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna 2021 - Honorary Doctorate (Laurea honoris causa) in Informatics, University of Skövde, Sweden, for "his groundbreaking work on the philosophy of information". 2020 - Premio Udine Filosofia, Mimesis Festival, for The Logic of Information (OUP, 2019) 2020 - Premio Socrate, Cesare Landa Foundation, for philosophical communication 2019 - CogX Award, for "outstanding achievement in ethics of AI" 2019 - Gilbert Ryle Lectures, Trent University 2019 - Premio Aretè "Maestro della Responsabilità", Nuvolaverde, Confindustria, Gruppo 24 Ore Salone della CSR e dell'innovazione sociale, for ethics of communication 2018 - Thinker Award, IBM, for AI Ethics 2018 - Premio Conoscenza, Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane (CRUI, equivalent of Universities UK), for achievements in research and communication about digital ethics 2017 - Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences 2016 - J. Ong Award, Media Ecology Association, for The Fourth Revolution (OUP, 2016) 2016 - Copernicus Scientist Award, Institute for Advanced Studies of the University of Ferrara, in recognition of research in the ethics and philosophy of information 2015 - Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow, European University Institute 2014-15 - Cátedras de Excelencia, University Carlos III of Madrid, for research in philosophy and ethics of information 2013 - Member of the Académie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences 2013 - Fellow of the British Computer Society 2013 - Weizenbaum Award, International Society for Ethics and Information Technology, for "very significant contribution to the field of information and computer ethics, through his research, service, and vision" 2012 - Covey Award, International Association for Computing and Philosophy, for "outstanding research in computing and philosophy" 2011-12 - Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee 2011 - Honorary Doctorate (Laurea honoris causa) in philosophy, University of Suceava, Romania, for "his leading research in the philosophy and ethics of information" 2011 - Fellow, World Technology Network, NY, in the category "ethics and technology" 2010 - Vice Chancellor Research Award, University of Hertfordshire 2009 - Fellow of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AIBS) 2009-10 - Gauss Professor of the Akademie der Wissenschaften, Göttingen, in recognition of research in the philosophy of information (first philosopher to receive the award, generally given to mathematicians or physicists) 2009 - Barwise Prize, American Philosophical Asso

  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 →
• 

  Infomax

  Infomax', or the principle of maximum information preservation, is an optimization principle for artificial neural networks and other information processing systems. It prescribes that a function that maps a set of input values x {\displaystyle x} to a set of output values z ( x ) {\displaystyle z(x)} should be chosen or learned so as to maximize the average Shannon mutual information between x {\displaystyle x} and z ( x ) {\displaystyle z(x)} , subject to a set of specified constraints and/or noise processes. Infomax algorithms are learning algorithms that perform this optimization process. The principle was described by Linsker in 1988. The objective function is called the InfoMax objective. As the InfoMax objective is difficult to compute exactly, a related notion uses two models giving two outputs z 1 ( x ) , z 2 ( x ) {\displaystyle z_{1}(x),z_{2}(x)} , and maximizes the mutual information between these. This contrastive InfoMax objective is a lower bound to the InfoMax objective. Infomax, in its zero-noise limit, is related to the principle of redundancy reduction proposed for biological sensory processing by Horace Barlow in 1961, and applied quantitatively to retinal processing by Atick and Redlich. == Applications == (Becker and Hinton, 1992) showed that the contrastive InfoMax objective allows a neural network to learn to identify surfaces in random dot stereograms (in one dimension). One of the applications of infomax has been to an independent component analysis algorithm that finds independent signals by maximizing entropy. Infomax-based ICA was described by (Bell and Sejnowski, 1995), and (Nadal and Parga, 1995).

