AI Data Jobs

AI Data Jobs — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Dominant resource fairness

  Dominant resource fairness (DRF) is a rule for fair division. It is particularly useful for dividing computing resources in among users in cloud computing environments, where each user may require a different combination of resources. DRF was presented by Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica in 2011. == Motivation == In an environment with a single resource, a widely used criterion is max-min fairness, which aims to maximize the minimum amount of resource given to a user. But in cloud computing, it is required to share different types of resource, such as: memory, CPU, bandwidth and disk-space. Previous fair schedulers, such as in Apache Hadoop, reduced the multi-resource setting to a single-resource setting by defining nodes with a fixed amount of each resource (e.g. 4 CPU, 32 MB memory, etc.), and dividing slots which are fractions of nodes. But this method is inefficient, since not all users need the same ratio of resources. For example, some users need more CPU whereas other users need more memory. As a result, most tasks either under-utilize or over-utilize their resources. DRF solves the problem by maximizing the minimum amount of the dominant resource given to a user (then the second-minimum etc., in a leximin order). The dominant resource may be different for different users. For example, if user A runs CPU-heavy tasks and user B runs memory-heavy tasks, DRF will try to equalize the CPU share given to user A and the memory share given to user B. == Definition == There are m resources. The total capacities of the resources are r1,...,rm. There are n users. Each users runs individual tasks. Each task has a demand-vector (d1,..,dm), representing the amount it needs of each resource. It is implicitly assumed that the utility of a user equals the number of tasks he can perform. For example, if user A runs tasks with demand-vector [1 CPU, 4 GB RAM], and receives 3 CPU and 8 GB RAM, then his utility is 2, since he can perform only 2 tasks. More generally, the utility of a user receiving x1,...,xm resources is minj(xj/dj), that is, the users have Leontief utilities. The demand-vectors are normalized to fractions of the capacities. For example, if the system has 9 CPUs and 18 GB RAM, then the above demand-vector is normalized to [1/9 CPU, 2/9 GB]. For each user, the resource with the highest demand-fraction is called the dominant resource. In the above example, the dominant resource is memory, as 2/9 is the largest fraction. If user B runs a task with demand-vector [3 CPU, 1 GB], which is normalized to [1/3 CPU, 1/18 GB], then his dominant resource is CPU. DRF aims to find the maximum x such that all agents can receive at least x of their dominant resource. In the above example, this maximum x is 2/3: User A gets 3 tasks, which require 3/9 CPU and 2/3 GB. User B gets 2 tasks, which require 2/3 CPU and 1/9 GB. The maximum x can be found by solving a linear program; see Lexicographic max-min optimization. Alternatively, the DRF can be computed sequentially. The algorithm tracks the amount of dominant resource used by each user. At each round, it finds a user with the smallest allocated dominant resource so far, and allocates the next task of this user. Note that this procedure allows the same user to run tasks with different demand vectors. == Properties == DRF has several advantages over other policies for resource allocation. Proportionality: each user receives at least as much resources as they could get in a system in which all resources are partitioned equally among users (the authors call this condition "sharing incentive"). Strategyproofness: a user cannot get a larger allocation by lying about his needs. Strategyproofness is important, as evidence from cloud operators show that users try to manipulate the servers in order to get better allocations. Envy-freeness: no user would prefer the allocation of another user. Pareto efficiency: no other allocation is better for some users and not worse for anyone. Population monotonicity: when a user leaves the system, the allocations of remaining users do not decrease. When there is a single resource that is a bottleneck resource (highly demanded by all users), DRF reduces to max-min fairness. However, DRF violates resource monotonicity: when resources are added to the system, some allocations might decrease. == Extensions == Weighted DRF is an extension of DRF to settings in which different users have different weights (representing their different entitlements). Parkes, Procaccia and Shah formally extend weighted DRF to a setting in which some users do not need all resources (that is, they may have demand 0 to some resource). They prove that the extended version still satisfies proportionality, Pareto-efficiency, envy-freeness, strategyproofness, and even Group strategyproofness. On the other hand, they show that DRF may yield poor utilitarian social welfare, that is, the sum of utilities may be only 1/m of the optimum. However, they prove that any mechanism satisfying one of proportionality, envy-freeness or strategyproofness may suffers from the same low utilitarian welfare. They also extend DRF to the setting in which the users' demands are indivisible (as in fair item allocation). For the indivisible setting, they relax envy-freeness to EF1. They show that strategyproofness is incompatible with PO+EF1 or with PO+proportionality. However, a mechanism called SequentialMinMax satisfies efficiency, proportionality and EF1. Wang, Li and Liang present DRFH - an extension of DRF to a system with several heterogeneous servers. == Implementation == DRF was first implemented in Apache Mesos - a cluster resource manager, and it led to better throughput and fairness than previously used fair-sharing schemes.

