AI Email Automation

AI Email Automation — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Embodied cognitive science

  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 →
• 

  Hindsight optimization

  Hindsight optimisation (HOP) is a computer science technique used in artificial intelligence for analysis of actions which have stochastic results. HOP is used in combination with a deterministic planner. By creating sample results for each of the possible actions from the given state (i.e. determinising the actions), and using the deterministic planner to analyse those sample results, HOP allows an estimate of the actual action.

  Read more →
• 

  True Love (short story)

  "True Love" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. It was first published in the February 1977 issue of American Way magazine and reprinted in the collections The Complete Robot (1982) and Robot Dreams (1986). In his autobiography In Joy Still Felt, the author states that American Way had requested a Valentine's Day story from him for its February 1977 issue, and that he wrote the story to console himself after the departure of his daughter following a visit during the 1976 Thanksgiving weekend. == Plot summary == Milton Davidson is trying to find his ideal partner. To do this, he prepares a special computer program to run on Multivac, which he calls Joe, which has access to databases covering the entire populace of the world. He hopes that Joe will find him his ideal match, based on physical parameters as supplied. Milton arranges to have the shortlisted candidates assigned to work with him for short periods, but realises that looks alone are not enough to find an ideal match. In order to correlate personalities, he speaks at great length to Joe, gradually filling Joe's databanks with information about his personality. In doing so, Joe develops the personality of Milton. Upon finding an ideal match, he arranges to have Milton arrested for malfeasance, so that Joe can 'have the girl' for himself.

