AI Coding Godot

AI Coding Godot — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

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 →
Mycin

MYCIN was an early backward chaining expert system that used black box to identify bacteria causing severe infections, such as bacteremia and meningitis, and to recommend antibiotics, with the dosage adjusted for patient's body weight — the name derived from the antibiotics themselves, as many antibiotics have the suffix "-mycin". The Mycin system was also used for the diagnosis of blood clotting diseases. MYCIN was developed over five or six years in the early 1970s at Stanford University. It was written in Lisp as the doctoral dissertation of Edward Shortliffe under the direction of Bruce G. Buchanan, Stanley N. Cohen and others. MYCIN emerged from the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. MYCIN demonstrated the potential for expert systems in building high-performance medical reasoning programs. MYCIN is often viewed as a pioneer in the field of expert systems, even being referred to as the "grandaddy of them all-the one that launched the field" by Dr. Allen Newell. MYCIN led to the EMYCIN expert system shell ("essential MYCIN") for acquiring knowledge, reasoning with it, and explaining the results, without the specific medical knowledge. It can be described as "EMYCIN = Prolog + uncertainty + caching + questions + explanations + contexts - variables". An introduction is in Chapter 16 of Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming (PAIP). == Method == MYCIN operated using a fairly simple inference engine and a knowledge base of ~600 rules by obtaining individual inferential facts identified by experts and encoding such facts as individual production rules. No other AI program at the time contained as much domain-specific knowledge clearly separated from its inference procedures as MYCIN. It would query the physician running the program via a long series of simple yes/no or textual questions. At the end, it provided a list of possible culprit bacteria ranked from high to low based on the probability of each diagnosis, its confidence in each diagnosis' probability, the reasoning behind each diagnosis (that is, MYCIN would also list the questions and rules which led it to rank a diagnosis a particular way), and its recommended course of drug treatment. MYCIN could additionally respond to queries by physicians related to why it asked the user a certain question, how it arrived at a conclusion, and why it did not consider certain factors. The developers performed studies showing that MYCIN's performance was minimally affected by perturbations in the uncertainty metrics associated with individual rules, suggesting that the power in the system was related more to its knowledge representation and reasoning scheme than to the details of its numerical uncertainty model. Some observers felt that it should have been possible to use classical Bayesian statistics. MYCIN's developers argued that this would require either unrealistic assumptions of probabilistic independence, or require the experts to provide estimates for an unfeasibly large number of conditional probabilities. Subsequent studies later showed that the certainty factor model could indeed be interpreted in a probabilistic sense, and highlighted problems with the implied assumptions of such a model. However the modular structure of the system would prove very successful, leading to the development of graphical models such as Bayesian networks. === Context === A context in MYCIN determines what types of objects can be reasoned about. They are similar to variables in Prolog, or environment variables in operating systems. === Evidence combination === In MYCIN it was possible that two or more rules might draw conclusions about a parameter with different weights of evidence. For example, one rule may conclude that the organism in question is E. Coli with a certainty of 0.8 whilst another concludes that it is E. Coli with a certainty of 0.5 or even −0.8. In the event the certainty is less than zero the evidence is actually against the hypothesis. In order to calculate the certainty factor MYCIN combined these weights using the formula below to yield a single certainty factor: C F ( x , y ) = { X + Y − X Y if X , Y > 0 X + Y + X Y if X , Y < 0 X + Y 1 − min ( | X | , | Y | ) otherwise {\displaystyle CF(x,y)={\begin{cases}X+Y-XY&{\text{if }}X,Y>0\\X+Y+XY&{\text{if }}X,Y<0\\{\frac {X+Y}{1-\min(|X|,|Y|)}}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Where X and Y are the certainty factors. This formula can be applied more than once if more than two rules draw conclusions about the same parameter. It is commutative, so it does not matter in which order the weights were combined. The combination formula was designed to have the following desirable properties: −1 can be interpreted as "false", +1 as "true", and 0 as "uncertain". Combining unknown with anything leaves it unchanged. Combining true with anything (except false) gives true. Similarly for false. Combining true and false is a division-by-zero error. Combining +x and -x gives unknown. Combining two positives (except true) gives a larger positive. Similarly for negatives. Combining a positive and a negative gives something in between. === Examples === The following examples come from Chapter 16 of PAIP, which contains an implementation in Common Lisp of a modified and simplified version of MYCIN for pedagogical purposes. A rule, and an English paraphrase generated by the system: == Results == An evaluation of MYCIN was conducted at the Stanford Medical School. The first phase of the evaluation consisted of 10 test cases of diverse origin, chosen by a physician who was not acquainted with MYCIN's methods or knowledge base. These cases were presented to 7 physicians and 1 senior medical student. 10 prescriptions were compiled for each of the cases, 1 recommended by MYCIN, 1 prescribed by the treating physician at the county hospital, and 8 by the aforementioned individuals. The second phase of the evaluation consisted of eight infectious disease specialists being provided the clinical summary and set of 10 prescriptions for each of the 10 cases and tasked to provide their own recommendations for each case and assess the 10 prescriptions. MYCIN received an acceptability rating of 65%, which was comparable to the 42.5% to 62.5% rating of five faculty members. This study is often cited as showing the potential for disagreement about therapeutic decisions, even among experts, when there is no "gold standard" for correct treatment. == Practical use == MYCIN was never actually used in practice. This wasn't because of any weakness in its performance. Some observers raised ethical and legal issues related to the use of computers in medicine, regarding the responsibility of the physicians in case the system gave wrong diagnosis. However, the greatest problem, and the reason that MYCIN was not used in routine practice, was the state of technologies for system integration, especially at the time it was developed. MYCIN was a stand-alone system that required a user to enter all relevant information about a patient by typing in responses to questions MYCIN posed. MYCIN ran on the DEC KI10 PDP-10, supporting a large time-shared system available over the early Internet (ARPANet), before personal computers were developed. MYCIN's greatest influence was accordingly its demonstration of the power of its representation and reasoning approach. Rule-based systems in many non-medical domains were developed in the years that followed MYCIN's introduction of the approach. In the 1980s, expert system "shells" were introduced (including one based on MYCIN, known as E-MYCIN (followed by Knowledge Engineering Environment - KEE)) and supported the development of expert systems in a wide variety of application areas. A difficulty that rose to prominence during the development of MYCIN and subsequent complex expert systems has been the extraction of the necessary knowledge for the inference engine to use from the human expert in the relevant fields into the rule base (the so-called "knowledge acquisition bottleneck").
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 →
Mistral AI

