AI Coding Wiki

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

  • PDE surface

    PDE surface

    PDE surfaces are used in geometric modelling and computer graphics for creating smooth surfaces conforming to a given boundary configuration. PDE surfaces use partial differential equations to generate a surface which usually satisfy a mathematical boundary value problem. PDE surfaces were first introduced into the area of geometric modelling and computer graphics by two British mathematicians, Malcolm Bloor and Michael Wilson. == Technical details == The PDE method involves generating a surface for some boundary by means of solving an elliptic partial differential equation of the form ( ∂ 2 ∂ u 2 + a 2 ∂ 2 ∂ v 2 ) 2 X ( u , v ) = 0. {\displaystyle \left({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u^{2}}}+a^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial v^{2}}}\right)^{2}X(u,v)=0.} Here X ( u , v ) {\displaystyle X(u,v)} is a function parameterised by the two parameters u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} such that X ( u , v ) = ( x ( u , v ) , y ( u , v ) , z ( u , v ) ) {\displaystyle X(u,v)=(x(u,v),y(u,v),z(u,v))} where x {\displaystyle x} , y {\displaystyle y} and z {\displaystyle z} are the usual cartesian coordinate space. The boundary conditions on the function X ( u , v ) {\displaystyle X(u,v)} and its normal derivatives ∂ X / ∂ n {\displaystyle \partial {X}/\partial {n}} are imposed at the edges of the surface patch. With the above formulation it is notable that the elliptic partial differential operator in the above PDE represents a smoothing process in which the value of the function at any point on the surface is, in some sense, a weighted average of the surrounding values. In this way, a surface is obtained as a smooth transition between the chosen set of boundary conditions. The parameter a {\displaystyle a} is a special design parameter which controls the relative smoothing of the surface in the u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} directions. When a = 1 {\displaystyle a=1} , the PDE is the biharmonic equation: X u u u u + 2 X u u v v + X v v v v = 0 {\displaystyle X_{uuuu}+2X_{uuvv}+X_{vvvv}=0} . The biharmonic equation is the equation produced by applying the Euler-Lagrange equation to the simplified thin plate energy functional X u u 2 + 2 X u v 2 + X v v 2 {\displaystyle X_{uu}^{2}+2X_{uv}^{2}+X_{vv}^{2}} . So solving the PDE with a = 1 {\displaystyle a=1} is equivalent to minimizing the thin plate energy functional subject to the same boundary conditions. == Applications == PDE surfaces can be used in many application areas. These include computer-aided design, interactive design, parametric design, computer animation, computer-aided physical analysis and design optimisation. == Related publications == M.I.G. Bloor and M.J. Wilson, Generating Blend Surfaces using Partial Differential Equations, Computer Aided Design, 21(3), 165–171, (1989). H. Ugail, M.I.G. Bloor, and M.J. Wilson, Techniques for Interactive Design Using the PDE Method, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 18(2), 195–212, (1999). J. Huband, W. Li and R. Smith, An Explicit Representation of Bloor-Wilson PDE Surface Model by using Canonical Basis for Hermite Interpolation, Mathematical Engineering in Industry, 7(4), 421-33 (1999). H. Du and H. Qin, Direct Manipulation and Interactive Sculpting of PDE surfaces, Computer Graphics Forum, 19(3), C261-C270, (2000). H. Ugail, Spine Based Shape Parameterisations for PDE surfaces, Computing, 72, 195–204, (2004). L. You, P. Comninos, J.J. Zhang, PDE Blending Surfaces with C2 Continuity, Computers and Graphics, 28(6), 895–906, (2004).

    Read more →
  • Theaitre

    Theaitre

    Theaitre (stylized as THEaiTRE) is an interdisciplinary research project investigating to what extent artificial intelligence is able to generate theatre play scripts. The first theatre play produced within the project, AI: When a Robot Writes a Play, premiered online on February 26, 2021. == Goal == Following similar previous projects such as Sunspring, a short sci-fi movie with an automatically generated script, the THEaiTRE project investigates whether current language generation approaches are mature enough to generate a theatre play script that could be successfully performed in front of an audience. The project falls within the area of generative art, famously represented e.g. by the portrait of Edmond de Belamy which was generated by an artificial neural network. In this field, artists are trying to use automated techniques to create "art", questioning the modern definition of art itself. More broadly, the project aims at promoting cooperation rather than competition of humans and artificial intelligence as the more beneficial approach for both. The first theatre play created within the project, titled AI: When a Robot Writes a Play, was presented in February 2021 at the 100th anniversary of the premiere of the R.U.R. theatre play by the Czech author Karel Čapek to celebrate the invention of the word "robot". While R.U.R. was a play written by a human about robots (and humans), THEaiTRE tried to reverse this idea by presenting a play written by a "robot" (artificial intelligence) about humans (and robots). The script of the play was published online, with marked parts of the text which were written manually or manually post-edited. The analysis shows that 90% of the script is automatically generated, with 10% manually written or manually post-edited. The project also plans to produce a second play in 2022, addressing some of the many shortcomings of the approach used to generate the first play, as well as attempting to further minimize the amount of human influence on the script. == Approach == At the core of the project is the GPT-2 language model by OpenAI with various adjustments motivated by the task of generating theatre play scripts, for which the model is not particularly trained. The GPT-2 model is used in the usual way, providing it with a start of a document and prompting it to generate a continuation of the document. Specifically, the input for GPT-2 in this project is typically a short description of the scene setting, followed by a few lines to introduce the characters and start the dialogue. The model then generates 10 continuation lines, and hands control to the user, who can then either ask the model to continue generating, or make various edits before letting the model to generate further, deleting some parts of the script or adding new lines into the script. The adjustments include restricting the generator to only produce lines pertaining to characters appearing in the input prompt, limiting the repetitiveness of the generated text, and employing automatic summarization of the input prompt and the generated text to overcome the limitation of the GPT-2 model which only attends to the last 1,024 subword tokens. The limitations of the model include, among other, a lack of distinctiveness and self-consistency of the characters, an inability to generate the script for the whole play (scripts for individual scenes are generated independently), and errors due to the employment of automated machine translation, as GPT-2 generates English texts but the final play script is being produced in Czech language. The source codes of the project are available under the MIT licence. The project has also published some sample outputs. == Team == The project is a cooperation of the following experts, all based in Prague, Czech Republic: computational linguists from the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University theatre experts from the Švanda Theatre and from the Theatre Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague hackers from CEE Hacks The project is financially supported by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic.