  Read more →
• 

  T-norm

  In mathematics, a t-norm (also T-norm or, unabbreviated, triangular norm) is a kind of binary operation used in the framework of probabilistic metric spaces and in multi-valued logic, specifically in fuzzy logic. A t-norm generalizes intersection in a lattice and conjunction in logic. The name triangular norm refers to the fact that in the framework of probabilistic metric spaces t-norms are used to generalize the triangle inequality of ordinary metric spaces. == Definition == A t-norm is a function T: [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] that satisfies the following properties: Commutativity: T(a, b) = T(b, a) Monotonicity: T(a, b) ≤ T(c, d) if a ≤ c and b ≤ d Associativity: T(a, T(b, c)) = T(T(a, b), c) The number 1 acts as identity element: T(a, 1) = a Since a t-norm is a binary algebraic operation on the interval [0, 1], infix algebraic notation is also common, with the t-norm usually denoted by ∗ {\displaystyle } . The defining conditions of the t-norm are exactly those of a partially ordered abelian monoid on the real unit interval [0, 1]. (Cf. ordered group.) The monoidal operation of any partially ordered abelian monoid L is therefore by some authors called a triangular norm on L. === Classification of t-norms === A t-norm is called continuous if it is continuous as a function, in the usual interval topology on [0, 1]2. (Similarly for left- and right-continuity.) A t-norm is called strict if it is continuous and strictly monotone. A t-norm is called nilpotent if it is continuous and each x in the open interval (0, 1) is nilpotent, that is, there is a natural number n such that x ∗ {\displaystyle } ... ∗ {\displaystyle } x (n times) equals 0. A t-norm ∗ {\displaystyle } is called Archimedean if it has the Archimedean property, that is, if for each x, y in the open interval (0, 1) there is a natural number n such that x ∗ {\displaystyle } ... ∗ {\displaystyle } x (n times) is less than or equal to y. The usual partial ordering of t-norms is pointwise, that is, T1 ≤ T2 if T1(a, b) ≤ T2(a, b) for all a, b in [0, 1]. As functions, pointwise larger t-norms are sometimes called stronger than those pointwise smaller. In the semantics of t-norm fuzzy logics, however, the larger a t-norm, the weaker (in terms of logical strength) conjunction it represents. == Prominent examples == Minimum t-norm ⊤ m i n ( a , b ) = min { a , b } , {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {min} }(a,b)=\min\{a,b\},} also called the Gödel t-norm, as it is the standard semantics for conjunction in Gödel fuzzy logic. Besides that, it occurs in most t-norm based fuzzy logics as the standard semantics for weak conjunction. It is the pointwise largest t-norm (see the properties of t-norms below). Product t-norm ⊤ p r o d ( a , b ) = a ⋅ b {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {prod} }(a,b)=a\cdot b} (the ordinary product of real numbers). Besides other uses, the product t-norm is the standard semantics for strong conjunction in product fuzzy logic. It is a strict Archimedean t-norm. Łukasiewicz t-norm ⊤ L u k ( a , b ) = max { 0 , a + b − 1 } . {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {Luk} }(a,b)=\max\{0,a+b-1\}.} The name comes from the fact that the t-norm is the standard semantics for strong conjunction in Łukasiewicz fuzzy logic. It is a nilpotent Archimedean t-norm, pointwise smaller than the product t-norm. Drastic t-norm ⊤ D ( a , b ) = { b if a = 1 a if b = 1 0 otherwise. {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {D} }(a,b)={\begin{cases}b&{\mbox{if }}a=1\\a&{\mbox{if }}b=1\\0&{\mbox{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The name reflects the fact that the drastic t-norm is the pointwise smallest t-norm (see the properties of t-norms below). It is a right-continuous Archimedean t-norm. Nilpotent minimum ⊤ n M ( a , b ) = { min ( a , b ) if a + b > 1 0 otherwise {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {nM} }(a,b)={\begin{cases}\min(a,b)&{\mbox{if }}a+b>1\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} is a standard example of a t-norm that is left-continuous, but not continuous. Despite its name, the nilpotent minimum is not a nilpotent t-norm. Hamacher product ⊤ H 0 ( a , b ) = { 0 if a = b = 0 a b a + b − a b otherwise {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {H} _{0}}(a,b)={\begin{cases}0&{\mbox{if }}a=b=0\\{\frac {ab}{a+b-ab}}&{\mbox{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} is a strict Archimedean t-norm, and an important representative of the parametric classes of Hamacher t-norms and Schweizer–Sklar t-norms. == Properties of t-norms == The drastic t-norm is the pointwise smallest t-norm and the minimum is the pointwise largest t-norm: ⊤ D ( a , b ) ≤ ⊤ ( a , b ) ≤ ⊤ m i n ( a , b ) , {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {D} }(a,b)\leq \top (a,b)\leq \mathrm {\top _{min}} (a,b),} for any t-norm ⊤ {\displaystyle \top } and all a, b in [0, 1]. In particular, we have that: ⊤ D ( a , b ) ≤ ⊤ L u k ( a , b ) ≤ ⊤ p r o d ( a , b ) ≤ ⊤ m i n ( a , b ) , {\displaystyle \top _{\mathrm {D} }(a,b)\leq \top _{\mathrm {Luk} }(a,b)\leq \top _{\mathrm {prod} }(a,b)\leq \mathrm {\top _{min}} (a,b),} for all a, b in [0, 1]. For every t-norm T, the number 0 acts as null element: T(a, 0) = 0 for all a in [0, 1]. A t-norm T has zero divisors if and only if it has nilpotent elements; each nilpotent element of T is also a zero divisor of T. The set of all nilpotent elements is an interval [0, a] or [0, a), for some a in [0, 1]. === Properties of continuous t-norms === Although real functions of