AI Detector Yang Dipakai Dosen — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
Edge inference is the process of running machine learning or deep learning models on local devices (edge devices) such as smartphones, IoT devices, embedded systems, and edge servers instead of centralized cloud computing infrastructure. A key feature of edge computing is edge inference, which allows for real-time data processing, low latency, and improved privacy by reducing the amount of data sent to remote servers.
Read more →
Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.
Read more →
The U.S. Tech Force (also styled as US Tech Force, Tech Force, or Government Tech Force) is a federal hiring initiative launched by the second Donald Trump administration in December 2025. The program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), aims to recruit about 1,000 early-career technology professionals into two-year government jobs to modernize federal IT systems, advance artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, and address technological gaps in government operations. The initiative is an effort to plug capability gaps created by Trump-administration efforts to shrink the federal government, which led to the departure of some 220,000 federal employees, including many in IT. The initiative seeks early-career workers; officials said it would offer competitive salaries and opportunities to work on high-impact government technology projects. Major technology companies—including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Meta, Google, and OpenAI—agreed to help identify and refer candidates. Candidates are allowed to take Tech Force positions on leaves of absence and without divesting their stock, raising conflict-of-interest questions. In January 2026, OPM direction Scott Kupor said the deadline for applying to Tech Force was being extended because of "tremendous interest" without saying how many people had actually applied. Also in December 2025, news broke that the administration is planning another novel use of private-sector workers: hiring cybersecurity firms for offensive cyber operations.
Read more →
In knowledge-based systems, agents choose actions based on the principle of rationality to move closer to a desired goal. The agent is able to make decisions based on knowledge it has about the world (see knowledge level). But for the agent to actually change its state, it must use whatever means it has available. This level of description for the agent's behavior is the symbol level. The term was coined by Allen Newell in 1982. For example, in a computer program, the knowledge level consists of the information contained in its data structures that it uses to perform certain actions. The symbol level consists of the program's algorithms, the data structures themselves, and so on.
Read more →
Averbis has a focus on healthcare, pharma, automotive and intellectual property analytics. Averbis is involved in various research projects of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy and the European Union such as DebugIT, EUCases, Mantra and SEMCARE. In addition to these projects, Averbis was also involved in the following projects: Greenpilot is a virtual library, which provides technical information in the fields of nutrition, environment and agriculture. Medpilot is a virtual library, which provides information about medicine and related sciences. In 2013, Averbis has been nominated for the German Founder Prize 2013. Averbis GmbH provides text analytics and text mining software to transform unstructured text into actionable information. It was founded in 2007 by IT experts after years of relevant scientific experience in the field of text mining and multilingual information retrieval. Averbis works in the field of terminology management, natural language processing, machine learning and semantic search. Its text mining software is embedded into the text mining framework UIMA.
Read more →
The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.
