AI Content Update Google

AI Content Update Google — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Label noise

  Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.

  Read more →
• 

  Logic Theorist

  Logic Theorist is a computer program completed in 1956 by Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon, and Cliff Shaw. It was the first program deliberately engineered to perform automated reasoning, and has been described as "the first artificial intelligence program". Logic Theorist proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter two of Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, and found new and shorter proofs for some of them. == History == In 1955, when Newell and Simon began to work on the Logic Theorist, the field of artificial intelligence did not yet exist; the term "artificial intelligence" would not be coined until the following summer. Simon was a political scientist who had previously studied the way bureaucracies function as well as developing his theory of bounded rationality (for which he would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978). He believed the study of business organizations requires, like artificial intelligence, an insight into the nature of human problem solving and decision making. Simon has stated that when consulting at RAND Corporation in the early 1950s, he saw a printer typing out a map, using ordinary letters and punctuation as symbols. This led him to think that a machine that could manipulate symbols could simulate decision making and possibly even the process of human thought. The program that printed the map had been written by Newell, a RAND scientist studying logistics and organization theory. For Newell, the decisive moment was in 1954 when Oliver Selfridge came to RAND to describe his work on pattern matching. Watching the presentation, Newell suddenly understood how the interaction of simple, programmable units could accomplish complex behavior, including the intelligent behavior of human beings. "It all happened in one afternoon," he would later say. It was a rare moment of scientific epiphany. "I had such a sense of clarity that this was a new path, and one I was going to go down. I haven't had that sensation very many times. I'm pretty skeptical, and so I don't normally go off on a toot, but I did on that one. Completely absorbed in it—without existing with the two or three levels consciousness so that you're working, and aware that you're working, and aware of the consequences and implications, the normal mode of thought. No. Completely absorbed for ten to twelve hours." Newell and Simon began to talk about the possibility of teaching machines to think. Their first project was a program that could prove mathematical theorems like the ones used in Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. They enlisted the help of computer programmer Cliff Shaw, also from RAND, to develop the program. (Newell says "Cliff was the genuine computer scientist of the three".) The first version was hand-simulated: they wrote the program onto 3x5 cards and, as Simon recalled:In January 1956, we assembled my wife and three children together with some graduate students. To each member of the group, we gave one of the cards, so that each one became, in effect, a component of the computer program ... Here was nature imitating art imitating nature. They succeeded in showing that the program could successfully prove theorems as well as a talented mathematician. Eventually Shaw was able to run the program on the computer at RAND's Santa Monica facility. In the summer of 1956, John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon and Nathan Rochester organized a conference on the subject of what they called "artificial intelligence" (a term coined by McCarthy for the occasion). Newell and Simon proudly presented the group with the Logic Theorist. It was met with a lukewarm reception. Pamela McCorduck writes "the evidence is that nobody save Newell and Simon themselves sensed the long-range significance of what they were doing." Simon confides that "we were probably fairly arrogant about it all" and adds: They didn't want to hear from us, and we sure didn't want to hear from them: we had something to show them! ... In a way it was ironic because we already had done the first example of what they were after; and second, they didn't pay much attention to it. Logic Theorist soon proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter 2 of the Principia Mathematica. The proof of theorem 2.85 was actually more elegant than the proof produced laboriously by hand by Russell and Whitehead (2026-03-20: What is called here Theorem 2.85 is, in fact, numbered as 2.53 in the page 107 of the 1963 Cambridge University Press edition (https://www.uhu.es/francisco.moreno/gii_mac/docs/Principia_Mathematica_vol1.pdf) and which appears, under the same 2.53 number, on page 112 of the 1910 CUP Edition, according to the digitalization on wikibooks (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Whitehead%27s_Principia_Mathematica/Part_1/Section_A#Discussion_2)). Simon was able to show the new proof to Russell himself who "responded with delight". They attempted to publish the new proof in The Journal of Symbolic Logic, but it was rejected on the grounds that a new proof of an elementary mathematical theorem was not notable, apparently overlooking the fact that one of the authors was a computer program. Newell and Simon formed a lasting partnership, founding one of the first AI laboratories at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and developing a series of influential artificial intelligence programs and ideas, including the General Problem Solver, Soar, and their unified theory of cognition. == Architecture == The Logic Theorist is a program that performs logical processes on logical expressions. The Logic Theorist operates on the following principles: === Expressions === An expression is made of elements. There are two kinds of memories: working and storage. Each working memory contains a single element. The Logic Theorist usually uses 1 to 3 working memories. Each storage memory is a list representing a full expression or a set of elements. In particular, it contains all the axioms and proven logical theorems. An expression is an abstract syntax tree, each node being an element with up to 11 attributes. For example, the logical expression ¬ P → ( Q ∧ ¬ P ) {\displaystyle \neg P\to (Q\wedge \neg P)} is represented as a tree with a root element representing → {\displaystyle \to } . Among the attributes of the root element are pointers to the two elements representing the subexpressions ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} and Q ∧ ¬ P {\displaystyle Q\wedge \neg P} . === Processes === There are four kinds of processes, from the lowest to the highest level. Instruction: These are similar to assembly code. They may either perform a primitive operation on an expression in working memory, or perform a conditional jump to another instruction. An example is "put the right sub-element of working-memory 1 to working-memory 2" Elementary process: These are similar to subroutines. A sequence of instructions that can be called. Method: A sequence of elementary processes. There are 4 methods: substitution: given an expression, it attempts to transform it to a proven theorem or axiom by substitutions of variables and logical connectives. detachment: given expression B {\displaystyle B} , it attempts to find a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B ′ {\displaystyle A\to B'} , where B ′ {\displaystyle B'} yields B {\displaystyle B} after substitution, then attempts to prove A {\displaystyle A} by substitution. chaining forward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} , then attempt to prove B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} by substitution. chaining backward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} , then attempt to prove A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} by substitution. executive control method: This method applies each of the 4 methods in sequence to each theorem to be proved. == Logic Theorist's influence on AI == Logic Theorist introduced several concepts that would be central to AI research: Reasoning as search Logic Theorist explored a search tree: the root was the initial hypothesis, each branch was a deduction based on the rules of logic. Somewhere in the tree was the goal: the proposition the program intended to prove. The pathway along the branches that led to the goal was a proof – a series of statements, each deduced using the rules of logic, that led from the hypothesis to the proposition to be proved. Heuristics Newell and Simon realized that the search tree would grow exponentially and that they needed to "trim" some branches, using "rules of thumb" to determine which pathways were unlikely to lead to a solution. They called these ad hoc rules "heuristics", using a term introduced by George Pólya in his classic book on mathematical proof, How to Solve It. (Newell had taken courses from Pólya at Stanford). Heuristics would become an important area o