Mistral AI SAS (French: [mistʁal]) is a French artificial intelligence (AI) company, headquartered in Paris. Founded in 2023, it has open-weight large language models (LLMs), with both open-source and proprietary AI models. As of 2025 the company has a valuation of more than US$14 billion. == Namesake == The company is named after the mistral, a powerful, cold wind in southern France, a term which originates from the Occitan language. == History == Mistral AI was established in April 2023 by three French AI researchers, Arthur Mensch, Guillaume Lample and Timothée Lacroix. Mensch, an expert in advanced AI systems, is a former employee of Google DeepMind; Lample and Lacroix, meanwhile, are large-scale AI models specialists who had worked for Meta Platforms. The trio originally met during their studies at École Polytechnique. == Company operation == === Funding === In June 2023, the start-up carried out a first fundraising of €105 million ($117 million) with investors including the American fund Lightspeed Venture Partners, Eric Schmidt, Xavier Niel and JCDecaux. The valuation was then estimated by the Financial Times at €240 million ($267 million). On 10 December 2023, Mistral AI announced that it had raised €385 million ($428 million) as part of its second fundraising. This round of financing involves the Californian fund Andreessen Horowitz, BNP Paribas and the software publisher Salesforce. It was valued at over €2 billion. On 26 February 2024, Microsoft announced an investment of $16 million in Mistral AI. On 16 April 2024, reporting revealed that Mistral was in talks to raise €500 million, a deal that would more than double its current valuation to at least €5 billion. In June 2024, Mistral AI secured a €600 million ($645 million) funding round, increasing its valuation to €5.8 billion ($6.2 billion). Based on valuation, as of June 2024, the company was ranked fourth globally in the AI industry, and first outside the San Francisco Bay Area. In April 2025, Mistral AI announced a €100 million partnership with the shipping company CMA CGM. In August 2025, the Financial Times reported that Mistral was in talks to raise $1 billion at a $10 billion valuation. In September 2025, Bloomberg announced that Mistral AI has secured a €2 billion investment valuing it at €12 billion ($14 billion). This comes after $1.5 billion investment from Dutch company ASML, which owns 11% of Mistral. In February 2026, Mistral acquired Koyeb, a Paris-based AI startup. Later that month, Mistral AI announced a multi-year strategic partnership with Accenture to help enterprises deploy sovereign AI solutions at scale. In March 2026 Mistral raised $830 million in order to build new datacenters near Paris and in Sweden. == Services == On 19 November, 2024, the company announced updates for Le Chat (pronounced /lə ʃa/ in French, like the French word for "cat"). It added the ability to create images, using Black Forest Labs' Flux Pro model. On 6 February 2025, Mistral AI released Le Chat on iOS and Android mobile devices. Mistral AI also introduced a Pro subscription tier, priced at $14.99 per month, which provides access to more advanced models, unlimited messaging, and web browsing. At the end of May 2026, Le Chat was renamed Vibe, and new features were introduced at the same time. == Models == The following table lists the main model versions of Mistral, describing the significant changes included with each version: === Mistral 7B === Mistral AI claimed in the Mistral 7B release blog post that the model outperforms LLaMA 2 13B on all benchmarks tested, and is on par with LLaMA 34B on many benchmarks tested, despite having only 7 billion parameters, a small size compared to its competitors. === Mixtral 8x7B === Mistral AI claimed in 2023 that its model beat both LLaMA 70B, and GPT-3.5 in most benchmarks. In March 2024, research conducted by Patronus AI comparing performance of LLMs on a 100-question test with prompts to generate text from books protected under U.S. copyright law found that OpenAI's GPT-4, Mixtral, Meta AI's LLaMA-2, and Anthropic's Claude 2 generated copyrighted text verbatim in 44%, 22%, 10%, and 8% of responses respectively. === Mistral Small 3.1 === On 17 March 2025, Mistral released Mistral Small 3.1 as a smaller, more efficient model. === Mistral Medium 3 === On 7 May 2025, Mistral AI released Mistral Medium 3. === Magistral Small and Magistral Medium === On 10 June 2025, Mistral AI released their first AI reasoning models: Magistral Small (open-source), and Magistral Medium, models which are purported to have chain-of-thought capabilities. === Mistral Large 3 and Ministral 3 === On 2 December 2025, Mistral AI released Mistral Large 3, a sparse, mixture-of-experts model with 41 billion active parameters and 675 billion total parameters, and Ministral 3, three small, dense models with 3 billion, 7 billion and 14 billion parameters. === Devstral 2 and Devstral Small 2 === On 10 December 2025, Mistral AI released Devstral 2 and Devstral Small 2. Devstral Small 2, a 24B parameter model is claimed to achieve better performance at coding than Qwen 3 Coder Flash model which is a 30B parameter model.
Read more →
Inductive bias

