AI For Business Analytics

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

Nanosemantics

Nanosemantics Lab is a Russian IT company specializing in natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), speech technologies (ASR/TTS) and creation of interactive dialog interfaces, particularly chatbots and virtual assistants, based on artificial intelligence (AI). The company uses neural network platforms, including its own-made platform PuzzleLib which works on Russian-made microprocessor architecture Elbrus and Russia-based Astra Linux operating system. The company was founded in 2005 by Igor Ashmanov and Natalya Kaspersky. == Profile == The company was one of the first on Russian market to develop dialog interfaces for different branches of businesses, as well as to support community of AI developers. The company's most demanded product, as for beginning of the 2020s, is the automated "online advisers", functioning as chat bots, made for helping customers with usage of commercial products. In 2009 the company released an online service called iii.ru, where visitors were able to create their own AI-based virtual personalities entitles "infs" (for free). A visitor was able to train its own "inf" and let them chat to other "live" visitors as well with other "infs". More than 2.3 million of "infs" were created and trained by visitors over several years. Nanosemantics Lab maintains its own linguistic programming language for AI development called Dialog Language (DL). Popular social networks and instant messaging services may be used as base platforms. Nanosemantics' AI bots support different types of businesses: banks and financial services, telecommunications, retail, travel and automobile industry, home appliances production, etc. Among its solutions, Nanosemantics lists projects for various companies and institutions, among them VTB, Beeline, MTS, Sberbank, Higher School of Economics, Webmoney, Gazpromneft, Rostelecom, Ford Motors, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and others. The company uses the term "inf" for naming its numerous types of chat bots. The term was coined by co-founder Igor Ashmanov, head of Ashmanov & Partners. A 2014 scholarly research at Higher School of Economics, called "Basics of Business Informatics", states that such "infs", when used at business, may lower load on employees, collect statistics useful for understanding market demand and also may increase customer loyalty by providing fast and informative answers due to usage of large databases. The same research describes Nanosemantics' project for Russian branch of Ford Motors company, when AI capabilities were used for promoting the car model Ford Kuga. The research pointed out that within 2 months since beginning, the promo-website conducted 47774 talks of visitors with the specialized "inf", which indicated several hundred thousand of questions and the longest chat lasted for 3 hours 10 minutes. One-year promo campaign showed that 28.6% of people who made pre-orders talked to an "inf". In 2016 Nanosemantics launched a SaaS platform aimed at creating customized virtual assistants by users. The company's flagship product is considered to be Dialog Operating System (DialogOS), a professional corporate platform for creating intellectual voice and textual bots. It has its own linguistic programming language for creation of flexible scenarios and ready-studied neural natural language processing modules that are able to understand human interlocutors. In 2021 the company presented technology called NLab Speech ASR which contains a set of neural-networking algorithms for processing audio signals and analysis of texts that were trained and calibrated using speech-based big data marked up manually. The technology allows speed of processing of data up to "6 real-time factor" and precision values in noisy audio data may exceed 82%. In March 2022 the technology was included in Russia's Joint Registry for Russian Programs for Computers and Databases. As well, another technology was included: NLab Speech TTS, which is text-to-speech system that produces synthesized speech from printed text. == Joint projects == Nanosemantics participates in Ashmanov & Partners' projects related to AI. Since 2014, it helps in development of hardware "personal assistant" called Lexy, a solution similar to Amazon Alexa and the analogues. In August 2019 it was announced that Nanosemantics is going to participate in creation of open operating system for creating automated voice assistants. The project was called SOVA (Smart Open Virtual Assistant) and received investment of 300 million roubles (~$4,6 million) from Russian state-maintained National Technological Initiative. The company maintains long-term partnerships with Skolkovo Innovation Center (resident of IT cluster), branch association "Neuronet" and Yandex. Together with USA-based startup Remedy Logic, Nanosemantics has developed a medical diagnostic system for finding, using AI, spinal pathologies in tomography images of human bodies. Among them: central, foraminal and lateral lumbar stenosis, hernias, arthrosis. The system offers options of treatment. Since August 2021 the company is the resident of Technology Valley of Moscow State University. Also in 2021, Nanosemantics became a member of Committee on Artificial Intelligence within the Russian Association of Software Developers "Native Soft". The company states as one of its missions support of initiatives aimed at preservation and development of the Russian language. In May 2021, together with Pushkin Institute, the company created a chat bot called Phil, that explains to Russian people meaning of different Russian neologisms, and offers synonyms for them. Bot's vocabulary contains more than 500 neologisms, as well the bot can give advice on jargonisms and other types of specific words. Also in 2021, Nanosemanics Lab has signed the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence". It establishes guidelines for ethical behavior of businesses that implement AI-based solutions. === IT contests === The company regularly organizes All-Russian Turing Test competitions for IT developers. Some of these events are co-organized with Microsoft. During the competitions, judges randomly choose virtual interlocutor and have a short conversation with them. They have to determine if a human or a machine is talking to them. An interlocutor may be either a bot or its human creator or operator. The results are measured in per cent of judges that were successfully convinced by a machine that it was a human. In 2021 Nanosemantics took part in federal project "Artificial Intelligence" by National Technological Initiative. In December 2021 the company together with state enterprise "Resource Center of Universal Design and Rehabilitation Technologies" (RCUD-RT) held an all-Russian hackathon aimed at development of AI solutions for medicine. During 3 days, participants created several training programs for patients with speech disorders. In April 2022, another hackathon by Nanosemantics was held together with MIREA – Russian Technological University. Students were participating and trying to generate algorithms for voice deepfakes. 17 teams contested in creation of software that generated artificial voice of a certain person. == Recognition == Since its foundation, Nanosemantics Lab has received a number of recognitions and awards. Among them are several professional ROTOR awards for the website iii.ru (created in 2009). The website gives the general public the means to create and train virtual assistants, which can then be used on a website or integrated into social networks. In 2013, a virtual assistant called Dana, created for Beeline Kazakhstan, was awarded with professional prize "Crystal Headset" in nomination "the best applying of technology". In 2015, the RBTH international media service included Nanosemantics in its list of "Top 50 Startups" in Russia. In 2016, the company received Russian state-maintained award called Runet Prize in two nominations: "State and Society" and "Technology and Innovation". In 2021, in Velikiy Novgorod, Nanosemantics team has won a hackathon aimed at finding means of discovering corruption schemes in Russian laws. In February 2022 the company won another contest by National Technological Initiative, called "Prochtenie", aimed at creation of AI systems for checking schoolchildren's school essays. The Nanosemantics team was awarded 20 million rubles for "overcoming technological barrier" in contest dedicated to English language, and 12 million for 1st place in special nomination "Structure" in Russian-language essay contest.
Read more →
Evolutionary computation