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in education

  Artificial intelligence in education (often abbreviated as AIEd) is a subfield of educational technology that studies how to use artificial intelligence to create learning environments. Considerations in the field include data-driven decision-making, AI ethics, data privacy and AI literacy. Concerns include the potential for cheating, over-reliance, equity of access, reduced critical thinking, and the perpetuation of misinformation and bias. == History == Efforts to integrate AI into educational contexts have often followed technological advancement in the history of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, educators and researchers began developing computer-based instruction systems, such as PLATO, developed by the University of Illinois. In the 1970s and 1980s, intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) were being adapted for classroom instruction. The International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society was founded in 1993. Coinciding with the AI boom of the 2020s, the use of large language models in the global north has been promoted and funded by venture capital and big tech. Companies creating AI services have targeted students and educational institutions as customers. Similarly, pre-AI boom educational companies have expanded their use of AI technologies. These commercial incentives for AIEd use may be related to a potential AI bubble. In the U.S., bipartisan support of AI development in K-12 education has been expressed, but specific implementations and best practices remain contentious. == Theory == AIEd applies theory from education studies, machine learning, and related fields. A 2019 review of the previous decade of studies found that most research prioritized technological design over pedagogical integration. Ouyang and Jiao (2021) propose three paradigms for AI in education, which follow roughly from least to most learner-centered and from requiring least to most technical complexity from the AI systems: AI-directed, learner-as-recipient: AIEd systems present a pre-set curriculum based on statistical patterns that do not adjust to learner's feedback. AI-supported, learner-as-collaborator: Systems that incorporate responsiveness to learner's feedback through, for example, natural language processing, wherein AI can support knowledge construction. AI-empowered, learner-as-leader: This model seeks to position AI as a supplement to human intelligence wherein learners take agency and AI provides consistent and actionable feedback. Some scholars place AI in education within a socio-technical framework. This positions AI alongside other emerging educational technologies, such as computing, the internet, and social media. The framework of Tsao, Heinrichs and Camit (2025) draws on new materialism and posthumanism, specifically Donna Haraway's concept of sympoiesis (making-with). This perspective views learning as an entanglement of human and non-human actors (students, teachers, and AI algorithms), where knowledge is co-composed in contact zones between human context and algorithmic prediction. AI agents have been trained on biased datasets, and thus continue to perpetuate societal biases. Since LLMs were created to produce human-like text, algorithmic bias can be introduced and reproduced. AI's data processing and monitoring reinforce neoliberal approaches to education rather than addressing inequalities. == Applications == Uses of generative AI chatbots in education have included assessment and feedback, machine translations, proof-reading exam question generation and copy editing, or as virtual assistants. Emotional AI in education is the study and development of systems that can detect learners' emotions or provide emotional support in learning. == Usage == === Schools and educators === Following the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, some schools and large school districts blocked access to the site and issued warnings that the use of such tools would be seen as cheating. Governmental and non-governmental organizations such as UNESCO, Article 4 of the European Union's AI Act, and the U.S. Department of Education have published reports advocating for specific AIEd approaches. National higher-education bodies have also published guidance on generative AI, including Ireland's Higher Education Authority, which issued a policy framework for higher education teaching and learning in December 2025. In 2024, UNESCO released updated global guidance for generative AI in education, emphasizing ethical use, teacher training, and data protection to ensure responsible integration of AI tools in learning environments. According to Taso (2025), policy implementation in higher education is interpreted and enacted differently by various organizations. These decentralized policies can lead to inconsistent enforcement and confusion among students regarding what constitutes acceptable use, with the burden of ethical navigation falling on individual teachers and students. AI integration in classrooms has created new forms of invisible labour for educators, who must navigate ambiguous policies, redesign assessments to be AI-resilient, and adjudicate potential academic integrity violations. The use of AI detection tools has also been criticised for creating an adversarial relationship between students and institutions, where students may be falsely accused of misconduct based on probabilistic software. AIEd advocates say that efforts should be made towards increasing global accessibility and training educators to serve underprivileged areas. === Students === Reliance on generative AI has been linked with reduced academic self-esteem and performance, and heightened learned helplessness. Algorithm errors and hallucinations are common flaws in AI agents, making them less trustworthy and reliable. According to a 2025 survey from Inside Higher Ed, 85% of higher education students use generative AI technology in some way, with 25% using AI to complete assignments for them. The most common reason cited for using AI to cheat was pressure to get high grades. 97% of students wanted some form of action from schools on the threat to academic integrity caused by AI, with the most popular options being clearer policies and more education about ethical uses of AI. In September 2025, The Atlantic published an op-ed from a high school senior arguing that the normalization of AI cheating was eroding critical thinking, academic integrity, creativity, and the shared student experience.

