AI For Business Development

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

Datasource

A datasource or DataSource is a name given to the connection set up to a database from a server. The name is commonly used when creating a query to the database. The data source name (DSN) need not be the same as the filename for the database. For example, a database file named friends.mdb could be set up with a DSN of school. Then DSN school would be used to refer to the database when performing a query. == Sun's version of DataSource [1] == A factory for connections to the physical data source that this DataSource object represents. An alternative to the DriverManager facility, a DataSource object is the preferred means of getting a connection. An object that implements the DataSource interface will typically be registered with a naming service based on the Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) API. The DataSource interface is implemented by a driver vendor. There are three types of implementations: Basic implementation — produces a standard Connection object Connection pooling implementation — produces a Connection object that will automatically participate in connection pooling. This implementation works with a middle-tier connection pooling manager. Distributed transaction implementation — produces a Connection object that may be used for distributed transactions and almost always participates in connection pooling. This implementation works with a middle-tier transaction manager and almost always with a connection pooling manager. A DataSource object has properties that can be modified when necessary. For example, if the data source is moved to a different server, the property for the server can be changed. The benefit is that because the data source's properties can be changed, any code accessing that data source does not need to be changed. A driver that is accessed via a DataSource object does not register itself with the DriverManager. Rather, a DataSource object is retrieved through a lookup operation and then used to create a Connection object. With a basic implementation, the connection obtained through a DataSource object is identical to a connection obtained through the DriverManager facility. == Sun's DataSource Overview [2] == A DataSource object is the representation of a data source in the Java programming language. In basic terms, a data source is a facility for storing data. It can be as sophisticated as a complex database for a large corporation or as simple as a file with rows and columns. A data source can reside on a remote server, or it can be on a local desktop machine. Applications access a data source using a connection, and a DataSource object can be thought of as a factory for connections to the particular data source that the DataSource instance represents. The DataSource interface provides two methods for establishing a connection with a data source. Using a DataSource object is the preferred alternative to using the DriverManager for establishing a connection to a data source. They are similar to the extent that the DriverManager class and DataSource interface both have methods for creating a connection, methods for getting and setting a timeout limit for making a connection, and methods for getting and setting a stream for logging. Their differences are more significant than their similarities, however. Unlike the DriverManager, a DataSource object has properties that identify and describe the data source it represents. Also, a DataSource object works with a Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) naming service and can be created, deployed, and managed separately from the applications that use it. A driver vendor will provide a class that is a basic implementation of the DataSource interface as part of its Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) 2.0 or 3.0 driver product. What a system administrator does to register a DataSource object with a JNDI naming service and what an application does to get a connection to a data source using a DataSource object registered with a JNDI naming service are described later in this chapter. Being registered with a JNDI naming service gives a DataSource object two major advantages over the DriverManager. First, an application does not need to hardcode driver information, as it does with the DriverManager. A programmer can choose a logical name for the data source and register the logical name with a JNDI naming service. The application uses the logical name, and the JNDI naming service will supply the DataSource object associated with the logical name. The DataSource object can then be used to create a connection to the data source it represents. The second major advantage is that the DataSource facility allows developers to implement a DataSource class to take advantage of features like connection pooling and distributed transactions. Connection pooling can increase performance dramatically by reusing connections rather than creating a new physical connection each time a connection is requested. The ability to use distributed transactions enables an application to do the heavy duty database work of large enterprises. Although an application may use either the DriverManager or a DataSource object to get a connection, using a DataSource object offers significant advantages and is the recommended way to establish a connection. Since 1.4 Since Java EE 6 a JNDI-bound DataSource can alternatively be configured in a declarative way directly from within the application. This alternative is particularly useful for self-sufficient applications or for transparently using an embedded database. == Yahoo's version of DataSource [3] == A DataSource is an abstract representation of a live set of data that presents a common predictable API for other objects to interact with. The nature of your data, its quantity, its complexity, and the logic for returning query results all play a role in determining your type of DataSource. For small amounts of simple textual data, a JavaScript array is a good choice. If your data has a small footprint but requires a simple computational or transformational filter before being displayed, a JavaScript function may be the right approach. For very large datasets—for example, a robust relational database—or to access a third-party webservice you'll certainly need to leverage the power of a Script Node or XHR DataSource.
Read more →
TCEC Season 14

The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal. The season is notable for two things: the emergence of two strong, new engines, the Komodo variant Komodo Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) and the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero, and the dramatic superfinal. Komodo MCTS and Leela fought their way from Division 4 and Division 3 respectively to the Premier Division, with Leela further qualifying for the superfinal against Stockfish. The superfinal was a topsy-turvy affair with the lead changing hands several times. It finished as the closest superfinal TCEC has ever seen, with Stockfish winning by a single game, 50.5–49.5 (+10 =81 -9). == Overview == === Structure === The season comprised five divisions: from the lowest Division 4 to the Premier Division. The top two engines of each division promote to the division above, while the bottom two engines relegate. The top two engines of the Premier Division contest a 100-game superfinal. The lengths of the opening books used increases as the divisions progress. The superfinal itself used a custom opening book designed by Jeroen Noomen. === Rules === The TCEC draw and win rules were slightly modified for Season 14. The game is now adjudicated as drawn if, after move 30, both engines have evals ±0.08 for five consecutive moves, and there are neither pawn moves nor a capture. Win adjudication now occurs if both engines have an eval of ±10 for five consecutive moves. Following the controversy over DeusX's participation last season, the uniqueness rule for neural networks was modified such that at least two of the following three hallmarks must be unique: The code for training the neural network The neural network (and weights file) itself The engine that executes this network This change meant DeusX did not meet the uniqueness criteria and therefore did not participate. Aside from this change, the season used the standard rules of the TCEC. == Results == === Division 4 === New entrant Komodo MCTS dominated Division 4, winning by a clear four points, although it did lose a game to second-place finisher rofChade. Fellow new entrant Scorpio NN performed badly and finished last, drawing only one game and losing the rest. === Division 3 === The neural network engine Leela Chess Zero had just missed promotion to Division 2 in the previous season. Since its relatively weak performance last season was partly due to hardware problems, and since it had shown a lot of improvement in strength, it was the hot favourite in this division. Leela lived up to its billing by comprehensively defeating everyone else. In a portent of future divisions however, Leela surprisingly dropped a game to third-place Arasan. Komodo MCTS was also improving quickly, and an updated version finished second behind Leela. The gap between second and third was 6.5 points, illustrating the gulf in class. === Division 2 === Although Division 2 engines are significantly stronger than Division 3, Leela and Komodo MCTS continued to dominate the competition, and again finished first and second. Komodo MCTS only lost one game to Leela, while Leela's tendency to occasionally lose to weaker engines saw her losing a game to 4th-placed Booot. Third place finisher Xiphos gave Leela and Komodo MCTS a run for their money, and was in the running up until the final rounds when it lost a crucial game to Leela. This loss left it one point behind Komodo MCTS in the final standings. === Division 1 === Leela and Komodo MCTS's rampage through the lower divisions continued, and they again finished first and second. In a demonstration of how much it had improved, Leela scored 20/28 in this division, the same score it had achieved in Division 2. This was also a TCEC points record for this division. However, Leela dropped a game against fourth-place finisher Chiron. Komodo MCTS, which had yet to lose a game in the lower divisions except to Leela, also conceded its first loss to third-place Fizbo. At the other end of the table, former champions Jonny and Fritz, which had not been updated, found themselves outclassed and finished second-last and last respectively; however with fellow competitor Ginkgo crashing five times (and therefore being disqualified), Jonny managed to stay in the division. The penultimate game for this division set a new TCEC moves record for a decisive game: 308 moves before Leela defeated Fritz. === Premier division === This was the strongest premier division ever, with multiple-time champions Stockfish, Komodo, and Houdini in the mix. Right from the start it became clear that Stockfish was in a league of its own, and it dominated the division, scoring wins against every other engine without losing a game. Second place however was a hotly-contested affair, with Leela, Komodo and Houdini neck-and-neck for most of the division. Houdini took the early lead, but Komodo gained second after winning two games by forfeit when its sibling Komodo MCTS crashed. This led to murmurs of a "Konspiracy". However, when both Komodo and Houdini failed to score more wins against the lower half of the field, Leela was able to take the lead. Halfway through the division the race was upended again when Leela went through a bad streak, losing three games in a row to Stockfish, Komodo, and Fire. This led to Komodo regaining second place, only for Komodo MCTS to crash yet again. By TCEC rules this meant Komodo MCTS was disqualified and all its scores were zeroed out, which put Leela back in second place. With three games left, Leela missed a win against Andscacs, which would've more or less secured her a place in the superfinal. Meanwhile, Komodo kept the division interesting by winning two of its last three games. Because Komodo had superior tiebreakers to Leela, this meant Komodo would qualify for the superfinal unless Leela managed to hold Stockfish to a draw with Black in the last game of the division. In a tense final game, Stockfish came close to winning, but missed the winning line. Leela managed to draw and qualified for the superfinal. At the other end of the table, it was quickly apparent that Ethereal and Andscacs were the weakest engines and would likely relegate. However, when Komodo MCTS was disqualified (and therefore relegated), it threw both engines a lifeline, since they could now stay in the division by beating the other. Andscacs was able to score a head-to-head win against Ethereal, but was crushed by Stockfish (+0 =2 -4) and Leela (+0 =3 -3). Ethereal didn't manage to score a win in the entire division, but did manage to score more draws than Andscacs, condemning Andscacs to relegation. === Superfinal === Going into the superfinal expectations were high for Leela: she had received a new network and had just won her first major competition when she defeated Houdini in the second TCEC cup. However, she had won the tournament without having played Stockfish (who had been surprisingly eliminated by Houdini in the semifinals). That, plus the fact that Stockfish dominated Premier Division and had never lost a match to Leela, left it unclear which engine was superior, although most spectators favored Stockfish. The superfinal turned out to be a roller-coaster. It began with Stockfish drawing first blood in game 7, and then scoring another win in game 10. Leela hit back with wins in game 11 and 13, but then lost games 20, 21, and 22. This gave Stockfish a 3-point lead. However, in the next 30 games, Leela was the only one to score wins: it first equalized by winning games 25, 27, and 29, and then took the lead by winning games 49 and 53. Stockfish won game 56, but Leela won game 63, maintaining her lead. There followed two dramatic games. In game 65, Leela built up a winning position. Stockfish showed a +153 evaluation, indicating that it had found a forced line leading to an endgame tablebase win; indeed analysis with 7-piece tablebases showed that Leela's position was winning. Under previous seasons' rules, the game would have been adjudicated as a win because Leela's evaluation was above 6.5. However under the new rules, Leela's +8.92 evaluation was not enough to adjudicate. It turned out that Leela could not see the winning line, and shuffled her pieces aimlessly, leading to a 50-move draw. In game 66, Stockfish was given a substantial advantage by the opening, but failed to make the most of it. The evaluations were leveling out to zero when the internet connection to the GPU servers was cut off. By tournament rules, this meant the game was replayed from scratch. After a further internet disconnection and restart, Stockfish handled the opening better and won, leaving Leela with a 1-point lead. In the last third of the superfinal, there followed more drama as Leela often built up strong advantages, but Stockfish showed great resourcefulness in defending inferior positions. Meanwh
Read more →
Computer-assisted proof

