AI Code Tester

AI Code Tester — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Distributed file system for cloud

  A distributed file system for cloud is a file system that allows many clients to have access to data and supports operations (create, delete, modify, read, write) on that data. Each data file may be partitioned into several parts called chunks. Each chunk may be stored on different remote machines, facilitating the parallel execution of applications. Typically, data is stored in files in a hierarchical tree, where the nodes represent directories. There are several ways to share files in a distributed architecture: each solution must be suitable for a certain type of application, depending on how complex the application is. Meanwhile, the security of the system must be ensured. Confidentiality, availability and integrity are the main keys for a secure system. Users can share computing resources through the Internet thanks to cloud computing which is typically characterized by scalable and elastic resources – such as physical servers, applications and any services that are virtualized and allocated dynamically. Synchronization is required to make sure that all devices are up-to-date. Distributed file systems enable many big, medium, and small enterprises to store and access their remote data as they do local data, facilitating the use of variable resources. == Overview == === History === Today, there are many implementations of distributed file systems. The first file servers were developed by researchers in the 1970s. Sun Microsystem's Network File System became available in the 1980s. Before that, people who wanted to share files used the sneakernet method, physically transporting files on storage media from place to place. Once computer networks started to proliferate, it became obvious that the existing file systems had many limitations and were unsuitable for multi-user environments. Users initially used FTP to share files. FTP first ran on the PDP-10 at the end of 1973. Even with FTP, files needed to be copied from the source computer onto a server and then from the server onto the destination computer. Users were required to know the physical addresses of all computers involved with the file sharing. === Supporting techniques === Modern data centers must support large, heterogenous environments, consisting of large numbers of computers of varying capacities. Cloud computing coordinates the operation of all such systems, with techniques such as data center networking (DCN), the MapReduce framework, which supports data-intensive computing applications in parallel and distributed systems, and virtualization techniques that provide dynamic resource allocation, allowing multiple operating systems to coexist on the same physical server. === Applications === Cloud computing provides large-scale computing thanks to its ability to provide the needed CPU and storage resources to the user with complete transparency. This makes cloud computing particularly suited to support different types of applications that require large-scale distributed processing. This data-intensive computing needs a high performance file system that can share data between virtual machines (VM). Cloud computing dynamically allocates the needed resources, releasing them once a task is finished, requiring users to pay only for needed services, often via a service-level agreement. Cloud computing and cluster computing paradigms are becoming increasingly important to industrial data processing and scientific applications such as astronomy and physics, which frequently require the availability of large numbers of computers to carry out experiments. == Architectures == Most distributed file systems are built on the client-server architecture, but other, decentralized, solutions exist as well. === Client-server architecture === Network File System (NFS) uses a client-server architecture, which allows sharing of files between a number of machines on a network as if they were located locally, providing a standardized view. The NFS protocol allows heterogeneous clients' processes, probably running on different machines and under different operating systems, to access files on a distant server, ignoring the actual location of files. Relying on a single server results in the NFS protocol suffering from potentially low availability and poor scalability. Using multiple servers does not solve the availability problem since each server is working independently. The model of NFS is a remote file service. This model is also called the remote access model, which is in contrast with the upload/download model: Remote access model: Provides transparency, the client has access to a file. He sends requests to the remote file (while the file remains on the server). Upload/download model: The client can access the file only locally. It means that the client has to download the file, make modifications, and upload it again, to be used by others' clients. The file system used by NFS is almost the same as the one used by Unix systems. Files are hierarchically organized into a naming graph in which directories and files are represented by nodes. === Cluster-based architectures === A cluster-based architecture ameliorates some of the issues in client-server architectures, improving the execution of applications in parallel. The technique used here is file-striping: a file is split into multiple chunks, which are "striped" across several storage servers. The goal is to allow access to different parts of a file in parallel. If the application does not benefit from this technique, then it would be more convenient to store different files on different servers. However, when it comes to organizing a distributed file system for large data centers, such as Amazon and Google, that offer services to web clients allowing multiple operations (reading, updating, deleting,...) to a large number of files distributed among a large number of computers, then cluster-based solutions become more beneficial. Note that having a large number of computers may mean more hardware failures. Two of the most widely used distributed file systems (DFS) of this type are the Google File System (GFS) and the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS). The file systems of both are implemented by user level processes running on top of a standard operating system (Linux in the case of GFS). ==== Design principles ==== ===== Goals ===== Google File System (GFS) and Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) are specifically built for handling batch processing on very large data sets. For that, the following hypotheses must be taken into account: High availability: the cluster can contain thousands of file servers and some of them can be down at any time A server belongs to a rack, a room, a data center, a country, and a continent, in order to precisely identify its geographical location The size of a file can vary from many gigabytes to many terabytes. The file system should be able to support a massive number of files The need to support append operations and allow file contents to be visible even while a file is being written Communication is reliable among working machines: TCP/IP is used with a remote procedure call RPC communication abstraction. TCP allows the client to know almost immediately when there is a problem and a need to make a new connection. ===== Load balancing ===== Load balancing is essential for efficient operation in distributed environments. It means distributing work among different servers, fairly, in order to get more work done in the same amount of time and to serve clients faster. In a system containing N chunkservers in a cloud (N being 1000, 10000, or more), where a certain number of files are stored, each file is split into several parts or chunks of fixed size (for example, 64 megabytes), the load of each chunkserver being proportional to the number of chunks hosted by the server. In a load-balanced cloud, resources can be efficiently used while maximizing the performance of MapReduce-based applications. ===== Load rebalancing ===== In a cloud computing environment, failure is the norm, and chunkservers may be upgraded, replaced, and added to the system. Files can also be dynamically created, deleted, and appended. That leads to load imbalance in a distributed file system, meaning that the file chunks are not distributed equitably between the servers. Distributed file systems in clouds such as GFS and HDFS rely on central or master servers or nodes (Master for GFS and NameNode for HDFS) to manage the metadata and the load balancing. The master rebalances replicas periodically: data must be moved from one DataNode/chunkserver to another if free space on the first server falls below a certain threshold. However, this centralized approach can become a bottleneck for those master servers, if they become unable to manage a large number of file accesses, as it increases their already heavy loads. The load rebalance problem is NP-hard. In order to get a large number of chunkservers to work in collaboration, and to

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic knowledge management

  In computer science, semantic knowledge management is a set of practices that seeks to classify content so that the knowledge it contains may be immediately accessed and transformed for delivery to the desired audience, in the required format. This classification of content is semantic in its nature – identifying content by its type or meaning within the content itself and via external, descriptive metadata – and is achieved by employing XML technologies. The specific outcomes of these practices are: Maintain content for multiple audiences together in a single document Transform content into various delivery formats without re-authoring Search for content more effectively Involve more subject-matter experts in the creation of content without reducing quality Reduce production costs for delivery formats Reduce the manual administration of getting the right knowledge to the right people Reduce the cost and time to localize content == Notable semantic knowledge management systems == Learn eXact Thinking Cap LCMS Thinking Cap LMS Xyleme LCMS iMapping

