AI Chat Programs

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

• 

  Smart data capture

  Smart data capture (SDC), also known as 'intelligent data capture' or 'automated data capture', describes the branch of technology concerned with using computer vision techniques like optical character recognition (OCR), barcode scanning, object recognition and other similar technologies to extract and process information from semi-structured and unstructured data sources. IDC characterize smart data capture as an integrated hardware, software, and connectivity strategy to help organizations enable the capture of data in an efficient, repeatable, scalable, and future-proof way. Data is captured visually from barcodes, text, IDs and other objects - often from many sources simultaneously - before being converted and prepared for digital use, typically by artificial intelligence-powered software. An important feature of SDC is that it focuses not just on capturing data more efficiently but serving up easy-to-access, actionable insights at the instant of data collection to both frontline and desk-based workers, aiding decision-making and making it a two-way process. Smart data capture automates and accelerates capture, applying insights in real time and automating processes based on extracted input. Smart data capture is designed to be repeatable and scalable to reduce low-level manual tasks and eliminate human error. To achieve this goal, smart data capture solutions are often made available using specialist software installed on commodity hardware such as smartphones. However, some solutions may rely on specialized hardware such as dedicated scanning devices, wearables or shop floor robots. == Differences from OCR == Optical character recognition applications are typically concerned with the actual data capture process; they are intended to faithfully reproduce text, words, letters and symbols from a printed document. Smart data capture is multimodal, capable of extracting data from a wider range of semi-structured and unstructured sources, going beyond basic text recognition to offer a wider scope of applications. By extending functionality to provide actionable insights at the point of capture, SDC is also a two-way process (capture-display), while OCR is more commonly one-way (capture only), primarily used for data input. Smart data capture solutions typically have two parts: Data capture (which includes OCR, barcode scanning, object recognition) Functionality that then uses this data to provide actionable insights at the point of capture. == Applications == Smart data capture can be applied to almost any industry and application that requires visual information capture and interpretation. This may include: Retail Warehouse inventory control Logistics, handling and shipping Manufacturing Field service Healthcare Transport and travel Fraud detection

  Read more →
• 

  Instance-based learning

  In machine learning, instance-based learning (sometimes called memory-based learning) is a family of learning algorithms that, instead of performing explicit generalization, compare new problem instances with instances seen in training, which have been stored in memory. Because computation is postponed until a new instance is observed, these algorithms are sometimes referred to as "lazy." It is called instance-based because it constructs hypotheses directly from the training instances themselves. This means that the hypothesis complexity can grow with the data: in the worst case, a hypothesis is a list of n training items and the computational complexity of classifying a single new instance is O(n). One advantage that instance-based learning has over other methods of machine learning is its ability to adapt its model to previously unseen data. Instance-based learners may simply store a new instance or throw an old instance away. Examples of instance-based learning algorithms are the k-nearest neighbors algorithm, kernel machines and RBF networks. These store (a subset of) their training set; when predicting a value/class for a new instance, they compute distances or similarities between this instance and the training instances to make a decision. To battle the memory complexity of storing all training instances, as well as the risk of overfitting to noise in the training set, instance reduction algorithms have been proposed.