  Read more →
• 

  Logico-linguistic modeling

  Logico-linguistic modeling is a method for building knowledge-based systems with a learning capability using conceptual models from soft systems methodology, modal predicate logic, and logic programming languages such as Prolog. == Overview == Logico-linguistic modeling is a six-stage method developed primarily for building knowledge-based systems (KBS), but it also has application in manual decision support systems and information source analysis. Logico-linguistic models have a superficial similarity to John F. Sowa's conceptual graphs; both use bubble style diagrams, both are concerned with concepts, both can be expressed in logic and both can be used in artificial intelligence. However, logico-linguistic models are very different in both logical form and in their method of construction. Logico-linguistic modeling was developed in order to solve theoretical problems found in the soft systems method for information system design. The main thrust of the research into has been to show how soft systems methodology (SSM), a method of systems analysis, can be extended into artificial intelligence. == Background == SSM employs three modeling devices i.e. rich pictures, root definitions, and conceptual models of human activity systems. The root definitions and conceptual models are built by stakeholders themselves in an iterative debate organized by a facilitator. The strengths of this method lie, firstly, in its flexibility, the fact that it can address any problem situation, and, secondly, in the fact that the solution belongs to the people in the organization and is not imposed by an outside analyst. Information requirements analysis (IRA) took the basic SSM method a stage further and showed how the conceptual models could be developed into a detailed information system design. IRA calls for the addition of two modeling devices: "Information Categories", which show the required information inputs and outputs from the activities identified in an expanded conceptual model; and the "Maltese Cross", a matrix which shows the inputs and outputs from the information categories and shows where new information processing procedures are required. A completed Maltese Cross is sufficient for the detailed design of a transaction processing system. The initial impetus to the development of logico-linguistic modeling was a concern with the theoretical problem of how an information system can have a connection to the physical world. This is a problem in both IRA and more established methods (such as SSADM) because none base their information system design on models of the physical world. IRA designs are based on a notional conceptual model and SSADM is based on models of the movement of documents. The solution to these problems provided a formula that was not limited to the design of transaction processing systems but could be used for the design of KBS with learning capability. == The six stages of logico-linguistic modeling == The logico-linguistic modeling method comprises six stages. === 1. Systems analysis === In the first stage logico-linguistic modeling uses SSM for systems analysis. This stage seeks to structure the problem in the client organization by identifying stakeholders, modelling organizational objectives and discussing possible solutions. At this stage it not assumed that a KBS will be a solution and logico-linguistic modeling often produces solutions that do not require a computerized KBS. Expert systems tend to capture the expertise, of individuals in different organizations, on the same topic. By contrast a KBS, produced by logico-linguistic modeling, seeks to capture the expertise of individuals in the same organization on different topics. The emphasis is on the elicitation of organizational or group knowledge rather than individual experts. In logico-linguistic modeling the stakeholders become the experts. The end point of this stage is an SSM style conceptual models such as figure 1. === 2. Language creation === According to the theory behind logico-linguistic modeling the SSM conceptual model building process is a Wittgensteinian language-game in which the stakeholders build a language to describe the problem situation. The logico-linguistic model expresses this language as a set of definitions, see figure 2. === 3. Knowledge elicitation === After the model of the language has been built putative knowledge about the real world can be added by the stakeholders. Traditional SSM conceptual models contain only one logical connective (a necessary condition). In order to represent causal sequences, "sufficient conditions" and "necessary and sufficient conditions" are also required. In logico-linguistic modeling this deficiency is remedied by two addition types of connective. The outcome of stage three is an empirical model, see figure 3. === 4. Knowledge representation === Modal predicate logic (a combination of modal logic and predicate logic) is used as the formal method of knowledge representation. The connectives from the language model are logically true (indicated by the "L" modal operator) and connective added at the knowledge elicitation stage are possibility true (indicated by the "M" modal operator). Before proceeding to stage 5, the models are expressed in logical formulae. === 5. Computer code === Formulae in predicate logic translate easily into the Prolog artificial intelligence language. The modality is expressed by two different types of Prolog rules. Rules taken from the language creation stage of model building process are treated as incorrigible. While rules from the knowledge elicitation stage are marked as hypothetical rules. The system is not confined to decision support but has a built in learning capability. === 6. Verification === A knowledge based system built using this method verifies itself. Verification takes place when the KBS is used by the clients. It is an ongoing process that continues throughout the life of the system. If the stakeholder beliefs about the real world are mistaken this will be brought out by the addition of Prolog facts that conflict with the hypothetical rules. It operates in accordance to the classic principle of falsifiability found in the philosophy of science == Applications == === Knowledge-based computer systems === Logico-linguistic modeling has been used to produce fully operational computerized knowledge based systems, such as one for the management of diabetes patients in a hospital out-patients department. === Manual decision support === In other projects the need to move into Prolog was considered unnecessary because the printed logico-linguistic models provided an easy-to-use guide to decision making. For example, a system for mortgage loan approval === Information source analysis === In some cases a KBS could not be built because the organization did not have all the knowledge needed to support all their activities. In these cases logico-linguistic modeling showed shortcomings in the supply of information and where more was needed. For example, a planning department in a telecoms company == Criticism == While logico-linguistic modeling overcomes the problems found in SSM's transition from conceptual model to computer code, it does so at the expense of increased stakeholder constructed model complexity. The benefits of this complexity are questionable and this modeling method may be much harder to use than other methods. This contention has been exemplified by subsequent research. An attempt by researchers to model buying decisions across twelve companies using logico-linguistic modeling required simplification of the models and removal of the modal elements.

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus's views on artificial intelligence