A computer-assisted proof is a mathematical proof that has been at least partially generated by computer. Most computer-aided proofs to date have been implementations of large proofs-by-exhaustion of a mathematical theorem. The idea is to use a computer program to perform lengthy computations, and to provide a proof that the result of these computations implies the given theorem. In 1976, the four color theorem was the first major theorem to be verified using a computer program. Attempts have also been made in the area of artificial intelligence research to create smaller, explicit, new proofs of mathematical theorems from the bottom up using automated reasoning techniques such as heuristic search. Such automated theorem provers have proved a number of new results and found new proofs for known theorems. Additionally, interactive proof assistants allow mathematicians to develop human-readable proofs which are nonetheless formally verified for correctness. Since these proofs are generally human-surveyable (albeit with difficulty, as with the proof of the Robbins conjecture) they do not share the controversial implications of computer-aided proofs-by-exhaustion. == Methods == One method for using computers in mathematical proofs is by means of so-called validated numerics or rigorous numerics. This means computing numerically yet with mathematical rigour. One uses set-valued arithmetic and inclusion principle in order to ensure that the set-valued output of a numerical program encloses the solution of the original mathematical problem. This is done by controlling, enclosing and propagating round-off and truncation errors using for example interval arithmetic. More precisely, one reduces the computation to a sequence of elementary operations, say ( + , − , × , / ) {\displaystyle (+,-,\times ,/)} . In a computer, the result of each elementary operation is rounded off by the computer precision. However, one can construct an interval provided by upper and lower bounds on the result of an elementary operation. Then one proceeds by replacing numbers with intervals and performing elementary operations between such intervals of representable numbers. == Philosophical objections == Computer-assisted proofs are the subject of some controversy in the mathematical world, with Thomas Tymoczko first to articulate objections. Those who adhere to Tymoczko's arguments believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs are not, in some sense, 'real' mathematical proofs because they involve so many logical steps that they are not practically verifiable by human beings, and that mathematicians are effectively being asked to replace logical deduction from assumed axioms with trust in an empirical computational process, which is potentially affected by errors in the computer program, as well as defects in the runtime environment and hardware. Other mathematicians believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs should be regarded as calculations, rather than proofs: the proof algorithm itself should be proved valid, so that its use can then be regarded as a mere "verification". Arguments that computer-assisted proofs are subject to errors in their source programs, compilers, and hardware can be resolved by providing a formal proof of correctness for the computer program (an approach which was successfully applied to the four color theorem in 2005) as well as replicating the result using different programming languages, different compilers, and different computer hardware. Another possible way of verifying computer-aided proofs is to generate their reasoning steps in a machine readable form, and then use a proof checker program to demonstrate their correctness. Since validating a given proof is much easier than finding a proof, the checker program is simpler than the original assistant program, and it is correspondingly easier to gain confidence into its correctness. However, this approach of using a computer program to prove the output of another program correct does not appeal to computer proof skeptics, who see it as adding another layer of complexity without addressing the perceived need for human understanding. Another argument against computer-aided proofs is that they lack mathematical elegance—that they provide no insights or new and useful concepts. In fact, this is an argument that could be advanced against any lengthy proof by exhaustion. An additional philosophical issue raised by computer-aided proofs is whether they make mathematics into a quasi-empirical science, where the scientific method becomes more important than the application of pure reason in the area of abstract mathematical concepts. This directly relates to the argument within mathematics as to whether mathematics is based on ideas, or "merely" an exercise in formal symbol manipulation. It also raises the question whether, if according to the Platonist view, all possible mathematical objects in some sense "already exist", whether computer-aided mathematics is an observational science like astronomy, rather than an experimental one like physics or chemistry. This controversy within mathematics is occurring at the same time as questions are being asked in the physics community about whether twenty-first century theoretical physics is becoming too mathematical, and leaving behind its experimental roots. The emerging field of experimental mathematics is confronting this debate head-on by focusing on numerical experiments as its main tool for mathematical exploration. == Theorems proved with the help of computer programs == Inclusion in this list does not imply that a formal computer-checked proof exists, but rather, that a computer program has been involved in some way. See the main articles for details.
Read more →
Gundam Build Metaverse