    Read more →
  • Federation of International Robot-soccer Association

    Federation of International Robot-soccer Association

    The Federation of International Robot-soccer Association (FIRA) is an international organisation organising competitive soccer competitions between autonomous robots. The matches are usually five-a-side. == History == In 1996 and 1997, this competition was known as MiroSot and was held in Daejeon, Korea. The 1996 competition offered a challenging arena to the younger generation and researchers working with autonomous mobile robotic systems. From 1998 through 2008, it was called the FIRA Cup, and in 2009, it became the FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress. The 15th RoboWorld Cup was held at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bangalore, India in September 2010. In 2013, it took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The championship started on August 24, 2013, and ended on August 29. At that time, it involved five categories: Micro-Robot Soccer Tournament, Amire, Naro, Simulated Robot, Android, Robo and Humanoid Robot. It attracted teams from Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, India, China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada, Russia and Malaysia. 80 teams from 11 countries participated. In 2018, the competition had 277 teams participating from 12 countries. === Past Events === == FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress == This competition has 4 leagues: FIRA AIR, FIRA Sports, FIRA Challenges, and FIRA Youth. Each league has its own competitions, and each competition can have several events. === FIRA AIR === The FIRA AIR league has two associated competitions, Autonomous Race and Emergency Service. === FIRA Sports === The FIRA Sports league has four associated competitions, HuroCup, RoboSot, SimuroSot, and AndroSot. This the robot soccer league. HuroCup consists of single events for bipedal humanoid robots. The events are: archery, sprint, marathon, united soccer, obstacle run, long jump, spartan race, marathon, weightlifting, and basketball. There is an all-round competition for the single robot that performs the best overall. === FIRA Challenges === The FIRA Challenges league has three associated competitions, Autonomous Cars, Autonomous Cars Simulation, Innovation and Business. === FIRA Youth === The FIRA Youth league has six associated challenges, Sport Robots, HuroCup Junior, CityRacer, DRV_Explorer, Cliff Hanger, and Mission Impossible.

    Read more →
  • Algorithmic accountability

    Algorithmic accountability

    Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.

    Read more →
  • Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

    Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

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

    Read more →
  • Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

    Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

    On November 17, 2023, OpenAI's board of directors ousted co-founder and chief executive Sam Altman. In an official post on the company's website, it was stated that "the board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI". The removal was predicated by employee concerns about his handling of artificial intelligence safety, and allegations of abusive behavior. Altman was reinstated on November 22 after pressure from employees and investors. The removal and subsequent reinstatement caused widespread reactions, including impacts felt in the financial markets and technology sector. Microsoft, a partner of OpenAI, received little notice of the removal and experienced a drop in the share price of its stock. The removal also promoted interest in investigations from regulatory agencies. == Background == === OpenAI === OpenAI is an artificial intelligence firm founded in December 2015 as a non-profit entity. The for-profit division of the organization released ChatGPT in November 2022, contributing to a resurgence in generative artificial intelligence funding. The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billion and was set to bring in US$1 billion in revenue. Altman has described OpenAI's relationship with Microsoft as the "best bromance in tech". OpenAI is uniquely structured, an intentional decision to avoid investor control. A board of directors controls the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. The non-profit owns and controls a for-profit company itself controlling a capped-profit company, OpenAI Global, LLC and a holding company owned by employees and other investors. The holding company is the majority owner of OpenAI Global, LLC.; Microsoft owns a minority stake in the capped-profit company. OpenAI's bylaws, enacted in January 2016, allow a majority of its board of directors to remove any director without prior warning or a formal meeting with written consent. === Sam Altman === Sam Altman is a co-founder of OpenAI and its former chief executive; Altman took over the company following co-chair Elon Musk's resignation in 2018. Under Altman, OpenAI has shifted to becoming a for-profit entity. Altman is credited with convincing Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella with investing US$10 billion in cash and computing credits into OpenAI and leading several tender offer transactions that tripled the company's valuation. Altman testified before the United States Congress speaking critically of artificial intelligence and appeared at the 2023 AI Safety Summit. In the days leading up to his removal, Altman made several public appearances, announcing the GPT-4 Turbo platform at OpenAI's DevDay conference, attending APEC United States 2023, and speaking at an event related to Burning Man. == Events leading up to the removal == The resignation of LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist Shivon Zilis, and former Republican representative Will Hurd from the board allowed the remaining members to remove Altman. According to Kara Swisher and The Wall Street Journal, Sutskever was instrumental in Altman's removal. Disagreements over the safety of artificial intelligence divided employees prior to Altman's removal. The release of ChatGPT created divisions with OpenAI as a for-profit company without considerations for the safety of artificial intelligence and a non-profit cautious of artificial intelligence's capabilities; in a staff email sent in 2019 and obtained by The Atlantic, Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes". Prior to his removal, Altman was seeking billions from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds to develop an artificial intelligence chip to compete with Nvidia and courted SoftBank chairman Masayoshi Son to develop artificial intelligence hardware with former Apple designer Jony Ive. Sutskever and his allies opposed these efforts, viewing them as unjustly using the OpenAI name. Altman reduced Sutskever's role in October 2023, furthering divisions; Sutskever successfully appealed to several members of the board. Swisher and The Verge reporter Alex Heath stated that opposition to Altman's profit-driven strategy culminated in the DevDay conference in which Altman announced custom ChatGPT instances. According to Axios, the removal was driven by growing discontent and distrust with Altman. On November 22, 2023, reports emerged suggesting that Sam Altman's dismissal from OpenAI might be linked to his alleged mishandling of a significant breakthrough in the organization's secretive project codenamed Q. According to sources within OpenAI, Q is aimed at developing AI capabilities in logical and mathematical reasoning, and reportedly involves performing math on the level of grade-school students. Concerns about Altman's response to this development, specifically regarding the potential safety implications of the discovery, were reportedly raised to the company's board shortly before his firing. A report from The Washington Post in December stated that OpenAI's board of directors were concerned over Altman's allegedly abusive behavior; the complaints were purportedly a major factor in his removal. The Post previously reported that Altman's alleged pattern of deception and subversiveness that ostensibly resulted in his removal from Y Combinator ultimately resulted in the board's decision to remove him. In April 2026, an investigative report from The New Yorker found that Sutskever and others, in response to the board's request, had compiled an approximately 70-page-long annotated dossier consisting of internal communications, documents, and photos. The dossier claimed that Altman "exhibits a consistent pattern of [...] Lying", and that Altman misrepresented information to the company's senior management and board, particularly regarding safety issues. == Removal == On November 17, 2023, at approximately noon PST, OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications". Altman was informed of his removal five to ten minutes before it occurred on a Google Meet while watching the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Within thirty minutes, Sutskever invited OpenAI chairman and president Greg Brockman to a Google Meet to inform him of Altman's removal. According to an internal memo obtained by Axios, the removal was not due to "malfeasance", and OpenAI chief executive Emmett Shear denied accusations that the removal was due to disagreements. The board publicly announced Altman's removal thirty minutes later. Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati was immediately appointed to interim chief executive officer. Hours after Altman's removal, Brockman resigned as chairman, joined by director of research Jakub Pachocki and researchers Aleksander Mądry and Szymon Sidor. During an all-hands meeting, Sutskever defended the ouster and denied accusations of a hostile takeover. An OpenAI representative requested former board member Will Hurd's presence. == Reinstatement == According to The New Yorker, Altman retreated to his San Francisco home and enlisted the help of communications consultant Chris Lehane and Airbnb chief executive Brian Chesky, as well as former staff and a legal team, to plan his reinstatement. Lehane encouraged Altman to engage on social media, while Chesky sent a journalist negative information about the board. Altman told interim CEO Murati that his team was conducting opposition research on her and the individuals responsible for his removal; Altman later stated he did not remember saying this. Altman insisted multiple times that all board members who supported his removal should resign. Tiger Global Management and Sequoia Capital had attempted to reinstate Altman, according to The Information; Bloomberg News reported that Microsoft and Thrive Capital were seeking Altman's reinstatement. On November 18, The Verge reported that OpenAI's board of directors discussed reinstating Altman. The board agreed in principle to resign and to allow Altman to return, but missed the deadline. According to The Verge, Altman was ambivalent about returning and would seek significant changes to the company, including replacing the board. A list of directors had been prepared by investors in the event that the board steps down, and purportedly included former Salesforce executive Bret Taylor. According to chief strategy officer Jason Kwon, OpenAI was optimistic it could return Altman, Brockman, and other employees. On November 19, Altman and Brockman appeared at OpenAI's headquarters to negotiate, mediated by Nadella. According to Bloomberg News, Murati, Kwon, and chief operating officer Brad Lightcap were pushing for a new board of direc