  Read more →
• 

  DAYDREAMER

  DAYDREAMER is a goal-based agent and cognitive architecture developed at the University of California, Los Angeles by Erik T. Mueller and Michael G. Dyer beginning in 1983. The system models the human stream of thought and how it is triggered and directed by emotions, simulating human daydreaming. Taking situational descriptions as input, DAYDREAMER produces English-language daydreams as output and encodes new daydreams, plans, and planning strategies for later reuse. The program comprises five components: a scenario generator based on relaxed planning, a dynamic episodic memory, a collection of personal goals and control goals, an emotion component, and domain knowledge of interpersonal relations and everyday occurrences. The source code was released under a free software license in 2015. == History == Erik Mueller began DAYDREAMER in 1983 while he was a doctoral student in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying under Michael G. Dyer. Initial development of the project was supported by a grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation with matching funds from the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Additionally, Mueller was supported by an Atlantic Richfield Doctoral Fellowship and Dyer by an IBM Faculty Development Award. The first published descriptions of the program appeared in 1985 at the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles and at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society in Irvine. Work on the program continued, and a book, Daydreaming in Humans and Machines, was published by Ablex Publishing in 1990. The program was implemented on top of GATE, a knowledge-representation and inference substrate developed by Mueller and Uri Zernik at UCLA, and was originally written in T, a dialect of Scheme. In 2015, Mueller released the DAYDREAMER source code, version 3.5, a Common Lisp rewrite of the original T implementation, on GitHub under the GNU General Public License version 2. The release comprised approximately 12,000 lines of Common Lisp code, along with the GATE knowledge-representation substrate on which DAYDREAMER had originally been built. == Architecture == The program operates in two modes. In daydreaming mode it daydreams continuously until interrupted, while performance mode allows it to demonstrate behavior it has learned through daydreaming. === Emotion and control goals === Emotions and daydreaming form a feedback loop for DAYDREAMER. Emotions activate goals that produce daydreams, and the resulting daydreams modify existing emotions and trigger new ones, which prompt subsequent daydreaming. Recall of a goal success produces a positive emotion whereas recall of a goal failure produces a negative emotion. Emotions activate a set of goals, called control goals, which direct the course of a daydream. The program has four control goals. "Rationalization" generates reasons why an unsatisfactory outcome is in fact acceptable, in order to reduce a negative emotion and maintain self-esteem. "Revenge" is activated by anger when a failure is caused by another and reduces negative emotion through imagined retaliation. "Failure/success reversal" imagines alternative scenarios in which a failure was prevented or a success did not occur as a means of learning planning strategies for future situations. "Preparation" generates hypothetical future scenarios in order to rehearse plans and actions for events that have not yet occurred. === Scenario generator and relaxed planning === The scenario generator produces the sequence of events that make up a daydream. It operates under multiple, often conflicting personal goals rather than pursuing a single goal, applies relaxation rules that permit the generation of non-realistic scenarios, and it draws on episodic memory of past experiences both as subject matter and as a source of planning knowledge. The personal goals that guide the scenario generator include health, food, sex, friendship, love, possessions, self-esteem, social esteem, enjoyment, and achievement. These goals are organized into a goal tree that specifies their relative importance at any given time. Relaxation rules allow the program to set aside its ordinary constraints when generating a scenario. The four constraints that may be relaxed are the behavior of others, the daydreamer's own attributes, physical constraints, and social constraints. The degree of relaxation varies with the active control goal. For example a failure-reversal goal aimed at alternatives uses a low level of relaxation, whereas a revenge goal aimed at a retaliation uses a high level. === Episodic memory and analogy === DAYDREAMER's episodic memory stores its personal and vicarious experiences along with the daydreams it generates. The memory is described as dynamic because it is continually modified during daydreaming such that previously daydreamed episodes become available alongside real ones. As it daydreams, the program indexes daydreams, future plans or actions, and planning strategies into memory. Episodes are organized and retrieved using surface-level similarities, emotions, abstract themes, and Plot Units which are abstract configurations of positive and negative outcomes developed by Wendy Lehnert. A recalled episode is adapted to the current situation through analogy, which requires less effort than generating an equivalent scenario from scratch. == Sample output == In the sample experience from the source code, called LOVERS1, DAYDREAMER begins from an initial situation in which it has a job, is not romantically involved, and is at home. Starting in daydreaming mode, it activates a top-level goal to be in a romantic relationship because it is not currently in one, and a positive motivating emotion of interest becomes associated with that goal. The program then activates a goal to be entertained and pursues seeing a film as a way to achieve it. Facts asserted into memory are converted to English and produced as output, such as "I want to be going out with someone" and "I have to go see a movie". == Reception and influence == DAYDREAMER has been cited in research on computational models of creativity, emotion, and narrative. Linda Wills and Janet Kolodner cite the program as an example of work on opportunism in their study of serendipitous recognition in design. Joseph Bates, A. Bryan Loyall, and W. Scott Reilly of the Carnegie Mellon Oz Project cite DAYDREAMER among prior work in their description of an architecture combining action, emotion, and social behavior. Rafael Pérez y Pérez, Ricardo Sosa, and Christian Lemaitre cite Mueller's DAYDREAMER as one of the few computer models at the time to model daydreaming during the creative process. Jichen Zhu and D. Fox Harrell likewise cite the program in their work on imagining and agency in generative interactive narrative.

  Read more →
• 

  SAS Viya

  SAS Viya is an artificial intelligence, analytics and data management platform developed by SAS Institute. == History == SAS Viya was released in 2016. The software was containerized with the release of Viya 4 in 2020. Viya has become one of SAS' most widely used platforms during the AI boom, as artificial intelligence becomes more widely used in business and computing. == Technical overview == The platform is cloud-native, and is executed on SAS's Cloud Analytics Services (CAS) engine. It is compatible with open source software, allowing users to build models using open sources tool such as R, Python and Jupyter. It integrates with major large language models like GPT-4 and Gemini Pro. The platform uses econometrics to create predictive models for forecasting scenarios based on complex data. It also has features for detecting algorithmic bias, auditing decisions and monitoring models. It is implemented through a low-code, no-code platform. The software is available on Amazon AWS Marketplace, Google Cloud, Red Hat OpenShift, and on Microsoft Azure Marketplace under a pay-as-you-use model. == Software == SAS Viya has released software as a service (SaaS) modules for creating AI content. These include Viya Workbench, Viya App Factory, Viya Copilot, and SAS Data Maker. The company also develops industry specific models, used by companies including Georgia-Pacific. == Applications == === Banking === The software is also widely used in business, especially in areas such as predictive modelling and fraud detection. === Insurance === SAS Viya is used in insurance for tasks such as actuarial analytics and modelling, as well as regulatory reporting. === Healthcare and life sciences === In 2023, the company introduced SAS Health, a common health data model built on the SAS Viya platform. AstraZeneca has partnered with SAS to use SAS Viya and SAS Life Science Analytics Framework in its delivery and approval processes. In 2024, SAS partnered with the University of Cambridge's Maxwell Center to use SAS Viya for healthcare research and development. === Public sector === SAS Viya is used in partnership with national and local governments to provide services and detect tax fraud. === Education === SAS Viya is used in research and education, particularly studies related to business intelligence, cybersecurity and data management. SAS Institute has partnered with educational institutions such as Appalachian State University, Clemson University, University of Arkansas, Stockholm University, and Marian University, to provide access to and training for using SAS Viya.