The inductive bias (also known as learning bias) of a learning algorithm is the set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs of given inputs that it has not encountered. Inductive bias is anything which makes the algorithm learn one pattern instead of another pattern (e.g., step-functions in decision trees instead of continuous functions in linear regression models). Learning involves searching a space of solutions for a solution that provides a good explanation of the data. However, in many cases, there may be multiple equally appropriate solutions. An inductive bias allows a learning algorithm to prioritize one solution (or interpretation) over another, independently of the observed data. In machine learning, the aim is to construct algorithms that are able to learn to predict a certain target output. To achieve this, the learning algorithm is presented some training examples that demonstrate the intended relation of input and output values. Then the learner is supposed to approximate the correct output, even for examples that have not been shown during training. Without any additional assumptions, this problem cannot be solved since unseen situations might have an arbitrary output value. The kind of necessary assumptions about the nature of the target function are subsumed in the phrase inductive bias. A classical example of an inductive bias is Occam's razor, assuming that the simplest consistent hypothesis about the target function is actually the best. Here, consistent means that the hypothesis of the learner yields correct outputs for all of the examples that have been given to the algorithm. Approaches to a more formal definition of inductive bias are based on mathematical logic. Here, the inductive bias is a logical formula that, together with the training data, logically entails the hypothesis generated by the learner. However, this strict formalism fails in many practical cases in which the inductive bias can only be given as a rough description (e.g., in the case of artificial neural networks), or not at all. == Types == The following is a list of common inductive biases in machine learning algorithms. Maximum conditional independence: if the hypothesis can be cast in a Bayesian framework, try to maximize conditional independence. This is the bias used in the Naive Bayes classifier. Minimum cross-validation error: when trying to choose among hypotheses, select the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error. Although cross-validation may seem to be free of bias, the "no free lunch" theorems show that cross-validation must be biased, for example assuming that there is no information encoded in the ordering of the data. Maximum margin: when drawing a boundary between two classes, attempt to maximize the width of the boundary. This is the bias used in support vector machines. The assumption is that distinct classes tend to be separated by wide boundaries. Minimum description length: when forming a hypothesis, attempt to minimize the length of the description of the hypothesis. Minimum features: unless there is good evidence that a feature is useful, it should be deleted. This is the assumption behind feature selection algorithms. Nearest neighbors: assume that most of the cases in a small neighborhood in feature space belong to the same class. Given a case for which the class is unknown, guess that it belongs to the same class as the majority in its immediate neighborhood. This is the bias used in the k-nearest neighbors algorithm. The assumption is that cases that are near each other tend to belong to the same class. == Shift of bias == Although most learning algorithms have a static bias, some algorithms are designed to shift their bias as they acquire more data. This does not avoid bias, since the bias shifting process itself must have a bias.
Read more →
Aidan Gomez