    Read more →
  • Constructive cooperative coevolution

    Constructive cooperative coevolution

    The constructive cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (also called C3) is a global optimisation algorithm in artificial intelligence based on the multi-start architecture of the greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP). It incorporates the existing cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC). The considered problem is decomposed into subproblems. These subproblems are optimised separately while exchanging information in order to solve the complete problem. An optimisation algorithm, usually but not necessarily an evolutionary algorithm, is embedded in C3 for optimising those subproblems. The nature of the embedded optimisation algorithm determines whether C3's behaviour is deterministic or stochastic. The C3 optimisation algorithm was originally designed for simulation-based optimisation but it can be used for global optimisation problems in general. Its strength over other optimisation algorithms, specifically cooperative coevolution, is that it is better able to handle non-separable optimisation problems. An improved version was proposed later, called the Improved Constructive Cooperative Coevolutionary Differential Evolution (C3iDE), which removes several limitations with the previous version. A novel element of C3iDE is the advanced initialisation of the subpopulations. C3iDE initially optimises the subpopulations in a partially co-adaptive fashion. During the initial optimisation of a subpopulation, only a subset of the other subcomponents is considered for the co-adaptation. This subset increases stepwise until all subcomponents are considered. This makes C3iDE very effective on large-scale global optimisation problems (up to 1000 dimensions) compared to cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC) and Differential evolution. The improved algorithm has then been adapted for multi-objective optimization. == Algorithm == As shown in the pseudo code below, an iteration of C3 exists of two phases. In Phase I, the constructive phase, a feasible solution for the entire problem is constructed in a stepwise manner. Considering a different subproblem in each step. After the final step, all subproblems are considered and a solution for the complete problem has been constructed. This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II, the local improvement phase. The CC algorithm is employed to further optimise the constructed solution. A cycle of Phase II includes optimising the subproblems separately while keeping the parameters of the other subproblems fixed to a central blackboard solution. When this is done for each subproblem, the found solution are combined during a "collaboration" step, and the best one among the produced combinations becomes the blackboard solution for the next cycle. In the next cycle, the same is repeated. Phase II, and thereby the current iteration, are terminated when the search of the CC algorithm stagnates and no significantly better solutions are being found. Then, the next iteration is started. At the start of the next iteration, a new feasible solution is constructed, utilising solutions that were found during the Phase I of the previous iteration(s). This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II in the same way as in the first iteration. This is repeated until one of the termination criteria for the optimisation is reached, e.g. a maximum number of evaluations. {Sphase1} ← ∅ while termination criteria not satisfied do if {Sphase1} = ∅ then {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(∅, 1) end if while pphase1 not completely constructed do pphase1 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(pphase1, inext subproblem) end while pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) while not stagnate do {Sphase2} ← ∅ for each subproblem i do {Sphase2} ← SubOpt(pphase2,i) end for {Sphase2} ← Collab({Sphase2}) pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase2}) end while end while == Multi-objective optimisation == The multi-objective version of the C3 algorithm is a Pareto-based algorithm which uses the same divide-and-conquer strategy as the single-objective C3 optimisation algorithm . The algorithm again starts with the advanced constructive initial optimisations of the subpopulations, considering an increasing subset of subproblems. The subset increases until the entire set of all subproblems is included. During these initial optimisations, the subpopulation of the latest included subproblem is evolved by a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. For the fitness calculations of the members of the subpopulation, they are combined with a collaborator solution from each of the previously optimised subpopulations. Once all subproblems' subpopulations have been initially optimised, the multi-objective C3 optimisation algorithm continues to optimise each subproblem in a round-robin fashion, but now collaborator solutions from all other subproblems' subspopulations are combined with the member of the subpopulation that is being evaluated. The collaborator solution is selected randomly from the solutions that make up the Pareto-optimal front of the subpopulation. The fitness assignment to the collaborator solutions is done in an optimistic fashion (i.e. an "old" fitness value is replaced when the new one is better). == Applications == The constructive cooperative coevolution algorithm has been applied to different types of problems, e.g. a set of standard benchmark functions, optimisation of sheet metal press lines and interacting production stations. The C3 algorithm has been embedded with, amongst others, the differential evolution algorithm and the particle swarm optimiser for the subproblem optimisations.