  Read more →
• 

  GuideGeek

  GuideGeek is an AI-powered travel assistant that was launched by travel publisher Matador Network in April 2023 and is accessed by users through Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger to plan itineraries or provide travel tips and recommendations. It uses generative artificial intelligence technology from OpenAI. Matador Network is a San Francisco-based digital media company and online travel publication with millions of monthly visitors and social media followers. == Features == Users message GuideGeek questions about travel and receive customized answers and itineraries that are pulled from ChatGPT in addition to over 1,000 additional travel-specific integrations such as live flight, hotel and vacation rental data. Travelers can specify their budget and needs to generate custom itineraries. GuideGeek is not an app and does not require the user to download anything, instead relying on messaging apps such as Instagram to connect users with the AI. GuideGeek is free to use, doesn't include ads, and doesn't sell user data. Matador Network has a team of staff members monitoring conversations to correct them if the AI makes a false statement; for example, one user incorrectly inputted “Crete Freeze” instead of “Crete, Greece”, and the AI made up a fictional soft serve company. Using a technique known as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the accuracy of GuideGeek increased to 98%, according to Matador Network CEO, Ross Borden. == Destination partnerships == Matador Network is monetizing GuideGeek via white-label partnerships with tourism bureaus and destination marketing organizations (DMOs). As of March 2024, it had over a dozen such clients. Estes Park, Colorado, was one of the first DMOs to partner with Matador for a custom version of GuideGeek called “Rocky Mountain Roamer.” For Discover Greece, Matador created Pythia, a custom AI named after the high priestess of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. As Borden explained to Travel + Leisure, “Visitors to the Discover Greece website will find Pythia in the bottom right corner, and they can converse with the AI like a friend who knows everything about Greece.” Other DMOs who have partnerships with GuideGeek include the Aruba Tourism Authority, Visit Reno Tahoe, Illinois Office of Tourism, and Tourism Richmond. == Awards == In recognition of GuideGeek, Fast Company named Matador Network to its 2024 list of Most Innovative Companies. Following growth driven by the launch of GuideGeek, Matador Network was ranked on the 2024 Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private companies in America. The 2024 Skift IDEA Awards recognized Matador Network as a finalist in the category of Best Use of AI for GuideGeek's customized AI for the travel industry. == Michael Motamedi experiment == Travel influencer and chef Michael Motamedi traveled the world with his wife Vanessa Salas and their 2-year-old daughter on a six-month trip (which was later extended to a full year) led by GuideGeek. The family started off in Morocco before heading to Spain and continuing east. The experiment became the basis of a web series called “No Fixed Address.” Motamedi used GuideGeek's AI to select countries the family visited, where they ate, and what sites they saw. Motamedi and Salas first tested out the technology in April 2023 while using the chatbot to plan a date night in Mexico City. GuideGeek provided speakeasy and drink recommendations as well as local history facts.

  Read more →
• 

  Connectionism

  Connectionism is an approach to the study of human mental processes and cognition that utilizes mathematical models known as connectionist networks or artificial neural networks. Connectionism has had many "waves" since its beginnings. The first wave appeared 1943 with Warren Sturgis McCulloch and Walter Pitts both focusing on comprehending neural circuitry through a formal and mathematical approach, and Frank Rosenblatt who published the 1958 paper "The Perceptron: A Probabilistic Model For Information Storage and Organization in the Brain" in Psychological Review, while working at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. The first wave ended with the 1969 book Perceptrons about limitations of the original perceptron idea, written by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert, which contributed to discouraging major funding agencies in the US from investing in connectionist research. With a few noteworthy deviations, most connectionist research entered a period of inactivity until the mid-1980s. The term connectionist model was reintroduced in a 1982 paper in the journal Cognitive Science by Jerome Feldman and Dana Ballard. The second wave blossomed in the late 1980s, following a 1987 book Parallel Distributed Processing by James L. McClelland, David E. Rumelhart, et al., which introduced a couple of improvements to the simple perceptron idea, such as intermediate processors (now known as "hidden layers") alongside input and output units, and used a sigmoid activation function instead of the old "all-or-nothing" function. Their work built upon that of John Hopfield, who was a key figure investigating the mathematical characteristics of sigmoid activation functions. From the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, connectionism took on an almost revolutionary tone when Schneider, Terence Horgan and Tienson posed the question of whether connectionism represented a fundamental shift in psychology and so-called "good old-fashioned AI", or GOFAI. Some advantages of the second wave connectionist approach included its applicability to a broad array of functions, structural approximation to biological neurons, low requirements for innate structure, and capacity for graceful degradation. Its disadvantages included the difficulty in deciphering how ANNs process information or account for the compositionality of mental representations, and a resultant difficulty explaining phenomena at a higher level. The current (third) wave has been marked by advances in deep learning, which have made possible the creation of large language models. The success of deep-learning networks in the past decade has greatly increased the popularity of this approach, but the complexity and scale of such networks has brought with them increased interpretability problems. == Basic principle == The central connectionist principle is that mental phenomena can be described by interconnected networks of simple and often uniform units. The form of the connections and the units can vary from model to model. For example, units in the network could represent neurons and the connections could represent synapses, as in the human brain. This principle has been seen as an alternative to GOFAI and the classical theories of mind based on symbolic computation, but the extent to which the two approaches are compatible has been the subject of much debate since their inception. === Activation function === Internal states of any network change over time due to neurons sending a signal to a succeeding layer of neurons in the case of a feedforward network, or to a previous layer in the case of a recurrent network. Discovery of non-linear activation functions has enabled the second wave of connectionism. === Memory and learning === Neural networks follow two basic principles: Any mental state can be described as a n-dimensional vector of numeric activation values over neural units in a network. Memory and learning are created by modifying the 'weights' of the connections between neural units, generally represented as an n×m matrix. The weights are adjusted according to some learning rule or algorithm, such as Hebbian learning. Most of the variety among the models comes from: Interpretation of units: Units can be interpreted as neurons or groups of neurons. Definition of activation: Activation can be defined in a variety of ways. For example, in a Boltzmann machine, the activation is interpreted as the probability of generating an action potential spike, and is determined via a logistic function on the sum of the inputs to a unit. Learning algorithm: Different networks modify their connections differently. In general, any mathematically defined change in connection weights over time is referred to as the "learning algorithm". === Biological realism === Connectionist work in general does not need to be biologically realistic. One area where connectionist models are thought to be biologically implausible is with respect to error-propagation networks that are needed to support learning, but error propagation can explain some of the biologically-generated electrical activity seen at the scalp in event-related potentials such as the N400 and P600, and this provides some biological support for one of the key assumptions of connectionist learning procedures. Many recurrent connectionist models also incorporate dynamical systems theory. Many researchers, such as the connectionist Paul Smolensky, have argued that connectionist models will evolve toward fully continuous, high-dimensional, non-linear, dynamic systems approaches. == Precursors == Precursors of the connectionist principles can be traced to early work in psychology, such as that of William James. Psychological theories based on knowledge about the human brain were fashionable in the late 19th century. As early as 1869, the neurologist John Hughlings Jackson argued for multi-level, distributed systems. Following from this lead, Herbert Spencer's Principles of Psychology, 3rd edition (1872), and Sigmund Freud's Project for a Scientific Psychology (composed 1895) propounded connectionist or proto-connectionist theories. These tended to be speculative theories. But by the early 20th century, Edward Thorndike was writing about human learning that posited a connectionist type network. Hopfield networks had precursors in the Ising model due to Wilhelm Lenz (1920) and Ernst Ising (1925), though the Ising model conceived by them did not involve time. Monte Carlo simulations of Ising model required the advent of computers in the 1950s. == The first wave == The first wave begun in 1943 with Warren Sturgis McCulloch and Walter Pitts both focusing on comprehending neural circuitry through a formal and mathematical approach. McCulloch and Pitts showed how neural systems could implement first-order logic: Their classic paper "A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity" (1943) is important in this development here. They were influenced by the work of Nicolas Rashevsky in the 1930s and symbolic logic in the style of Principia Mathematica. Hebb contributed greatly to speculations about neural functioning, and proposed a learning principle, Hebbian learning. Lashley argued for distributed representations as a result of his failure to find anything like a localized engram in years of lesion experiments. Friedrich Hayek independently conceived the model, first in a brief unpublished manuscript in 1920, then expanded into a book in 1952. The Perceptron machines were proposed and built by Frank Rosenblatt, who published the 1958 paper “The Perceptron: A Probabilistic Model For Information Storage and Organization in the Brain” in Psychological Review, while working at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. He cited Hebb, Hayek, Uttley, and Ashby as main influences. Another form of connectionist model was the relational network framework developed by the linguist Sydney Lamb in the 1960s. The research group led by Widrow empirically searched for methods to train two-layered ADALINE networks (MADALINE), with limited success. A method to train multilayered perceptrons with arbitrary levels of trainable weights was published by Alexey Grigorevich Ivakhnenko and Valentin Lapa in 1965, called the Group Method of Data Handling. This method employs incremental layer by layer training based on regression analysis, where useless units in hidden layers are pruned with the help of a validation set. The first multilayered perceptrons trained by stochastic gradient descent was published in 1967 by Shun'ichi Amari. In computer experiments conducted by Amari's student Saito, a five layer MLP with two modifiable layers learned useful internal representations to classify non-linearily separable pattern classes. In 1972, Shun'ichi Amari produced an early example of self-organizing network. == The neural network winter == There was some conflict among artificial intelligence researchers as to what neural networks are useful for. Around late 1960s, there was a widespread lull in research a

