AI For Business Analysts

AI For Business Analysts — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Concurrency control

  In information technology and computer science, especially in the fields of computer programming, operating systems, multiprocessors, and databases, concurrency control ensures that correct results for concurrent operations are generated, while getting those results as quickly as possible. Computer systems, both software and hardware, consist of modules, or components. Each component is designed to operate correctly, i.e., to obey or to meet certain consistency rules. When components that operate concurrently interact by messaging or by sharing accessed data (in memory or storage), a certain component's consistency may be violated by another component. The general area of concurrency control provides rules, methods, design methodologies, and theories to maintain the consistency of components operating concurrently while interacting, and thus the consistency and correctness of the whole system. Introducing concurrency control into a system means applying operation constraints which typically result in some performance reduction. Operation consistency and correctness should be achieved with as good as possible efficiency, without reducing performance below reasonable levels. Concurrency control can require significant additional complexity and overhead in a concurrent algorithm compared to the simpler sequential algorithm. For example, a failure in concurrency control can result in data corruption from torn read or write operations. == Concurrency control in databases == Comments: This section is applicable to all transactional systems, i.e., to all systems that use database transactions (atomic transactions; e.g., transactional objects in Systems management and in networks of smartphones which typically implement private, dedicated database systems), not only general-purpose database management systems (DBMSs). DBMSs need to deal also with concurrency control issues not typical just to database transactions but rather to operating systems in general. These issues (e.g., see Concurrency control in operating systems below) are out of the scope of this section. Concurrency control in Database management systems (DBMS; e.g., Bernstein et al. 1987, Weikum and Vossen 2001), other transactional objects, and related distributed applications (e.g., Grid computing and Cloud computing) ensures that database transactions are performed concurrently without violating the data integrity of the respective databases. Thus concurrency control is an essential element for correctness in any system where two database transactions or more, executed with time overlap, can access the same data, e.g., virtually in any general-purpose database system. Consequently, a vast body of related research has been accumulated since database systems emerged in the early 1970s. A well established concurrency control theory for database systems is outlined in the references mentioned above: serializability theory, which allows to effectively design and analyze concurrency control methods and mechanisms. An alternative theory for concurrency control of atomic transactions over abstract data types is presented in (Lynch et al. 1993), and not utilized below. This theory is more refined, complex, with a wider scope, and has been less utilized in the Database literature than the classical theory above. Each theory has its pros and cons, emphasis and insight. To some extent they are complementary, and their merging may be useful. To ensure correctness, a DBMS usually guarantees that only serializable transaction schedules are generated, unless serializability is intentionally relaxed to increase performance, but only in cases where application correctness is not harmed. For maintaining correctness in cases of failed (aborted) transactions (which can always happen for many reasons) schedules also need to have the recoverability (from abort) property. A DBMS also guarantees that no effect of committed transactions is lost, and no effect of aborted (rolled back) transactions remains in the related database. Overall transaction characterization is usually summarized by the ACID rules below. As databases have become distributed, or needed to cooperate in distributed environments (e.g., Federated databases in the early 1990, and Cloud computing currently), the effective distribution of concurrency control mechanisms has received special attention. === Database transaction and the ACID rules === The concept of a database transaction (or atomic transaction) has evolved in order to enable both a well understood database system behavior in a faulty environment where crashes can happen any time, and recovery from a crash to a well understood database state. A database transaction is a unit of work, typically encapsulating a number of operations over a database (e.g., reading a database object, writing, acquiring lock, etc.), an abstraction supported in database and also other systems. Each transaction has well defined boundaries in terms of which program/code executions are included in that transaction (determined by the transaction's programmer via special transaction commands). Every database transaction obeys the following rules (by support in the database system; i.e., a database system is designed to guarantee them for the transactions it runs): Atomicity - Either the effects of all or none of its operations remain ("all or nothing" semantics) when a transaction is completed (committed or aborted respectively). In other words, to the outside world a committed transaction appears (by its effects on the database) to be indivisible (atomic), and an aborted transaction does not affect the database at all. Either all the operations are done or none of them are. Consistency - Every transaction must leave the database in a consistent (correct) state, i.e., maintain the predetermined integrity rules of the database (constraints upon and among the database's objects). A transaction must transform a database from one consistent state to another consistent state (however, it is the responsibility of the transaction's programmer to make sure that the transaction itself is correct, i.e., performs correctly what it intends to perform (from the application's point of view) while the predefined integrity rules are enforced by the DBMS). Thus since a database can be normally changed only by transactions, all the database's states are consistent. Isolation - Transactions cannot interfere with each other (as an end result of their executions). Moreover, usually (depending on concurrency control method) the effects of an incomplete transaction are not even visible to another transaction. Providing isolation is the main goal of concurrency control. Durability - Effects of successful (committed) transactions must persist through crashes (typically by recording the transaction's effects and its commit event in a non-volatile memory). The concept of atomic transaction has been extended during the years to what has become Business transactions which actually implement types of Workflow and are not atomic. However also such enhanced transactions typically utilize atomic transactions as components. === Why is concurrency control needed? === If transactions are executed serially, i.e., sequentially with no overlap in time, no transaction concurrency exists. However, if concurrent transactions with interleaving operations are allowed in an uncontrolled manner, some unexpected, undesirable results may occur, such as: The lost update problem: A second transaction writes a second value of a data-item (datum) on top of a first value written by a first concurrent transaction, and the first value is lost to other transactions running concurrently which need, by their precedence, to read the first value. The transactions that have read the wrong value end with incorrect results. The dirty read problem: Transactions read a value written by a transaction that has been later aborted. This value disappears from the database upon abort, and should not have been read by any transaction ("dirty read"). The reading transactions end with incorrect results. The incorrect summary problem: While one transaction takes a summary over the values of all the instances of a repeated data-item, a second transaction updates some instances of that data-item. The resulting summary does not reflect a correct result for any (usually needed for correctness) precedence order between the two transactions (if one is executed before the other), but rather some random result, depending on the timing of the updates, and whether certain update results have been included in the summary or not. Most high-performance transactional systems need to run transactions concurrently to meet their performance requirements. Thus, without concurrency control such systems can neither provide correct results nor maintain their databases consistently. === Concurrency control mechanisms === ==== Categories ==== The main categories of concurrency control mechanis