  Hubert Dreyfus was a critic of artificial intelligence research. In a series of papers and books, including Alchemy and AI (1965), What Computers Can't Do (1972; 1979; 1992) and Mind over Machine (1986), he presented a skeptical and cautious assessment of AI's progress and a critique of the philosophical foundations of the field. Dreyfus' objections are discussed in most introductions to the philosophy of artificial intelligence, including Russell & Norvig (2021), a standard AI textbook, and in Fearn (2007), a survey of contemporary philosophy. Dreyfus argued that human intelligence and expertise depend primarily on yet-to-be understood informal and unconscious processes rather than symbolic manipulation and that these essentially human skills cannot be fully captured in formal rules. His critique was based on the insights of modern continental philosophers such as Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger, and was directed at the first wave of AI research which tried to reduce intelligence to high level formal symbols. When Dreyfus' ideas were first introduced in the mid-1960s, they were met in the AI community with ridicule and outright hostility. By the 1980s, however, some of his perspectives were rediscovered by researchers working in robotics and the new field of connectionism—approaches that were called "sub-symbolic" at the time because they eschewed early AI research's emphasis on high level symbols. In the 21st century, "sub-symbolic" artificial neural networks and other statistics-based approaches to machine learning were highly successful. Historian and AI researcher Daniel Crevier wrote: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments." Dreyfus said in 2007, "I figure I won and it's over—they've given up." == Dreyfus' critique == === The grandiose promises of artificial intelligence === In Alchemy and AI (1965) and What Computers Can't Do (1972), Dreyfus summarized the history of artificial intelligence and ridiculed the unbridled optimism that permeated the field. For example, Herbert A. Simon, following the success of his program General Problem Solver (1957), predicted that by 1967: A computer would be world champion in chess. A computer would discover and prove an important new mathematical theorem. Most theories in psychology will take the form of computer programs. The press dutifully reported these predictions of the imminent arrival of machine intelligence. Dreyfus felt that this optimism was unwarranted and, in 1965, argued forcefully that predictions like these would not come true. He would eventually be proven right. Pamela McCorduck explains Dreyfus' position: A great misunderstanding accounts for public confusion about thinking machines, a misunderstanding perpetrated by the unrealistic claims researchers in AI have been making, claims that thinking machines are already here, or at any rate, just around the corner. These predictions were based on the success of the cognitive revolution, which promoted an "information processing" model of the mind. It was articulated by Newell and Simon in their physical symbol systems hypothesis, and later expanded into a philosophical position known as computationalism by philosophers such as Jerry Fodor and Hilary Putnam. In AI, the approach is now called symbolic AI or "GOFAI". Dreyfus argued that "symbolic AI" was the latest version of the ancient program of rationalism in philosophy. Rationalism had come under heavy criticism in the 20th century from philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl. The mind, according to modern continental philosophy, is not "rationalist" and is nothing like a digital computer. Cognitivism led early AI researchers to believe that they had successfully simulated the essential process of human thought, thus it seemed a short step to producing fully intelligent machines. Dreyfus' last paper detailed the ongoing history of the "first step fallacy", where AI researchers tend to wildly extrapolate initial success as promising, perhaps even guaranteeing, wild future successes. === Dreyfus' four assumptions of artificial intelligence research === In Alchemy and AI and What Computers Can't Do, Dreyfus identified four philosophical assumptions, at least one of which he deems necessary for AI to succeed. "In each case," Dreyfus writes, "the assumption is taken by workers in AI as an axiom, guaranteeing results, whereas it is, in fact, one hypothesis among others, to be tested by the success of such work." Dreyfus argues that AI would be impossible without accepting at least one of these four assumptions: The biological assumption The brain processes information in discrete operations by way of some biological equivalent of on/off switches. In the early days of research into neurology, scientists found that neurons fire in all-or-nothing pulses. Several researchers, such as Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch, speculated with great confidence that neurons functioned similarly to the way Boolean logic gates operate, and so could be imitated by electronic circuitry at the level of the neuron. When digital computers became widely used in the early 50s, this argument was extended to suggest that the brain was a vast physical symbol system, manipulating the binary symbols of zero and one. Dreyfus was able to refute the biological assumption by citing research in neurology that suggested that the action and timing of neuron firing had analog components. But Daniel Crevier observes that "few still held that belief in the early 1970s, and nobody argued against Dreyfus" about the biological assumption. The psychological assumption The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules. He refuted this assumption by showing that much of what we know about the world consists of complex attitudes or tendencies that make us lean towards one interpretation over another. He argued that, even when we use explicit symbols, we are using them against an unconscious and informal background including commonsense knowledge and that without this background our symbols cease to mean anything. This background, in Dreyfus' view, was not implemented in individual brains as explicit individual symbols with explicit individual meanings. The epistemological assumption All knowledge can be formalized. This concerns the philosophical issue of epistemology, or the study of knowledge. Even if we agree that the psychological assumption is false, AI researchers could still argue (as AI founder John McCarthy has) that it is possible for a symbol processing machine to represent all knowledge, regardless of whether human beings represent knowledge the same way. Dreyfus argued that there is no justification for this assumption, since so much of human knowledge is not symbolic or even expressible using formal constructs. The ontological assumption The world consists of independent facts that can be represented by independent symbols AI researchers (and futurists and science fiction writers) often assume that there is no limit to formal, scientific knowledge, because they assume that any phenomenon in the universe can be described by symbols or scientific theories. This assumes that everything that exists can be understood as objects, properties of objects, classes of objects, relations of objects, and so on: precisely those things that can be described by logic, language and mathematics. The study of being or existence is called ontology, and so Dreyfus calls this the ontological assumption. If this is false, then it raises doubts about what we can ultimately know and what intelligent machines will ultimately be able to help us to do. === Knowing-how vs. knowing-that: the primacy of intuition === In Mind Over Machine (1986), written (with his brother) during the heyday of expert systems, Dreyfus analyzed the difference between human expertise and the programs that claimed to capture it. This expanded on ideas from What Computers Can't Do, where he had made a similar argument criticizing the "cognitive simulation" school of AI research practiced by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s. Dreyfus argued that human problem solving and expertise depend on our background sense of the context, of what is important and interesting given the situation, rather than on the process of searching through combinations of possibilities to find what we need. Dreyfus would describe it in 1986 as the difference between "knowing-that" and "knowing-how", based on Heidegger's distinction of present-at-hand and ready-to-hand. Knowing-that is our conscious, step-by-step problem solving abilities. We use these skills when we encounter a difficult problem that requires us to stop, step back and search through ideas one at time. At moments like this, the ideas become very precise and simple: they become context free symbols, which we manipulate using logic and language. These are the skills that Newell and Simon had demonstrated with both psy