  Read more →
• 

  Linked timestamping

  Linked timestamping is a type of trusted timestamping where issued time-stamps are related to each other. Each time-stamp would contain data that authenticates the time-stamp before it, the authentication would be authenticating the entire message, including the previous time-stamps authentication, making a chain. This makes it impossible to add a time-stamp in to the middle of the chain, as any time-stamps afterwards would be different. == Description == Linked timestamping creates time-stamp tokens which are dependent on each other, entangled in some authenticated data structure. Later modification of the issued time-stamps would invalidate this structure. The temporal order of issued time-stamps is also protected by this data structure, making backdating of the issued time-stamps impossible, even by the issuing server itself. The top of the authenticated data structure is generally published in some hard-to-modify and widely witnessed media, like printed newspaper or public blockchain. There are no (long-term) private keys in use, avoiding PKI-related risks. Suitable candidates for the authenticated data structure include: Linear hash chain Merkle tree (binary hash tree) Skip list The simplest linear hash chain-based time-stamping scheme is illustrated in the following diagram: The linking-based time-stamping authority (TSA) usually performs the following distinct functions: Aggregation For increased scalability the TSA might group time-stamping requests together which arrive within a short time-frame. These requests are aggregated together without retaining their temporal order and then assigned the same time value. Aggregation creates a cryptographic connection between all involved requests; the authenticating aggregate value will be used as input for the linking operation. Linking Linking creates a verifiable and ordered cryptographic link between the current and already issued time-stamp tokens. Publishing The TSA periodically publishes some links, so that all previously issued time-stamp tokens depend on the published link and that it is practically impossible to forge the published values. By publishing widely witnessed links, the TSA creates unforgeable verification points for validating all previously issued time-stamps. == Security == Linked timestamping is inherently more secure than the usual, public-key signature based time-stamping. All consequential time-stamps "seal" previously issued ones - hash chain (or other authenticated dictionary in use) could be built only in one way; modifying issued time-stamps is nearly as hard as finding a preimage for the used cryptographic hash function. Continuity of operation is observable by users; periodic publications in widely witnessed media provide extra transparency. Tampering with absolute time values could be detected by users, whose time-stamps are relatively comparable by system design. Absence of secret keys increases system trustworthiness. There are no keys to leak and hash algorithms are considered more future-proof than modular arithmetic based algorithms, e.g. RSA. Linked timestamping scales well - hashing is much faster than public key cryptography. There is no need for specific cryptographic hardware with its limitations. The common technology for guaranteeing long-term attestation value of the issued time-stamps (and digitally signed data) is periodic over-time-stamping of the time-stamp token. Because of missing key-related risks and of the plausible safety margin of the reasonably chosen hash function this over-time-stamping period of hash-linked token could be an order of magnitude longer than of public-key signed token. == Research == === Foundations === Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta proposed in 1990 to link issued time-stamps together into linear hash-chain, using a collision-resistant hash function. The main rationale was to diminish TSA trust requirements. Tree-like schemes and operating in rounds were proposed by Benaloh and de Mare in 1991 and by Bayer, Haber and Stornetta in 1992. Benaloh and de Mare constructed a one-way accumulator in 1994 and proposed its use in time-stamping. When used for aggregation, one-way accumulator requires only one constant-time computation for round membership verification. Surety started the first commercial linked timestamping service in January 1995. Linking scheme is described and its security is analyzed in the following article by Haber and Sornetta. Buldas et al. continued with further optimization and formal analysis of binary tree and threaded tree based schemes. Skip-list based time-stamping system was implemented in 2005; related algorithms are quite efficient. === Provable security === Security proof for hash-function based time-stamping schemes was presented by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004. There is an explicit upper bound N {\displaystyle N} for the number of time stamps issued during the aggregation period; it is suggested that it is probably impossible to prove the security without this explicit bound - the so-called black-box reductions will fail in this task. Considering that all known practically relevant and efficient security proofs are black-box, this negative result is quite strong. Next, in 2005 it was shown that bounded time-stamping schemes with a trusted audit party (who periodically reviews the list of all time-stamps issued during an aggregation period) can be made universally composable - they remain secure in arbitrary environments (compositions with other protocols and other instances of the time-stamping protocol itself). Buldas, Laur showed in 2007 that bounded time-stamping schemes are secure in a very strong sense - they satisfy the so-called "knowledge-binding" condition. The security guarantee offered by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004 is improved by diminishing the security loss coefficient from N {\displaystyle N} to N {\displaystyle {\sqrt {N}}} . The hash functions used in the secure time-stamping schemes do not necessarily have to be collision-resistant or even one-way; secure time-stamping schemes are probably possible even in the presence of a universal collision-finding algorithm (i.e. universal and attacking program that is able to find collisions for any hash function). This suggests that it is possible to find even stronger proofs based on some other properties of the hash functions. At the illustration above hash tree based time-stamping system works in rounds ( t {\displaystyle t} , t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} , t + 2 {\displaystyle t+2} , ...), with one aggregation tree per round. Capacity of the system ( N {\displaystyle N} ) is determined by the tree size ( N = 2 l {\displaystyle N=2^{l}} , where l {\displaystyle l} denotes binary tree depth). Current security proofs work on the assumption that there is a hard limit of the aggregation tree size, possibly enforced by the subtree length restriction. == Standards == ISO 18014 part 3 covers 'Mechanisms producing linked tokens'. American National Standard for Financial Services, "Trusted Timestamp Management and Security" (ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard) from June 2005 covers linking-based and hybrid time-stamping schemes. There is no IETF RFC or standard draft about linking based time-stamping. RFC 4998 (Evidence Record Syntax) encompasses hash tree and time-stamp as an integrity guarantee for long-term archiving.

