AI Essay Writer Undetectable Free

AI Essay Writer Undetectable Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Nolot

Nolot is a chess test suite with 11 positions from real games. They were compiled by Pierre Nolot (French: [nɔ.lo]) for the French chess magazine Gambisco and posted on the rec.games.chess Usenet group in 1994. They were designed to be particularly hard to solve for chess engines to solve at the time, although modern engines can find a solution near-instantaneously. == Problem 1 == FEN: r3qb1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N1N1/6RP/1B3PP1/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 1 26.Nxh6!! c3 (26... Rxh6 27.Nxd6 Qh5 (best) 28.Rg5! Qxd1 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Nxh6+ Kh8 31.Rxd1 c3 32.Nf7+ Kg8 33.Bg6! Nf4 34.Bxc3 Nxg6 35.Bxb4 Kxf7 36.Rd7+ Kf6 37.Rxg6+ Kxg6 38.Rxb7 ±) 27.Nf5! cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 (28... g6!? 29.Kh2! 29.Qd7 30.Nh4 Bc6 31.Nc5! dxc 32.Rxe6 Nf6 33.Nxg6+ Kg7 34.Qg5 Nbd5 35.Ne5 Kh8 36.Nxd7 ±) 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2! Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6 (missing a mate in 6: 34.Nf7+ Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Nf6 37.Rxf8 Qxf8 38.Qxf8+ Ng8 39.Qg7#) 34...Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7 38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1–0 The best Novag computer, the Diablo 68000, finds 26. Nxh6 after seven and a half months (Pierre Nolot has let it run on the position for 14 months and one day, until a power failure stopped an analysis of over 80,000,000,000 nodes.) but for wrong reasons: it evaluates white's position as inferior and thinks this move would enable it to draw. Today Gambit Tiger 2.0 for example can find it quite quickly: Most free engines running on 64-bit processors in 2010 could solve this problem and the others in a few seconds. 1.Qd4 c3 2.Bxc3 Nxc3 3.Qxb4 Nxe4 4.Qxb7 Rb8 5.Qxb8 Qxb8 6.Bxe4 d5 7.Rb1 μ (-1.20) Depth: 12 00:00:09 6055 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rb8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Qxg6 Qxg6 6.Rxg6 Bxg7 7.Nxd6 ³ (-0.48) Depth: 12 00:00:21 14368 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rc8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Nxe8 Rxg4 6.Rxg4 Rxe8 7.Rg6 μ (-0.74) Depth: 13 00:00:55 38455 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 2.Bxe4 Qxe4 3.Nxd5 Qxd5 4.Qc1 Qf5 5.Qxh6+ Qh7 6.Qe6 Nd3 7.Re2 Nxb2 8.Rxb2 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 13 00:01:30 62979 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 14 00:02:02 84941 kN 1.Ne3 Nxe3 2.Rexe3 Bxe4 3.Qg4 Rg6 4.Qxe4 Qxe4 5.Bxe4 Rxg3 6.Rxg3 d5 7.Bf5 Re8 8.Bc3 ³ (-0.30) Depth: 15 00:03:05 128968 kN 1.Nxh6 ² (0.32) Depth: 15 00:07:58 350813 kN With the next ply showing a clear advantage. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Nxh6!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 19/32 00:01 7708k 4882k +3,00 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Bxc3 Nxc3 Rd7+ Kh8 Rxb7 Ne4 Re3 Nxf2 Kxf2 Bc5 Ke2 Bxe3 Kxe3 Nd5+ Kf2 49/73 15:02 5118270k 5673k +6,15 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Ne7 Rxc6 Nxc6 Rb6 Rc8 Ng5 a5 Ra6 Bb4 Be3 Ne5 Bd4 Nc6 Bb6 Bd2 h4 Kf8 Bc5+ Kg8 Be3 Bxe3 fxe3 Kf8 Kf2 Ke7 Nf3 Kd7 Rb6 Ne7 Rb5 Kd6 Rxa5 Rc2+ Kg3 Re2 Nd4 Rxe3+ Kf4 Rd3 Nf5+ Kc7 Nxe7 == Problem 2 == FEN: r4rk1/pp1n1p1p/1nqP2p1/2b1P1B1/4NQ2/1B3P2/PP2K2P/2R5 w - - 0 1 22.Rxc5!! Nxc5 23.Nf6+ Kh8 24.Qh4 Qb5+ (computers think there is perpetual check here, but...) 25.Ke3! 25... h5 26.Nxh5 Qxb3+ (26... d5+ 27.Bxd5 Qd3 28.Kf2 Ne4+ 29.Bxe4 Qd4+ 30.Kg2 Qxb2+ 31.Kh3 ±) and White won in 41 moves. Today Deep Junior 8.ZX for example finds it very quickly (around 1 minute): 1.Kd1 Rac8 2.Bh6 Qb5 3.Rc3 Qf1+ 4.Kc2 Rc6 5.Bxf8 −+ (-2.11) Depth: 12 00:00:04 10422 kN 1.Nxc5 Nxc5 2.Rxc5 Qxc5 3.e6 Rae8 4.e7 Nc8 5.Kf1 Nxd6 6.Bf6 b5 −+ (-2.10) Depth: 12 00:00:14 25054 kN 1.Bf6! μ (-1.35) Depth: 12 00:00:17 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Bb4+ 3.Kf2 Bc5+ = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:20 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Nxf6 3.Nxf6+ Kg7 4.Nh5+ gxh5 5.Qf6+ Kg8 6.Qg5+ Kh8 7.Qf6+ = (0.00) Depth: 15 00:01:01 130544 kN 1.Rxc5! = (0.15) Depth: 15 00:01:12 145875 kN 1.Rxc5 Nxc5 2.Nf6+ Kh8 3.Qh4 Qb5+ 4.Ke3 h5 5.Nxh5 Qd3+ 6.Kf2 Ne4+ 7.fxe4 Qd4+ 8.Kf1 Qd3+ 9.Ke1 Qb1+ 10.Bd1 ± (2.18) Depth: 15 00:01:18 145875 kN Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Rxc5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/25 00:01 5822k 5545k +6,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bh6 Nbd7 Bxf8 Rxf8 Qe3 Rc8 f4 Nxe5 Qxe5 Ne6 Bxe6 Rc2+ Kd3 Rxh2 46/86 11:27 5057055k 7355k +7,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bf6 Ne6 Qh6 Nd4+ Kf2 Nf5 Qg5 Nd7 h4 Nxf6 Qxf6 Ng7 d7 b5 Bd5 Rab8 b4 Nh5 Bxf7+ Rxf7 d8R+ Rxd8 Qxd8+ Rf8 Qd5+ Kg7 e6 Kf6 Qd7 Ng7 Qd4+ Kxe6 Qxg7 Rf7 Qc3 Ke7 Qc5+ Ke8 Qc8+ Ke7 h5 gxh5 Kg3 h4+ Kh2 h6 Qc5+ Kf6 Qxb5 Kg7 f4 Rxf4 Qe5+ Rf6 b5 h3 Qd4 Kg8 Qxf6 h5 Blacks 22. .. Nxc5 is suboptimal and leads faster mate 77/44 09:18 6987714k 12518k +M22 Nf6+ Kh8 Qh4 Qb5+ Ke3 Qxb3+ axb3 h5 Nxh5 Nd5+ Kd4 Ne6+ Kxd5 Nxg5 Qxg5 gxh5 f4 Rad8 f5 f6 Qxh5+ Kg7 Qg6+ Kh8 e6 b6 e7 Rb8 exf8Q+ Rxf8 Ke6 b5 Ke7 Rb8 Qh5+ Kg7 Qf7+ Kh8 Kxf6 Rf8 Qxf8+ Kh7 Qg7+ == Problem 3 == FEN: r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/2n1p3/3pP1n1/3P2b1/2PB1NN1/PP4PP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1 12.Nxg5!! Bxd1 13.Nxe6 Qb8 14.Nxg7+!! Kf8 15.Bh6! Bg4 16.0-0+ Kg8 17.Rf4 ± White wins with a queen sac but black has defensive resources. Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 55 seconds. Stockfish 14 dev (Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2) 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 1 second. NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/34 00:01 8291k 4530k +2,78 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 N3f5 Bf8 Rf1 Kc8 Nh5 Kb7 Bxb5 Ne7 g4 a6 Ba4 Nxf5 gxf5 Ka7 Nf4 c5 47/59 37:49 10390430k 4578k +3,16 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 Rf1 Kc8 N3f5 Bf8 Ne6 Kd7 Nf4 Ne7 g4 a5 Ke2 Qb7 h4 Ra6 a3 Kc8 Be3 Kb8 Kf3 Rb6 Bd2 Qc8 Kg3 c5 Be3 c4 Nxe7 Bxe7 Bf5 Qd8 h5 Qg8 Kh3 Bg5 Rf3 Ra6 Raf1 b4 Nxd5 Qxd5 Bxg5 bxc3 bxc3 Rb6 Be3 Rb3 Blacks 14 .. Kf8 is suboptimal and leads loss fast 41/68 06:31 3269727k 8350k +9,28 Bh6 Kg8 Rxd1 Bf8 N3h5 Bxg7 Nxg7 Qf8 Nf5 Ne7 Bxf8 Nxf5 Bxf5 Rxf8 Be6+ Kg7 Rd3 Rf4 Bxd5 c6 Rg3+ Kf8 Rf3 Rxf3 Bxf3 Kg7 Rf1 Re8 Be4 Re6 Ke2 a5 Ke3 Rh6 h3 a4 Kf4 Re6 h4 Re8 Ke3 h6 h5 Rf8 Rxf8 Kxf8 == Problem 4 == FEN: r1b1kb1r/1p1n1ppp/p2ppn2/6BB/2qNP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1 10.Nxe6!! Qxe6 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Bg4 Qe5 13.f4 Qxe4 (13...Qxb2 stronger but not sufficient: 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nxf6 Bb5 17.Qd4 Qc5 18.Rfd1 ±) 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Bxf6+ Kc7 17.Bxh8 and Black resigned on move 27. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of 10.Nxe6 in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 22/37 00:01 6955k 5367k +4,00 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Bb5 Rf3 Qxa2 c4 Bxc4 Rf2 Qa5 Nd5+ f6 Nxf6 Kc7 Rc1 b5 Qd5 gxf6 Bxf6 Kb8 Rxc4 Qe1+ Rf1 51/70 47:10 14538911k 5137k +5,76 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxe4 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Qf5 Qd4 Kc8 Nd5 Bc6 c4 f6 Nb6+ Kb8 Bh4 Be7 Rae1 Bd8 Nxa8 Kxa8 Bf2 Kb8 Qxd6+ Bc7 Ba7+ Kc8 Qe6+ Qxe6 Rxe6 h5 h4 Rd8 Re7 g6 Be3 Ba5 Kf2 Rd6 Rc1 Bd8 Rg7 Be4 Rg8 Kd7 c5 Rd3 Rc4 Bd5 Rg7+ Ke6 Rd4 Rxd4 Bxd4 Kf5 Rd7 Bc6 Rxd8 Kxf4 Bxf6 == Problem 5 == FEN: r2qrb1k/1p1b2p1/p2ppn1p/8/3NP3/1BN5/PPP3QP/1K3RR1 w - - 0 1 21.e5!! dxe5 22.Ne4! Nh5 23.Qg6!? (stronger is 23.Qg4!! Nf4 24.Nf3 Qc7 25.Nh4 ± ) 23...exd4? (23...Nf4 24.Rxf4! exf4 25.Nf3! Qb6 26.Rg5!! covering b5 and threatening Nf6 or Ne5-f7+) 24.Ng5 1−0 Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognises the significance of 21.e5 in 5 seconds. Stockfish 12 dev (Stockfish_20062212_x64_modern) 64bit 1CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of 21.e5 in 11 seconds. 25/42 00:06 7 963k 1309k +6,93 e5 Nh5 Ne4 dxe5 Nf3 Nf4 Qg4 Qc7 Nh4 Bc6 Nf6 g5 Rxf4 exf4 Qh5 Qe7 Ng6+ Kg7 Nxe7 Rxe7 Ng4 37/62 03:12 298 083k 1545k +10,70 e5 Ng4 Qxg4 Qg5 Qh3 Qxe5 Nde2 g5 Rxf8+ Kg7 Rff1 Rf8 Re1 Qf5 Qg3 Rad8 Nd4 Qf4 Nxe6+ Bxe6 Rxe6 Qxg3 == Problem 6 == FEN: rnbqk2r/1p3ppp/p7/1NpPp3/QPP1P1n1/P4N2/4KbPP/R1B2B1R b kq - 0 1 13... axb5!! offers an exchange to keep the white queen out of play. 14.Qxa8 Bd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.Qxb8 0-0! 17.Ke1 Qh4 18.g3 Qf6 19.Bf4 g5? (Ivanchuk found 19...d3! during post-game analysis.) 20.Rc1 exf4 21.Qxf4 Qd4 22.Rd1 bxc4 23.e5 Qc3+ 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Bxd3 cxd3 −+ Tasc R30 finds 19... d3! in 2 1/2 hours. 19... Bf5!! is even stronger than 19... d3. Position is already lost at 19... d3 +8.00 for black, ... Bf5 not much better Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of axb5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/28 00:01 9264k 4714k -1,22 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 Nxd4 cxd4 h3 Nf6 Bg5 0-0 cxb5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Re1 Nd7 Kd1 Qg6 Qa4 Qg3 Qc2 Qxa3 Bd3 Qxb4 Qb1 46/67 1:05:00 18113493k 4644k -2,40 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 h3 Nf6 Nxd4 exd4 Kf2 Nxe4+ Kg1 Nd7 Bg5 Qxg5 Qxc8+ Ke7 Qc7 Qe5 d6+ Qxd6 Qxd6+ Kxd6 bxc5+ Ndxc5 cxb5 d3 h4 d2 Rh3 Ke5 Be2 f5 Ra2 Rd8 Bd1 Rd4 Re3 f4 Re2 b6 a4 Kd6 Rc2 Kd5 Ra2 h6 Rb2 Nxa4 Bxa4 Rxa4 Rexd2+ Nxd2 Rxd2+ Kc4 Rd7 g6 == Problem 7 == FEN 1r1bk2r/2R2ppp/p3p3/1b2P2q/4QP2/4N3/1B4PP/3R2K1 w k - 0 1 1.Rxd8+!! Rxd8 (1...Kxd8 2.Ra7! Qe2 3.Qd4+ Ke8 4.h3 Qe1+ 5.Kh2 Rd8 6.Qc5 Qh4 7.Ba3 Rd7 8.Ra8+ Rd8 9.g3 1−0)
Read more →
AlphaGo