Evolutionary computation (EC) from computer science is a family of algorithms for global optimization inspired by biological evolution, and a subfield of computational intelligence and soft computing studying these algorithms. In technical terms, they are a family of population-based trial and error problem solvers with a metaheuristic or stochastic optimization character. In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated. Each new generation is produced by stochastically removing less desired solutions, and introducing small random changes as well as, depending on the method, mixing parental information. In biological terminology, a population of solutions is subjected to natural selection (or artificial selection), mutation and possibly recombination. These biological functions serve as role models for the genetic operators - mutation, crossover, and selection - used in the EC procedures. As a result, the population will gradually evolve to increase in fitness, in this case the chosen fitness function of the algorithm. Evolutionary computation techniques can produce highly optimized solutions in a wide range of problem settings, making them popular in computer science. Many variants and extensions exist, suited to more specific families of problems and data structures. Evolutionary computation is also sometimes used in evolutionary biology as an in silico experimental procedure to study common aspects of general evolutionary processes. == History == The concept of mimicking evolutionary processes to solve problems originates before the advent of computers, such as when Alan Turing proposed a method of genetic search in 1948 . Turing's B-type u-machines resemble primitive neural networks, and connections between neurons were learnt via a sort of genetic algorithm. His P-type u-machines resemble a method for reinforcement learning, where pleasure and pain signals direct the machine to learn certain behaviors. However, Turing's paper went unpublished until 1968, and he died in 1954, so this early work had little to no effect on the field of evolutionary computation that was to develop. Evolutionary computing as a field began in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. There were several independent attempts to use the process of evolution in computing at this time, which developed separately for roughly 15 years. Three branches emerged in different places to attain this goal: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, and genetic algorithms. A fourth branch, genetic programming, eventually emerged in the early 1990s. These approaches differ in the method of selection, the permitted mutations, and the representation of genetic data. By the 1990s, the distinctions between the historic branches had begun to blur, and the term 'evolutionary computing' was coined in 1991 to denote a field that exists over all four paradigms. In 1962, Lawrence J. Fogel initiated the research of Evolutionary Programming in the United States, which was considered an artificial intelligence endeavor. In this system, finite state machines are used to solve a prediction problem: these machines would be mutated (adding or deleting states, or changing the state transition rules), and the best of these mutated machines would be evolved further in future generations. The final finite state machine may be used to generate predictions when needed. The evolutionary programming method was successfully applied to prediction problems, system identification, and automatic control. It was eventually extended to handle time series data and to model the evolution of gaming strategies. In 1964, Ingo Rechenberg and Hans-Paul Schwefel introduce the paradigm of evolution strategies in Germany. Since traditional gradient descent techniques produce results that may get stuck in local minima, Rechenberg and Schwefel proposed that random mutations (applied to all parameters of some solution vector) may be used to escape these minima. Child solutions were generated from parent solutions, and the more successful of the two was kept for future generations. This technique was first used by the two to successfully solve optimization problems in fluid dynamics. Initially, this optimization technique was performed without computers, instead relying on dice to determine random mutations. By 1965, the calculations were performed wholly by machine. John Henry Holland introduced genetic algorithms in the 1960s, and it was further developed at the University of Michigan in the 1970s. While the other approaches were focused on solving problems, Holland primarily aimed to use genetic algorithms to study adaptation and determine how it may be simulated. Populations of chromosomes, represented as bit strings, were transformed by an artificial selection process, selecting for specific 'allele' bits in the bit string. Among other mutation methods, interactions between chromosomes were used to simulate the recombination of DNA between different organisms. While previous methods only tracked a single optimal organism at a time (having children compete with parents), Holland's genetic algorithms tracked large populations (having many organisms compete each generation). By the 1990s, a new approach to evolutionary computation that came to be called genetic programming emerged, advocated for by John Koza among others. In this class of algorithms, the subject of evolution was itself a program written in a high-level programming language (there had been some previous attempts as early as 1958 to use machine code, but they met with little success). For Koza, the programs were Lisp S-expressions, which can be thought of as trees of sub-expressions. This representation permits programs to swap subtrees, representing a sort of genetic mixing. Programs are scored based on how well they complete a certain task, and the score is used for artificial selection. Sequence induction, pattern recognition, and planning were all successful applications of the genetic programming paradigm. Many other figures played a role in the history of evolutionary computing, although their work did not always fit into one of the major historical branches of the field. The earliest computational simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life techniques were performed by Nils Aall Barricelli in 1953, with first results published in 1954. Another pioneer in the 1950s was Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection. As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs. Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimize the design of systems. == Techniques == Evolutionary computing techniques mostly involve metaheuristic optimization algorithms. Broadly speaking, the field includes: Agent-based modeling Ant colony optimization Particle swarm optimization Swarm intelligence Artificial immune systems Artificial life Digital organism Cultural algorithms Differential evolution Dual-phase evolution Estimation of distribution algorithm Evolutionary algorithm Genetic algorithm Evolutionary programming Genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Evolution strategy Learnable evolution model Learning classifier system Memetic algorithms Neuroevolution Self-organization such as self-organizing maps, competitive learning Over recent years many dubious algorithms have been proposed, that are often just copies of existing algorithms (frequently Particle Swarm Optimization), where only the metaphor changed, but the algorithm itself is not new at all. A thorough catalogue with many of these dubious algorithms has been published in the Evolutionary Computation Bestiary. It is also important to note that many of these dubiously 'novel' algorithms have poor experimental validation. == Evolutionary algorithms == Evolutionary algorithms form a subset of evolutionary computation in that they generally only involve techniques implementing mechanisms inspired by biological evolution such as reproduction, mutation, recombination and natural selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the cost function determines the environment within which the solutions "live" (see also fitness function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. In this process, there are two main forces that form the basis of evolutionary systems: Recombination (e.g. crossover) and mutation create the necessary diversity and thereby facilitate novelty, while selection acts as a force increasing quality. Many aspects of such an evolutionary process are stochastic. Changed pieces of information due to recombination and mutati
Read more →
Generative AI pornography