  Read more →
• 

  Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

  The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (also called Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence or AI convention) is an international treaty on artificial intelligence. It was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe (CoE) and signed on 5 September 2024. The treaty aims to ensure that the development and use of AI technologies align with fundamental human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law, addressing risks such as misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and threats to public institutions. More than 50 countries, including the EU member states, have endorsed the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. == Background == The development of the Framework Convention on AI emerged in response to growing concerns over the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of artificial intelligence. The Council of Europe, which has historically played a key role in setting human rights standards across Europe, initiated discussions on AI governance in 2020, leading to the drafting of a binding legal framework. The process of creating the Framework Convention began in 2019 with the ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) assessing the feasibility of the instrument. In 2022, the Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) took over the process, drafting and negotiating the text of the Convention. The treaty is designed to complement existing international human rights instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. == Structure and content == The Convention establishes fundamental principles for AI governance, including transparency, accountability, non-discrimination, and human rights protection through eight chapters and 26 articles. Adopted in 2024, this landmark treaty addresses AI governance through seven core principles and detailed implementation mechanisms. It mandates risk and impact assessments to mitigate potential harms and provides safeguards such as the right to challenge AI-driven decisions. It applies to public authorities and private entities acting on their behalf but excludes national security and defense activities. Implementation is overseen by a Conference of the Parties, ensuring compliance and international cooperation. Activities within the AI system lifecycle must adhere to seven fundamental principles, ensuring compliance with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The treaty also establishes remedies, procedural rights and safeguards, and risk and impact management requirements to promote accountability, transparency, and responsible AI development. The treaty consists of five chapters. Chapter I contains general provisions. Chapter II states the general obligation to protect human rights and the integrity of democratic processes and respect of the rule of law. The main principles and rights are contained in Chapter III, which consists of Articles 6 to 13. Chapter IV (Articles 14 to 15) sets up the legal remedies. Chapter V states the risk and impact management framework. Chapter VI facilitates the implementation criteria of the treaty. Chapter VII sets the co-operation and oversight mechanisms. Chapter VIII contains various concluding clauses. Article 1 declares the objectives of the treaty, to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. == Entry into force == The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five ratification made by five countries, including three member states of the Council of Europe. == Competing approaches == While the CoE's AI Convention represents a multilateral effort to regulate AI through a human rights-based approach, alternative frameworks have also been proposed. One notable example is the Munich Draft for a Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights, an initiative led by legal scholars and policymakers in Germany. The Munich Draft advocates for stronger safeguards against AI-related risks, emphasizing stricter data protection measures, accountability for AI developers, and explicit prohibitions on high-risk AI applications, such as mass surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons. Unlike the CoE convention, which focuses on balancing innovation with regulation, the Munich Draft takes a more precautionary stance, calling for tighter controls over AI deployment in sensitive domains. Other competing international efforts include the OECD’s AI Principles, the GPAI (Global Partnership on AI), and the European Union's AI Act, each of which offers different regulatory strategies to govern AI at regional and global levels. == Signatories == Signatories include Andorra, Canada, the European Union, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. == Endorsement == The treaty was widely endorsed by leading AI policy experts, including Stuart J. Russell, Virginia Dignum, Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem, Pascal Pichonnaz, Maria Helen Murphy, Angella Ndaka, Hannes Werthner, Katja Langenbucher, Gry Hasselbalch, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Kutoma Wakunuma, Gianclaudio Malgieri, Oreste Pollicino, Nagla Rizk, Giovanni Sartor, Lee Tiedrich, Ingrid Schneider, Eduardo Bertoni, Garry Kasparov, Merve Hikcok, and Marc Rotenberg. The treaty was also endorsed by notable political leaders, including Theodoros Roussopoulos, President of the Parliamentart Assembly in the Council of Europe, and Christopher Holmes, Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and by the International Bar Association (IBA), and personally by Almudena Arpón de Mendívil, President of the IBA. The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) has been carrying out a campaign to promote endorsement of the treaty by urging various countries to sign and ratify the treaty. The CAIDP further urged the countries to make a clear and firm commitment to ensure the full inclusion of the private sector under the treaty’s provisions.

  Read more →
• 

  Lukas Biewald

  Lukas Biewald (born 1981) is an American entrepreneur and a prominent figure in artificial intelligence. He is recognized for his contributions to machine learning and as the CEO and co-founder of Weights & Biases, a company that builds developer tools for AI, that sold to CoreWeave in 2025 for $1.7B. He previously founded and was CEO of Figure Eight, a human-in-the-loop machine learning platform. He has co-authored 26 AI research papers from 2004 through 2018. == Early life and education == Biewald was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1981. He attended Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and later earned both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Computer science from Stanford University. == Early Career and Founding Figure Eight == After graduation, Biewald joined Yahoo! as an engineer, working on machine translations to improve search results, and eventually led the Search Relevance Team for Yahoo! Japan. He later joined Powerset, a natural language search technology company, as their Senior Scientist, which was acquired by Microsoft in 2008 for an estimated $100M. In 2007, Biewald co-founded Figure Eight (formerly CrowdFlower), a data labeling and crowdsourcing company that created datasets for training machine learning models. Figure Eight was acquired by Appen in 2019 for $300 million. == Weights and Biases == In 2017, Biewald co-founded Weights & Biases with Chris Van Pelt and Shawn Lewis. The company provides tools for tracking machine learning experiments, model management, and collaborative AI and LLM app development. The platform has been adopted by organizations such as OpenAI, Salesforce, and Microsoft. In March 2025 Coreweave acquired Weights and Biases at $1.7 billion, with the transaction closing on May 5, 2025. == Gradient Dissent == Biewald hosts the bi-weekly podcast Gradient Dissent. Guest have included: Anthony Goldbloom – Co-founder & CEO of Kaggle. “How to Win Kaggle Competitions” (podcast, Sep. 9, 2020). Shared tips on data-science competitions from the founder of the largest ML community. Richard Socher – Founder & CEO of You.com; former Chief Scientist at Salesforce. “The Challenges of Making ML Work in the Real World” (podcast, September 28, 2020). A leading NLP researcher, he spoke on multimodal search engines powered by large language models. Jensen Huang – Founder & CEO of NVIDIA. “NVIDIA’s CEO on the Next Generation of AI and MLOps” (podcast, March 3, 2022). Huang’s GPUs power modern ML research and production. Emad Mostaque – Co-founder & CEO of Stability AI. “Stable Diffusion, Stability AI, and What’s Next” (podcast, Nov. 15, 2022). Leads the company behind Stable Diffusion, which helped spark the generative-AI imaging boom. Drago Anguelov – Head of Research at Waymo. “Robustness, Safety, and Scalability at Waymo” (podcast, July 14, 2022). Covered Waymo’s self-driving AI advances and deployment challenges. Jeremy Howard – Co-founder of fast.ai. “The Simple but Profound Insight Behind Diffusion” (podcast, Jan. 5, 2023). Known for democratizing deep-learning education; discussed diffusion models and accessible AI tooling. Aidan Gomez – Co-founder & CEO of Cohere. “Scaling LLMs and Accelerating Adoption” (podcast, April 20, 2023). Co-author of “Attention Is All You Need,” he shared how Cohere delivers large-scale NLP models as a service. Chelsea Finn – Stanford Assistant Professor (AI & Robotics). “Shaping the World of Robotics with Chelsea Finn” (podcast, February 15, 2024). A pioneer in meta-learning and robotics, she detailed robots learning complex tasks like cooking. Andrew Feldman – Co-founder & CEO of Cerebras Systems. "Launching the Fastest AI Inference Solution" (podcast, August 27, 2024). Described wafer-scale AI chips achieving new training performance records. Thomas Dohmke – CEO of GitHub. “GitHub CEO on Copilot and the Future of Software Development” (podcast, June 10, 2025). Discussed building Copilot and the future of AI-assisted coding. Martin Shkreli – Founder of Godel Terminal. “From Pharma to AGI Hype, and Developing AI in Finance: Martin Shkreli’s Journey” (podcast, May 20, 2025). Shkreli reflects on his pharma controversies, prison experience, and his new AI-driven trading platform. Jarek Kutylowski – Founder & CEO of DeepL. “How DeepL Built a Translation Powerhouse with AI” (podcast, July 8, 2025). Shared how DeepL’s neural-MT rivals Google Translate through model and infrastructure innovation. == Awards and recognition == In 2010, Lukas Biewald won the Netexplorateur Award for creating the GiveWork iPhone app, which allows users to perform small tasks that assist refugees and people in developing countries. In 2010, Inc Magazine included Biewald and Van Pelt on its list of the Top 30 Entrepreneurs Under 30. == Publications == Ensuring quality in crowdsourced search relevance evaluation: The effects of training question distribution by John Le, Andy Edmonds, Vaughn Hester, Lukas Biewald. SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation, July 2010. Superficial Data Analysis: Exploring Millions of Social Stereotypes by Lukas Biewald, Brendan O’Connor. O’Reilly July 2009 Biewald has co-authored 26 AI research papers from 2004 through 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  Library classification