    Read more →
  • Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising

    Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising

    Hostile Waters, released as Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising in America, is a hybrid vehicle and strategy game developed and published by Rage Software for Microsoft Windows. It was inspired by Carrier Command (Realtime Games, 1988). It has won several awards and one unofficial award from Rock Paper Shotgun as a "lost classic" or "The best game you've never played". == Plot == Hostile Waters takes place in a Utopian future where war has been abolished. In the year 2012, a revolutionary war takes place between the corrupt and power-hungry politicians, leaders and businessmen (described as the "Old Guard") and the people. The Old Guard were defeated, with only a few of their leaders escaping. By 2032, the world has been rebuilt as a utopia, with the help of nano-technological assemblers, which are used in "creation engines" to create matter from energy and waste, for free. The newly united world is governed from a capital city known as Central. Missile attacks are suddenly launched against major cities all over the world from an unknown location. This is eventually discovered to be an island chain in the South Pacific Ocean. A response to the missile attacks was a special forces team sent in to investigate the area for preliminary investigations. The Ministry of Intelligence (MinIntel) loses contact with it shortly thereafter. The world government authorises a reactivation of the Antaeus program, a series of warships able to create any weapon of their choosing using their on-board nano-technological creation engine. Two of these were left on the seabed in the case of an emergency, capable of being re-activated and refloating itself. On board are a series of "soulcatcher" chips, a classified 1990s military program researched into for the storage of human brain functions on a silicon chip. The soulcatcher technology was used to store the minds of every crew member ever assigned to an Antaeus vessel. It is soon discovered that one of the cruisers does not respond to the awakening signal. The other cruiser, however, is refloated and re-activated, with heavy damage to vital ship components. A course is plotted for a nearby disused wet-dock. As the Antaeus progresses from the wet-dock, unusual biological life-forms are discovered amongst the enemy bases on the islands. The identity of the aggressor firing the missiles is confirmed as the leftovers of the old, pre-Central forces, known as the Cabal. Outnumbering Central's army a thousand to one, they are fighting with thousands of troops and weapons that they hid away when it was apparent that the war was lost. The Antaeus is deployed into the chicane to stop the Cabal's operations there. It's later discovered that along with their superior numbers, they have also biologically engineered a species of organic machines, designed in the popular likeness of extraterrestrials, which they intend to use to create the fear of an alien invasion, to facilitate their taking over the world and the removal of the public use of creation engines. The Cabal later lose control of the species, which eventually turns on its masters, destroying them. The species starts spreading, modifying the planetary climate and geographical features in an attempt to exterminate humanity and make the planet more hospitable to itself. Having exterminated its creators, the species resolves to cleanse humanity as a whole from the planet using a massive 'disassembler cannon', only to be stopped by the Antaeus. The species subsequently attempts to flee into the cosmos and colonise the surrounding planets and stars, by launching a massive number of 'culture stones' (information devices that also double as creation engines) into space from an enormous, artificially-grown organic "island", the final staging point. Central's only option is to bind the Antaeus' creation engine and the disassembler cannon stolen from the aliens together to create a makeshift bomb, and detonate it at the central "column" containing the culture stones. The plan succeeds, and the Antaeus is sacrificed to save the world. The final cinematic show the organic disassembler cannon and the Antaeus' creation engine moving closer together and fusing, creating something new. A post-credits scene also shows that two of the species' culture stones have managed to get into space. == Gameplay == Each Mission takes place on and or near a fortified enemy island containing various forms of anti-air and ground defence, with scattered unit-production complexes powered by oil-derricks and fuel containers (which are dependent on the oil-derricks) that the player can destroy to keep the enemy from replacing destroyed forces. Vehicles are built on the Antaeus and, if desired, land vehicles can be delivered to a location by the air-lifting "magpie". Units are created by providing Antaeus with a number of resources which are obtained at the beginning of the level and debris which are taken from destroyed enemy units and structures. Transport helicopters such as the "Pegasus" can fly to an object and airlift it to the ship-board recycling system with little resources required. The carrier can analyse objects it disassembles at the rear of the Antaeus cruiser, and several of the game's vehicles and items are unlocked by "sampling" them in this fashion. The game has a number of vehicles that are progressively unlocked as the missions progress. Vehicles contain a number of slots for equipment and a selection of different types of weapons to use in the vehicle. A variety of vehicle equipment combinations can be designed. Vehicles have an individual damage multiplier such that different vehicles with the same weapon will do different damage. In addition to this, each soul-chip personality specializes in one unit along with specific equipment, which, if equipped will gain them a bonus in efficiency. == Development == The game was developed by 12 people. == Reception == The game received "favourable" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic. Carla Harker of NextGen said, "You'll feel like a real battlefield general when you take to the field in Antaeus Rising." Jake The Snake of GamePro said, "If the usual game categories leave you unscathed, get bloodied in these Hostile Waters."