  Read more →
• 

  International Speech Communication Association

  The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is a non-profit organization and one of the two main professional associations for speech communication science and technology, the other association being the IEEE Signal Processing Society. == Purpose == The purpose of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is to promote the study and application of automatic speech processing, including speech recognition and synthesis, as well as related areas such as speaker recognition and speech compression. The association's activities cover all aspects of speech processing, including computational, linguistic, and theoretical aspects. The primary goal of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is to advance the field of automatic speech processing and communication technology through research, education, and collaboration. By promoting the study and application of speech technologies such as speech recognition, speech synthesis, speaker recognition, and speech compression, ISCA aims to foster innovation and development in the areas of human-computer interaction, telecommunications, and multimedia applications. ISCA serves as a platform for researchers, academics, industry professionals, and students to exchange knowledge, share best practices, and foster interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of speech communication science. Through conferences, workshops, publications, and educational initiatives, ISCA seeks to enhance the understanding of speech processing mechanisms, improve the accuracy and efficiency of speech technologies, and explore new frontiers in the realm of human language communication. Furthermore, ISCA plays a crucial role in promoting international collaboration and networking among professionals in the speech communication community. By facilitating partnerships and cooperation between individuals and organizations worldwide, ISCA seeks to drive global progress in speech technology research and application, ultimately contributing to the advancement of communication systems, accessibility tools, and interactive interfaces that benefit society as a whole. == Conferences == ISCA organizes yearly the Interspeech conference. Most recent Interspeech: 2013 Lyon, France 2014 Singapore 2015 Dresden, Germany 2016 San Francisco, US 2017 Stockholm, Sweden 2018 Hyderabad, India 2019 Graz, Austria 2020 Shanghai, China (fully virtual) 2021 Brno, Czechia (hybrid) 2022 Incheon, South Korea 2023 Dublin, Ireland 2023 Kos Island, Greece Forthcoming Interspeech: 2025 Rotterdam, the Netherlands == ISCA board == The ISCA president for 2023-2025 is Odette Scharenborg. The vice president is Bhuvana Ramabhadran and the other members are professionals in the field. == History of ISCA == The precursor to Interspeech was a conference called Eurospeech, first held in 1989 and organised by Jean-Pierre Tubach. It was the conference of the European Speech Communication Association (ESCA), itself the precursor of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA). A year later another conference on speech science and technology was started: the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), which was founded in 1990 by Hiroya Fujisaki. The first ISCA (vs. ESCA) event was the merging of Eurospeech and ICSLP to create ICSLP-Interspeech, held in Beijing, China in 2000. This was followed by Eurospeech-Interspeech, which was held in Aalborg, Denmark in 2001. In 2007, the Eurospeech and ICSLP parts of the conference names were dropped and Interspeech became the name of the yearly conference (first Interspeech location: Antwerp, Belgium).

  Read more →
• 

  Leabra

  Leabra stands for local, error-driven and associative, biologically realistic algorithm. It is a model of learning which is a balance between Hebbian and error-driven learning with other network-derived characteristics. This model is used to mathematically predict outcomes based on inputs and previous learning influences. Leabra is heavily influenced by and contributes to neural network designs and models, including emergent. == Background == It is the default algorithm in emergent (successor of PDP++) when making a new project, and is extensively used in various simulations. Hebbian learning is performed using conditional principal components analysis (CPCA) algorithm with correction factor for sparse expected activity levels. Error-driven learning is performed using GeneRec, which is a generalization of the recirculation algorithm, and approximates Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation. The symmetric, midpoint version of GeneRec is used, which is equivalent to the contrastive Hebbian learning algorithm (CHL). See O'Reilly (1996; Neural Computation) for more details. The activation function is a point-neuron approximation with both discrete spiking and continuous rate-code output. Layer or unit-group level inhibition can be computed directly using a k-winners-take-all (KWTA) function, producing sparse distributed representations. A feedforward and feedback (FFFB) form of inhibition has now replaced the KWTA form of inhibition. FFFB inhibition can be efficiently implemented by using the average excitatory input and activity levels in a given layer. The net input is computed as an average, not a sum, over connections, based on normalized, sigmoidally transformed weight values, which are subject to scaling on a connection-group level to alter relative contributions. Automatic scaling is performed to compensate for differences in expected activity level in the different projections. Documentation about this algorithm can be found in the book "Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain" published by MIT press. and in the Emergent Documentation Archived 2009-04-16 at the Wayback Machine == Overview of the leabra algorithm == The pseudocode for Leabra is given here, showing exactly how the pieces of the algorithm described in more detail in the subsequent sections fit together. Iterate over minus and plus phases of settling for each event. o At start of settling, for all units: - Initialize all state variables (activation, v_m, etc.). - Apply external patterns (clamp input in minus, input & output in plus). - Compute net input scaling terms (constants, computed here so network can be dynamically altered). - Optimization: compute net input once from all static activations (e.g., hard-clamped external inputs). o During each cycle of settling, for all non-clamped units: - Compute excitatory netinput (g_e(t), aka eta_j or net) -- sender-based optimization by ignoring inactives. - Compute kWTA inhibition for each layer, based on g_i^Q: Sort units into two groups based on g_i^Q: top k and remaining k+1 -> n. If basic, find k and k+1th highest If avg-based, compute avg of 1 -> k & k+1 -> n. Set inhibitory conductance g_i from g^Q_k and g^Q_k+1 - Compute point-neuron activation combining excitatory input and inhibition o After settling, for all units, record final settling activations as either minus or plus phase (y^-_j or y^+_j). After both phases update the weights (based on linear current weight values), for all connections: o Compute error-driven weight changes with CHL with soft weight bounding o Compute Hebbian weight changes with CPCA from plus-phase activations o Compute net weight change as weighted sum of error-driven and Hebbian o Increment the weights according to net weight change. == Implementations == Emergent Archived 2015-10-03 at the Wayback Machine is the original implementation of Leabra; its most recent implementation is written in Go. It was written chiefly by Dr. O'Reilly, but professional software engineers were recently hired to improve the existing codebase. This is the fastest implementation, suitable for constructing large networks. Although emergent has a graphical user interface, it is very complex and has a steep learning curve. If you want to understand the algorithm in detail, it will be easier to read non-optimized code. For this purpose, check out the MATLAB version. There is also an R version available, that can be easily installed via install.packages("leabRa") in R and has a short introduction to how the package is used. The MATLAB and R versions are not suited for constructing very large networks, but they can be installed quickly and (with some programming background) are easy to use. Furthermore, they can also be adapted easily. == Special algorithms == Temporal differences and general dopamine modulation. Temporal differences (TD) is widely used as a model of midbrain dopaminergic firing. Primary value learned value (PVLV). PVLV simulates behavioral and neural data on Pavlovian conditioning and the midbrain dopaminergic neurons that fire in proportion to unexpected rewards (an alternative to TD). Prefrontal cortex basal ganglia working memory (PBWM). PBWM uses PVLV to train prefrontal cortex working memory updating system, based on the biology of the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia.