Read more →
Wetware is a term drawn from the computer-related idea of hardware or software, but applied to biological life forms. == Usage == The prefix "wet" is a reference to the water found in living creatures. Wetware is used to describe the elements equivalent to hardware and software found in a person, especially the central nervous system (CNS) and the human mind. The term wetware finds use in works of fiction, in scholarly publications and in popularizations. The "hardware" component of wetware concerns the bioelectric and biochemical properties of the CNS, specifically the brain. If the sequence of impulses traveling across the various neurons are thought of symbolically as software, then the physical neurons would be the hardware. The amalgamated interaction of this software and hardware is manifested through continuously changing physical connections, and chemical and electrical influences that spread across the body. The process by which the mind and brain interact to produce the collection of experiences that we define as self-awareness is in question. == History == Although the exact definition has shifted over time, the term Wetware and its fundamental reference to "the physical mind" has been around at least since the mid-1950s. Mostly used in relatively obscure articles and papers, it was not until the heyday of cyberpunk, however, that the term found broad adoption. Among the first uses of the term in popular culture was the Bruce Sterling novel Schismatrix (1985) and the Michael Swanwick novel Vacuum Flowers (1987). Rudy Rucker references the term in a number of books, including one entitled Wetware (1988): ... all sparks and tastes and tangles, all its stimulus/response patterns – the whole bio-cybernetic software of mind. Rucker did not use the word to simply mean a brain, nor in the human-resources sense of employees. He used wetware to stand for the data found in any biological system, analogous perhaps to the firmware that is found in a ROM chip. In Rucker's sense, a seed, a plant graft, an embryo, or a biological virus are all wetware. DNA, the immune system, and the evolved neural architecture of the brain are further examples of wetware in this sense. Rucker describes his conception in a 1992 compendium The Mondo 2000 User's Guide to the New Edge, which he quotes in a 2007 blog entry. Early cyber-guru Arthur Kroker used the term in his blog. With the term getting traction in trendsetting publications, it became a buzzword in the early 1990s. In 1991, Dutch media theorist Geert Lovink organized the Wetware Convention in Amsterdam, which was supposed to be an antidote to the "out-of-body" experiments conducted in high-tech laboratories, such as experiments in virtual reality. Timothy Leary, in an appendix to Info-Psychology originally written in 1975–76 and published in 1989, used the term wetware, writing that "psychedelic neuro-transmitters were the hot new technology for booting-up the 'wetware' of the brain". Another common reference is: "Wetware has 7 plus or minus 2 temporary registers." The numerical allusion is to a classic 1957 article by George A. Miller, The magical number 7 plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity for processing information, which later gave way to Miller's law.
Read more →
Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.
Read more →
The Cyber and Information Domain Service (CIDS; German: Cyber- und Informationsraum, lit. 'Cyber and Information space', pronounced [ˈsaɪbɐ ʔʊnt ʔɪnfɔʁmaˈtsi̯oːnsʁaʊm] ; CIR) is the youngest branch of the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr. The decision to form an organizational unit was presented by Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on 26 April 2016, becoming operational on 1 April 2017. It is headquartered in Bonn. == History == In November 2015, the German Ministry of Defense activated a Staff Group within the ministry tasked with developing plans for a reorganization of the Cyber, IT, military intelligence, geo-information, and operative communication units of the Bundeswehr. On 26 April 2016, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen presented the plans for the new military branch to the public and on 5 October 2016 the command's staff became operational as a department within the ministry of defense. On 1 April 2017, the Cyber and Information Domain Service (CIDS) was activated as a "military organizational unit" (Organisationsbereich), indicating its status below a full service branch. The CIDS Headquarters took command of all existing electronic warfare, signals, IT, military intelligence, geoinformation, and psychological operations units. As part of a wider restructuring of higher command in the Bundeswehr in 2024, it was decided to upgrade it from a military organizational unit to the fourth full military service branch, alongside Heer (army), Luftwaffe (air force) and Deutsche Marine (navy). == Organisation == The CIDS is commanded by the Chief of the Cyber and Information Domain Service (Inspekteur des Cyber- und Informationsraum InspCIR), a three-star general position, based in Bonn. As of April 2023, it is structured as follows: Cyber and Information Domain Service Command (Kommando Cyber- und Informationsraum KdoCIR), in Bonn Reconnaissance and Effects Command (Kommando Aufklärung und Wirkung KdoAufkl/Wirk), in Gelsdorf 911th Electronic Warfare Battalion 912th Electronic Warfare Battalion, mans the Oste-class SIGINT/ELINT and reconnaissance ships 931st Electronic Warfare Battalion 932nd Electronic Warfare Battalion, provides airborne troops for operations in enemy territory Cyber-Operations Centre (Zentrum Cyber-Operationen ZSO) Central Imaging Reconnaissance (Zentrale Abbildende Aufklärung ZAbbAufkl), operating the SAR-Lupe satellites Central Bundeswehr Investigation Authority for Technical Reconnaissance (Zentrale Untersuchungsstelle der Bundeswehr für Technische Aufklärung ZU-StelleBwTAufkl) Signals Reconnaissance Centre North (Fernmeldeaufklärungszentrale Nord FmAufklZentr NORD) Signals Reconnaissance Centre South (Fernmeldeaufklärungszentrale Süd FmAufklZentr SÜD) Information Technology Services Command (Kommando Informationstechnik-Services der Bundeswehr KdoIT-SBw), in Bonn 281st Information Technology Battalion 282nd Information Technology Battalion 292nd Information Technology Battalion 293rd Information Technology Battalion 381st Information Technology Battalion 383rd Information Technology Battalion Bundeswehr Geoinformation Centre (Zentrum für Geoinformationswesen der Bundeswehr), in Euskirchen Bundeswehr Cyber-Security Centre (Zentrum für Cyber-Sicherheit der Bundeswehr ZCSBw) Bundeswehr Software Digitalisation Centre (Zentrum Digitalisierung der Bundeswehr und Fähigkeitsentwicklung Cyber- und Informationsraum ZDigBw) Bundeswehr Operational Communications Centre (Zentrum Operative Kommunikation der Bundeswehr ZOpKomBw) Training Centre CIDS (Ausbildungszentrum CIR AusbZ CIR)
Read more →
For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.