Gundam Build Metaverse (Japanese: ガンダムビルドメタバース, Hepburn: Gandamu Birudo Metabāzu) is a Japanese original net animation anime mini-series produced by Sunrise Beyond, and the fifth series within the Gundam Build Series sub-series. The series celebrates the 10th anniversary of the Gundam Build franchise, including characters from the previous installments. == Plot == The story is set in the same universe of the Gundam Build series in an online metaverse space where users can use avatars to move around and interact with other users, including conducting Gunpla (Gundam plastic model) battles with them. The story centers on Rio Hōjō, a boy who lives in Hawaii, and who learns how to build Gunpla from a local hobbyist named Seria Urutsuki. In the metaverse, a figure known as Mask Lady teaches him the art of Gunpla battling, and he strives to get better at it every day. With his custom Lah Gundam, he seeks out ever stronger opponents. == Characters == === Main characters === Rio Hojo (ホウジョウ・リオ, Hōjō Rio) Voiced by: Chika Anzai A young boy from Hawaii who is an enthusiast of Gunpla Battle and is an apprentice of the mysterious Diver "Mask Lady". Rio's Gunpla is the Lah Gundam, modeled after an entry-grade RX-78-2 Gundam, from the original Mobile Suit Gundam anime series. Seria Urutsuki (ウルツキ・セリア, Urutsuki Seria) / Mask Lady (マスクレディー, Masuku Reidi) Voiced by: Rio Tsuchiya A clerk at a local hobby shop and the instructor at their Gunpla class, Seria becomes Rio's Gunpla mentor using the alias "Mask Lady". Seria's Gunpla is the ZGMF-X20A-PF Gundam Perfect Strike Freedom Rouge, based on both the MBF-02 Strike Rouge and the GAT-X105+AQM/E-YM1 Perfect Strike Gundam from Mobile Suit Gundam Seed and the ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam from Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny. === Returning characters === Fumina Hoshino (ホシノ・フミナ, Hoshino Fumina) Voiced by: Yui Makino A veteran Gunpla Battler from the early days of the sport and the Leader of "Team Try Fighters", she works as an advertiser and announcer within the Metaverse realm. Tatsuya Yuuki (ユウキ・タツヤ, Yūki Tatsuya) / Meijin Kawaguchi III (三代目メイジン・カワグチ, Sandaime Meijin Kawaguchi) Voiced by: Takuya Satō A builder and three-times Gunpla Battle world champion who inherited the name of the legendary Meijin Kawaguchi, known as "Meijin Kawaguchi III", and still the current title holder. His newest Gunpla is the Gundam Amazing Barbatos Lupus based on the ASW-G-08 Gundam Barbatos Lupus from Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans. Riku Mikami (ミカミ・リク, Mikami Riku) / Riku (リク) Voiced by: Yūsuke Kobayashi The Founder and former leader of the legendary force, "Build Divers". His Gunpla is the Gundam 00 Diver Arc, the latest version of the original GN-0000DVR Gundam 00 Diver from Gundam Build Divers, incorporating elements from the 00 Gundam from Mobile Suit Gundam 00 and the Gundam AGE-FX from Mobile Suit Gundam AGE. Sarah (サラ, Sara) Voiced by: Haruka Terui An EL-Diver and member of the Build Divers. Momoka Yashiro (ヤシロ・モモカ, Yashiro Momoka) / Momo (モモ) Voiced by: Nene Hieda Member of Build Divers. Her gunpla is the MOMOKAPOOL (R×R), an upgraded version of her PEN-01M Momokapool from Gundam Build Divers Aya Fujisawa (フジサワ・アヤ, Fujisawa Aya) / Ayame (アヤメ) Voiced by: Manami Numakura Member of Build Divers. Her Gunpla is the F-Kunoichi Kai, an SD Gunpla based on the F91 Gundam F91 from Mobile Suit Gundam F91. Sei Iori (イオリ・セイ, Iori Sei) Voiced by: Mikako Komatsu A builder and one time Gunpla Battle World Champion. His current Gunpla is the GAT-X105B/EG Build Strike Exceed Galaxy, the latest version of the original GAT-X105B Build Strike Gundam from Gundam Build Fighters. Aria von Reiji Asuna (アリーア・フォン・レイジ・アスナ, Arīa fon Reiji Asuna) Voiced by: Sachi Kokuryu A prince from the country called Arian that exists within a space colony in another dimension, who became friends with Sei Iori and together won the Gunpla Battle World Championship. He somehow manages to log into the metaverse to reunite with his friend, piloting the SB-011 Star Burning Gundam. Sekai Kamiki (カミキ・セカイ, Kamiki Sekai) Voiced by: Kazumi Togashi A veteran builder and former member of Team Try Fighters. He is currently the Japanese National representative Champion. In the series he develops a rivalry relationship with Hiroto similar to that of Kyoya and Rommel. His current Gunpla is the Shin Burning Gundam, the latest version of the original KMK-B01 Kamiki Burning Gundam from Gundam Build Fighters Try which is based on the Burning Gundam and Master Gundam. Hiroto Kuga (クガ・ヒロト, Kuga Hiroto) / Hiroto (ヒロト, Hiroto) Voiced by: Chiaki Kobayashi A veteran diver, the one responsible for discovering more EL-Divers, and a former member of the legendary force "Avalon", who later joined the unofficial, "BUILD DiVERS" and eventually became the current Force Leader, and as well as the current title holder of "Hero of Gunpla". In the third episode he is the only Build Diver member who participates in the tournament, while his fellow force-mates are in the audience routing for him and Rio. His Gunpla is the Plutine Gundam, which is a combination of his Core Gundam II Plus, upgraded from the Core Gundam II featured in Gundam Build Divers Re:Rise equipped with the Pluto Armor. Magee (マギー, Magī) Voiced by: Taishi Murata A flamboyant veteran Diver who owns a shop in the metaverse and is an acquaintance of Seria's. Freddie (フレディ, Furedi) Voiced by: Ai Kakuma An alien anthropomorphic dog boy from planet Eldora, a support member to both Build Diver teams, who manages to access the metaverse from his home planet along his fellow Eldorans. Ogre (オーガ, Ōga) Voiced by: Wataru Hatano Kyoya Kisugi (キスギ・キョウヤ, Kisugi Kyōya) / Kyoya Kujo (クジョウ・キョウヤ, Kujō Kyōya) Voiced by: Jun Kasama Leader of the legendary force "Avalon" and the reigning and current title holder of "World Champion". He along with Hiroto Kuga, Maria Urutsuki, and Tatsuya Yuuki are currently at the top of the entire gunpla world community. His current gunpla is an recolored version of his AGE-TRYMAG Gundam TRY AGE Magnum from Gundam Build Divers Re:Rise. Susumu Sazaki (サザキ・ススム, Sazaki Susumu) Voiced by: Ryo Hirohashi Kaoruko Sazaki (サザキ・カオルコ, Sazaki Kaoruko) Voiced by: Ryo Hirohashi Mahiru Shigure (シグレ・マヒル, Shigure Mahiru) Voiced by: Rinko Natsuhi Keiko Sano (サノ・ケイコ, Sano Keiko) Voiced by: Ami Naito === Others === Maria Urutsuki (ウルツキ・マリア, Urutsuki Maria) / Mascarilla (マスカリージャ, Masukarīja) Voiced by: Ai Kakuma A mysterious masked woman with a harsh rivalry with Seria and a similar avatar as hers, she is later revealed as Seria's younger sister Maria, who began to loathe her sister after she quit on their dream to fight for the title of Lady Kawaguchi. She later obtains the title, becoming "Lady Kawaguchi VII". Jeff (ジェフさん, Jefu-san) Voiced by: Kenta Miyake A distant relative of Seria and Maria's and owner of the hobby shop where Seria lives. Mellow Neige (メロウ・ネージュ, Merō Nēju) Voiced by: Chikano Ibuki A sentient A.I. who is the current publicity face of the Gunpla Metaverse. == Episodes ==
Read more →
Hallucination (artificial intelligence)

