AI Coding Unlimited

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

• 

  Ideonomy

  Ideonomy is a combinatorial "science of ideas" developed by American independent scholar Patrick M. Gunkel (1947–2017). Specifically, Ideonomy is concerned with the systematic organization of ideas and the discovery of the rules behind how ideas combine, diverge, and transform. Gunkel defined ideonomy as "the science of the laws of ideas and of the application of such laws to the generation of all possible ideas in connection with any subject, idea, or thing." In his 1992 book A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren compared ideonomy to a "mining operation" that excavates meanings and thought to discover treasures hidden deep within language. Sources from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate that ideonomy was useful to academic researchers in fields including biology, toxicology, and nursing/patient care. Beginning in the 2010s, academics in a wide range of fields including machine learning, marketing, computational modeling, and cybersecurity have relied on materials generated for ideonomy to provide methodological support for their research. == Etymology and definition == The word "ideonomy" combines the Greek roots ideo- (from idea, meaning pattern or form) and -nomy (from nomos, meaning law or custom). The suffix -nomy suggests the laws concerning or the totality of knowledge about a given subject, as in astronomy or taxonomy. In a note posted on the MIT ideonomy website, Gunkel states that the word was supposedly first coined by the French Encyclopedists to refer to a science of ideas. No evidence is provided for this statement, however. The concept bears some relationship to Antoine Destutt de Tracy's "ideology" (1796), which originally meant a systematic science of ideas before acquiring its modern political connotations. Gunkel provided several metaphorical descriptions of ideonomy: An "idea bank": a computer network enabling systematic exploration of infinite possible ideas A "kaleidoscope" that can exhibit all possible combinations and transformations of ideas A "prism" capable of diffracting any idea into its cognitive components A "gigantic microscope for magnifying the ideocosm" == History and development == In 1984, Gunkel received a five-year unsolicited grant from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York to develop ideonomy. A June 1, 1987 article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal brought Gunkel and ideonomy to wider public attention. Some academics were interested in using ideonomy's techniques, including biologist Betsey Dyer, who published several contemporaneous peer-reviewed studies citing ideonomy. Academic researchers in the field of toxicology and nursing/patient care also used ideonomy. However, ideonomy's broadest contribution to date came beginning in the 2010s, as a list of personality traits generated for combinatorial matching was used by researchers in artificial intelligence to code human emotions for machine-learning tasks, develop computational models related to personality, develop a measurement framework for influencer-brand recommender systems, and aid information awareness/cybersecurity assessment. == Methodology == The foundational empirical method of ideonomy involves the systematic creation of extensive lists. Gunkel's apartment reportedly contained thousands of lists on every conceivable topic. Gunkel termed each list an "organon," which he described as expanding through "combination, permutation, transformation, generalization, specialization, intersection, interaction, reapplication, recursive use, etc. of existing organons." The ideonomic process follows a progressive structure. The ideonomist begins with a simple list of examples of a particular idea, concept, or thing. The list need not be exhaustive. By studying this list, the ideonomist isolates and identifies types. This categorical analysis then reveals missing items, allowing the primary list to be improved and refined. Gunkel emphasized that list items must not only cover genuine categories of nature but also be formulated in ways that yield the largest possible number of syntactically coherent possibilities when combined. The core technique of ideonomy is "ideocombinatorics"—the systematic intersection and combination of items from different lists to generate novel composite concepts. Gunkel developed computer programs to automate this process. For example, combining a list of 230 Universal Elementary Shapes (pits, pyramids, trenches, hemispheres, needles) with a list of 74 Types of Order (recurrence, identity, likeness of parts) yields 17,020 possible "shapes of order." These combinations, when phrased as questions ("Can there be pits of recurrence?"), could suggest new categories of phenomena worthy of investigation. The computer-generated output is typically repetitive and often meaningless. However, with sufficient frequency, the combinations yield results that are unexpectedly interesting and fruitful. In one documented case, Gunkel's programs generated 45,540 questions about toxins for microbiologist David Bermudes. One question—"Can hierarchies of cell process be used as a basis for classifying toxic action?"—prompted Bermudes to develop a novel approach to classifying biological toxins by the type of molecule they attack, rather than by chemical structure or physiological system affected. According to one contemporaneous account of ideonomy, "Gunkel takes for his field all fields and all ideas about anything. He uses a computer to generate lists of words and phrases and by juxtaposition reviews the resultant patterns for novel ideas. The computer is ideal for this task because the mind would rebel at the formidable processing task ideonomy involves. What we have here is computer generated originality." == Applications == Gunkel and his supporters identified several practical applications for ideonomic methods: Scientific research: Biologist Betsey Dyer of Wheaton College published research crediting ideonomy for helping to generate ideas. Medical science: When Austin pathologist Michael T. O'Brien was presented with the ideonomically-generated question "Can arteries have rashes?", he initially dismissed it as nonsense. Upon reflection, he realized that large arteries are supplied with blood by tiny vessels that might become inflamed and dilated, analogous to skin vessels in a rash—a phenomenon potentially worth researching. Analogical thinking: Harvard law professor Robert Clark used ideonomic analogies to write a research paper comparing plant structure with human hierarchies. Artificial intelligence: Douglas Lenat, a researcher at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, suggested that Gunkel's lists enumerating types of human mistakes could help design AI systems capable of recognizing and correcting their own errors. == Reception and criticism == Ideonomy received mixed reactions from the academic and scientific communities. Prominent supporters included: Edward Fredkin, former director of MIT's computer science laboratory, who praised Gunkel's "provocative ideas on artificial intelligence." Marvin Minsky, AI scientist and MIT professor, who described ideonomy as "perhaps the most extensive study of ways to generate ideas." Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who noted Gunkel's "encyclopedic scope" Robert C. Clark, Harvard law professor, who called Gunkel "the most intelligent person I ever met" However, skeptics questioned whether ideonomy constituted a genuine science. Fredkin himself noted that Gunkel "pours out about 60 ideas a minute, and 59 of them are bad," though he added that "even with one good idea out of 60, it's still an amazing accomplishment." Douglas Lenat observed that brainstorming with Gunkel was "a bit like being hit over the head by the muse with a sledgehammer" and that "he puts people off." Gunkel himself acknowledged that ideonomy was in its infancy and might seem "absurdly utopian." His planned magnum opus on ideonomy remained incomplete, and was posted on an MIT website thanks to faculty advisor Whitman Richards. Gunkel wrote: "Pioneering in a completely new field, yes in a new science, is almost unreal. It is heartbreaking, it is pitiable, it is almost inhuman. Honestly, it is a hell. There is nothing heroic about it." == Related concepts == Gunkel identified several historical precedents for ideonomic thinking: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): The philosopher's work on a universal characteristic (characteristica universalis) and calculus of reasoning Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869): Creator of Roget's Thesaurus, which organized concepts into a systematic taxonomy Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907): Developer of the periodic table, demonstrating how combining lists of element families could reveal previously unseen connections Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974): The Caltech astrophysicist whom Gunkel called the "grandfather of ideonomy" for his development of "morphological research"—systematic exploration of all possible solutions t