Read more →
The environmental impact of the design, training, deployment and use of artificial intelligence includes the greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity for data centres and computing hardware, operational and upstream water use, and material impacts from hardware manufacturing, mining and electronic waste. Estimating AI's environmental effects can be difficult because results depend on how impacts are measured, including whether accounting includes only model computation or also data-centre overhead, idle capacity, hardware manufacture, and local electricity supply. As these issues have received greater attention, governments and regulators have increasingly considered data-centre reporting requirements, energy-efficiency standards, and broader transparency measures for AI-related resource use. == Carbon footprint and energy use == AI-related energy use arises at multiple stages, including model training, fine-tuning, inference, storage, networking, and supporting infrastructure such as cooling and power conversion. === Individual level === Published estimates of energy use per AI request vary widely across models, tasks and measurement methods. A benchmark study presented at the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency found substantial differences between task types, with lower energy use for some text tasks and much higher energy use for image generation in the study's test conditions. In that benchmark, simple classification tasks consumed about 0.002–0.007 Wh per prompt on average (about 9% of a smartphone charge for 1,000 prompts), while text generation and text summarisation each used about 0.05 Wh per prompt; image generation averaged 2.91 Wh per prompt, and the least efficient image model in the study used 11.49 Wh per image (roughly equivalent to half a smartphone charge). First-party measurements in production environments have also been published. A 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported median per-prompt energy, emissions, and water-use estimates under the authors' accounting framework, while noting that different system boundaries can produce substantially different results. The study reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.24 Wh, which is roughly as much energy as watching nine seconds of television. The study also stated that software and infrastructure improvements reduced energy use by a factor of 33 and carbon emissions by a factor of 44 for a typical prompt over one year within the authors' framework. Researchers at the University of Michigan measured the energy consumption of various Meta Llama 3.1 models released in 2024 and found that smaller language models (8 billion parameters) use about 114 joules (0.03167 Wh) per response, while larger models (405 billion parameters) require up to 6,700 joules (1.861 Wh) per response. This corresponds to the energy needed to run a microwave oven for roughly one-tenth of a second and eight seconds, respectively. Comparisons between AI systems and human labour for specific tasks have produced mixed results and remain sensitive to assumptions about output quality, workload and system boundaries. A 2024 study in Scientific Reports reported 130 to 2900 times lower estimated carbon emissions for selected AI systems than for human writers and illustrators under its assumptions. A later Scientific Reports paper reported a counterexample for programming tasks under its assumptions, finding 5 to 19 times higher estimated emissions for the evaluated AI system than for human programmers on the benchmark used in that study. === System level === ==== Energy use and efficiency ==== AI electricity intensity depends not only on model architecture but also on hardware and facility efficiency. Data-centre operators commonly report Power usage effectiveness (PUE), which measures the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy; a lower PUE indicates less overhead energy for cooling and other supporting infrastructure. Operators may also publish metrics and case studies on hardware efficiency, cooling systems and power sourcing. In its 2024 environmental report, Google stated that its 2023 total greenhouse gas emissions increased 13% year over year, primarily because of increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions, while also reporting lower PUE than industry averages for its own facilities. The International Energy Agency has also reported that data centres remain a relatively small share of global electricity use overall, but that their local effects can be much more pronounced because demand is geographically concentrated. ==== Carbon footprint ==== At system level, AI contributes to rising electricity demand in data centres and related infrastructure. The International Energy Agency estimated that data centres used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024, or around 1.5% of global electricity consumption, and projected that data-centre electricity use could rise to about 945 TWh by 2030, with AI identified as the main driver of that growth alongside other digital services. The carbon footprint of AI systems depends strongly on electricity sources, hardware efficiency, utilisation rates, and what stages are included in the accounting. Training