  Read more →
• 

  Future of Life Institute

  The Future of Life Institute (FLI) is a nonprofit organization which aims to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks, with a focus on existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). FLI's work includes grantmaking, educational outreach, and advocacy within the United Nations, United States government, and European Union institutions. The founders of the Institute include MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, UCSC cosmologist Anthony Aguirre, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. == Purpose == FLI's stated mission is to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks. FLI's philosophy focuses on the potential risk to humanity from the development of human-level or superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but also works to mitigate risk from biotechnology, nuclear weapons and global warming. == History == === Founding === FLI was founded in March 2014 by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, DeepMind research scientist Viktoriya Krakovna, Tufts University postdoctoral scholar Meia Chita-Tegmark, and UCSC physicist Anthony Aguirre. === Activism === Starting in 2017, FLI has offered an annual "Future of Life Award", with the first awardee being Vasili Arkhipov. The same year, FLI released Slaughterbots, a short arms-control advocacy film. FLI released a sequel in 2021. In 2018, FLI drafted a letter calling for "laws against lethal autonomous weapons". Signatories included Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, and Mustafa Suleyman. In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper. In response, Tegmark said that the institute had only become aware of Nya Dagbladet's positions during due diligence processes a few months after the grant was initially offered, and that the grant had been immediately revoked. === Open letter on an AI pause === In March 2023, FLI published a letter titled "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter". This called on major AI developers to agree on a verifiable six-month pause of any systems "more powerful than GPT-4" and to use that time to institute a framework for ensuring safety; or, failing that, for governments to step in with a moratorium. The letter said: "recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no-one - not even their creators - can understand, predict, or reliably control". The letter referred to the possibility of "a profound change in the history of life on Earth" as well as potential risks of AI-generated propaganda, loss of jobs, human obsolescence, and society-wide loss of control. Prominent signatories of the letter included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Evan Sharp, Chris Larsen, and Gary Marcus; AI lab CEOs Connor Leahy and Emad Mostaque; politician Andrew Yang; deep-learning researcher Yoshua Bengio; and Yuval Noah Harari. Marcus stated "the letter isn't perfect, but the spirit is right." Mostaque stated, "I don't think a six month pause is the best idea or agree with everything but there are some interesting things in that letter." In contrast, Bengio explicitly endorsed the six-month pause in a press conference. Musk predicted that "Leading AGI developers will not heed this warning, but at least it was said." Some signatories, including Musk, said they were motivated by fears of existential risk from artificial general intelligence. Some of the other signatories, such as Marcus, instead said they signed out of concern about risks such as AI-generated propaganda. The authors of one of the papers cited in FLI's letter, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" including Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, and Margaret Mitchell, criticised the letter. Mitchell said that “by treating a lot of questionable ideas as a given, the letter asserts a set of priorities and a narrative on AI that benefits the supporters of FLI. Ignoring active harms right now is a privilege that some of us don’t have.” === Open letter on prohibiting superintelligence === In October 2025, another letter, the "Statement on Superintelligence", was published. It called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence not lifted before there is "broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably" and "strong public buy-in". FLI director Anthony Aguirre explained that "time is running out", expecting that the technology could arrive in as little as one to two years and counting on "widespread realization among society at all its levels" to stop it. He added that "whether it's soon or it takes a while, after we develop superintelligence, the machines are going to be in charge" and "that is not an experiment that we want to just run toward". The list of signatories included Nobel laureates Geoffrey Hinton, Daron Acemoglu, Beatrice Fihn, Frank Wilczek and John C. Mather as well as Hinton's fellow "godfather" of modern AI Yoshua Bengio, Steve Wozniak, Steve Bannon, Paolo Benanti, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The letter was also signed by the actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Stephen Fry, rapper Will.i.am and author Yuval Noah Harari. Former national security advisor Susan Rice, and OpenAI member of technical staff Leo Gao also signed their names to the letter. Polling released alongside the letter showed that 64% of American agreed that superintelligence "shouldn't be developed until it's provably safe and controllable" and only 5% believed it should be developed as quickly as possible. == Operations == === Advocacy === FLI has actively contributed to policymaking on AI. In October 2023, for example, U.S. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer invited FLI to share its perspective on AI regulation with selected senators. In Europe, FLI successfully advocated for the inclusion of more general AI systems, such as GPT-4, in the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act. In military policy, FLI coordinated the support of the scientific community for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. At the UN and elsewhere, the institute has also advocated for a treaty on autonomous weapons. === Research grants === The FLI research program started in 2015 with an initial donation of $10 million from Elon Musk. In this initial round, a total of $7 million was awarded to 37 research projects. In July 2021, FLI announced that it would launch a new $25 million grant program with funding from the Russian–Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin. === Conferences === In 2014, the Future of Life Institute held its opening event at MIT: a panel discussion on "The Future of Technology: Benefits and Risks", moderated by Alan Alda. The panelists were synthetic biologist George Church, geneticist Ting Wu, economist Andrew McAfee, physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. Since 2015, FLI has organised biannual conferences with the stated purpose of bringing together AI researchers from academia and industry. As of April 2023, the following conferences have taken place: "The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges" conference in Puerto Rico (2015). The stated goal was to identify promising research directions that could help maximize the future benefits of AI. At the conference, FLI circulated an open letter on AI safety which was subsequently signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and many artificial intelligence researchers. The Beneficial AI conference in Asilomar, California (2017), a private gathering of what The New York Times called "heavy hitters of A.I." (including Yann LeCun, Elon Musk, and Nick Bostrom). The institute released a set of principles for responsible AI development that came out of the discussion at the conference, signed by Yoshua Bengio, Yann LeCun, and many other AI researchers. These principles may have influenced the regulation of artificial intelligence and subsequent initiatives, such as the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. The beneficial AGI conference in Puerto Rico (2019). The stated focus of the meeting was answering long-term questions with the goal of ensuring that artificial general intelligence is beneficial to humanity. == In the media == "The Fight to Define When AI is 'High-Risk'" in Wired. "Lethal Autonomous Weapons exist; They Must Be Banned" in IEEE Spectrum. "United States and Allies Protest U.N. Talks to Ban Nuclear Weapons" in The New York Times. "Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat?" in The Chronicle of Higher Education, including interviews with FLI founders Max Tegmark, Jaan Tallinn and Viktoriya Krakovna. "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?", an interview with Max Tegmark on the ideas behind FLI in The Atlantic.