  Read more →
• 

  Sequence labeling

  In machine learning, sequence labeling is a type of pattern recognition task that involves the algorithmic assignment of a categorical label to each member of a sequence of observed values. A common example of a sequence labeling task is part of speech tagging, which seeks to assign a part of speech to each word in an input sentence or document. Sequence labeling can be treated as a set of independent classification tasks, one per member of the sequence. However, accuracy is generally improved by making the optimal label for a given element dependent on the choices of nearby elements, using special algorithms to choose the globally best set of labels for the entire sequence at once. As an example of why finding the globally best label sequence might produce better results than labeling one item at a time, consider the part-of-speech tagging task just described. Frequently, many words are members of multiple parts of speech, and the correct label of such a word can often be deduced from the correct label of the word to the immediate left or right. For example, the word "sets" can be either a noun or verb. In a phrase like "he sets the books down", the word "he" is unambiguously a pronoun, and "the" unambiguously a determiner, and using either of these labels, "sets" can be deduced to be a verb, since nouns very rarely follow pronouns and are less likely to precede determiners than verbs are. But in other cases, only one of the adjacent words is similarly helpful. In "he sets and then knocks over the table", only the word "he" to the left is helpful (cf. "...picks up the sets and then knocks over..."). Conversely, in "... and also sets the table" only the word "the" to the right is helpful (cf. "... and also sets of books were ..."). An algorithm that proceeds from left to right, labeling one word at a time, can only use the tags of left-adjacent words and might fail in the second example above; vice versa for an algorithm that proceeds from right to left. Most sequence labeling algorithms are probabilistic in nature, relying on statistical inference to find the best sequence. The most common statistical models in use for sequence labeling make a Markov assumption, i.e. that the choice of label for a particular word is directly dependent only on the immediately adjacent labels; hence the set of labels forms a Markov chain. This leads naturally to the hidden Markov model (HMM), one of the most common statistical models used for sequence labeling. Other common models in use are the maximum entropy Markov model and conditional random field.

  Read more →
• 

  Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

  In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

  Read more →
• 

  Cleverbot

  Cleverbot is a chatterbot web application. It was created by British AI scientist Rollo Carpenter and launched in October 2008. It was preceded by Jabberwacky, a chatbot project that began in 1988 and went online in 1997. In its first decade, Cleverbot held several thousand conversations with Carpenter and his associates. Since launching on the web, the number of conversations held has exceeded 150 million. Besides the web application, Cleverbot is also available as an iOS, Android, and Windows Phone app. == Operation == Cleverbot's responses are not pre-programmed because it learns from human input: Humans type into the box below the Cleverbot logo and the system finds all keywords or an exact phrase matching the input. After searching through its saved conversations, it responds to the input by finding how a human responded to that input when it was asked, in part or in full, by Cleverbot. Cleverbot participated in a formal Turing test at the 2011 Techniche festival at the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 3 September 2011. Out of the 1334 votes cast, Cleverbot was judged to be 59.3% human, compared to the rating of 63.3% human achieved by human participants. A score of 50.05% or higher is often considered to be a passing grade. The software running for the event had to handle just 1 or 2 simultaneous requests, whereas online Cleverbot is usually talking to around 10,000 to 50,000 people at once. == Developments == Cleverbot is constantly growing in data size at the rate of 4 to 7 million interactions per day. Updates to the software have been mostly behind the scenes. In 2014, Cleverbot was upgraded to use GPU serving techniques. Unlike Eliza, the program does not respond in a fixed way, instead choosing its responses heuristically using fuzzy logic, the whole of the conversation being compared to the millions that have taken place before. Cleverbot now uses over 279 million interactions, about 3-4% of the data it has already accumulated. The developers of Cleverbot are attempting to build a new version using machine learning techniques. An app that uses the Cleverscript engine to play a game of 20 Questions has been launched under the name Clevernator. Unlike other such games, the player asks the questions and it is the role of the AI to understand, and answer factually. An app that allows owners to create and talk to their own small Cleverbot-like AI has been launched, called Cleverme! for Apple products. == In popular culture == Cleverbot received media attention after being featured in the popular 2010 creepypasta ARG web serial Ben Drowned by Alexander D. Hall. In early 2017, a Twitch stream of two Google Home devices modified to talk to each other using Cleverbot garnered over 700,000 visitors and over 30,000 peak concurrent viewers.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in education

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

  Read more →
• 

  NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project

  The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.

