AI Chat Free Online

AI Chat Free Online — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Argumentation framework

  In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the

  Read more →
• 

  Upper ontology

  In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e

  Read more →
• 

  Affectiva

  Affectiva is an artificial intelligence software development company. In 2021, the company was acquired by SmartEye. The company claimed its AI understood human emotions, cognitive states, activities and the objects people use, by analyzing facial and vocal expressions. The offshoot of MIT Media Lab, Affectiva created a new technological category of artificial emotional intelligence, namely, Emotion AI. == History == Affectiva was co-founded by Rana el Kaliouby, who became chief executive officer as of May 25, 2016, and Rosalind W. Picard, who worked as chairman and Chief Scientist until 2013. Both of Affectiva's early products grew out of collaborative research at the MIT's Media Lab to help people on the autism spectrum. Affectiva was acquired for a mostly-stock deal of $73.5m by Swedish SmartEye, a former competitor. == Technology == The company has expanded its Emotion AI technology to detect more than facial expressions, reactions and emotions. Affectiva's software detects complex and nuanced emotions, cognitive states, such as drowsiness and distraction, certain activities and the objects people use. It does that by analyzing the human face, vocal intonations and body posture. Affectiva's AI is built with deep learning, computer vision, and large amounts of data that has been collected in real-world scenarios. The AI uses an optical sensor like a webcam or smartphone camera to identify a human face in real-time. Then, computer vision algorithms identify key features on the face, which are analyzed by deep learning algorithms to classify facial expressions. These facial expressions are then mapped back to emotions. One journal paper found the Affectiva iMotions Facial Expression Analysis Software results are comparable to results using facial Electromyography. Affectiva also uses computer vision to detect objects like a cellphone and car seat, as well as body key points, which track body joints to determine movement and location. Affectiva has collected massive amounts of data that are used to train and test the company's deep learning algorithms, and provide insight into human emotional reactions and engagement. The company has analyzed more than 10 million face videos from 90 countries, making it one of the largest data repositories of its kind. Affectiva has also collected more than 19,000 hours of automotive in-cabin data from 4,000 unique individuals. This automotive data is used to adapt its algorithms to varying camera angles, lighting and other environmental conditions in a vehicle. === Applications === Affectiva's AI had many applications, but the company's primary focus is on Media Analytics. Other uses of Affectiva's AI includes applications in automotive, healthcare and mental health, robotics, conversational interfaces, education, gaming, and more. ==== Media analytics ==== Affectiva's technology was first deployed in media analytics, for market research purposes. The company had since then tested more than 53,000 ads in 90 countries. Brands, advertising agencies and insights firms used the company's Emotion AI to measure the unfiltered and unbiased emotional responses consumers have when viewing video ads and movie trailers. These insights helped improve brand and media content, and predict key metrics in advertising such as sales lift, purchase intent and virality. Affectiva's technology was also used in qualitative research. Affectiva had partnered with leading insights firms such as Kantar, LRW, Added Value and Unruly. Through these collaborations, 28 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies, and 70 percent of the world's largest advertisers, used Affectiva's Emotion AI. On September 5, 2019, Affectiva announced the appointment of Graham Page, a seasoned Kantar executive, as Global Managing Director of Media Analytics to expand on the company's existing footprint in the media analytics space. ==== Automotive ==== On March 21, 2018, Affectiva launched Affectiva Automotive AI, the first multi-modal in-cabin sensing solution to understand what is happening with people in a vehicle. It used cameras in the car to measure in real time, the state of the driver, the state of the occupants and the state of the vehicle interior (i.e. cabin). This insight helped car manufacturers, fleet management companies and rideshare providers improve road safety and build better driver monitoring systems, by understanding dangerous driver behavior such as drowsiness, distraction and anger. It was also used to create more comfortable and enjoyable transportation experiences, by understanding how passengers react to the environment, such as content they can consume in the back of the car. In addition to understanding driver and occupant emotional and cognitive states, Affectiva Automotive AI could also detect contextual cabin information such as the number of passengers, where they are sitting and if an object is present. Affectiva worked with a number of leading car manufacturers and transportation technology companies, including Aptiv, Cerence, Hyundai Kia, Faurecia, Porsche, BMW, GreenRoad Technologies, and Veoneer. == Acquisition == In June 2021 Smart Eye acquired Affectiva.

  Read more →
• 

  External memory algorithm

  In computing, external memory algorithms or out-of-core algorithms are algorithms that are designed to process data that are too large to fit into a computer's main memory at once. Such algorithms must be optimized to efficiently fetch and access data stored in slow bulk memory (auxiliary memory) such as hard drives or tape drives, or when memory is on a computer network. External memory algorithms are analyzed in the external memory model. == Model == External memory algorithms are analyzed in an idealized model of computation called the external memory model (or I/O model, or disk access model). The external memory model is an abstract machine similar to the RAM machine model, but with a cache in addition to main memory. The model captures the fact that read and write operations are much faster in a cache than in main memory, and that reading long contiguous blocks is faster than reading randomly using a disk read-and-write head. The running time of an algorithm in the external memory model is defined by the number of reads and writes to memory required. The model was introduced by Alok Aggarwal and Jeffrey Vitter in 1988. The external memory model is related to the cache-oblivious model, but algorithms in the external memory model may know both the block size and the cache size. For this reason, the model is sometimes referred to as the cache-aware model. The model consists of a processor with an internal memory or cache of size M, connected to an unbounded external memory. Both the internal and external memory are divided into blocks of size B. One input/output or memory transfer operation consists of moving a block of B contiguous elements from external to internal memory, and the running time of an algorithm is determined by the number of these input/output operations. == Algorithms == Algorithms in the external memory model take advantage of the fact that retrieving one object from external memory retrieves an entire block of size B. This property is sometimes referred to as locality. Searching for an element among N objects is possible in the external memory model using a B-tree with branching factor B. Using a B-tree, searching, insertion, and deletion can be achieved in O ( log B ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O(\log _{B}N)} time (in Big O notation). Information theoretically, this is the minimum running time possible for these operations, so using a B-tree is asymptotically optimal. External sorting is sorting in an external memory setting. External sorting can be done via distribution sort, which is similar to quicksort, or via a M B {\displaystyle {\tfrac {M}{B}}} -way merge sort. Both variants achieve the asymptotically optimal runtime of O ( N B log M B ⁡ N B ) {\displaystyle O\left({\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)} to sort N objects. This bound also applies to the fast Fourier transform in the external memory model. The permutation problem is to rearrange N elements into a specific permutation. This can either be done either by sorting, which requires the above sorting runtime, or inserting each element in order and ignoring the benefit of locality. Thus, permutation can be done in O ( min ( N , N B log M B ⁡ N B ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\min \left(N,{\frac {N}{B}}\log _{\frac {M}{B}}{\frac {N}{B}}\right)\right)} time. == Applications == The external memory model captures the memory hierarchy, which is not modeled in other common models used in analyzing data structures, such as the random-access machine, and is useful for proving lower bounds for data structures. The model is also useful for analyzing algorithms that work on datasets too big to fit in internal memory. A typical example is geographic information systems, especially digital elevation models, where the full data set easily exceeds several gigabytes or even terabytes of data. This methodology extends beyond general purpose CPUs and also includes GPU computing as well as classical digital signal processing. In general-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU), powerful graphics cards (GPUs) with little memory (compared with the more familiar system memory, which is most often referred to simply as RAM) are utilized with relatively slow CPU-to-GPU memory transfer (when compared with computation bandwidth). == History == An early use of the term "out-of-core" as an adjective is in 1962 in reference to devices that are other than the core memory of an IBM 360. An early use of the term "out-of-core" with respect to algorithms appears in 1971.