  Read more →
• 

  Ethics of artificial intelligence

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

  Read more →
• 

  Split screen (computing)

  Split screen is a display technique in computer graphics that consists of dividing graphics and/or text into non-overlapping adjacent parts, typically as two or four rectangular areas. This allows for the simultaneous presentation of (usually) related graphical and textual information on a computer display. TV sports adopted this presentation methodology in the 1960s for instant replay. Non-dynamic split screens differ from windowing systems in that the latter allowed overlapping and freely movable parts of the screen (the "windows") to present both related and unrelated application data to the user. In contrast, split-screen views are strictly limited to fixed positions. The split screen technique can also be used to run two instances of an application, potentially allowing another user to interact with the second instance. == In operating systems == Split screen modes are used by mobile operating systems to enable computer multitasking similar to the window interface present in desktop operating systems. Android supports split screen view of two apps natively on all devices, while certain devices, such as Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold, support three sumultaneous views. Split screen functionality is not supported on iOS, but a similar feature called Split View is present in iPadOS, first introduced in 2015 with the first generation of iPad Pro. == In video games == The split screen feature is commonly used in non-networked, also known as couch co-op, video games with multiplayer options. In its most easily understood form, a split screen for a multiplayer video game is an audiovisual output device (usually a standard television for video game consoles) where the display has been divided into 2-4 equally sized areas (depending on number of players) so that the players can explore different areas simultaneously without being close to each other. This has historically been remarkably popular on consoles, which until the 2000s did not have access to the Internet or any other network and is less common today with modern support for networked console-to-console multiplayer. In competitive split-screen games, it is customarily considered cheating to look at another player's screen section to gain an advantage. === History === Split screen gaming dates back to at least the 1970s, with games such Drag Race (1977) from Kee Games in the arcades being presented in this format. It has always been a common feature of two or more player home console and computer games too, with notable titles being Kikstart II for 8-bit systems, a number of 16-bit racing games (such as Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge and Road Rash II), and action/strategy games (such as Toejam & Earl and Lemmings), all employing a vertical or horizontal screen split for two player games. Xenophobe is notable as a three-way split screen arcade title, although on home platforms it was reduced to one or two screens. The addition of four controller ports on home consoles also ushered in more four-way split screen games, with Mario Kart 64 and Goldeneye 007 on the Nintendo 64 being two well known examples. In arcades, machines tended to move towards having a whole screen for each player, or multiple connected machines, for multiplayer. On home machines, especially in the first and third person shooter genres, multiplayer is now more common over a network or the internet rather than locally with split screen. Starting from the late 2000s, the presence of split screen multiplayer has largely been declining due to the increasing prevalence of online multiplayer, though TechRadar reported a resurgence of split screen due to support from independent studios and increased interest from the players.

  Read more →
• 

  Department of Defense Directive 3000.09

  Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 (DODD 3000.09), titled Autonomy in Weapon Systems, is the current U.S. military policy on autonomous weapons. It states: "Autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems will be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." == History == Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter issued DOD's policy on autonomy in weapons systems, Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3000.09, in November 2012. DOD updated the directive in January 2023. In February 2023, the US issued a related foreign policy proposal, Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy. == Definitions == There is no agreed definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems that is used in international fora. However, DODD 3000.09 provides definitions for different categories of autonomous weapon systems for the purposes of the U.S. military. These definitions are principally grounded in the role of the human operator with regard to target selection and engagement decisions, rather than in the technological sophistication of the weapon system. DODD 3000.09 defines LAWS as "weapon system[s] that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." This concept of autonomy is also known as "human out of the loop" or "full autonomy." The directive contrasts LAWS with human-supervised, or "human on the loop," autonomous weapon systems, in which operators have the ability to monitor and halt a weapon's target engagement. Another category is semi-autonomous, or "human in the loop," weapon systems that "only engage individual targets or specific target groups that have been selected by a human operator." Semi-autonomous weapons include so-called "fire and forget" weapons, such as certain types of guided missiles, that deliver effects to human-identified targets using autonomous functions. The directive does not apply to autonomous or semi-autonomous cyberspace capabilities; unarmed platforms; unguided munitions; munitions manually guided by the operator (e.g., laser- or wire-guided munitions); mines; unexploded explosive ordnance; or autonomous or semi-autonomous systems that are not weapon systems, nor subject them to its guidelines. == Role of human operator == DODD 3000.09 requires that all systems, including LAWS, be designed to "allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." As noted in an August 2018 U.S. government white paper, "'appropriate' is a flexible term that reflects the fact that there is not a fixed, one-size-fits-all level of human judgment that should be applied to every context. What is 'appropriate' can differ across weapon systems, domains of warfare, types of warfare, operational contexts, and even across different functions in a weapon system." Furthermore, "human judgment over the use of force" does not require manual human "control" of the weapon system, as is often reported, but rather broader human involvement in decisions about how, when, where, and why the weapon will be employed. This includes a human determination that the weapon will be used "with appropriate care and in accordance with the law of war, applicable treaties, weapon system safety rules, and applicable rules of engagement." To aid this determination, DODD 3000.09 requires that "[a]dequate training, [tactics, techniques, and procedures], and doctrine are available, periodically reviewed, and used by system operators and commanders to understand the functioning, capabilities, and limitations of the system's autonomy in realistic operational conditions." The directive also requires that the weapon's human-machine interface be "readily understandable to trained operators" so they can make informed decisions regarding the weapon's use. == Weapons review process == DODD 3000.09 requires that the software and hardware of covered semi-autonomous and autonomous weapon systems, be tested and evaluated to ensure they:Function as anticipated in realistic operational environments against adaptive adversaries taking realistic and practicable countermeasures, [and] complete engagements within a timeframe and geographic area, as well as other relevant environmental and operational constraints, consistent with commander and operator intentions. If unable to do so, the systems will terminate the engagement or obtain additional operator input before continuing the engagement.Systems must also be "sufficiently robust to minimize the probability and consequences of failures." Any changes to the system's operating state—for example, due to machine learning—would require the system to go through testing and evaluation again to ensure that it has retained its safety features and ability to operate as intended. The directive also notes that "the use of AI capabilities in autonomous or semi-autonomous systems will be consistent with the DOD AI Ethical Principles." In addition to the standard weapons review process, a secondary senior-level review is required for covered autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. This review requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD[P]), the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD[R&E]) to approve the system before formal development. USD(P), VCJCS, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD[A&S]) must then approve the system before fielding. In the event of "urgent military need," this senior-level review may be waived by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. DODD 3000.09 additionally establishes the Autonomous Weapon System Working Group—composed of representatives of USD(P); USD(R&E); USD(A&S); DOD General Counsel; the Chief Digital and AI Officer; the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—to support and advise the senior-level review process. == Congressional notification == Per Section 251 of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; Pub. L. 118–31 (text) (PDF)), the Secretary of Defense is to notify the defense committees of any changes to DODD 3000.09 within 30 days. The Secretary is directed to provide a description of the modification and an explanation of the reasons for the modification. Section 1066 of the FY2025 NDAA (Pub. L. 118–159 (text) (PDF)) additionally requires the Secretary to "submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive report on the approval and deployment of lethal autonomous weapon systems by the United States," annually through December 31, 2029. Section 1061 of the FY2026 NDAA (P.L. Pub. L. 119–60 (menu; GPO has not yet published law)) amends the U.S. Code to require congressional notification of any waiver issued under DODD 3000.09. == AI safety == The second revision of DoDD 3000.09, effective January 25, 2023, requires that "The DoD will design and engineer AI capabilities to fulfill their intended functions while possessing the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences, and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior." == Criticism == As noted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the policy requires that autonomous weapon systems that kill people or use kinetic force, selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention, be certified as compliant with "appropriate levels" and other standards, not that such weapon systems cannot meet these standards and are therefore forbidden. "Semi-autonomous" hunter-killers that autonomously identify and attack targets do not require certification.