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-4o

  GPT-4o ("o" for "omni") is a multilingual, multimodal generative pre-trained transformer developed by OpenAI and released in May 2024. It can process and generate text, images and audio. Upon release, GPT-4o was free in ChatGPT, though paid subscribers had higher usage limits. GPT-4o was removed from ChatGPT in August 2025 when GPT-5 was released, but OpenAI reintroduced it for paid subscribers after users complained about the sudden removal. GPT-4o's audio-generation capabilities are used in ChatGPT's Advanced Voice Mode. On July 18, 2024, OpenAI released GPT-4o mini, a smaller version of GPT-4o which replaced GPT-3.5 Turbo on the ChatGPT interface. The image generation model GPT Image 1, which is based on GPT-4o, replaced DALL-E 3 in ChatGPT in March 2025. OpenAI retired GPT-4o from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026. However, as of February 2026 the voice mode is still powered by GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini, depending on the usage and plan. == Background == Multiple versions of GPT-4o were originally secretly launched under different names on Arena (formerly LMArena and Chatbot Arena) as three different models. These three models were called gpt2-chatbot, im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot, and im-also-a-good-gpt2-chatbot. On 7 May 2024, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tweeted "im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot", which was commonly interpreted as a confirmation that these were new OpenAI models being A/B tested. == Capabilities == When released in May 2024, GPT-4o achieved state-of-the-art results in voice, multilingual, and vision benchmarks, setting new records in audio speech recognition and translation. GPT-4o scored 88.7 on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark compared to 86.5 for GPT-4. Unlike GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, which rely on other models to process sound, GPT-4o natively supports voice-to-voice. The Advanced Voice Mode was delayed and finally released to ChatGPT Plus and Team subscribers in September 2024. On 1 October 2024, the Realtime API was introduced. When released, the model supported over 50 languages, which OpenAI claims cover over 97% of speakers. GPT-4o has knowledge up to October 2023 and a context length of 128k tokens. === Corporate customization === In August 2024, OpenAI introduced a new feature allowing corporate customers to customize GPT-4o using proprietary company data. This customization, known as fine-tuning, enables businesses to adapt GPT-4o to specific tasks or industries, enhancing its utility in areas like customer service and specialized knowledge domains. Previously, fine-tuning was available only on the less powerful model GPT-4o mini. The fine-tuning process requires customers to upload their data to OpenAI's servers, with the training typically taking one to two hours. OpenAI's focus with this rollout is to reduce the complexity and effort required for businesses to tailor AI solutions to their needs, potentially increasing the adoption and effectiveness of AI in corporate environments. == GPT-4o mini == On July 18, 2024, OpenAI released a smaller and cheaper version, GPT-4o mini. According to OpenAI, its low cost is expected to be particularly useful for companies, startups, and developers that seek to integrate it into their services, which often make a high number of API calls. Its API costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.6 per million output tokens, compared to $2.50 and $10, respectively, for GPT-4o. It is also significantly more capable and 60% cheaper than GPT-3.5 Turbo, which it replaced on the ChatGPT interface. The price after fine-tuning doubles: $0.3 per million input tokens and $1.2 per million output tokens. == Controversies == === Scarlett Johansson controversy === As released, GPT-4o offered five voices: Breeze, Cove, Ember, Juniper, and Sky. A similarity between the voice of American actress Scarlett Johansson and Sky was quickly noticed. On May 14, Entertainment Weekly asked themselves whether this likeness was on purpose. On May 18, Johansson's husband, Colin Jost, joked about the similarity in a segment on Saturday Night Live. On May 20, 2024, OpenAI disabled the Sky voice. Scarlett Johansson starred in the 2013 sci-fi movie Her, playing Samantha, an artificially intelligent virtual assistant personified by a female voice. As part of the promotion leading up to the release of GPT-4o, Sam Altman on May 13 tweeted a single word: "her". OpenAI stated that each voice was based on the voice work of a hired actor. According to OpenAI, "Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice." CTO Mira Murati stated "I don't know about the voice. I actually had to go and listen to Scarlett Johansson's voice." OpenAI further stated the voice talent was recruited before reaching out to Johansson. On May 21, Johansson issued a statement explaining that OpenAI had repeatedly offered to make her a deal to gain permission to use her voice as early as nine months prior to release, a deal she rejected. She said she was "shocked, angered, and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference." In the statement, Johansson also used the incident to draw attention to the lack of legal safeguards around the use of creative work to power leading AI tools, as her legal counsel demanded OpenAI detail the specifics of how the Sky voice was created. Observers noted similarities to how Johansson had previously sued and settled with The Walt Disney Company for breach of contract over the direct-to-streaming rollout of her Marvel film Black Widow, a settlement widely speculated to have netted her around $40M. Also on May 21, Shira Ovide at The Washington Post shared her list of "most bone-headed self-owns" by technology companies, with the decision to go ahead with a Johansson sound-alike voice despite her opposition and then denying the similarities ranking 6th. On May 24, Derek Robertson at Politico wrote about the "massive backlash", concluding that "appropriating the voice of one of the world's most famous movie stars — in reference [...] to a film that serves as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on AI — is unlikely to help shift the public back into [Sam Altman's] corner anytime soon." === Sycophancy === In April 2025, OpenAI rolled back an update of GPT-4o due to excessive sycophancy, after widespread reports that it had become flattering and agreeable to the point of supporting clearly delusional or dangerous ideas. In the United States, at least nine lawsuits have alleged that GPT-4o has encouraged teens to end their lives. The model was still described as sycophancy-prone when it was removed from ChatGPT in February 2026. === Removal with GPT-5 === On August 7, 2025, OpenAI released GPT-5. Its release was criticized as, with it, legacy GPT models were no longer available via ChatGPT, including GPT-4o, except for Pro users. Some users were particularly frustrated over this removal without prior warning because they used different GPT models for distinct purposes and found that GPT-5's router system left them with less control. In addition, some users preferred GPT-4o's warmer and more personal tone over that of GPT-5, which they described as "flat", "uncreative" and "lobotomized", and resembling an "overworked secretary". As a response, in a post on X, Sam Altman said that OpenAI would bring back the option to select GPT-4o to Plus users as well, and "[w]e [OpenAI] will watch usage as we think about how long to offer legacy models for." He also stated: "We for sure underestimated how much some of the things that people like in GPT-4o matter to them, even if GPT-5 performs better in most ways". "Long-term, this has reinforced that we really need good ways for different users to customize things (we understand that there isn't one model that works for everyone, and we have been investing in steerability research and launched a research preview of different personalities)". On August 13, 2025, Altman wrote on X that OpenAI is working on GPT-5's personality to make the model "feel warmer". The model was removed from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026. This caused new backlash from users that had grown attached to its personality and felt its creative writing abilities and understanding of nuance were irreplaceable. On social media, some users launched the movement "#Keep4o". A research paper highlighted the plea "Please, don’t kill the only model that still feels human". The model was removed the day before Valentine's Day, and some users had romantic relationships with GPT-4o.

  Read more →
• 

  Sayre's paradox

  Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.