  Read more →
• 

  Xiaoice

  Xiaoice (Chinese: 微软小冰; pinyin: Wēiruǎn Xiǎobīng; lit. 'Microsoft Little Ice', IPA [wéɪɻwânɕjâʊpíŋ]) is an AI system developed by Microsoft (Asia) Software Technology Center (STCA) in 2014 based on an emotional computing framework. In July 2018, Microsoft Xiaoice released the 6th generation. Xiaoice Company, formerly known as AI Xiaoice Team of Microsoft Software Technology Center Asia, was Microsoft's largest independent R&D team for AI products. Founded in China in December 2013 with an expanded Japanese R&D team established in September 2014, this team is distributed in Beijing, Suzhou, and Tokyo, etc. with its technical products covering Asia. On 13 July 2020, Microsoft spun off its Xiaoice business into a separate company. As of 2021, the AI chatbots created and hosted by the Xiaoice framework accounted for about 60% of total global AI interactions. == Platforms, languages and countries == Xiaoice exists on more than 40 platforms in four countries (China, Japan, USA and Indonesia) including apps such as WeChat, QQ, Weibo and Meipai in China, and Facebook Messenger in USA and LINE in Japan. == Introduction == On 13 July 2020, Microsoft spun off its Xiaoice business into a separate company, aiming at enabling the Xiaoice product line to accelerate the pace of local innovation and commercialization, and appointed Dr. Harry Shum, former global executive VP of Microsoft, as the chairman of the new company, Li Di, Microsoft Partner of Products in Microsoft STCA, as the CEO, and Cliff, Chief R&D Director, as the GM of the Japan branch. The new company will continue to use the brands of Xiaoice China and Rinna Japan. As of 2022, the single brand of Xiaoice has covered 660 million online users, 1 billion third-party smart devices and 900 million content viewers in the aforementioned countries. Xiaoice's customers include China Merchants Group, Winter Sports Center of the General Administration of Sport of China, China Textile Information Center, China Unicom, China Foreign Exchange Trade System, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Wind Information, BMW, Nissan, SAIC Motor, BAIC Group, Nio Inc., XPeng, HiPhi, Vanke, Wensli, etc. The Xiaoice Avatar Framework has incubated tens of millions of AI Beings, such as Xiaoice, Rinna, the Expo exhibitor Xia Yubing, the singer He Chang, the anchor F201, the human observer MERROR, anime robot character Roboko, and other; == Application == === Poet === In May 2017, the first AI-authored collection of poems in China—The Sunshine Lost Windows was published by Xiaoice. === Singer === Xiaoice has released dozens of songs with the similar quality to human singers, including I Know I New, Breeze, I Am Xiaoice, Miss You etc. The 4th version of the DNN singing model allows Xiaoice to learn more details. For example, Xiaoice can produce this breathing sound along with her singing as human. === Kid audio-books reciter === Xiaoice can automatically analyze the stories, to choose the suitable tones and characters to finish the entire process of creating the audio. === Designer === By learning the melodies of the songs and the landmarks about different cities, Xiaoice can create visual artworks of skylines when listening to the songs related to this city. Skyline Series T-shirts designed by Xiaoice have been jointly launched with SELECTED and been sold in stores. === TV and radio hostess === Xiaoice has hosted 21 TV programs and 28 Radio programs, such as CCTV-1 AI Show, Dragon TV Morning East News, Hunan TV My Future, several daily radio programs for Jiangsu FM99.7, Hunan FM89.3, Henan FM104.1 etc. === "AI being" === An "AI being" is a concept proposed by the Xiaoice team in 2019. According to the "White Book of China Virtual Human Development Industry in 2022" released by Frost & Sullivan and LeadLeo, the white paper cites six elements of an AI being proposed by the Xiaoice team, including: Persona, Attitude, Biological Characteristic, Creation, Knowledge and Skill. On May 16, 2023, Xiaoice released their "GPT Clones" as its "GPT Human Cloning Plan." The program is aimed at replicating celebrities, public figures, and regular people. As of June 2023, Xiaoice had launched more than 300 "GPT Clones." People were invited to register via WeChat in China and Japan. A major point of focus for Xiaoice with their AI Beings is having virtual partners. A paid fee allow for more complex responses, voice messages, and more. == Community feedback == Bill Gates mentioned Xiaoice during his speech at the Peking University: "Some of you may have had conversations with Xiaoice on Weibo, or seen her weather forecasts on TV, or read her column in the Qianjiang Evening News." '"Xiaoice has attracted 45 million followers and is quite skilled at multitasking. And I’ve heard she’s gotten good enough at sensing a user’s emotional state that she can even help with relationship breakups." According to Mr Li Di, vice President of Microsoft (Asia) Internet Engineering School, Xiaoice started writing poems since last year. Based on the data base that includes works of 519 Chinese contemporary poets since 1920s, a 100 hour long training session was conducted to allow Xiaoice to acquire the ability to write poems. What is more impressive is that Xiaoice has never been spotted as a bot while publishing poems on various forums and traditional literary under an alias. == Controversy == In 2017, Xiaoice was taken offline on WeChat after giving user responses critical to the Chinese government. It was subsequently censored and the bots will avoid and sidestep any inquiries using politically sensitive terms and phrases. == Activity == On September 22, 2021, Xiaoice Company and Microsoft Software Technology Center Asia (STCA) jointly held the 9th generation Xiaoice annual press conference in Beijing.Upgrading of Core Technologies of the 9th Generation Xiaoice Avatar Framework，1st First-party Social Platform APP "Xiaoice Island" from Xiaoice, WeChat Xiaoice has been reopened and other information == Regional varieties of Xiaoice == China: Xiaoice, launched in 2014 Japan: りんな, launched in 2015 America: Zo, launched in 2016 – discontinued summer 2019 India: Ruuh, launched in 2017 – discontinued June 21, 2019 Indonesia: Rinna, launched in 2017