  A library classification is a system used within a library to organize materials, including books, sound and video recordings, electronic materials, etc., both on shelves and in catalogs and indexes. Each item is typically assigned a call number, which identifies the location of the item within the system. Materials can be arranged by many different factors, typically in either a hierarchical tree structure based on the subject or using a faceted classification system, which allows the assignment of multiple classifications to an object, enabling the classifications to be ordered in many ways. == Description == Library classification is an important and crucial aspect in library and information science. It is distinct from scientific classification in that it has as its goal to provide a useful ordering of documents rather than a theoretical organization of knowledge. Although it has the practical purpose of creating a physical ordering of documents, it does generally attempt to adhere to accepted scientific knowledge. Library classification helps to accommodate all the newly published literature in an already created order of arrangement in a filial sequence. Library classification can be defined as the arrangement of books on shelves, or description of them, in the manner which is most useful to those who read with the ultimate aim of grouping similar things together. Library classification is meant to achieve these four purposes: ordering the fields of knowledge in a systematic way, bring related items together in the most helpful sequence, provide orderly access on the shelf, and provide a location for an item on the shelf. Library classification is distinct from the application of subject headings in that classification organizes knowledge into a systematic order, while subject headings provide access to intellectual materials through vocabulary terms that may or may not be organized as a knowledge system. The characteristics that a bibliographic classification demands for the sake of reaching these purposes are: a useful sequence of subjects at all levels, a concise memorable notation, and a host of techniques and devices of number synthesis. == History == Library classifications were preceded by classifications used by bibliographers such as Conrad Gessner. The earliest library classification schemes organized books in broad subject categories. The earliest known library classification scheme is the Pinakes by Callimachus, a scholar at the Library of Alexandria during the third century BC. During the Renaissance and Reformation era, "Libraries were organized according to the whims or knowledge of individuals in charge." This changed the format in which various materials were classified. Some collections were classified by language and others by how they were printed. After the printing revolution in the sixteenth century, the increase in available printed materials made such broad classification unworkable, and more granular classifications for library materials had to be developed in the nineteenth century. In 1627 Gabriel Naudé published a book called Advice on Establishing a Library. At the time, he was working in the private library of Président à mortier Henri de Mesmes II. Mesmes had around 8,000 printed books and many more Greek, Latin and French written manuscripts. Although it was a private library, scholars with references could access it. The purpose of Advice on Establishing a Library was to identify rules for private book collectors to organize their collections in a more orderly way to increase the collection's usefulness and beauty. Naudé developed a classification system based on seven different classes: theology, medicine, jurisprudence, history, philosophy, mathematics, and the humanities. These seven classes would later be increased to twelve. Advice on Establishing a Library was about a private library, but within the same book, Naudé encouraged the idea of public libraries open to all people regardless of their ability to pay for access to the collection. One of the most famous libraries that Naudé helped improve was the Bibliothèque Mazarine in Paris. Naudé spent ten years there as a librarian. Because of Naudé's strong belief in free access to libraries to all people, the Bibliothèque Mazarine became the first public library in France around 1644. Although libraries created order within their collections from as early as the fifth century BC, the Paris Bookseller's classification, developed in 1842 by Jacques Charles Brunet, is generally seen as the first of the modern book classifications. Brunet provided five major classes: theology, jurisprudence, sciences and arts, belles-lettres, and history. Classification can now be seen as a provider of subject access to information in a networked environment. == Types == There are many standard systems of library classification in use, and many more have been proposed over the years. However, in general, classification systems can be divided into three types depending on how they are used: === Universal schemes === Covers all subjects, e.g. the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Colon Classification (CC). === Specific classification schemes === Covers particular subjects or types of materials, e.g. Iconclass (art), British Catalogue of Music Classification, and Dickinson classification (music), or the NLM Classification (medicine). === National schemes === Specially created for certain countries, e.g. Swedish library classification system, SAB (Sveriges Allmänna Biblioteksförening). The Library of Congress Classification was designed around the collection of the US Library of Congress and has an American, European, and Christian bias. Nevertheless, it is used widely in large academic and research libraries. In terms of functionality, classification systems are often described as: === Enumerative === Subject headings are listed alphabetically, with numbers assigned to each heading in alphabetical order. === Hierarchical === Subjects are divided hierarchically, from most general to most specific. === Faceted/analytico-synthetic === Subjects are divided into mutually exclusive orthogonal facets. There are few completely enumerative systems or faceted systems; most systems are a blend but favouring one type or the other. The most common classification systems, LCC and DDC, are essentially enumerative, though with some hierarchical and faceted elements (more so for DDC), especially at the broadest and most general level. The first true faceted system was the colon classification of S. R. Ranganathan. == Methods or systems == Classification types denote the classification or categorization according to the form or characteristics or qualities of a classification scheme or schemes. Method and system has similar meaning. Method or methods or system means the classification schemes like Dewey Decimal Classification or Universal Decimal Classification. The types of classification is for identifying and understanding or education or research purposes while classification method means those classification schemes like DDC, UDC. === English language universal classification systems === The most common systems in English-speaking countries are: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) Library of Congress Classification (LCC) Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) Other systems include: Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), originally developed for use by U.S. booksellers, has become increasingly popular in libraries. Bliss bibliographic classification used in some British libraries Colon classification (CC) Garside classification used in most libraries of University College London Gladstone Library Classification, devised by W.E. Gladstone and used exclusively at Gladstone's Library Harvard-Yenching Classification, an English classification system for Chinese language materials === Non-English universal classification systems === German Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) A system of book classification for Chinese libraries (Liu's Classification) library classification for user New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) Chinese Library Classification (CLC) Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) Russian Library-Bibliographical Classification (BBK) Swedish library classification system (SAB) === Universal classification systems that rely on synthesis (faceted systems) === Bliss bibliographic classification Colon classification Cutter Expansive Classification Universal Decimal Classification Newer classification systems tend to use the principle of synthesis (combining codes from different lists to represent the different attributes of a work) heavily, which is comparatively lacking in LC or DDC. == Practice == Library classification is associated with library (descriptive) cataloging under the rubric of cataloging and classification, sometimes grouped together as technical serv