large models can require substantial electricity, while total lifecycle impacts also depend on deployment scale and the amount of inference performed after training. Early analyses of frontier-model development reported rapid historical growth in training compute for selected systems, although later trends have depended on changes in model design, hardware and efficiency gains. Accounting methods that include upstream or embodied impacts, such as hardware manufacture and facilities construction, can materially affect estimates of AI-related emissions. === Decisions and strategies by individual companies === Large technology companies have reported that the expansion of AI and cloud infrastructure affects their sustainability targets, electricity demand, and resource use. Google, for example, attributed part of its emissions growth in 2023 to increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions in its 2024 environmental report. Cloud and AI companies have also announced measures intended to reduce environmental impacts, including investment in more efficient hardware, low-carbon electricity procurement, alternative cooling systems, and water stewardship programmes. The extent, comparability, and third-party verification of such disclosures vary between firms and jurisdictions. == Water usage == Data centres can use water directly for cooling and indirectly through the water used in electricity generation, depending on the local energy mix. Public reporting on data-centre water use has often been inconsistent, making comparisons between operators and regions difficult. To standardise operational reporting, The Green Grid proposed the metric water usage effectiveness (WUE), defined as annual site water use divided by IT equipment energy use. WUE does not by itself measure local water stress, source sustainability, or all upstream water impacts. Studies of AI water use also distinguish between water withdrawal and water consumption. Research on AI-specific water use has argued that the water footprint of AI systems can be difficult to observe and may vary substantially by location, cooling design, and electricity source. A 2025 Communications of the ACM article summarised methods for estimating AI water footprints and emphasised the distinction between water withdrawal and water consumption. Li and colleagues estimated that global AI water withdrawal could reach 4.2–6.6 billion cubic metres in 2027 under the scenarios examined in their article. Using GPT-3, released by OpenAI in 2020, as an example, they estimated that training the model in Microsoft's U.S. data centres could consume about 700,000 litres of onsite water and about 5.4 million litres in total when offsite electricity-related water use was included; they also estimated that 10–50 medium-length GPT-3 responses could consume about 500 mL of water, depending on when and where the model was deployed. Published prompt-level estimates have also varied by system and accounting framework: the 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.26 mL under its framework. Location can materially affect the significance of data-centre water use. Research on U.S. data centres found that one-fifth of servers' direct water footprint came from moderately to highly water-stressed watersheds, while nearly half of servers were fully or partially powered by plants located in water-stressed regions. A 2025 Reuters report, citing data from Verisk Maplecroft and NatureFinance, said that an average mid-sized data centre uses about 1.4 million litres of water per day for cooling and that Phoenix would experience a 32% increase in annual water stress if currently pl
Read more →
Embodied cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of research, the aim of which is to explain the mechanisms underlying intelligent behavior. It comprises three main methodologies: the modeling of psychological and biological systems in a holistic manner that considers the mind and body as a single entity; the formation of a common set of general principles of intelligent behavior; and the experimental use of robotic agents in controlled environments. == Contributors == Embodied cognitive science borrows heavily from embodied philosophy and the related research fields of cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Contributors to the field include: From the perspective of neuroscience, Gerald Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute at La Jolla, Francisco Varela of CNRS in France, and J. A. Scott Kelso of Florida Atlantic University From the perspective of psychology, Lawrence Barsalou, Michael Turvey, Vittorio Guidano and Eleanor Rosch From the perspective of linguistics, Gilles Fauconnier, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Leonard Talmy and Mark Turner From the perspective of language acquisition, Eric Lenneberg and Philip Rubin at Haskins Laboratories From the perspective of anthropology, Edwin Hutchins, Bradd Shore, James Wertsch and Merlin Donald. From the perspective of autonomous agent design, early work is sometimes attributed to Rodney Brooks or Valentino Braitenberg From the perspective of artificial intelligence, Understanding Intelligence by Rolf Pfeifer and Christian Scheier or How the Body Shapes the Way We Think, by