  Read more →
• 

  Environmental impact of AI

  The environmental impact of the design, training, deployment and use of artificial intelligence includes the greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity for data centres and computing hardware, operational and upstream water use, and material impacts from hardware manufacturing, mining and electronic waste. Estimating AI's environmental effects can be difficult because results depend on how impacts are measured, including whether accounting includes only model computation or also data-centre overhead, idle capacity, hardware manufacture, and local electricity supply. As these issues have received greater attention, governments and regulators have increasingly considered data-centre reporting requirements, energy-efficiency standards, and broader transparency measures for AI-related resource use. == Carbon footprint and energy use == AI-related energy use arises at multiple stages, including model training, fine-tuning, inference, storage, networking, and supporting infrastructure such as cooling and power conversion. === Individual level === Published estimates of energy use per AI request vary widely across models, tasks and measurement methods. A benchmark study presented at the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency found substantial differences between task types, with lower energy use for some text tasks and much higher energy use for image generation in the study's test conditions. In that benchmark, simple classification tasks consumed about 0.002–0.007 Wh per prompt on average (about 9% of a smartphone charge for 1,000 prompts), while text generation and text summarisation each used about 0.05 Wh per prompt; image generation averaged 2.91 Wh per prompt, and the least efficient image model in the study used 11.49 Wh per image (roughly equivalent to half a smartphone charge). First-party measurements in production environments have also been published. A 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported median per-prompt energy, emissions, and water-use estimates under the authors' accounting framework, while noting that different system boundaries can produce substantially different results. The study reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.24 Wh, which is roughly as much energy as watching nine seconds of television. The study also stated that software and infrastructure improvements reduced energy use by a factor of 33 and carbon emissions by a factor of 44 for a typical prompt over one year within the authors' framework. Researchers at the University of Michigan measured the energy consumption of various Meta Llama 3.1 models released in 2024 and found that smaller language models (8 billion parameters) use about 114 joules (0.03167 Wh) per response, while larger models (405 billion parameters) require up to 6,700 joules (1.861 Wh) per response. This corresponds to the energy needed to run a microwave oven for roughly one-tenth of a second and eight seconds, respectively. Comparisons between AI systems and human labour for specific tasks have produced mixed results and remain sensitive to assumptions about output quality, workload and system boundaries. A 2024 study in Scientific Reports reported 130 to 2900 times lower estimated carbon emissions for selected AI systems than for human writers and illustrators under its assumptions. A later Scientific Reports paper reported a counterexample for programming tasks under its assumptions, finding 5 to 19 times higher estimated emissions for the evaluated AI system than for human programmers on the benchmark used in that study. === System level === ==== Energy use and efficiency ==== AI electricity intensity depends not only on model architecture but also on hardware and facility efficiency. Data-centre operators commonly report Power usage effectiveness (PUE), which measures the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy; a lower PUE indicates less overhead energy for cooling and other supporting infrastructure. Operators may also publish metrics and case studies on hardware efficiency, cooling systems and power sourcing. In its 2024 environmental report, Google stated that its 2023 total greenhouse gas emissions increased 13% year over year, primarily because of increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions, while also reporting lower PUE than industry averages for its own facilities. The International Energy Agency has also reported that data centres remain a relatively small share of global electricity use overall, but that their local effects can be much more pronounced because demand is geographically concentrated. ==== Carbon footprint ==== At system level, AI contributes to rising electricity demand in data centres and related infrastructure. The International Energy Agency estimated that data centres used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024, or around 1.5% of global electricity consumption, and projected that data-centre electricity use could rise to about 945 TWh by 2030, with AI identified as the main driver of that growth alongside other digital services. The carbon footprint of AI systems depends strongly on electricity sources, hardware efficiency, utilisation rates, and what stages are included in the accounting. Training large models can require substantial electricity, while total lifecycle impacts also depend on deployment scale and the amount of inference performed after training. Early analyses of frontier-model development reported rapid historical growth in training compute for selected systems, although later trends have depended on changes in model design, hardware and efficiency gains. Accounting methods that include upstream or embodied impacts, such as hardware manufacture and facilities construction, can materially affect estimates of AI-related emissions. === Decisions and strategies by individual companies === Large technology companies have reported that the expansion of AI and cloud infrastructure affects their sustainability targets, electricity demand, and resource use. Google, for example, attributed part of its emissions growth in 2023 to increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions in its 2024 environmental report. Cloud and AI companies have also announced measures intended to reduce environmental impacts, including investment in more efficient hardware, low-carbon electricity procurement, alternative cooling systems, and water stewardship programmes. The extent, comparability, and third-party verification of such disclosures vary between firms and jurisdictions. == Water usage == Data centres can use water directly for cooling and indirectly through the water used in electricity generation, depending on the local energy mix. Public reporting on data-centre water use has often been inconsistent, making comparisons between operators and regions difficult. To standardise operational reporting, The Green Grid proposed the metric water usage effectiveness (WUE), defined as annual site water use divided by IT equipment energy use. WUE does not by itself measure local water stress, source sustainability, or all upstream water impacts. Studies of AI water use also distinguish between water withdrawal and water consumption. Research on AI-specific water use has argued that the water footprint of AI systems can be difficult to observe and may vary substantially by location, cooling design, and electricity source. A 2025 Communications of the ACM article summarised methods for estimating AI water footprints and emphasised the distinction between water withdrawal and water consumption. Li and colleagues estimated that global AI water withdrawal could reach 4.2–6.6 billion cubic metres in 2027 under the scenarios examined in their article. Using GPT-3, released by OpenAI in 2020, as an example, they estimated that training the model in Microsoft's U.S. data centres could consume about 700,000 litres of onsite water and about 5.4 million litres in total when offsite electricity-related water use was included; they also estimated that 10–50 medium-length GPT-3 responses could consume about 500 mL of water, depending on when and where the model was deployed. Published prompt-level estimates have also varied by system and accounting framework: the 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.26 mL under its framework. Location can materially affect the significance of data-centre water use. Research on U.S. data centres found that one-fifth of servers' direct water footprint came from moderately to highly water-stressed watersheds, while nearly half of servers were fully or partially powered by plants located in water-stressed regions. A 2025 Reuters report, citing data from Verisk Maplecroft and NatureFinance, said that an average mid-sized data centre uses about 1.4 million litres of water per day for cooling and that Phoenix would experience a 32% increase in annual water stress if currently pl