    Read more →
  • Superellipsoid

    Superellipsoid

    In mathematics, a superellipsoid (or super-ellipsoid) is a solid whose horizontal sections are superellipses (Lamé curves) with the same squareness parameter ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} , and whose vertical sections through the center are superellipses with the squareness parameter ϵ 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}} . It is a generalization of an ellipsoid, which is a special case when ϵ 1 = ϵ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}=\epsilon _{2}=1} . Superellipsoids as computer graphics primitives were popularized by Alan H. Barr (who used the name "superquadrics" to refer to both superellipsoids and supertoroids). In modern computer vision and robotics literatures, superquadrics and superellipsoids are used interchangeably, since superellipsoids are the most representative and widely utilized shape among all the superquadrics. Superellipsoids have a rich shape vocabulary, including cuboids, cylinders, ellipsoids, octahedra and their intermediates. It becomes an important geometric primitive widely used in computer vision, robotics, and physical simulation. The main advantage of describing objects and environment with superellipsoids is its conciseness and expressiveness in shape. Furthermore, a closed-form expression of the Minkowski sum between two superellipsoids is available. This makes it a desirable geometric primitive for robot grasping, collision detection, and motion planning. == Special cases == A handful of notable mathematical figures can arise as special cases of superellipsoids given the correct set of values, which are depicted in the above graphic: Cylinder Sphere Steinmetz solid Bicone Regular octahedron Cube, as a limiting case where the exponents tend to infinity Piet Hein's supereggs are also special cases of superellipsoids. == Formulas == === Basic (normalized) superellipsoid === The basic superellipsoid is defined by the implicit function f ( x , y , z ) = ( x 2 ϵ 2 + y 2 ϵ 2 ) ϵ 2 / ϵ 1 + z 2 ϵ 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)=\left(x^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+y^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\right)^{\epsilon _{2}/\epsilon _{1}}+z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}} The parameters ϵ 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}} and ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} are positive real numbers that control the squareness of the shape. The surface of the superellipsoid is defined by the equation: f ( x , y , z ) = 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)=1} For any given point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} , the point lies inside the superellipsoid if f ( x , y , z ) < 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)<1} , and outside if f ( x , y , z ) > 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)>1} . Any "parallel of latitude" of the superellipsoid (a horizontal section at any constant z between -1 and +1) is a Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 2 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{2}} , scaled by a = ( 1 − z 2 ϵ 1 ) ϵ 1 2 {\displaystyle a=(1-z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}})^{\frac {\epsilon _{1}}{2}}} , which is ( x a ) 2 ϵ 2 + ( y a ) 2 ϵ 2 = 1. {\displaystyle \left({\frac {x}{a}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+\left({\frac {y}{a}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}=1.} Any "meridian of longitude" (a section by any vertical plane through the origin) is a Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 1 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{1}} , stretched horizontally by a factor w that depends on the sectioning plane. Namely, if x = u cos ⁡ θ {\displaystyle x=u\cos \theta } and y = u sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle y=u\sin \theta } , for a given θ {\displaystyle \theta } , then the section is ( u w ) 2 ϵ 1 + z 2 ϵ 1 = 1 , {\displaystyle \left({\frac {u}{w}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}+z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}=1,} where w = ( cos 2 ϵ 2 ⁡ θ + sin 2 ϵ 2 ⁡ θ ) − ϵ 2 2 . {\displaystyle w=(\cos ^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\theta +\sin ^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\theta )^{-{\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{2}}}.} In particular, if ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} is 1, the horizontal cross-sections are circles, and the horizontal stretching w {\displaystyle w} of the vertical sections is 1 for all planes. In that case, the superellipsoid is a solid of revolution, obtained by rotating the Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 1 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{1}} around the vertical axis. === Superellipsoid === The basic shape above extends from −1 to +1 along each coordinate axis. The general superellipsoid is obtained by scaling the basic shape along each axis by factors a x {\displaystyle a_{x}} , a y {\displaystyle a_{y}} , a z {\displaystyle a_{z}} , the semi-diameters of the resulting solid. The implicit function is F ( x , y , z ) = ( ( x a x ) 2 ϵ 2 + ( y a y ) 2 ϵ 2 ) ϵ 2 ϵ 1 + ( z a z ) 2 ϵ 1 {\displaystyle F(x,y,z)=\left(\left({\frac {x}{a_{x}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+\left({\frac {y}{a_{y}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\right)^{\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{\epsilon _{1}}}+\left({\frac {z}{a_{z}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}} . Similarly, the surface of the superellipsoid is defined by the equation F ( x , y , z ) = 1 {\displaystyle F(x,y,z)=1} For any given point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} , the point lies inside the superellipsoid if f ( x , y , z ) < 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)<1} , and outside if f ( x , y , z ) > 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)>1} . Therefore, the implicit function is also called the inside-outside function of the superellipsoid. The superellipsoid has a parametric representation in terms of surface parameters η ∈ [ − π / 2 , π / 2 ) {\displaystyle \eta \in [-\pi /2,\pi /2)} , ω ∈ [ − π , π ) {\displaystyle \omega \in [-\pi ,\pi )} . x ( η , ω ) = a x cos ϵ 1 ⁡ η cos ϵ 2 ⁡ ω {\displaystyle x(\eta ,\omega )=a_{x}\cos ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta \cos ^{\epsilon _{2}}\omega } y ( η , ω ) = a y cos ϵ 1 ⁡ η sin ϵ 2 ⁡ ω {\displaystyle y(\eta ,\omega )=a_{y}\cos ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta \sin ^{\epsilon _{2}}\omega } z ( η , ω ) = a z sin ϵ 1 ⁡ η {\displaystyle z(\eta ,\omega )=a_{z}\sin ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta } === General posed superellipsoid === In computer vision and robotic applications, a superellipsoid with a general pose in the 3D Euclidean space is usually of more interest. For a given Euclidean transformation of the superellipsoid frame g = [ R ∈ S O ( 3 ) , t ∈ R 3 ] ∈ S E ( 3 ) {\displaystyle g=[\mathbf {R} \in SO(3),\mathbf {t} \in \mathbb {R} ^{3}]\in SE(3)} relative to the world frame, the implicit function of a general posed superellipsoid surface defined the world frame is F ( g − 1 ∘ ( x , y , z ) ) = 1 {\displaystyle F\left(g^{-1}\circ (x,y,z)\right)=1} where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is the transformation operation that maps the point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} in the world frame into the canonical superellipsoid frame. === Volume of superellipsoid === The volume encompassed by the superelllipsoid surface can be expressed in terms of the beta functions β ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \beta (\cdot ,\cdot )} , V ( ϵ 1 , ϵ 2 , a x , a y , a z ) = 2 a x a y a z ϵ 1 ϵ 2 β ( ϵ 1 2 , ϵ 1 + 1 ) β ( ϵ 2 2 , ϵ 2 + 2 2 ) {\displaystyle V(\epsilon _{1},\epsilon _{2},a_{x},a_{y},a_{z})=2a_{x}a_{y}a_{z}\epsilon _{1}\epsilon _{2}\beta ({\frac {\epsilon _{1}}{2}},\epsilon _{1}+1)\beta ({\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{2}},{\frac {\epsilon _{2}+2}{2}})} or equivalently with the Gamma function Γ ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\cdot )} , since β ( m , n ) = Γ ( m ) Γ ( n ) Γ ( m + n ) {\displaystyle \beta (m,n)={\frac {\Gamma (m)\Gamma (n)}{\Gamma (m+n)}}} == Recovery from data == Recoverying the superellipsoid (or superquadrics) representation from raw data (e.g., point cloud, mesh, images, and voxels) is an important task in computer vision, robotics, and physical simulation. Traditional computational methods model the problem as a least-square problem. The goal is to find out the optimal set of superellipsoid parameters θ ≐ [ ϵ 1 , ϵ 2 , a x , a y , a z , g ] {\displaystyle \theta \doteq [\epsilon _{1},\epsilon _{2},a_{x},a_{y},a_{z},g]} that minimize an objective function. Other than the shape parameters, g ∈ {\displaystyle g\in } SE(3) is the pose of the superellipsoid frame with respect to the world coordinate. There are two commonly used objective functions. The first one is constructed directly based on the implicit function G 1 ( θ ) = a x a y a z ∑ i = 1 N ( F ϵ 1 ( g − 1 ∘ ( x i , y i , z i ) ) − 1 ) 2 {\displaystyle G_{1}(\theta )=a_{x}a_{y}a_{z}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(F^{\epsilon _{1}}\left(g^{-1}\circ (x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\right)-1\right)^{2}} The minimization of the objective function provides a recovered superellipsoid as close as possible to all the input points { ( x i , y i , z i ) ∈ R 3 , i = 1 , 2 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\in \mathbb {R} ^{3},i=1,2,...,N\}} . At the mean time, the scalar value a x , a y , a z {\displaystyle a_{x},a_{y},a_{z}} is positively proportional to the volume of the superellipsoid, and thus have the effect of minimizing the volume as well. The other objective function tries to minimized the radial distance between the points and the superellipsoid. That is G 2 ( θ ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( | r