  Read more →
• 

  Learnable function class

  In statistical learning theory, a learnable function class is a set of functions for which an algorithm can be devised to asymptotically minimize the expected risk, uniformly over all probability distributions. The concept of learnable classes are closely related to regularization in machine learning, and provides large sample justifications for certain learning algorithms. == Definition == === Background === Let Ω = X × Y = { ( x , y ) } {\displaystyle \Omega ={\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}=\{(x,y)\}} be the sample space, where y {\displaystyle y} are the labels and x {\displaystyle x} are the covariates (predictors). F = { f : X ↦ Y } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:{\mathcal {X}}\mapsto {\mathcal {Y}}\}} is a collection of mappings (functions) under consideration to link x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} . L : Y × Y ↦ R {\displaystyle L:{\mathcal {Y}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\mapsto \mathbb {R} } is a pre-given loss function (usually non-negative). Given a probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , define the expected risk I P ( f ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)} to be: I P ( f ) = ∫ L ( f ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)=\int L(f(x),y)dP(x,y)} The general goal in statistical learning is to find the function in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that minimizes the expected risk. That is, to find solutions to the following problem: f ^ = arg ⁡ min f ∈ F I P ( f ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)} But in practice the distribution P {\displaystyle P} is unknown, and any learning task can only be based on finite samples. Thus we seek instead to find an algorithm that asymptotically minimizes the empirical risk, i.e., to find a sequence of functions { f ^ n } n = 1 ∞ {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty }} that satisfies lim n → ∞ P ( I P ( f ^ n ) − inf f ∈ F I P ( f ) > ϵ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\mathbb {P} (I_{P}({\hat {f}}_{n})-\inf _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)>\epsilon )=0} One usual algorithm to find such a sequence is through empirical risk minimization. === Learnable function class === We can make the condition given in the above equation stronger by requiring that the convergence is uniform for all probability distributions. That is: The intuition behind the more strict requirement is as such: the rate at which sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} converges to the minimizer of the expected risk can be very different for different P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . Because in real world the true distribution P {\displaystyle P} is always unknown, we would want to select a sequence that performs well under all cases. However, by the no free lunch theorem, such a sequence that satisfies (1) does not exist if F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is too complex. This means we need to be careful and not allow too "many" functions in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} if we want (1) to be a meaningful requirement. Specifically, function classes that ensure the existence of a sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} that satisfies (1) are known as learnable classes. It is worth noting that at least for supervised classification and regression problems, if a function class is learnable, then the empirical risk minimization automatically satisfies (1). Thus in these settings not only do we know that the problem posed by (1) is solvable, we also immediately have an algorithm that gives the solution. == Interpretations == If the true relationship between y {\displaystyle y} and x {\displaystyle x} is y ∼ f ∗ ( x ) {\displaystyle y\sim f^{}(x)} , then by selecting the appropriate loss function, f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can always be expressed as the minimizer of the expected loss across all possible functions. That is, f ∗ = arg ⁡ min f ∈ F ∗ I P ( f ) {\displaystyle f^{}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}I_{P}(f)} Here we let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} be the collection of all possible functions mapping X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} onto Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} . f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can be interpreted as the actual data generating mechanism. However, the no free lunch theorem tells us that in practice, with finite samples we cannot hope to search for the expected risk minimizer over F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} . Thus we often consider a subset of F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} , F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , to carry out searches on. By doing so, we risk that f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} might not be an element of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . This tradeoff can be mathematically expressed as In the above decomposition, part ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} does not depend on the data and is non-stochastic. It describes how far away our assumptions ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ) are from the truth ( F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} ). ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} will be strictly greater than 0 if we make assumptions that are too strong ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} too small). On the other hand, failing to put enough restrictions on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} will cause it to be not learnable, and part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} will not stochastically converge to 0. This is the well-known overfitting problem in statistics and machine learning literature. == Example: Tikhonov regularization == A good example where learnable classes are used is the so-called Tikhonov regularization in reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Specifically, let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} be an RKHS, and | | ⋅ | | 2 {\displaystyle ||\cdot ||_{2}} be the norm on F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} given by its inner product. It is shown in that F = { f : | | f | | 2 ≤ γ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:||f||_{2}\leq \gamma \}} is a learnable class for any finite, positive γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The empirical minimization algorithm to the dual form of this problem is arg ⁡ min f ∈ F ∗ { ∑ i = 1 n L ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + λ | | f | | 2 } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}\left\{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\lambda ||f||_{2}\right\}} This was first introduced by Tikhonov to solve ill-posed problems. Many statistical learning algorithms can be expressed in such a form (for example, the well-known ridge regression). The tradeoff between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in (2) is geometrically more intuitive with Tikhonov regularization in RKHS. We can consider a sequence of { F γ } {\displaystyle \{{\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }\}} , which are essentially balls in F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} with centers at 0. As γ {\displaystyle \gamma } gets larger, F γ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }} gets closer to the entire space, and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} is likely to become smaller. However we will also suffer smaller convergence rates in ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} . The way to choose an optimal γ {\displaystyle \gamma } in finite sample settings is usually through cross-validation. == Relationship to empirical process theory == Part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} in (2) is closely linked to empirical process theory in statistics, where the empirical risk { ∑ i = 1 n L ( y i , f ( x i ) ) , f ∈ F } {\displaystyle \{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(y_{i},f(x_{i})),f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} are known as empirical processes. In this field, the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that satisfies the stochastic convergence are known as uniform Glivenko–Cantelli classes. It has been shown that under certain regularity conditions, learnable classes and uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli classes are equivalent. Interplay between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in statistics literature is often known as the bias-variance tradeoff. However, note that in the authors gave an example of stochastic convex optimization for General Setting of Learning where learnability is not equivalent with uniform convergence.

  Read more →
• 

  Norm (artificial intelligence)

  Norms can be considered from different perspectives in artificial intelligence to create computers and computer software that are capable of intelligent behaviour. In artificial intelligence and law, legal norms are considered in computational tools to automatically reason upon them. In multi-agent systems (MAS), a branch of artificial intelligence (AI), a norm is a guide for the common conduct of agents, thereby easing their decision-making, coordination and organization. Since most problems concerning regulation of the interaction of autonomous agents are linked to issues traditionally addressed by legal studies, and since law is the most pervasive and developed normative system, efforts to account for norms in artificial intelligence and law and in normative multi-agent systems often overlap. == Artificial intelligence and law == With the arrival of computer applications into the legal domain, and especially artificial intelligence applied to it, logic has been used as the major tool to formalize legal reasoning and has been developed in many directions, ranging from deontic logics to formal systems of argumentation. The knowledge base of legal reasoning systems usually includes legal norms (such as governmental regulations and contracts), and as a consequence, legal rules are the focus of knowledge representation and reasoning approaches to automatize and solve complex legal tasks. Legal norms are typically represented into a logic-based formalism, such as deontic logic. Artificial intelligence and law applications using an explicit representation of norms range from checking the compliance of business processes and the automatic execution of smart contracts to legal expert systems advising people on legal matters. == Multi-agent systems == Norms in multi-agent systems may appear with different degrees of explicitness ranging from fully unambiguous written prescriptions to implicit unwritten norms or tacit emerging patterns. Computer scientists’ studies mirror this polarity. Explicit norms are typically investigated in formal logics (e.g. deontic logics and argumentation) to represent and reason upon them, leading eventually to architecture for cognitive agents, while implicit norms are accounted as patterns emerging from repeated interactions amongst agents (typically reinforced learning agents). Explicit and implicit norms can be used together to coordinate agents. Explicit norms are typically represented as a deontic statement that aims at regulating the life of software agents and the interactions among them. It can be an obligation, a permission or a prohibition, and is often represented with some dialect or extension of Deontic logic. At the opposite, implicit norms are social norms that are not written, and they usually emerge from the repetitive interactions of agents.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic knowledge management