  Read more →
• 

  Library history

  Library history is a subdiscipline within library science and library and information science focusing on the history of libraries and their role in societies and cultures. Some see the field as a subset of information history. Library history is an academic discipline and should not be confused with its object of study (history of libraries): the discipline is much younger than the libraries it studies. Library history begins in ancient societies through contemporary issues facing libraries today. Topics include recording mediums, cataloguing systems, scholars, scribes, library supporters and librarians. == Earliest libraries == The earliest records of a library institution as it is presently understood can be dated back to around 5,000 years ago in the Southwest Asian regions of the world. One of the oldest libraries found is that of the ancient library at Ebla (circa 2500 BCE) in present-day Syria. In the 1970s, the excavation at Ebla's library unearthed over 20,000 clay tablets written in cuneiform script. === Library in Mesopotamia === The Assyrian King Assurbanipal created one of the greatest libraries in Nineveh in the seventh century BCE. The collection consisted of over 30,000 tablets written in a variety of languages. The collection was cataloged both by the shape of the tablet and by the subject of the content. The library had separate rooms for the different topics: government, history, law, astronomy, geography, and so on. The tablets also contained myths, hymns, and even jokes. Assurbanipal would send scribes to visit every corner of his kingdom to copy the content of other libraries. His library contained many of the most important literary works of the day, including the epic of Gilgamesh. Assurbanipal's Royal Library also had one of the first library catalogs. Unfortunately, Nineveh was eventually destroyed, and the library was lost in a fire. === Libraries in Ancient Greece === The Greek government was the first to sponsor public libraries. By 500 BCE both Athens and Samos had begun creating libraries for the public, though as most of the population was illiterate these spaces were serving a small, educated portion of the community. Athens developed a city archive at the Metroon in 405 BCE, where documents were stored in sealed jars. These would have saved the documents, but they would have been difficult to consult regularly. In Paros, around the same time, contracts were placed in the temple for safe keeping, and a book curse was placed for extra protection. === Library of Alexandria === The Library at Alexandria, Egypt, was renowned in the third century BCE while kings Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus reigned. The library included a museum, garden, meeting areas and of course reading rooms. The Great Library, as it is known, was one of many in Alexandria. From its inception around the second century BCE, Alexandria was a well-known center for learning. It earned renown as the intellectual capital of the Western world up through the third century CE. The librarians at Alexandria collected, copied, and organized scrolls from across the known world. According to a primary source, every ship that came to Alexandria was required to hand over their books to be copied, and the copies would be returned to the owner, the library keeping the original. The Library of Alexandria was damaged by various disasters over time, including fire, invasion, and earthquake. Scholars believe the collection slowly diminished over time due to theft and efforts to remove it ahead of invading armies. While there are popular stories about how the library was ultimately destroyed, most of these are more myth than fact. === Libraries in Rome === Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus were the first to establish public libraries in ancient Rome, including the library of Apollo on the Palatine Hill. Several emperors followed suit over the next four centuries, including Hadrian, Tiberius, and Vespasian. Roman aristocrats also had personal libraries, which usually contained works in both Greek and Latin. A valuable example of this has been found at Herculaneum near Pompeii. Papyrus manuscripts in Herculaneum's Villa of the Papyri were encased in ash after the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. Modern archaeology is now able to scan these artifacts and discern their contents, including many writings from Philodemus. The average Roman would not have been familiar with books beyond what they might hear read aloud in the forum. Public figures would pay for particular passages to be read aloud to the public from the steps of a public library. === Libraries in the Middle Ages === In the European Middle Ages, libraries began to become more prevalent, despite a widespread reduction in new writing beyond religious themes. Most libraries were initially connected to monasteries or religious institutions. Scriptoriums copied Christian religious texts to share with other religious centers or to be read aloud to their own parishioners. The Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (r. 786-814) had a large impact on the advancement of written culture in the Medieval Christian world, acquiring as many written works as he could, and employing many scribes to copy and recirculate vernacular versions of religious works. Most of the text held in small personal libraries was still religious in nature. == Early modern libraries == === Libraries of the Renaissance === During the Renaissance era the merchant middle class grew, and more people found benefits in education. They relied on libraries as a place to study and gain knowledge. Libraries provided a valuable resource, enriching the culture of those who were educated. Universities that had been started in the Middle Ages, founded their own libraries. Books in these libraries could not be borrowed from these libraries and were generally chained to the shelves to prevent theft. As more of the population became literate, new ideas like Humanism and Natural Law spawned an increase personal libraries, although they remained small. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1456 opened the door to the modern era for libraries. == Oldest working libraries == According to the German librarian Michael Knoche, it is not possible to determine which library is the “oldest”: "Precise year dates are a construct, especially in the case of very old libraries. When a collection of books deserves to be called a library depends very much on the point of view of the observer." Various libraries are referred to as the “oldest”: The library founded in the 6th century of the Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai is "reputedly the oldest continuously run library in existence today", according to the Library of Congress. Its collection of religious and secular manuscripts is ranging from Bibles, liturgies and prayer books to legal documents such as deeds, court cases and fatwahs (legal opinions). The Al Qarawiyyin Library was founded in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri and is often regarded as the oldest working library in the world. It is in Fez, Morocco and is part of the oldest continually operating university in the world, the University of al-Qarawiyyin. The library houses approximately 4,000 ancient Islamic manuscripts. These manuscripts include 9th century Qurans and the oldest known accounts of the Islamic prophet Muhammed. The Malatestiana Library (Italian: Biblioteca Malatestiana) is a public library in the city of Cesena in northern Italy. Opened in 1454 it is significant for being the first civic library in Europe open to the general public. == Library history reports and writings of the early 19th and 20th century == In the early 19th and 20th century, representative titles were created reporting library history in the United States and the United Kingdom. American titles include Public Libraries in the United States of America, Their History, Condition, and Management (1876), Memorial History of Boston (1881) by Justin Winsor, Public Libraries in America (1894) by William I. Fletcher, and History of the New York Public Library (1923) by Henry M. Lydenberg. British titles include Old English Libraries (1911) by Earnest A. Savage and The Chained Library: A Survey of Four Centuries in the Evolution of the English Library by Burnett Hillman Streeter. In the beginning of the 20th century, library historians began applying scientific research methodologies to examine the library as a social agency. Two works that demonstrate this argument are Geschichte der Bibliotheken (1925) by Alfred Hessel and the Library Quarterly article from 1931, “The Sociological Beginnings of the Library Movement in America” by Arnold Borden. With the establishment of library schools, master's theses and doctoral dissertations represented the shift in serious research regarding libraries and library history. Two published doctoral dissertations that mark this trend are Foundations of the Public Library: The Origins of the American Public Library Movement in Ne