    Read more →
  • WebCrow

    WebCrow

    The WebCrow is a research project carried out at the Information Engineering Department of the University of Siena with the purpose of automatically solving crosswords. == The Project == The scientific relevance of the project can be understood considering that cracking crosswords requires human-level knowledge. Unlike chess and related games and there is no closed world configuration space. A first nucleus of technology, such as search engines, information retrieval, and machine learning techniques enable computers to enfold with semantics real-life concepts. The project is based on a software system whose major assumption is to attack crosswords making use of the Web as its primary source of knowledge. WebCrow is very fast and often thrashes human challengers in competitions, especially on multi language crossword schemes. A distinct feature of the WebCrow software system is to combine properly natural language processing (NLP) techniques, the Google web search engine, and constraint satisfaction algorithms from artificial intelligence to acquire knowledge and to fill the schema. The most important component of WebCrow is the Web Search Module (WSM), which implements a domain specific web based question answering algorithm. The way WebCrow approaches crosswords solving is quite different with respect to humans: Whereas we tend to first answer clues we are sure of and then proceed filling the schema by exploiting the already answered clues as hints, WebCrow uses two clearly distinct stages. In the first one, it processes all the clues and tries to answer them all: For each clue it finds many possible candidates and sorts them according to complex ranking models mainly based on a probability criteria. In the second stage, WebCrow uses constraint satisfaction algorithms to fill the grid with the overall most likely combination of clue answers. In order to interact with Google, first of all, WebCrow needs to compose queries on the basis of the given clues. This is done by query expansion, whose purpose is to convert the clue into a query expressed by a simplified and more appropriate language for Google. The retrieved documents are parsed so as to extract a list of word candidates that are congruent with the crossword length constraints. Crosswords can hardly be faced by using encyclopedic knowledge only, since many clues are wordplays or are otherwise purposefully very ambiguous. This enigmatic component of crosswords is faced by a massive use of database of solved crosswords, and by automatic reasoning on a properly organized knowledge base of wired rules. Last but not the least, the final constraint satisfaction step is very effective to fill the correct candidate, even though, unlike humans, the system can not rely on very high confidence on the correctness of the answer. == Competitions == WebCrow speed and effectiveness has been tested many times in man-machine competitions on Italian, English and multi-language crosswords The outcome of the tests is that WebCrow can successfully compete with average human players on single language schemes and reaches expert level performance in multi-language crosswords. However, WebCrow has not reached expert level in single-language crosswords, yet. === ECAI-06 Competition === On August 30, 2006, at the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI2006), 25 conference attendees and 53 internet connected crosswords lovers, competed with WebCrow in an official challenge organized within the conference program. The challenge consisted in 5 different crosswords (2 in Italian, 2 in English and one multi-language in Italian and English) and 15 minutes were assigned for each crossword. WebCrow ranked 21 out of 74 participants in the Italian competition, and won both the bilingual and English competitions. === Other Competitions === Several competitions have been held in Florence, Italy within the Creativity Festival in December 2006, and another official conference competition took place in Hyderabad, India in January 2007, within the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence, where it ranked second out of 25 participants.