AlphaGo is a computer program that plays the board game Go. It was developed by the London-based DeepMind Technologies, an acquired subsidiary of Google. Subsequent versions of AlphaGo became increasingly powerful, including a version that competed under the name Master. After retiring from competitive play, AlphaGo Master was succeeded by an even more powerful version known as AlphaGo Zero, which was completely self-taught without learning from human games. AlphaGo Zero was then generalized into a program known as AlphaZero, which played additional games, including chess and shogi. AlphaZero has in turn been succeeded by a program known as MuZero which learns without being taught the rules. AlphaGo and its successors use a Monte Carlo tree search algorithm to find its moves based on knowledge previously acquired by machine learning, specifically by an artificial neural network (a deep learning method) by extensive training, both from human and computer play. A neural network is trained to identify the best moves and the winning percentages of these moves. This neural network improves the strength of the tree search, resulting in stronger move selection in the next iteration. In October 2015, in a match against Fan Hui, the original AlphaGo became the first computer Go program to beat a human professional Go player without handicap on a full-sized 19×19 board. In March 2016, it beat Lee Sedol in a five-game match, the first time a computer Go program has beaten a 9-dan professional without handicap. Although it lost to Lee Sedol in the fourth game, Lee resigned in the final game, giving a final score of 4 games to 1 in favour of AlphaGo. In recognition of the victory, AlphaGo was awarded an honorary 9-dan by the Korea Baduk Association. The lead up and the challenge match with Lee Sedol were documented in a documentary film also titled AlphaGo, directed by Greg Kohs. The win by AlphaGo was chosen by Science as one of the Breakthrough of the Year runners-up on 22 December 2016. At the 2017 Future of Go Summit, the Master version of AlphaGo beat Ke Jie, the number one ranked player in the world at the time, in a three-game match, after which AlphaGo was awarded professional 9-dan by the Chinese Weiqi Association. After the match between AlphaGo and Ke Jie, DeepMind retired AlphaGo, while continuing AI research in other areas. The self-taught AlphaGo Zero achieved a 100–0 victory against the early competitive version of AlphaGo, and its successor AlphaZero was perceived as the world's top player in Go by the end of the 2010s. == History == Go is considered much more difficult for computers to win than other games such as chess, because its strategic and aesthetic nature makes it hard to directly construct an evaluation function, and its much larger branching factor makes it prohibitively difficult to use traditional AI methods such as alpha–beta pruning, tree traversal and heuristic search. Almost two decades after IBM's computer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in the 1997 match, the strongest Go programs using artificial intelligence techniques only reached about amateur 5-dan level, and still could not beat a professional Go player without a handicap. In 2012, the software program Zen, running on a four PC cluster, beat Masaki Takemiya (9p) twice at five- and four-stone handicaps. In 2013, Crazy Stone beat Yoshio Ishida (9p) at a four-stone handicap. According to DeepMind's David Silver, the AlphaGo research project was formed around 2014 to test how well a neural network using deep learning can compete at Go. AlphaGo represents a significant improvement over previous Go programs. In 500 games against other available Go programs, including Crazy Stone and Zen, AlphaGo running on a single computer won all but one. In a similar matchup, AlphaGo running on multiple computers won all 500 games played against other Go programs, and 77% of games played against AlphaGo running on a single computer. The distributed version in October 2015 was using 1,202 CPUs and 176 GPUs. === Match against Fan Hui === In October 2015, the distributed version of AlphaGo defeated the European Go champion Fan Hui, a 2-dan (out of 9 dan possible) professional, five to zero. This was the first time a computer Go program had beaten a professional human player on a full-sized board without handicap. The announcement of the news was delayed until 27 January 2016 to coincide with the publication of a paper in the journal Nature describing the algorithms used. === Match against Lee Sedol === AlphaGo played South Korean professional Go player Lee Sedol, ranked 9-dan, one of the best players at Go, with five games taking place at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul, South Korea on 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 March 2016, which were video-streamed live. Out of five games, AlphaGo won four games and Lee won the fourth game which made him recorded as the only human player who beat AlphaGo in all of its 74 official games. AlphaGo ran on Google's cloud computing with its servers located in the United States. The match used Chinese rules with a 7.5-point komi, and each side had two hours of thinking time plus three 60-second byoyomi periods. The version of AlphaGo playing against Lee used a similar amount of computing power as was used in the Fan Hui match. The Economist reported that it used 1,920 CPUs and 280 GPUs. At the time of play, Lee Sedol had the second-highest number of Go international championship victories in the world after South Korean player Lee Chang-ho who kept the world championship title for 16 years. Since there is no single official method of ranking in international Go, the rankings may vary among the sources. While he was ranked top sometimes, some sources ranked Lee Sedol as the fourth-best player in the world at the time. AlphaGo was not specifically trained to face Lee nor was designed to compete with any specific human players. The first three games were won by AlphaGo following resignations by Lee. However, Lee beat AlphaGo in the fourth game, winning by resignation at move 180. AlphaGo then continued to achieve a fourth win, winning the fifth game by resignation. The prize was US$1 million. Since AlphaGo won four out of five and thus the series, the prize will be donated to charities, including UNICEF. Lee Sedol received $150,000 for participating in all five games and an additional $20,000 for his win in Game 4. In June 2016, at a presentation held at a university in the Netherlands, Aja Huang, one of the Deep Mind team, revealed that they had patched the logical weakness that occurred during the 4th game of the match between AlphaGo and Lee, and that after move 78 (which was dubbed the "divine move" by many professionals), it would play as intended and maintain Black's advantage. Before move 78, AlphaGo was leading throughout the game, but Lee's move caused the program's computing powers to be diverted and confused. Huang explained that AlphaGo's policy network of finding the most accurate move order and continuation did not precisely guide AlphaGo to make the correct continuation after move 78, since its value network did not determine Lee's 78th move as being the most likely, and therefore when the move was made AlphaGo could not make the right adjustment to the logical continuation. === Sixty online games === On 29 December 2016, a new account on the Tygem server named "Magister" (shown as 'Magist' at the server's Chinese version) from South Korea began to play games with professional players. It changed its account name to "Master" on 30 December, then moved to the FoxGo server on 1 January 2017. On 4 January, DeepMind confirmed that the "Magister" and the "Master" were both played by an updated version of AlphaGo, called AlphaGo Master. As of 5 January 2017, AlphaGo Master's online record was 60 wins and 0 losses, including three victories over Go's top-ranked player, Ke Jie, who had been quietly briefed in advance that Master was a version of AlphaGo. After losing to Master, Gu Li offered a bounty of 100,000 yuan (US$14,400) to the first human player who could defeat Master. Master played at the pace of 10 games per day. Many quickly suspected it to be an AI player due to little or no resting between games. Its adversaries included many world champions such as Ke Jie, Park Jeong-hwan, Yuta Iyama, Tuo Jiaxi, Mi Yuting, Shi Yue, Chen Yaoye, Li Qincheng, Gu Li, Chang Hao, Tang Weixing, Fan Tingyu, Zhou Ruiyang, Jiang Weijie, Chou Chun-hsun, Kim Ji-seok, Kang Dong-yun, Park Yeong-hun, and Won Seong-jin; national champions or world championship runners-up such as Lian Xiao, Tan Xiao, Meng Tailing, Dang Yifei, Huang Yunsong, Yang Dingxin, Gu Zihao, Shin Jinseo, Cho Han-seung, and An Sungjoon. All 60 games except one were fast-paced games with three 20 or 30 seconds byo-yomi. Master offered to extend the byo-yomi to one minute when playing with Nie Weiping in consideration of his age. After winning its 59th game Master revealed itse
Read more →
General Problem Solver