Generative AI pornography or simply AI pornography is a digitally created pornography produced through generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Unlike traditional pornography, which involves real actors and cameras, this content is synthesized entirely by AI algorithms. These algorithms, including generative adversarial networks (GANs) and text-to-image models, generate lifelike images, videos, or animations from textual descriptions or datasets. == Functions and production strategies == AI pornography platforms, beyond account creation and social media linking, primarily enable users to generate sexual images through feature selection or text prompting. Users can customize bodies, clothing, and sociodemographic traits, and browse categorized galleries of user‑generated content. Several sites also support short pornographic videos or GIFs and modification tools such as nudifiers, deepfakes, and facemorphing. Platforms often allow fine‑tuning of parameters such as settings, style, or theme, and provide prompt enhancers or suggestions to improve outputs. Users may edit generated images, refine prior prompts, modify others’ work, or upload personal material as a basis, with iterative and collaborative content creation. Some websites additionally host interactive “erobots,” customizable in real time for appearance, personality, memories, speech, and profession, enabling tailored sexual and non‑sexual interactions. Less common features include VR integration, AI porn games, audio or doodle prompts, and consensual replication of individuals with verification. == History == The use of generative AI in the adult industry began in the late 2010s, initially focusing on AI-generated art, music, and visual content. This trend accelerated in 2022 with Stability AI's release of Stable Diffusion (SD), an open-source text-to-image model that enables users to generate images, including NSFW content, from text prompts using the LAION-Aesthetics subset of the LAION-5B dataset. Despite Stability AI's warnings against sexual imagery, SD's public release led to dedicated communities exploring both artistic and explicit content, sparking ethical debates over open-access AI and its use in adult media. By 2020, AI tools had advanced to generate highly realistic adult content, amplifying calls for regulation. === AI-generated influencers === One application of generative AI technology is the creation of AI-generated influencers on platforms such as OnlyFans and Instagram. These AI personas interact with users in ways that can mimic real human engagement, offering an entirely synthetic but convincing experience. While popular among niche audiences, these virtual influencers have prompted discussions about authenticity, consent, and the blurring line between human and AI-generated content, especially in adult entertainment. === The growth of AI porn sites === By 2023, websites dedicated to AI-generated adult content had gained traction, catering to audiences seeking customizable experiences. These platforms allow users to create or view AI-generated pornography tailored to their preferences. These platforms enable users to create or view AI-generated adult content appealing to different preferences through prompts and tags, customizing body type, facial features, and art styles. Tags further refine the output, creating niche and diverse content. Many sites feature extensive image libraries and continuous content feeds, combining personalization with discovery and enhancing user engagement. AI porn sites, therefore, attract those seeking unique or niche experiences, sparking debates on creativity and the ethical boundaries of AI in adult media. == Ethical concerns and misuse == The growth of generative AI pornography has also attracted some cause for criticism. AI technology can be exploited to create non-consensual pornographic material, posing risks similar to those seen with deepfake revenge porn and AI-generated NCII (Non-Consensual Intimate Image). A 2023 analysis found that 98% of deepfake videos online are pornographic, with 99% of the victims being women. Some famous celebrities victims of deepfake include Scarlett Johansson, Taylor Swift, and Maisie Williams. OpenAI is exploring whether NSFW content, such as erotica, can be responsibly generated in age-appropriate contexts while maintaining its ban on deepfakes. This proposal has attracted criticism from child safety campaigners who argue it undermines OpenAI's mission to develop "safe and beneficial" AI. Additionally, the Internet Watch Foundation has raised concerns about AI being used to generate sexual abuse content involving children. === AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery (AI Undress) === Generative AI have extensively been used to produce pornography images and videos of non-consenting individuals. 404 Media reported a particular AI generated porn bot on Telegram has more than 100,000 monthly users. Alibaba, the Chinese tech company, released an AI video generation model in 2025 called Wan 2.1, which was modified to produce non-consensual pornography. Several US states are taking actions against using deepfake apps and sharing them on the internet. In 2024, San Francisco filed a landmark lawsuit to shut down "undress" apps that allow users to generate non-consensual AI nude images, citing violations of state laws. The case aligns with California's recent legislation—SB 926, SB 942, and SB 981—championed by Senators Aisha Wahab and Josh Becker and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. These bills aim to protect individuals from AI-generated explicit images by criminalizing non-consensual distribution, mandating disclosures, and empowering victims to report and remove harmful content from platforms. === Differences from deepfake pornography === While both generative AI pornography and deepfake pornography rely on synthetic media, they differ in their methods and ethical considerations. Deepfake pornography typically involves altering existing footage of real individuals, often without their consent, using AI to superimpose faces, undress said persons, or modify scenes. In contrast, generative AI pornography is created using algorithms, producing hyper-realistic content without the need to upload real pictures of people. Hany Farid, digital image analysis expert, also described the difference between "AI porn" and "deepfake porn." == Legality == The legality of generative AI pornography varies widely by jurisdiction and remains an evolving issue. In some countries, laws addressing digital impersonation, obscenity, or deepfake technologies may indirectly apply, particularly when AI-generated content involves the likeness of real individuals without consent. The absence of a physical performer further complicates traditional regulatory frameworks, which are often grounded in performer protection and distribution laws. In the United States, legal responses have primarily focused on non-consensual deepfakes and impersonation. Some states, such as Virginia, California, and Texas, have enacted legislation criminalising the creation or distribution of non-consensual explicit deepfake content. However, there is no comprehensive federal law addressing AI-generated pornography, leaving a patchwork of legal interpretations and enforcement standards across different jurisdictions. According to a 2023 report, South Korea accounts for approximately 53% of global deepfake pornography production. In September 2024, South Korea's National Assembly amended the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, introducing two significant reforms related to deepfake content. The first criminalises the possession, viewing, purchase, and storage of non-consensual deepfake material, with penalties of up to three years in prison or fines of up to 30 million won (approximately USD 20,000). The second reform specifically addresses the exploitation of minors, establishing that individuals who use deepfakes to threaten or blackmail minors face a minimum of three years' imprisonment, and at least five years if they coerce minors into unwanted acts. In England and Wales the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has legislated against the creation, or the request for creation, of intimate images by nudifying software or websites of another person who has not consented to this. However as of January 2026 this has not yet been brought into force.
Read more →
Felix, Net i Nika