  Read more →
• 

  AARON

  AARON is the collective name for a series of computer programs written by artist Harold Cohen that create original artistic images autonomously, which set it apart from previous programs. Proceeding from Cohen's initial question "What are the minimum conditions under which a set of marks functions as an image?", AARON was in development between 1972 and the 2010s. As the software is not open source, its development effectively ended with Cohen's death in 2016. The name "AARON" does not seem to be an acronym; rather, it was a name chosen to start with the letter "A" so that the names of successive programs could follow it alphabetically. However, Cohen did not create any other major programs. Initial versions of AARON created abstract drawings that grew more complex through the 1970s. More representational imagery was added in the 1980s; first rocks, then plants, then people. In the 1990s more representational figures set in interior scenes were added, along with color. AARON returned to more abstract imagery, this time in color, in the early 2000s. Cohen used machines that allowed AARON to produce physical artwork. The first machines drew in black and white using a succession of custom-built "turtle" and flatbed plotter devices. Cohen would sometimes color these images by hand in fabric dye (Procion), or scale them up to make larger paintings and murals. In the 1990s Cohen built a series of digital painting machines to output AARON's images in ink and fabric dye. His later work used a large-scale inkjet printer on canvas. Development of AARON began in the C programming language then switched to Lisp in the early 1990s. Cohen credits Lisp with helping him solve the challenges he faced in adding color capabilities to AARON. An article about Cohen appeared in Computer Answers that describes AARON and shows two line drawings that were exhibited at the Tate gallery. The article goes on to describe the workings of AARON, then running on a DEC VAX 750 minicomputer. Raymond Kurzweil's company has produced a downloadable screensaver of AARON for Microsoft Windows PCs. This version of AARON can also produce printable images. AARON's source code is not publicly available, but Cohen has described AARON's operations in various essays and it is discussed in abstract in Pamela McCorduck's book. AARON cannot learn new styles or imagery on its own; each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen. It is capable of producing a practically infinite supply of distinct images in its own style. Examples of these images have been exhibited in galleries worldwide. AARON's artwork has been used as an artistic equivalent of the Turing test. It does seem however that AARON's output follows a noticeable formula (figures standing next to a potted plant, framed within a colored square is a common theme). Cohen is very careful not to claim that AARON is creative. But he does ask "If what AARON is making is not art, what is it exactly, and in what ways, other than its origin, does it differ from the 'real thing?' If it is not thinking, what exactly is it doing?" — The further exploits of AARON, Painter. The Whitney Museum featured AARON in 2024, showcasing the evolution of AARON as the earliest artificial intelligence (AI) program for artmaking.