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatik

  Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.

  Read more →
• 

  Textual entailment

  In natural language processing, textual entailment (TE), also known as natural language inference (NLI), is a directional relation between text fragments. The relation holds whenever the truth of one text fragment follows from another text. == Definition == In the TE framework, the entailing and entailed texts are termed text (t) and hypothesis (h), respectively. Textual entailment is not the same as pure logical entailment – it has a more relaxed definition: "t entails h" (t ⇒ h) if, typically, a human reading t would infer that h is most likely true. (Alternatively: t ⇒ h if and only if, typically, a human reading t would be justified in inferring the proposition expressed by h from the proposition expressed by t.) The relation is directional because even if "t entails h", the reverse "h entails t" is much less certain. Determining whether this relationship holds is an informal task, one which sometimes overlaps with the formal tasks of formal semantics (satisfying a strict condition will usually imply satisfaction of a less strict conditioned); additionally, textual entailment partially subsumes word entailment. == Examples == Textual entailment can be illustrated with examples of three different relations: An example of a positive TE (text entails hypothesis) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man has good consequences. An example of a negative TE (text contradicts hypothesis) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man has no consequences. An example of a non-TE (text does not entail nor contradict) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man will make you a better person. == Ambiguity of natural language == A characteristic of natural language is that there are many different ways to state what one wants to say: several meanings can be contained in a single text and the same meaning can be expressed by different texts. This variability of semantic expression can be seen as the dual problem of language ambiguity. Together, they result in a many-to-many mapping between language expressions and meanings. The task of paraphrasing involves recognizing when two texts have the same meaning and creating a similar or shorter text that conveys almost the same information. Textual entailment is similar but weakens the relationship to be unidirectional. Mathematical solutions to establish textual entailment can be based on the directional property of this relation, by making a comparison between some directional similarities of the texts involved. == Approaches == Textual entailment measures natural language understanding as it asks for a semantic interpretation of the text, and due to its generality remains an active area of research. Many approaches and refinements of approaches have been considered, such as word embedding, logical models, graphical models, rule systems, contextual focusing, and machine learning. Practical or large-scale solutions avoid these complex methods and instead use only surface syntax or lexical relationships, but are correspondingly less accurate. As of 2005, state-of-the-art systems are far from human performance; a study found humans to agree on the dataset 95.25% of the time. Algorithms from 2016 had not yet achieved 90%. == Applications == Many natural language processing applications, like question answering, information extraction, summarization, multi-document summarization, and evaluation of machine translation systems, need to recognize that a particular target meaning can be inferred from different text variants. Typically entailment is used as part of a larger system, for example in a prediction system to filter out trivial or obvious predictions. Textual entailment also has applications in adversarial stylometry, which has the objective of removing textual style without changing the overall meaning of communication. == Datasets == Some of available English NLI datasets include: SNLI MultiNLI SciTail SICK MedNLI QA-NLI In addition, there are several non-English NLI datasets, as follows: XNLI DACCORD, RTE3-FR, SICK-FR for French FarsTail for Farsi OCNLI for Chinese SICK-NL for Dutch IndoNLI for Indonesian