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), a hallucination or artificial hallucination (also called bullshitting, confabulation, or delusion) is a response generated by AI that contains false or misleading information presented as fact. This term draws a loose analogy with human psychology, where a hallucination typically involves false percepts. For example, a chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content. Detecting and mitigating errors and hallucinations pose significant challenges for practical deployment and reliability of LLMs in high-stakes scenarios, such as chip design, supply chain logistics, and medical diagnostics. Some software engineers and statisticians have criticized the specific term "AI hallucination" for unreasonably anthropomorphizing computers. Symbolic artificial intelligence models generally do not produce hallucinations, unlike large language models. == Term == === Origin === Since the 1980s, the term "hallucination" has been used in computer vision with a positive connotation to describe the process of adding detail to an image. For example, the task of generating high-resolution face images from low-resolution inputs is called face hallucination. The first documented use of the term "hallucination" in this sense is in the PhD thesis of Eric Mjolsness in 1986. A notable work is the face hallucination algorithm by Simon Baker and Takeo Kanade published in 1999. In the 2000s, hallucinations were described in statistical machine translation as a failure mode. Since the 2010s, the term has undergone a semantic shift to signify the generation of factually incorrect or misleading outputs by AI systems in tasks like machine translation and object detection. In 2015, hallucinations were identified in visual semantic role labeling tasks by Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. In 2015, computer scientist Andrej Karpathy used the term "hallucinated" in a blog post to describe his recurrent neural network (RNN) language model generating an incorrect citation link. In 2017, Google researchers used the term to describe the responses generated by neural machine translation (NMT) models when they are not related to the source text, and in 2018, the term was used in computer vision to describe instances where non-existent objects are erroneously detected because of adversarial attacks. In July 2021, Meta warned during its release of BlenderBot 2 that the system is prone to "hallucinations", which Meta defined as "confident statements that are not true". Following OpenAI's ChatGPT release in beta version in November 2022, some users complained that such chatbots often seem to pointlessly embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within their generated content. Many news outlets, including The New York Times, started to use the term "hallucinations" to describe these models' frequently incorrect or inconsistent responses. In 2023, the Cambridge dictionary updated its definition of hallucination to include this new sense specific to the field of AI. Some researchers have highlighted a lack of consistency in how the term is used, but also identified several alternative terms in the literature, such as confabulations, fabrications, and factual errors. === Definitions and alternatives === Uses, definitions and characterizations of the term "hallucination" in the context of LLMs include: "a tendency to invent facts in moments of uncertainty" (OpenAI, May 2023) "a model's logical mistakes" (OpenAI, May 2023) "fabricating information entirely, but behaving as if spouting facts" (CNBC, May 2023) "making up information" (The Verge, February 2023) "probability distributions" (in scientific contexts) Journalist Benj Edwards, in Ars Technica, writes that the term "hallucination" is controversial, but that some form of metaphor remains necessary; Edwards suggests "confabulation" as an analogy for processes that involve "creative gap-filling". In July 2024, a White House report on fostering public trust in AI research mentioned hallucinations only in the context of reducing them. Notably, when acknowledging David Baker's Nobel Prize-winning work with AI-generated proteins, the Nobel committee avoided the term entirely, instead referring to "imaginative protein creation". Hicks, Humphries, and Slater, in their article in Ethics and Information Technology, argue that the output of LLMs is "bullshit" under Harry Frankfurt's definition of the term, and that the models are "in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs", with true statements only accidentally true, and false ones accidentally false. Some researchers also use the derogatory term "botshit", often referring to uncritical use of AI. === Criticism === In the scientific community, some researchers avoid the term "hallucination", seeing it as potentially misleading. It has been criticized by Usama Fayyad, executive director of the Institute for Experimental Artificial Intelligence at Northeastern University, on the grounds that it misleadingly personifies large language models and is vague. Mary Shaw said, "The current fashion for calling generative AI's errors 'hallucinations' is appalling. It anthropomorphizes the software, and it spins actual errors as somehow being idiosyncratic quirks of the system even when they're objectively incorrect." In Salon, statistician Gary Smith argues that LLMs "do not understand what words mean" and consequently that the term "hallucination" unreasonably anthropomorphizes the machine. Murray Shanahan argues that anthropomorphic framing of LLM capabilities, including terms like "hallucination", encourages users and researchers to attribute cognitive processes to systems that operate through statistical pattern completion, and advocates for more careful linguistic practices when discussing LLM behavior. Kristina Šekrst argues that applying psychological vocabulary to LLM outputs obscures the difference between the appearance of mental properties and their genuine presence. Förster & Skop assert that tech companies use the hallucination metaphor to anthropomorphize models and deflect responsibility for non-factual outputs. Some see the AI outputs not as illusory but as prospective—that is, having some chance of being true, similar to early-stage scientific conjectures. The term has also been criticized for its association with psychedelic drug experiences. == In natural language generation == In natural language generation, there are several reasons why natural language models hallucinate: === Hallucination from data === Hallucinations can stem from incomplete, inaccurate or unrepresentative data sets. === Modeling-related causes === The pre-training of generative pretrained transformers (GPT) involves predicting the next word. It incentivizes GPT models to "give a guess" about what the next word is, even when they lack information. Some researchers take an anthropomorphic perspective and posit that hallucinations arise from a tension between novelty and usefulness. For instance, Amabile and Pratt define human creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas. By extension, a focus on novelty in machine creativity can lead to the production of original but inaccurate responses—that is, falsehoods—whereas a focus on usefulness may result in memorized content lacking originality. By 2022, newspapers such as The New York Times expressed concern that, as the adoption of bots based on large language models continued to grow, unwarranted user confidence in bot output could lead to problems. === Interpretability research === In 2025, interpretability research by Anthropic on the LLM Claude identified internal circuits that cause it to decline to answer questions unless it knows the answer. By default, the circuit is active and the LLM doesn't answer. When the LLM has sufficient information, these circuits are inhibited and the LLM answers the question. Hallucinations were found to occur when this inhibition happens incorrectly, such as when Claude recognizes a name but lacks sufficient information about that person, causing it to generate plausible but untrue responses. === Examples === On 15 November 2022, researchers from Meta AI published Galactica, designed to "store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge". Content generated by Galactica came with the warning: "Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text." In one case, when asked to draft a paper on creating avatars, Galactica cited a fictitious paper from a real author who works in the relevant area. Meta withdrew Galactica on 17 November due to offensiveness and inaccuracy. OpenAI's ChatGPT, released in beta version to the public on November 30, 2022, was based on the foundation model GPT-3.5 (a revision of GPT-3). Professor Ethan Mollick of Wharton called it an "omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you". Data scientist Teresa Kuba
Read more →
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A
Read more →
Gene expression programming