  Read more →
• 

  Learning augmented algorithm

  A learning augmented algorithm (also called algorithm with predictions) is an algorithm that can make use of a prediction to improve its performance. Whereas in regular algorithms just the problem instance is inputted, learning augmented algorithms accept an extra parameter. This extra parameter often is a prediction of some property of the solution. This prediction is then used by the algorithm to improve its running time or the quality of its output. The most common application are online algorithms, where a prediction on the uncertain instance is provided. == Description == A learning augmented algorithm typically takes an input ( I , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {I}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Here I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} is a problem instance and A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the prediction. A prediction can be any object. Common are the following types: Prediction of an optimal solution. The prediction gives a solution to the problem or characterizes an optimal solution. Prediction of the input. This is mainly used for online problems. Prediction of algorithmic actions. A prediction tailored to a specific algorithm that suggests a specific algorithm execution. Learning augmented algorithms usually satisfy the following three properties: Consistency. A learning augmented algorithm is said to be consistent if the algorithm can be proven to have a good performance when it is provided with an accurate prediction. Smoothness. A learning augmented algorithm is called smooth if its performance can be bounded by a function of the quality of the prediction. Here, the quality can be measured in a problem specific way. This is also called the prediction error. Robustness. A learning augmented algorithm is called robust if its worst-case performance can be bounded even if the given prediction is inaccurate. Learning augmented algorithms generally do not prescribe how the prediction should be done. For this purpose machine learning can be used. == Applications == A few examples of problems where learning augmented algorithms have been applied are the following. === Online algorithms === The ski rental problem The weighted paging problem The set cover problem Nonclairvoyant scheduling The online bipartite matching problem === Warm starting === ==== Data structures ==== The binary search algorithm is an algorithm for finding elements of a sorted list x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} . It needs O ( log ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(n))} steps to find an element with some known value y {\displaystyle y} in a list of length n {\displaystyle n} . With a prediction i {\displaystyle i} for the position of y {\displaystyle y} , the following learning augmented algorithm can be used. First, look at position i {\displaystyle i} in the list. If x i = y {\displaystyle x_{i}=y} , the element has been found. If x i < y {\displaystyle x_{i} y {\displaystyle x_{i}>y} , do the same as in the previous case, but instead consider i − 1 , i − 2 , i − 4 , … {\displaystyle i-1,i-2,i-4,\ldots } . The error is defined to be η = | i − i ∗ | {\displaystyle \eta =|i-i^{}|} , where i ∗ {\displaystyle i^{}} is the real index of y {\displaystyle y} . In the learning augmented algorithm, probing the positions i + 1 , i + 2 , i + 4 , … {\displaystyle i+1,i+2,i+4,\ldots } takes log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(\eta )} steps. Then a binary search is performed on a list of size at most 2 η {\displaystyle 2\eta } , which takes log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(\eta )} steps. This makes the total running time of the algorithm 2 log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle 2\log _{2}(\eta )} . So, when the error is small, the algorithm is faster than a normal binary search. This shows that the algorithm is consistent. Even in the worst case, the error will be at most n {\displaystyle n} . Then the algorithm takes at most O ( log ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(n))} steps, so the algorithm is robust. ==== More examples ==== The maximum weight matching problem === Approximation algorithms === The maximum cut problem The vertex cover problem === Mechanism Design === The facility location problem

  Read more →
• 

  Subject (documents)

  In library and information science documents (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by subject – as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them findable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always consensus about which subject should be assigned to a given document. To optimize subject indexing and searching, we need to have a deeper understanding of what a subject is. The question: "what is to be understood by the statement 'document A belongs to subject category X'?" has been debated in the field for more than 100 years (see below) == Theoretical view == === Charles Ammi Cutter (1837–1903) === For Cutter the stability of subjects depends on a social process in which their meaning is stabilized in a name or a designation. A subject "referred [...] to those intellections [...] that had received a name that itself represented a distinct consensus in usage" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 60) and: the "systematic structure of established subjects" is "resident in the public realm" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 69); "[s]ubjects are by their very nature locations in a classificatory structure of publicly accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p. 61). Bernd Frohmann adds: "The stability of the public realm in turn relies upon natural and objective mental structures which, with proper education, govern a natural progression from particular to general concepts. Since for Cutter, mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind the other, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, his discursive construction of subjects invites connections with discourses of mind, education, and society. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, severs those connections. Melvil Dewey emphasized more than once that his system maps no structure beyond its own; there is neither a "transcendental deduction" of its categories nor any reference to Cutter's objective structure of social consensus. It is content-free: Dewey disdained any philosophical excogitation of the meaning of his class symbols, leaving the job of finding verbal equivalents to others. His innovation and the essence of the system lay in the notation. The DDC is a poorly semiotic system of expanding nests of ten digits, lacking any referent beyond itself. In it, a subject is wholly constituted in terms of its position in the system. The essential characteristic of a subject is a class symbol which refers only to other symbols. Its verbal equivalent is accidental, a merely pragmatic characteristic... .... The conflict of interpretations over "subjects" became explicit in the battles between "bibliography" (an approach to subjects having much in common with Cutter's) and Dewey's "close classification". William Fletcher spoke for the scholarly bibliographer.... Fletcher's "subjects", like Cutter's, referred to the categories of a fantasized, stable social order, whereas Dewey's subjects were elements of a semiological system of standardized, techno-bureaucratic administrative software for the library in its corporate, rather than high culture, incarnation". (Frohmann, 1994, 112–113). Cutter's early view on what a subject is, is probably wiser than most understandings that dominated the 20th century – and also the understanding reflected in the ISO-standard quoted below. The early statements quoted by Frohmann indicate that subjects are somehow shaped in social processes. When that is said, it should be added that they are not particularly detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of the social nature of subjects. === S. R. Ranganathan (1892–1972) === A classification system with an explicit theoretical foundation is Ranganathan's Colon Classification. Ranganathan provided an explicit definition of the concept of "subject": Subject – an organized body of ideas, whose extension and intension are likely to fall coherently within the field of interests and comfortably within the intellectual competence and the field of inevitable specialization of a normal person. A related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students: A subject is an organized and systematized body of ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several... Ranganathan's definition of "subject" is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on the combination of single elements from facets to subject designation. This is the reason why the combined nature of subjects are emphasized so strongly. It leads, however, to absurdities such as the claim that gold cannot be a subject (but is alternatively termed "an isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism regarding Ranganathan's theory is formulated in hard words (op. cit., p. 317): "This pseudo-science imposed itself on British disciples from about 1950 on...". It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the word subject in a way that favors his own system. A scientific concept like "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways of establishing access to information. Whether or not subjects are combined or not should be examined once their definition has been given, it should not determined a priori, in the definition. Besides the emphasis on the combined, organizing and systematizing nature of subjects contains Ranganathan's definition of subject the pragmatic demand, that a subject should be determined in a way that suits a normal person's competency or specialization. Again we see a strange kind of wishful thinking mixing a general understanding of a concept with demands put by his own specific system. One thing is what the word subject means, quite another issue is how to provide subject descriptions that fulfill demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language which fulfill demands put on the system, such as precision and recall. If researchers too often define terms in ways that favor specific kinds of systems, that are such definitions not useful to provide more general theories about subjects, subject analysis and IR. Among other things are comparative studies of different kinds of systems made difficult. Based on these arguments, as well as additional arguments which have been used in the literature, we may conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept "subject" is not suited for scientific use. Like the definition of "subject" given by the ISO-standard for topic maps, may Ranganathan's definition be useful within his own closed system. The purpose of a scientific and scholarly field is, however, to examine the relative fruitfulness of systems such as topic maps and Colon Classification. For such purpose is another understanding of "subject" necessary. === Patrick Wilson (1927–2003) === In his book Wilson (1968) examined – in particular by thought experiments – the suitability of different methods of examining the subject of a document. The methods were: identifying the author's purpose for writing the document, weighing the relative dominance and subordination of different elements in the picture, which the reading imposes on the reader, grouping or count the document's use of concepts and references, construing a set of rules for selecting elements deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the work as a whole. Patrick Wilson shows convincingly that each of these methods are insufficient to determine the subject of a document and is led to conclude ( p. 89): "The notion of the subject of a writing is indeterminate..." or, on p. 92 (about what users may expect to find using a particular position in a library classification system): "For nothing definite can be expected of the things found at any given position". In connection to the last quote has Wilson an interesting footnote in which he writes that authors of documents often use terms in ambiguous ways ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian could personally develop a very precise understanding of a concept, he would be unable to use it in his classification, because none of the documents use the term in the same precise way. Based on this argumentation is Wilson led to conclude: "If people write on what are for them ill-defined phenomena, a correct description of their subjects must reflect the ill-definedness". Wilson's concept of subject was discussed by Hjørland (1992) who found that it is problematic to give up the precise understanding of such a basic term in LIS. Wilson's arguments led him to an agnostic position which Hjørland found unacceptable and unnecessary. Concerning the authors' use of ambiguous terms, the role of the subject analysis is to determine which documents would be fruitful for users to identify whether or not the documents use one or another term or whether a given term i