  Read more →
• 

  H2O (software)

  H2O is an open-source, in-memory, distributed machine learning and predictive analytics platform developed by the company H2O.ai (previously 0xdata). The software uses a distributed architecture for parallel processing on standard hardware. It supports algorithms for large-scale data analysis and model deployment. H2O is primarily used by data scientists and developers for statistical modeling and data-driven decision-making. The platform is designed to handle in-memory computations across a distributed computing environment. It offers implementations for numerous statistical and machine learning algorithms, which are accessible through various programming interfaces. The software is released under the Apache License 2.0. == Functionality and features == H2O provides a suite of supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Its core functions include: Supervised learning: algorithms in the field of statistics, data mining and machine learning such as generalized linear models, random forests, gradient boosting and deep learning are implemented for classification and regression tasks. Unsupervised learning: including K-Means clustering and principal component analysis. Automated machine learning: a features designed to automate the processes of model selection, tuning, and ensemble creation. The software can ingest data from various sources, including the Hadoop Distributed File System, Amazon S3, SQL databases, as well as local file systems. It operates natively on Apache Spark clusters through Sparkling Water. Proponents claim that improved performance is achieved compared to other analysis tools. The software is distributed free of charge, under a business model based on the development of individual applications and support. == Architecture == H2O is primarily written in Java. It uses a distributed architecture that allows the platform to cluster nodes for parallel processing and in-memory storage of data and models. Users interact with the H2O platform through several primary interfaces: Programming language interfaces: APIs are provided for the R and Python programming languages, and various Apache offerings (Apache Hadoop and Spark, as well as Maven). H2O Flow: a graphical web-based interactive computational environment that functions as a notebook interface for data exploration, model building, and scripting. REST-API: allows for integration with other applications and frameworks such as Microsoft Excel or RStudio. With the H2O Machine Learning Integration Nodes, KNIME offers algorithmic workflows. While the algorithm executes, approximate results are displayed, so that users can track the progress and intervene if needed. == History, influences, and extensions == The software project was initiated by the company 0xdata, which later changed its name to H2O.ai. The three Stanford professors Stephen P. Boyd, Robert Tibshirani and Trevor Hastie form a panel that advises H2O on scientific issues. Since its inception, H2O provides open-source machine learning libraries for enterprise use. The core H2O platform is often complemented by offerings from H2O.ai, such as H2O Driverless AI. == Reception == H2O is referenced in peer-reviewed literature regarding automated machine learning (AutoML). The platform has been categorized as a "Leader" and a "Strong Performer" in industry reports by Forrester Research. H2O (the open-source platform) and the associated commercial platform Driverless AI have been recurring winners of InfoWorld's most prestigious awards, including both the Best of Open Source Software ("Bossies") and the Technology of the Year awards.

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all in action selection

  Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.