General Problem Solver (GPS) is a computer program created in 1957 by Herbert A. Simon, J. C. Shaw, and Allen Newell (RAND Corporation) intended to work as a universal problem solver machine. In contrast to the former Logic Theorist project, the GPS works with means–ends analysis. == Overview == Any problem that can be expressed as a set of well-formed formulas (WFFs) or Horn clauses, and that constitutes a directed graph with one or more sources (that is, hypotheses) and sinks (that is, desired conclusions), can be solved, in principle, by GPS. Proofs in the predicate logic and Euclidean geometry problem spaces are prime examples of the domain of applicability of GPS. It was based on Simon and Newell's theoretical work on logic machines. GPS was the first computer program that separated its knowledge of problems (rules represented as input data) from its strategy of how to solve problems (a generic solver engine). GPS was implemented in the third-order programming language, IPL. While GPS solved simple problems such as the Towers of Hanoi that could be sufficiently formalized, it could not solve any real-world problems because the search was easily lost in the combinatorial explosion. Put another way, the number of "walks" through the inferential digraph became computationally untenable. (In practice, even a straightforward state space search such as the Towers of Hanoi can become computationally infeasible, albeit judicious prunings of the state space can be achieved by such elementary AI techniques as A and IDA). The user defined objects and operations that could be done on the objects, and GPS generated heuristics by means–ends analysis in order to solve problems. It focused on the available operations, finding what inputs were acceptable and what outputs were generated. It then created subgoals to get closer and closer to the goal. The GPS paradigm eventually evolved into the Soar architecture for artificial intelligence.
Read more →
Andrej Karpathy

Andrej Karpathy (born 23 October 1986) is a Slovak-Canadian AI researcher, who co-founded and formerly worked at OpenAI, where he specialized in deep learning and computer vision. He also worked as the director of artificial intelligence and Autopilot Vision at Tesla, and in 2024 he founded Eureka Labs, an AI education platform. In 2026 he joined Anthropic as part of the pretraining team. == Education and early life == Karpathy was born in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia), and moved with his family to Toronto when he was 15. He completed his Computer Science and Physics bachelor's degrees at University of Toronto in 2009 and his master's degree at University of British Columbia in 2011, where he worked on physically simulated figures (for example, a simulated runner or a simulated person in a crowd) with his adviser Michiel van de Panne. In 2006, Karpathy began posting videos on YouTube on his channel, badmephisto. He garnered fame by posting Rubik's cube tutorials which have been used by famous speedcubers such as Feliks Zemdegs. The channel has over 9 million views as of June 2025. Karpathy received a PhD from Stanford University in 2015 under the supervision of Fei-Fei Li, focusing on the intersection of natural language processing and computer vision, and deep learning models suited for this task. == Career and research == He authored and was the primary instructor of the first deep learning course at Stanford, CS 231n: Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition. The course became one of the largest classes at Stanford, growing from 150 students in 2015 to 750 in 2017. Karpathy is a founding member of the artificial intelligence research group OpenAI, where he was a research scientist from 2015 to 2017. In June 2017 he became Tesla's director of artificial intelligence and reported to Elon Musk. He was named one of MIT Technology Review's Innovators Under 35 for 2020. After taking a several-months-long sabbatical from Tesla, he announced he was leaving the company in July 2022. As of February 2023, he makes YouTube videos on how to create artificial neural networks. On February 9, 2023, Karpathy announced he was returning to OpenAI. A year later on February 13, 2024, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed that Karpathy had left OpenAI. In the same year, he was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in AI. On July 16, 2024, Karpathy announced on his X account that he started a new AI education company called Eureka Labs. Their first product was the AI course, LLM101n. He also has a broader educational effort, the "Zero to Hero" series on LLM fundamentals. The company also advocates for AI teaching assistants, a concept which has been criticized due to data privacy concerns and the removal of personal connection between teacher and student. In February 2025, Karpathy coined the term vibe coding to describe how AI tools allow hobbyists to construct apps and websites just by typing prompts. On May 19, 2026, he announced that he joined Anthropic via a statement on X, while the company stated that he will be leading a team for research in pretraining.
Read more →
Grammar systems theory

Grammar systems theory is a field of theoretical computer science that studies systems of finite collections of formal grammars generating a formal language. Each grammar works on a string, a so-called sequential form that represents an environment. Grammar systems can thus be used as a formalization of decentralized or distributed systems of agents in artificial intelligence. Let A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } be a simple reactive agent moving on the table and trying not to fall down from the table with two reactions, t for turning and ƒ for moving forward. The set of possible behaviors of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } can then be described as formal language L A = { ( f m t n f r ) + : 1 ≤ m ≤ k ; 1 ≤ n ≤ ℓ ; 1 ≤ r ≤ k } , {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} =\{(f^{m}t^{n}f^{r})^{+}:1\leq m\leq k;1\leq n\leq \ell ;1\leq r\leq k\},} where ƒ can be done maximally k times and t can be done maximally ℓ times considering the dimensions of the table. Let G A {\displaystyle \mathbb {G_{A}} } be a formal grammar which generates language L A {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} } . The behavior of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } is then described by this grammar. Suppose the A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } has a subsumption architecture; each component of this architecture can be then represented as a formal grammar, too, and the final behavior of the agent is then described by this system of grammars. The schema on the right describes such a system of grammars which shares a common string representing an environment. The shared sequential form is sequentially rewritten by each grammar, which can represent either a component or generally an agent. If grammars communicate together and work on a shared sequential form, it is called a Cooperating Distributed (DC) grammar system. Shared sequential form is a similar concept to the blackboard approach in AI, which is inspired by an idea of experts solving some problem together while they share their proposals and ideas on a shared blackboard. Each grammar in a grammar system can also work on its own string and communicate with other grammars in a system by sending their sequential forms on request. Such a grammar system is then called a Parallel Communicating (PC) grammar system. PC and DC are inspired by distributed AI. If there is no communication between grammars, the system is close to the decentralized approaches in AI. These kinds of grammar systems are sometimes called colonies or Eco-Grammar systems, depending (besides others) on whether the environment is changing on its own (Eco-Grammar system) or not (colonies).
Read more →
Integrated Operations in the High North