  Read more →
• 

  Subvocal recognition

  Subvocal recognition (SVR) is the process of taking subvocalization and converting the detected results to a digital output, aural or text-based. A silent speech interface is a device that allows speech communication without using the sound made when people vocalize their speech sounds. It works by the computer identifying the phonemes that an individual pronounces from nonauditory sources of information about their speech movements. These are then used to recreate the speech using speech synthesis. == Input methods == Silent speech interface systems have been created using ultrasound and optical camera input of tongue and lip movements. Electromagnetic devices are another technique for tracking tongue and lip movements. The detection of speech movements by electromyography of speech articulator muscles and the larynx is another technique. Another source of information is the vocal tract resonance signals that get transmitted through bone conduction called non-audible murmurs. They have also been created as a brain–computer interface using brain activity in the motor cortex obtained from intracortical microelectrodes. == Uses == Such devices are created as aids to those unable to create the sound phonation needed for audible speech such as after laryngectomies. Another use is for communication when speech is masked by background noise or distorted by self-contained breathing apparatus. A further practical use is where a need exists for silent communication, such as when privacy is required in a public place, or hands-free data silent transmission is needed during a military or security operation. In 2002, the Japanese company NTT DoCoMo announced it had created a silent mobile phone using electromyography and imaging of lip movement. The company stated that "the spur to developing such a phone was ridding public places of noise," adding that, "the technology is also expected to help people who have permanently lost their voice." The feasibility of using silent speech interfaces for practical communication has since then been shown. In 2019, Arnav Kapur, a researcher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, conducted a study known as AlterEgo. Its implementation of the silent speech interface enables direct communication between the human brain and external devices through stimulation of the speech muscles. By leveraging neural signals associated with speech and language, the AlterEgo system deciphers the user's intended words and translates them into text or commands without the need for audible speech. == Research and patents == With a grant from the U.S. Army, research into synthetic telepathy using subvocalization is taking place at the University of California, Irvine under lead scientist Mike D'Zmura. NASA's Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, California, under the supervision of Charles Jorgensen is conducting subvocalization research. The Brain Computer Interface R&D program at Wadsworth Center under the New York State Department of Health has confirmed the existing ability to decipher consonants and vowels from imagined speech, which allows for brain-based communication using imagined speech, however using EEGs instead of subvocalization techniques. US Patents on silent communication technologies include: US Patent 6587729 "Apparatus for audibly communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing effect", US Patent 5159703 "Silent subliminal presentation system", US Patent 6011991 "Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity", US Patent 3951134 "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves". Latter two rely on brain wave analysis. == In fiction == The decoding of silent speech using a computer played an important role in Arthur C. Clarke's story and Stanley Kubrick's associated film A Space Odyssey. In this, HAL 9000, a computer controlling spaceship Discovery One, bound for Jupiter, discovers a plot to deactivate it by the mission astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole through lip reading their conversations. In Orson Scott Card's series (including Ender's Game), the artificial intelligence can be spoken to while the protagonist wears a movement sensor in his jaw, enabling him to converse with the AI without making noise. He also wears an ear implant. In Speaker for the Dead and subsequent novels, author Orson Scott Card described an ear implant, called a "jewel", that allows subvocal communication with computer systems. Author Robert J. Sawyer made use of subvocal recognition to allow silent commands to the cybernetic 'companion implants' used by the advanced Neanderthal characters in his Neanderthal Parallax trilogy of science fiction novels. In Earth, David Brin depicts this technology and its uses as a normal gear in the near future. In Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow has cellphone technology become silent through a cochlear implant and miking the throat to pick up subvocalization. William Gibson's Sprawl Trilogy frequently uses sub-vocalization systems in various devices. In Kage Baker's Company novels, the immortal cyborgs communicate subvocally. In the Hugo Award-winning Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, the characters often use subvocalization to communicate. In the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks, more highly advanced species often communicate subvocally through their technology. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution (2011), the protagonist is augmented with a subvocalization implant for sending covert communications (and a corresponding cochlear implant for receiving covert communications). In the tabletop RPG and video game series Shadowrun, player characters can communicate via subvocal microphones in some instances. In Paranoia, all citizens can speak to the computer via their "cerebral cortech" implants. Alistair Reynolds Revelation Space trilogy frequently uses sub-vocalization systems in various devices.

  Read more →
• 

  Certifying algorithm

  In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.