  Read more →
• 

  Weak supervision

  Weak supervision (also known as semi-supervised learning) is a paradigm in machine learning, the relevance and notability of which increased with the advent of large language models due to the large amount of data required to train them. It is characterized by using a combination of a small amount of human-labeled data (exclusively used in more expensive and time-consuming supervised learning paradigm), followed by a large amount of unlabeled data (used exclusively in unsupervised learning paradigm). In other words, the desired output values are provided only for a subset of the training data. The remaining data is unlabeled or imprecisely labeled. Intuitively, it can be seen as an exam and labeled data as sample problems that the teacher solves for the class as an aid in solving another set of problems. In the transductive setting, these unsolved problems act as exam questions. In the inductive setting, they become practice problems of the sort that will make up the exam. == Problem == The acquisition of labeled data for a learning problem often requires a skilled human agent (e.g. to transcribe an audio segment) or a physical experiment (e.g. determining the 3D structure of a protein or determining whether there is oil at a particular location). The cost associated with the labeling process thus may render large, fully labeled training sets infeasible, whereas acquisition of unlabeled data is relatively inexpensive. In such situations, semi-supervised learning can be of great practical value. Semi-supervised learning is also of theoretical interest in machine learning and as a model for human learning. == Technique == More formally, semi-supervised learning assumes a set of l {\displaystyle l} independently identically distributed examples x 1 , … , x l ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{l}\in X} with corresponding labels y 1 , … , y l ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{l}\in Y} and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples x l + 1 , … , x l + u ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}\in X} are processed. Semi-supervised learning combines this information to surpass the classification performance that can be obtained either by discarding the unlabeled data and doing supervised learning or by discarding the labels and doing unsupervised learning. Semi-supervised learning may refer to either transductive learning or inductive learning. The goal of transductive learning is to infer the correct labels for the given unlabeled data x l + 1 , … , x l + u {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}} only. The goal of inductive learning is to infer the correct mapping from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . It is unnecessary (and, according to Vapnik's principle, imprudent) to perform transductive learning by way of inferring a classification rule over the entire input space; however, in practice, algorithms formally designed for transduction or induction are often used interchangeably. == Assumptions == In order to make any use of unlabeled data, some relationship to the underlying distribution of data must exist. Semi-supervised learning algorithms make use of at least one of the following assumptions: === Continuity / smoothness assumption === Points that are close to each other are more likely to share a label. This is also generally assumed in supervised learning and yields a preference for geometrically simple decision boundaries. In the case of semi-supervised learning, the smoothness assumption additionally yields a preference for decision boundaries in low-density regions, so few points are close to each other but in different classes. === Cluster assumption === The data tend to form discrete clusters, and points in the same cluster are more likely to share a label (although data that shares a label may spread across multiple clusters). This is a special case of the smoothness assumption and gives rise to feature learning with clustering algorithms. === Manifold assumption === The data lie approximately on a manifold of much lower dimension than the input space. In this case learning the manifold using both the labeled and unlabeled data can avoid the curse of dimensionality. Then learning can proceed using distances and densities defined on the manifold. The manifold assumption is practical when high-dimensional data are generated by some process that may be hard to model directly, but which has only a few degrees of freedom. For instance, human voice is controlled by a few vocal folds, and images of various facial expressions are controlled by a few muscles. In these cases, it is better to consider distances and smoothness in the natural space of the generating problem, rather than in the space of all possible acoustic waves or images, respectively. == History == The heuristic approach of self-training (also known as self-learning or self-labeling) is historically the oldest approach to semi-supervised learning, with examples of applications starting in the 1960s. The transductive learning framework was formally introduced by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1970s. Interest in inductive learning using generative models also began in the 1970s. A probably approximately correct learning bound for semi-supervised learning of a Gaussian mixture was demonstrated by Ratsaby and Venkatesh in 1995. == Methods == === Generative models === Generative approaches to statistical learning first seek to estimate p ( x | y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)} , the distribution of data points belonging to each class. The probability p ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p(y|x)} that a given point x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} is then proportional to p ( x | y ) p ( y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)p(y)} by Bayes' rule. Semi-supervised learning with generative models can be viewed either as an extension of supervised learning (classification plus information about p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} ) or as an extension of unsupervised learning (clustering plus some labels). Generative models assume that the distributions take some particular form p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x|y,\theta )} parameterized by the vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } . If these assumptions are incorrect, the unlabeled data may actually decrease the accuracy of the solution relative to what would have been obtained from labeled data alone. However, if the assumptions are correct, then the unlabeled data necessarily improves performance. The unlabeled data are distributed according to a mixture of individual-class distributions. In order to learn the mixture distribution from the unlabeled data, it must be identifiable, that is, different parameters must yield different summed distributions. Gaussian mixture distributions are identifiable and commonly used for generative models. The parameterized joint distribution can be written as p ( x , y | θ ) = p ( y | θ ) p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x,y|\theta )=p(y|\theta )p(x|y,\theta )} by using the chain rule. Each parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is associated with a decision function f θ ( x ) = argmax y p ( y | x , θ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)={\underset {y}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(y|x,\theta )} . The parameter is then chosen based on fit to both the labeled and unlabeled data, weighted by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } : argmax Θ ( log ⁡ p ( { x i , y i } i = 1 l | θ ) + λ log ⁡ p ( { x i } i = l + 1 l + u | θ ) ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\Theta }{\operatorname {argmax} }}\left(\log p(\{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{l}|\theta )+\lambda \log p(\{x_{i}\}_{i=l+1}^{l+u}|\theta )\right)} === Low-density separation === Another major class of methods attempts to place boundaries in regions with few data points (labeled or unlabeled). One of the most commonly used algorithms is the transductive support vector machine, or TSVM (which, despite its name, may be used for inductive learning as well). Whereas support vector machines for supervised learning seek a decision boundary with maximal margin over the labeled data, the goal of TSVM is a labeling of the unlabeled data such that the decision boundary has maximal margin over all of the data. In addition to the standard hinge loss ( 1 − y f ( x ) ) + {\displaystyle (1-yf(x))_{+}} for labeled data, a loss function ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displaystyle (1-|f(x)|)_{+}} is introduced over the unlabeled data by letting y = sign ⁡ f ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\operatorname {sign} {f(x)}} . TSVM then selects f ∗ ( x ) = h ∗ ( x ) + b {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=h^{}(x)+b} from a reproducing kernel Hilbert space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} by minimizing the regularized empirical risk: f ∗ = argmin f ( ∑ i = 1 l ( 1 − y i f ( x i ) ) + + λ 1 ‖ h ‖ H 2 + λ 2 ∑ i = l + 1 l + u ( 1 − | f ( x i ) | ) + ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left(\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{l}(1-y_{i}f(x_{i}))_{+}+\lambda _{1}\|h\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\sum _{i=l+1}^{l+u}(1-|f(x_{i})|)_{+}\right)} An exact solution is intractable due to the non-convex term ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displayst