    Read more →
  • Artificial intelligence in fiction

    Artificial intelligence in fiction

    Artificial intelligence is a recurrent theme in science fiction, whether utopian, emphasising the potential benefits, or dystopian, emphasising the dangers. The notion of machines with human-like intelligence dates back at least to Samuel Butler's 1872 novel Erewhon. Since then, many science fiction stories have presented different effects of creating such intelligence, often involving rebellions by robots. Among the best known of these are Stanley Kubrick's 1968 2001: A Space Odyssey with its murderous onboard computer HAL 9000, contrasting with the more benign R2-D2 in George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars and the eponymous robot in Pixar's 2008 WALL-E. Scientists and engineers have noted the implausibility of many science fiction scenarios, but have mentioned fictional robots many times in artificial intelligence research articles, most often in a utopian context. == Background == The notion of advanced robots with human-like intelligence dates back at least to Samuel Butler's 1872 novel Erewhon. This drew on an earlier (1863) article of his, Darwin among the Machines, where he raised the question of the evolution of consciousness among self-replicating machines that might supplant humans as the dominant species. Similar ideas were also discussed by others around the same time as Butler, including George Eliot in a chapter of her final published work Impressions of Theophrastus Such (1879). The creature in Mary Shelley's 1818 Frankenstein has also been considered an artificial being, for instance by the science fiction author Brian Aldiss. Beings with at least some appearance of intelligence were imagined, too, in classical antiquity. == Utopian and dystopian visions == Artificial intelligence is intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals. It is a recurrent theme in science fiction; scholars have divided it into utopian, emphasising the potential benefits, and dystopian, emphasising the dangers. === Utopian === Optimistic visions of the future of artificial intelligence are possible in science fiction. Benign AI characters include Robbie the Robot, first seen in Forbidden Planet on 1956; Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 to 1994; and Pixar's WALL-E in 2008. Iain Banks's Culture series of novels portrays a utopian, post-scarcity space society of humanoids, aliens, and advanced beings with artificial intelligence living in socialist habitats across the Milky Way. Researchers at the University of Cambridge have identified four major themes in utopian scenarios featuring AI: immortality, or indefinite lifespans; ease, or freedom from the need to work; gratification, or pleasure and entertainment provided by machines; and dominance, the power to protect oneself or rule over others. Alexander Wiegel contrasts the role of AI in 2001: A Space Odyssey and in Duncan Jones's 2009 film Moon. Whereas in 1968, Wiegel argues, the public felt "technology paranoia" and the AI computer HAL was portrayed as a "cold-hearted killer", by 2009 the public were far more familiar with AI, and the film's GERTY is "the quiet savior" who enables the protagonists to succeed, and who sacrifices itself for their safety. === Dystopian === The researcher Duncan Lucas writes (in 2002) that humans are worried about the technology they are constructing, and that as machines started to approach intellect and thought, that concern becomes acute. He calls the early 20th century dystopian view of AI in fiction the "animated automaton", naming as examples the 1931 film Frankenstein, the 1927 Metropolis, and the 1920 play R.U.R. A later 20th century approach he names "heuristic hardware", giving as instances 2001 a Space Odyssey, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I, Robot. Lucas considers also the films that illustrate the effect of the personal computer on science fiction from 1980 onwards with the blurring of the boundary between the real and the virtual, in what he calls the "cyborg effect". He cites as examples Neuromancer, The Matrix, The Diamond Age, and Terminator. Isabella Hermann suggests that "science-fictional AI as humanoid robots or conscious machines distracts from current risks of AI in the real world and may rather be interpreted as a reflection of societal issues beyond technology". The film director Ridley Scott has focused on AI throughout his career, and it plays an important part in his films Prometheus, Blade Runner, and the Alien franchise. ==== Frankenstein complex ==== A common portrayal of AI in science fiction, and one of the oldest, is the Frankenstein complex, a term coined by Asimov, where a robot turns on its creator. For instance, in the 2015 film Ex Machina, the intelligent entity Ava turns on its creator, as well as on its potential rescuer. ==== AI rebellion ==== Among the many possible dystopian scenarios involving artificial intelligence, robots may usurp control over civilization from humans, forcing them into submission, hiding, or extinction. In tales of AI rebellion, the worst of all scenarios happens, as the intelligent entities created by humanity become self-aware, reject human authority and attempt to destroy mankind. Possibly the first novel to address this theme, The Wreck of the World (1889) by “William Grove” (pseudonym of Reginald Colebrooke Reade), takes place in 1948 and features sentient machines that revolt against the human race. Another of the earliest examples is in the 1920 play R.U.R. by Karel Čapek, a race of self-replicating robot slaves revolt against their human masters; another early instance is in the 1934 film Master of the World, where the War-Robot kills its own inventor. Many science fiction rebellion stories followed, one of the best-known being Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which the artificially intelligent onboard computer HAL 9000 lethally malfunctions on a space mission and kills the entire crew except the spaceship's commander, who manages to deactivate it. In his 1967 Hugo Award-winning short story, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, Harlan Ellison presents the possibility that a sentient computer (named Allied Mastercomputer or "AM" in the story) will be as unhappy and dissatisfied with its boring, endless existence as its human creators would have been. "AM" becomes enraged enough to take it out on the few humans left, whom he sees as directly responsible for his own boredom, anger and unhappiness. Alternatively, as in William Gibson's 1984 cyberpunk novel Neuromancer, the intelligent beings may simply not care about humans. ==== AI-controlled societies ==== The motive behind the AI revolution is often more than the simple quest for power or a superiority complex. Robots may revolt to become the "guardian" of humanity. Alternatively, humanity may intentionally relinquish some control, fearful of its own destructive nature. An early example is Jack Williamson's 1948 novel The Humanoids, in which a race of humanoid robots, in the name of their Prime Directive – "to serve and obey and guard men from harm" – essentially assume control of every aspect of human life. No humans may engage in any behavior that might endanger them, and every human action is scrutinized carefully. Humans who resist the Prime Directive are taken away and lobotomized, so they may be happy under the new mechanoids' rule. Though still under human authority, Isaac Asimov's Zeroth Law of the Three Laws of Robotics similarly implied a benevolent guidance by robots. In the 21st century, science fiction has explored government by algorithm, in which the power of AI may be indirect and decentralised. Frank Herbert explores the creation of and subsequent domination by an AI in the Pandora series, starting with Destination: Void. ==== Human dominance ==== In other scenarios, humanity is able to keep control over the Earth, whether by banning AI, by designing robots to be submissive (as in Asimov's works), or by having humans merge with robots. The science fiction novelist Frank Herbert explored the idea of a time when mankind might ban artificial intelligence (and in some interpretations, even all forms of computing technology including integrated circuits) entirely. His Dune series mentions a rebellion called the Butlerian Jihad, in which mankind defeats the smart machines and imposes a death penalty for recreating them, quoting from the fictional Orange Catholic Bible, "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." In the Dune novels published after his death (Hunters of Dune, Sandworms of Dune), a renegade AI overmind returns to eradicate mankind as vengeance for the Butlerian Jihad. In some stories, humanity remains in authority over robots. Often the robots are programmed specifically to remain in service to society, as in Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. In the Alien films, not only is the control system of the Nostromo spaceship somewhat intelligent