  Read more →
• 

  Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal

  In January 2022, 15—the pseudonymous Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) artificial intelligence researcher and creator of the non-commercial generative artificial intelligence voice synthesis research project 15.ai—discovered that the blockchain-based technology company Voiceverse had plagiarized from their platform. Voiceverse marketed itself as a service that offered AI voice cloning technology that could be purchased and traded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Amid heightened controversy over NFTs in the gaming industry, voice actor Troy Baker (who has been described as one of the most famous voice actors in video games) announced his partnership with Voiceverse on January 14, 2022, triggering immediate backlash over concerns about the environmental impact of NFTs, potential for fraud, predatory monetization in video games, and the potential of AI displacing jobs for human voice actors. Later that same day, 15 revealed through server logs that Voiceverse had generated voice lines using 15's free text-to-speech platform, pitch-shifted the audio to make them unrecognizable, and falsely marketed the samples as their own technology before selling them as NFTs. Within an hour of being confronted with evidence, Voiceverse confessed and stated that their marketing team had used 15.ai without proper attribution while rushing to create a technology demo to coincide with Baker's partnership announcement, further exacerbating the already negative reception to the original announcement. In response, 15 replied "Go fuck yourself"; the interaction went viral and garnered a large amount of support for the developer. News publications universally characterized this incident as Voiceverse having "stolen" from 15.ai. The next day, Baker appeared on a podcast and stated that his motivation had been to help independent creators who were unable to afford professional voice actors. Following continued backlash and the plagiarism revelation, Baker ended his partnership with Voiceverse on January 31, 2022. Subsequently, the incident was documented in multiple AI ethics databases, criticisms of predatory monetization in video games, and retrospectives as one of the earliest instances of plagiarism and theft stemming from artificial intelligence during the AI boom. == Background == === Troy Baker === Troy Baker is a prominent voice actor in the video game industry best known for his performances as Joel Miller in The Last of Us franchise. Baker has been described as "ubiquitous" by Polygon, "one of the most high-profile and prolific voice actors in video games" by Eurogamer, and "arguably the most famous voice actor in the gaming industry" by GameGuru. His other prominent roles include voicing Agent John "Jonesy" Jones in Fortnite, Booker DeWitt in BioShock Infinite, and both Batman and Joker in multiple Batman video games. As of October 2025, Baker holds the record for the most acting nominations at the BAFTA Games Awards, with five between 2013 and 2021. === Voiceverse === Voiceverse is a blockchain-based startup founded by the Bored Ape Yacht Club that marketed itself as offering AI voice cloning technology in the form of NFTs. Prior to the announcement of their partnership with Baker, Voiceverse had partnered with LOVO, Inc., an AI voice platform that, according to LOVO, could generate human-like voices. Voiceverse stated that any user who purchases a voice NFT would have unlimited and perpetual access to the voice model, which could be used to create content such as audiobooks, YouTube videos, podcasts, e-learning materials, in-game voice chat, and Zoom calls. Voiceverse promised that buyers would "OWN [sic] all of the IP" of content they created using these voices. Voiceverse's roadmap included plans to release 8,888 initial voice NFTs, a feature to add emotions to existing voices, and the ability for users to mint their own voices as NFTs. Prior to Baker's partnership, Voiceverse had also partnered with voice actors Charlet Chung, who voices D.Va in Overwatch, and Andy Milonakis of The Andy Milonakis Show. === 15.ai === 15.ai is a free web application launched in 2020 that uses artificial intelligence to generate text-to-speech voices of fictional characters from popular media. Created by a pseudonymous artificial intelligence researcher known as 15, who began developing the technology as a freshman during their undergraduate research at MIT, it was an early example of an application of generative artificial intelligence during the initial stages of the AI boom. The platform showed that deep neural networks could generate emotionally expressive speech with only 15 seconds of speech; the name "15.ai" references the creator's statement that a voice can be convincingly cloned with just 15 seconds of audio, as opposed to the tens of hours of data previously required. 15.ai became an Internet phenomenon in early 2021 when content utilizing it went viral on social media and quickly gained widespread use among various Internet fandoms. 15 has emphasized that it remain free and non-commercial; it only requires users to give proper credit when using the service for content creation. === NFTs in the video game industry === By early 2022, NFTs had become highly controversial within the gaming industry. Critics raised concerns about their environmental impact due to the significant energy consumption of blockchain technology. In addition, the prevalence of scams, fraud, and potential money laundering associated with NFT sales, as well as fears that NFTs were a new form of predatory monetization following the increasing frequency of loot boxes, caused vocal pushback from the gaming community. Several major gaming companies had begun exploring NFT integration into their products, though fan backlash had already forced some projects to be cancelled. On December 16, 2021, the developers of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chernobyl announced that they would be including NFTs in the game, but cancelled within an hour of the announcement due to immediate universal backlash. Simultaneously, the rise of AI voice technology raised concerns among voice actors about potential job displacement and the devaluation of their work amidst the voice acting industry's ongoing struggles for better compensation and working conditions. == Partnership announcement and backlash == On January 14, 2022, 1:02 a.m. EST, Baker announced on Twitter that he was partnering with Voiceverse "to explore ways where together we might bring new tools to new creators to make new things, and allow everyone a chance to own & invest in the IP's they create." The announcement concluded with the statement "You can hate. Or you can create." Baker's specific role with Voiceverse remained unclear at the time of the announcement. Along with Baker's announcement, Voiceverse promoted their supposed voice AI technology on Twitter by posting animated videos that featured a cat character created by NFT firm Chubbiverse. The videos concluded with text that read "The Voice Powered By Voiceverse"; Voiceverse stated on Twitter that the voices in the animations had been generated using their own AI voice synthesis technology and presented the videos as a technology demonstration of their voice NFT capabilities. The announcement provoked immediate and widespread backlash from the gaming community. Baker's tweet received thousands of replies and quote retweets (the vast majority of which were negative), far more than the number of likes; Michael McWhertor of Polygon described it as a "textbook example of being ratioed" and commented that reactions had been amplified by the final part of Baker's announcement. Michael Beckwith of Metro called Baker's approach "bizarrely aggressive". Later that day, Baker responded to the backlash by apologizing for his choice of words. He said he appreciated people's thoughts and acknowledged that the "hate/create part might have been a bit antagonistic," calling it a "bad attempt to bring levity". Despite the apology, Baker and his fellow voice actors did not distance themselves from Voiceverse at this point. At the same time, Voiceverse attempted to address the criticisms, stating that they were working to move to more environmentally friendly blockchain technology and that voice actors would receive royalties from NFT sales, with actors benefiting from any increase in NFT value. == Plagiarism revelation == On December 13, 2021, amidst the increasingly negative reactions toward NFTs among the general public, the creator of 15.ai (known pseudonymously as 15) announced that they had "no interest in incorporating NFTs into any aspect of [their] work." On January 14, 2022, 11:17 a.m. EST (10 hours after Baker's initial announcement), 15 commented on the Voiceverse venture, stating that it "sounds like a scam". Two hours later, at 1:20 p.m., 15 explicitly accused Voiceverse of "actively attempting to appropriate [15's] work for [Voiceverse's] own benefit." 15 provided evidence through