  Read more →
• 

  Predictive Model Markup Language

  The Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML) is an XML-based predictive model interchange format conceived by Robert Lee Grossman, then the director of the National Center for Data Mining at the University of Illinois at Chicago. PMML provides a way for analytic applications to describe and exchange predictive models produced by data mining and machine learning algorithms. It supports common models such as logistic regression and other feedforward neural networks. Version 0.9 was published in 1998. Subsequent versions have been developed by the Data Mining Group. Since PMML is an XML-based standard, the specification comes in the form of an XML schema. PMML itself is a mature standard with over 30 organizations having announced products supporting PMML. == PMML components == A PMML file can be described by the following components: Header: contains general information about the PMML document, such as copyright information for the model, its description, and information about the application used to generate the model such as name and version. It also contains an attribute for a timestamp which can be used to specify the date of model creation. Data Dictionary: contains definitions for all the possible fields used by the model. It is here that a field is defined as continuous, categorical, or ordinal (attribute optype). Depending on this definition, the appropriate value ranges are then defined as well as the data type (such as, string or double). Data Transformations: transformations allow for the mapping of user data into a more desirable form to be used by the mining model. PMML defines several kinds of simple data transformations. Normalization: map values to numbers, the input can be continuous or discrete. Discretization: map continuous values to discrete values. Value mapping: map discrete values to discrete values. Functions (custom and built-in): derive a value by applying a function to one or more parameters. Aggregation: used to summarize or collect groups of values. Model: contains the definition of the data mining model. E.g., A multi-layered feedforward neural network is represented in PMML by a "NeuralNetwork" element which contains attributes such as: Model Name (attribute modelName) Function Name (attribute functionName) Algorithm Name (attribute algorithmName) Activation Function (attribute activationFunction) Number of Layers (attribute numberOfLayers) This information is then followed by three kinds of neural layers which specify the architecture of the neural network model being represented in the PMML document. These attributes are NeuralInputs, NeuralLayer, and NeuralOutputs. Besides neural networks, PMML allows for the representation of many other types of models including support vector machines, association rules, Naive Bayes classifier, clustering models, text models, decision trees, and different regression models. Mining Schema: a list of all fields used in the model. This can be a subset of the fields as defined in the data dictionary. It contains specific information about each field, such as: Name (attribute name): must refer to a field in the data dictionary Usage type (attribute usageType): defines the way a field is to be used in the model. Typical values are: active, predicted, and supplementary. Predicted fields are those whose values are predicted by the model. Outlier Treatment (attribute outliers): defines the outlier treatment to be use. In PMML, outliers can be treated as missing values, as extreme values (based on the definition of high and low values for a particular field), or as is. Missing Value Replacement Policy (attribute missingValueReplacement): if this attribute is specified then a missing value is automatically replaced by the given values. Missing Value Treatment (attribute missingValueTreatment): indicates how the missing value replacement was derived (e.g. as value, mean or median). Targets: allows for post-processing of the predicted value in the format of scaling if the output of the model is continuous. Targets can also be used for classification tasks. In this case, the attribute priorProbability specifies a default probability for the corresponding target category. It is used if the prediction logic itself did not produce a result. This can happen, e.g., if an input value is missing and there is no other method for treating missing values. Output: this element can be used to name all the desired output fields expected from the model. These are features of the predicted field and so are typically the predicted value itself, the probability, cluster affinity (for clustering models), standard error, etc. The latest release of PMML, PMML 4.1, extended Output to allow for generic post-processing of model outputs. In PMML 4.1, all the built-in and custom functions that were originally available only for pre-processing became available for post-processing too. == PMML 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 == PMML 4.0 was released on June 16, 2009. Examples of new features included: Improved Pre-Processing Capabilities: Additions to built-in functions include a range of Boolean operations and an If-Then-Else function. Time Series Models: New exponential Smoothing models; also place holders for ARIMA, Seasonal Trend Decomposition, and Spectral density estimation, which are to be supported in the near future. Model Explanation: Saving of evaluation and model performance measures to the PMML file itself. Multiple Models: Capabilities for model composition, ensembles, and segmentation (e.g., combining of regression and decision trees). Extensions of Existing Elements: Addition of multi-class classification for Support Vector Machines, improved representation for Association Rules, and the addition of Cox Regression Models. PMML 4.1 was released on December 31, 2011. New features included: New model elements for representing Scorecards, k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and Baseline Models. Simplification of multiple models. In PMML 4.1, the same element is used to represent model segmentation, ensemble, and chaining. Overall definition of field scope and field names. A new attribute that identifies for each model element if the model is ready or not for production deployment. Enhanced post-processing capabilities (via the Output element). PMML 4.2 was released on February 28, 2014. New features include: Transformations: New elements for implementing text mining New built-in functions for implementing regular expressions: matches, concat, and replace Simplified outputs for post-processing Enhancements to Scorecard and Naive Bayes model elements PMML 4.3 was released on August 23, 2016. New features include: New Model Types: Gaussian Process Bayesian Network New built-in functions Usage clarifications Documentation improvements Version 4.4 was released in November 2019. == Release history == == Data Mining Group == The Data Mining Group is a consortium managed by the Center for Computational Science Research, Inc., a nonprofit founded in 2008. The Data Mining Group also developed a standard called Portable Format for Analytics, or PFA, which is complementary to PMML.