Integrated Operations in the High North (IOHN, IO High North or IO in the High North) is a unique collaboration project that during a four-year period starting May 2008 is working on designing, implementing and testing a Digital Platform for what in the upstream oil and gas industry is called the next or second generation of Integrated Operations. The work on the Digital platform is focussed on capture, transfer and integration of real-time data from the remote production installations to the decision makers. A risk evaluation across the whole chain is also included. The platform is based on open standards and enables a higher degree of interoperability. Requirements for the digital platform come from use cases defined within the Drilling and Completion, Reservoir and Production and Operations and Maintenance domains. The platform will subsequently be demonstrated through pilots within these three domains. The project was a sidecar initiative for Statoil’s Global Operations Data Integration Project. This was part of a very ambitious Master Plan IT (MapIT), which also included the Real Time Visualization (RTV) tender. The RTV tender aimed to be an ontology-aware information workspace for a wide range of disciplines, as per the IO Capability Stack. Additionally, the sidecar project aimed to increase the semantic web knowledge among suppliers in the industry. This new platform is considered an important enabler for safe and sustainable operations in remote, vulnerable and hazardous areas such as the High North, but the technology is clearly also applicable in more general applications. The IOHN project consortium consists of 23 participants, including operators, service providers, software vendors, technology providers, research institutions and universities. In addition, the Norwegian Defence Force is working with the project to resolve common infrastructural and interoperability challenges. The project is managed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Nils Sandsmark was the project manager during the initiation and start-up phase. Frédéric Verhelst took over as project manager from the beginning of 2009. Financing comes from the participants and the Research Council of Norway (RCN) for parts of the project (GOICT and AutoConRig). == Participants == The consortium consists of the following 22 participants (in alphabetical order):
Read more →
Linguistic value

In artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic operations research, and related fields, a linguistic value is a natural language term which is derived using quantitative or qualitative reasoning such as with probability and statistics or fuzzy sets and systems. Variables that take linguistic values are called linguistic variables. == Examples of linguistic variables and values == For example, "age" may be a linguistic variable if its values are not numerical, e.g. very young, quite young, not young, old, not very old etc. These values could be derived from the numeric values for age. As another example, if a shuttle heat shield is deemed of having a linguistic value of a "very low" percentage of damage in re-entry, based upon knowledge from experts in the field, that probability would be given a value of say, 5%. From there on out, if it were to be used in an equation, the variable of percentage of damage will be at 5% if it deemed very low percentage.
Read more →
Vilém Flusser

Vilém Flusser (May 12, 1920 – November 27, 1991) was a Czech-born Brazilian philosopher, writer and journalist, best known for his contributions to media studies, communication theory, and the philosophy of language. He lived for a long period in São Paulo (where he became a Brazilian citizen) and later in France, and his works are written in many different languages. His early work was marked by discussion of the thought of Martin Heidegger, and by the influence of existentialism and phenomenology. Phenomenology would play a major role in the transition to the later phase of his work, in which he turned his attention to the philosophy of communication and of artistic production. He contributed to the dichotomy logic theory through history: the period of image worship, and period of text worship, with deviations consequently into idolatry and "textolatry". == Life == Flusser was born in 1920 in Prague, Czechoslovakia into a family of Jewish intellectuals. His father, Gustav Flusser, studied mathematics and physics (under Albert Einstein among others). Vilém attended German and Czech primary schools and later a German grammar school. In 1938, Flusser started to study philosophy at the Juridical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague. In 1939, shortly after the Nazi occupation, Flusser emigrated to London (with Edith Barth, his later wife, and her parents) to continue his studies for one term at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Vilém Flusser lost all of his family in the German concentration camps: his father died in Buchenwald in 1940; his grandparents, his mother and his sister were brought to Theresienstadt and later to Auschwitz where they were killed. The next year, he emigrated to Brazil, living both in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. He started working at a Czech import/export company and then at Stabivolt, a manufacturer of radios and transistors. In 1960 he started to collaborate with the Brazilian Institute of Philosophy (IBF) in São Paulo and published in the Revista Brasileira de Filosofia; by these means he seriously approached the Brazilian intellectual community. Flusser had as his friend and closest interlocutor the Brazilian philosopher Vicente Ferreira da Silva. Flusser and Vicente Ferreira da Silva met in São Paulo in the 1960s and began a close intellectual dialogue that continued until Ferreira da Silva's death in 1963. Flusser wrote several essays on Ferreira da Silva's work and that Ferreira da Silva's concept of "Fundamental ontology” had a significant impact on Flusser's understanding of the nature of reality. During the 60s Flusser published and taught at several schools in São Paulo, being Lecturer for Philosophy of Science at the Escola Politécnica of the University of São Paulo and Professor of Philosophy of Communication at the Escola Dramática and the Escola Superior de Cinema in São Paulo. He also participated actively in the arts, collaborating with the Bienal de São Paulo, among other cultural events. Beginning in the 1950s he taught philosophy and worked as a journalist, before publishing his first book Língua e realidade (Language and Reality) in 1963. In 1972 he decided to leave Brazil. Some say it was because it was becoming difficult to publish because of the military regime. Others dispute this reason, since his work on communication and language did not threaten the military. In 1970, when a reform took place at the University of São Paulo by the Brazilian military government, all Lecturers of Philosophy (members of the Department of Philosophy) were dismissed. Flusser, who taught at the Engineering School (Escola Politécnica), had to leave the university as well. In 1972 he and his wife Edith settled temporarily in Merano (Tyrol). Further short stays in various European countries followed until they moved to Robion in southern France in 1981, where they remained until Flusser's death in 1991. To the end of his life, he was quite active writing and giving lectures around media theory and working with new topics (Philosophy of Photography, Technical Images, etc.). He died in 1991 in a car accident near the Czech–German border, while trying to visit his native city, Prague, to give a lecture. Vilém Flusser is the cousin of David Flusser. == Philosophy == Flusser's essays are short, provocative and lucid, with a resemblance to the style of journalistic articles. Critics have noted he is less a 'systematic' thinker than a 'dialogic' one, purposefully eclectic and provocative (Cubitt 2004). However, his early books, written in the 1960s, primarily in Portuguese, and published in Brazil, have a slightly different style. Flusser's writings relate to each other, however, which means that he intensively works over certain topics and dissects them into a number of brief essays. His main topics of interest were: epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, language philosophy, semiotics, philosophy of science, the history of Western culture, the philosophy of religion, the history of symbolic language, technology, writing, the technical image, photography, migration, media and literature, and, especially in his later years, the philosophy of communication and of artistic production. His writings reflect his wandering life: although the majority of his work was written in German and Portuguese, he also wrote in English and French, with scarce translation to other languages. Because Flusser's writings in different languages are dispersed in the form of books, articles or sections of books, his work as a media philosopher and cultural theorist is only now becoming more widely known. The first book by Flusser to be published in English was Towards a Philosophy of Photography in 1984 by the then new journal European Photography, which was his own translation of the work. The Shape of Things, was published in London in 1999 and was followed by a new translation of Towards a Philosophy of Photography. Flusser's archives have been held by the Academy of Media Arts in Cologne and are currently housed at the Berlin University of the Arts. === Philosophy of photography === Writing about photography in the 1970s and 80s, in the face of the early worldwide impact of computer technologies, Flusser argued that the photograph was the first in a number of technical image forms to have fundamentally changed the way in which the world is seen. Historically, the importance of photography had been that it introduced nothing less than a new epoch: 'The invention of photography constitutes a break in history that can only be understood in comparison to that other historical break constituted by the invention of linear writing.' Whereas ideas might previously have been interpreted in terms of their written form, photography heralded new forms of perceptual experience and knowledge. As Flusser Archive Supervisor Claudia Becker describes, "For Flusser, photography is not only a reproductive imaging technology, it is a dominant cultural technique through which reality is constituted and understood". In this context, Flusser argued that photographs have to be understood in strict separation from 'pre-technical image forms'. For example, he contrasted them to paintings which he described as images that can be sensibly 'decoded', because the viewer is able to interpret what he or she sees as more or less direct signs of what the painter intended. By contrast, even though photography produces images that seem to be 'faithful reproductions' of objects and events they cannot be so directly 'decoded'. The crux of this difference stems, for Flusser, from the fact that photographs are produced through the operations of an apparatus. And the photographic apparatus operates in ways that are not immediately known or shaped by its operator. For example, he described the act of photographing as follows: The photographer's gesture as the search for a viewpoint onto a scene takes place within the possibilities offered by the apparatus. The photographer moves within specific categories of space and time regarding the scene: proximity and distance, bird- and worm's-eye views, frontal- and side-views, short or long exposures, etc. The Gestalt of space–time surrounding the scene is prefigured for the photographer by the categories of his camera. These categories are an a priori for him. He must 'decide' within them: he must press the trigger. Roughly put, the person using a camera might think that they are operating its controls to produce a picture that shows the world the way they want it to be seen, but it is the pre-programmed character of the camera that sets the parameters of this act and it is the apparatus that shapes the meaning of the resulting image. Given the central role of photography to almost all aspects of contemporary life, the programmed character of the photographic apparatus shapes the experience of looking at and interpreting photographs as well as most of the cultural contexts in which we do so. Flusse
Read more →
Synthesia (company)