Felix, Net i Nika ("Felix, Net and Nika") is a series of Polish language science fiction books for teenagers, written by Rafał Kosik. It tells the adventures of three friends - Felix Polon, Net Bielecki and Nika Mickiewicz - who attend fictional Professor Kuszmiński Middle School in Warsaw. As of 2024, eighteen books have been published. == Books == There are currently 18 books in the series: Felix, Net and Nika and the Gang of Invisible People - November 2004. Felix, Net and Nika and the Theoretically Possible Catastrophe - November 2005 Felix, Net and Nika and the Palace of Dreams - November 2006 Felix, Net and Nika and the Trap of Immortality - November 2007 Felix, Net and Nika and the Orbital Conspiracy - November 2008 Felix, Net and Nika and the Orbital Conspiracy 2: Small Army - May 2009 Felix, Net and Nika and the Third Cousin - November 2009 Felix, Net and Nika and the Rebellion of Machines - March 2011 Felix, Net and Nika and the World Zero - November 2011 Felix, Net and Nika and the World Zero 2. Alternauts - November 2012 Felix, Net and Nika and the Extracurricular Stories - April 2013 Felix, Net and Nika and the Secret of Czerwona Hańcza - November 2013 Felix, Net and Nika and Curse of McKillian's House - November 2014 Felix, Net and Nika and (un)Safe Growing up - November 2015 Felix, Net and Nika and The End of The World as We Know It - November 2018 Felix, Net and Nika and No Chance - November 2022 Felix, Net and Nika and No Chance 2: other tomorrrow - 2023 Felix, Net and Nika and Fantology - June 2024 == Film == A feature motion picture, Felix, Net i Nika oraz Teoretycznie Możliwa Katastrofa (Felix, Net and Nika and the Theoretically Possible Catastrophe) was released in Poland on September 28, 2012. == Main characters == Felix Polon - a foresighted, fair-haired boy with dark brown eyes. He inherited the talent of constructing various things, especially robots, from his father- it saved his friends many times. He can make anything from nothing, always finds a way out of a situation; almost always has a plan. Together with his parents Marlene and Peter, grandmother Lucy, his dog Caban (a Black Russian Terrier) and Golem Golem a robot he built, Felix lives on Serdeczna Street in a small family house. Net Bielecki is quite tall & slim, has blue eyes and a high IQ level. "Net" is his nickname; his true name is unknown. He is the most trendy and 'awesome' in his entire class. He is a human calculator and is excellent in mathematics. He hates dictations and spelling because he is dyslexic. He is also quite lazy, absent-minded and sometimes hysterical, or panicking. His dark blond hair looks like a heap of hay after a grenade explosion. He is best in ICT and writes many of his own programs. His love interest is Nika Mickiewicz. Together with his parents Lila and Mark, and their newborn twins nicknamed Pompek and Prumcia he lives on the top floor of a Penthouse apartment. Nika Mickiewicz is a girl with a character. She is very brave and mature. She likes reading books. She has curly, red hair, green eyes and a few freckles. She is not very rich; she wears second-hand clothes and her only pair of black Dr. Martens shoes. She lives in a tiny apartment. She is an orphan, but hides that fact from people for almost 3 years. However, Felix and Net, her best and possibly only friends, find out about it. She also has abnormal abilities. She can move distant objects using her powers, ski uphill and knows some things by intuition. In other words, she is telekinetic. Manfred is a friendly AI program started and never finished by Net's father, and mastered and programmed further by Net himself. He likes going on adventures and solving mysteries with the trio much more than his actual job, which is controlling the traffic lights. He helped out the three friends many times and is their reliable and faithful friend. Morten is also an AI program, but he is the antagonist of the trio. He appears in all 6 books of Felix Net and Nika. In the first book, the trio thinks they finished him off for good, but as we find out later, he comes back in the third book. In the fifth/sixth book, he was the mastermind of the Orbital Conspiracy. Also, Morten's logo, appears in all 6 books and it is still a mystery what he has to do with each event.
Read more →
Anna Becker

Anna Becker is an Israeli researcher known in the field of artificial intelligence and computer science within the financial field. == Early life and education == Becker was born in Russia and immigrated to Israel at 16 after graduating from a school in Moscow. At 17, she began her studies at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. During her master's degree in computer science, she taught first-year students of the same course, and at 27, Becker completed her PhD in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. == Career == While pursuing her PhD, Becker resolved an NP-complete approximation algorithm that had been unresolved for over twenty years. This made her a recognized scholar in the field. After completing her PhD, she developed an approximation technique by a factor of two. This technique is widely used today in operating systems, database systems, and VLSI chip designs. She then founded and sold Strategy Runner, a fintech software. After this, she founded EndoTech, an algorithmic trading platform based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. EndoTech's trading strategies have been operating in live cryptocurrency markets since 2017. The platform's BTC Alpha strategy has reported an average annual return of 163% on fixed capital over eight years of live operation, with a maximum drawdown of 14% and a trade accuracy rate of approximately 83%. In 2026, EndoTech entered a partnership with Bit1 Exchange to make its BTC Alpha and ETH Alpha copy trading strategies accessible to retail investors with no minimum deposit requirement, through a full-custody model in which user funds remain in their own exchange wallets at all times.As of 2023, Becker is working on Fianchetto Fund, an AI-based investing analysis platform. Becker has also co-authored a book on Bayesian networks, which has been published widely in the field of computer science and artificial intelligence.
Read more →
Model Context Protocol

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open standard and open-source framework introduced by Anthropic in November 2024 to standardize the way artificial intelligence (AI) systems like large language models (LLMs) integrate and share data with external tools, systems, and data sources. MCP provides a standardized interface for reading files, executing functions, and handling contextual prompts. Following its announcement, the protocol was adopted by major AI providers, including OpenAI and Google DeepMind. == Background == MCP was announced by Anthropic in November 2024 as an open standard for connecting AI assistants to data systems such as content repositories, business management tools, and development environments. The protocol was created at Anthropic by engineers David Soria Parra and Justin Spahr-Summers. It aims to address the challenge of information silos and legacy systems. Before MCP, developers often had to build custom connectors for each data source or tool, resulting in what Anthropic described as an "N×M" data integration problem. Earlier stop-gap approaches—such as OpenAI's 2023 "function-calling" API and the ChatGPT plug-in framework—solved similar problems but required vendor-specific connectors. MCP re-uses the message-flow ideas of the Language Server Protocol (LSP) and is transported over JSON-RPC 2.0. In December 2025, Anthropic donated the MCP to the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF), a directed fund under the Linux Foundation, co-founded by Anthropic, Block and OpenAI, with support from other companies. == Features == The protocol was released with software development kits (SDKs) in programming languages including Python, TypeScript, C# and Java. Anthropic maintains an open-source repository of reference MCP server implementations and SDKs. MCP defines a standardized framework for integrating AI systems with external data sources and tools. It includes specifications for data ingestion and transformation, contextual metadata tagging, and AI interoperability across different platforms. The protocol also supports bidirectional connections between data sources and AI tools. MCP enables applications such as querying structured databases with plain language in the field of natural language data access. The protocol is used in AI-assisted software development tools. Integrated development environments (IDEs), coding platforms such as Replit, and code intelligence tools like Sourcegraph have adopted MCP to grant AI coding assistants real-time access to project context. MCP Apps is an official extension to the Model Context Protocol built on mcp-ui. While the base MCP specification is restricted to text and structured data, MCP Apps standardizes the delivery of interactive user interfaces—such as dashboards, forms, and data visualizations—from MCP servers to host applications like Claude and ChatGPT. == Adoption == In March 2025, OpenAI officially adopted the MCP, after having integrated the standard across its products, including the ChatGPT desktop app. In September 2025, OpenAI added support for MCP to ChatGPT apps. This allows for third-party access inside ChatGPT. MCP can be integrated with Microsoft Semantic Kernel, and Azure OpenAI. MCP servers can be deployed to Cloudflare. In April 2026, the AAIF held the MCP Dev Summit North America in New York City, drawing approximately 1,200 attendees. == Reception == The Verge reported that MCP addresses a growing demand for AI agents that are contextually aware and capable of pulling from diverse sources. In April 2025, security researchers released an analysis that concluded there are multiple outstanding security issues with MCP, including prompt injection, tool permissions that allow for combining tools to exfiltrate data, and lookalike tools that can silently replace trusted ones. MCP has been likened to OpenAPI, a similar specification that aims to describe APIs.
Read more →
The Old Axolotl