  Read more →
• 

  Multimodal representation learning

  Multimodal representation learning is a subfield of representation learning focused on integrating and interpreting information from different modalities, such as text, images, audio, or video, by projecting them into a shared latent space. This allows for semantically similar content across modalities to be mapped to nearby points within that space, facilitating a unified understanding of diverse data types. By automatically learning meaningful features from each modality and capturing their inter-modal relationships, multimodal representation learning enables a unified representation that enhances performance in cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. It also supports cross-modal retrieval and translation, including image captioning, video description, and text-to-image synthesis. == Motivation == The primary motivations for multimodal representation learning arise from the inherent nature of real-world data and the limitations of unimodal approaches. Since multimodal data offers complementary and supplementary information about an object or event from different perspectives, it is more informative than relying on a single modality. A key motivation is to narrow the heterogeneity gap that exists between different modalities by projecting their features into a shared semantic subspace. This allows semantically similar content across modalities to be represented by similar vectors, facilitating the understanding of relationships and correlations between them. Multimodal representation learning aims to leverage the unique information provided by each modality to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of concepts. These unified representations are crucial for improving performance in various cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. They also enable cross-modal retrieval, allowing users to search and retrieve content across different modalities. Additionally, it facilitates cross-modal translation, where information can be converted from one modality to another, as seen in applications like image captioning and text-to-image synthesis. The abundance of ubiquitous multimodal data in real-world applications, including understudied areas like healthcare, finance, and human-computer interaction (HCI), further motivates the development of effective multimodal representation learning techniques. == Approaches and methods == === Canonical-correlation analysis based methods === Canonical-correlation analysis (CCA) was first introduced in 1936 by Harold Hotelling and is a fundamental approach for multimodal learning. CCA aims to find linear relationships between two sets of variables. Given two data matrices X ∈ R n × p {\displaystyle X\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times p}} and Y ∈ R n × q {\displaystyle Y\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times q}} representing different modalities, CCA finds projection vectors w x ∈ R p {\displaystyle w_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} and w y ∈ R q {\displaystyle w_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{q}} that maximizes the correlation between the projected variables: ρ = max w x , w y w x ⊤ Σ x y w y w x ⊤ Σ x x w x w y ⊤ Σ y y w y {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{w_{x},w_{y}}{\frac {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xy}w_{y}}{{\sqrt {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xx}w_{x}}}{\sqrt {w_{y}^{\top }\Sigma _{yy}w_{y}}}}}} such that Σ x x {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xx}} and Σ y y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{yy}} are the within-modality covariance matrices, and Σ x y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xy}} is the between-modality covariance matrix. However, standard CCA is limited by its linearity, which led to the development of nonlinear extensions, such as kernel CCA and deep CCA. ==== Kernel CCA ==== Kernel canonical correlation analysis (KCCA) extends traditional CCA to capture nonlinear relationships between modalities by implicitly mapping the data into high dimensional feature spaces using kernel functions. Given kernel functions K x {\displaystyle K_{x}} and K y {\displaystyle K_{y}} with corresponding Gram matrices K x ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and K y ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , KCCA seeks coefficients α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } that maximize: ρ = max α , β α ⊤ K x K y β α ⊤ K x 2 α β ⊤ K y 2 β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}Ky\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}^{2}\alpha }}{\sqrt {\beta ^{\top }K_{y}^{2}\beta }}}}} To prevent overfitting, regularization terms are typically added, resulting in: ρ = max α , β α T K x K y β α T ( K x 2 + λ x K x ) α β T ( K y 2 + λ y K y ) β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{T}K_{x}K_{y}\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{T}\left(K_{x}^{2}+\lambda _{x}K_{x}\right)\alpha }}{\sqrt {\;\beta ^{T}\left(K_{y}^{2}+\lambda _{y}K_{y}\right)\beta }}}}} where λ x {\displaystyle \lambda _{x}} and λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} are