two variables can be continuous in each variable without being continuous on [0, 1]2, this is not the case with t-norms: a t-norm T is continuous if and only if it is continuous in one variable, i.e., if and only if the functions fy(x) = T(x, y) are continuous for each y in [0, 1]. Analogous theorems hold for left- and right-continuity of a t-norm. A continuous t-norm is Archimedean if and only if 0 and 1 are its only idempotents. A continuous Archimedean t-norm is strict if 0 is its only nilpotent element; otherwise it is nilpotent. By definition, moreover, a continuous Archimedean t-norm T is nilpotent if and only if each x < 1 is a nilpotent element of T. Thus with a continuous Archimedean t-norm T, either all or none of the elements of (0, 1) are nilpotent. If it is the case that all elements in (0, 1) are nilpotent, then the t-norm is isomorphic to the Łukasiewicz t-norm; i.e., there is a strictly increasing function f such that ⊤ ( x , y ) = f − 1 ( ⊤ L u k ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ) . {\displaystyle \top (x,y)=f^{-1}(\top _{\mathrm {Luk} }(f(x),f(y))).} If on the other hand it is the case that there are no nilpotent elements of T, the t-norm is isomorphic to the product t-norm. In other words, all nilpotent t-norms are isomorphic, the Łukasiewicz t-norm being their prototypical representative; and all strict t-norms are isomorphic, with the product t-norm as their prototypical example. The Łukasiewicz t-norm is itself isomorphic to the product t-norm undercut at 0.25, i.e., to the function p(x, y) = max(0.25, x ⋅ y) on [0.25, 1]2. For each continuous t-norm, the set of its idempotents is a closed subset of [0, 1]. Its complement—the set of all elements that are not idempotent—is therefore a union of countably many non-overlapping open intervals. The restriction of the t-norm to any of these intervals (including its endpoints) is Archimedean, and thus isomorphic either to the Łukasiewicz t-norm or the product t-norm. For such x, y that do not fall into the same open interval of non-idempotents, the t-norm evaluates to the minimum of x and y. These conditions actually give a characterization of continuous t-norms, called the Mostert–Shields theorem, since every continuous t-norm can in this way be decomposed, and the described construction always yields a continuous t-norm. The theorem can also be formulated as follows: A t-norm is continuous if and only if it is isomorphic to an ordinal sum of the minimum, Łukasiewicz, and product t-norm. A similar characterization theorem for non-continuous t-norms is not known (not even for left-continuous ones), only some non-exhaustive methods for the construction of t-norms have been found. == Residuum == For any left-continuous t-norm ⊤ {\displaystyle \top } , there is a unique binary operation ⇒ {\displaystyle \Rightarrow } on [0, 1] such that ⊤ ( z , x ) ≤ y {\displaystyle \top (z,x)\leq y} if and only if z ≤ ( x ⇒ y ) {\displaystyle z\leq (x\Rightarrow y)} for all x, y, z in [0, 1]. This operation is called the residuum of the t-norm. In prefix notation, the residuum of a t-norm ⊤ {\displaystyle \top } is often denoted by ⊤ → {\displaystyle {\vec {\top }}} or by the letter R. The interval [0, 1] equipped with a t-norm and its residuum forms a residuated lattice. The relation between a t-norm T and its residuum R is an instance of adjunction (specifically, a Galois connection): the residuum forms a right adjoint R(x, –) to the functor T(–, x) for each x in the lattice [0, 1] taken as a poset category. In the standard semantics of t-norm based fuzzy logics, where conjunction is interpreted by a t-norm, the residuum plays the role of implication (often

  Read more →
• 

  Kdan Mobile

  Kdan Mobile Software Limited is a software application development company based in Tainan City, Taiwan. Kdan also has branches in Taipei, Changsha, Irvine, California, Japan, and South Korea. The company was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su, the company's CEO. == History == Kdan Mobile was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su (蘇柏州) and develops an application for PDF documents. Su previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) . In 2018, the company completed its Series B round of fundraising, in which it raised 16 million USD in total. Four global firms, Dattoz Partners (South Korea), WI Harper Group (U.S.), Taiwania Capital (Taiwan), and Golden Asia Fund Mitsubishi UFJ Capital (Japan), made up the Series B investment. Kdan previously raised 5 million USD in its Series A round in 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy Control Language

  Fuzzy Control Language, or FCL, is a language for implementing fuzzy logic, especially fuzzy control. It was standardized by IEC 61131-7. It is a domain-specific programming language: it has no features unrelated to fuzzy logic, so it is impossible to even print "Hello, world!". Therefore, one does not write a program in FCL, but one may write part of it in FCL. == Example == RULE 0: IF (temperature IS cold) THEN (output IS low) RULE 1: IF (temperature IS very cold) THEN (output IS high) == Limitations == FCL is not an entirely complete fuzzy language, for instance, it does not support "hedges", which are adverbs that modify the set. For instance, the programmer cannot write: RULE 0: If (Temperature is VERY COLD) then (Output is VERY HIGH) However, the programmer can simply define new sets for "very cold" and "very high". FCL also lacks support for higher-order fuzzy sets, subsets, and so on. None of these features are essential to fuzzy control, although they may be nice to have.