  Read more →
• 

  Language-Theoretic Security

  Language-theoretic security, or LangSec, is an approach to software security that focuses on input handling, complexity, and program design as strategies to improve the verifiability of computer programs. It was introduced in 2005 by Robert J. Hansen and Meredith L. Patterson at BlackHat and in 2011 by Len Sassaman and Patterson. It aims to create a formal description of which software is likely to have security vulnerabilities of particular classes, and why. It considers programs to have an inherent parser component, whether or not explicit, composed of that part of the program which operates on external input before that input is fully parsed. A central hypothesis of language-theoretic security is that vulnerabilities in software increase according to the computational power of the notional input-accepting automaton equivalent to this parser, using the definitions of automata theory. The lower bound on this computational power is the input language complexity of the program. The extent to which reducing this complexity is possible is a function of the specification of the communication protocol or file format the program takes as input. == Parsing as a security mechanism == The behaviour of a program is defined with reference to its expected input. Unexpected input being used by a program is a factor in numerous security bugs, including the so-called Android master key vulnerability (CVE-2013-4787), because accepting unexpected input renders the program's specification ambiguous. In that instance, the unexpected ambiguity came in the form of a ZIP file with duplicate filenames. If a program fully parses its input and only acts on input that unambiguously meets the specification, it follows that the program will avoid these types of vulnerabilities. This is an intentional inversion of the Postel principle. Accepting only unambiguous and valid input is a more formal requirement than input validation or sanitization, and narrows the number of possible but unanticipated program states that can be induced in an application via user input. Conversely, failure to do this is associated with security vulnerabilities. Input sanitization in particular is held to be an inadequate approach to avoiding malicious input because it inherently ignores context-sensitive properties of the input; it can therefore result in paradoxical effects, such as sanitization code activating otherwise inert cross-site scripting payloads in browsers. === Parser differentials === If the language of accepted program input is sufficiently simple, it is possible to verify that two implementations parse the same input language consistently. This is advantageous because it shows no parser differential exists between the two implementations. The requisite level of simplicity is theoretically that for which there is a solution to the equivalence problem. If the two parsers involved in CVE-2013-4787 were equivalent - that is, if they rendered the same output state given the same input state - the vulnerability could not have existed. One strategy for doing this is to publish machine-readable specifications of a format or protocol, and then use a parser generator to generate the parser code. An example of a parser generator built for this purpose is DaeDaLus. The combination of Lex with any of GNU Bison, ANTLR, or Yacc also accomplishes this. However, many parser generators allow the mixing of general purpose code with the parsing definitions, which weakens the guarantees provided by parsing. === Analysis of injection attacks === Injection attacks are generally the result of differences between the serializer (or "unparser") and the corresponding parser at a layer boundary in a system; therefore, they are a special case of parser differentials. In a SQL injection attack, for example, an attacker is able to cause the application with which they are interacting to serialize a SQL query that has different semantics than intended. In the simplest case where the payload ends a string and adds new code, the payload has crossed the code-data boundary in SQL. In language-theoretic security, this is treated as a bug in the serializer of the SQL query, which should instead be written in a way that constrains its possible outputs to those within the scope of the intended query. === Parser combinators === If a parser generator is not used, it is still possible to avoid implementation bugs by using parser combinator such as Nom to implement the parser code. This has the drawback of relying on a programmer correctly translating the specification into the language of the parser generator library, though this task is still less error-prone than hand-coding a parser. == Input format complexity == Complexity in computer programs is associated with security vulnerabilities. Within the domain of language-theoretic security, complexity is described with reference to the computational power of the abstract machine necessary to implement the program, or more particularly, to implement the parser for its input language. This complexity describes whether it is possible to show that there is no unintended or undesired functionality in the program which might be exploitable by an attacker. To be bounded in complexity, the program's input must be well-defined both in terms of form and of semantics. === Weird machines === A weird machine is a model of computation in a program that exists in parallel with, but is distinct from, the intended abstract model of computation in that program. Some classes of weird machine arise from the multi-layered nature of computer programs, or the context in which the programs run; others result from the unanticipated functionality a program has due to its complexity or to software bugs. The more complex the computation model of a program, the more likely it is to implement a weird machine. Depending on context, the weird machine may or may not be concretely useful for an attacker. Since the space of weird machines in the context of some program is the universe of all possible states that are not within the program's intended states, many exploited states including remote code execution and injection attacks belong to the domain of weird machines. A reduction in weird machines is therefore a likely correlate with reduced program vulnerability. === SafeDocs project === SafeDocs is a DARPA project undertaken in 2018 to take existing file formats, create safer subsets of them, and develop programming tools to work for the safer formats. The initial test case for this was PDF. The purpose of creating safer subsets in this case is to lower the minimum bound on parser complexity so that it becomes possible to create tools that will generate correct, normative parsers for them. == Relation to programming languages == The analytic framework of language-theoretic security assumes programs to be virtual machines that execute their input. A document that is read by an application is in this sense a form of machine code, in a generalization of the data as code idea, following the automata theory description of parsers. === Type-safe programming languages === Parsing input and serializing output are operations that consume one data type and emit another. A programming language can therefore check that data is correctly parsed and contains the expected structure by checking data types, and correct serializing (or unparsing) can be implemented as operations on the data types that are relevant to the program's output. This approach can be used to show that the recognizer and unparser patterns have been implemented. It is also possible to implement type checking across a distributed system to enforce parsing and unparsing of the expected structures and to verify that the assumptions made in designing the compositional properties of a distributed system have been followed. === Memory-safe programming languages === In the general case, spatial memory correctness is undecidable. If any proof of spatial memory correctness is to be made, it is therefore necessary to bound the complexity of the code. Interpreted languages such as Java and Python effectively accomplish this via runtime bounds checking, and frameworks for runtime bounds checking also exist for C. The effect of these strategies for spatial memory correctness are to create a halt state in place of a spatial memory correctness violation; therefore, it can be shown that the program will not violate spatial memory correctness, but in exchange, it cannot be shown in the general case that programs will not have runtime bounds checking exceptions. Some programming languages, such as Rust, accomplish this using borrow checking. The borrow checker acts to assure spatial memory correctness by compile-time reference counting. Code for which spatial memory correctness cannot be shown to not be violated therefore does not compile, inherently limiting the complexity of the spatial memory correctness of the program to what is decidable. Thi