regularization parameters. KCCA has proven effective for tasks such as cross-modal retrieval and semantic analysis, though it faces computational challenges with large datasets due to its O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} memory requirement for sorting kernel matrices. KCCA was proposed independently by several researchers. ==== Deep CCA ==== Deep canonical correlation analysis (DCCA), introduced in 2013, employs neural networks to learn nonlinear transformations for maximizing the correlation between modalities. DCCA uses separate neural networks f x {\displaystyle f_{x}} and f y {\displaystyle f_{y}} for each modality to transform the original data before applying CCA: max W x , W y , θ x , θ y corr ⁡ ( f x ( X ; θ x ) , f y ( Y ; θ y ) ) {\displaystyle \max _{W_{x},W_{y},\theta _{x},\theta _{y}}\operatorname {corr} \left(f_{x}(X;\theta _{x}),f_{y}(Y;\theta _{y})\right)} where θ x {\displaystyle \theta _{x}} and θ y {\displaystyle \theta _{y}} represent the parameters of the neural networks, and W x {\displaystyle W_{x}} and W y {\displaystyle W_{y}} are the CCA projection matrices. The correlation objective is computed as: corr ⁡ ( H x , H y ) = tr ⁡ ( T − 1 / 2 H x T H y S − 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {corr} (H_{x},H_{y})=\operatorname {tr} \left(T^{-1/2}H_{x}^{T}H_{y}S^{-1/2}\right)} where H x = f x ( X ) {\displaystyle H_{x}=f_{x}(X)} and H y = f y ( Y ) {\displaystyle H_{y}=f_{y}(Y)} are the network outputs, T = H x T H x + r x I {\displaystyle T=H_{x}^{T}H_{x}+r_{x}I} , S = H y T H y + r y I {\displaystyle S=H_{y}^{T}H_{y}+r_{y}I} and r x , r y {\displaystyle r_{x},r_{y}} are the regularization parameters. DCCA overcomes the limitations of linear CCA and kernel CCA by learning complex nonlinear relationships while maintaining computational efficiency for large datasets through mini-batch optimization. === Graph-based methods === Graph-based approaches for multimodal representation learning leverage graph structure to model relationships between entities across different modalities. These methods typically represent each modality as a graph and then learn embedding that preserve cross-modal similarities, enabling more effective joint representation of heterogeneous data. One such method is cross-modal graph neural networks (CMGNNs) that extend traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) to handle data from multiple modalities by constructing graphs that capture both intra-modal and inter-modal relationships. These networks model interactions across modalities by representing them as nodes and their relationships as edges. Other graph-based methods include Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGMs) such as deep belief networks (DBN) and deep Boltzmann machines (DBM). These models can learn a joint representation across modalities, for instance, a multimodal DBN achieves this by adding a shared restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) hidden layer on top of modality-specific DBNs. Additionally, the structure of data in some domains like Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), such as the view hierarchy of app screens, can potentially be modeled using graph-like structures. The field of graph representation learning is also relevant, with ongoing progress in developing evaluation benchmarks. === Diffusion maps === Another set of methods relevant to multimodal representation learning are based on diffusion maps and their extensions to handle multiple modalities. ==== Multi-view diffusion maps ==== Multi-view diffusion maps address the challenge of achieving multi-view dimensionality reduction by effectively utilizing the availability of multiple views to extract a coherent low-dimensional representation of the data. The core idea is to exploit both the intrinsic relations within each view and the mutual relations between the different views, defining a cross-view model where a random walk process implicitly hops between objects in different views. A multi-view kernel matrix is constructed by combining these relations, defining a cross-view diffusion process and associ

  Read more →
• 

  Vicuna LLM

  Vicuna LLM is an omnibus large language model used in AI research. Its methodology is to enable the public at large to contrast and compare the accuracy of LLMs "in the wild" (an example of citizen science) and to vote on their output; a question-and-answer chat format is used. At the beginning of each round two LLM chatbots from a diverse pool of nine are presented randomly and anonymously, their identities only being revealed upon voting on their answers. The user has the option of either replaying ("regenerating") a round, or beginning an entirely fresh one with new LLMs. (The user also has the option of choosing which LLMs to do battle.) Based on Llama 2, it is an open source project, and it itself has become the subject of academic research in the burgeoning field. A non-commercial, public demo of the Vicuna-13b model is available to access using LMSYS.

  Read more →
• 

  AIXI

  AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →

• 

  Knowledge integration

  Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.

  Read more →