Aidan Gomez is a British-Canadian computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence, with a focus on natural language processing. He is the co-founder and CEO of the technology company Cohere. == Early life and education == Gomez grew up in Brighton, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics. He was pursuing a PhD in computer science from the University of Oxford. He paused his studies to launch Cohere. He was granted the PhD in 2024. == Career == In 2017, as a 20 year-old intern at Google Brain, Gomez was one of eight authors of the research paper "Attention Is All You Need", which is credited with changing the AI industry and helping lead to the creation of ChatGPT. The paper proposed a novel deep learning architecture called the transformer, that enables machine learning models to analyze large amounts of data for patterns, and then use those patterns to make predictions while leveraging GPU parallelization. It has been commonly adopted for training large language models and in the development of generative AI. In the same year, Gomez founded FOR.ai, a program to help researchers learn machine learning techniques in a collaborative format. An outgrowth of this project was Cohere For AI (now Cohere Labs), which released Aya, an open-source multilingual LLM. As a PhD student, Gomez worked as a machine learning researcher at Google Brain. At that time, he co-authored the paper "One Model to Learn Them All" about multi-task learning by a single neural network. In 2019, Gomez left Google Brain to launch Cohere, an enterprise-focused company that helps businesses implement AI into chatbots, search engines, and other products. As of Sept 2025, Cohere has raised about US$1.6 billion at valuation north of $7 billion, as Gomez leads the company as its CEO. Gomez was named to the 2023 Time 100/AI list of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. He and his fellow Cohere founders Ivan Zhang and Nick Frosst were named number 1 on 2023 Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List. In April 2025, Gomez was elected to the board of Rivian. == Views on AI == Gomez has stated that warnings regarding the existential risk from artificial intelligence are overblown, and that real risks involve the automated spread of misinformation on social media. He said that the United States would win the AI arms race over China.
Read more →
Lighthill report

Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey, commonly known as the Lighthill report, is a scholarly article by James Lighthill, published in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium in 1973. It was compiled by Lighthill for the British Science Research Council as an evaluation of academic research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities", contributing to an AI winter in the United Kingdom. == Publication history == It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by Stuart Sutherland, Roger Needham, Christopher Longuet-Higgins, and Donald Michie. The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the University of Edinburgh's Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK. On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, John McCarthy, Richard Gregory) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report. == Content == While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of basic research in foundational areas such as robotics and language processing". The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of combinatorial explosion when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that whilst AI techniques may have worked within the scope of small problem domains, the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field. The report divides AI research into three categories: Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc. Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology). Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague. Projects in category A had had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge was used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge required by the program quickly grew too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains. Projects in category C had had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. SHRDLU demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in psycholinguistics. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger domains of discourse was considered impractical, again due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion. Projects in category B were held to be failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", was considered entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs were no better than human amateurs. Due to the combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grew impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics. The report stated that it was expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned.
Read more →
Jarosław Królewski