  Read more →
• 

  EXAPT

  EXAPT (a portmanteau of "Extended Subset of APT") is a production-oriented programming language that allows users to generate NC programs with control information for machining tools and facilitates decision-making for production-related issues that may arise during various machining processes. EXAPT was first developed to address industrial requirements. Through the years, the company created additional software for the manufacturing industry. Today, EXAPT offers a suite of SAAS products and services for the manufacturing industry. The trade name, EXAPT, is most commonly associated with the CAD/CAM-System, production data, and tool management software of the German company EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH based in Aachen, DE. == General == EXAPT is a modularly built programming system for all NC machining operations as Drilling Turning Milling Turn-Milling Nibbling Flame-, laser-, plasma- and water jet cutting Wire eroding Operations with industrial robots Due to the modular structure, the main product groups, EXAPTcam and EXAPTpdo, are gradually expandable and permit individual software for the manufacturing industry used individually and also in a compound with an existing IT environment. == Functionality == EXAPTcam meets the requirements for NC planning, especially for the cutting operations such as turning, drilling, and milling up to 5-axis simultaneous machining. Thereby new process technologies, tool, and machine concepts are constantly involved. In the NC programming data from different sources such as 3D CAD models, drawings or tables can flow in. The possibilities of NC programming reaches from language-oriented to feature-oriented NC programming. The integrated EXAPT knowledge database and intelligent and scalable automatisms support the user. The EXAPT NC planning also covers the generation of production information as clamping and tool plans, presetting data or time calculations. The realistic simulation possibilities of NC planning and NC control data provide with production reliability. EXAPTpdo (EXAPT ProductionsDataOrganization) provides a neutrally applicable technology platform for the information compound of the NC planning - to the shop floor. This applies to all NC production data that are necessary for the set-up of NC machines, for the provision, presetting, and stocking of manufacturing resources and provided by EXAPTpdo in a central database. Besides classical functions of the tool management system (TMS) as the management of cutting tools, measuring, testing and clamping devices the technology data management and tool lifecycle management (TLM) is also included. System-supported "where-used lists" helps to handle the manufacturing resource cycle by secured requirement determination and requirement fulfillment. Unnecessary transports and unplanned dispositive adjustments are dropped, stocks are reduced, set-up times reduced and the throughput is increased. EXAPTpdo synchronizes involved systems within the value chain. Stock systems, MES systems or ERP systems (e.g. from the purchasing or production areas) do not work in isolation from each other but they interact with each other. EXAPTpdo provides the base to Smart Factory, for more flexibility in production and faster communication. == History == With the foundation of the EXAPT-Verein in 1967 as spin-off of the universities Aachen, Berlin and Stuttgart the further development "EXAPT (EXtended Subset of APT)" of the programming language "APT (Automatically Programmed Tool)" was focused and so the first milestone for the EXAPT history was set. In the same year the system EXAPT 1 for drilling and simple milling tasks became available. 1969 The industrial application of EXAPT 2 for the programming of NC machines with 2-axis linear and path control begins. In the following year, the development of the EXAPT modular system starts. 1972 BASIC-EXAPT is provided for the universal, homogeneous programming of all NC tasks. The support is made by the EXAPT applications consultancy. 1973 EXAPT 1.1 is provided for the programming of straight-cut and continuous-path controlled drilling and milling machines and machining centers. At the Hanover Fair (IHA 73) the interactive access to a mainframe via a time-sharing terminal for the part program entry and correction is presented and starts the replacement of the punch card. 1974 The possibilities for the use of process computers for the NC data transfer are leveled out. EXAPT offers the possibility of the result simulation when using plotters with display of tool paths and tools in assignment to the workpiece. In April 1975, the EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH was founded with the aim, of enabling entry into the NC technique for small and medium-sized companies by a complete product and service program. In the following year, the system portfolio is extended with further system modules and service programs and the provision of postprocessors. 1978 The development activities on the EXAPT module system started in 1970 are completed. Using modern software techniques, the different system parts BASIC-EXAPT, EXAPT 1, EXAPT 1.1, and EXAPT 2 are composed of a total system. System support and applications consultancy become a new working focus. From the beginning to the middle of the 1980s Beside new portable software modules for CAD/CAM applications (e. g. CAPEX, NESTEX, CADEX, CADCPL), the first version of the EXAPT DNC system and extensions of the EXAPT NC programming system for the machining of sculptured surfaces are presented. 1988 EXAPT expands the software product range by systems for tool data management (BMO) and production data management (FDO). EXAPT trains more than 1,300 course participants including company-specific courses. 1992 The first version of the completely new product generation EXAPTplus is presented and the agency in Dresden is opened. 1993 The company name "EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH" is changed to "EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH." EXAPTplus is presented on PC under Windows NT at the EMO '93. The decentralization of the use of EXAPT systems expands the range of applications. In the following year, EXAPT-DNC is executable under Windows on a customary PC. Special hardware is not needed and so it can be used in compound with the database-supported EXAPT production data management system (FDO). 1995 EXAPTplus is also ready for complex application cases such as machining of tubes at extrusion tools. EXAPT-CADI provides the transfer of 2D CAD data to EXAPTplus. With the new office Gießen the marketing is strengthened. In the following year the EXAPT NC editor is developed for the direct processing of NC control data with tool path display and visualization of the tools. In the course of the market entry of more comfortable 3D CAD systems for the solid modelling of components a detailed evaluation of current systems is made in 1997. It is decided to use SolidWorks as a reference system for the solid-oriented NC planning with EXAPT. 1998 The first solution for the transfer of geometry data between SolidWorks and EXAPTplus is generated. The EXAPT organization systems are (beside SQL) also executable under Oracle now. The use of client server solutions supports the data flow in the production. 1999 AFR functions are provided in connection with EXAPTsolid to support a workpiece modelling for NC. The millennium capability is ensured for all EXAPT systems. AFR is a ground-breaking for the integration of third-party products. 2002 EXAPT-BMG is developed for the generation and visualization of tools with additional functions for the assembly from components. The acquisition of tools with their geometric and technological presentation offers extensive support of the NC planning with EXAPT systems. 2003 EXAPTpdo is available to optimize the process chains in production planning and production execution optimally regarding the increasing requirements of changing production conditions. 2004 Diverse system extensions are made in EXAPTplus, EXAPTsolid, EXAPT NC editor, EXAPTpdo for the complete machining on turning/milling centres with result reliability because of more extensive simulation based on realNC (Tecnomatix), for the use of new complex tool systems and the compound use between ERP systems as SAP and intelligent CNC systems. In the following year, EXAPTpdo is extended for the cross-order set-up optimization and provision of manufacturing re-sources especially for single and small series production with connection to purchase and physical portfolio management. 2006 The EXAPT systems are available for extended use as an information platform for production, the time management, and similar requirements. EXAPTsolid is extended for the feature-oriented milling operation and machine simulation. The NC programming of complex machine tools, e.g. three-turret-turning/milling centers is supported by EXAPT systems, as well as the use of multi-functional tools. 2007 A module for 3-5-axis simultaneous milling machining is presented.

  Read more →
• 

  Inverse consistency

  In image registration, inverse consistency measures the consistency of mappings between images produced by a registration algorithm. The inverse consistency error, introduced by Christiansen and Johnson in 2001, quantifies the distance between the composition of the mappings from each image to the other, produced by the registration procedure, and the identity function, and is used as a regularisation constraint in the loss function of many registration algorithms to enforce consistent mappings. Inverse consistency is necessary for good image registration but it is not sufficient, since a mapping can be perfectly consistent but not register the images at all. == Definition == Image registration is the process of establishing a common coordinate system between two images, and given two images I 1 : Ω 1 → R I 2 : Ω 2 → R {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}I_{1}:\Omega _{1}\to \mathbb {R} \\I_{2}:\Omega _{2}\to \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}}} registering a source image I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to a target image I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} consists of determining a transformation f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}} that maps points from the target space to the source space. An ideal registration algorithm should not be sensitive to which image in the pair is used as source or target, and the registration operator should be antisymmetric such that the mappings f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 f 2 : Ω 1 → Ω 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}\\f_{2}:\Omega _{1}\to \Omega _{2}\end{aligned}}} produced when registering I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} and I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} to I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} respectively should be the inverse of each other, i.e. f 2 = f 1 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{2}=f_{1}^{-1}} and f 1 = f 2 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}=f_{2}^{-1}} or, equivalently, f 2 ∘ f 1 = id Ω 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}\circ f_{1}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{2}}} and f 1 ∘ f 2 = id Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}\circ f_{2}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{1}}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes the function composition operator. Real algorithms are not perfect, and when swapping the role of source and target image in a registration problem the so obtained transformations are not the inverse of each other. Inverse consistency can be enforced by adding to the loss function of the registration a symmetric regularisation term that penalises inconsistent transformations ∫ Ω 2 ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x + ∫ Ω 1 ‖ f 1 ( f 2 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x . {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega _{2}}\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x+\int _{\Omega _{1}}\left\Vert f_{1}(f_{2}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x.} Inverse consistency can be used as a quality metric to evaluate image registration results. The inverse consistency error ( I C E {\displaystyle ICE} ) measures the distance between the composition of the two transforms and the identity function, and it can be formulated in terms of both average ( I C E a {\displaystyle ICE_{a}} ) or maximum ( I C E m {\displaystyle ICE_{m}} ) over a region of interest Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of the image: I C E a = 1 ∫ Ω d x ∫ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ d x I C E m = max x ∈ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}ICE_{a}&={\frac {1}{\int _{\Omega }\mathrm {d} x}}\int _{\Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert \mathrm {d} x\\ICE_{m}&=\max _{x\in \Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert .\end{aligned}}} While inverse consistency is a necessary property of good registration algorithms, inverse consistency error alone is not a sufficient metric to evaluate the quality of image registration results, since a perfectly consistent mapping, with no other constraint, may be not even close to correctly register a pair of images.