Synthesia Limited is a British multinational artificial intelligence company based in London, United Kingdom. It is a synthetic media-generation software developer and creator of AI-generated video content, including audio-visual agents and cloned avatars. Britain's largest generative-AI firm, it is used by 70% of FTSE 100 and over 90% of Fortune 100 companies. == Overview == Synthesia is most often used by corporations for localized communication, orientation, employee training videos, advertising campaigns, reporting, product demonstrations, customer service, and to create chatbots. Its software algorithm mimics speech and facial movements based on video recordings of an individual’s speech and facial expressions. From this, a text-to-speech video is created to look and sound like the individual. Swiss bank UBS incorporated Synthesia AI-powered avatars of their human financial experts, for instance, in 2025. Users create content via the platform's pre-generated AI presenters or by creating digital representations of themselves, or personal avatars, using the platform's AI video editing tool. These avatars can be used to narrate videos generated from text. As of August 2021, Synthesia's voice database included multiple gender options in over 60 languages. Its free voice library doubled by 2025, to 140 languages and accents, and its Express-Voice technology can clone a user's own voice, or generate a synthetic one. === Deepfakes === The platform prohibits use of its software to create non-consensual clones, including of celebrities or political figures for satirical purposes. Explicit consent must be provided in addition to a strict pre-screening regimen for use of an individual's likeness to avoid “deepfaking”. While the company prohibits use of its technology for misinformation or "news-like content", an October 2023 Freedom House report stated that Synthesia tools had been used by governments in Venezuela, China, Burkina Faso, and Russia to create videos of fake TV news outlets with AI-generated avatars in order to spread propaganda. Actor Dan Dewhirst signed a contract with the company in 2021, becoming one of the first actors whose likeness would be made into an AI avatar, finding his likeness used in the Venezuelan generated-videos. The company stated, in February 2024, that it had improved its misuse detection systems, and, in April 2024, that new users of its technology are screened by the company, and content employing it is further vetted by Synthesia moderators. == History == Synthesia's software utilizes deep learning architecture developed by Lourdes Agapito and Matthias Niessner. The company was co-founded in 2017 by Agapito, Niessner, Victor Riparbelli, and Steffen Tjerrild. In 2018, the company first demonstrated the software's capabilities on the BBC programme Click when it presented a digitization of Matthew Amroliwala speaking Spanish, Mandarin, and Hindi. Through Synthesia's first two years of existence, it employed 10 people and struggled to make sales, leading to an expansion of the company's focus. It moved on from just targeting entertainment studios to a variety of businesses. In 2020, Synthesia users were reported to include Amazon, Tiffany & Co. and IHG Hotels & Resorts. In January 2024, the company introduced its AI video assistant, which turns text-to-video. That April, with a reported 55,000 customers, including half of the Fortune 100, Synthesia launched "expressive avatars". That September, an enhanced dubbing feature was launched, to translate video in 30 languages with naturalized lip-syncing. Peter Hill joined Synthesia as CTO in January 2025, following 25 years at Amazon, and two years as CEO and CPO of Wildfire Studios. That March, a million dollar base of shares was formed to furnish human actors, employed to generate digital avatars, with company stock, which all of its employees hold. By June of that year, 150,000 individuals from among Synthesia's 65,000 customers had created AI-generated avatars of themselves. In July 2025, the company's new global headquarters at Regent’s Place was opened by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who described Britain's largest generative-AI company, then valued at over $2 billion, as a "London success story". By that October, its technology was employed by 90% of the Fortune 100, and Synthesia 3.0 was launched, with hyper-realistic digital avatars equipped with AI-powered dubbing and translation, and a built-in video assistant. In January 2026, it reached a $4 billion valuation, with 70% of FTSE 100 companies noted among its customers. === Funding === The company raised $3.1 million in seed funding in 2019. In April 2021, the company raised $12.5 million in Series A funding. In December 2021, it raised $50 million in a Series B funding round led by Kleiner Perkins and GV (then Google Ventures). Synthesia gained a total valuation of $1 billion, and achieved unicorn status, when it raised $90 million from Accel and Nvidia partnership NVentures, in June 2023, during its Series C funding round. Counting 60,000 customers by January 2025, including over 60% of Fortune 100 companies; the company raised $180 million in a Series D round led by NEA, with new investors World Innovation Lab (WiL), Atlassian Ventures and PSP Growth, as well as existing investors GV, MMC Ventures and FirstMark, doubling Synthesia's valuation to $2.1 billion. Capital raised by 2025 had reached $330 million, with investments slated to further product innovation, talent growth, and company expansion in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia. In April 2025, Adobe Inc. invested £10 million in the company for a strategic partnership. Synthesia subsequently rejected a $3 billion acquisition offer from Adobe, choosing to remain independent. With a revenue stream then exceeding $100 million annually; GV led a Series E funding round in October 2025, resulting in Synthesia's $4 billion valuation, raising $200 million from GV, Nvidia and Accel to develop, in 2026, interactive audio-visual avatar "agents" that converse on topic, for automated sales training and corporate communications, such as recruiting. == Recognition == In 2021, Synthesia partnered with Lay's to create the Messi Messages campaign featuring Argentine footballer Lionel Messi. Users created personalized messages with Synthesia's software and sent custom artificial reality video messages from Messi based on their text input. The campaign received a Cannes Lion Award under the Bronze category. In February 2025, UK Science and Technology Minister Peter Kyle commended Synthesia's "pioneering generative AI innovations."
Read more →
IRCF360