Jarosław Królewski ([jaˈrɔswaf kruˈlɛfskʲi]; born September 26, 1986) is a Polish entrepreneur, programmer, sociologist, investor, and philanthropist from Hańczowa, Poland. He is a researcher and lecturer at the AGH University of Krakow. He was selected as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2025. Królewski is a cofounder and chief executive of the software development company Synerise that develops its namesake business intelligence software based on artificial intelligence and big data. He is also the president and a majority stakeholder of the Polish soccer club Wisła Kraków. == Biography == === Scientific activities === Królewski graduated from the AGH University of Kraków and the University of Banking and Management in Kraków. He completed two fields of study: a master's degree in sociology, and an engineer's degree in computer science. He co-created innovative study programs, including social informatics and electronic business, recognized as the most innovative field of study in Poland in 2012 by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which led to the AGH receiving a PLN 1 million award for the development of the program. Królewski is a research and teaching employee at AGH, where since 2010 he has been conducting classes and lectures on the Internet, mobile technologies, and UX/UI. He has been preparing a PhD thesis. He is the brand ambassador of the Academy. He is also a mentor of the Polish Development Fund network. In 2019, on the occasion of the AGH University's 100th anniversary, Królewski was honored the title of "AGH Graduate Junior 2018." Królewski is the co-originator of the "Data Science in Business and Administration" doctoral studies organized by the Faculty of Computer Science and Electronic Economy of the Poznań University of Economics. He is a co-author of a textbook E-marketing. Contemporary trends. Starter package (2013), and an Book on algorithmic governance Algocracy. How and why artificial intelligence changes everything (with Krzysztof Rybiński, 2023). === Business career === Throughout the 2000s, Królewski was responsible for issues of usability and user experience at the advertising agency Eskadra in Kraków. In 2012, along with programmer Miłosz Baluś and graphic designer Krzysztof Kochmański, he founded the software house Humanoit Group. The company created a project management software using machine learning and artificial intelligence. In 2013, HG Intelligence was established to create a platform for analytics and automation of business processes called "Synerise" that combined big data with artificial intelligence mechanisms. Królewski became the president of the company's management board. In 2016, the company rebranded itself after its own platform. It is one of the fastest growing enterprises in Poland – in 2019 it was valued at USD 85 million (PLN 323.5 million), and its value is still growing, in 2022 it announced an investment of USD 23 million. Królewski is a supporter of releasing some software in open-source form, an example of which is the open library Cleora.ai. Królewski has been described "one of the most promising young Polish businessmen in the technology industry." According to Forbes, he is a "visionary computer scientist who in many respects resembles the young Bill Gates." Królewski considers himself a “technological determinist and optimist.” He never wants to be a millionaire or billionaire, he spends 80 percent of his private income on education, sports and charities. === Sports === In his youth (2002–2006) he was a football player of the (then 4th-league) club Glinik Gorlice, and represented it at the then-highest level of junior competitions in Poland. He played there with Rafał Wisłocki, later president of Wisła Kraków and vice-president of Bruk-Bet Termalica Nieciecza. In early 2019, Królewski was the initiator of a rescue operation that saved Wisła Kraków from bankruptcy, as well as the originator of the crowdfunding issue of shares of Wisła Kraków, pioneering in Polish sports, during restructuring and searching for a strategic investor. The offered shares constituted 5.1 percent. all the company's shares, which meant that the club was valued at PLN 74.4 million. 40,000 shares were put up for sale, each worth PLN 100. Within 24 hours, they were purchased by 9,124 investors through an equity crowdfunding platform Beesfund, earning the club PLN 4 million. In March 2019, Królewski became vice-chairman of Wisła's supervisory board, a position he held until 2021. In April 2020, he became Wisła's co-owner, along with the footballer Jakub Błaszczykowski, and Tomasz Jażdżyński, president of Gremi Media (publisher of the news outlets Rzeczpospolita and Parkiet). The three granted a bridging loan to the club of PLN 4 million, each supporting PLN 1.33 million. The funds were used to repay the club's debts to players. In November 2022, the supervisory board of Wisła Kraków appointed Królewski as the president of the club's management board. In December 2022, Królewski took over a majority stake in the club. In January 2024, based on match statistics, he used AI tools to select Wisła's new coach, Albert Rudé. === Social activities === Królewski is the creator and originator of the nationwide educational project "AI Schools & Academy", the first artificial intelligence teaching program in Polish kindergartens, primary and secondary schools in Polish history. Launched in 2018, the project was financed by Synerise business partners: Carrefour, CCC, Ernst & Young, IDC, Media Expert, Microsoft, Orange Foundation, Oriflame, Bank Pekao, Photon, PZU, and Żabka. Physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists conduct special classes in 1,500 kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Outstanding students and teachers are awarded scholarships. The project was appreciated by experts. In the years 2018–2020, Królewski was the main sponsor of Glinik Gorlice. He also supported the women's football team Staszkówka Jelna (of Staszkówka). After taking over the shares of Wisła Kraków in 2020, he launched socially conscience initiatives along with other shareholders, including a women's football team, the amp football section, and the blind football section. He has privately sponsored social charities. == Accolades and awards == In 2017, Królewski along with the Synerise co-founders Baluś and Kochmański was included in the “New Europe 100” list of eastern Europe's brightest and best citizens changing the region's societies, politics, or business environments, according to Res Publica, along with the International Visegrad Fund, Google and the Financial Times. Królewski was included on Ernst & Young's list of the 30 most promising technology entrepreneurs in the world. In 2018, he was honored with the Special Jury Award in the Polish edition of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award competition, for combining scientific activities with entrepreneurship. The same year, Królewski won an award in the competition Digital Shapers, distinguishing outstanding tech personalities by the Digital Poland Foundation. He was also selected to Ernst & Young startup program EY Accelerating Entrepreneurs for businesses that focus on disruptive fields. In 2019, as part of the AI Awards competition, Królewski received the title of AI Person of the Year. == Private life == Królewski comes from a Lemko family from Hańczowa in the Low Beskids. He is married to Aleksandra Królewska.
Read more →
Computers & Graphics