Rolf Pfeifer and Josh C. Bongard From the perspective of philosophy, Andy Clark, Dan Zahavi, Shaun Gallagher, and Evan Thompson In 1950, Alan Turing proposed that a machine may need a human-like body to think and speak: It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to understand and speak English. That process could follow the normal teaching of a child. Things would be pointed out and named, etc. Again, I do not know what the right answer is, but I think both approaches should be tried. == Traditional cognitive theory == Embodied cognitive science is an alternative theory to cognition in which it minimizes appeals to computational theory of mind in favor of greater emphasis on how an organism's body determines how and what it thinks. Traditional cognitive theory is based mainly around symbol manipulation, in which certain inputs are fed into a processing unit that produces an output. These inputs follow certain rules of syntax, from which the processing unit finds semantic meaning. Thus, an appropriate output is produced. For example, a human's sensory organs are its input devices, and the stimuli obtained from the external environment are fed into the nervous system which serves as the processing unit. From here, the nervous system is able to read the sensory information because it follows a syntactic structure, thus an output is created. This output then creates bodily motions and brings forth behavior and cognition. Of particular note is that cognition is sealed away in the brain, meaning that mental cognition is cut off from the external world and is only possible by the input of sensory information. == The embodied cognitive approach == Embodied cognitive science differs from the traditionalist approach in that it denies the input-output system. This is chiefly due to the problems presented by the Homunculus argument, which concluded that semantic meaning could not be derived from symbols without some kind of inner interpretation. If some little man in a person's head interpreted incoming symbols, then who would interpret the little man's inputs? Because of the specter of an infinite regress, the traditionalist model began to seem less plausible. Thus, embodied cognitive science aims to avoid this problem by defining cognition in three ways. === Physical attributes of the body === The first aspect of embodied cognition examines the role of the physical body, particularly how its properties affect its ability to think. This part attempts to overcome the symbol manipulation component that is a feature of the traditionalist model. Depth perception, for instance, can be better explained under the embodied approach due to the sheer complexity of the action. Depth perception requires that the brain detect the disparate retinal images obtained by the distance of the two eyes. In addition, body and head cues complicate this further. When the head is turned in a given direction, objects in the foreground will appear to move against objects in the background. From this, it is said that some kind of visual processing is occurring without the need of any kind of symbol manipulation. This is because the objects appearing to move the foreground are simply appearing to move. This observation concludes then that depth can be perceived with no intermediate symbol manipulation necessary. A more poignant example exists through examining auditory perception. Generally speaking the greater the distance between the ears, the greater the possible auditory acuity. Also relevant is the amount of density in between the ears, for the strength of the frequency wave alters as it passes through a given medium. The brain's auditory system takes these factors into account as it process information, but again without any need for a symbolic manipulation system. This is because the distance between the ears for example does not need symbols to represent it. The distance itself creates the necessary opportunity for greater auditory acuity. The amount of density between the ears is similar, in that it is the actual amount itself that simply forms the opportunity for frequency alteration. Thus under consideration of the physical properties of the body, a symbolic system is unnecessary and an unhelpful metaphor. === The body's role in the cognitive process === The second aspect draws heavily from George Lakoff's and Mark Johnson's work on concepts. They argued that humans use metaphors whenever possible to better explain their external world. Humans also have a basic stock of concepts in which other concepts can be derived from. These basic concepts include spatial orientations such as up, down, front, and back. Humans can understand what these concepts mean because they can directly experience them from their own bodies. For example, because human movement revolves around standing erect and moving the body in an up-down motion, humans innately have these concepts of up and down. Lakoff and Johnson contend this is similar with other spatial orientations such as front and back too. As mentioned earlier, these basic stocks of spatial concepts are the basis in which other concepts are constructed. Happy and sad for instance are seen now as being up or down respectively. When someone says they are feeling down, what they are really