  In computer science, semantic knowledge management is a set of practices that seeks to classify content so that the knowledge it contains may be immediately accessed and transformed for delivery to the desired audience, in the required format. This classification of content is semantic in its nature – identifying content by its type or meaning within the content itself and via external, descriptive metadata – and is achieved by employing XML technologies. The specific outcomes of these practices are: Maintain content for multiple audiences together in a single document Transform content into various delivery formats without re-authoring Search for content more effectively Involve more subject-matter experts in the creation of content without reducing quality Reduce production costs for delivery formats Reduce the manual administration of getting the right knowledge to the right people Reduce the cost and time to localize content == Notable semantic knowledge management systems == Learn eXact Thinking Cap LCMS Thinking Cap LMS Xyleme LCMS iMapping

  Read more →
• 

  Type–token distinction

  The type–token distinction is the difference between a type of objects (analogous to a class) and the individual tokens of that type (analogous to instances). Since each type may be instantiated by multiple tokens, there are generally more tokens than types of an object. For example, the sentence "A rose is a rose is a rose" contains three word types: three word tokens of the type a, two word tokens of the type is, and three word tokens of the type rose. The distinction is important in disciplines such as logic, linguistics, metalogic, typography, and computer programming. == Overview == The type–token distinction separates types (abstract descriptive concepts) from tokens (objects that instantiate concepts). For example, in the sentence "the bicycle is becoming more popular" the word bicycle represents the abstract concept of bicycles and this abstract concept is a type, whereas in the sentence "the bicycle is in the garage", it represents a particular object and this particular object is a token. Similarly, the word type 'letter' uses only four letter types: L, E, T and R. Nevertheless, it uses both E and T twice. One can say that the word type 'letter' has six letter tokens, with two tokens each of the letter types E and T. Whenever a word type is inscribed, the number of letter tokens created equals the number of letter occurrences in the word type. Some logicians consider a word type to be the class of its tokens. Other logicians counter that the word type has a permanence and constancy not found in the class of its tokens. The type remains the same while the class of its tokens is continually gaining new members and losing old members. == Typography == In typography, the type–token distinction is used to determine the presence of a text printed by movable type: The defining criteria which a typographic print has to fulfill is that of the type identity of the various letter forms which make up the printed text. In other words: each letter form which appears in the text has to be shown as a particular instance ("token") of one and the same type which contains a reverse image of the printed letter. == Charles Sanders Peirce == The distinctions between using words as types or tokens were first made by American logician and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in 1906 using terminology that he established. Peirce's type–token distinction applies to words, sentences, paragraphs and so on: to anything in a universe of discourse of character-string theory, or concatenation theory. Peirce's original words are the following: A common mode of estimating the amount of matter in a ... printed book is to count the number of words. There will ordinarily be about twenty 'thes' on a page, and, of course, they count as twenty words. In another sense of the word 'word,' however, there is but one word 'the' in the English language; and it is impossible that this word should lie visibly on a page, or be heard in any voice .... Such a ... Form, I propose to term a Type. A Single ... Object ... such as this or that word on a single line of a single page of a single copy of a book, I will venture to call a Token. .... In order that a Type may be used, it has to be embodied in a Token which shall be a sign of the Type, and thereby of the object the Type signifies.

  Read more →
• 

  Linked timestamping

  Linked timestamping is a type of trusted timestamping where issued time-stamps are related to each other. Each time-stamp would contain data that authenticates the time-stamp before it, the authentication would be authenticating the entire message, including the previous time-stamps authentication, making a chain. This makes it impossible to add a time-stamp in to the middle of the chain, as any time-stamps afterwards would be different. == Description == Linked timestamping creates time-stamp tokens which are dependent on each other, entangled in some authenticated data structure. Later modification of the issued time-stamps would invalidate this structure. The temporal order of issued time-stamps is also protected by this data structure, making backdating of the issued time-stamps impossible, even by the issuing server itself. The top of the authenticated data structure is generally published in some hard-to-modify and widely witnessed media, like printed newspaper or public blockchain. There are no (long-term) private keys in use, avoiding PKI-related risks. Suitable candidates for the authenticated data structure include: Linear hash chain Merkle tree (binary hash tree) Skip list The simplest linear hash chain-based time-stamping scheme is illustrated in the following diagram: The linking-based time-stamping authority (TSA) usually performs the following distinct functions: Aggregation For increased scalability the TSA might group time-stamping requests together which arrive within a short time-frame. These requests are aggregated together without retaining their temporal order and then assigned the same time value. Aggregation creates a cryptographic connection between all involved requests; the authenticating aggregate value will be used as input for the linking operation. Linking Linking creates a verifiable and ordered cryptographic link between the current and already issued time-stamp tokens. Publishing The TSA periodically publishes some links, so that all previously issued time-stamp tokens depend on the published link and that it is practically impossible to forge the published values. By publishing widely witnessed links, the TSA creates unforgeable verification points for validating all previously issued time-stamps. == Security == Linked timestamping is inherently more secure than the usual, public-key signature based time-stamping. All consequential time-stamps "seal" previously issued ones - hash chain (or other authenticated dictionary in use) could be built only in one way; modifying issued time-stamps is nearly as hard as finding a preimage for the used cryptographic hash function. Continuity of operation is observable by users; periodic publications in widely witnessed media provide extra transparency. Tampering with absolute time values could be detected by users, whose time-stamps are relatively comparable by system design. Absence of secret keys increases system trustworthiness. There are no keys to leak and hash algorithms are considered more future-proof than modular arithmetic based algorithms, e.g. RSA. Linked timestamping scales well - hashing is much faster than public key cryptography. There is no need for specific cryptographic hardware with its limitations. The common technology for guaranteeing long-term attestation value of the issued time-stamps (and digitally signed data) is periodic over-time-stamping of the time-stamp token. Because of missing key-related risks and of the plausible safety margin of the reasonably chosen hash function this over-time-stamping period of hash-linked token could be an order of magnitude longer than of public-key signed token. == Research == === Foundations === Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta proposed in 1990 to link issued time-stamps together into linear hash-chain, using a collision-resistant hash function. The main rationale was to diminish TSA trust requirements. Tree-like schemes and operating in rounds were proposed by Benaloh and de Mare in 1991 and by Bayer, Haber and Stornetta in 1992. Benaloh and de Mare constructed a one-way accumulator in 1994 and proposed its use in time-stamping. When used for aggregation, one-way accumulator requires only one constant-time computation for round membership verification. Surety started the first commercial linked timestamping service in January 1995. Linking scheme is described and its security is analyzed in the following article by Haber and Sornetta. Buldas et al. continued with further optimization and formal analysis of binary tree and threaded tree based schemes. Skip-list based time-stamping system was implemented in 2005; related algorithms are quite efficient. === Provable security === Security proof for hash-function based time-stamping schemes was presented by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004. There is an explicit upper bound N {\displaystyle N} for the number of time stamps issued during the aggregation period; it is suggested that it is probably impossible to prove the security without this explicit bound - the so-called black-box reductions will fail in this task. Considering that all known practically relevant and efficient security proofs are black-box, this negative result is quite strong. Next, in 2005 it was shown that bounded time-stamping schemes with a trusted audit party (who periodically reviews the list of all time-stamps issued during an aggregation period) can be made universally composable - they remain secure in arbitrary environments (compositions with other protocols and other instances of the time-stamping protocol itself). Buldas, Laur showed in 2007 that bounded time-stamping schemes are secure in a very strong sense - they satisfy the so-called "knowledge-binding" condition. The security guarantee offered by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004 is improved by diminishing the security loss coefficient from N {\displaystyle N} to N {\displaystyle {\sqrt {N}}} . The hash functions used in the secure time-stamping schemes do not necessarily have to be collision-resistant or even one-way; secure time-stamping schemes are probably possible even in the presence of a universal collision-finding algorithm (i.e. universal and attacking program that is able to find collisions for any hash function). This suggests that it is possible to find even stronger proofs based on some other properties of the hash functions. At the illustration above hash tree based time-stamping system works in rounds ( t {\displaystyle t} , t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} , t + 2 {\displaystyle t+2} , ...), with one aggregation tree per round. Capacity of the system ( N {\displaystyle N} ) is determined by the tree size ( N = 2 l {\displaystyle N=2^{l}} , where l {\displaystyle l} denotes binary tree depth). Current security proofs work on the assumption that there is a hard limit of the aggregation tree size, possibly enforced by the subtree length restriction. == Standards == ISO 18014 part 3 covers 'Mechanisms producing linked tokens'. American National Standard for Financial Services, "Trusted Timestamp Management and Security" (ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard) from June 2005 covers linking-based and hybrid time-stamping schemes. There is no IETF RFC or standard draft about linking based time-stamping. RFC 4998 (Evidence Record Syntax) encompasses hash tree and time-stamp as an integrity guarantee for long-term archiving.