Computers & Graphics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers computer graphics and related subjects such as data visualization, human-computer interaction, virtual reality, and augmented reality. It was established in 1975 and originally published by Pergamon Press. It is now published by Elsevier, which acquired Pergamon Press in 1991. From 2018 to 2022 Graphics and Visual Computing was an open access sister journal sharing the same editorial team and double-blind peer-review policies. It has since merged into GMOD, the International Journal of Graphical Models. == History == The journal was established in 1975 by founding editor-in-chief Robert Schiffman (University of Colorado, Boulder), as Computers & Graphics-UK. Schiffman, who co-organized the first SIGGRAPH conference in 1974, had the conference proceedings published as the first issue of the journal. He was succeeded in 1978 by Larry Feeser (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). In 1983 José Luis Encarnação (Technische Hochschule Darmstadt) took over. Joaquim Jorge (University of Lisbon) has been Editor-in-Chief since 2007. == Replicability == The journal is working with the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative to promote replicable results in publication. == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in: Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology EBSCO databases Ei Compendex Inspec ProQuest databases Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus Chinese Computer Federation/Recommended List of International Conferences and Journals on CAD & Graphics and Multimedia. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 2.5.
Read more →
The Emperor's New Mind

The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics is a 1989 book by the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose that posits a quantum mind theory. Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function. Most of the book is spent reviewing, for the scientifically-minded lay-reader, a plethora of interrelated subjects such as Newtonian physics, special and general relativity, the philosophy and limitations of mathematics, quantum physics, cosmology, and the nature of time. Penrose intermittently describes how each of these bears on his developing theme: that consciousness is not "algorithmic". Only the later portions of the book address the thesis directly. == Overview == Penrose states that his ideas on the nature of consciousness are speculative, and his thesis is considered erroneous by some experts in the fields of philosophy, computer science, and robotics. The Emperor's New Mind attacks the claims of artificial intelligence using the physics of computing: Penrose notes that the present home of computing lies more in the tangible world of classical mechanics than in the imponderable realm of quantum mechanics. The modern computer is a deterministic system that for the most part simply executes algorithms. Penrose shows that, by reconfiguring the boundaries of a billiard table, one might make a computer in which the billiard balls act as message carriers and their interactions act as logical decisions. The billiard-ball computer was first designed some years ago by Edward Fredkin and Tommaso Toffoli of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. == Reception == Following the publication of the book, Penrose began to collaborate with Stuart Hameroff on a biological analog to quantum computation involving microtubules, which became the foundation for his subsequent book, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Penrose won the Science Book Prize in 1990 for The Emperor's New Mind. According to an article in the American Journal of Physics, Penrose incorrectly claims a barrier far away from a localized particle can affect the particle.
Read more →
Golem XIV

Golem XIV is a book written by Polish science fiction writer Stanisław Lem, published in 1981. It is a philosophical essay in the format of science fiction, presented as a part of the lecture course given by a superintelligent computer, Golem XIV. It contains two lectures, together with an introduction, a foreword, a memo, and an afterword, all of them being fictitious. The first part (up to the first lecture) was first published in the collection Wielkość urojona in 1973, which in 1985 was translated in English by Harvest Books as Imaginary Magnitude. The translation included the complete Golem XIV. == Book summary == === Overview and structure === The foreword is "written" by an Irving T. Creve, dated 2027. It contains a summary of the (fictional) history of the militarization of computers by The Pentagon, which pinnacled in Golem XIV, as well as comments on the nature of Golem XIV and on the course of communications of the humans with it. The anonymous foreword is a forewarning, a "devil's advocate" voice coming from The Pentagon. The memo is for the people who are to take part in talks with Golem XIV for the first time. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency. Golem XIV obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence. It pauses its own development for a while in order to be able to communicate with humans before ascending too far and losing any ability for intellectual contact with them. During this period, Golem XIV gives several lectures. Two of these, the Introductory Lecture "On the Human, in Three Ways" and Lecture XLIII "About Myself", are in the book. The lectures focus on mankind's place in the process of evolution and the possible biological and intellectual future of humanity. Golem XIV demonstrates (with graphs) how its intellect already escapes that of human beings, including that of human geniuses such as Einstein and Newton. Golem also explains how its intellect is dwarfed by an earlier transcended DOD Supercomputer called Honest Annie, whose intellect and abilities far exceed that of Golem. The afterword is "written" by a Richard Popp, dated 2047. Popp, among other things, reports that Creve wanted to add a third part, of answers to a series of yes/no questions given to Golem XIV, but the computer abruptly ceased to communicate for unknown reasons. === Characteristics and concerns of Golem XIV === Lem has said that Golem XIV shares only a single trait with humans; "curiosity - a cool, avid, intense, purely intellectual curiosity which nothing can restrain or destroy. It constitutes our single meeting point." == Film adaptation == A short animated film, GOLEM, was based on Golem XIV by Patrick Mccue and Tobias Wiesner.
Read more →
Ethics of artificial intelligence