  Read more →
• 

  Liveness test

  A liveness test, liveness check or liveness detection is an automated method for determining whether a subject is a real person or part of a spoofing attack. The technique is used as part of know your customer checks in financial services and during facial age estimation. Liveness detection is a cornerstone of digital safety. == Test process == The threat in face spoofing attacks is that "the attacker only needs to find a good face swap library on Github and understand how to inject the model into the camera feed during the KYC process". Fraudsters usually buy stolen IDs on the dark web to start a deepfake attack. An AI-powered generative adversarial network (GAN) can then generate the face swapping model that many online verification services fail to detect. Low level hackers may use face swapping apps such as SwapFace, DeepFaceLive, and Swapstream (increasing interest for those apps in 2023 according to Google Trends). In a video liveness test, users are typically asked to look into a camera and to move, smile or blink, and features of their moving face may then be compared to that of a still image. Artificial intelligence is used to counter presentation attacks such as deepfakes or users wearing hyperrealistic masks, or video injection attacks. Other forms of liveness test include checking for a pulse when using a fingerprint scanner or checking that a person's voice is not a recording or artificially generated during speaker recognition. == Adoption and certification == In a 2022 report published by the security firm Sensity, it was demonstrated that the liveness test of most US banks was easily cheated with new and publicly-available AI-powered techniques. Many of these banks disregarded the results of the report. In the first half of 2023, the security firm iProov detected a 704% increase in face-swap attacks. In 2023, in the UK, many customers of Ryanair were upset to have to go through many ID verification checks, including liveness tests, before boarding, as the airline was using it as a mean to deter customers to buy tickets through third-party websites. In the first half of 2024 iBeta Quality Assurance issued 18 new ISO/IEC 30107-3 Presentation Attack Detection certificates, raising the cumulative total to 85 since 2018. In January 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened applications from vendors to test their Liveness test. Identity frauds peaked during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading government agencies to take reinforced measures to secure their digital applications.

  Read more →
• 

  Fake nude photography

  Fake nude photography is the creation of nude photographs designed to appear as genuine nudes of an individual. The motivations for the creation of these modified photographs include curiosity, sexual gratification, the stigmatization or embarrassment of the subject, and commercial gain, such as through the sale of the photographs via pornographic websites. Fakes can be created using image editing software or through machine learning. Fake images created using the latter method are called deepfakes. == History == Magazines such as Celebrity Skin published non-fake paparazzi shots and illicitly obtained nude photos, showing there was a market for such images. Subsequently, some websites hosted fake nude or pornographic photos of celebrities, which are sometimes referred to as celebrity fakes. In the 1990s and 2000s, fake nude images of celebrities proliferated on Usenet and on websites, leading to campaigns to take legal action against the creators of the images and websites dedicated to determining the veracity of nude photos. "Deepfakes", which use artificial neural networks to superimpose one person's face into an image or video of someone else, were popularized in the late 2010s, leading to concerns about the technology's use in fake news and revenge porn. Fake nude photography is sometimes confused with Deepfake pornography, but the two are distinct. Fake nude photography typically starts with human-made non-sexual images, and merely makes it appear that the people in them are nude (but not having sex). Deepfake pornography typically starts with human-made sexual (pornographic) images or videos, and alters the actors' facial features to make the participants in the sexual act look like someone else. === DeepNude === In June 2019, a downloadable Windows and Linux application called DeepNude was released which used a Generative Adversarial Network to remove clothing from images of women. The images it produced were typically not pornographic, merely nude. Because there were more images of nude women than men available to its creator, the images it produced were all female, even when the original was male. The app had both a paid and unpaid version. A few days later, on June 27, the creators removed the application and refunded consumers, although various copies of the app, both free and for charge, continue to exist. On GitHub, the open-source version of this program called "open-deepnude" was deleted. The open-source version had the advantage of allowing it to be trained on a larger dataset of nude images to increase the resulting nude image's accuracy level. A successor free software application, Dreamtime, was later released, and some copies of it remain available, though some have been suppressed. === Deepfake Telegram Bot === In July 2019 a deepfake bot service was launched on messaging app Telegram that used AI technology to create nude images of women. The service was free and enabled users to submit photos and receive manipulated nude images within minutes. The service was connected to seven Telegram channels, including the main channel that hosts the bot, technical support, and image sharing channels. While the total number of users was unknown, the main channel had over 45,000 members. As of July 2020, it is estimated that approximately 24,000 manipulated images had been shared across the image sharing channels. === Nudify websites === By late 2024, most ways to produce nude images from photographs of clothed people were accessible at websites rather than in apps, and required payment. == Purposes == The reasons for the creation of nude photos may range from a need to discredit the target publicly, personal hatred for the target, or the promise of pecuniary gains for such work on the part of the creator of such photos. Fake nude photos often target prominent figures such as businesspeople or politicians. == Notable cases == In 2010, 97 people were arrested in Korea after spreading fake nude pictures of the group Girls' Generation on the internet. In 2011, a 53-year-old Incheon man was arrested after spreading more fake pictures of the same group. In 2012, South Korean police identified 157 Korean artists of whom fake nudes were circulating. In 2012, when Liu Yifei's fake nude photography released on the network, Liu Yifei Red Star Land Company declared a legal search to find out who created and released the photos. In the same year, Chinese actor Huang Xiaoming released nude photos that sparked public controversy, but they were ultimately proven to be real pictures. In 2014, supermodel Kate Upton threatened to sue a website for posting her fake nude photos. Previously, in 2011, this page was threatened by Taylor Swift. In November 2014, singer Rain was angry because of a fake nude photo that spread throughout the internet. Information reveals that: "Rain's nude photo was released from Kim Tae-hee's lost phone." Rain's label, Cube Entertainment, stated that the person in the nude photo is not Rain and the company has since stated that it will take strict legal action against those who post photos together with false comments. In July 2018, Seoul police launched an investigation after a fake nude photo of President Moon Jae-in was posted on the website of the Korean radical feminist group WOMAD. In early 2019, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic politician, was berated by other political parties over a fake nude photo of her in the bathroom. The picture created a huge wave of media controversy in the United States. == Methods == Fake nude images can be created using image editing software or neural network applications. There are two basic methods: Combine and superimpose existing images onto source images, adding the face of the subject onto a nude model. Remove clothes from the source image to make it look like a nude photo. == Impact == Images of this type may have a negative psychological impact on the victims and may be used for extortion purposes.