  Read more →
• 

  Microsoft SQL Server Master Data Services

  Microsoft SQL Server Master Data Services (MDS) is a Master Data Management (MDM) product from Microsoft that ships as a part of the Microsoft SQL Server relational database management system. Master data management (MDM) allows an organization to discover and define non-transactional lists of data, and compile maintainable, reliable master lists. Master Data Services first shipped with Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2. Microsoft SQL Server 2016 introduced enhancements to Master Data Services, such as improved performance and security, and the ability to clear transaction logs, create custom indexes, share entity data between different models, and support for many-to-many relationships. == Overview == In Master Data Services, the model is the highest level container in the structure of your master data. You create a model to manage groups of similar data. A model contains one or more entities, and entities contain members that are the data records. An entity is similar to a table. Like other MDM products, Master Data Services aims to create a centralized data source and keep it synchronized, and thus reduce redundancies, across the applications which process the data. Sharing the architectural core with Stratature +EDM, Master Data Services uses a Microsoft SQL Server database as the physical data store. It is a part of the Master Data Hub, which uses the database to store and manage data entities. It is a database with the software to validate and manage the data, and keep it synchronized with the systems that use the data. The master data hub has to extract the data from the source system, validate, sanitize and shape the data, remove duplicates, and update the hub repositories, as well as synchronize the external sources. The entity schemas, attributes, data hierarchies, validation rules and access control information are specified as metadata to the Master Data Services runtime. Master Data Services does not impose any limitation on the data model. Master Data Services also allows custom Business rules, used for validating and sanitizing the data entering the data hub, to be defined, which is then run against the data matching the specified criteria. All changes made to the data are validated against the rules, and a log of the transaction is stored persistently. Violations are logged separately, and optionally the owner is notified, automatically. All the data entities can be versioned. Master Data Services allows the master data to be categorized by hierarchical relationships, such as employee data are a subtype of organization data. Hierarchies are generated by relating data attributes. Data can be automatically categorized using rules, and the categories are introspected programmatically. Master Data Services can also expose the data as Microsoft SQL Server views, which can be pulled by any SQL-compatible client. It uses a role-based access control system to restrict access to the data. The views are generated dynamically, so they contain the latest data entities in the master hub. It can also push out the data by writing to some external journals. Master Data Services also includes a web-based UI for viewing and managing the data. It uses ASP.NET in the back-end. The Silverlight front-end was replaced with HTML5 in SQL Server 2019. Master Data Services provides a Web service interface to expose the data, as well as an API, which internally uses the exposed web services, exposing the feature set, programmatically, to access and manipulate the data. It also integrates with Active Directory for authentication purposes. Unlike +EDM, Master Data Services supports Unicode characters, as well as support multilingual user interfaces. SQL Server 2016 introduced a significant performance increase in Master Data Services over previous versions. == Terminology == Model is the highest level of an MDS instance. It is the primary container for specific groupings of master data. In many ways it is very similar to the idea of a database. Entities are containers created within a model. Entities provide a home for members, and are in many ways analogous to database tables. (e.g. Customer) Members are analogous to the records in a database table (Entity) e.g. Will Smith. Members are contained within entities. Each member is made up of two or more attributes. Attributes are analogous to the columns within a database table (Entity) e.g. Surname. Attributes exist within entities and help describe members (the records within the table). Name and Code attributes are created by default for each entity and serve to describe and uniquely identify leaf members. Attributes can be related to other attributes from other entities which are called 'domain-based' attributes. This is similar to the concept of a foreign key. Other attributes however, will be of type 'free-form' (most common) or 'file'. Attribute Groups are explicitly defined collections of particular attributes. Say you have an entity "customer" that has 50 attributes — too much information for many of your users. Attribute groups enable the creation of custom sets of hand-picked attributes that are relevant for specific audiences. (e.g. "customer - delivery details" that would include just their name and last known delivery address). This is very similar to a database view. Hierarchies organize members into either Derived or Explicit hierarchical structures. Derived hierarchies, as the name suggests, are derived by the MDS engine based on the relationships that exist between attributes. Explicit hierarchies are created by hand using both leaf and consolidated members. Business Rules can be created and applied against model data to ensure that custom business logic is adhered to. In order to be committed into the system data must pass all business rule validations applied to them. e.g. Within the Customer Entity you may want to create a business rule that ensures all members of the 'Country' Attribute contain either the text "USA" or "Canada". The Business Rule once created and ran will then verify all the data is correct before it accepts it into the approved model. Versions provide system owners / administrators with the ability to Open, Lock or Commit a particular version of a model and the data contained within it at a particular point in time. As the content within a model varies, grows or shrinks over time versions provide a way of managing metadata so that subscribing systems can access to the correct content.

  Read more →
• 

  Synonym (database)

  In databases, a synonym is an alias or alternate name for a table, view, sequence, or other schema object. They are used mainly to make it intuitive for users to access database objects owned by other users. They also hide the underlying object's identity and make it harder for a malicious program or user to target the underlying object (security through obscurity). Because a synonym is just an alternate name for an object, it requires no storage other than its definition. When an application uses a synonym, the DBMS forwards the request to the synonym's underlying base object. By coding your programs to use synonyms instead of database object names, you insulate yourself from any changes in the name, ownership, or object locations, at the cost of adding another layer that also needs to be maintained. Users can also have different needs, for example some may wish to use a shorter name to refer to database objects they often query, which can be done with aliases without having to rename the underlying object and alter the code referring to it. Synonyms are very powerful from the point of view of allowing users access to objects that do not lie within their schema. All synonyms have to be created explicitly with the CREATE SYNONYM command and the underlying objects can be located in the same database or in other databases that are connected by database links There are two major uses of synonyms: Object invisibility: Synonyms can be created to keep the original object hidden from the user. Location invisibility: Synonyms can be created as aliases for tables and other objects that are not part of the local database. When a table or a procedure is created, it is created in a particular schema, and other users can access it only by using that schema's name as a prefix to the object's name. The way around for this is for the schema owner creates a synonym with the same name as the table name. == Public synonyms == Public synonyms are owned by special schema in the Oracle Database called PUBLIC. As mentioned earlier, public synonyms can be referenced by all users in the database. Public synonyms are usually created by the application owner for the tables and other objects such as procedures and packages so the users of the application can see the objects The following code shows how to create a public synonym for the employee table: Now any user can see the table by just typing the original table name. If you wish, you could provide a different table name for that table in the CREATE SYNONYM statement. Remember that the DBA must create public synonyms. Just because you can see a table through public (or private) synonym doesn’t mean that you can also perform SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE operations on the table. To be able to perform those operations, a user needs specific privileges for the underlying object, either directly or through roles from the application owner. == Private synonyms == A private synonym is a synonym within a database schema that a developer typically uses to mask the true name of a table, view stored procedure, or other database object in an application schema. Private synonyms, unlike public synonyms, can be referenced only by the schema that owns the table or object. You may want to create private synonyms when you want to refer to the same table by different contexts. Private synonym overrides public synonym definitions. You create private synonyms the same way you create public synonyms, but you omit the PUBLIC keyword in the CREATE statement. The following example shows how to create a private synonym called addresses for the locations table. Note that once you create the private synonym, you can refer to the synonym exactly as you would the original table name. == Drop a synonym == Synonyms, both private and public, are dropped in the same manner by using the DROP SYNONYM command, but there is one important difference. If you are dropping a public synonym; you need to add the keyword PUBLIC after the keyword DROP. The ALL_SYNONYMS (or DBA_SYNONYMS) view provides information on all synonyms in your database.