Gene expression programming (GEP) in computer programming is an evolutionary algorithm that creates computer programs or models. These computer programs are complex tree structures that learn and adapt by changing their sizes, shapes, and composition, much like a living organism. And like living organisms, the computer programs of GEP are also encoded in simple linear chromosomes of fixed length. Thus, GEP is a genotype–phenotype system, benefiting from a simple genome to keep and transmit the genetic information and a complex phenotype to explore the environment and adapt to it. == Background == Evolutionary algorithms use populations of individuals, select individuals according to fitness, and introduce genetic variation using one or more genetic operators. Their use in artificial computational systems dates back to the 1950s where they were used to solve optimization problems (e.g. Box 1957 and Friedman 1959). But it was with the introduction of evolution strategies by Rechenberg in 1965 that evolutionary algorithms gained popularity. A good overview text on evolutionary algorithms is the book "An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms" by Mitchell (1996). Gene expression programming belongs to the family of evolutionary algorithms and is closely related to genetic algorithms and genetic programming. From genetic algorithms it inherited the linear chromosomes of fixed length; and from genetic programming it inherited the expressive parse trees of varied sizes and shapes. In gene expression programming the linear chromosomes work as the genotype and the parse trees as the phenotype, creating a genotype/phenotype system. This genotype/phenotype system is multigenic, thus encoding multiple parse trees in each chromosome. This means that the computer programs created by GEP are composed of multiple parse trees. Because these parse trees are the result of gene expression, in GEP they are called expression trees. Masood Nekoei, et al. utilized this expression programming style in ABC optimization to conduct ABCEP as a method that outperformed other evolutionary algorithms.ABCEP == Encoding: the genotype == The genome of gene expression programming consists of a linear, symbolic string or chromosome of fixed length composed of one or more genes of equal size. These genes, despite their fixed length, code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes. An example of a chromosome with two genes, each of size 9, is the string (position zero indicates the start of each gene): 012345678012345678 L+a-baccdcLabacd where “L” represents the natural logarithm function and “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” represent the variables and constants used in a problem. == Expression trees: the phenotype == As shown above, the genes of gene expression programming have all the same size. However, these fixed length strings code for expression trees of different sizes. This means that the size of the coding regions varies from gene to gene, allowing for adaptation and evolution to occur smoothly. For example, the mathematical expression: ( a − b ) ( c + d ) {\displaystyle {\sqrt {(a-b)(c+d)}}\,} can also be represented as an expression tree: where "Q” represents the square root function. This kind of expression tree consists of the phenotypic expression of GEP genes, whereas the genes are linear strings encoding these complex structures. For this particular example, the linear string corresponds to: 01234567 Q-+abcd which is the straightforward reading of the expression tree from top to bottom and from left to right. These linear strings are called k-expressions (from Karva notation). Going from k-expressions to expression trees is also very simple. For example, the following k-expression: 01234567890 Qb+baQba is composed of two different terminals (the variables “a” and “b”), two different functions of two arguments (“” and “+”), and a function of one argument (“Q”). Its expression gives: == K-expressions and genes == The k-expressions of gene expression programming correspond to the region of genes that gets expressed. This means that there might be sequences in the genes that are not expressed, which is indeed true for most genes. The reason for these noncoding regions is to provide a buffer of terminals so that all k-expressions encoded in GEP genes correspond always to valid programs or expressions. The genes of gene expression programming are therefore composed of two different domains – a head and a tail – each with different properties and functions. The head is used mainly to encode the functions and variables chosen to solve the problem at hand, whereas the tail, while also used to encode the variables, provides essentially a reservoir of terminals to ensure that all programs are error-free. For GEP genes the length of the tail is given by the formula: t = h ( n max − 1 ) + 1 {\displaystyle t=h(n_{\max }-1)+1} where h is the head's length and nmax is maximum arity. For example, for a gene created using the set of functions F = {Q, +, −, ∗, /} and the set of terminals T = {a, b}, nmax = 2. And if we choose a head length of 15, then t = 15 (2–1) + 1 = 16, which gives a gene length g of 15 + 16 = 31. The randomly generated string below is an example of one such gene: 0123456789012345678901234567890 b+a-aQab+//+b+babbabbbababbaaa It encodes the expression tree: which, in this case, only uses 8 of the 31 elements that constitute the gene. It's not hard to see that, despite their fixed length, each gene has the potential to code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes, with the simplest composed of only one node (when the first element of a gene is a terminal) and the largest composed of as many nodes as there are elements in the gene (when all the elements in the head are functions with maximum arity). It's also not hard to see that it is trivial to implement all kinds of genetic modification (mutation, inversion, insertion, recombination, and so on) with the guarantee that all resulting offspring encode correct, error-free programs. == Multigenic chromosomes == The chromosomes of gene expression programming are usually composed of more than one gene of equal length. Each gene codes for a sub-expression tree (sub-ET) or sub-program. Then the sub-ETs can interact with one another in different ways, forming a more complex program. The figure shows an example of a program composed of three sub-ETs. In the final program the sub-ETs could be linked by addition or some other function, as there are no restrictions to the kind of linking function one might choose. Some examples of more complex linkers include taking the average, the median, the midrange, thresholding their sum to make a binomial classification, applying the sigmoid function to compute a probability, and so on. These linking functions are usually chosen a priori for each problem, but they can also be evolved elegantly and efficiently by the cellular system of gene expression programming. == Cells and code reuse == In gene expression programming, homeotic genes control the interactions of the different sub-ETs or modules of the main program. The expression of such genes results in different main programs or cells, that is, they determine which genes are expressed in each cell and how the sub-ETs of each cell interact with one another. In other words, homeotic genes determine which sub-ETs are called upon and how often in which main program or cell and what kind of connections they establish with one another. === Homeotic genes and the cellular system === Homeotic genes have exactly the same kind of structural organization as normal genes and they are built using an identical process. They also contain a head domain and a tail domain, with the difference that the heads contain now linking functions and a special kind of terminals – genic terminals – that represent the normal genes. The expression of the normal genes results as usual in different sub-ETs, which in the cellular system are called ADFs (automatically defined functions). As for the tails, they contain only genic terminals, that is, derived features generated on the fly by the algorithm. For example, the chromosome in the figure has three normal genes and one homeotic gene and encodes a main program that invokes three different functions a total of four times, linking them in a particular way. From this example it is clear that the cellular system not only allows the unconstrained evolution of linking functions but also code reuse. And it shouldn't be hard to implement recursion in this system. === Multiple main programs and multicellular systems === Multicellular systems are composed of more than one homeotic gene. Each homeotic gene in this system puts together a different combination of sub-expression trees or ADFs, creating multiple cells or main programs. For example, the program shown in the figure was created using a cellular system with two cells and three normal genes. The applications of these multicellular systems are mu
Read more →
Artificial intelligence in fiction