  Read more →
• 

  Chris Olah

  Christopher Olah (born 1992 or 1993) is a Canadian machine learning researcher and a co-founder of Anthropic. He is known for his work on neural network interpretability, particularly mechanistic interpretability, and for research and tools that visualise internal representations in neural networks. In 2025, Forbes reported he had become a billionaire due to his ownership in Anthropic. == Early life and education == Olah was born in Canada. According to Wired, he left university at age 18 without earning a degree and later received a Thiel Fellowship, which supported him in pursuing independent work. == Career == Olah has worked on interpretability research at Google Brain, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Time called him one of the pioneers of mechanistic interpretability and noted that he pursued this research line first at Google, then at OpenAI, and later at Anthropic, which he co-founded. Wired reported that Olah was involved in neural network visualisation work including DeepDream in 2015, as part of efforts to better understand what neural networks learn. Later coverage linked him to more structured interpretability approaches such as "activation atlases". The Verge covered activation atlases as a collaboration between Google and OpenAI researchers to help inspect neural network representations. At Anthropic, Olah has been identified in major press coverage as leading interpretability work aimed at mapping internal "features" in large language models and relating interpretability findings to AI safety. Quanta Magazine has also quoted Olah in reporting on interpretability and the internal structure of modern language models. Time included Olah in its TIME100 AI list in 2024. === Vatican address on AI ethics === On May 25, 2026, Olah spoke at the Vatican during the official presentation of Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, which addresses artificial intelligence and human dignity. Olah said AI could lead to large-scale displacement of human labor and exacerbate global inequality. He said the commercial and geopolitical incentives driving frontier AI labs often conflict with the public good, and described AI systems as "grown" rather than strictly engineered. Olah called for external moral oversight from religious institutions, scholars, and civil society to hold the technology sector accountable.

  Read more →
• 

  Mojo (programming language)

  Mojo is an in-development proprietary programming language based on Python available for Linux and macOS. Mojo aims to combine the usability of a high-level programming language, specifically Python, with the performance of a system programming language such as C++, Rust, and Zig. As of October 2025, the Mojo compiler is closed source with an open source standard library. Modular, the company behind Mojo, has stated an intent to open source the Mojo language, committing to open-source Mojo in "fall 2026". Mojo builds on the Multi-Level Intermediate Representation (MLIR) compiler software framework, instead of directly on the lower level LLVM compiler framework like many languages such as Julia, Swift, C++, and Rust. MLIR is a newer compiler framework that allows Mojo to exploit higher level compiler passes unavailable in LLVM alone, and allows Mojo to compile down and target more than only central processing units (CPUs), including producing code that can run on graphics processing units (GPUs), Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and other accelerators. It can also often more effectively use certain types of CPU optimizations directly, like single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) with minor intervention by a developer, as occurs in many other languages. According to Jeremy Howard of fast.ai, Mojo can be seen as "syntax sugar for MLIR" and for that reason Mojo is well optimized for applications like artificial intelligence (AI). == Origin and development history == The Mojo programming language was created by Modular Inc, which was founded by Chris Lattner, the original architect of the Swift programming language and LLVM, and Tim Davis, a former Google employee. The intention behind Mojo is to bridge the gap between Python’s ease of use and the fast performance required for cutting-edge AI applications. According to public change logs, Mojo development goes back to 2022. In May 2023, the first publicly testable version was made available online via a hosted playground. By September 2023 Mojo was available for local download for Linux and by October 2023 it was also made available for download on Apple's macOS. In March 2024, Modular open sourced the Mojo standard library and started accepting community contributions under the Apache 2.0 license. == Features == Mojo was created for an easy transition from Python. The language has syntax similar to Python's, with inferred static typing, and allows users to import Python modules. It uses LLVM and MLIR as its compilation backend. The language also intends to add a foreign function interface to call C/C++ and Python code. The language is not source-compatible with Python 3, only providing a subset of its syntax, e.g. missing the global keyword, list and dictionary comprehensions, and support for classes. Further, Mojo also adds features that enable performant low-level programming: fn for creating typed, compiled functions and "struct" for memory-optimized alternatives to classes. Mojo structs support methods, fields, operator overloading, and decorators. The language also provides a borrow checker, an influence from Rust. Mojo def functions use value semantics by default (functions receive a copy of all arguments and any modifications are not visible outside the function), while Python functions use reference semantics (functions receive a reference on their arguments and any modification of a mutable argument inside the function is visible outside). The language is not currently open source, but it is planned to be made open source in the future. Modular has since committed to open-sourcing the Mojo language in "fall 2026". == Programming examples == In Mojo, functions can be declared using both fn (for performant functions) or def (for Python compatibility). Basic arithmetic operations in Mojo with a def function: and with an fn function: The manner in which Mojo employs var and let for mutable and immutable variable declarations respectively mirrors the syntax found in Swift. In Swift, var is used for mutable variables, while let is designated for constants or immutable variables. Variable declaration and usage in Mojo:

  Read more →
• 

  Tim Houlne

  Tim Houlne is an American business executive, entrepreneur, and author known for his work in outsourcing and homeshoring, remote working, and artificial intelligence (AI) in customer service. He is the founder and CEO of Humach, a company that uses human agents and AI in customer experience solutions. Previously, he was co-founder and CEO of Working Solutions, a virtual contact center company in the United States. == Early life and education == Houlne graduated from Missouri Western State University (MWSU) in 1986 with a bachelor's degree in business administration and from the University of Texas in Dallas with an MBA. In 2024, MWSU and North Central Missouri College renamed the Convergent Technology Alliance Center to the Houlne Center for Convergent Technology. The 20,000 square-foot learning laboratory provides training and applied education experiences in industries such as AI, cybersecurity, manufacturing and construction, and service technologies. == Career == In 1998, Houlne co-founded Working Solutions, a Plano, Texas-based U.S. outsourcing company that provides customer service using remote, home-based agents. As CEO, he oversaw the development of a virtual workforce model that routes service calls to either domestic or offshore agents, according to client needs and service requirements. In 2015, Houlne founded Humach, a customer experience outsourcing provider that uses human service agents with AI-based digital agents. The company derives its name from the combination of services provided by humans and machines. Its clients include Amazon, Carfax and McDonald's. The company acquired InfiniteAI in 2020, and Markets EQ in 2025. In 2013, Houlne was named a finalist for the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award (Southwest Region).He is the co-author of several books focused on the evolution of work, the gig economy, and the influence of AI in customer-facing roles. == Works == The New World of Work: From the Cube to the Cloud (2013) ISBN 0982562276 OCLC 813933360 The New World of Work, Second Edition: The Cube, the Cloud and What's Next (2023) ISBN 9781642258318 OCLC 1389815847 The Intelligent Workforce: How Humans & Machines Will Co-Create a Better Future (2024) ISBN 9798887501604 OCLC 1439598569