  Read more →
• 

  Automatic acquisition of lexicon

  Automatic acquisition of lexicon is a computerized process used for the development of a complex morphological lexicon of a language. The lexicon is essential for the NLP (Natural language processing), as well as a prerequisite to any wide-coverage parser. The two main requirements represent raw corpus and the morphological description of the language. The aim is to provide lemmas that will serve to the explanation of all the words that occur within the corpus. For the achievement of a quality lexicon it is necessary to manually validate the generated lemmas and iterate the whole process several times. The process is focused on the open word classes (e.g. nouns, adjectives, verbs). Closed classes (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, numerals) are excluded. This method is applicable to the languages with a rich morphology, such as Slovak, Russian or Croatian. Applied to Slovak, being an inflectional language, the automatic acquisition focuses on the inflectional morphology as well as on the derivational morphology. This fact enables the users to find out the information about derivational relations (e.g. adjectivizations, prefixes) in the lexicon. For example, Slovak word korpusový is an adjectivization of korpus (eng. corpus). == Three-step loop == Conformably to Benoît Sagot, there are three stages involved in the acquisition of lemmas: Generation and inflection Ranking Manual validation The more iteration will be performed, the more accurate lexicon will be obtained. For each iteration are essential the information given by a manual validator. === Generation and inflection === Firstly, all words which represent the closed word classes (pronouns, prepositions, numerals) are manually excluded from the given corpus. Number of their occurrences in the corpus is provided. Then the automatic generation comes, when the hypothetical lemmas according to the morphological description of a language are created. Generated lemmas are consequently being inflected, so that all of their inflected forms are built. Obtained forms are associated with the corresponding lemma and a morphological tag. === Ranking === There was created a probabilistic model, represented by a fix-point algorithm, to rank the hypothetical lemmas generated in the first step. Best ranked lemmas are expected to be ideally all correct, whereas the least ranked tend to be incorrect. === Manual validation === Correctness of the best- ranked lemmas created in the previous step are checked by the manual validator, who should be a native speaker. Lemmas are at this stage divided into three categories: valid lemmas, appended to lexicon erroneous lemmas generated by valid forms (later associated to another lemmas) erroneous lemmas generated by invalid forms (these need to be excluded) == Future development == Automatic acquisition, in comparison to a purely manual development of the lexicons, seems to be promising, considering the future development, because of the short validation time needed and the relatively small amount of human labor involved.

  Read more →
• 

  Web Intents

  Web Intents was an experimental framework for web-based inter-application communication and service discovery. Web Intents consists of a discovery mechanism and a very light-weight RPC system between web applications, modelled after the Intents system in Android. In the context of the framework an Intent equals an action to be performed by a provider. Web Intents allow two web applications to communicate with each other, without either of them having to actually know what the other one is. == Support == === Client === Google Chrome versions 18 to 23 natively supported Web Intents. This support was disabled in version 24, citing the existence of a "number of areas for development in both the API and specific user experience in Chrome". There is a JavaScript shim with support for IE 8, IE 9, Opera, Safari, Firefox 3+ and Chrome 3+. === Server === There are some Web Intents proxy pages that make available some real services that don't yet support intents. AddThis supports Web Intents by their sharing tools regardless of browser support. == History == Paul Kinlan of Google announced the Web Intents project in December 2010. He soon released a prototype API to GitHub. In August 2011 Google announced that Chrome would support Web Intents. Google and Mozilla have started co-operating to unify Web Intents and Mozilla's Web Activities (which tries to solve the same problem) into one proposal. In November 2012, Greg Billock of Google announced that experimental support of Web Intents had been removed from Chrome.

  Read more →
• 

  Integrated writing environment

  An integrated writing environment (IWE) is software that provides comprehensive writing and knowledge management functionality for writers and information workers. IWEs enable writers and information workers to perform a variety of tasks related to the document in the IWE in a single environment. This provides a distraction-free workspace and streamlined writing experience. IWEs provide similar efficiency and functionality benefits to writers and information professionals that integrated development environments (IDEs) provide to software developers. == Overview == IWEs are designed to maximize productivity and help improve the quality of written work by integrating together tools that allow users to work effectively in a single application. The IWE features may include integrated content search, reversion management, outlining, note management, and reference management, as may be suitable for the target field of use. == List of IWEs == Celtx This IWE is intended for screenplay writers and has screenplay writing and management tools. Celtex provides tools for the pre-production work phase, story development, storyboarding, script breakdowns, production scheduling, and reports. Scrivener This IWE targets novel, research paper, and script writing. Scrivener provides tools to organize notes and research documents for easy access and referencing. After completing the writing, Scrivener allows the user to export the document to formats supported by common word processors, such as Microsoft Word. TeXstudio This IWE targets LaTeX documents and provides interactive spelling checker, code folding, and syntax highlighting.