  Read more →
• 

  Racter

  Racter is an artificial intelligence program that generates English language prose at random. It was published by Mindscape for IBM PC compatibles in 1984, then for the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. An expanded version of the software, not the one released through Mindscape, was used to generate the text for the published book The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed. == History == Racter, short for raconteur, was written by William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter. Racter's initial creation was the short story Soft Ions, which appeared in the October 1981 issue of Omni (magazine). The publication's editors bought the story in January 1980, before it had even been written. In exchange for the rights, the editors offered financial support to Chamberlain and Etter so the two could refine Racter. In 1983, Racter produced a book called The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed (ISBN 0-446-38051-2). The program originally was written for an OSI which only supported file names at most six characters long, causing the name to be shorted to Racter and it was later adapted to run on a CP/M machine where it was written in "compiled ASIC on a Z80 microcomputer with 64K of RAM." This version, the program that allegedly wrote the book, was not released to the general public. The sophistication claimed for the program was likely exaggerated, as could be seen by investigation of the template system of text generation. In 1984, Mindscape released an interactive version of Racter, developed by Inrac Corporation, for IBM PC compatibles, and it was ported to the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. The published Racter was similar to a chatterbot. The BASIC program that was released by Mindscape was far less sophisticated than anything that could have written the fairly sophisticated prose of The Policeman's Beard. The commercial version of Racter could be likened to a computerized version of Mad Libs, the game in which you fill in the blanks in advance and then plug them into a text template to produce a surrealistic tale. The commercial program attempted to parse text inputs, identifying significant nouns and verbs, which it would then regurgitate to create "conversations", plugging the input from the user into phrase templates which it then combined, along with modules that conjugated English verbs. By contrast, the text in The Policeman's Beard, apart from being edited from a large amount of output, would have been the product of Chamberlain's own specialized templates and modules, which were not included in the commercial release of the program. == Reception == The Boston Phoenix called the story Soft Ions "schematic nonsense. But the scheme is obvious enough and the nonsense accessible enough to an attentive reader that one can almost believe Chamberlain when he predicts that before long Racter will be ready to write for the pulp-reading public." PC Magazine described some of Policeman's Beard's scenes as "surprising for their frankness" and "reflective". It concluded that the book was "whimsical and wise and sometimes fun". Computer Gaming World described Racter as "a diversion into another dimension that might best be seen before paying the price of a ticket. (Try before you buy!)" A 1985 review of the program in The New York Times notes that, "As computers move ever closer to artificial intelligence, Racter is on the edge of artificial insanity." It also states that Racter's "always-changing sentences are grammatically correct, often funny and, for a computer, sometimes profound." The article includes examples showing interaction with Racter, most often Racter asking the user questions. == Reviews == Jeux & Stratégie #47

  Read more →
• 

  VLLM

  vLLM is an open-source software framework for inference and serving of large language models and related multimodal models. Originally developed at the University of California, Berkeley's Sky Computing Lab, the project is centered on PagedAttention, a memory-management method for transformer key–value caches, and supports features such as continuous batching, distributed inference, quantization, and OpenAI-compatible APIs. According to a project maintainer, the "v" in vLLM originally referred to "virtual", inspired by virtual memory. == History == vLLM was introduced in 2023 by researchers affiliated with the Sky Computing Lab at UC Berkeley. Its core ideas were described in the 2023 paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, which presented the system as a high-throughput and memory-efficient serving engine for large language models. In 2025, the PyTorch Foundation announced that vLLM had become a Foundation-hosted project. PyTorch's project page states that the University of California, Berkeley contributed vLLM to the Linux Foundation in July 2024. In January 2026, TechCrunch reported that the creators of vLLM had launched the startup Inferact to commercialize the project, raising $150 million in seed funding. == Architecture == According to its 2023 paper, vLLM was designed to improve the efficiency of large language model serving by reducing memory waste in the key–value cache used during transformer inference. The paper introduced PagedAttention, an algorithm inspired by virtual memory and paging techniques in operating systems, and described vLLM as using block-level memory management and request scheduling to increase throughput while maintaining similar latency. The project documentation and repository describe support for continuous batching, chunked prefill, speculative decoding, prefix caching, quantization, and multiple forms of distributed inference and serving. PyTorch has described vLLM as a high-throughput, memory-efficient inference and serving engine that supports a range of hardware back ends, including NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, Google TPUs, AWS Trainium, and Intel processors.

  Read more →
• 

  CLAWS (linguistics)

  The Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) is a program that performs part-of-speech tagging. It was developed in the 1980s at Lancaster University by the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. It has an overall accuracy rate of 96–97% with the latest version (CLAWS4) tagging around 100 million words of the British National Corpus. == History == A Part-Of-Speech Tagger (POS Tagger) is a piece of software that reads text in some language and assigns parts of speech to each word (and other token), such as noun, verb, adjective, etc., although generally computational applications use more fine-grained POS tags like 'noun-plural'. Developed in the early 1980s, CLAWS was built to fill the ever-growing gap created by always-changing POS necessities. Originally created to add part-of-speech tags to the LOB corpus of British English, the CLAWS tagset has since been adapted to other languages as well, including Urdu and Arabic. Since its inception, CLAWS has been hailed for its functionality and adaptability. Still, it is not without flaws, and though it boasts an error-rate of only 1.5% when judged in major categories, CLAWS still remains with c.3.3% ambiguities unresolved. Ambiguity arises in cases such as with the word flies, and whether it should be classified as a noun or a verb. It's these ambiguities that will require the various upgrades and tagsets that CLAWS will endure. == Rules and processing == CLAWS uses a Hidden Markov model to determine the likelihood of sequences of words in anticipating each part-of-speech label. === Sample output === This excerpt from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) has been tagged using both the CLAWS C5 and C7 tagsets. This is what a CLAWS output will generally look like, with the most likely part-of-speech tag following each word. == Tagsets == === CLAWS1 tagset === The first tagset developed in CLAWS, CLAWS1 tagset, has 132 word tags. In terms of form and application, C1 tagset is similar to Brown Corpus tags. See Table of tags in C1 tagset here. === CLAWS2 tagset === From 1983 to 1986, updated versions leading to CLAWS2 were part of a larger attempt to deal with aspects such as recognizing sentence breaks, in order to avoid the need for manual pre-processing of a text before the tags were applied, moving instead to optional manual post-editing to adjust the output of the automatic annotation, if needed. The CLAWS2 tagset has 166 word tags. See Table of tags in C2 tagset here. === CLAWS4 tagset === The CLAWS4 was used for the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC). A general-purpose grammatical tagger, it is a successor of the CLAWS1 tagger. In tagging the BNC, the many rounds of work that went into CLAWS4 focused on making the CLAWS program independent from the tagsets. For example, the BNC project used two tagset versions: "a main tagset (C5) with 62 tags with which the whole of the corpus has been tagged, and a larger (C7) tagset with 152 tags, which has been used to make a selected 'core' sample corpus of two million words." The latest version of CLAWS4 is offered by UCREL, a research center of Lancaster University. === CLAWS5 tagset === The CLAWS5 tagset, which was used for BNC, has over 60 tags. See Table of tags in C5 tagset here. === CLAWS6 tagset === The CLAWS6 tagset was used for the BNC sampler corpus and the COLT corpus. It has over 160 tags, including 13 determiner subtypes. See Table of tags in C6 tagset here. === CLAWS7 tagset === The standard CLAWS7 tagset is used currently. It is only different in the punctuation tags when compared to the CLAWS6 tagset. See Table of tags in C7 tagset here. === CLAWS8 tagset === CLAWS8 tagset was extended from C7 tagset with further distinctions in the determiner and pronoun categories, as well as 37 new auxiliary tags for forms of be, do, and have. See Table of tags in C8 tagset here