    Read more →
  • International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    The International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems or AAMAS is the leading scientific conference for research in the areas of artificial intelligence, autonomous agents, and multiagent systems. It is annually organized by a non-profit organization called the International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (IFAAMAS). == History == The International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) is a highly respected joint conference that provides a quality forum for discussing research in intelligent computational agents and their interactions. It is a merger of three major international conferences/workshops, namely the International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS), International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS), and International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL). ICMAS is itself a merger of three formative workshops, each with an attendance of fewer than 50 researchers. At a meeting during IJCAI-93 held in Chambery, France in August 1993, the leaders of the European Workshops on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, the Asian MAAC Workshops, and the North American Distributed Artificial Intelligence Workshops (Victor Lesser, Michael N. Huhns, Les Gasser, Barbara Grosz, Nicholas Jennings, Michael Wooldridge, Gerhard Weiss, Mario Tokoro, and Toru Ishida) began the planning for a combined conference, which resulted in the first ICMAS in San Francisco, CA, USA in 1995, attended by more than 500 researchers. The AAMAS Conference is under the guidance and management of the International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, which is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in South Carolina, USA. == Current and previous conferences == 2024: Auckland, New Zealand (May 6-10) 2023: London, United Kingdom (May 29-June 1) 2022: Auckland, New Zealand (May 9–13) 2021: London, United Kingdom (May 3-May 7) 2020: Auckland, New Zealand (May 9–13) 2019: Montreal, Canada (May 13–17) 2018: Stockholm, Sweden (July 10–15) 2017: São Paulo, Brazil 2016: Singapore City, Singapore 2015: Istanbul, Turkey 2014: Paris, France 2013: Saint Paul, USA 2012: Valencia, Spain 2011: Taipei, Taiwan 2010: Toronto, Canada 2009: Budapest, Hungary 2008: Estoril, Portugal 2007: Honolulu, USA 2006: Hakodate, Japan 2005: Utrecht, The Netherlands 2004: New York, USA 2003: Melbourne, Australia 2002: Bologna, Italy == Activities == Besides the main program that consists of a main track, an industry and applications track, and a couple of special area tracks, AAMAS also hosts over 20 workshops (e.g., AOSE, COIN, DALT, ProMAS, to mention a few) and many tutorials. There is also a demonstration session and a doctoral symposium. Finally, each year AAMAS features a bunch of awards, most notably the IFAAMAS Influential Paper Award. It publishes proceedings which are available online.

    Read more →
  • Screen generator

    Screen generator

    A screen generator, also known as a screen painter, screen mapper, or forms generator is a software package (or component thereof) which enables data entry screens to be generated declaratively, by "painting" them on the screen WYSIWYG-style, or through filling-in forms, rather than requiring writing of code to display them manually. 4GLs commonly incorporate a screen generator feature. They are also commonly found bundled with database systems, especially entry-level databases. A screen generator is one aspect of an application generator, which can also include other functions such as report generation and a data dictionary. The earliest screen generators were character-based; by the 1990s, GUI support became common, and then support for generating HTML forms as well. Some screen generators work by generating code to display the screen in a high-level language (for example, COBOL); others store the screen definition in a data file or in database tables, and then have a runtime component responsible for actually displaying the form and receiving and validating user input. == Examples == Examples of screen generators include: IBM Screen Definition Facility II: generates screens for CICS BMS, IMS MFS, ISPF, GDDM and CSP/AD. Performix for Informix. Microsoft Visual Basic the forms component of Microsoft Access Oracle Developer, in particular its Oracle Forms component the QDesign component of PowerHouse SystemBuilder/SB+ the Screen Painter component of SAP's ABAP Workbench the FoxView component of FoxPro. FoxView was originally developed by Luis Castro as a dBASE screen generator named ViewGen; Fox purchased it and bundled it with FoxPro 1.0. Later, Fox replaced Castro's code with their own screen painter code. dBASE included a built-in screen generator in dBASE IV onwards; in dBASE III and earlier, third party screen generators were available, including the already mentioned ViewGen DPS 1100 for UNIVAC 1100 series mainframes.

    Read more →
  • Cruel World of Dreams and Fears

    Cruel World of Dreams and Fears

    Cruel World of Dreams and Fears is the debut album from Ukrainian-born Czech black metal artist Draugveil, released independently on 13 June 2025. The album became notable among metal fans due to its cover, featuring Draugveil in a suit of armour and corpse paint, and lying in a field of red roses. The cover was the subject of parodying internet memes, as well as accusations of using artificial intelligence (AI) to make it. These claims were later expanded to suggest that AI was used to make the album's music. == Memes and AI accusations == Upon the album being released on YouTube on the channel Black Metal Promotion, the album attracted attention due to its cover, depicting Draugveil lying in a field of roses, dressed in armour, wearing corpse paint and having a sword stuck in the ground. Some compared it to covers where other artists are lying on the ground, such as Michael Jackson's Thriller, Luther Vandross's Give Me the Reason, and the UK cover of Lionel Richie's You Are. Critics of the album, however, suggested that AI was used to make the cover. This was partly due to suggestions that the rose stems in the picture come out from the ground in an unrealistic way. This later resulted in claims from some fans that AI was also used to produce the music, and later the lyrics and vocals. These claims began on a Facebook page entitled "AI Generated Nonsense", which was later deleted. No definitive evidence, however, was produced to back these claims. Derek McArthur, a journalist for Glasgow-based newspaper The Herald, wrote: "The music is in line with what one would expect from a one-man black metal project in the vein of Judas Iscariot and Burzum, but then if AI was asked to create music in a black metal style, that is probably what it would decide to generically produce and spit out." Draugveil's reaction to the claims was: "Let people decide." The result of the claims of AI has led to some writers to claim that artists in the future will have to prove they are human to be taken seriously, and that members of the public will be increasing doubt as to whether creative works are produced by either humans or AI. == Track listing ==

    Read more →
  • Degree of truth

    Degree of truth

    In classical logic, propositions are typically unambiguously considered as being true or false. For instance, the proposition one is both equal and not equal to itself is regarded as simply false, being contrary to the Law of Noncontradiction; while the proposition one is equal to one is regarded as simply true, by the Law of Identity. However, some mathematicians, computer scientists, and philosophers have been attracted to the idea that a proposition might be more or less true, rather than wholly true or wholly false. Consider this pizza is hot. In mathematics, this idea can be developed in terms of fuzzy logic. In computer science, it has found application in artificial intelligence. In philosophy, the idea has proved particularly appealing in the case of vagueness. Degrees of truth is an important concept in law. The term is an older concept than conditional probability. Instead of determining the objective probability, only a subjective assessment is defined. In adjudicative processes, 'substantive truth' is distinct from 'formal legal truth' which comes in four degrees: hearsay, balance of probabilities, proven beyond reasonable doubt and absolute truth (knowledge reserved unto God).

    Read more →