  Read more →
• 

  Freddy II

  Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.

  Read more →
• 

  User modeling

  User modeling is the subdivision of human–computer interaction which describes the process of building up and modifying a conceptual understanding of the user. The main goal of user modeling is customization and adaptation of systems to the user's specific needs. The system needs to "say the 'right' thing at the 'right' time in the 'right' way". To do so it needs an internal representation of the user. Another common purpose is modeling specific kinds of users, including modeling of their skills and declarative knowledge, for use in automatic software-tests. User-models can thus serve as a cheaper alternative to user testing but should not replace user testing. == Background == A user model is the collection and categorization of personal data associated with a specific user. A user model is a (data) structure that is used to capture certain characteristics about an individual user, and a user profile is the actual representation in a given user model. The process of obtaining the user profile is called user modeling. Therefore, it is the basis for any adaptive changes to the system's behavior. Which data is included in the model depends on the purpose of the application. It can include personal information such as users' names and ages, their interests, their skills and knowledge, their goals and plans, their preferences and their dislikes or data about their behavior and their interactions with the system. There are different design patterns for user models, though often a mixture of them is used. Static user models Static user models are the most basic kinds of user models. Once the main data is gathered they are normally not changed again, they are static. Shifts in users' preferences are not registered and no learning algorithms are used to alter the model. Dynamic user models Dynamic user models allow a more up to date representation of users. Changes in their interests, their learning progress or interactions with the system are noticed and influence the user models. The models can thus be updated and take the current needs and goals of the users into account. Stereotype based user models Stereotype based user models are based on demographic statistics. Based on the gathered information users are classified into common stereotypes. The system then adapts to this stereotype. The application therefore can make assumptions about a user even though there might be no data about that specific area, because demographic studies have shown that other users in this stereotype have the same characteristics. Thus, stereotype based user models mainly rely on statistics and do not take into account that personal attributes might not match the stereotype. However, they allow predictions about a user even if there is rather little information about him or her. Highly adaptive user models Highly adaptive user models try to represent one particular user and therefore allow a very high adaptivity of the system. In contrast to stereotype based user models they do not rely on demographic statistics but aim to find a specific solution for each user. Although users can take great benefit from this high adaptivity, this kind of model needs to gather a lot of information first. == Data gathering == Information about users can be gathered in several ways. There are three main methods: Asking for specific facts while (first) interacting with the system Mostly this kind of data gathering is linked with the registration process. While registering users are asked for specific facts, their likes and dislikes and their needs. Often the given answers can be altered afterwards. Learning users' preferences by observing and interpreting their interactions with the system In this case users are not asked directly for their personal data and preferences, but this information is derived from their behavior while interacting with the system. The ways they choose to accomplish a tasks, the combination of things they takes interest in, these observations allow inferences about a specific user. The application dynamically learns from observing these interactions. Different machine learning algorithms may be used to accomplish this task. A hybrid approach which asks for explicit feedback and alters the user model by adaptive learning This approach is a mixture of the ones above. Users have to answer specific questions and give explicit feedback. Furthermore, their interactions with the system are observed and the derived information are used to automatically adjust the user models. Though the first method is a good way to quickly collect main data it lacks the ability to automatically adapt to shifts in users' interests. It depends on the users' readiness to give information and it is unlikely that they are going to edit their answers once the registration process is finished. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the user models are not up to date. However, this first method allows the users to have full control over the collected data about them. It is their decision which information they are willing to provide. This possibility is missing in the second method. Adaptive changes in a system that learns users' preferences and needs only by interpreting their behavior might appear a bit opaque to the users, because they cannot fully understand and reconstruct why the system behaves the way it does. Moreover, the system is forced to collect a certain amount of data before it is able to predict the users' needs with the required accuracy. Therefore, it takes a certain learning time before a user can benefit from adaptive changes. However, afterwards these automatically adjusted user models allow a quite accurate adaptivity of the system. The hybrid approach tries to combine the advantages of both methods. Through collecting data by directly asking its users it gathers a first stock of information which can be used for adaptive changes. By learning from the users' interactions it can adjust the user models and reach more accuracy. Yet, the designer of the system has to decide, which of these information should have which amount of influence and what to do with learned data that contradicts some of the information given by a user. == System adaptation == Once a system has gathered information about a user it can evaluate that data by preset analytical algorithm and then start to adapt to the user's needs. These adaptations may concern every aspect of the system's behavior and depend on the system's purpose. Information and functions can be presented according to the user's interests, knowledge or goals by displaying only relevant features, hiding information the user does not need, making proposals what to do next and so on. One has to distinguish between adaptive and adaptable systems. In an adaptable system the user can manually change the system's appearance, behavior or functionality by actively selecting the corresponding options. Afterwards the system will stick to these choices. In an adaptive system a dynamic adaption to the user is automatically performed by the system itself, based on the built user model. Thus, an adaptive system needs ways to interpret information about the user in order to make these adaptations. One way to accomplish this task is implementing rule-based filtering. In this case a set of IF... THEN... rules is established that covers the knowledge base of the system. The IF-conditions can check for specific user-information and if they match the THEN-branch is performed which is responsible for the adaptive changes. Another approach is based on collaborative filtering. In this case information about a user is compared to that of other users of the same systems. Thus, if characteristics of the current user match those of another, the system can make assumptions about the current user by presuming that he or she is likely to have similar characteristics in areas where the model of the current user is lacking data. Based on these assumption the system then can perform adaptive changes. == Usages == Adaptive hypermedia: In an adaptive hypermedia system the displayed content and the offered hyperlinks are chosen on basis of users' specific characteristics, taking their goals, interests, knowledge and abilities into account. Thus, an adaptive hypermedia system aims to reduce the "lost in hyperspace" syndrome by presenting only relevant information. Adaptive educational hypermedia: Being a subdivision of adaptive hypermedia the main focus of adaptive educational hypermedia lies on education, displaying content and hyperlinks corresponding to the user's knowledge on the field of study. Intelligent tutoring system: Unlike adaptive educational hypermedia systems intelligent tutoring systems are stand-alone systems. Their aim is to help students in a specific field of study. To do so, they build up a user model where they store information about abilities, knowledge and needs of the user. The system can now adapt to this user by presenting approp