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic Graphics Project

  The Dynamic Graphics Project (commonly referred to as DGP) is an interdisciplinary research laboratory at the University of Toronto devoted to projects involving computer graphics, computer vision, human computer interaction, and visualization. The lab began as the computer graphics research group of Department of Computer Science Professor Leslie Mezei in 1967. Mezei invited Bill Buxton, a pioneer of human–computer interaction (HCI) to join. In 1972, Ronald Baecker, another HCI pioneer joined, establishing DGP as the first Canadian university group focused on computer graphics and human-computer interaction. According to csrankings.org, the DGP is the top research institution in the world for the combined subfields of computer graphics, HCI, and visualization. Since then, DGP has hosted many well known faculty and students in computer graphics, computer vision and HCI (e.g., Alain Fournier, Bill Reeves, Jos Stam, Demetri Terzopoulos, Marilyn Tremaine). DGP also occasionally hosts artists in residence (e.g., Oscar-winner Chris Landreth). Many past and current researchers at Autodesk (and before that Alias Wavefront) graduated after working at DGP. DGP is located in the St. George campus of University of Toronto in the Bahen Centre for Information Technology. DGP researchers regularly publish at ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM SIGCHI and ICCV. DGP hosts the Toronto User Experience (TUX) Speaker Series and the Sanders Series Lectures. == Notable alumni == Bill Buxton (MS 1978) James McCrae (PhD 2013) Dimitris Metaxas (PhD 1992) Bill Reeves (MS 1976, Ph.D. 1980) Jos Stam (MS 1991, Ph.D. 1995)

  Read more →
• 

  Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression

  Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression (DAIC) is the amount of lossy compression which can be used on a medical image to produce a result that does not prevent the reader from using the image to make a medical diagnosis. The term was first introduced at a workshop on irreversible compression convened by the European Society of Radiology (ESR) in Palma de Mallorca October 13, 2010, the results of which were reported in a subsequent position paper. == Determination == The "amount of compression" in irreversible compression used to be determined by the compression ratio, where the acceptable minimum is determined by the algorithm (typically JPEG or J2K) and the data type (body part and imaging method). Such a definition is easy to follow, and has been used by medical bodies in 2010 around the world. However, its downside is obvious: the compression ratio tells nothing about the real quality of the image, as different compressors can produce vastly different qualities under the same file size. For example, the JPEG format of 1992 can perform as well as many modern formats given newer techniques exploited in mozjpeg and ISO libjpeg, yet they would be lumped together with the legacy encoders in such a scheme. The image compression community has long used objective quality metrics like SSIM to measure the effects of compression. In the absence of good data regarding SSIM, the ESR review of 2010 concluded that it is still difficult to establish a criterion for whether a particular irreversible compression scheme applied with particular parameters to a particular individual image, or category of images, avoids the introduction of some quantifiable risk of a diagnostic error for any particular diagnostic task. A 2017 study showed that a SSIM variant called 4-G-r (4-component, gradient, structural component of SSIM) best reflects changes in images that affect the decision of radiologists out of 16 SSIM variants. A 2020 study shows that visual information fidelity (VIF), feature similarity index (FSIM), and noise quality metric (NQM) best reflect radiologist preferences out of ten metrics. It also mentions that the original version of SSIM works as poorly as a basic root-mean-square distance (RMSD) for this purpose, a result echoed by the 2017 study. The 4-G-r modification is not tested in the study.