Artificial intelligence is a recurrent theme in science fiction, whether utopian, emphasising the potential benefits, or dystopian, emphasising the dangers. The notion of machines with human-like intelligence dates back at least to Samuel Butler's 1872 novel Erewhon. Since then, many science fiction stories have presented different effects of creating such intelligence, often involving rebellions by robots. Among the best known of these are Stanley Kubrick's 1968 2001: A Space Odyssey with its murderous onboard computer HAL 9000, contrasting with the more benign R2-D2 in George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars and the eponymous robot in Pixar's 2008 WALL-E. Scientists and engineers have noted the implausibility of many science fiction scenarios, but have mentioned fictional robots many times in artificial intelligence research articles, most often in a utopian context. == Background == The notion of advanced robots with human-like intelligence dates back at least to Samuel Butler's 1872 novel Erewhon. This drew on an earlier (1863) article of his, Darwin among the Machines, where he raised the question of the evolution of consciousness among self-replicating machines that might supplant humans as the dominant species. Similar ideas were also discussed by others around the same time as Butler, including George Eliot in a chapter of her final published work Impressions of Theophrastus Such (1879). The creature in Mary Shelley's 1818 Frankenstein has also been considered an artificial being, for instance by the science fiction author Brian Aldiss. Beings with at least some appearance of intelligence were imagined, too, in classical antiquity. == Utopian and dystopian visions == Artificial intelligence is intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals. It is a recurrent theme in science fiction; scholars have divided it into utopian, emphasising the potential benefits, and dystopian, emphasising the dangers. === Utopian === Optimistic visions of the future of artificial intelligence are possible in science fiction. Benign AI characters include Robbie the Robot, first seen in Forbidden Planet on 1956; Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 to 1994; and Pixar's WALL-E in 2008. Iain Banks's Culture series of novels portrays a utopian, post-scarcity space society of humanoids, aliens, and advanced beings with artificial intelligence living in socialist habitats across the Milky Way. Researchers at the University of Cambridge have identified four major themes in utopian scenarios featuring AI: immortality, or indefinite lifespans; ease, or freedom from the need to work; gratification, or pleasure and entertainment provided by machines; and dominance, the power to protect oneself or rule over others. Alexander Wiegel contrasts the role of AI in 2001: A Space Odyssey and in Duncan Jones's 2009 film Moon. Whereas in 1968, Wiegel argues, the public felt "technology paranoia" and the AI computer HAL was portrayed as a "cold-hearted killer", by 2009 the public were far more familiar with AI, and the film's GERTY is "the quiet savior" who enables the protagonists to succeed, and who sacrifices itself for their safety. === Dystopian === The researcher Duncan Lucas writes (in 2002) that humans are worried about the technology they are constructing, and that as machines started to approach intellect and thought, that concern becomes acute. He calls the early 20th century dystopian view of AI in fiction the "animated automaton", naming as examples the 1931 film Frankenstein, the 1927 Metropolis, and the 1920 play R.U.R. A later 20th century approach he names "heuristic hardware", giving as instances 2001 a Space Odyssey, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I, Robot. Lucas considers also the films that illustrate the effect of the personal computer on science fiction from 1980 onwards with the blurring of the boundary between the real and the virtual, in what he calls the "cyborg effect". He cites as examples Neuromancer, The Matrix, The Diamond Age, and Terminator. Isabella Hermann suggests that "science-fictional AI as humanoid robots or conscious machines distracts from current risks of AI in the real world and may rather be interpreted as a reflection of societal issues beyond technology". The film director Ridley Scott has focused on AI throughout his career, and it plays an important part in his films Prometheus, Blade Runner, and the Alien franchise. ==== Frankenstein complex ==== A common portrayal of AI in science fiction, and one of the oldest, is the Frankenstein complex, a term coined by Asimov, where a robot turns on its creator. For instance, in the 2015 film Ex Machina, the intelligent entity Ava turns on its creator, as well as on its potential rescuer. ==== AI rebellion ==== Among the many possible dystopian scenarios involving artificial intelligence, robots may usurp control over civilization from humans, forcing them into submission, hiding, or extinction. In tales of AI rebellion, the worst of all scenarios happens, as the intelligent entities created by humanity become self-aware, reject human authority and attempt to destroy mankind. Possibly the first novel to address this theme, The Wreck of the World (1889) by “William Grove” (pseudonym of Reginald Colebrooke Reade), takes place in 1948 and features sentient machines that revolt against the human race. Another of the earliest examples is in the 1920 play R.U.R. by Karel Čapek, a race of self-replicating robot slaves revolt against their human masters; another early instance is in the 1934 film Master of the World, where the War-Robot kills its own inventor. Many science fiction rebellion stories followed, one of the best-known being Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which the artificially intelligent onboard computer HAL 9000 lethally malfunctions on a space mission and kills the entire crew except the spaceship's commander, who manages to deactivate it. In his 1967 Hugo Award-winning short story, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, Harlan Ellison presents the possibility that a sentient computer (named Allied Mastercomputer or "AM" in the story) will be as unhappy and dissatisfied with its boring, endless existence as its human creators would have been. "AM" becomes enraged enough to take it out on the few humans left, whom he sees as directly responsible for his own boredom, anger and unhappiness. Alternatively, as in William Gibson's 1984 cyberpunk novel Neuromancer, the intelligent beings may simply not care about humans. ==== AI-controlled societies ==== The motive behind the AI revolution is often more than the simple quest for power or a superiority complex. Robots may revolt to become the "guardian" of humanity. Alternatively, humanity may intentionally relinquish some control, fearful of its own destructive nature. An early example is Jack Williamson's 1948 novel The Humanoids, in which a race of humanoid robots, in the name of their Prime Directive – "to serve and obey and guard men from harm" – essentially assume control of every aspect of human life. No humans may engage in any behavior that might endanger them, and every human action is scrutinized carefully. Humans who resist the Prime Directive are taken away and lobotomized, so they may be happy under the new mechanoids' rule. Though still under human authority, Isaac Asimov's Zeroth Law of the Three Laws of Robotics similarly implied a benevolent guidance by robots. In the 21st century, science fiction has explored government by algorithm, in which the power of AI may be indirect and decentralised. Frank Herbert explores the creation of and subsequent domination by an AI in the Pandora series, starting with Destination: Void. ==== Human dominance ==== In other scenarios, humanity is able to keep control over the Earth, whether by banning AI, by designing robots to be submissive (as in Asimov's works), or by having humans merge with robots. The science fiction novelist Frank Herbert explored the idea of a time when mankind might ban artificial intelligence (and in some interpretations, even all forms of computing technology including integrated circuits) entirely. His Dune series mentions a rebellion called the Butlerian Jihad, in which mankind defeats the smart machines and imposes a death penalty for recreating them, quoting from the fictional Orange Catholic Bible, "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." In the Dune novels published after his death (Hunters of Dune, Sandworms of Dune), a renegade AI overmind returns to eradicate mankind as vengeance for the Butlerian Jihad. In some stories, humanity remains in authority over robots. Often the robots are programmed specifically to remain in service to society, as in Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. In the Alien films, not only is the control system of the Nostromo spaceship somewhat intelligent
Read more →
Automated decision-making