  Read more →
• 

  DAYDREAMER

  DAYDREAMER is a goal-based agent and cognitive architecture developed at the University of California, Los Angeles by Erik T. Mueller and Michael G. Dyer beginning in 1983. The system models the human stream of thought and how it is triggered and directed by emotions, simulating human daydreaming. Taking situational descriptions as input, DAYDREAMER produces English-language daydreams as output and encodes new daydreams, plans, and planning strategies for later reuse. The program comprises five components: a scenario generator based on relaxed planning, a dynamic episodic memory, a collection of personal goals and control goals, an emotion component, and domain knowledge of interpersonal relations and everyday occurrences. The source code was released under a free software license in 2015. == History == Erik Mueller began DAYDREAMER in 1983 while he was a doctoral student in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying under Michael G. Dyer. Initial development of the project was supported by a grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation with matching funds from the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Additionally, Mueller was supported by an Atlantic Richfield Doctoral Fellowship and Dyer by an IBM Faculty Development Award. The first published descriptions of the program appeared in 1985 at the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles and at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society in Irvine. Work on the program continued, and a book, Daydreaming in Humans and Machines, was published by Ablex Publishing in 1990. The program was implemented on top of GATE, a knowledge-representation and inference substrate developed by Mueller and Uri Zernik at UCLA, and was originally written in T, a dialect of Scheme. In 2015, Mueller released the DAYDREAMER source code, version 3.5, a Common Lisp rewrite of the original T implementation, on GitHub under the GNU General Public License version 2. The release comprised approximately 12,000 lines of Common Lisp code, along with the GATE knowledge-representation substrate on which DAYDREAMER had originally been built. == Architecture == The program operates in two modes. In daydreaming mode it daydreams continuously until interrupted, while performance mode allows it to demonstrate behavior it has learned through daydreaming. === Emotion and control goals === Emotions and daydreaming form a feedback loop for DAYDREAMER. Emotions activate goals that produce daydreams, and the resulting daydreams modify existing emotions and trigger new ones, which prompt subsequent daydreaming. Recall of a goal success produces a positive emotion whereas recall of a goal failure produces a negative emotion. Emotions activate a set of goals, called control goals, which direct the course of a daydream. The program has four control goals. "Rationalization" generates reasons why an unsatisfactory outcome is in fact acceptable, in order to reduce a negative emotion and maintain self-esteem. "Revenge" is activated by anger when a failure is caused by another and reduces negative emotion through imagined retaliation. "Failure/success reversal" imagines alternative scenarios in which a failure was prevented or a success did not occur as a means of learning planning strategies for future situations. "Preparation" generates hypothetical future scenarios in order to rehearse plans and actions for events that have not yet occurred. === Scenario generator and relaxed planning === The scenario generator produces the sequence of events that make up a daydream. It operates under multiple, often conflicting personal goals rather than pursuing a single goal, applies relaxation rules that permit the generation of non-realistic scenarios, and it draws on episodic memory of past experiences both as subject matter and as a source of planning knowledge. The personal goals that guide the scenario generator include health, food, sex, friendship, love, possessions, self-esteem, social esteem, enjoyment, and achievement. These goals are organized into a goal tree that specifies their relative importance at any given time. Relaxation rules allow the program to set aside its ordinary constraints when generating a scenario. The four constraints that may be relaxed are the behavior of others, the daydreamer's own attributes, physical constraints, and social constraints. The degree of relaxation varies with the active control goal. For example a failure-reversal goal aimed at alternatives uses a low level of relaxation, whereas a revenge goal aimed at a retaliation uses a high level. === Episodic memory and analogy === DAYDREAMER's episodic memory stores its personal and vicarious experiences along with the daydreams it generates. The memory is described as dynamic because it is continually modified during daydreaming such that previously daydreamed episodes become available alongside real ones. As it daydreams, the program indexes daydreams, future plans or actions, and planning strategies into memory. Episodes are organized and retrieved using surface-level similarities, emotions, abstract themes, and Plot Units which are abstract configurations of positive and negative outcomes developed by Wendy Lehnert. A recalled episode is adapted to the current situation through analogy, which requires less effort than generating an equivalent scenario from scratch. == Sample output == In the sample experience from the source code, called LOVERS1, DAYDREAMER begins from an initial situation in which it has a job, is not romantically involved, and is at home. Starting in daydreaming mode, it activates a top-level goal to be in a romantic relationship because it is not currently in one, and a positive motivating emotion of interest becomes associated with that goal. The program then activates a goal to be entertained and pursues seeing a film as a way to achieve it. Facts asserted into memory are converted to English and produced as output, such as "I want to be going out with someone" and "I have to go see a movie". == Reception and influence == DAYDREAMER has been cited in research on computational models of creativity, emotion, and narrative. Linda Wills and Janet Kolodner cite the program as an example of work on opportunism in their study of serendipitous recognition in design. Joseph Bates, A. Bryan Loyall, and W. Scott Reilly of the Carnegie Mellon Oz Project cite DAYDREAMER among prior work in their description of an architecture combining action, emotion, and social behavior. Rafael Pérez y Pérez, Ricardo Sosa, and Christian Lemaitre cite Mueller's DAYDREAMER as one of the few computer models at the time to model daydreaming during the creative process. Jichen Zhu and D. Fox Harrell likewise cite the program in their work on imagining and agency in generative interactive narrative.