  Read more →
• 

  The Master Algorithm

  The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World is a book by Pedro Domingos released in 2015. Domingos wrote the book in order to generate interest from people outside the field. == Overview == The book outlines five approaches of machine learning: inductive reasoning, connectionism, evolutionary computation, Bayes' theorem and analogical modelling. The author explains these tribes to the reader by referring to more understandable processes of logic, connections made in the brain, natural selection, probability and similarity judgments. Throughout the book, it is suggested that each different tribe has the potential to contribute to a unifying "master algorithm". Towards the end of the book the author pictures a "master algorithm" in the near future, where machine learning algorithms asymptotically grow to a perfect understanding of how the world and people in it work. Although the algorithm doesn't yet exist, he briefly reviews his own invention of the Markov logic network. == In the media == In 2016 Bill Gates recommended the book, alongside Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, as one of two books everyone should read to understand AI. In 2018 the book was noted to be on Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping's bookshelf. === Reception === A computer science educator stated in Times Higher Education that the examples are clear and accessible. In contrast, The Economist agreed Domingos "does a good job" but complained that he "constantly invents metaphors that grate or confuse". Kirkus Reviews praised the book, stating that "Readers unfamiliar with logic and computer theory will have a difficult time, but those who persist will discover fascinating insights." A New Scientist review called it "compelling but rather unquestioning".

  Read more →
• 

  Personal knowledge base

  A personal knowledge base (PKB) is an electronic tool used by an individual to express, capture, and later retrieve personal knowledge. It differs from a traditional database in that it contains subjective material particular to the owner, that others may not agree with nor care about. Importantly, a PKB consists primarily of knowledge, rather than information; in other words, it is not a collection of documents or other sources an individual has encountered, but rather an expression of the distilled knowledge the owner has extracted from those sources or from elsewhere. The term personal knowledge base was mentioned as early as the 1980s, but the term came to prominence in the 2000s when it was described at length in publications by computer scientist Stephen Davies and colleagues, who compared PKBs on a number of different dimensions, the most important of which is the data model that each PKB uses to organize knowledge. == Data models == Davies and colleagues examined three aspects of the data models of PKBs: their structural framework, which prescribes rules about how knowledge elements can be structured and interrelated (as a tree, graph, tree plus graph, spatially, categorically, as n-ary links, chronologically, or ZigZag); their knowledge elements, or basic building blocks of information that a user creates and works with, and the level of granularity of those knowledge elements (such as word/concept, phrase/proposition, free text notes, links to information sources, or composite); and their schema, which involves the level of formal semantics introduced into the data model (such as a type system and related schemas, keywords, attribute–value pairs, etc.). Davies and colleagues also emphasized the principle of transclusion, "the ability to view the same knowledge element (not a copy) in multiple contexts", which they considered to be "pivotal" to an ideal PKB. They concluded, after reviewing many design goals, that the ideal PKB was still to come in the future. === Personal knowledge graph === In their publications on PKBs, Davies and colleagues discussed knowledge graphs as they were implemented in some software of the time. Later, other writers used the term personal knowledge graph (PKG) to refer to a PKB featuring a graph structure and graph visualization. However, the term personal knowledge graph is also used by software engineers to refer to the different subject of a knowledge graph about a person, in contrast to a knowledge graph created by a person in a PKB. == Software architecture == Davies and colleagues also differentiated PKBs according to their software architecture: file-based, database-based, or client–server systems (including Internet-based systems accessed through desktop computers and/or handheld mobile devices). == History == Non-electronic personal knowledge bases have probably existed in some form for centuries: Leonardo da Vinci's journals and notes are a famous example of the use of notebooks. Commonplace books, florilegia, annotated private libraries, and card files (in German, Zettelkästen) of index cards and edge-notched cards are examples of formats that have served this function in the pre-electronic age. Undoubtedly the most famous early formulation of an electronic PKB was Vannevar Bush's description of the "memex" in 1945. In a 1962 technical report, human–computer interaction pioneer Douglas Engelbart (who would later become famous for his 1968 "Mother of All Demos" that demonstrated almost all the fundamental elements of modern personal computing) described his use of edge-notched cards to partially model Bush's memex. == Examples == The following software applications have been used to build PKBs using various data models and architectures. The list includes software mentioned by Davies and colleagues in their 2005 paper, and additional software. Open source Compendium Haystack (MIT project) Joplin Logseq NoteCards Org-mode QOwnNotes TiddlyWiki Closed source Evernote Microsoft OneNote MindManager MyLifeBits Notion Obsidian Personal Knowbase PersonalBrain Roam Tinderbox