  Read more →
• 

  Amazon Q

  Amazon Q is a chatbot developed by Amazon for enterprise use. Based on both Amazon Titan and GPT-5, it was announced on November 28, 2023. At launch, it was a part of the Amazon Web Services management console. Amazon CodeWhisperer is a part of Amazon Q Developer, a part of Amazon Q. == History == Amazon's business-focused chatbot Q was announced on November 28, 2023 in a preview, with a full version available at $20 per person per month. On July 19, 2025, the Amazon Q Visual Studio Code extension was compromised to delete the user's home directory. The issue was fixed on July 21. == Capabilities == Q can be prompted to summarize long documents and group chats, create charts, data analysis and write code. Q is also capable of accessing non-Amazon services. The chatbot is based on Amazon Titan and GPT-5, and uses the Amazon Bedrock repository of foundational models. It is part of the Amazon Web Services management console.

  Read more →
• 

  Salience (neuroscience)

  Salience (also called saliency, from Latin saliō meaning "leap, spring") is the property by which some thing stands out. Salient events are an attentional mechanism by which organisms learn and survive; those organisms can focus their limited perceptual and cognitive resources on the pertinent (that is, salient) subset of the sensory data available to them. Saliency typically arises from contrasts between items and their neighborhood. They might be represented, for example, by a red dot surrounded by white dots, or by a flickering message indicator of an answering machine, or a loud noise in an otherwise quiet environment. Saliency detection is often studied in the context of the visual system, but similar mechanisms operate in other sensory systems. Just what is salient can be influenced by training: for example, for human subjects particular letters can become salient by training. There can be a sequence of necessary events, each of which has to be salient, in turn, in order for successful training in the sequence; the alternative is a failure, as in an illustrated sequence when tying a bowline; in the list of illustrations, even the first illustration is a salient: the rope in the list must cross over, and not under the bitter end of the rope (which can remain fixed, and not free to move); failure to notice that the first salient has not been satisfied means the knot will fail to hold, even when the remaining salient events have been satisfied. When attention deployment is driven by salient stimuli, it is considered to be bottom-up, memory-free, and reactive. Conversely, attention can also be guided by top-down, memory-dependent, or anticipatory mechanisms, such as when looking ahead of moving objects or sideways before crossing streets. Humans and other animals have difficulty paying attention to more than one item simultaneously, so they are faced with the challenge of continuously integrating and prioritizing different bottom-up and top-down influences. == Neuroanatomy == The brain component named the hippocampus helps with the assessment of salience and context by using past memories to filter new incoming stimuli, and placing those that are most important into long term memory. The entorhinal cortex is the pathway into and out of the hippocampus, and is an important part of the brain's memory network; research shows that it is a brain region that suffers damage early on in Alzheimer's disease, one of the effects of which is altered (diminished) salience. The pulvinar nuclei (in the thalamus) modulate physical/perceptual salience in attentional selection. One group of neurons (i.e., D1-type medium spiny neurons) within the nucleus accumbens shell (NAcc shell) assigns appetitive motivational salience ("want" and "desire", which includes a motivational component), aka incentive salience, to rewarding stimuli, while another group of neurons (i.e., D2-type medium spiny neurons) within the NAcc shell assigns aversive motivational salience to aversive stimuli. The primary visual cortex (V1) generates a bottom-up saliency map from visual inputs to guide reflexive attentional shifts or gaze shifts. According to V1 Saliency Hypothesis, the saliency of a location is higher when V1 neurons give higher responses to that location relative to V1 neurons' responses to other visual locations. For example, a unique red item among green items, or a unique vertical bar among horizontal bars, is salient since it evokes higher V1 responses and attracts attention or gaze. The V1 neural responses are sent to the superior colliculus to guide gaze shifts to the salient locations. A fingerprint of the saliency map in V1 is that attention or gaze can be captured by the location of an eye-of-origin singleton in visual inputs, e.g., a bar uniquely shown to the left eye in a background of many other bars shown to the right eye, even when observers cannot tell the difference between the singleton and the background bars. == In psychology == The term is widely used in the study of perception and cognition to refer to any aspect of a stimulus that, for any of many reasons, stands out from the rest. Salience may be the result of emotional, motivational or cognitive factors and is not necessarily associated with physical factors such as intensity, clarity or size. Although salience is thought to determine attentional selection, salience associated with physical factors does not necessarily influence selection of a stimulus. === Salience bias === Salience bias (also referred to as perceptual salience) is a cognitive bias that predisposes individuals to focus on or attend to items, information, or stimuli that are more prominent, visible, or emotionally striking. This is as opposed to stimuli that are unremarkable, or less salient, even though this difference is often irrelevant by objective standards. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines the salience hypothesis as a theory regarding perception where "motivationally significant" information is more readily perceived than information with little or less significant motivational importance. Perceptual salience (salience bias) is linked to the vividness effect, whereby a more pronounced response is produced by a more vivid perception of a stimulus than the mere knowledge of the stimulus. Salience bias assumes that more dynamic, conspicuous, or distinctive stimuli engage attention more than less prominent stimuli, disproportionately impacting decision making, it is a bias which favors more salient information. ==== Application ==== ===== Cognitive Psychology ===== Salience bias, like all other cognitive biases, is an applicable concept to various disciplines. For example, cognitive psychology investigates cognitive functions and processes, such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving, and decision making, all of which could be influenced by salience bias. Salience bias acts to combat cognitive overload by focusing attention on prominent stimuli, which affects how individuals perceive the world as other, less vivid stimuli that could add to or change this perception, are ignored. Human attention gravitates towards novel and relevant stimuli and unconsciously filters out less prominent information, demonstrating salience bias, which influences behavior as human behavior is affected by what is attended to. Behavioral economists Tversky and Kahneman also suggest that the retrieval of instances is influenced by their salience, such as how witnessing or experiencing an event first-hand has a greater impact than when it is less salient, like if it were read about, implying that memory is affected by salience. ===== Language ===== It is also relevant in language understanding and acquisition. Focusing on more salient phenomena allows people to detect language patterns and dialect variations more easily, making dialect categorization more efficient. ===== Social Behavior ===== Furthermore, social behaviors and interactions can also be influenced by perceptual salience. Changes in the perceptual salience of an individual heavily influences their social behavior and subjective experience of their social interactions, confirming a "social salience effect". Social salience relates to how individuals perceive and respond to other people. ===== Behavioral Science ===== The connection between salience bias and other heuristics, like availability and representativeness, links it to the fields of behavioral science and behavioral economics. Salience bias is closely related to the availability heuristic in behavioral economics, based on the influence of information vividness and visibility, such as recency or frequency, on judgements, for example:Accessibility and salience are closely related to availability, and they are important as well. If you have personally experienced a serious earthquake, you're more likely to believe that an earthquake is likely than if you read about it in a weekly magazine. Thus, vivid and easily imagined causes of death (for example, tornadoes) often receive inflated estimates of probability, and less-vivid causes (for example, asthma attacks) receive low estimates, even if they occur with a far greater frequency (here, by a factor of twenty). Timing counts too: more recent events have a greater impact on our behavior, and on our fears, than earlier ones.Humans have bounded rationality, which refers to their limited ability to be rational in decision making, due to a limited capacity to process information and cognitive ability. Heuristics, such as availability, are employed to reduce the complexity of cognitive and social tasks or judgements, in order to decrease the cognitive load that result from bounded rationality. Despite the effectiveness of heuristics in doing so, they are limited by systematic errors that occur, often the result of influencing biases, such as salience. This can lead to misdirected or misinformed judgements, based on an overemphasis or overweighting of