Infrared Control Freak 360 (IRCF360) is a 360-degree proximity sensor and a motion sensing devices, developed by ROBOTmaker. The sensor is in BETA developers release as a low cost (software configurable) sensor for use within research, technical and hobby projects. == Overview == The 360-degree sensor was originally designed as a short range micro robot proximity sensor and mainly intended for Swarm robotics, Ant robotics, Swarm intelligence, autonomous Qaudcopter, Drone, UAV, multi-robot simulations e.g. Jasmine Project where 360 proximity sensing is required to avoid collision with other robots and for simple IR inter-robot communications. To overcome certain limitation with Infra-red (IR) proximity sensing (e.g. detection of dark surfaces) the sensing module includes ambient light sensing and basic tactile sensing functionality during forward movement sensing/probing providing photovore and photophobe robot swarm behaviours and characteristics. A project named Sensorium Project was started aimed at broadening the Sensors audience beyond its typical robot sensor usage. To demonstrate the sensor's functionality, opensource Java based Integrated Development Environments (IDE) are used, such as Arduino and Processing (programming language).
Read more →
Turing test

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human. In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine's ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic). The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'." Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the "imitation game", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think". Since Turing introduced his test, it has been highly influential in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, resulting in substantial discussion and controversy, as well as criticism from philosophers like John Searle, who argue against the test's ability to detect consciousness. == History == === Philosophical background === The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes: [H]ow many different automata or moving machines could be made by the industry of man ... For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. Denis Diderot formulates in his 1746 book Pensées philosophiques a Turing-test criterion, though with the important implicit limiting assumption maintained, of the participants being natural living beings, rather than considering created artifacts: If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation. This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties) and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined". (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. === Cultural background === A rudimentary idea of the Turing test appears in the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. When Gulliver is brought before the king of Brobdingnag, the king thinks at first that Gulliver might be a "a piece of clock-work (which is in that country arrived to a very great perfection) contrived by some ingenious artist". Even when he hears Gulliver speaking, the king still doubts whether Gulliver was taught "a set of words" to make him "sell at a better price". Gulliver tells that only after "he put several other questions to me, and still received rational answers" the king became satisfied that Gulliver was not a machine. Tests where a human judges whether a computer or an alien is intelligent were an established convention in science fiction by the 1940s, and it is likely that Turing would have been aware of these. Stanley G. Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey" (1934) provides an example of how nuanced such tests could be. Earlier examples of machines or automatons attempting to pass as human include the Ancient Greek myth of Pygmalion who creates a sculpture of a woman that is animated by Aphrodite, Carlo Collodi's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio, about a puppet who wants to become a real boy, and E. T. A. Hoffmann's 1816 story "The Sandman," where the protagonist falls in love with an automaton. In all these examples, people are fooled by artificial beings that—up to a point—pass as human. === Alan Turing and the imitation game === Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. In Turing's report, "Intelligent Machinery," he investigated "the question of whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behaviour" and, as part of that investigation, proposed what may be considered the forerunner to his later tests: It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play a not very bad game of chess. Now get three men A, B and C as subjects for the experiment. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. ... Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (1950) was the first published paper by Turing to focus exclusively on machine intelligence. Turing begins the 1950 paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'Can machines think?'" As he highlights, the traditional approach to such a question is to start with definitions, defining both the terms "machine" and "think". Turing chooses not to do so; instead, he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". In essence he proposes to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" The advantage of the new question, Turing argues, is that it draws "a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man". To demonstrate this approach Turing proposes a test inspired by a party game, known as the "imitation game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they ar
Read more →
Infer.NET

Infer.NET is a free and open source .NET software library for machine learning. It supports running Bayesian inference in graphical models and can also be used for probabilistic programming. == Overview == Infer.NET follows a model-based approach and is used to solve different kinds of machine learning problems including standard problems like classification, recommendation or clustering, customized solutions and domain-specific problems. The framework is used in various different domains such as bioinformatics, epidemiology, computer vision, and information retrieval. Development of the framework was started by a team at Microsoft's research centre in Cambridge, UK in 2004. It was first released for academic use in 2008 and later open sourced in 2018. In 2013, Microsoft was awarded the USPTO's Patents for Humanity Award in Information Technology category for Infer.NET and the work in advanced machine learning techniques. Infer.NET is used internally at Microsoft as the machine learning engine in some of their products such as Office, Azure, and Xbox. The source code is licensed under MIT License and available on GitHub. It is also available as NuGet package.
Read more →
Semantic decomposition (natural language processing)