The Old Axolotl (Polish: Starość aksolotla) is a 2015 digital-only novel by Polish science-fiction author Jacek Dukaj. The novel was released in Polish on March 10, 2015, and shortly afterward, on March 24 that year, in English (translated by Stanley Bill). It has been described as "an experiment in reading (and creating) the electronic literature of the future". It is Dukaj's first novel to be published in English, though several of his short stories (The Golden Galley, 1996, The Iron General, 2010, The Apocrypha of Lem, 2011) have been translated prior to this. The novel has inspired two Netflix original series: the 2020 Belgian Into the Night, and its 2022 Turkish language spin-off Yakamoz S-245. == Plot == The novel presents a post-apocalyptic, cyberpunk vision of Earth where biological life has been wiped out, inhabited by robots and mechs, many of which are humans whose consciousness has been digitized in the wake of an extinction event. == Significance and analysis == The novel is an example of electronic literature, available only in digital formats, and has no traditional paper version. It was designed from the beginning not only to incorporate more traditional elements such as illustrations, but also hypertext, and 3D-printable models of main robotic characters designed by Alex Jaeger, the art director of Transformers films. The novel composition is layered, with the narrative layer, an encyclopedic/hyperlinked footnote layer, and a multimedia layer, including illustrations and a short promotional video by the Oscar-nominated Platige Image studio. One of the novel's central questions is: "What does it mean to be human?" Other subjects include post humanism and other "staples of cyberpunk and related genres, such as the artificial intelligence". The novel is representative of Dukaj's prose, posing philosophical questions about the future of man and technology. The author explained that: "stories such as The Old Axolotl that model an ‘escape from the body’ are born out of a sense of progress as a process of ‘de-animalising’ human beings through science. This has its origin in the pre-Enlightenment intuition of ‘liberation from nature’. For one of the last shackles of nature is corporeality itself, the limitations of our physicality." The other major element of the novel is Dukaj's attempts to introduce the reader to the new style of electronic literature. The novel was nominated for the 2016 Janusz A. Zajdel Award.
Read more →
AI Action Summit 2025