  Read more →
• 

  Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

  The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, was a failed 2024 California bill intended to "mitigate the risk of catastrophic harms from AI models so advanced that they are not yet known to exist". Specifically, the bill would have applied to models which cost more than $100 million to train and were trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 1026 integer or floating-point operations. SB 1047 would have applied to all AI companies doing business in California—the location of the company would not matter. The bill would have created protections for whistleblowers and required developers to perform risk assessments of their models prior to release, with guidance from the Government Operations Agency. It would also have established CalCompute, a University of California public cloud computing cluster for startups, researchers and community groups. == Background == The rapid increase in capabilities of AI systems in the 2020s, including the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, caused some researchers and members of the public to become concerned about the existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems. Hundreds of tech executives and AI researchers, including two of the so-called "Godfathers of AI", Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, signed a statement in May 2023 calling for the mitigation of the "risk of extinction from AI" to be a global priority alongside "pandemics and nuclear war". However, the plausibility of these risks is still widely debated. Strong regulation of AI has been criticized for purportedly causing regulatory capture by large AI companies like OpenAI, a phenomenon in which regulation advances the interest of larger companies at the expense of smaller competition and the public in general, although OpenAI ended up opposing the bill. Other advocates of AI regulation aim to prevent bias and privacy violations, rather than existential risks. For example, some experts who view existential concerns as overblown and unrealistic view them as a distraction from near-term harms of AI like discriminatory automated decision making. In the face of existential concerns, technology companies have made voluntary commitments to conduct safety testing, for example at the AI Safety Summit and AI Seoul Summit. In 2023, not long before the bill was proposed, Governor Newsom of California and President Biden issued executive orders on artificial intelligence. State Senator Wiener said SB 1047 draws heavily on the Biden executive order, and is motivated by the absence of unified federal legislation on AI safety. Historically, California has passed regulation on several tech issues itself, including consumer privacy and net neutrality, in the absence of action by Congress. == History == === Proposal and voting === The bill was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener first proposed AI legislation for California through an intent bill called SB 294, the Safety in Artificial Intelligence Act, in September 2023. On February 7, 2024, Wiener introduced SB 1047. On May 21, SB 1047 passed the Senate 32–1. The bill was significantly amended by Wiener on August 15, 2024, in response to industry advice. Amendments included adding clarifications, and removing the creation of a "Frontier Model Division" and the penalty of perjury. On August 28, the bill passed the State Assembly 48–16. Then, due to the amendments, the bill was once again voted on by the Senate, passing 30–9. === Veto by governor === On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. The deadline for California lawmakers to overrule Newsom's veto was November 30, 2024. Newsom cited concerns over the bill's regulatory framework targeting only large AI models based on their computational size, while not taking into account whether the models are deployed in high-risk environments. Newsom emphasized that this approach could create a false sense of security, overlooking smaller models that might present equally significant risks. He acknowledged the need for AI safety protocols but stressed the importance of adaptability in regulation as AI technology continues to evolve rapidly. Governor Newsom also committed to working with technology experts, federal partners, and research institutions, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; and Stanford University's Human-Centered AI (HAI) Institute, led by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. He announced plans to collaborate with these entities to advance responsible AI development, aiming to protect the public while fostering innovation. == Provisions == SB 1047 would have covered AI models with training compute over 1026 integer or floating-point operations and a cost of over $100 million. If a covered model is fine-tuned using more than $10 million, the resulting model would also have been covered. The bill would have defined critical harms with respect to four categories: Creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Autonomous crimes causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Other harms of comparable severity Developers would have needed to create a "safety and security protocol" before training covered models. Before deployment, they would have submitted a statement of compliance, confirming they took reasonable care to take measures to prevent covered models that pose an unreasonable risk of critical harms. The statement would have included risk assessments and descriptions of their compliance process. These rules would have applied to both covered models and their derivatives, including post-training modifications, with annual third-party audits required starting in 2026. Safeguards to reduce risk included the ability to shut down the model, which has been variously described as a "kill switch" and "circuit breaker". Whistleblowing provisions would have protected employees who report safety problems and incidents. Additionally, SB 1047 would have created a public cloud computing cluster called CalCompute, associated with the University of California, to support startups, researchers, and community groups that lack large-scale computing resources. === Compliance and supervision === SB 1047 would have required developers, beginning January 1, 2026, to annually retain a third-party auditor to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of the bill, as provided. The Government Operations Agency would have reviewed the results of safety tests and incidents, and issue guidance, standards, and best practices. The bill would have created a Board of Frontier Models to supervise the application of the bill by the Government Operations Agency. It is would be composed of 9 members. == Reception == === Subjects of debate === Proponents of the bill described its provisions as simple and narrowly focused, with Sen. Scott Weiner describing it as a "light-touch, basic safety bill". This was disputed by critics of the bill, who described the bill's language as vague and criticized it as consolidating power in the largest AI companies at the expense of smaller ones. Proponents, in turn, argued that the bill only applies to models trained using more than 1026 FLOPS and with over $100 million, or fine-tuned with more than $10 million, and that the threshold could be increased if needed. The penalty of perjury was also a subject of debate, and was eventually removed through an amendment. The scope of the "kill switch" requirement was also reduced, following concerns from open-source developers. The use of the term "reasonable assurance" in the bill was also controversial, and it was eventually amended to "reasonable care". Critics then argued that "reasonable care" imposed an excessive burden by requiring confidence that models could not be used to cause catastrophic harm; proponents claimed that the standard did not require certainty and that it already applied to AI developers under existing law. === Support and opposition === Individual supporters of the bill included Turing Award recipients Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, Elon Musk, Bill de Blasio, Kevin Esvelt, Dan Hendrycks, Vitalik Buterin, OpenAI whistleblowers Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, Lawrence Lessig, Sneha Revanur, Stuart Russell, Jan Leike, actors Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, and Rosie Perez, Scott Aaronson, and Max Tegmark. Over 120 Hollywood celebrities, including Mark Hamill, Jane Fonda, and J. J. Abrams, also signed a statement in support of the bill. Max Tegmark likened the bill's focus on holding companies responsible for the harms caused by their models to the FDA requiring clinical trials before a company can release a drug to the market. Organizations sponsoring the bill included the Center for AI Safety, Economic Security California and Encode. The la