A semantic decomposition is an algorithm that breaks down the meanings of phrases or concepts into less complex concepts. The result of a semantic decomposition is a representation of meaning. This representation can be used for tasks, such as those related to artificial intelligence or machine learning. Semantic decomposition is common in natural language processing applications. The basic idea of a semantic decomposition is taken from the learning skills of adult humans, where words are explained using other words. It is based on Meaning-text theory. Meaning-text theory is used as a theoretical linguistic framework to describe the meaning of concepts with other concepts. == Background == Given that an AI does not inherently have language, it is unable to think about the meanings behind the words of a language. An artificial notion of meaning needs to be created for a strong AI to emerge. Creating an artificial representation of meaning requires the analysis of what meaning is. Many terms are associated with meaning, including semantics, pragmatics, knowledge and understanding or word sense. Each term describes a particular aspect of meaning, and contributes to a multitude of theories explaining what meaning is. These theories need to be analyzed further to develop an artificial notion of meaning best fit for our current state of knowledge. == Graph representations == Representing meaning as a graph is one of the two ways that both an AI cognition and a linguistic researcher think about meaning (connectionist view). Logicians utilize a formal representation of meaning to build upon the idea of symbolic representation, whereas description logics describe languages and the meaning of symbols. This contention between 'neat' and 'scruffy' techniques has been discussed since the 1970s. Research has so far identified semantic measures and with that word-sense disambiguation (WSD) - the differentiation of meaning of words - as the main problem of language understanding. As an AI-complete environment, WSD is a core problem of natural language understanding. AI approaches that use knowledge-given reasoning creates a notion of meaning combining the state of the art knowledge of natural meaning with the symbolic and connectionist formalization of meaning for AI. The abstract approach is shown in Figure. First, a connectionist knowledge representation is created as a semantic network consisting of concepts and their relations to serve as the basis for the representation of meaning. This graph is built out of different knowledge sources like WordNet, Wiktionary, and BabelNET. The graph is created by lexical decomposition that recursively breaks each concept semantically down into a set of semantic primes. The primes are taken from the theory of Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which has been analyzed for usefulness in formal languages. Upon this graph marker passing is used to create the dynamic part of meaning representing thoughts. The marker passing algorithm, where symbolic information is passed along relations form one concept to another, uses node and edge interpretation to guide its markers. The node and edge interpretation model is the symbolic influence of certain concepts. Future work uses the created representation of meaning to build heuristics and evaluate them through capability matching and agent planning, chatbots or other applications of natural language understanding.
Read more →
Yale shooting problem

The Yale shooting problem is a conundrum or scenario in formal situational logic on which early logical solutions to the frame problem fail. The name of this problem comes from a scenario proposed by its inventors, Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott, working at Yale University when they proposed it. In this scenario, Fred (later identified as a turkey) is initially alive and a gun is initially unloaded. Loading the gun, waiting for a moment, and then shooting the gun at Fred is expected to kill Fred. However, if inertia is formalized in logic by minimizing the changes in this situation, then it cannot be uniquely proved that Fred is dead after loading, waiting, and shooting. In one solution, Fred indeed dies; in another (also logically correct) solution, the gun becomes mysteriously unloaded and Fred survives. Technically, this scenario is described by two fluents (a fluent is a condition that can change truth value over time): a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} and l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} . Initially, the first condition is true and the second is false. Then, the gun is loaded, some time passes, and the gun is fired. Such problems can be formalized in logic by considering four time points 0 {\displaystyle 0} , 1 {\displaystyle 1} , 2 {\displaystyle 2} , and 3 {\displaystyle 3} , and turning every fluent such as a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} into a predicate a l i v e ( t ) {\displaystyle alive(t)} depending on time. A direct formalization of the statement of the Yale shooting problem in logic is the following one: a l i v e ( 0 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)} ¬ l o a d e d ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \neg loaded(0)} t r u e → l o a d e d ( 1 ) {\displaystyle true\rightarrow loaded(1)} l o a d e d ( 2 ) → ¬ a l i v e ( 3 ) {\displaystyle loaded(2)\rightarrow \neg alive(3)} The first two formulae represent the initial state. The third formula formalizes the effect of loading the gun at time 1 {\displaystyle 1} . The fourth formula formalizes the effect of shooting at Fred at time 2 {\displaystyle 2} . This is a simplified formalization in which action names are neglected and the effects of actions are directly specified for the time points in which the actions are executed. See situation calculus for details. The formulae above, while being direct formalizations of the known facts, do not suffice to correctly characterize the domain. Indeed, ¬ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \neg alive(1)} is consistent with all these formulae, although there is no reason to believe that Fred dies before the gun has been shot. The problem is that the formulae above only include the effects of actions, but do not specify that all fluents not changed by the actions remain the same. In other words, a formula a l i v e ( 0 ) ≡ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)\equiv alive(1)} must be added to formalize the implicit assumption that loading the gun only changes the value of l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} and not the value of a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} . The necessity of a large number of formulae stating the obvious fact that conditions do not change unless an action changes them is known as the frame problem. An early solution to the frame problem was based on minimizing the changes. In other words, the scenario is formalized by the formulae above (that specify only the effects of actions) and by the assumption that the changes in the fluents over time are as minimal as possible. The rationale is that the formulae above enforce all effect of actions to take place, while minimization should restrict the changes to exactly those due to the actions. In the Yale shooting scenario, one possible evaluation of the fluents in which the changes are minimized is the following one. This is the expected solution. It contains two fluent changes: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} becomes false at time 3. The following evaluation also satisfies all formulae above. In this evaluation, there are still two changes only: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and false at time 2. As a result, this evaluation is considered a valid description of the evolution of the state, although there is no valid reason to explain l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} being false at time 2. The fact that minimization of changes leads to wrong solution is the motivation for the introduction of the Yale shooting problem. While the Yale shooting problem has been considered a severe obstacle to the use of logic for formalizing dynamical scenarios, solutions to it have been known since the late 1980s. One solution involves the use of predicate completion in the specification of actions: in this solution, the fact that shooting causes Fred to die is formalized by the preconditions: alive and loaded, and the effect is that alive changes value (since alive was true before, this corresponds to alive becoming false). By turning this implication into an if and only if statement, the effects of shooting are correctly formalized. (Predicate completion is more complicated when there is more than one implication involved.) A solution proposed by Erik Sandewall was to include a new condition of occlusion, which formalizes the “permission to change” for a fluent. The effect of an action that might change a fluent is therefore that the fluent has the new value, and that the occlusion is made (temporarily) true. What is minimized is not the set of changes, but the set of occlusions being true. Another constraint specifying that no fluent changes unless occlusion is true completes this solution. The Yale shooting scenario is also correctly formalized by the Reiter version of the situation calculus, the fluent calculus, and the action description languages. In 2005, the 1985 paper in which the Yale shooting scenario was first described received the AAAI Classic Paper award. In spite of being a solved problem, that example is still sometimes mentioned in recent research papers, where it is used as an illustrative example (e.g., for explaining the syntax of a new logic for reasoning about actions), rather than being presented as a problem.
Read more →
Protégé (software)

Protégé is a free, open source ontology editor and a knowledge management system. The Protégé meta-tool was first built by Mark Musen in 1987 and has since been developed by a team at Stanford University. The software is the most popular and widely used ontology editor in the world. == Overview == Protégé provides a graphical user interface to define ontologies. It also includes deductive classifiers to validate that models are consistent and to infer new information based on the analysis of an ontology. Like Eclipse, Protégé is a framework for which various other projects suggest plugins. This application is written in Java and makes heavy use of Swing to create the user interface. According to their website, there are over 300,000 registered users. A 2009 book calls it "the leading ontological engineering tool". Protégé is developed at Stanford University and is made available under the BSD 2-clause license. Earlier versions of the tool were developed in collaboration with the University of Manchester.
Read more →