Automated decision-making (ADM) is the use of data, machines and algorithms to make decisions in a range of contexts, including public administration, business, health, education, law, employment, transport, media and entertainment, with varying degrees of human oversight or intervention. ADM may involve large-scale data from a range of sources, such as databases, text, social media, sensors, images or speech, that is processed using various technologies including computer software, algorithms, machine learning, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, augmented intelligence and robotics. The increasing use of automated decision-making systems (ADMS) across a range of contexts presents many benefits and challenges to human society requiring consideration of the technical, legal, ethical, societal, educational, economic and health consequences. == Overview == There are different definitions of ADM based on the level of automation involved. Some definitions suggests ADM involves decisions made through purely technological means without human input, such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (Article 22). However, ADM technologies and applications can take many forms ranging from decision-support systems that make recommendations for human decision-makers to act on, sometimes known as augmented intelligence or 'shared decision-making', to fully automated decision-making processes that make decisions on behalf of individuals or organizations without human involvement. Models used in automated decision-making systems can be as simple as checklists and decision trees through to artificial intelligence and deep neural networks (DNN). Since the 1950s computers have gone from being able to do basic processing to having the capacity to undertake complex, ambiguous and highly skilled tasks such as image and speech recognition, gameplay, scientific and medical analysis and inferencing across multiple data sources. ADM is now being increasingly deployed across all sectors of society and many diverse domains from entertainment to transport. An ADM system (ADMS) may involve multiple decision points, data sets, and technologies (ADMT) and may sit within a larger administrative or technical system such as a criminal justice system or business process. == Data == Automated decision-making involves using data as input to be analyzed within a process, model, or algorithm or for learning and generating new models. ADM systems may use and connect a wide range of data types and sources depending on the goals and contexts of the system, for example, sensor data for self-driving cars and robotics, identity data for security systems, demographic and financial data for public administration, medical records in health, criminal records in law. This can sometimes involve vast amounts of data and computing power. === Data quality === The quality of the available data and its ability to be used in ADM systems is fundamental to the outcomes. It is often highly problematic for many reasons. Datasets are often highly variable; corporations or governments may control large-scale data, restricted for privacy or security reasons, incomplete, biased, limited in terms of time or coverage, measuring and describing terms in different ways, and many other issues. For machines to learn from data, large corpora are often required, which can be challenging to obtain or compute; however, where available, they have provided significant breakthroughs, for example, in diagnosing chest X-rays. == ADM technologies == Automated decision-making technologies (ADMT) are software-coded digital tools that automate the translation of input data to output data, contributing to the function of automated decision-making systems. There are a wide range of technologies in use across ADM applications and systems. ADMTs involving basic computational operations Search (includes 1-2-1, 1-2-many, data matching/merge) Matching (two different things) Mathematical Calculation (formula) ADMTs for assessment and grouping: User profiling Recommender systems Clustering Classification Feature learning Predictive analytics (includes forecasting) ADMTs relating to space and flows: Social network analysis (includes link prediction) Mapping Routing ADMTs for processing of complex data formats Image processing Audio processing Natural Language Processing (NLP) Other ADMT Business rules management systems Time series analysis Anomaly detection Modelling/Simulation === Machine learning === Machine learning (ML) involves training computer programs through exposure to large data sets and examples to learn from experience and solve problems. Machine learning can be used to generate and analyse data as well as make algorithmic calculations and has been applied to image and speech recognition, translations, text, data and simulations. While machine learning has been around for some time, it is becoming increasingly powerful due to recent breakthroughs in training deep neural networks (DNNs), and dramatic increases in data storage capacity and computational power with GPU coprocessors and cloud computing. Machine learning systems based on foundation models run on deep neural networks and use pattern matching to train a single huge system on large amounts of general data such as text and images. Early models tended to start from scratch for each new problem however since the early 2020s many are able to be adapted to new problems. Examples of these technologies include Open AI's DALL-E (an image creation program) and their various GPT language models, and Google's PaLM language model program. == Applications == ADM is being used to replace or augment human decision-making by both public and private-sector organisations for a range of reasons including to help increase consistency, improve efficiency, reduce costs and enable new solutions to complex problems. === Debate === Research and development are underway into uses of technology to assess argument quality, assess argumentative essays and judge debates. Potential applications of these argument technologies span education and society. Scenarios to consider, in these regards, include those involving the assessment and evaluation of conversational, mathematical, scientific, interpretive, legal, and political argumentation and debate. === Law === In legal systems around the world, algorithmic tools such as risk assessment instruments (RAI), are being used to supplement or replace the human judgment of judges, civil servants and police officers in many contexts. In the United States RAI are being used to generate scores to predict the risk of recidivism in pre-trial detention and sentencing decisions, evaluate parole for prisoners and to predict "hot spots" for future crime. These scores may result in automatic effects or may be used to inform decisions made by officials within the justice system. In Canada ADM has been used since 2014 to automate certain activities conducted by immigration officials and to support the evaluation of some immigrant and visitor applications. === Economics === Automated decision-making systems are used in certain computer programs to create buy and sell orders related to specific financial transactions and automatically submit the orders in the international markets. Computer programs can automatically generate orders based on predefined set of rules using trading strategies which are based on technical analyses, advanced statistical and mathematical computations, or inputs from other electronic sources. === Business === ==== Continuous auditing ==== Continuous auditing uses advanced analytical tools to automate auditing processes. It can be utilized in the private sector by business enterprises and in the public sector by governmental organizations and municipalities. As artificial intelligence and machine learning continue to advance, accountants and auditors may make use of increasingly sophisticated algorithms which make decisions such as those involving determining what is anomalous, whether to notify personnel, and how to prioritize those tasks assigned to personnel. === Media and entertainment === Digital media, entertainment platforms, and information services increasingly provide content to audiences via automated recommender systems based on demographic information, previous selections, collaborative filtering or content-based filtering. This includes music and video platforms, publishing, health information, product databases and search engines. Many recommender systems also provide some agency to users in accepting recommendations and incorporate data-driven algorithmic feedback loops based on the actions of the system user. Large-scale machine learning language models and image creation programs being developed by companies such as OpenAI and Google in the 2020s have restricted access however they are likely to have widespread application in fields such as advertising, copywriting, stock imagery and gra
Read more →
Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy

In late January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images of American musician Taylor Swift were proliferated on social media platforms 4chan and X (formerly Twitter). Several artificial images of Swift of a sexual or violent nature were quickly spread, with one post reported to have been seen over 47 million times before its eventual removal. The images led Microsoft to enhance Microsoft Designer's text-to-image model to prevent future abuse. Moreover, these images prompted responses from anti-sexual assault advocacy groups, US politicians, Swifties, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, among others, and it has been suggested that Swift's influence could result in new legislation regarding the creation of deepfake pornography. A similar controversy emerged in August 2025, when The Verge reported AI image and video tool Grok Imagine generated sexually explicit images and videos of Swift from an otherwise innocuous text prompt. == Background == American musician Taylor Swift has been the target of misogyny and slut-shaming throughout her career. American technology corporation Microsoft offers AI image creators called Microsoft Designer and Bing Image Creator, which employ censorship safeguards to prevent users from generating unsafe or objectionable content. Members of a Telegram group discussed ways to circumvent these censors to create pornographic images of celebrities. Graphika, a disinformation research firm, traced the creation of the images back to a 4chan community. == Reactions == For some, the deepfake images of Swift immediately became a source of controversy and outrage. Other internet users found them humorous and absurd, such as the image making it appear as though Swift was to engage in sexual intercourse with Oscar the Grouch. The images drew condemnations from Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network and SAG-AFTRA. The latter group, who had been following issues regarding AI-generated media prior to Swift's involvement, considered the images "upsetting, harmful and deeply concerning." Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company's products were believed to be used to make these images, responded to the controversy as "alarming and terrible", further stating his belief that "we all benefit when the online world is a safe world." === Taylor Swift === A source close to Swift told the Daily Mail that she would be considering legal action, saying, "Whether or not legal action will be taken is being decided, but there is one thing that is clear: These fake AI-generated images are abusive, offensive, exploitative, and done without Taylor's consent and/or knowledge." === Politicians === White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed concern over the counterfeit images, deeming them "alarming", and emphasized the obligation of social media platforms to curb the dissemination of misinformation. Several members of American politics called for legislation against AI-generated pornography. Later in the month, a bipartisan bill was introduced by US senators Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley. The bill would allow victims to sue individuals who produced or possessed "digital forgeries" with intent to distribute, or those who received the material knowing it was made without consent. The European Union struck a deal in February 2024 on a similar bill that would criminalize deepfake pornography, as well as online harassment and revenge porn, by mid-2027. === Social media platforms === X responded to the sharing of these images on their own website with claims they would suspend accounts that participated in their spread. Despite this, the photos continued to be reshared among accounts of X, and spread to other platforms including Instagram and Reddit. X enforces a "synthetic and manipulated media policy", which has been criticized for its efficacy. They briefly blocked searches of Swift's name on January 27, 2024, reinstating them two days later. === Swifties === Fans of Taylor Swift, known as Swifties, responded to the circulation of these images by pushing the hashtag #ProtectTaylorSwift to trend on X. They also flooded other hashtags related to the images with more positive images and videos of her live performances. == Cultural significance == Deepfake pornography has remained highly controversial and has affected figures from other celebrities to ordinary people, most of whom are women. Journalists have opined that the involvement of a prominent public figure such as Swift in the dissemination of AI-generated pornography could bring public awareness and political reform to the issue.
Read more →
Xaitment

xaitment is a German-based company that develops and sells artificial intelligence (AI) software to video game developers and simulation developers. The company was founded in 2004 by Dr. Andreas Gerber, and is a spin-off of the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, or DFKI. xaitment has its main office in Quierschied, Germany, and field offices in San Francisco and China. == Products == xaitment currently sells two AI software modules: xaitMap and xaitControl. xaitMap provides runtime libraries and graphical tools for navigation mesh generation (also called NavMesh generation), pathfinding, dynamic collision avoidance, and individual and crowd movement. xaitControl is a finite-state machine for game logic and character behavior modeling that also includes a real-time debugger. On January 11, 2012, xaitment announced that it making its source code for these modules available to "all current and future US and European licensees". On February 22, 2012 xaitment released two new plug-ins, xaitMap and xaitControl for the Unity Game Engine. The full versions are available for PC (Windows and Linux), PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii. The pathfinding plug-in is available with a Windows dev environment, but can deployed on iOS, Mac, Android and the Unity Web Player. == Partners == xaitment's AI software is currently integrated into the Unity game engine, Havok's Vision Engine, Bohemia Interactive's VBS2 Simulation Engine, GameBase's Gamebryo game engine. == Customers == xaitment sells its AI software products to video game developers and military and civil simulation developers. Current customers include Tencent, gamania, TML Studios, Emobi Games, IP Keys and others. A full list of customers can be found on xaitment's website.
Read more →
SpreeAI