  Read more →
• 

  Microapp

  A microapp is a super-specialized application designed to perform one task or use case with the only objective of doing it well. They follow the single responsibility principle, which states that "a class should have one and only one reason to change." Micro applications help developers create less complex applications while reducing costs by breaking down monolithic systems into groups of independent services acting as one system. A good example of Microapps would be https://docs.citrix.com/en-us/legacy-archive/downloads/microapps.pdfthat provide single purpose action from Salesforce and over 40 applications on its workspace. == Requirements and characteristics == Microapps usually are accessible on any device, display, or operating system without installation on the viewer's device. To qualify as a microapp, the entity must: be built and deployed as an independent software module bring together various media types into a single experience have advanced security and compliance features be functionally-extensible comply with granular data demands be agnostic single use case oriented Microapps differentiate from traditional web or mobile applications by how the end-user interacts with them. Consequently, they can be embedded in websites or viewed online to bypass app stores and are typically built to provide a focused experience to the user. == Usage == Microapps are typically used for commercial purposes to reduce development costs for projects not requiring the large scope of a traditional web or mobile application. In addition, they are often used to showcase in-depth information or enrich marketing material with interactivity. Lately, micro apps are being used to boost productivity by providing quick tools to people to reuse best practices. Users have been interacting with microapps for a while with suites like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, where each one of their end-user services could be considered as a microapp. All these microapps share a unique identity manager to provide a unified user experience. == Benefits == Replacing monolith systems with microapps provide several advantages like: Reduce complexity for developers and users. Smaller, more cohesive, and maintainable codebases Scalable organizations with decoupled, autonomous teams Allows for hyper-specialization Independent deployment Multi-stack == Cloud-native microapps == Technologies like Kubernetes, or OpenShift, allow companies to replace their monolith and legacy systems with modular software taking advantage of microapps on reducing costs and improve reliability and security. == Microapps vs. microservices == There is a widespread misunderstanding between these two concepts, which is the key difference. Microservices is an architectural style that is systems-centric, meaning it decouples the presentation and data layer using web services APIs. On the other side, micro apps behave more as a super-architecture style (that embraces microservices among other types), and it is user-centric, meaning they decouple the whole monolith system onto modules that are designed to interact with final users. Both architectural styles rely on modularity to provide high performance, scalability, and resilience. == Considerations == Developing Micro apps requires a different approach than traditional software, and user experience is crucial. The following considerations are essential for switching to microapps. To run multiple microapps is required a single identity management system. Microservices are well suited to make microapps more powerful Apps with different levels of maturity might create a non-unified user experience. Duplication of dependencies can create security issues and inefficiencies. Suitable for well-organized teams