saying is that they feel sad for example. Thus the point here is that true understanding of these concepts is contingent on whether one can have an understanding of the human body. So the argument goes that if one lacked a human body, they could not possibly know what up or down could mean, or how it could relate to emotional states. [I]magine a spherical being living outside of any gravitational field, with no knowledge or imagination of any other kind of experience. What could UP possibly mean to such a being? While this does not mean that such beings would be incapable of expressing emotions in other words, it does mean that they would express emotions differently from humans. Human concepts of happiness and sadness would be different because human would have different bodies. So then an organism's body directly affects how it can think, because it uses metaphors related to its body as the basis of concepts. === Interaction of local environment === A third component of the embodied approach looks at how agents use their immediate environment in cognitive processing. Meaning, the local environment is seen as an actual extension of the body's cognitive process. The example of a personal digital assistant (PDA) is used to better imagine this. Echoing functionalism (philosophy of mind), this point claims that mental states are individuated by their role in a much larger system. So under this premise, the information on a PDA is similar to the information stored in the brain. So then if one thinks information in the brain constitutes mental states, then it must follow that information in the PDA is a cognitive state too. Consider also the role of pen and paper in a complex multiplication problem. The pen and paper are so involved in the cognitive process of solving the problem that it seems ridiculous to say they are somehow different from the process, in very much the same way the PDA is used for information like the brain. Another example examines how humans control and manipulate their environment
Read more →
Action model learning (sometimes abbreviated action learning) is an area of machine learning concerned with the creation and modification of a software agent's knowledge about the effects and preconditions of the actions that can be executed within its environment. This knowledge is usually represented in a logic-based action description language and used as input for automated planners. Learning action models is important when goals change. When an agent acted for a while, it can use its accumulated knowledge about actions in the domain to make better decisions. Thus, learning action models differs from reinforcement learning. It enables reasoning about actions instead of expensive trials in the world. Action model learning is a form of inductive reasoning, where new knowledge is generated based on the agent's observations. The usual motivation for action model learning is the fact that manual specification of action models for planners is often a difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone task (especially in complex environments). == Action models == Given a training set E {\displaystyle E} consisting of examples e = ( s , a , s ′ ) {\displaystyle e=(s,a,s')} , where s , s ′ {\displaystyle s,s'} are observations of a world state from two consecutive time steps t , t ′ {\displaystyle t,t'} and a {\displaystyle a} is an action instance observed in time step t {\displaystyle t} , the goal of action model learning in general is to construct an action model ⟨ D , P ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle D,P\rangle } , where D {\displaystyle D} is a description of domain dynamics in action description formalism like STRIPS, ADL or PDDL and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability function defined over the elements of D {\displaystyle D} . However, many state of the art action learning methods assume determinism and do not induce P {\displaystyle P} . In addition to determinism, individual methods differ in how they deal with other attributes of domain (e.g. partial observability or sensoric noise). == Action learning methods == === State of the art === Recent action learning methods take various approaches and employ a wide variety of tools from different areas of artificial intelligence and computational logic. As an example of a method based on propositional logic, we can mention SLAF (Simultaneous Learning and Filtering) algorithm, which uses agent's observations to construct a long propositional formula over time and subsequently interprets it using a satisfiability (SAT) solver. Another technique, in which learning is converted into a satisfiability problem (weighted MAX-SAT in this case) and SAT solvers are used, is implemented in ARMS (Action-Relation Modeling System). Two mutually similar, fully declarative approaches to action learning were based on logic programming paradigm Answer Set Programming (ASP) and its extension, Reactive ASP. In another example, bottom-up inductive logic programming approach was employed. Several different solutions are not directly logic-based. For example, the action model learning using a perceptron algorithm or the multi level greedy search over the space of possible action models. In the older paper from 1992, the