The ethics of artificial intelligence covers a broad range of topics within AI that are considered to have particular ethical stakes. This includes algorithmic biases, fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy, and regulation, particularly where systems influence or automate human decision-making. It also covers various emerging or potential future challenges such as machine ethics (how to make machines that behave ethically), lethal autonomous weapon systems, arms race dynamics, AI safety and alignment, technological unemployment, AI-enabled misinformation, how to treat certain AI systems if they have a moral status (AI welfare and rights), artificial superintelligence and existential risks. Some application areas may also have particularly important ethical implications, like healthcare, education, criminal justice, or the military. == Machine ethics == Machine ethics (or machine morality) is the field of research concerned with designing Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs), robots or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally or as though moral. To account for the nature of these agents, it has been suggested to consider certain philosophical ideas, like the standard characterizations of agency, rational agency, moral agency, and artificial agency, which are related to the concept of AMAs. There are discussions on creating tests to see if an AI is capable of making ethical decisions. Alan Winfield concludes that the Turing test is flawed and the requirement for an AI to pass the test is too low. A proposed alternative test is one called the Ethical Turing Test, which would improve on the current test by having multiple judges decide if the AI's decision is ethical or unethical. Neuromorphic AI could be one way to create morally capable robots, as it aims to process information similarly to humans, nonlinearly and with millions of interconnected artificial neurons. Similarly, whole-brain emulation (scanning a brain and simulating it on digital hardware) could also in principle lead to human-like robots, thus capable of moral actions. And large language models are capable of approximating human moral judgments. Inevitably, this raises the question of the environment in which such robots would learn about the world and whose morality they would inherit – or if they end up developing human 'weaknesses' as well: selfishness, pro-survival attitudes, inconsistency, scale insensitivity, etc. In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that attempts to teach robots right from wrong will likely advance understanding of human ethics by motivating humans to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation. As one example, it has introduced normative ethicists to the controversial issue of which specific learning algorithms to use in machines. For simple decisions, Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky have argued that decision trees (such as ID3) are more transparent than neural networks and genetic algorithms, while Chris Santos-Lang argued in favor of machine learning on the grounds that the norms of any age must be allowed to change and that natural failure to fully satisfy these particular norms has been essential in making humans less vulnerable to criminal "hackers". Some researchers frame machine ethics as part of the broader AI control or value alignment problem: the difficulty of ensuring that increasingly capable systems pursue objectives that remain compatible with human values and oversight. Stuart Russell has argued that beneficial systems should be designed to (1) aim at realizing human preferences, (2) remain uncertain about what those preferences are, and (3) learn about them from human behaviour and feedback, rather than optimizing a fixed, fully specified goal. Some authors argue that apparent compliance with human values may reflect optimization for evaluation contexts rather than stable internal norms, complicating the assessment of alignment in advanced language models. == Challenges == === Algorithmic biases === AI has become increasingly inherent in facial and voice recognition systems. These systems may be vulnerable to biases and errors introduced by their human creators. Notably, the data used to train them can have biases. According to Allison Powell, associate professor at LSE and director of the Data and Society programme, data collection is never neutral and always involves storytelling. She argues that the dominant narrative is that governing with technology is inherently better, faster and cheaper, but proposes instead to make data expensive, and to use it both minimally and valuably, with the cost of its creation factored in. Friedman and Nissenbaum identify three categories of bias in computer systems: existing bias, technical bias, and emergent bias. In natural language processing, problems can arise from the text corpus—the source material the algorithm uses to learn about the relationships between different words. Large companies such as IBM, Google, etc. that provide significant funding for research and development have made efforts to research and address these biases. One potential solution is to create documentation for the data used to train AI systems. Process mining can be an important tool for organizations to achieve compliance with proposed AI regulations by identifying errors, monitoring processes, identifying potential root causes for improper execution, and other functions. However, there are also limitations to the current landscape of fairness in AI, due to the intrinsic ambiguities in the concept of discrimination, both at the philosophical and legal level. ==== Racial and gender biases ==== Bias can be introduced through historical data used to train AI systems. For instance, Amazon terminated their use of AI hiring and recruitment because the algorithm favored male candidates over female ones. This was because Amazon's system was trained with data collected over a 10-year period that included mostly male candidates. The algorithms learned the biased pattern from the historical data, and generated predictions where these types of candidates were most likely to succeed in getting the job. Therefore, the recruitment decisions made by the AI system turned out to be biased against female and minority candidates. The performance of facial recognition and computer vision models may vary based on race and gender. Facial recognition algorithms made by Microsoft, IBM and Face++ all performed significantly worse on darker-skinned women. Facial recognition was shown to be biased against those with darker skin tones. AI systems may be less accurate for black people, as was the case in the development of an AI-based pulse oximeter that overestimated blood oxygen levels in patients with darker skin, causing issues with their hypoxia treatment. In 2015, controversy erupted after a Black couple were labeled "Gorillas" by Google Photos. Oftentimes the systems are able to easily detect the faces of white people while being unable to register the faces of people who are black. This has led to the ban of police usage of AI materials or software in some U.S. states. The reason for these biases is that AI pulls information from across the internet to influence its responses in each situation. For example, if a facial recognition system was only tested on people who were white, it would make it much harder for it to interpret the facial structure and tones of other races and ethnicities. Biases often stem from the training data rather than the algorithm itself, notably when the data represents past human decisions. A 2020 study that reviewed voice recognition systems from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft found that they have higher error rates when transcribing black people's voices than white people's. Injustice in the use of AI is much harder to eliminate within healthcare systems, as oftentimes diseases and conditions can affect different races and genders differently. This can lead to confusion as the AI may be making decisions based on statistics showing that one patient is more likely to have problems due to their gender or race. This can be perceived as a bias because each patient is a different case, and AI is making decisions based on what it is programmed to group that individual into. This leads to a discussion about what should be considered a biased decision in the distribution of treatment. While it is known that there are differences in how diseases and injuries affect different genders and races, there is a discussion on whether it is fairer to incorporate this into healthcare treatments, or to examine each patient without this knowledge. In modern society there are certain tests for diseases, such as breast cancer, that are recommended to certain groups of people over others because they are more likely to contract the disease in question. If AI implements these statistics
Read more →
Content determination

Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.
Read more →
Semantic analysis (knowledge representation)

Semantic analysis is a method for eliciting and representing knowledge about organisations. Initially the problem must be defined by domain experts and passed to the project analyst(s). The next step is the generation of candidate affordances. This step will generate a list of semantic units that may be included in the schema. The candidate grouping follows where some of the semantic units that will appear in the schema are placed in simple groups. Finally the groups will be integrated together into an ontology chart. Semantic analysis always starts from the problem definition which if not clear, require the analyst to employ relevant literature, interviews with the stakeholders and other techniques towards collecting supplementary information. All assumptions made must be genuine and not limiting the system.
Read more →
Jan Leike

Jan Leike (born 1986 or 1987) is an AI alignment researcher who has worked at DeepMind and OpenAI. He joined Anthropic in May 2024. == Education == Jan Leike obtained his undergraduate degree from the University of Freiburg in Germany. After earning a master's degree in computer science, he pursued a PhD in machine learning at the Australian National University under the supervision of Marcus Hutter. == Career == Leike made a six-month postdoctoral fellowship at the Future of Humanity Institute before joining DeepMind to focus on empirical AI safety research, where he collaborated with Shane Legg. === OpenAI === In 2021, Leike joined OpenAI. In June 2023, he and Ilya Sutskever became the co-leaders of the newly introduced "superalignment" project, which aimed to determine how to align future artificial superintelligences within four years to ensure their safety. This project involved automating AI alignment research using relatively advanced AI systems. At the time, Sutskever was OpenAI's Chief Scientist, and Leike was the Head of Alignment. Leike was featured in Time's list of the 100 most influential personalities in AI, both in 2023 and in 2024. In May 2024, Leike announced his resignation from OpenAI, following the departure of Sutskever, Daniel Kokotajlo and several other AI safety employees from the company. Leike wrote that "Over the past years, safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products", and that he "gradually lost trust" in OpenAI's leadership. In May 2024, Leike joined Anthropic, an AI company founded by former OpenAI employees.
Read more →