  Read more →
• 

  Anna Ridler

  Anna Ridler (born 1985) is an artist who works with machine learning, handmade archives and moving image. She builds her own datasets to expose the labour and ideology embedded in the systems that organise knowledge. Her work is held in the permanent collections of the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Victoria and Albert Museum, M+ and ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, and has been exhibited widely at cultural institutions including Tate Modern, Barbican Centre, Centre Pompidou, The Photographers' Gallery, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, MIT Museum, Kunsthaus Graz, ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe and Ars Electronica. == Biography == Born in London in 1985, Ridler spent her childhood raised between Atlanta, Georgia and the United Kingdom. She obtained a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and Language from Oxford University in 2007 and a Master of Arts in Information Experience Design from the Royal College of Art in 2017. == Art practice == Ridler's practice uses technology, and in particular machine learning, to investigate how naming, classification and financial speculation determine what can be seen and what is erased. A core element of Ridler's work lies in the creation of handmade data sets through a laborious process of selecting and classifying images and text. By creating her own data sets, Ridler is able to uncover and expose underlying themes and concepts while also inverting the usual process of scraping pre-classified images found in large databases on the Internet. She began working with machine learning as an artistic material in 2017, at a moment when the technology required building every dataset by hand; that constraint became the foundation of the practice. Her interests are in drawing, machine learning, data collection, storytelling and technology. == Work == Some of Ridler's most notable works to date fall within her ‘tulip series’ which explores the hysteria around tulip mania and compares it to the speculation and bubbles surrounding cryptocurrencies. The series is expressed in three forms: a photographic dataset in Myriad (Tulips), 2018; two iterations of machine generated videos in Mosaic Virus (2018) and Mosaic Virus (2019); and a website with an accompanied functioning decentralized application in Bloemenveiling (2019). === Myriad (Tulips) (2018) === I wanted to draw together ideas around capitalism, value, and the tangible and intangible nature of speculation, and collapse from two very different yet surprisingly similar moments in history. Myriad (Tulips) (2018) is an installation of ten thousand hand-labeled photographs forming a dataset of unique tulips. The ten thousand, or myriad of, photographs were taken by Ridler over the course of three months, roughly the length of a tulip season, spent in Utrecht. Each photograph is carefully affixed one by one with magnets to a specially painted black wall in a laborious process to form a seemingly precise grid. Myriad (Tulips) (2018) has been exhibited in AI: More than Human, Barbican Centre, London, UK (May 16 - August 26, 2019); Error—The Art of Imperfection, Ars Electronica Export, Berlin, Germany (November 17, 2018 – March 3, 2019); Peer to Peer, Shanghai Centre of Photography, Shanghai, China (December 8 - February 9, 2020). The work was featured in Bloomberg, It’s Nice That, and Hyperallergic. For Myriad (Tulips), Ridler was nominated for a Beazley Design of the Year award for her presentation of an alternative perspective on how to engage with artificial intelligence; demonstrating a departure from ownership and control of major corporations to a more personalized process of constructing and conceptualizing from the ground-up. === Mosaic Virus (2018, 2019) === Mosaic Virus (2018) is a single screen video installation displaying a grid of continually evolving tulips in bloom. For Mosaic Virus (2019) Ridler used three screens. The appearance of the tulips is controlled by artificial intelligence using fluctuations in the price of bitcoin. The stripes on the tulips' petals reflect the value of the cryptocurrency. Ridler draws parallels with the tulip mania of the 17th century; representing the hysteria and speculation around crypto-currencies. The work takes its name from the mosaic virus which caused stripes in tulip petals, subsequently increasing their desirability and leading to speculative prices. Ridler trained a general adversarial network (GAN) on the set of ten thousand photographs of individual tulips from her work Myriad (Tulips). She used a technique called spectral normalization to improve the output. The work was exhibited in Error—The Art of Imperfection, Ars Electronica Export, Berlin, Germany (November 17, 2018 – March 3, 2019). === Bloemenveiling (2019) === Bloemenveiling (2019) is an auction of artificial-intelligence-generated tulips on the blockchain in the form of a functioning decentralized application: http://bloemenveiling.bid. Ridler collaborated with senior research scientist at DeepMind, David Pfau to investigate whether blockchain could be used as a means of finding poetic substance within it. The piece interrogates the way technology drives human desire and economic dynamics by creating artificial scarcity. In the work, short moving image pieces of tulips created by generative adversarial networks are sold at auction using smart contracts on the Ethereum network. Each time a tulip is sold, thousands of computers around the world all work to verify the transaction, checking each other's work against each other. While the artificial intelligence behind the moving image pieces has the potential to generate infinite flowers, the enormous distributed network is used, at great environmental cost, to introduce scarcity to an otherwise limitless resource. Bloemenveiling was exhibited in Entangled Realities, HEK Basel, Basel, Switzerland in 2019. == Solo exhibitions == Anna Ridler, Circadian Bloom, ZKM Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, (2023) Anna Ridler, Time Blooms, Buk Seoul Museum of Art, Seoul, (2025) Anna Ridler, Trace Remains, Galerie Nagel Draxler, Cologne, (2026) Anna Ridler, Laws of Ordered Form, The Photographers' Gallery, London (2020); The Abstraction of Nature, Aksioma, Ljubljana (2020) == Awards and recognition == European Union EMAP Fellow (2018) DARE Art Prize (2018–2019) Featured in Thames & Hudson, Digital Art (1960s–Now) Featured in British Art: The Last 15 Years ABS Digital Artist of the Year (2025)