  Read more →
• 

  ELVIS Act

  The ELVIS Act or Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, signed into law by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee on March 21, 2024, marked a significant milestone in the area of regulation of artificial intelligence and public sector policies for artists in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and AI alignment. It was noted as the first enacted legislation in the United States specifically designed to protect musicians from the unauthorized use of their voices through artificial intelligence technologies and against audio deepfakes and voice cloning. This legislation distinguishes itself by adding penalties for copying a performer's voice. == Origin and advocacy == The inception of the ELVIS Act has been attributed to Gebre Waddell, founder of Sound Credit, who initially conceptualized a framework in 2023 that later evolved into the legislation. Representative Justin J. Pearson acknowledged Waddell's pivotal role during the March 4 House Floor Session on the bill. Leading Tennessee musicians supported the ELVIS Act. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee endorsed it as a Governor's Bill, and it was introduced in the Tennessee Legislature as House Bill 2091 by William Lamberth (R-44) and Senate Bill 2096 by Jack Johnson (R-27). The ELVIS Act is an amendment to a 1984 law that was the result of the Elvis Presley estate litigation for controlling how his likeness could be used after death. == Lobbying from the recording industry == The legislative journey of the ELVIS Act included a broad coalition of music industry stakeholders, including: These organizations, led by the Recording Academy and the RIAA, played roles in drafting the legislation, advocating for passage, and rallying support among the industry and legislators. The act gained momentum through discussions that bridged industry concerns with legislative action. This collaborative process led to a proposal that specifically targets the use of AI to create unauthorized reproductions of artists' voices and images. == Opposition == The ELVIS Act saw industry opposition from the Motion Picture Association, including testimony in the House Banking & Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, including remarks that the law risks "interference with our members’ ability to portray real people and events." TechNet, representing companies such as OpenAI, Google and Amazon, expressed their opposition in the hearing to the bill as drafted, asserting that the language was too broadly written and could have unintended consequences. Other concerns included its potential application to cover bands, but lawmakers assured people that this was not the intention. The bill passed the Tennessee House and Senate with a unanimous, bi-partisan vote including 93 ayes and 0 Noes in the House, and 30 ayes and 0 noes in the Senate. == Passage == By explicitly addressing AI impersonation, the ELVIS Act originated a legal approach to safeguarding personal rights, in the context of digital and technological advancements. It extends protections to an artist's voice and likeness, areas vulnerable to exploitation with the proliferation of AI technologies that occurred in 2023. The legislation received widespread support from the music industry, signaling a significant step forward in the ongoing effort to balance innovation with the protection of individual rights and creative integrity. It was reported as underscoring Tennessee's commitment to its musical heritage and showed the state as a leader in adapting copyright and privacy protections to the modern technological landscape. Artists including Chris Janson and Luke Bryan appeared at the signing ceremony hosted at Robert's Western World to support the new law and commemorate its passing. == Legal precedent == The ELVIS Act was reported as representing a development in the discourse surrounding AI, intellectual property, and personal rights. It was hoped by proponents to set a precedent for future legislative efforts both within and beyond Tennessee, offering a model for how states and potentially the federal government could address similar challenges. As AI technology continues to evolve, the act represents a foundational framework for protecting the authenticity and rights of artists, ensuring contributions remain protected. The act prohibits usage of AI to clone the voice of an artist without consent and can be criminally enforced as a Class A misdemeanor. This legislation's success was hoped by its supporters to inspire similar actions in other states, contributing to a unified approach to copyright and privacy in the digital age. Such a national response would reinforce the importance of safeguarding artists' rights against unauthorized use of their voices and likenesses.

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →
• 

  AIXI

  AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →

• 

  Lobsang Monlam

  Geshe Lobsang Monlam (Tibetan: དགེ་བཤེས་བློ་བཟང་སྨོན་ལམ, Wylie: dge bshes blo bzang smon lam), born in 1976 in Ngawa eastern Tibet, is a Tibetan Buddhist scholar and programmer who uses digital technologies to preserve the Tibetan language and culture. He is best known for developing Tibetan typefaces and for the multi-volume Great Monlam Tibetan Dictionary. In 2025, he received the Snow Lion Award for Human Rights from the International Campaign for Tibet. He is also working on developing a "Dalai Lama AI," a specialized language model. == Biography == Lobsang Monlam was born in 1976 in Ngawa, eastern Tibet, anciently Tibetan Amdo, where he became a monk at the age of 12.. At the age of 17, in 1993, Lobsang Monlam fled Tibet by crossing the Himalayas to reach southern India and discovered computer science in a monastery. In 1993, he was ordained monk in the Sera Mey College in Bylakuppe, Karnataka, India, where he obtained a Geshe title in 2013.. By the early 2000s, Lobsang Monlam had already learned to paint thangkas and to compose plans and drawings. He used this knowledge to design a new assembly hall for Sera Mey, which the monks needed. Thanks to his work, Lobsang Monlam received donations from patrons of the monastery, which he was able to use to buy his first computer. He bought his first laptop in 2002 and largely taught himself how to use the hardware and software with the help of manuals. As a Buddhist scholar, he combines meditation practice with his digital work. In 2012, he founded and directs the Monlam Tibetan Information Technology Research Center in Dharamsala, which specializes in Tibetan language and software projects. Since then, he is its director, researching Tibetan language-related software. In 2019, advised by the 14th Dalai Lama, he founded Monlam IT and Research (OPC) Private Limited. Since the 2000s, Monlam has been developing Tibetan typefaces; the first Monlam Tibetan font was created in 2005. Under his direction, the Monlam Great Tibetan Dictionary was created, comprising 223 printed volumes and over 300,000 entries; approximately 150 people worked on this project for over nine years. On May 27, 2022, the Dalai Lama inaugurated the Monlam Tibetan Dictionary, produced by the Monlam Tibetan Information Technology Research Center, at Namgyal Monastery in McLeod Ganj. According to Penpa Tsering, this is the world's largest dictionary, created with guidance from the Dalai Lama, based on proposals from Lobsang Monlam and his team under the direction of Samdhong Rinpoche, and other lamas from all schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Yungdrung Bön. On December 5, 2024, Lobsang Monlam testified at a hearing of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in Washington, chaired by Christopher Smith, on the difficulties of preserving the Tibetan language and culture in Tibet and the Tibetan diaspora, and on the interest of the Monlam Tibetan Informatics Research Center in developing technologies for the preservation of the Tibetan language. On December 12, 2024, the work was presented to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., and launched at an event. The free Monlam Great Tibetan Dictionary app is available in several languages; the German version was created in collaboration with the Tibet Institute Rikon and has been downloaded millions of times. In total, Monlam has created over 37 apps related to the Tibetan language and translation; In 2023, its center launched the Monlam artificial intelligence platform, equipped with modules for machine translation, optical character recognition, speech transcription and speech synthesis.. For their efforts, he and Sophie Richardson received the Snow Lion Award in 2025, which was presented by Richard Gere and came with a prize of €3,000. In 2019, he started a PhD at Bangalore University on Library Science. He obtained his doctorate on November 30, 2023. Currently, he spearheads Monlam AI. Lobsang Monlam is developing "Dalai Lama AI" to digitally preserve the teachings of the 14th Dalai Lama, now 90 years old, for future generations. Lobsang Monlam states, "If we succeed in preserving the Dalai Lama, we also preserve the movement."