  Read more →
• 

  Deblurring

  Deblurring is the process of removing blurring artifacts from images. Deblurring recovers a sharp image S from a blurred image B, where S is convolved with K (the blur kernel) to generate B. Mathematically, this can be represented as B = S ∗ K {\displaystyle B=SK} (where represents convolution). While this process is sometimes known as unblurring, deblurring is the correct technical word. The blur K is typically modeled as point spread function and is convolved with a hypothetical sharp image S to get B, where both the S (which is to be recovered) and the point spread function K are unknown. This is an example of an inverse problem. In almost all cases, there is insufficient information in the blurred image to uniquely determine a plausible original image, making it an ill-posed problem. In addition the blurred image contains additional noise which complicates the task of determining the original image. This is generally solved by the use of a regularization term to attempt to eliminate implausible solutions. This problem is analogous to echo removal in the signal processing domain. Nevertheless, when coherent beam is used for imaging, the point spread function can be modeled mathematically. By proper deconvolution of the point spread function K and the blurred image B, the blurred image B can be deblurred (unblur) and the sharp image S can be recovered.

  Read more →
• 

  Marco Camisani Calzolari

  Marco Camisani Calzolari (born March 1969) is an Italian British university professor, author, and television personality specializing in digital communications, transformation, and artificial intelligence. He advises the Italian government and police on ethical AI and digital safety and hosts the digital segment of the Italian news show Striscia la Notizia. His research gained international attention in 2012 after creating an algorithm claiming to identify real Twitter users from fake users of bots. Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded as an Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police and the Knight of the Italian Republic. == Biography == Camisani Calzolari was born in Milan, Italy where he began his television career, hosting on local provider LA7 in (2001). In 2008 Camisani Calzolari moved to the UK where he founded multiple digital start-ups. He is now a naturalised British citizen and applied to become a "Freeman of the City" in June 2022. In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari began serving as the Chair and Adjunct Professor of the elective course Cyber-Humanities within the Degree Programme in Medicine and Surgery at Università Vita-Salute S.Raffaele in Milan. On the 14th of May 2024, Camisani Calzolari was awarded the Knight of the Italian Republic (Order of the Star of Italy). In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded the title of Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police for his commitment to combating cybercrime and promoting digital security. He also received the Keynes Sraffa Award 2024 from the Italian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the UK. Additionally, he was honored with the University Seal by Università degli Studi della Tuscia (Viterbo) for his efforts in disseminating knowledge both in Italy and abroad. == Academic career == Camisani Calzolari began his academic career at the Università Statale di Milano in 2007, until chairing a course on Corporate Communication and Digital Languages at the IULM University of Milan between 2007 and 2010. During this time Camisani Calzolari published his first written work under the title 'Impresa 4.0'. After moving to London, Camisani Calzolari focussed on digital start-ups including 'Digitalevaluation ltd' where he would publish the results of his Twitter algorithm study. Following its publication, he accepted a role as Affiliate Practitioner at the Centre for Culture Media & Regulation (CCMR), University of Brunel London, and subsequently another role at a British University as Lecturer in Digital Communication at the LCA Business School. Camisani Calzolari returned to Italy to lecture on Interactive Digital Communication at the University of Milan. From 2017 to 2023, he held various roles at the European University of Rome, including Adjunct Professor and Chair in Digital Communication, and published The Fake News Bible in 2018. In 2024 he became the Scientific Coordinator for a Master's program at Università San Raffaele in Milan. === Twitter fake followers study === In 2012, Camisani Calzolari's research came into the focus of the public eye following the publication of his findings in a study analysing the followers of high-profile public figures and corporations. He developed a computer algorithm claiming to be able to distinguish real followers from computer-generated "bots". The algorithm compiled data correlative of human activity such as having a name, image, physical address, using punctuation and cross-account activity. Genuine Twitter users were considered to have written at least 50 posts and possessed over 30 followers themselves. The findings led to scrutiny of several individuals and corporations for allegedly purchasing followers. === Publications === Camisani Calzolari is best for known for his work in improving accessibility to digital and tech solutions for everyday business and personal use. His work in digital and communications has been included in several publications including: Cyberhumanism (2023) The Fake News Bible (2018), First Digital Aid for Business (2015), The Digital World (2013), Escape from Facebook (2012), Enterprise 4.0. Camisani Calzolari was also the subject of a University College London (UCL) case study titled Marco Camisani-Calzolari: the Digital Renaissance Man. == Government work == Since 2023, he is a member of the Coordination Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and an advisor in Digital Skills and Designer of initiatives for the Department for Digital Transformation. He also serves as the official spokesperson for the State Police, educating the public on preventing digital threats, avoiding digital scams, and explaining criminal case. Since August 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari has served as an expert for the Italian Agency for the National Cybersecurity (ACN). In October of the same year, he also became a member of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice working group for the European Commission. == Television work == Camisani Calzolari hosts a digital segment for Striscia la Notizia, an Italian satirical television program on the Mediaset-controlled Canale 5. He presented on weekly segments that include: RAI 1 – Digital First Aid (TV Program – 2014 to 2017) in the program "Uno Mattina" as a digital expert; RTL 102.5 – Technology Space (Radio Program – 2012 to 2017) in the morning news program as a digital expert (100 episodes from 2012 to 2017); DIGITALK Talkshow (2004) as host of Digitalk; Misterweb (TV Program – 2001 to 2002), he presented the TV program “MisterWeb”, on "LA7". Marco Camisani Calzolari was a testimonial for several institutional communication campaigns by the Italian Department of Digital Transformation. These include initiatives promoting the Punti Digitale Facile, raising awareness about the NIS2 Directive for cybersecurity, and advocating for the adoption of the Electronic Identity Card (CIE).

  Read more →
• 

  Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

  The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is a piece of legislation introduced by California Representative Adam Schiff in the United States Congress on April 9, 2024. It concerns the transparency of companies regarding their use of copyrighted work to train their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models. The legislation requires the submission of a notice regarding the identity and the uniform resource locator (URL) address of the copyrighted works used in the training data to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before the public release of the new or updated version of the AI model; it does not ban the use of copyrighted works for AI training. The bill's requirements would apply retroactively to prior AI models. Violation penalties would start at US$5,000. The legislation does not have a maximum penalty assessment that can be charged. The bill by Schiff was introduced a few days after The New York Times published an article regarding the business activities of major tech firms, including Google and Meta, in the training of their generative AI platforms on April 6, 2024. The legislation is supported by the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and others.

  Read more →