action model learning was studied as an extension of reinforcement learning. Nonetheless, further algorithms can be found that operate under different assumptions: FAMA can work even when some observations are missing, and it produces a general (lifted) planning model. It treats learning an action model like a planning problem, making sure the learned model matches the observations given. NOLAM can learn general action models even from noisy or imperfect data. LOCM focuses only on the order of actions in the data, ignoring any details about the states between those actions. The family of safe action model (SAM) learning methods create models that guarantee any plans made with them will actually work in the real world. There's also an extension called N-SAM that can learn action models with numeric conditions and effects. Additionally, numeric action models like N-SAM can be used to improve reinforcement learning (RL) performance through the RAMP algorithm. === Literature === Most action learning research papers are published in journals and conferences focused on artificial intelligence in general (e.g. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), Artificial Intelligence, Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI) or AAAI conferences). Despite mutual relevance of the topics, action model learning is usually not addressed in planning conferences like the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).
Read more →
Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.
Read more →
Active learning is a special case of machine learning in which a learning algorithm can interactively query a human user (or some other information source) to label new data points with the desired outputs. The human user must possess expertise in the problem domain, including the ability to consult authoritative sources when necessary. In statistics literature, it is sometimes also called optimal experimental design. The information source is also called teacher or oracle. There are situations in which unlabeled data is abundant but manual labeling is expensive. In such a scenario, learning algorithms can actively query the teacher for labels. Since the learner chooses the examples, the number of examples to learn a concept can often be much lower than the number required in normal supervised learning. However, there is a risk that the algorithm is overwhelmed by uninformative examples. Recent developments are dedicated to multi-label active learning, hybrid active learning and active learning in a single-pass (on-line) context, combining concepts from the field of machine learning (e.g. conflict and ignorance) with adaptive, incremental learning policies in the field of online machine learning. Using active learning allows for faster development of a machine learning algorithm, when comparative updates would require a quantum or super computer. Large-scale active learning projects may benefit from crowdsourcing frameworks such as Amazon Mechanical Turk that include many humans in the active learning loop. == Definitions == Let T be the total set of all data under consideration. For example, in a protein engineering problem, T would include all proteins that are known to have a certain interesting activity and all additional proteins that one might want to test for that activity. During each iteration, i, T is broken up into three subsets T K , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{K,i}} : Data points where the label is known. T U , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{U,i}} : Data points where the label is unknown. T C , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{C,i}} : A subset of TU,i that is chosen to be labeled. Most of the current research in active learning involves the best method to choose the data points for TC,i. == Scenarios == Pool-based sampling: In this approach, which is the most well known scenario, the learning algorithm attempts to evaluate the entire dataset before selecting data points (instances) for labeling. It is often initially trained on a fully labeled subset of the data using a machine-learning method such as logistic regression or SVM that yields class-membership probabilities for individual data instances. The candidate instances are those for which the prediction is most ambiguous. Instances are drawn from the entire data pool and assigned a confidence score, a measurement of how well the learner "understands" the data. The system then selects the instances for which it is the least confident and queries the teacher for the labels. The theoretical drawback of pool-based sampling is that it is memory-intensive and is therefore limited in its capacity to handle enormous datasets, but in practice, the rate-limiting factor is that the teacher is typically a (fatiguable) human expert who must be paid for their effort, rather than computer memory. Stream-based selective sampling: Here, each consecutive unlabeled instance is examined one at a time with the machine evaluating the informativeness of each item against its query parameters. The learner decides for itself whether to assign a label or query the teacher for each datapoint. As contrasted with Pool-based sampling, the obvious drawback of stream-based methods is that the learning