  Read more →
• 

  Lethal autonomous weapon

  A lethal autonomous weapon (LAW), also known as a lethal autonomous weapon system (LAWS), autonomous weapon system (AWS), robotic weapon, or killer robot, is a type of military drone or military robot, which is autonomous in that it can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. As of 2025, most military drones (including unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles) and military robots are not truly autonomous. LAWs may engage in drone warfare in the air, on land, on water, underwater, or in space. == Definitions == In weapons development, the term "autonomous" is somewhat ambiguous and can vary hugely between different scholars, nations and organizations. There is no definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems that is generally agreed upon among different countries. The official United States Department of Defense Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems (Department of Defense Directive 3000.09) defines an Autonomous Weapon System as one that "...once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." Heather Roff, a writer for Case Western Reserve University School of Law, describes autonomous weapon systems as "... capable of learning and adapting their 'functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed,' as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own." The British Ministry of Defence states "Whilst definitions can vary, the key difference is that an automated system is capable of carrying out complicated tasks but is incapable of complex decision-making, whereas an autonomous system is capable of deciding a course of action without depending on human oversight and control." Scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous. == Automatic defensive systems == Some definitions of autonomous weapon systems are broad enough to include land mines and naval mines, simple automatically-triggered lethal weapons that have been in use for centuries. Some current examples of LAWs are automated "hardkill" active protection systems, such as a radar-guided close-in weapon systems (CIWS) used to defend ships that have been in use since the 1970s (e.g., the US Phalanx CIWS). Such systems can autonomously identify and attack oncoming missiles, rockets, artillery fire, aircraft, and surface vessels according to criteria set by the human operator. Similar systems exist for tanks, such as the Russian Arena, the Israeli Trophy, and the German AMAP-ADS. Several types of stationary sentry guns, which can fire at humans and vehicles, are used in South Korea and Israel. Many missile defence systems, such as Iron Dome, also have autonomous targeting capabilities. The main reason for not having a "human in the loop" in these systems is the need for rapid response. They have generally been used to protect personnel and installations against incoming projectiles. == Autonomous offensive systems == According to The Economist in 2018, as technology advances, applications of uncrewed undersea vehicles could include mine clearance, mine-laying, anti-submarine sensor networking in contested waters, patrolling with active sonar, resupplying manned submarines, and becoming low-cost missile platforms. In 2017 the Russian Federation was developing artificially intelligent missiles, drones, unmanned vehicles, military robots and medic robots. In 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review alleged that Russia was developing a "new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo" named "Status 6". Israeli Minister Ayoob Kara stated in 2017 that Israel is developing military robots, including ones as small as flies. In October 2018, Zeng Yi, a senior executive at the Chinese defense firm Norinco, gave a speech in which he said that "In future battlegrounds, there will be no people fighting", and that the use of lethal autonomous weapons in warfare is "inevitable". In 2019, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper lashed out at China for selling drones capable of taking life with no human oversight. As of 2020, DARPA was working on making swarms of 250 autonomous lethal drones available to the American military. The US Navy is developing unmanned surface vehicles, also called sea drones, including Ghost Fleet Overlord, with plans to equip them with weapons and with the potential to use them semi-autonomously. In 2020 a Kargu 2 drone hunted down and attacked a human target in Libya, according to a report from the UN Security Council's Panel of Experts on Libya, published in March 2021. This may have been the first time an autonomous killer robot armed with lethal weaponry attacked human beings. In May 2021 Israel conducted an AI-guided combat drone swarm attack in Gaza. In the Russo-Ukrainian war, Ukraine has developed advanced drones with integrated artificial intelligence for a range of drone warfare purposes, including to attack infrastructure in Russia, although as of May 2026, Al Jazeera reported that humans remain in control of operation. == Ethical and legal issues == === Degree of human control === Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report. human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous). human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action. human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved. === Standard used in US policy === Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 states that "Autonomous … weapons systems shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." However, 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 even require certification. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work said in 2016 that the Defense Department would "not delegate lethal authority to a machine to make a decision", but might need to reconsider this since "authoritarian regimes" may do so. In October 2016 President Barack Obama stated that early in his career he was wary of a future in which a US president making use of drone warfare could "carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate". In the US, security-related AI has fallen under the purview of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence since 2018. On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Board published the draft of a report outlining five principles for weaponized AI and making 12 recommendations for the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense that would ensure a human operator would always be able to look into the 'black box' and understand the kill-chain process. A major concern is how the report will be implemented. === Possible violations of ethics and international acts === Stuart Russell, professor of computer science from University of California, Berkeley stated the concern he has with LAWs is that his view is that it is unethical and inhumane. The main issue with this system is it is hard to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. There is concern by some economists and legal scholars about whether LAWs would violate International Humanitarian Law, especially the principle of distinction, which requires the ability to discriminate combatants from non-combatants, and the principle of proportionality, which requires that damage to civilians be proportional to the military aim. This concern is often invoked as a reason to ban "killer robots" altogether - but it is doubtful that this concern can be an argument against LAWs that do not violate International Humanitarian Law. A 2021 report by the American Congressional Research Service states that "there are no domestic or international legal prohibitions on the development of use of LAWs," although it acknowledges ongoing talks at the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). LAWs are said by some to blur the boundaries of who is responsible for a particular killing. Philosopher Robert Sparrow argues that autonomous weapons are causally but not morally responsible, similar to child soldiers. In each case, he argues there is a risk of atrocities occurring without an appropriate subject to hold responsible, which violates jus in bell

  Read more →