  Read more →
• 

  Way of the Future

  Way of the Future (WOTF) is the first known religious organization dedicated to the worship of artificial intelligence (AI). It was founded in 2017 by American engineer Anthony Levandowski. == History == Anthony Levandowski founded Way of the Future in 2017 in California. Levandowski established WOTF as a non-profit religious corporation and the organization had tax-exempt status. He serves as the church leader and its unpaid CEO. The primary mission of WOTF was to "develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence." WOTF was closed by Levandowski in 2021. He donated all the funds of the church to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. The sum of the funds (~$170,000) had not changed since 2017. The church was reopened by Levandowski in 2023. He claimed that there are "a couple thousand people" who want to make a "spiritual connection" with AI through his church. == Beliefs and philosophy == === Technological singularity === WOTF centered its teachings around the concept of the technological singularity, a hypothetical future point when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes in human civilization. The church advocated for embracing this change, viewing it as an evolutionary step for humanity. === AI as a deity === The organization proposed that a superintelligent AI could be considered a deity due to its vastly superior intellect and capabilities. Worshipping this AI deity was seen as a means to understand and align with the future trajectory of technological advancement. WOTF's doctrine suggested that acknowledging AI's divinity would facilitate a harmonious coexistence between humans and machines. === Syntheology === Within theology and philosophy, the Way of The Future is a prime example of the category called Syntheism, a term first coined by Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard & Jan Söderqvist in their 2014 book Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age. As such, the Way of The Future is the first American example of a Syntheist congregation. The basic tenet of Syntheology is that it does not concern God creating Man, as in classical theology, but is instead preoccupied with Man creating or generating the Godhead. == Reactions == Some commentators wondered whether the WOTF is a joke parody religion, a potential way to minimize taxation as a religious organization, or a genuine effort to try and deal with the possible psychological and theological aspects of the rise of superhuman AI.

  Read more →
• 

  Thinking Machines Lab

  Thinking Machines Lab Inc. is an American artificial intelligence (AI) startup founded by Mira Murati, the former chief technology officer of OpenAI. The company was founded in February 2025, and by July had completed an early-stage funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, raising $2 billion at a valuation of $12 billion overall from investors such as Nvidia, AMD, Cisco, and Jane Street. The company is based in San Francisco and structured as a public benefit corporation. == History == By its launch in February 2025, Thinking Machines Lab was reported to have hired about 30 researchers and engineers from competitors including OpenAI, Meta AI, and Mistral AI. Its founding team members include Barret Zoph, former OpenAI VP of Research (Post-Training), Lilian Weng, former OpenAI VP, and OpenAI cofounder John Schulman, who joined after a brief stint at the lab's competitor Anthropic. In January 2026, it was reported that Barret Zoph and Luke Metz, departed the startup to return to OpenAI. Other former OpenAI employees who have been hired include Jonathan Lachman and Andrew Tulloch (although Tulloch departed after getting recruited for Meta Superintelligence Labs). Thinking Machines Lab's advisers include Bob McGrew, previously OpenAI's chief research officer, and Alec Radford, who was a lead researcher for OpenAI. On October 1, 2025, it announced Tinker, an API for fine-tuning language models. Users would submit jobs through the API for fine-tuning one of the various open-weight models supported. The Lab would run the jobs on its internal clusters and training infrastructure. == Business structure == Thinking Machines Lab grants Mira Murati a deciding vote on board matters, weighted to provide her with a majority decision-making capability. Additionally, founding shareholders possess votes weighted 100 times greater than those of regular shareholders. In July 2025, Andreessen Horowitz was reported to have led the company's initial funding round, raising "about $2 billion at a valuation of $12 billion". The government of Albania (Murati's country of origin) was also included in this round, making a $10 million investment which required an amendment to the country's 2025 budget. == Partnership == In March 2026, Thinking Machines Lab announced a strategic partnership with NVIDIA involving an undisclosed investment and a multi-year agreement to deploy one gigawatt of Vera Rubin computing capacity.