algorithm does not have sufficient information, early in the process, to make a sound assign-label-vs ask-teacher decision, and it does not capitalize as efficiently on the presence of already labeled data. Therefore, the teacher is likely to spend more effort in supplying labels than with the pool-based approach. Membership query synthesis: This is where the learner generates synthetic data from an underlying natural distribution. For example, if the dataset are pictures of humans and animals, the learner could send a clipped image of a leg to the teacher and query if this appendage belongs to an animal or human. This is particularly useful if the dataset is small. The challenge here, as with all synthetic-data-generation efforts, is in ensuring that the synthetic data is consistent in terms of meeting the constraints on real data. As the number of variables/features in the input data increase, and strong dependencies between variables exist, it becomes increasingly difficult to generate synthetic data with sufficient fidelity. For example, to create a synthetic data set for human laboratory-test values, the sum of the various white blood cell (WBC) components in a white blood cell differential must equal 100, since the component numbers are really percentages. Similarly, the enzymes alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) measure liver function (though AST is also produced by other tissues, e.g., lung, pancreas) A synthetic data point with AST at the lower limit of normal range (8–33 units/L) with an ALT several times above normal range (4–35 units/L) in a simulated chronically ill patient would be physiologically impossible. == Query strategies == Algorithms for determining which data points should be labeled can be organized into a number of different categories, based upon their purpose: Balance exploration and exploitation: the choice of examples to label is seen as a dilemma between the exploration and the exploitation over the data space representation. This strategy manages this compromise by modelling the active learning problem as a contextual bandit problem. For example, Bouneffouf et al. propose a sequential algorithm named Active Thompson Sampling (ATS), which, in each round, assigns a sampling distribution on the pool, samples one point from this distribution, and queries the oracle for this sample point label. Expected model change: label those points that would most change the current model. Expected error reduction: label those points that would most reduce the model's generalization error. Exponentiated Gradient Exploration for Active Learning: In this paper, the author proposes a sequential algorithm named exponentiated gradient (EG)-active that can improve any active learning algorithm by an optimal random exploration. Uncertainty sampling: label those points for which the current model is least certain as to what the correct output should be. Query by committee: a variety of models are trained on the current labeled data, and vote on the output for unlabeled data; label those points for which the "committee" disagrees the most Querying from diverse subspaces or partitions: When the underlying model is a forest of trees, the leaf nodes might represent (overlapping) partitions of the original feature space. This offers the possibility of selecting instances from non-overlapping or minimally overlapping partitions for labeling. Variance reduction: label those points that would minimize output variance, which is one of the components of error. Conformal prediction: predicts that a new data point will have a label similar to old data points in some specified way and degree of the similarity within the old examples is used to estimate the confidence in the prediction. Mismatch-first farthest-traversal: The primary selection criterion is the prediction mismatch between the current model and nearest-neighbour prediction. It targets on wrongly predicted data points. The second selection criterion is the distance to previously selected data, the farthest first. It aims at optimizing the diversity of selected data. User-centered labeling strategies: Learning is accomplished by applying dimensionality reduction to graphs and figures like scatter plots. Then the user is asked to label the compiled data (categorical, numerical, relevance scores, relation between two instances). A wide variety of algorithms have been studied that fall into these categories. While the traditional AL strategies can achieve remarkable performance, it is often challenging to predict in advance which strategy is the most suitable in a particular situation. In recent years, meta-learning algorithms have been gaining in popularity. Some of them have been proposed to tackle the problem of learning AL strategies instead of relying on manually designed strategies. A benchmark which compares 'meta-learning approaches to active learning' to 'traditional heuristic-based Active Learning' may give intuitions if 'Learning active learning' is at the crossroads == Minimum marginal hyperplane == Some active learning algorithms are built upon support-vector machines (SVMs) and exploit the structure of the SVM to determine which data points to label. Such methods usually calculate the margin, W, of each u
Read more →