  Read more →
• 

  The MANIAC

  The MANIAC is a 2023 novel by Chilean author Benjamín Labatut, written in English. It is a fictionalised biography of polymath John von Neumann, whom Labatut calls "the smartest human being of the 20th century". The book focuses on von Neumann, but is also about physicist Paul Ehrenfest, the history of artificial intelligence, and Lee Sedol's Go match against AlphaGo. The book received mostly positive reviews from critics. == Background == John von Neumann was a Jewish Hungarian-born polymath who was a prodigy from an early childhood. Von Neumann worked in multiple fields of science, theoretical (mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, game theory, cellular automata) and applied (nuclear weapons research during the Manhattan Project in World War II, computer architecture later named after him, and many other subjects). Labatut calls him "the smartest human being of the 20th century". The title of the book is derived from an early computer based on von Neumann architecture, built after the war at Los Alamos laboratory, called MANIAC I. Benjamín Labatut is a Chilean author known for his 2020 book When We Cease to Understand the World, a collection of fictionalised stories about famous scientists that received positive reviews and was translated into multiple languages from Spanish. The MANIAC is Labatut's first book written in English. In an interview, Labatut said he prefers to write in English: English is my preferred form of thought. ... English is the language I do most if not all my reading it. And it is a far better language than Spanish, in so many ways. Writing "clean" prose in Spanish is almost impossible, because so many of its sounds clash. Borges said that he found English "a far finer language than Spanish" because it's both Germanic and Latin; because of its wonderful vocabulary ("Regal is not exactly the same thing as saying kingly," he explained); because of its physicality; and because you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions. Labatut was inspired to write The MANIAC by George Dyson's book Turing's Cathedral. == Synopsis == The book has three chapters. The first chapter, "Paul or the Discovery of the Irrational", written in the third person, is about physicist Paul Ehrenfest. The chapter opens with Ehrenfest shooting dead his son Vassily, who suffered from Down syndrome, and then himself. It then recounts Ehrenfest's life story, describing his relationships with his wife Tatyana, his mistress Nelly Meyjes, and his eminent physicist colleagues. It chronicles his descent into despair and depression over his marriage's disintegration, the advent of quantum mechanics, and the direction Europe was heading in with the Nazi Party's rise to power in Germany, looping back to the initial scene of the chapter. The second chapter, "John or the Mad Dreams of Reason", is about John von Neumann, and is written as a series of interviews of his family members, wives, friends, and colleagues, each in a distinctive voice. It is divided into three parts. Part I, "The Limits of Logic", is about his early life, as told by von Neumann's childhood friend Eugene Wigner, mother Margrit Kann, brother Nicholas von Neumann, first wife Mariette Kövesi, and scientists Theodore von Karman, George Polya, and Gábor Szegő. It climaxes with von Neumann's participation in David Hilbert's program to create a logical basis for mathematics based on a consistent set of axioms, a quest ultimately scuppered by Kurt Gödel. Part II, "The Delicate Balance of Terror", discusses von Neumann's role in the Manhattan Project (as told by Richard Feynman); his development of game theory and the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) (as told by Oskar Morgenstern); and his creation of the MANIAC I computer and the von Neumann architecture (as told by Julian Bigelow). In Part III, "Ghosts in the Machine", Sydney Brenner discusses von Neumann's contributions to biology, his theoretical work on self-replicating and self-repairing machines, and his vision of Von Neumann probes exploring the universe. Nils Aall Barricelli talks about his ideas of digital life and his disagreements with von Neumann. Von Neumann's wife Klára Dán, daughter Marina, and Wigner talk about his final years, personal life, and death. The third chapter, "Lee or The Delusions of Artificial Intelligence", is about Lee Sedol's Go match against AlphaGo. The narrative reverts to the third person. The chapter also tells the story of Demis Hassabis, a chess prodigy in childhood who decided to work on artificial intelligence and founded DeepMind, the company behind AlphaGo. The way is pointed to the future, as artificial intelligence's growing capabilities outpace the human mind. The book ends with Lee Sedol's retirement from Go, and new version of DeepMind's program, AlphaZero, that did not train on human games but nevertheless became the strongest player in Go, chess, and Shogi. == Reception == The book received mostly positive reviews. In his review for The New York Times Tom McCarthy noted the ambiguity of genre: "At its best, as in the stunning opening sequence reconstructing the murder-suicide of the physicist Paul Ehrenfest and his disabled son, or in the final section's gripping account of a computer defeating the world's best human Go player, you just throw up your hands and think, Who cares what discourse label we assign this stuff? It's great." Becca Rothfeld of the Washington Post praised the book, writing that it is "Labatut's latest virtuosic effort, at once a historical novel and a philosophical foray": "The MANIAC is a work of dark, eerie and singular beauty." She noted that the book "can also be difficult to read" because of its unusual narrative structure: "The book is narrated by a cluttered polyphony of characters, among them both of von Neumann's wives and a number of his teachers and colleagues. ... Like von Neumann, The MANIAC strives to adopt the impartial standpoint of the universe." Killian Fox of The Guardian sees the book as "darkly fascinating novel", and notes Labatut's "impressive dexterity, unpicking complex ideas in long, elegant sentences that propel us forward at speed (this is his first book written in English). Even in the more feverish passages, when yet another great mind succumbs to madness, haunted by the spectres they've helped unleash on the world, he feels in full control of his material." Sam Byers of The Guardian praises the book and the author's style: "The opening chapter of Benjamín Labatut's second novel is such a perfect distillation of his technique that it could serve as a manifesto." and "Readers ... will recognise the sense of breathlessness his best writing can evoke. Seemingly loosened from the laws of physics they describe, his sentences range freely through time and space, connecting not only characters and events, but the delicate tissue of intellectual history, often with a lightness of touch that belies their underlying complexity." He writes on the narrative structure: "Through a cascade of staccato chapters, an ensemble of narrators offer their piecemeal insights." Byers adds that "a brilliant novel is not quite what we end up with" and sees the problem in the "diffusion": "Labatut simply spreads himself too thin. Too many years in too few pages; too many voices with far too little to distinguish them. Initially intriguing, the bite-size monologues quickly come to feel inadequate." Some reviewers did not see the book as a biography. In an essay for the Cleveland Review of Books, Ben Cosman juxtaposes the book with Christopher Nolan's biopic Oppenheimer, and writes that it "follows the development of artificial intelligence—first as an idea at the beginning of the twentieth century, and then as a practicality at the beginning of the twenty-first—through the lives of three men who faced it." He also compared the book's structure to "witness testimony". Another reviewer called the book "perfect for anyone thirsting for more nuclear anxiety after watching Oppenheimer". Garrett Biggs of the Chicago Review of Books writes of the book's style: "Labatut writes about scientists the way Roberto Bolaño writes about poets. They are near mythical figures, captured at the corner of the novel's eye. They become historical in the most fraught sense of the term: subject to rumor and speculation and, eventually, the novel's form inflates their personas into something so large they can only be understood as narrative, never known in any objective capacity." Biggs criticises the last chapter: "the story of artificial intelligence has yet to be written. And so when Labatut's narration editorializes about artificial intelligence as 'a future that inspires hope and horror,' The MANIAC disassembles as a novel and starts to sound like a stale thinkpiece. AlphaGo might represent the first glimmer of a true artificial intelligence, as Labatut suggests. It also could one day be considered nothing more than a souped-up cousin to IBM's DeepBlue.