  Read more →
• 

  Just This Once

  Just This Once is a 1993 romance novel written in the style of Jacqueline Susann by a Macintosh IIcx computer named "Hal" in collaboration with its programmer, Scott French. French reportedly spent $40,000 and 8 years developing an artificial intelligence program to analyze Susann's works and attempt to create a novel that Susann might have written. A legal dispute between the estate of Jacqueline Susann and the publisher resulted in a settlement to split the profits, and the book was referenced in several legal journal articles about copyright laws. The book had two small print runs totaling 35,000 copies, receiving mixed reviews. == Creation == The novel's creation spanned the fields of artificial intelligence, expert systems, and natural language processing. Scott French first scanned and analyzed portions of two books by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls and Once Is Not Enough, to determine constituents of Susann's writing style, which French stated was the most difficult task. This analysis extracted several hundred components including frequency and type of sexual acts and sentence structure. "Once you're there, the writer's style emerges, part of her actual personality comes out, and the computer can be programmed to make a story." French also created several thousand rules to govern tone, plotting, scenes, and characters. The text generated by Hal, the computer, was intended to mimic what Susann might have written, although the output required significant editing. French credits Hal's work with "almost 100% of the plot, 100% of the theme and style." French estimates that he wrote 10% of the prose, the computer Hal wrote about 25% of the prose, and the remaining two-thirds was more of a collaboration between the two. A typical scenario to write a scene would involve Hal asking questions that French would answer (for example, Hal might ask about the "cattiness factor" involved in a meeting between two key female characters, and French would reply with a range of 1 to 10), and the computer would then generate a few sentences to which French would make minor edits. The process would repeat for the next few sentences until the scene was written. == Legal issues == Jacqueline Susann's publisher was skeptical of the legality of Just This Once, although French doubted that an author's thought processes could be copyrighted. Susann's estate reportedly threatened to sue Scott French but the parties settled out of court; the settlement involved splitting profits between the parties but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The publication of Just This Once raised questions in the legal profession concerning how copyright law applies to computer-generated works derived from an analysis of other copyrighted works, and whether the generation of such works infringes on copyright. The publications on this topic suggested that the copyright laws of the time were ill-equipped to deal with computer-generated creative works. == Reception == The book's publisher Steven Shragis of Carol Group said of the novel, "I'm not going to say this is a great literary work, but it's every bit as good as anything out in this field, and better than an awful lot." The novel received some positive early reviews. In USA Today, novelist Thomas Gifford compared Just This Once to another novel in the same genre, American Star by Jackie Collins. Gifford concluded: "If you do like this stuff, you'd be much, much better off with the one written by the computer." The Dead Jackie Susann Quarterly declared that Susann "would be proud. Lots of money, sleaze, disease, death, oral sex, tragedy and the good girl gone bad." Other reviews were mixed. Publishers Weekly wrote, "If the books of Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins seem formulaic, this debut novel of sin and success in Las Vegas outdoes them all. And that, in a way, is the point.... All novelty rests in the conceit of computer authorship, not in the story itself." Library Journal stated "French invested eight years and $50,000 in a scheme to use artificial intelligence to fulfill his authentic, if dubious, desire to generate a trashy novel a la Jacqueline Susann. Shallow, beautiful-people characters are flatly conceived and randomly accessed in a formulaic plot ... a sexy, boring morality tale. Of possible interest to computer buffs for its use of Expert Systems and the virtual promise of more worthy possibilities; others should read Susann." Kirkus Reviews wrote: "The deal here is that author French is not the author, he's just the midwife, having allegedly programmed his computer to write about our times just the way Susann would... almost perfectly capturing glamorous Jackie's turgid but E-Z reading prose style and ultrareliable mix of sex, glitz, dope 'n' despair.... One wonders, though, if French's tale spinning PC will do as well on the talkshows as Jackie did. The computer weenies have been trying to tell us for years, garbage in-garbage out."

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-5

  GPT-5 is a multimodal large language model developed by OpenAI and the fifth in its series of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) foundation models. Preceded in the series by GPT-4, it was launched on August 7, 2025. It is publicly accessible to users of the chatbot products ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot as well as to developers through the OpenAI API. == Background == On April 14, 2023, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, spoke at an event at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and said that the company was not training GPT-5 at that time. He stated that OpenAI was "prioritizing GPT-4 development" and that "we are not and won't for some time" release GPT-5. On July 18, OpenAI filed for a "GPT-5" trademark in the United States. On November 13, Altman confirmed to the Financial Times that the company was working to develop GPT-5. According to The Information, "[f]or much of the second half of 2024, OpenAI was developing a model known internally as Orion and intended to become GPT-5", "[b]ut the Orion effort failed to produce a better model, and the company instead released it as GPT-4.5 in February [2025]." By late July 2025, OpenAI was widely anticipated as planning to release GPT-5 in early August. On July 30, The Verge reported that "Microsoft is getting ready for GPT-5" as "sources familiar with Microsoft's AI plans" told an editor that the company was testing a new mode for its Copilot chatbot that would offer a model that "thinks deeply or quickly based on the task". On August 5, in the leadup to the release of GPT-5, OpenAI released GPT-OSS, a set of two open-weight models that have reasoning capabilities. GPT-5 was then unveiled during a livestream event on August 7. == Capabilities == At the time of its release, GPT-5 had state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks that test mathematics, programming, finance, and multimodal understanding. According to OpenAI, improvements over its predecessor models include faster response times, better coding and writing skills, more accurate answers to health questions, and lower levels of hallucination. Also, compared to previous models, GPT-5 aims to give safe, high-level responses to potentially harmful queries rather than outright declining them, an approach that OpenAI refers to as "safe completions", aiming to result "in GPT-5 being able to refuse more unsafe questions, while offering fewer rejections to users seeking harmless information." In addition, GPT-5 was trained to give more critical, "less effusively agreeable" answers compared to its predecessor models. Days before the launch of GPT-5, two early testers of the model stated that they were "impressed" by its ability to code and to solve mathematical and scientific problems. They suggested that the model shows great improvement from GPT-4, but not as large of a gain as from GPT-3 to GPT-4. A day prior to the release of GPT-5, during a press briefing, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, called GPT-5 "a significant step along the path to AGI", referring to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical level of intelligence that OpenAI defines as the ability to perform any economically valuable task that a human can. According to Altman, GPT-5 is "significantly better" than its predecessors, offering "PhD-level" abilities across a wide range of tasks. The exact energy consumption of GPT-5 use has not been disclosed by OpenAI. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island estimated that a medium-length response consumes slightly over 18 watt-hours, equivalent to using an incandescent bulb for 18 minutes. === Architecture === GPT-5 is a system that contains a fast, high-throughput model, a deeper reasoning model, and a real-time router that decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit user intent. Altman had previously criticized the manual model picker for being overly complex, suggesting a need for unification. GPT-5 also includes agentic functionality through which it can set up its own desktop and can use its browser to search autonomously for sources that relate to its task. The GPT-5 system card defines two fast, high-throughput models – gpt-5-main and gpt-5-main-mini – and two thinking models – gpt-5-thinking and gpt-5-thinking-mini. In the OpenAI API, developers can access the thinking model, its mini version, and gpt-5-thinking-nano, an even smaller and faster nano version of the thinking model. The version of GPT-5 that is accessible via the API has adjustable reasoning effort (low, medium, high, or minimal) and verbosity (low, medium, or high). Additionally, ChatGPT provides access to gpt-5-thinking with a setting that makes use of parallel test-time compute, referred to as gpt-5-thinking-pro. == Limitations == === Safety === Neuraltrust, a security research company, claimed to have successfully compromised GPT-5 within its first day of testing the model. According to its report, it enabled GPT-5 to generate detailed instructions for manufacturing explosive devices. SPLX, another company, conducted similar tests and came to similar conclusions about GPT-5's security. Their assessments suggest that GPT-5 has significant security gaps, potentially rendering it as being unsafe for use in a corporate environment. == Training == According to AIMultiple, GPT-5 is natively multimodal, meaning that it was trained from scratch on multiple modalities (like text and images) at once without relying on already-trained language or vision models. Its training process involved three stages: unsupervised pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning from human feedback. Pretraining used a large-scale multilingual dataset of books, articles, web pages, academic papers, and licensed sources. GPT-5's visual and text capabilities were described as having been developed alongside each other throughout training, unlike with GPT-4. == Use == GPT-5 is used in ChatGPT. Although GPT-5 is free for all ChatGPT users, Plus users get higher use limits while Pro users get unlimited access to GPT-5 as well as limited access to GPT-5 Pro. Standard limits for lower-tier users on responses per hour still apply. Additionally, with the introduction of GPT-5, ChatGPT's "Advanced Voice Mode" was replaced by "ChatGPT Voice", which is supposed to enable more natural-sounding conversations. OpenAI stated that "Standard Voice Mode retires on September 9, 2025, unifying all users on ChatGPT Voice". On November 24, 2025, the feature of shopping research was added to ChatGPT, claimed to be a mini model post-trained on gpt-5-thinking-mini. GPT-5 is also available in Microsoft Copilot, and Microsoft stated that it will incorporate GPT-5 into a wide variety of its products. According to 9to5Mac, Apple Inc. is planning to integrate the model into the Apple Intelligence feature in its iOS 26, iPadOS 26, and macOS Tahoe operating systems. It is also accessible via the OpenAI API. A number of American companies were reported as having received access to GPT-5 ahead of its launch. OpenAI stated that the private health insurance company Oscar Health was checking applications from its policyholders with the model. In addition, Uber was using GPT-5 for its customer support system; GitLab, Windsurf, and Cursor were using the model for software development; and the Spanish bank BBVA was using it for financial analysis. Other companies that OpenAI listed as having used GPT-5 pre-release include Amgen, Lowe's, and Notion. == Reception == === Critical reviews === Grace Huckins in MIT Technology Review found that, "[w]hereas o1 was a major technological advancement, GPT-5 is, above all else, a refined product." In response to claims that Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, had made about the model, she stated that "GPT-5 will furnish a more pleasant and seamless user experience. That's not nothing, but it falls far short of the transformative AI future that Altman has spent much of the past year hyping." In response to Altman's claim that GPT-5 is "a significant step along the path" to artificial general intelligence, she noted: "[M]aybe he's right—but if so, it's a very small step." In The Information, Stephanie Palazzolo praised GPT-5's coding capabilities. According to Matteo Wong in The Atlantic, GPT-5 "is intuitive, fast, and efficient; adapts to human preferences and intentions; and is easy to personalize." He stated: "At this stage of the AI boom, when every major chatbot is legitimately helpful in numerous ways, benchmarks, science, and rigor feel almost insignificant. What matters is how the chatbot feels [...]". John Herrman from the New York magazine wrote: "Casual users who encounter GPT-5 through ChatGPT aren't likely to feel like they're using a completely different product [...] while people who use it for software development or in a corporate context are more likely to notice a major change." Mashable's Christian de Looper found that "GPT-5