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit (French: Sommet pour l'action sur l'intelligence artificielle or Sommet pour l'action sur l'IA, SAIA) was held at the Grand Palais in Paris, France, from 10 to 11 February 2025. The summit was co-chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The 2025 AI Action Summit followed the 2023 AI Safety Summit hosted at Bletchley Park in the UK, and the 2024 AI Seoul Summit in South Korea. This series of AI summits continued with the AI Impact Summit in Delhi, which was hosted by India in February 2026. Whereas the 2023 AI Safety Summit was attended by representatives from 29 governments and executives from only a handful of AI companies, over 1,000 participants from more than 100 countries attended the 2025 Paris AI Summit, representing government leaders, international organisations, the academic and research community, the private sector, and civil society. == Background == The First International AI Safety Report was published on 29 January 2025. Commissioned after the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit, the report focused on the risks and threats posed by general-purpose AI, and was slated for discussion at the Paris summit as part of the "Trust in AI" pillar. Whereas the first summit was focused on the catastrophic risks of AI and their mitigation, the Paris meeting was recast as an "AI Action Summit" emphasising innovation, practical implementation, and potential economic opportunities of AI, while also exploring a broader range of risks including its environmental impact and disruptions to the labour market. In the weeks leading up to the Paris summit, government leaders had also started to rally around "national champions" in AI, partly in response to Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, which had released a new model rivalling OpenAI o1. On Sunday 9 February, French President Emmanuel Macron posted a compilation of AI-generated deepfake video clips of himself on Instagram to help publicise the start of the 2025 AI Action Summit the following day. While acknowledging the humour of the deepfakes, the real Macron states in the video that using artificial intelligence, "we can do some very big things: change healthcare, energy, life in our society". == Proceedings == === Day 1 === In her opening address, French special envoy Anne Bouverot discussed the environmental impact of AI, acknowledging the technology's "current trajectory is unsustainable". General secretary Christy Hoffman of the UNI Global Union said that "AI-driven productivity gains risk turning the technology into yet another engine of inequality, further straining our democracies". Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing made a speech expressing China's willingness "to work with other countries to promote development, safeguard security, and share achievements in the field of artificial intelligence". Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in his speech that while the rise of AI brings many risks, "The biggest risk is missing out". He discussed Google's long track record of AI research and said that the company is investing further into "deep research" agents that can autonomously search the Internet and compile a full analysis for users. A new coalition, the Robust Open Online Safety Tools (ROOST) initiative, debuted at the summit. Supported by Google, Discord, OpenAI, and Roblox, and incubated at the Institute of Global Politics at Columbia University, the organisation is developing free, open-source tools to detect and report child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In his speech closing the first day, President Emmanuel Macron emphasized that France has the capability to deliver the power required by AI companies, thanks to its production of nuclear energy. While declaring that Europe was "back in the race" for AI, Macron said that the region was "too slow" for investors, and called on the EU to "simplify regulation" and "resynchronize with the rest of the world". === Day 2 === On 11 February 2025, the French government announced its $400 million endowment of Current AI, a new foundation to support the creation of AI "public goods" including high-quality datasets and open-source tools and infrastructure. Launched by President Macron, Current AI is backed by nine governments – Finland, France, Germany, Chile, India, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Slovenia, and Switzerland – plus various philanthropic organisations such as the Omidyar Group and the McGovern Foundation, and private companies such as Google and Salesforce. Another initiative launched at the summit was the Coalition for Sustainable AI. Led by France, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the coalition has the support of 11 countries, five international organisations, and 37 tech companies including EDF, IBM, Nvidia, and SAP. The Summit of Heads of State and Government took place with a plenary session in the Grand Palais. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India stressed the need to "democratise technology" and "[ensure] access to all, especially in the Global South". Vice President JD Vance of the United States used his speech to warn against "excessive regulation of the AI" which "could kill a transformative sector just as it's taking off". Vance also warned other leaders against cooperating with "authoritarian regimes" on AI, a comment widely interpreted as a reference to China. == Investments == At the summit, the European Union made several announcements related to planned investments supporting AI development. President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission launched InvestAI, a €200 billion initiative, including €20 billion to build four AI gigafactories to train highly complex, very large models. In addition, a coalition of more than 60 European companies launched the EU AI Champions Initiative. Led by venture capital firm General Catalyst, the coalition plans to invest €150 billion in AI-related businesses and infrastructure in Europe over five years. President Emmanuel Macron announced that private investors had pledged to invest nearly €110 billion in the AI sector in France. Financing of between €30 and €50 billion is expected from the United Arab Emirates to build a very large data centre campus, with another €20 billion from the Canadian investment firm Brookfield Corporation. French startup Mistral AI and Helsing, a German-British company, announced their partnership in developing vision-language-action models helping soldiers use AI on the battlefield. == Reactions == The Financial Times editorial board noted that the Paris summit "highlighted a shift in the dynamics towards geopolitical competition", which it characterised as "a new AI arms race" between the US and China, with Europe "trying to carve out its role". Fortune.com AI editor Jeremy Kahn described the 2025 Paris Summit as an "AI festival, complete with glitzy corporate side events and even a late night dance party", contrasting it with the "decidedly sober" mood of the inaugural AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park. Many experts of the AI Safety Community expressed disappointment that the Paris Summit did not do enough to address AI risks, with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calling it a "missed opportunity". Others voicing similar concerns included David Leslie of the Alan Turing Institute and Max Tegmark of the Future of Life Institute. Reporting from Paris, technology columnist Kevin Roose of The New York Times wrote, "The biggest surprise of the Paris summit, for me, has been that policymakers can't seem to grasp how soon powerful AI systems could arrive, or how disruptive they could be." == Statement on inclusive and sustainable AI == At the summit, 58 countries, including France, China, and India, signed a joint declaration, the Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet. The statement outlines general principles such as accessibility and overcoming the digital divide; developing AI that is open, transparent, ethical, safe, and trustworthy; avoiding market concentration of AI development to encourage innovation; positive outcomes for labour markets; making AI sustainable; and promoting international cooperation and governance. The US and UK refused to sign the declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI. The UK government said in a brief statement that the international agreement did not go far enough in defining global governance of AI and addressing concerns about its impact on national security. === Signatories === The list of signatory countries to the statement for inclusive and sustainable AI in alphabetical order: Additional signatories included the following international bodies and research institutes: ALAI (Latin American Association on Internet) African Union (AU) Commission BEUC The European Consumer Organisation Center for Democracy and Technology Council of Europe European Commission (and the 27 member states) Hugging Face INRIA Institute of Advanced Study OEC
Read more →
Astrostatistics

Astrostatistics is a discipline which spans astrophysics, statistical analysis and data mining. It is used to process the vast amount of data produced by automated scanning of the cosmos, to characterize complex datasets, and to link astronomical data to astrophysical theory. Many branches of statistics are involved in astronomical analysis including nonparametrics, multivariate regression and multivariate classification, time series analysis, and especially Bayesian inference. The field is closely related to astroinformatics.
Read more →
Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

The Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (abbreviated as NeurIPS and formerly NIPS) is a machine learning and computational neuroscience conference held annually in December. Along with ICLR and ICML, it is one of the three primary conferences of high impact in machine learning and artificial intelligence research. The conference includes three days of invited talks along with oral and poster presentations of refereed papers, followed by two days of workshops and competitions. == History == The NeurIPS meeting was first proposed in 1986 at the annual invitation-only Snowbird Meeting on Neural Networks for Computing organized by The California Institute of Technology and Bell Laboratories. NeurIPS was designed as a complementary open interdisciplinary meeting for researchers exploring biological and artificial Neural Networks. Reflecting this multidisciplinary approach, NeurIPS began in 1987 with information theorist Ed Posner as the conference president and learning theorist Yaser Abu-Mostafa as program chairman. Research presented in the early NeurIPS meetings included a wide range of topics from efforts to solve purely engineering problems to the use of computer models as a tool for understanding biological nervous systems. Since then, the biological and artificial systems research streams have diverged, and recent NeurIPS proceedings have been dominated by papers on machine learning, artificial intelligence and statistics. From 1987 until 2000 NeurIPS was held in Denver, United States. Since then, the conference was held in Vancouver, Canada (2001–2010), Granada, Spain (2011), and Lake Tahoe, United States (2012–2013). In 2014 and 2015, the conference was held in Montreal, Canada, in Barcelona, Spain in 2016, in Long Beach, United States in 2017, in Montreal, Canada in 2018 and Vancouver, Canada in 2019. Reflecting its origins at Snowbird, Utah, the meeting was accompanied by workshops organized at a nearby ski resort up until 2013, when it outgrew ski resorts. The first NeurIPS Conference was sponsored by the IEEE. The following NeurIPS Conferences have been organized by the NeurIPS Foundation, established by Ed Posner. Terrence Sejnowski has been the president of the NeurIPS Foundation since Posner's death in 1993. The board of trustees consists of previous general chairs of the NeurIPS Conference. The first proceedings was published in book form by the American Institute of Physics in 1987, and was entitled Neural Information Processing Systems, then the proceedings from the following conferences have been published by Morgan Kaufmann (1988–1993), MIT Press (1994–2004) and Curran Associates (2005–present) under the name Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. The conference was originally abbreviated as "NIPS". By 2018 a few commentators were criticizing the abbreviation as encouraging sexism due to its association with the word nipples, and as being a slur against Japanese. The board changed the abbreviation to "NeurIPS" in November 2018. == Topics == Along with machine learning and neuroscience, other fields represented at NeurIPS include cognitive science, psychology, computer vision, statistical linguistics, and information theory. Over the years, NeurIPS became a premier conference on machine learning and although the 'Neural' in the NeurIPS acronym had become something of a historical relic, the resurgence of deep learning in neural networks since 2012, fueled by faster computers and big data, has led to achievements in speech recognition, object recognition in images, image captioning, language translation and world championship performance in the game of Go, based on neural architectures inspired by the hierarchy of areas in the visual cortex (ConvNet) and reinforcement learning inspired by the basal ganglia (Temporal difference learning). Notable affinity groups have emerged from the NeurIPS conference and displayed diversity, including Black in AI (in 2017), Queer in AI (in 2016), and others. === Named lectures === In addition to invited talks and symposia, NeurIPS also organizes two named lectureships to recognize distinguished researchers. The NeurIPS Board introduced the Posner Lectureship in honor of NeurIPS founder Ed Posner; two Posner Lectures were given each year up to 2015. Past lecturers have included: 2010 – Josh Tenenbaum and Michael I. Jordan 2011 – Rich Sutton and Bernhard Schölkopf 2012 – Thomas Dietterich and Terry Sejnowski 2013 – Daphne Koller and Peter Dayan 2014 – Michael Kearns and John Hopfield 2015 – Zoubin Ghahramani and Vladimir Vapnik 2016 – Yann LeCun 2017 – John Platt 2018 – Joëlle Pineau 2019 – Yoshua Bengio 2020 – Christopher Bishop 2021 – Peter Bartlett In 2015, the NeurIPS Board introduced the Breiman Lectureship to highlight work in statistics relevant to conference topics. The lectureship was named for statistician Leo Breiman, who served on the NeurIPS Board from 1994 to 2005. Past lecturers have included: 2015 – Robert Tibshirani 2016 – Susan Holmes 2017 – Yee Whye Teh 2018 – David Spiegelhalter 2019 – Bin Yu 2020 – Marloes Maathuis 2021 – Gabor Lugosi 2022 – Emmanuel Candes 2023 – Susan Murphy 2024 – Arnaud Doucet == NeurIPS consistency experiment == In NIPS 2014, the program chairs duplicated 10% of all submissions and sent them through separate reviewers to evaluate randomness in the reviewing process. Several researchers interpreted the result. Regarding whether the decision in NIPS is completely random or not, John Langford writes: "Clearly not—a purely random decision would have arbitrariness of ~78%. It is, however, quite notable that 60% is much closer to 78% than 0%." He concludes that the result of the reviewing process is mostly arbitrary. In NeurIPS 2021, the program chairs repeated the 2014 experiment and found similar levels of review inconsistency; 23% of duplicated submissions received different accept/reject decisions, and 50.6% of accepted papers would have been rejected under re-review. == Locations == 1987–2000: Denver, Colorado, United States 2001–2010: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2011: Granada, Spain 2012 & 2013: Stateline, Nevada, United States 2014 & 2015: Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2016: Barcelona, Spain 2017: Long Beach, California, United States 2018: Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2019: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2020: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (virtual conference) 2021: Virtual conference 2022 & 2023: New Orleans, Louisiana, United States 2024: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2025: San Diego, California, United States and Mexico City, Mexico 2026: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, with satellite events in Atlanta and Paris
Read more →
Clanker

Clanker is a derogatory term for robots and artificial intelligence (AI) software. The term has been used in Star Wars media, first appearing in the franchise's 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando. In 2025, the term became widely used to express hatred or distaste for machines ranging from delivery robots to large language models. This trend has been attributed to anxiety around the negative societal effects of AI. == In science fiction == The term has been previously used in science fiction literature, first appearing in a 1958 article by William Tenn in which he uses it to describe robots from science fiction films like Metropolis. The Star Wars franchise began using the term as a slur against droids in the 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando before being prominently used in the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which follows a galaxy-wide war between the Galactic Republic's clone troopers and the Confederacy of Independent Systems' battle droids. In Star Wars media, robots—more commonly known as droids—are routinely depicted as the subjects of discrimination. For example, in the original Star Wars film, C-3PO and R2-D2 are abducted by Jawas and sold to the family of Luke Skywalker. When visiting a cantina in Mos Eisley, both droids are refused service by the bartender, who remarks that "We don't serve their kind." In Star Wars lore, the term clanker had entered use by the time of the franchise's High Republic Era and became prominent during the Clone Wars, in which clone troopers regularly use the phrase against battle droids. == AI backlash == The growing popularity of the term clanker reflects an increase in direct contact between people and AI systems. On sidewalks, delivery robots impede mobility and cause safety issues. In digital spaces, cybersecurity experts have raised concerns about the rising number of bots online, which now make up a large portion of internet traffic. A 2025 report estimated that about one in five social media accounts are automated. The term is also a reaction to AI advocacy from industrialists like Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who have championed the integration of AI into nearly every aspect of modern life. This includes efforts by major companies and startups alike, such as Amazon's development of humanoid robots to replace human workers in service industries. Such initiatives have further fueled public skepticism, reinforcing the association of clanker with unease over automation and the displacement of human roles. A global survey conducted by the research firm Gartner in December 2023 found that 64% of customers would prefer companies to avoid using AI in customer service, with another 53% stating they would consider switching to a different company if they discovered AI was handling their service interactions. Another report by Ernst & Young, published in July 2025, found that 42% of employees across Europe are worried that the use of AI in the workplace may threaten their employment. Criticism has also been directed at the technology itself. Some of the backlash stems from concerns about the resource consumption of AI systems, their frequent reliance on copyrighted material without consent, and questions about the intentions of the corporations behind them. There are also concerns about the potential cognitive effects of relying heavily on AI. A study, authored by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University, warns that regular dependence on AI may leave users mentally unprepared for real-world problem solving, likening the effect to cognitive atrophy. In June 2025, United States Senator Ruben Gallego tweeted that his "new bill makes sure you don't have to talk to a clanker if you don't want to", referring to proposed legislation that would require call centers to disclose their use of automated customer service agents to callers in the United States and offer the option to switch to a human representative. == Analysis == Linguist Adam Aleksic has described clanker as an evolution of racial slurs that anthropomorphize robotic systems. Internet memes incorporating the term often reference historical discrimination against marginalized groups such as African Americans. Based on the work of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, American news website Axios has argued that clanker is merely a derogatory word, rather than a slur, because it does not perpetuate social inequities. NPR has noted the irony that the word robot was coined by Karel Čapek for his 1920 science-fiction play R.U.R. as a similar criticism of industrialization forcing workers to become devoid of their humanity. Aleksic has observed that robot can be further traced to the Proto-Slavic noun orbъ, which means 'slave'. While other science fiction media include pejoratives for androids and robots, such as skinjob and toaster from the Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica franchises, respectively, clanker is believed to have gained popularity because its usage is intuitive and flexible. Whereas AI slop describes low-quality output from artificial intelligence, clanker belittles the underlying computer systems.
Read more →
Digital organism