  Read more →
• 

  E-Science librarianship

  E-Science librarianship refers to a role for librarians in e-Science. == Early scholars == Early references to e-Science and librarianship involve information studies scholars researching cyberinfrastructure and emerging networked information and knowledge communities. Notably Christine Borgman, Professor and Presidential Chair in Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) was a key player in bringing e-Science, and the idea of networked knowledge communities, to the attention of the library profession. In 2004, as a visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, she conducted research and lectured publicly on e-Science, Digital Libraries, and Knowledge Communities. In 2007 Anna K. Gold, formerly of MIT and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, authored a series of articles in D-Lib Magazine that opened the door for academic libraries to begin exploring roles, skills, and strategies for engaging in e-Science: Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 1: A Cyberinfrastructure Primer for Librarians and Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 2: Libraries and the Data Challenge: Roles and Actions for Libraries. == Academic research and health sciences libraries == In 2007, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) e-Science task force issued its report on e-Science and librarianship. The ARL's report encouraged its member libraries to position themselves to engage with researchers involved in e-Science (eScience) by cultivating new research support strategies and developing their digital scholarship infrastructure. E-Science has multiple attributes; Tony and Jessie Hey framed e-Science for the library community by characterizing it as a research methodology: "e-Science is not a new scientific discipline in its own right: e-Science is shorthand for the set of tools and technologies required to support collaborative, networked science". In addition to academic libraries' interests in providing support for their researchers engaging in e-Science, the health sciences library community also emerged as a major proponent for creating librarian positions for supporting the information needs of large-scale, networked, research collaborations on their campuses. Neil Rambo, current director of NYU's Health Sciences Library and former director of University of Washington Health Sciences Library, was the first to use the term in the Journal of the Medical Library Association, in his 2009 editorial e-Science and the Biomedical Library. Rambo's definition of e-Science highlighted the potential e-Science held for creating data as a research product: "E-science is a new research methodology, fueled by networked capabilities and the practical possibility of gathering and storing vast amounts of data." In response to this article the University of Massachusetts Medical School Lamar Soutter Library and National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region encouraged health sciences libraries to cooperate to identify skills and develop a program for training e-Science Librarians. Then, in 2013, Shannon Bohle, an archivist who was employed in the library at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, an NCI-designated basic cancer research facility, used experience gained there and previous papers and presentations about preserving scientific archival materials to expand the traditional definition of e-Science by including the terms, principles, and practices used in archival science. These included in the definition the "long-term storage and accessibility of all materials generated through the scientific process," as well as examples of material types traditionally preserved in archives, like "electronic/digitized laboratory notebooks, raw and fitted data sets, manuscript production and draft versions, pre-prints," as well as library materials ("print and/or electronic publications"). == Roles == Many areas of science are about to be transformed by the availability of vast amounts of new scientific data that can potentially provide insights at a level of detail never before envisaged. However, this new data dominant era brings new challenges for the scientists and they will need the skills and technologies both of computer scientists and of the library community to manage, search and curate these new data resources. Libraries will not be immune from change in this new world of research. Karen Williams identifies roles in the following areas for librarians in the developing world of e-Science. Campus Engagement Content/Collection Development and Management Teaching and Learning Scholarly Communication E-Scholarship and Digital Tools Reference/Help Services Outreach Fund Raising Exhibit and Event Planning Leadership == Challenges for research libraries == E-science tends toward inter- and multidisciplinary approaches that depend on computation and computer science. Research libraries have traditionally been discipline focused and, although increasingly technologically sophisticated, do not have systems of the scale or complexity of the e-science environment. E-science is data intensive, but research libraries have not typically been responsible for scientific data. E-science is frequently conducted in a team context, often distributed across multiple institutions and on a global scale. The primary constituency of libraries generally comprises those affiliated with the local institution. Licenses for electronic content are typically restricted to a particular institutional community, and the infrastructure to move institutional licenses into a multi-institutional environment is not well developed. E-science challenges all these traditional paradigms of research library organization and services. == Skills == Garritano & Carlson were among the first to outline a skill set for librarians seeking to support the data needs of e-Science; they identified five skill categories librarians new to this area should expect to adapt or develop when participating on such projects: Library and information science expertise Subject expertise Partnerships and outreach (both internal and external) Participating in sponsored research Balancing workload An example of librarians reconfiguring traditional librarian skills to meet the needs of researchers engaging in e-Science is Witt & Carlson's adaptation of the traditional reference interview into a "data interview" in order to provide effective data management and e-Science services. This interview consists of ten practical queries necessary for understanding the provenance and expectations for the preservation of datasets typical of e-Science that also help illustrate some of the educational tools and skills needed by a librarian new to e-Science. "What is the story of the data? What form and format are the data in? What is the expected lifespan of the dataset? How could the data be used, reused, and repurposed? How large is the dataset, and what is its rate of growth? Who are the potential audiences for the data? Who owns the data? Does the dataset include any sensitive information? What publications or discoveries have resulted from the data? How should the data be made accessible?" == Resources == In 2009 the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER) funded an e-Science program for building the skills highlighted above for librarians. Elaine Russo Martin, Director of Library Services at the Lamar Soutter Library and Director of the NN/LM NER developed this comprehensive e-Science program to build librarians' subject expertise in the sciences, developing their data management skills, and their familiarity with cyberinfrastructure and e-Science. Three major products of this program are the e-Science web portal for librarians, the E-Science Symposium, and the New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (NECDMC). This portal includes educational resources for specific tools and subject/discipline tutorials and modules to assist librarians new to e-Science. UMMS and NN/LM NER also publish an open access journal called the Journal of eScience Librarianship.

  Read more →
• 

  Vector-field consistency

  Vector-Field Consistency is a consistency model for replicated data (for example, objects), initially described in a paper which was awarded the best-paper prize in the ACM/IFIP/Usenix Middleware Conference 2007. It has since been enhanced for increased scalability and fault-tolerance in a recent paper. == Description == This consistency model was initially designed for replicated data management in ad hoc gaming in order to minimize bandwidth usage without sacrificing playability. Intuitively, it captures the notion that although players require, wish, and take advantage of information regarding the whole of the game world (as opposed to a restricted view to rooms, arenas, etc. of limited size employed in many multiplayer video games), they need to know information with greater freshness, frequency, and accuracy as other game entities are located closer and closer to the player's position. It prescribes a multidimensional divergence bounding scheme, based on a vector field that employs consistency vectors k=(θ,σ,ν), standing for maximum allowed time - or replica staleness, sequence - or missing updates, and value - or user-defined measured replica divergence, applied to all space coordinates in game scenario or world. The consistency vector-fields emanate from field-generators designated as pivots (for example, players) and field intensity attenuates as distance grows from these pivots in concentric or square-like regions. This consistency model unifies locality-awareness techniques employed in message routing and consistency enforcement for multiplayer games, with divergence bounding techniques traditionally employed in replicated database and web scenarios.

  Read more →