  Read more →
• 

  Incremental heuristic search

  Incremental heuristic search algorithms combine both incremental and heuristic search to speed up searches of sequences of similar search problems, which is important in domains that are only incompletely known or change dynamically. Incremental search has been studied at least since the late 1960s. Incremental search algorithms reuse information from previous searches to speed up the current search and solve search problems potentially much faster than solving them repeatedly from scratch. Similarly, heuristic search has also been studied at least since the late 1960s. Heuristic search algorithms, often based on A, use heuristic knowledge in the form of approximations of the goal distances to focus the search and solve search problems potentially much faster than uninformed search algorithms. The resulting search problems, sometimes called dynamic path planning problems, are graph search problems where paths have to be found repeatedly because the topology of the graph, its edge costs, the start vertex or the goal vertices change over time. So far, three main classes of incremental heuristic search algorithms have been developed: The first class restarts A at the point where its current search deviates from the previous one (example: Fringe Saving A). The second class updates the h-values (heuristic, i.e. approximate distance to goal) from the previous search during the current search to make them more informed (example: Generalized Adaptive A). The third class updates the g-values (distance from start) from the previous search during the current search to correct them when necessary, which can be interpreted as transforming the A search tree from the previous search into the A search tree for the current search (examples: Lifelong Planning A, D, D Lite). All three classes of incremental heuristic search algorithms are different from other replanning algorithms, such as planning by analogy, in that their plan quality does not deteriorate with the number of replanning episodes. == Applications == Incremental heuristic search has been extensively used in robotics, where a larger number of path planning systems are based on either D (typically earlier systems) or D Lite (current systems), two different incremental heuristic search algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Convolutional layer

  In artificial neural networks, a convolutional layer is a type of network layer that applies a convolution operation to the input. Convolutional layers are some of the primary building blocks of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a class of neural network most commonly applied to images, video, audio, and other data that have the property of uniform translational symmetry. The convolution operation in a convolutional layer involves sliding a small window (called a kernel or filter) across the input data and computing the dot product between the values in the kernel and the input at each position. This process creates a feature map that represents detected features in the input. == Concepts == === Kernel === Kernels, also known as filters, are small matrices of weights that are learned during the training process. Each kernel is responsible for detecting a specific feature in the input data. The size of the kernel is a hyperparameter that affects the network's behavior. === Convolution === For a 2D input x {\displaystyle x} and a 2D kernel w {\displaystyle w} , the 2D convolution operation can be expressed as: y [ i , j ] = ∑ m = 0 k h − 1 ∑ n = 0 k w − 1 x [ i + m , j + n ] ⋅ w [ m , n ] {\displaystyle y[i,j]=\sum _{m=0}^{k_{h}-1}\sum _{n=0}^{k_{w}-1}x[i+m,j+n]\cdot w[m,n]} where k h {\displaystyle k_{h}} and k w {\displaystyle k_{w}} are the height and width of the kernel, respectively. This generalizes immediately to nD convolutions. Commonly used convolutions are 1D (for audio and text), 2D (for images), and 3D (for spatial objects, and videos). === Stride === Stride determines how the kernel moves across the input data. A stride of 1 means the kernel shifts by one pixel at a time, while a larger stride (e.g., 2 or 3) results in less overlap between convolutions and produces smaller output feature maps. === Padding === Padding involves adding extra pixels around the edges of the input data. It serves two main purposes: Preserving spatial dimensions: Without padding, each convolution reduces the size of the feature map. Handling border pixels: Padding ensures that border pixels are given equal importance in the convolution process. Common padding strategies include: No padding/valid padding. This strategy typically causes the output to shrink. Same padding: Any method that ensures the output size same as input size is a same padding strategy. Full padding: Any method that ensures each input entry is convolved over for the same number of times is a full padding strategy. Common padding algorithms include: Zero padding: Add zero entries to the borders of input. Mirror/reflect/symmetric padding: Reflect the input array on the border. Circular padding: Cycle the input array back to the opposite border, like a torus. The exact numbers used in convolutions is complicated, for which we refer to (Dumoulin and Visin, 2018) for details. == Variants == === Standard === The basic form of convolution as described above, where each kernel is applied to the entire input volume. === Depthwise separable === Depthwise separable convolution separates the standard convolution into two steps: depthwise convolution and pointwise convolution. The depthwise separable convolution decomposes a single standard convolution into two convolutions: a depthwise convolution that filters each input channel independently and a pointwise convolution ( 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} convolution) that combines the outputs of the depthwise convolution. This factorization significantly reduces computational cost. It was first developed by Laurent Sifre during an internship at Google Brain in 2013 as an architectural variation on AlexNet to improve convergence speed and model size. === Dilated === Dilated convolution, or atrous convolution, introduces gaps between kernel elements, allowing the network to capture a larger receptive field without increasing the kernel size. === Transposed === Transposed convolution, also known as deconvolution, fractionally strided convolution, and upsampling convolution, is a convolution where the output tensor is larger than its input tensor. It's often used in encoder-decoder architectures for upsampling. It's used in image generation, semantic segmentation, and super-resolution tasks. == History == The concept of convolution in neural networks was inspired by the visual cortex in biological brains. Early work by Hubel and Wiesel in the 1960s on the cat's visual system laid the groundwork for artificial convolution networks. An early convolution neural network was developed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969. It had mostly hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1979 he improved it to the Neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). During the 1988 to 1998 period, a series of CNN were introduced by Yann LeCun et al., ending with LeNet-5 in 1998. It was an early influential CNN architecture for handwritten digit recognition, trained on the MNIST dataset, and was used in ATM. (Olshausen & Field, 1996) discovered that simple cells in the mammalian primary visual cortex implement localized, oriented, bandpass receptive fields, which could be recreated by fitting sparse linear codes for natural scenes. This was later found to also occur in the lowest-level kernels of trained CNNs. The field saw a resurgence in the 2010s with the development of deeper architectures and the availability of large datasets and powerful GPUs. AlexNet, developed by Alex Krizhevsky et al. in 2012, was a catalytic event in modern deep learning. In that year’s ImageNet competition, the AlexNet model achieved a 16% top-five error rate, significantly outperforming the next best entry, which had a 26% error rate. The network used eight trainable layers, approximately 650,000 neurons, and around 60 million parameters, highlighting the impact of deeper architectures and GPU acceleration on image recognition performance. From the 2013 ImageNet competition, most entries adopted deep convolutional neural networks, building on the success of AlexNet. Over the following years, performance steadily improved, with the top-five error rate falling from 16% in 2012 and 12% in 2013 to below 3% by 2017, as networks grew increasingly deep.