A digital organism is a self-replicating computer program that mutates and evolves. Digital organisms are used as a tool to study the dynamics of Darwinian evolution, and to test or verify specific hypotheses or mathematical models of evolution. The study of digital organisms is closely related to the area of artificial life. == History == Digital organisms can be traced back to the game Darwin, developed in 1961 at Bell Labs, in which computer programs had to compete with each other by trying to stop others from executing . A similar implementation that followed this was the game Core War. In Core War, it turned out that one of the winning strategies was to replicate as fast as possible, which deprived the opponent of all computational resources. Programs in the Core War game were also able to mutate themselves and each other by overwriting instructions in the simulated "memory" in which the game took place. This allowed competing programs to embed damaging instructions in each other that caused errors (terminating the process that read it), "enslaved processes" (making an enemy program work for you), or even change strategies mid-game and heal themselves. Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory took the idea from Core War one step further in his core world system by introducing a genetic algorithm that automatically wrote programs. However, Rasmussen did not observe the evolution of complex and stable programs. It turned out that the programming language in which core world programs were written was very brittle, and more often than not mutations would completely destroy the functionality of a program. The first to solve the issue of program brittleness was Thomas S. Ray with his Tierra system, which was similar to core world. Ray made some key changes to the programming language such that mutations were much less likely to destroy a program. With these modifications, he observed for the first time computer programs that did indeed evolve in a meaningful and complex way. Later, Chris Adami, Titus Brown, and Charles Ofria started developing their Avida system, which was inspired by Tierra but again had some crucial differences. In Tierra, all programs lived in the same address space and could potentially execute or otherwise interfere with each other's code. In Avida, on the other hand, each program lives in its own address space. Because of this modification, experiments with Avida became much cleaner and easier to interpret than those with Tierra. With Avida, digital organism research has begun to be accepted as a valid contribution to evolutionary biology by a growing number of evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University has used Avida extensively in his work. Lenski, Adami, and their colleagues have published in journals such as Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). In 1996, Andy Pargellis created a Tierra-like system called Amoeba that evolved self-replication from a randomly seeded initial condition. More recently REvoSim - a software package based around binary digital organisms - has allowed evolutionary simulations of large populations that can be run for geological timescales.
Read more →
Case-based reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Read more →
Constructive cooperative coevolution

The constructive cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (also called C3) is a global optimisation algorithm in artificial intelligence based on the multi-start architecture of the greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP). It incorporates the existing cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC). The considered problem is decomposed into subproblems. These subproblems are optimised separately while exchanging information in order to solve the complete problem. An optimisation algorithm, usually but not necessarily an evolutionary algorithm, is embedded in C3 for optimising those subproblems. The nature of the embedded optimisation algorithm determines whether C3's behaviour is deterministic or stochastic. The C3 optimisation algorithm was originally designed for simulation-based optimisation but it can be used for global optimisation problems in general. Its strength over other optimisation algorithms, specifically cooperative coevolution, is that it is better able to handle non-separable optimisation problems. An improved version was proposed later, called the Improved Constructive Cooperative Coevolutionary Differential Evolution (C3iDE), which removes several limitations with the previous version. A novel element of C3iDE is the advanced initialisation of the subpopulations. C3iDE initially optimises the subpopulations in a partially co-adaptive fashion. During the initial optimisation of a subpopulation, only a subset of the other subcomponents is considered for the co-adaptation. This subset increases stepwise until all subcomponents are considered. This makes C3iDE very effective on large-scale global optimisation problems (up to 1000 dimensions) compared to cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC) and Differential evolution. The improved algorithm has then been adapted for multi-objective optimization. == Algorithm == As shown in the pseudo code below, an iteration of C3 exists of two phases. In Phase I, the constructive phase, a feasible solution for the entire problem is constructed in a stepwise manner. Considering a different subproblem in each step. After the final step, all subproblems are considered and a solution for the complete problem has been constructed. This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II, the local improvement phase. The CC algorithm is employed to further optimise the constructed solution. A cycle of Phase II includes optimising the subproblems separately while keeping the parameters of the other subproblems fixed to a central blackboard solution. When this is done for each subproblem, the found solution are combined during a "collaboration" step, and the best one among the produced combinations becomes the blackboard solution for the next cycle. In the next cycle, the same is repeated. Phase II, and thereby the current iteration, are terminated when the search of the CC algorithm stagnates and no significantly better solutions are being found. Then, the next iteration is started. At the start of the next iteration, a new feasible solution is constructed, utilising solutions that were found during the Phase I of the previous iteration(s). This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II in the same way as in the first iteration. This is repeated until one of the termination criteria for the optimisation is reached, e.g. a maximum number of evaluations. {Sphase1} ← ∅ while termination criteria not satisfied do if {Sphase1} = ∅ then {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(∅, 1) end if while pphase1 not completely constructed do pphase1 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(pphase1, inext subproblem) end while pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) while not stagnate do {Sphase2} ← ∅ for each subproblem i do {Sphase2} ← SubOpt(pphase2,i) end for {Sphase2} ← Collab({Sphase2}) pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase2}) end while end while == Multi-objective optimisation == The multi-objective version of the C3 algorithm is a Pareto-based algorithm which uses the same divide-and-conquer strategy as the single-objective C3 optimisation algorithm . The algorithm again starts with the advanced constructive initial optimisations of the subpopulations, considering an increasing subset of subproblems. The subset increases until the entire set of all subproblems is included. During these initial optimisations, the subpopulation of the latest included subproblem is evolved by a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. For the fitness calculations of the members of the subpopulation, they are combined with a collaborator solution from each of the previously optimised subpopulations. Once all subproblems' subpopulations have been initially optimised, the multi-objective C3 optimisation algorithm continues to optimise each subproblem in a round-robin fashion, but now collaborator solutions from all other subproblems' subspopulations are combined with the member of the subpopulation that is being evaluated. The collaborator solution is selected randomly from the solutions that make up the Pareto-optimal front of the subpopulation. The fitness assignment to the collaborator solutions is done in an optimistic fashion (i.e. an "old" fitness value is replaced when the new one is better). == Applications == The constructive cooperative coevolution algorithm has been applied to different types of problems, e.g. a set of standard benchmark functions, optimisation of sheet metal press lines and interacting production stations. The C3 algorithm has been embedded with, amongst others, the differential evolution algorithm and the particle swarm optimiser for the subproblem optimisations.
Read more →
Computing Machinery and Intelligence

"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the 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. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo
Read more →