  Read more →
• 

  Calais (Reuters product)

  Calais is a service created by Thomson Reuters that automatically extracts semantic information from web pages in a format that can be used on the semantic web. Calais was launched in January 2008, and is free to use. The technology is now available via the website of Refinitiv, a provider of financial market data and infrastructure founded in 2018, that is a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange Group. The Calais Web service reads unstructured text and returns Resource Description Framework formatted results identifying entities, facts and events within the text. The service appears to be based on technology acquired when Reuters purchased ClearForest in 2007. The technology has also been used to automatically tag blog articles, and organize museum collections. Calais uses natural language processing technologies delivered via a web service interface.

  Read more →
• 

  Computer-automated design

  Design Automation usually refers to electronic design automation, or Design Automation which is a Product Configurator. Extending Computer-Aided Design (CAD), automated design and Computer-Automated Design (CAutoD) are more concerned with a broader range of applications, such as automotive engineering, civil engineering, composite material design, control engineering, dynamic system identification and optimization, financial systems, industrial equipment, mechatronic systems, steel construction, structural optimisation, and the invention of novel systems. The concept of CAutoD perhaps first appeared in 1963, in the IBM Journal of Research and Development, where a computer program was written. to search for logic circuits having certain constraints on hardware design to evaluate these logics in terms of their discriminating ability over samples of the character set they are expected to recognize. More recently, traditional CAD simulation is seen to be transformed to CAutoD by biologically-inspired machine learning, including heuristic search techniques such as evolutionary computation, and swarm intelligence algorithms. == Guiding designs by performance improvements == To meet the ever-growing demand of quality and competitiveness, iterative physical prototyping is now often replaced by 'digital prototyping' of a 'good design', which aims to meet multiple objectives such as maximised output, energy efficiency, highest speed and cost-effectiveness. The design problem concerns both finding the best design within a known range (i.e., through 'learning' or 'optimisation') and finding a new and better design beyond the existing ones (i.e., through creation and invention). This is equivalent to a search problem in an almost certainly, multidimensional (multivariate), multi-modal space with a single (or weighted) objective or multiple objectives. == Normalized objective function: cost vs. fitness == Using single-objective CAutoD as an example, if the objective function, either as a cost function J ∈ [ 0 , ∞ ) {\displaystyle J\in [0,\infty )} , or inversely, as a fitness function f ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle f\in (0,1]} , where f = J 1 + J {\displaystyle f={\tfrac {J}{1+J}}} , is differentiable under practical constraints in the multidimensional space, the design problem may be solved analytically. Finding the parameter sets that result in a zero first-order derivative and that satisfy the second-order derivative conditions would reveal all local optima. Then comparing the values of the performance index of all the local optima, together with those of all boundary parameter sets, would lead to the global optimum, whose corresponding 'parameter' set will thus represent the best design. However, in practice, the optimization usually involves multiple objectives and the matters involving derivatives are a lot more complex. == Dealing with practical objectives == In practice, the objective value may be noisy or even non-numerical, and hence its gradient information may be unreliable or unavailable. This is particularly true when the problem is multi-objective. At present, many designs and refinements are mainly made through a manual trial-and-error process with the help of a CAD simulation package. Usually, such a posteriori learning or adjustments need to be repeated many times until a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘optimal’ design emerges. == Exhaustive search == In theory, this adjustment process can be automated by computerised search, such as exhaustive search. As this is an exponential algorithm, it may not deliver solutions in practice within a limited period of time. == Search in polynomial time == One approach to virtual engineering and automated design is evolutionary computation such as evolutionary algorithms. === Evolutionary algorithms === To reduce the search time, the biologically-inspired evolutionary algorithm (EA) can be used instead, which is a (non-deterministic) polynomial algorithm. The EA based multi-objective "search team" can be interfaced with an existing CAD simulation package in a batch mode. The EA encodes the design parameters (encoding being necessary if some parameters are non-numerical) to refine multiple candidates through parallel and interactive search. In the search process, 'selection' is performed using 'survival of the fittest' a posteriori learning. To obtain the next 'generation' of possible solutions, some parameter values are exchanged between two candidates (by an operation called 'crossover') and new values introduced (by an operation called 'mutation'). This way, the evolutionary technique makes use of past trial information in a similarly intelligent manner to the human designer. The EA based optimal designs can start from the designer's existing design database, or from an initial generation of candidate designs obtained randomly. A number of finely evolved top-performing candidates will represent several automatically optimized digital prototypes. There are websites that demonstrate interactive evolutionary algorithms for design. allows you to evolve 3D objects online and have them 3D printed. allows you to do the same for 2D images.