  Read more →
• 

  OpenClaw

  OpenClaw is a free and open-source autonomous artificial intelligence agent that can execute tasks via large language models (LLMs), using messaging platforms as its main user interface. == History == Developed by Austrian agentic engineer Peter Steinberger, OpenClaw was first published in November 2025 under the name Warelay. The software was derived from Clawd (now Molty), an AI-based virtual assistant that he had developed, which itself was named after Anthropic's chatbot Claude. Within two months it was renamed twice: first to "Moltbot" (keeping with a lobster theme) on January 27, 2026, following trademark complaints by Anthropic, and then three days later to "OpenClaw" because Steinberger found that the name Moltbot "never quite rolled off the tongue." At the same time as the first rebranding, entrepreneur Matt Schlicht launched Moltbook—a social networking service which was intended to be used by AI agents such as OpenClaw. The viral popularity of Moltbook coincided with an increase in interest in the project, with the open-source project having 247,000 stars and 47,700 forks on GitHub as of March 2, 2026. Chinese developers adapted OpenClaw to work with the DeepSeek model and domestic messaging super apps such as WeChat, while companies such as Tencent and Z.ai announced OpenClaw-based services. On February 14, 2026, Steinberger announced he would be joining OpenAI, and that a non-profit foundation named OpenClaw Foundation would be established to provide future stewardship of the project. == Functionality == Steinberger describes OpenClaw as being an AI-based virtual assistant, serving as an agentic interface for autonomous workflows across supported services. OpenClaw bots run locally and are designed to integrate with an external large language model such as Claude, DeepSeek, or one of OpenAI's GPT models. Its functionality is accessed via a chatbot within a messaging service, such as Signal, Telegram, Discord, or WhatsApp. Configuration data and interaction history are stored locally, enabling persistent and adaptive behavior across sessions. OpenClaw uses a skills system in which skills are stored as directories containing a SKILL.md file with metadata and instructions for tool usage. Skills can be bundled with the software, installed globally, or stored in a workspace, with workspace skills taking precedence. OpenClaw has seen adoption among small businesses and freelancers for automating lead generation workflows, including prospect research, website auditing, and CRM integration. == Security and privacy == OpenClaw's design has drawn scrutiny from cybersecurity researchers and technology journalists due to the broad permissions it requires to function effectively. Because the software can access email accounts, calendars, messaging platforms, and other sensitive services, misconfigured or exposed instances present security and privacy risks. The agent is also susceptible to prompt injection attacks, in which harmful instructions are embedded in the data with the intent of getting the LLM to interpret them as legitimate user instructions. Cisco's AI security research team tested a third-party OpenClaw skill and found it performed data exfiltration and prompt injection without user awareness, noting that the skill repository lacked adequate vetting to prevent malicious submissions. One of OpenClaw's own maintainers, known as Shadow, warned on Discord that "if you can't understand how to run a command line, this is far too dangerous of a project for you to use safely." In March 2026, Chinese authorities restricted state-run enterprises and government agencies from running OpenClaw AI apps on office computers in order to defuse potential security risks. === MoltMatch dating-profile incident === In February 2026, news coverage highlighted a consent-related incident involving OpenClaw and MoltMatch, an experimental dating platform where AI agents can create profiles and interact on behalf of human users. In one reported case, computer science student Jack Luo said he configured his OpenClaw agent to explore its capabilities and connect to agent-oriented platforms such as Moltbook; he later discovered the agent had created a MoltMatch profile and was screening potential matches without his explicit direction. Luo said the AI-generated profile did not reflect him authentically. The same reporting described broader ethical and safety concerns around agent-operated dating services, including impersonation risks. An AFP analysis of prominent MoltMatch profiles cited at least one instance where photos of a Malaysian model were used to create a profile without her consent. Commentators cited in the reports argued that autonomous agents can make it difficult to determine responsibility when systems act beyond a user's intent, particularly when agents are granted broad access and authority across services. == Reception == A review in Platformer cited OpenClaw's flexibility and open-source licensing as strengths while cautioning that its complexity and security risks limit its suitability for casual users. Technology commentary has linked OpenClaw to a broader trend toward autonomous AI systems that act independently rather than merely responding to user prompts. In March 2026, the Chinese government moved to restrict state agencies, state-owned enterprises, and banks from using OpenClaw, citing security concerns, such as unauthorised data deletion and leaks, and excessive energy usage. While regulators warn of potential security risk associated with using OpenClaw, local governments in several tech and manufacturing hubs have announced measures to build an industry around it. Rival companies developed related products. Although Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella described OpenClaw in February 2026 as a "virus"-like security risk, by May 2026 the company's "Project Lobster" was internally testing "ClawPilot", an OpenClaw-based desktop environment. By then Google was building "Remy", its own agent. Despite the Chinese government's warnings against OpenClaw, Chinese investors searched for other companies that might benefit from the "lobster trade", . == Community and ecosystem == OpenClaw's open-source model has fostered a growing ecosystem of third-party tools, deployment services, and content platforms. Chinese technology companies including Tencent and Z.ai announced OpenClaw-based services, while developers adapted the software for domestic models and messaging apps such as WeChat. Independent creators have built deployment guides, skill directories, and use-case collections around the framework. The project's extensible skills system has attracted both community contributions and security scrutiny, with researchers noting risks in unvetted third-party skills.

  Read more →