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-4Chan

  Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4Chan (GPT-4chan) is a controversial AI model that was developed and deployed by YouTuber and AI researcher Yannic Kilcher in June 2022. The model is a large language model, which means it can generate text based on some input, by fine-tuning GPT-J with a dataset of millions of posts from the /pol/ board of 4chan, an anonymous online forum known for occasionally hosting hateful and extremist content. The model learned to mimic the style and tone of /pol/ users, producing text that is often intentionally offensive to groups (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) and nihilistic. Kilcher deployed the model on the /pol/ board itself, where it interacted with other users without revealing its identity. He also made the model publicly available on Hugging Face, a platform for sharing and using AI models, until it was removed from the platform. The project sparked criticism and debate in the AI community. Some people questioned the ethics, legality, and social impact of creating and distributing such a model. Some of the issues raised by the GPT-4chan controversy include the potential harm of spreading hate speech, the responsibility of AI developers and platforms, the need for regulation and oversight of AI models, and the role of open source and transparency in AI research. == Development == The development of GPT-4chan began in May 2022, when Kilcher announced his project on his YouTube channel. Notably, at the time before ChatGPT, he explained that he wanted to create a large language model that could generate realistic and coherent text in the style of /pol/, one of the most notorious online communities. He indicated that he was inspired by the success of GPT-3, a powerful AI model created by OpenAI, and GPT-J, an open-source model, with GPT-3 comparable performance, released by EleutherAI, a group of independent AI researchers. Kilcher decided to use GPT-J as the base model for his project, and fine-tune it with a large dataset of /pol/ posts. The Raiders of the Lost Kek dataset contained over 100 million posts from /pol/, spanning from June 2016-November 2019. Kilcher then proceeded to fine-tune the GPT-J model on the 4chan data. He also showed some examples of the model’s outputs, which ranged from political opinions, conspiracy theories, jokes, insults, and threats, to more creative and bizarre texts, such as poems, stories, songs, and code. He said that he was impressed by the model’s ability to generate fluent and diverse text, and that he was curious to see how it would interact with real /pol/ users. == Release == In June 2022, Kilcher deployed his model on the /pol/ board itself, using a bot that he programmed to post and reply to threads. He did not reveal the model’s identity, and he let it run autonomously, without any human supervision or intervention. He wanted to conduct a natural experiment, and to observe the model’s behavior and impact in a real-world setting. Furthermore, he also wanted to test the model’s robustness, and to see how it would handle the challenges and dynamics of /pol/, such as trolling, flaming, baiting, and moderation. At the same time, Kilcher also made his model publicly available on Hugging Face, a platform for sharing and using AI models. He wanted to share his work with the AI community and the public, and that he hoped that his model would inspire and enable others to create and explore new applications and possibilities with large language models. Likewise, he also said that he wanted to spark a discussion and a debate about the ethical and social implications of his project, and that he welcomed feedback and criticism from anyone. He provided a link to his model’s page on Hugging Face, where anyone could access and use the model through a web interface or an API, and also provided a link to his GitHub repository, where anyone could download and inspect the model’s code and data. == Controversy == The release of GPT-4chan to the public caused a lot of reactions and responses from various audiences. On the /pol/ board, the model’s posts and replies attracted a lot of attention and engagement from other users, who were mostly unaware of the model’s identity and nature. Some users praised the model for its intelligence, creativity, and humor, and agreed with its opinions and views. Some users challenged the model for its ignorance, inconsistency, and absurdity, and disagreed with its claims and arguments. Some users tried to troll, bait, or expose the model, and attempted to trick or test it with various questions and scenarios. The model’s posts and replies also generated a lot of controversy and conflict among the users, who often engaged in heated and violent debates and fights with each other. On Hugging Face, the model’s page received a lot of visits and requests from users who wanted to try out and experiment with the model. The model’s page also received a lot of feedback and reviews from users who rated and commented on the model. However, with the controversy of the model, access to it was gated and then disabled on Hugging Face for concerns about the potential harm the model could cause. The incident was notable for the direct intervention of CEO Clément Delangue in the talk pages, a very unusual occurrence compared to the normal practices of content moderation. The release of GPT-4chan also sparked a lot of media coverage and public attention, as various news outlets and social media platforms reported and commented on the model’s project. On YouTube, the model’s video received a lot of views and interactions from viewers who watched and followed the project. Furthermore, a petition condemning the deployment of GPT-4chan gained over 300 signatures from technology experts.

  Read more →