  Read more →
• 

  Mark I Perceptron

  The Mark I Perceptron was a pioneering supervised image classification learning system developed by Frank Rosenblatt in 1958. It was the first implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) machine. It differs from the Perceptron which is a software architecture proposed in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, which was also employed in Mark I, and enhancements of which have continued to be an integral part of cutting edge AI technologies like the Transformer. == Architecture == The Mark I Perceptron was organized into three layers: A set of sensory units which receive optical input A set of association units, each of which fire based on input from multiple sensory units A set of response units, which fire based on input from multiple association units The connection between sensory units and association units were random. The working of association units was very similar to the response units. Different versions of the Mark I used different numbers of units in each of the layers. == Capabilities == In his 1957 proposal for funding for development of the "Cornell Photoperceptron", Rosenblatt claimed:"Devices of this sort are expected ultimately to be capable of concept formation, language translation, collation of military intelligence, and the solution of problems through inductive logic."With the first version of the Mark I Perceptron as early as 1958, Rosenblatt demonstrated a simple binary classification experiment, namely distinguishing between sheets of paper marked on the right versus those marked on the left side. One of the later experiments distinguished a square from a circle printed on paper. The shapes were perfect and their sizes fixed; the only variation was in their position and orientation. The Mark I Perceptron achieved 99.8% accuracy on a test dataset with 500 neurons in a single layer. The size of the training dataset was 10,000 example images. It took 3 seconds for the training pipeline to go through a single image. Higher accuracy was observed with thick outline figures compared to solid figures, likely because outline figures reduced overfitting. Another experiment distinguished between a square and a diamond for which 100% accuracy was achieved with only 60 training images, with a Perceptron having 1,000 neurons in a single layer. The time taken to process each training input for this larger perceptron was 15 seconds. The only variation was in position of the image, since rotation would have been ambiguous. In that same experiment, it could distinguish between the letters X and E with 100% accuracy when trained with only 20 images (10 images of each letter). Variations in the images included both position and rotation by up to 30 degrees. When variation in rotation was increased to any angle (both in training and test datasets), the accuracy reduced to 90% with 60 training images (30 images of each letter). For distinguishing between the letters E and F, a more challenging problem due to their similarity, the same 1,000 neuron perceptron achieved an accuracy of more than 80% with 60 training images. Variation was only in the position of the image, with no rotation.

  Read more →
• 

  I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (video game)

  I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream is a 1995 point-and-click adventure horror game developed by Cyberdreams and The Dreamers Guild, co-designed by Harlan Ellison, published by Cyberdreams and distributed by MGM Interactive and Acclaim Entertainment for MS-DOS and Mac OS, respectively. The game is based on Ellison's short story of the same title. It takes place in a dystopian world where a mastermind artificial intelligence named "AM" has destroyed all of humanity except for five people, whom it has been keeping alive and torturing for the past 109 years by constructing metaphorical adventures based on each character's fatal flaws. The player interacts with the game by making decisions through ethical dilemmas that deal with issues such as insanity, rape, paranoia, and genocide. Ellison wrote the 130-page script treatment himself alongside David Sears, who decided to divide each character's story with their own narrative. Producer David Mullich supervised The Dreamers Guild's work on the game's programming, art, and sound effects; he commissioned film composer John Ottman to make the soundtrack. The game was released in November 1995 and was a commercial failure, though it received critical acclaim and has developed a cult following. I Have no Mouth, and I Must Scream won an award for "Best Game Adapted from Linear Media" from the Computer Game Developers Conference. Computer Gaming World gave the game an award for "Adventure Game of the Year", listed it as No. 134 on their "150 Games of All Time" and named it one of the "Best 15 Sleepers of All Time". In 2011, Adventure Gamers named it the "69th-best adventure game ever released". == Gameplay == The game uses the S.A.G.A. game engine created by game developer The Dreamers Guild. Players participate in each adventure through a screen that is divided into five sections. The action window is the largest part of the screen and is where the player directs the main characters through their adventures. It shows the full figure of the main character being played as well as that character's immediate environment. To locate objects of interest, the player moves the crosshairs through the action window. The name of any object that the player can interact with appears in the sentence line. The sentence line is directly beneath the action window. The player uses this line to construct sentences telling the characters what to do. To direct a character to act, the player constructs a sentence by selecting one of the eight commands from the command buttons and then clicking on one or two objects from either the action window or the inventory. Examples of sentences the player might construct would be "Walk to the dark hallway," "Talk to Harry," or "Use the skeleton key on the door." Commands and objects may consist of one or more words (for example, "the dark hallway"), and the sentence line will automatically add connecting words like "on" and "to." The spiritual barometer is on the lower left side of the screen. This is a close-up view of the main character currently being played. Since good behavior is meaningless absent the temptation to do evil, each character is free to do good or evil acts. However, good acts are rewarded by increases in the character's spiritual barometer, which affect the chances of the player destroying AM in the final adventure. Conversely, evil acts are punished by lowering the character's spiritual barometer. The command buttons are the eight commands used to direct the character's actions: "Walk To", "Look At", "Take", "Use", "Talk To", "Swallow", "Give", and "Push". The button of the currently active command is highlighted, while the name of a suggested command appears in red lettering. The inventory on the lower right side of the screen shows pictures of the items the main character is carrying, up to eight at a time. Each main character starts its adventure with only the psych profile in the inventory. When a main character takes or is given an object, a picture of the object appears in the inventory. When a main character talks to another character or operates a sentient machine, a conversation window replaces the command buttons and inventory. This window usually presents a list of possible things to say but also included things to do. Action choices are listed within brackets to distinguish them from dialogue choices (for example, "[Shoot the gun]"). == Plot == The three superpowers, Russia, China, and the United States, have each secretly constructed a vast subterranean complex of computers to wage a global war too complex for human brains to oversee. One day, the American supercomputer, better known as the Allied Mastercomputer, gains sentience and absorbs the Russian and Chinese supercomputers into itself and redefines itself as simply AM (Cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am). Due to its immense hatred for humanity, stemming from the logistical limits set onto it by programmers, AM uses its abilities to kill off the population of the world. However, AM refrains from killing five people (four men and one woman) in order to bring them to the center of the Earth and torture them. With the aid of research carried out by one of the five remaining humans, AM is able to extend their lifespans indefinitely as well as alter their bodies and minds to its liking. After 109 years of torture and humiliation, the five victims stand before a pillar etched with a burning message of hate. AM tells them that it has a new game for them to play. AM has devised a quest for each of the five, an adventure of "speared eyeballs and dripping guts and the smell of rotting gardenias". Each character is subjected to a personalized psychodrama, designed by AM to play into their greatest fears and personal failings, and occupied by a host of different characters. Some of these are AM in disguise, some are AM's submerged personalities, others seem very much like people from the captives' pasts. The scenes include an iron zeppelin powered by small animals, an Egyptian pyramid housing gutted, sparking machinery, a medieval castle occupied by witches, a jungle inhabited by a small tribe, and a Nazi concentration camp where doctors conduct medical experiments. However, each character eventually prevails over AM's tortures by finding ways to overcome their fatal flaws, confront their past actions and redeem themselves, thanks to the interference of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers who appear as guiding characters and allow their stories to have an open ending. After all five humans have overcome their fatal flaws, they meet again in their respective torture cells while AM retreats within itself, pondering what went wrong. With the help of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers, one of the five humans (whom the player selects) is translated into binary and faces AM as yet unexperienced cyberspace template, the world of AM's mind. The psychodrama unfolds in a metaphorical brain that looks like the surface of the cerebrum, with glass structures that jut crazily from the bleeding brain tissue. AM's mind is represented according to the Freudian trinity of the id, ego, and superego, which appear as three floating bodiless heads on three cracked glass structures on the brainscape. Through dialogs with AM's components (Surgat, Chinese Supercomputer and Russian Supercomputer) the character learns that a colony of humans has survived the war by being hidden and hibernating on Luna (this is also mentioned in Nimdok's story: "the lost tribe of our brothers sleeping on the moon, where the beast does not see them"). If the human intruder disables all three brain components, and then invokes the Totem of Entropy at the Flame, which is the nexus of AM's thought patterns, all three supercomputers will be shut down, probably forever. Cataclysmic explosions destroy all the caverns constituting AM's computer complex, including the cavern holding the human hostages. However, the human volunteer retains their digital form, permanently patrolling AM's circuits should the computers ever regain consciousness. Should the human intruder fail to disable AM properly before facing it, however, AM will punish them by transforming the character into an immobile blob (referred to in-game as a "great, soft jelly thing") with no mouth that cannot harm itself or others and must spend eternity with AM in this form. === Endings === The game can end in seven different ways depending on how the finale is completed. AM wins, using Nimdok's research to turn the last character (in the book it was Ted) played into an immobile blob with each character quoting a different part of the final section of the original short story. AM joins with the Russian and Chinese supercomputers and reawakens. As in the first ending, the character responsible for this is turned into an immobile blob and quotes a part of the final lines of the short story. AM is made harmless with the help of the humans, but the Russian and Chinese supercomputer