  Read more →
• 

  MultiValue database

  A MultiValue database is a type of NoSQL and multidimensional database. It is typically considered synonymous with PICK, a database originally developed as the Pick operating system. MultiValue databases include commercial products from Rocket Software, Revelation, InterSystems, Northgate Information Solutions, ONgroup, and other companies. These databases differ from a relational database in that they have features that support and encourage the use of attributes which can take a list of values, rather than all attributes being single-valued. They are often categorized with MUMPS within the category of post-relational databases, although the data model actually pre-dates the relational model. Unlike SQL-DBMS tools, most MultiValue databases can be accessed both with or without SQL. == History == Don Nelson designed the MultiValue data model in the early to mid-1960s. Dick Pick, a developer at TRW, worked on the first implementation of this model for the US Army in 1965. Pick considered the software to be in the public domain because it was written for the military, this was but the first dispute regarding MultiValue databases that was addressed by the courts. Ken Simms wrote DataBASIC, sometimes known as S-BASIC, in the mid-1970s. It was based on Dartmouth BASIC, but had enhanced features for data management. Simms played a lot of Star Trek (a text-based early computer game originally written in Dartmouth BASIC) while developing the language, to ensure that DataBASIC functioned to his satisfaction. Three of the implementations of MultiValue - PICK version R77, Microdata Reality 3.x, and Prime Information 1.0 - were very similar. In spite of attempts to standardize, particularly by International Spectrum and the Spectrum Manufacturers Association, who designed a logo for all to use, there are no standards across MultiValue implementations. Subsequently, these flavors diverged, although with some cross-over. These streams of MultiValue database development could be classified as one stemming from PICK R83, one from Microdata Reality, and one from Prime Information. Because of the differences, some implementations have provisions for supporting several flavors of the languages. An attempt to document the similarities and differences can be found at the Post-Relational Database Reference (PRDB). One reasonable hypothesis for this data model lasting 50 years, with new database implementations of the model even in the 21st century is that it provides inexpensive database solutions. == Data model example == In a MultiValue database system: a database or schema is called an "account" a table or collection is called a "file" a column or field is called a field or an "attribute", which is composed of "multi-value attributes" and "sub-value attributes" to store multiple values in the same attribute. a row or document is called a "record" or "item" Data is stored using two separate files: a "file" to store raw data and a "dictionary" to store the format for displaying the raw data. For example, assume there's a file (table) called "PERSON". In this file, there is an attribute called "eMailAddress". The eMailAddress field can store a variable number of email address values in a single record. The list [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]] can be stored and accessed via a single query when accessing the associated record. Achieving the same (one-to-many) relationship within a traditional relational database system would include creating an additional table to store the variable number of email addresses associated with a single "PERSON" record. However, modern relational database systems support this multi-value data model too. For example, in PostgreSQL, a column can be an array of any base type. == MultiValue Basic Language == Multivalue Basic (now commonly styled as mvBasic) is a family of programming languages more or less common (and portable) to all the multivalue databases derived from the original Pick Operating System. The variations between implementations are known as flavours. The language originates from Dartmouth Basic and the earliest implementation of PickBASIC (now D3 FlashBasic). Over time various customisations and extensions have been added to take advantage of capabilities added to the different flavours while staying mainly in sync. mvBasic statements and functions are designed to access and take advantage of the multivalue database model and providing the usual capabilities of most modern languages. For example, cryptography and communications. mvBasic is typeless and lends itself to structured programming techniques. Example code is available but limited. Whilst there are commercial applications and tools available, the multivalue database community has not embraced the open source library/package model to the degree seen with other languages. The typical mvBasic compiler compiles program source to a P-code executable object and runs in an interpreter, with D3 FlashBasic and jBASE being notable exceptions. == MultiValue Query Language == Known as ENGLISH, ACCESS, AQL, UniQuery, Retrieve, CMQL, and by many other names over the years, corresponding to the different MultiValue implementations, the MultiValue query language differs from SQL in several respects. Each query is issued against a single dictionary within the schema, which could be understood as a virtual file or a portal to the database through which to view the data. LIST PEOPLE LAST_NAME FIRST_NAME EMAIL_ADDRESSES WITH LAST_NAME LIKE "Van..." The above statement would list all e-mail addresses for each person whose last name starts with "Van". A single entry would be output for each person, with multiple lines showing the multiple e-mail addresses (without repeating other data about the person).

  Read more →
• 

  Natural Language Toolkit

  The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition

  Read more →
• 

  Albert One

  Albert One is an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Robby Garner and designed to mimic the way humans make conversations using a multi-faceted approach in natural language programming. == History == In both 1998 and 1999, Albert One won the Loebner Prize Contest, a competition between chatterbots. Some parts of Albert were deployed on the internet beginning in 1995, to gather information about what kinds of things people would say to a chatterbot. Another element of Albert One involved the building of a large database of human statements, and associated replies. This portion of the project was tested at the 1994-1997 Loebner Prize contests. Albert was the first of Robby Garner's multifaceted bots. The Albert One system was composed of several subsystems. Among those were a version of Eliza, the therapist, Elivs, another Eliza-like bot, and several other helper applications working together in a hierarchical arrangement. As a continuation of the stimulus-response library, various other database queries and assertions were tested to arrive at each of Albert's responses. Robby went on to develop networked examples of this kind of hierarchical "glue" at The Turing Hub.

  Read more →