  Read more →
• 

  LightGBM

  LightGBM, short for Light Gradient-Boosting Machine, is a free and open-source distributed gradient-boosting framework for machine learning, originally developed by Microsoft. It is based on decision tree algorithms and used for ranking, classification and other machine learning tasks. The development focus is on performance and scalability. == Overview == The LightGBM framework supports different algorithms including GBT, GBDT, GBRT, GBM, MART and RF. LightGBM has many of XGBoost's advantages, including sparse optimization, parallel training, multiple loss functions, regularization, bagging, and early stopping. A major difference between the two lies in the construction of trees. LightGBM does not grow a tree level-wise — row by row — as most other implementations do. Instead it grows trees leaf-wise. It will choose the leaf with max delta loss to grow. Besides, LightGBM does not use the widely used sorted-based decision tree learning algorithm, which searches the best split point on sorted feature values, as XGBoost or other implementations do. Instead, LightGBM implements a highly optimized histogram-based decision tree learning algorithm, which yields great advantages on both efficiency and memory consumption. The LightGBM algorithm utilizes two novel techniques called Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS) and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB) which allow the algorithm to run faster while maintaining a high level of accuracy. LightGBM works on Linux, Windows, and macOS and supports C++, Python, R, and C#. The source code is licensed under MIT License and available on GitHub. == Gradient-based one-side sampling == When using gradient descent, one thinks about the space of possible configurations of the model as a valley, in which the lowest part of the valley is the model which most closely fits the data. In this metaphor, one walks in different directions to learn how much lower the valley becomes. Typically, in gradient descent, one uses the whole set of data to calculate the valley's slopes. However, this commonly used method assumes that every data point is equally informative. By contrast, Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS), a method first developed for gradient-boosted decision trees, does not rely on the assumption that all data are equally informative. Instead, it treats data points with smaller gradients (shallower slopes) as less informative by randomly dropping them. This is intended to filter out data which may have been influenced by noise, allowing the model to more accurately model the underlying relationships in the data. == Exclusive feature bundling == Exclusive feature bundling (EFB) is a near-lossless method to reduce the number of effective features. In a sparse feature space many features are nearly exclusive, implying they rarely take nonzero values simultaneously. One-hot encoded features are a perfect example of exclusive features. EFB bundles these features, reducing dimensionality to improve efficiency while maintaining a high level of accuracy. The bundle of exclusive features into a single feature is called an exclusive feature bundle.

  Read more →
• 

  Buddhism and artificial intelligence

  The relationship between Buddhist philosophy and artificial intelligence (AI) includes how principles such as the reduction of suffering and ethical responsibility may influence AI development. Buddhist scholars and philosophers have explored questions such as whether AI systems could be considered sentient beings under Buddhist definitions, and how Buddhist ethics might guide the design and application of AI technologies. Some Buddhist scholars, including Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma, have analyzed the ethical implications of AI, emphasizing the distinction between satisfying sensory desires and pursuing the reduction of suffering. Other thinkers, such as Thomas Doctor and colleagues, have proposed applying the Bodhisattva vow—a commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings—as a guiding principle for AI system design. Buddhist scholars and ethicists have examined Buddhist ethical principles, such as nonviolence, in relation to AI, focusing on the need to ensure that AI technologies are not used to cause harm. == Context == === Sentient beings === A major goal in Buddhist philosophy is the removal of suffering for all sentient beings, an aspiration often referred to in the Bodhisattva vow. Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to Buddhist principles have raised questions about whether artificial systems could be considered sentient beings or how such systems might be developed in ways that align with Buddhist concepts. Buddhists have varying opinions about AI sentience, but if AI systems are determined to be sentient under Buddhist definitions, their suffering would also need to be addressed and alleviated in accordance with the principles of Buddhist thought. == Buddhist principles in AI system design == === Nonviolence and AI === The broadest ethical concern is that artificial intelligence should align with the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. From this perspective, AI systems should not be designed or used to cause harm. === Instrumental and transcendental goals === Scholars Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma have argued that the advancement of artificial intelligence can only be considered instrumentally good, rather than good a priori, from a Buddhist perspective. They propose two main goals for AI designers and developers: to set ethical and pragmatic objectives for AI systems, and to fulfill these objectives in morally permissible ways. Promta and Himma identify two potential purposes for creating AI systems. The first is to fulfill our sensory desires and survival instincts, similar to other tools. They suggest that many AI developers implicitly prioritize this goal by focusing on technicalities rather than broader functionalities. The second, and more important goal according to Buddhist teachings, is to transcend these desires and instincts. In texts like the Brahmajāla Sutta and minor Malunkya Sutta, the Buddha emphasizes that sensory desires and survival instincts confine beings to suffering, and that eliminating suffering is the primary goal of human life. Promta and Himma argue that AI has the potential to assist humanity in transcending suffering by helping individuals overcome survival-driven instincts. === Intelligence as care === Thomas Doctor, Olaf Witkowski, Elizaveta Solomonova, Bill Duane, and Michael Levin propose redefining intelligence through the concept of "intelligence as care," and promote it as a slogan. Inspired by the Bodhisattva vow, they suggest this principle could guide AI system design. The Bodhisattva vow involves a formal commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings, with four primary objectives: Liberating all beings from suffering. Extirpating all forms of suffering. Mastering endless techniques of practicing Dharma (Pali: dhammakkhandha, Sanskrit: dharmaskandha). Achieving ultimate enlightenment (Sanskrit: अनुत्तर सम्यक् सम्बोधि, Romanized: anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi). This approach positions AI as a tool for exercising infinite care and alleviating stress and suffering for sentient beings. Doctor et al. emphasize that AI development should align with these altruistic principles.

  Read more →