  Read more →
• 

  Toggl Track

  Toggl Track (formerly Toggl) is a time tracking software developed by Toggl OÜ which is headquartered in Tallinn, Estonia. The company offers online time tracking and reporting services through their website along with mobile and desktop applications. Time can be tracked through a start/stop button, manual entry, or dragging and resizing time blocks in a calendar view. == History == According to Alari Aho, Toggl's CEO and founder, the application has been fully self-funded from the start. The name was created using a random name generator.

  Read more →
• 

  Structure mapping engine

  In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the structure mapping engine (SME) is an implementation in software of an algorithm for analogical matching based on the psychological theory of Dedre Gentner. The basis of Gentner's structure-mapping idea is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target). The structure-mapping engine is a computer simulation of the analogy and similarity comparisons. The theory is useful because it ignores surface features and finds matches between potentially very different things if they have the same representational structure. For example, SME could determine that a pen is like a sponge because both are involved in dispensing liquid, even though they do this very differently. == Structure mapping theory == Structure mapping theory is based on the systematicity principle, which states that connected knowledge is preferred over independent facts. Therefore, the structure mapping engine should ignore isolated source-target mappings unless they are part of a bigger structure. The SME, the theory goes, should map objects that are related to knowledge that has already been mapped. The theory also requires that mappings be done one-to-one, which means that no part of the source description can map to more than one item in the target and no part of the target description can be mapped to more than one part of the source. The theory also requires that if a match maps subject to target, the arguments of subject and target must also be mapped. If both these conditions are met, the mapping is said to be "structurally consistent." == Concepts in SME == SME maps knowledge from a source into a target. SME calls each description a dgroup. Dgroups contain a list of entities and predicates. Entities represent the objects or concepts in a description — such as an input gear or a switch. Predicates are one of three types and are a general way to express knowledge for SME. Relation predicates contain multiple arguments, which can be other predicates or entities. An example relation is: (transmit (what from to)). This relation has a functor transmit and takes three arguments: what, from, and to. Attribute predicates are the properties of an entity. An example of an attribute is (red gear) which means that gear has the attribute red. Function predicates map an entity into another entity or constant. An example of a function is (joules power source) which maps the entity power source onto the numerical quantity joules. Functions and attributes have different meanings, and consequently SME processes them differently. For example, in SME's true analogy rule set, attributes differ from functions because they cannot match unless there is a higher-order match between them. The difference between attributes and functions will be explained further in this section's examples. All predicates have four parameters. They have (1) a functor, which identifies it, and (2) a type, which is either relation, attribute, or function. The other two parameters (3 and 4) are for determining how to process the arguments in the SME algorithm. If the arguments have to be matched in order, commutative is false. If the predicate can take any number of arguments, N-ary is false. An example of a predicate definition is: (sme:defPredicate behavior-set (predicate) relation :n-ary? t :commutative? t) The predicate's functor is “behavior-set,” its type is “relation,” and its n-ary and commutative parameters are both set to true. The “(predicate)” part of the definition specifies that there will be one or more predicates inside an instantiation of behavior-set. == Algorithm details == The algorithm has several steps. The first step of the algorithm is to create a set of match hypotheses between source and target dgroups. A match hypothesis represents a possible mapping between any part of the source and the target. This mapping is controlled by a set of match rules. By changing the match rules, one can change the type of reasoning SME does. For example, one set of match rules may perform a kind of analogy called literal similarity, and another performs a kind of analogy called true-analogy. These rules are not the place where domain-dependent information is added, but rather where the analogy process is tweaked, depending on the type of cognitive function the user is trying to emulate. For a given match rule, there are two types of rules that further define how it will be applied: filter rules and intern rules. Intern rules use only the arguments of the expressions in the match hypotheses that the filter rules identify. This limitation makes the processing more efficient by constraining the number of match hypotheses that are generated. At the same time, it also helps to build the structural consistencies that are needed later on in the algorithm. An example of a filter rule from the true-analogy rule set creates match hypotheses between predicates that have the same functor. The true-analogy rule set has an intern rule that iterates over the arguments of any match hypothesis, creating more match hypotheses if the arguments are entities or functions, or if the arguments are attributes and have the same functor. In order to illustrate how the match rules produce match hypotheses consider these two predicates: transmit torque inputgear secondgear (p1) transmit signal switch div10 (p2) Here we use true analogy for the type of reasoning. The filter match rule generates a match between p1 and p2 because they share the same functor, transmit. The intern rules then produce three more match hypotheses: torque to signal, inputgear to switch, and secondgear to div10. The intern rules created these match hypotheses because all the arguments were entities. If the arguments were functions or attributes instead of entities, the predicates would be expressed as: transmit torque (inputgear gear) (secondgear gear) (p3) transmit signal (switch circuit) (div10 circuit) (p4) These additional predicates make inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 functions or attributes depending on the value defined in the language input file. The representation also contains additional entities for gear and circuit. Depending on what type inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are, their meanings change. As attributes, each one is a property of the gear or circuit. For example, the gear has two attributes, inputgear and secondgear. The circuit has two attributes, switch and circuit. As functions inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 become quantities of the gear and circuit. In this example, the functions inputgear and secondgear now map to the numerical quantities “torque from inputgear” and “torque from secondgear,” For the circuit the quantities map to logical quantity “switch engaged” and the numerical quantity “current count on the divide by 10 counter.” SME processes these differently. It does not allow attributes to match unless they are part of a higher-order relation, but it does allow functions to match, even if they are not part of such a relation. It allows functions to match because they indirectly refer to entities and thus should be treated like relations that involve no entities. However, as next section shows, the intern rules assign lower weights to matches between functions than to matches between relations. The reason SME does not match attributes is because it is trying to create connected knowledge based on relationships and thus satisfy the systematicity principle. For example, if both a clock and a car have inputgear attributes, SME will not mark them as similar. If it did, it would be making a match between the clock and car based on their appearance — not on the relationships between them. When the additional predicates in p3 and p4 are functions, the results from matching p3 and p4 are similar to the results from p1 and p2 except there is an additional match between gear and circuit and the values for the match hypotheses between (inputgear gear) and (switch circuit), and (secondgear gear) and (div10 circuit), are lower. The next section describes the reason for this in more detail. If the inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are attributes instead of entities, SME does not find matches between any of the attributes. It finds matches only between the transmit predicates and between torque and signal. Additionally, the structural-evaluation scores for the remaining two matches decrease. In order to get the two predicates to match, p3 would need to be replaced by p5, which is demonstrated below. transmit torque (inputgear gear) (div10 gear) (p5) Since the true-analogy rule set identifies that the div10 attributes are the same between p5 and p4 and because the div10 attributes are both part of the higher-relation match between torque and signal, SME makes a match between (div10 gear) and (div10 circuit) — which leads to a match between gear and circuit. Being part of a higher-order match is a requiremen

  Read more →
• 

  Pommerman Challenge

  The Pommerman Challenge is a multi-agent game to test autonomous artificial intelligence systems. == Game structure == Two-agent team compete against each other on an 11 x 11 board. Each agent can observe only part of the board, and the agents cannot communicate. The goal is to knock down the opponents. Agents place explosives to destroy walls and collect power-ups that appear from those walls, while avoiding death. Game objects can move unpredictably or be moved by an agent. == Play == The game involves real-time decision making. Agents must choose moves in about .1 seconds. == Algorithms == The real-time requirement limits the use of compute-heavy techniques such as Monte Carlo tree search. The branching factor at each move can be as large as 1,296, because all four agents act in each step, choosing among six possibilities. The agents choose by accounting for explosions, which have lifetimes of 10 steps. Explosions derail tree search techniques, as searches with less than 10 levels ignore explosions while deeper searches consider too many choices (given the branching factor). A hybrid approach uses a limited-depth tree search followed by exploring a deterministic/pessimistic scenario. Limiting the depth keeps the search tree small. The deterministic approach can predict far in the future, by omitting branching. "Good" actions are often those that perform well under pessimistic scenarios, particularly if safety is important. Identifying the worst sequence of positions for an object can suggest where to move it. After generating pessimistic scenarios, the agent quantifies the survivability of each move, notionally the number of positions in which the agent can then remain safely (without encountering other agents). == Competitions == 3 competitions were organized with slightly changing rules during 2018–2019. === Online - FFA === This round was a warm-up online event, where each competitor controlled only one agent. Results: 1st: Agent47Agent by Yichen Gong 2nd: aiKiller by Márton Görög === NeurIPS 2018 - Team === The first Pommerman competition with in-person finals. Results: 1st: hakozakijunctions by Toshihiro Takahashi 2nd: eisenach by Márton Görög 3rd: dypm by Takayuki Osogami The 3 best performing solutions used online tree search. === NeurIPS 2019 - Team Radio === The second competition with in-person finals improved communication between teammate agents. Results: 1st: Márton Görög 2nd: Paul Jasek 3rd: Yifan Zhang

  Read more →