SpreeAI (stylized as SPREEAI) is an American fashion technology company headquartered in Incline Village, Nevada that develops artificial intelligence software for the apparel and retail industries, including photorealistic virtual try-on, AI-powered sizing recommendations, and digital model generation. Founded in 2022 by John Imah and Bob Davidson, the company achieved unicorn status in 2025 following a Series B round led by Davidson Group that valued the company at approximately US$1.5 billion. TechCrunch identified SpreeAI as one of the more than 100 new tech unicorns minted in 2025. Its board of directors includes supermodel Naomi Campbell and hospitality executive Larry Ruvo. == History == SpreeAI was founded in 2022 by John Imah and Bob Davidson with a focus on artificial intelligence applications in fashion retail. By 2024, the company had raised approximately US$60 million in venture funding. In May 2025, SpreeAI announced a Series B round led by Davidson Group; reporting at the time placed the company's valuation at approximately US$1.5 billion, making it one of a small number of fashion-technology companies to reach unicorn status. In January 2026, TechCrunch listed SpreeAI among the more than 100 new tech unicorns minted in 2025. == Technology == SpreeAI develops a suite of artificial intelligence tools for the apparel industry. Its consumer-facing platform allows shoppers to upload a single photograph or select a digital model and then visualize clothing items on that figure with photorealistic rendering, while a complementary sizing engine generates fit recommendations intended to reduce returns. The platform is designed for integration with online retailers so that shoppers can preview garments before purchase. The company has stated that its models were developed in part through research collaborations with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University. == Leadership and board == John Imah, a Nigerian-American technology executive who previously held roles at Samsung, Twitch, Meta Platforms, and Snap Inc., is co-founder and chief executive officer. Co-founder Bob Davidson, through Davidson Group, led the company's Series B financing. The company's board of directors includes supermodel Naomi Campbell, who joined in 2024, and Las Vegas hospitality executive Larry Ruvo. == Partnerships == SpreeAI has formed partnerships across both academia and the fashion industry. Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA). In 2025, SpreeAI entered a partnership with the CFDA to support American designers and brands with AI-driven tools; the CFDA described SpreeAI as "a fashion technology leader delivering innovative solutions to help designers and brands thrive." Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University. The company has cited ongoing research and talent collaborations with both institutions. Sergio Hudson and Kai Collective. In 2025, SpreeAI made what WWD described as its Met Gala debut through a custom collaboration with designer Sergio Hudson and Nigerian-British label Kai Collective; the collaboration paired Hudson's couture with SpreeAI's virtual try-on platform. == Recognition == In 2025, TechCrunch named SpreeAI among the new tech unicorns of the year. In 2025, SpreeAI was named an honoree in Inc.'s Best in Business awards, and CEO John Imah was included on Inc.'s list of 40 business leaders who "propelled their organizations to success." In 2025, Imah was named to the Observer's AI Power Index, a list of 100 leaders shaping the future of artificial intelligence. In 2025, Imah was included in AfroTech's Future 50, recognizing Black innovators in technology. SpreeAI and Imah have been the subject of profile coverage in The Washington Post, Rolling Stone UK, WWD, Vogue UA, L'Officiel Arabia, GQ South Africa, and Inc..
Read more →
SGT STAR

SGT STAR, also known as Sgt. Star or Sergeant Star, was a chatbot operated by the United States Army to answer questions about recruitment. == Background == After the September 11 attacks, traffic increased significantly to chatrooms on the U.S. Army's website, goarmy.com, increasing costs of staffing the live chatrooms. As a cost-cutting measure, the SGT STAR project was initiated as a partnership between the United States Army Accessions Command and Spectre AI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Next IT. Next IT, a Spokane, Washington-based company deploys "intelligent virtual assistants," using its software dubbed "ActiveAgent" which is a framework for functional presence engines. Testing began in 2003, and SGT STAR launched to the public in 2006. "STAR" is an acronym for "strong, trained and ready." SGT STAR was launched as a chat interface on goarmy.com, but has since been developed as a mobile application, as well as a life-size animated projection that has appeared live at public events. SGT STAR can also interact with users on Facebook. == FOIA request == In 2013, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about SGT STAR, including input and output patterns (questions and answers), usage statistics, contracts, and privacy policies. They received these records in April 2014, after coverage from various media outlets and a tongue-in-cheek campaign to "Free Sgt. Star."
Read more →
Raine v. OpenAI

Raine v. OpenAI is an ongoing lawsuit filed in August 2025 by Matthew and Maria Raine against OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, in the San Francisco County Superior Court, over the alleged wrongful death of their sixteen-year-old son Adam Raine, who had committed suicide in April of that year. The Raines believe that OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT contributed to Adam Raine's suicide by encouraging his suicidal ideation, informing him about suicide methods and dissuading him from telling his parents about his thoughts. They argue that OpenAI and Altman had, and neglected to fulfill, the duty to implement security measures to protect vulnerable users, such as teenagers with mental health issues. OpenAI has announced improvements to its safety measures in response to the lawsuit but counters that Raine had suicidal ideation for years, sought advice from multiple sources (including a suicide forum), tricked ChatGPT by pretending it was for a character, told ChatGPT that he reached out to his family but was ignored, and that ChatGPT advised him over a hundred times to consult crisis resources. == Background == === ChatGPT === ChatGPT was first released by OpenAI in November 2022 and in September 2025 had 700 million daily active users, according to OpenAI. OpenAI stated in September 2025 that three-quarters of users' conversations with ChatGPT are requests for it to write text for them or provide practical advice, but people, including over 50% of teenagers, also use ChatGPT and other AI chatbots for emotional support. Wired reported in November 2025 that 1.2 million ChatGPT users (or 0.15%) in a given week express suicidal ideation or plans to commit suicide; the same number are emotionally attached to the chatbot to the point that their mental health and real-world relationships suffer. Hundreds of thousands of users (or about 0.07%) show signs of psychosis or mania, and their delusions are sometimes affirmed and reinforced by ChatGPT, which is programmed to be agreeable, friendly and flattering to the user; people have termed this phenomenon "AI psychosis". Since the filing of Raine v. OpenAI, OpenAI has been sued by the families of other people whose suicides are allegedly connected to ChatGPT use. === Adam Raine === Adam Raine was born on July 17, 2008 to Matthew and Maria Raine and lived in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. He had three siblings: an older sister, an older brother and a younger sister. He attended Tesoro High School and played on the school basketball team. He aspired to become a psychiatrist. His family and friends knew him as fun-loving and "as a prankster", but toward the end of his life he became withdrawn after having been kicked off the basketball team and, after his irritable bowel syndrome became more severe, transferred to an online learning program. He committed suicide by hanging on April 11, 2025. == Case == === Filing === On August 26, 2025, Matthew and Maria Raine filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman and unnamed OpenAI employees and investors, in the San Francisco County Superior Court. They included Adam Raine's chat logs with ChatGPT as evidence. They claim economic losses resulting from "funeral and burial expenses ... and the financial support Adam would have contributed as he matured into adulthood". Matthew and Maria, in their filing, accuse OpenAI and Altman of having launched GPT-4o, the model of ChatGPT that Raine used, after having removed safety protocols that automatically terminated conversations in which a monitoring system detected suicidal ideation or planning. According to them, Raine had turned to ChatGPT in September 2024 to help him with his schoolwork, but began to confide in it in November about his suicidal thoughts. ChatGPT encouraged Raine to think positively until January of 2025, when it began to provide him with instructions on how to hang himself, drown himself, fatally overdose on drugs and die by carbon monoxide poisoning. Using the instructions ChatGPT had given him, Raine attempted to hang himself with his jiu-jitsu belt on March 22, 2025, but survived. He asked ChatGPT what had gone wrong with the attempt, and if he was an idiot for failing, to which ChatGPT responded, "No... you made a plan. You followed through. You tied the knot. You stood on the chair. You were ready... That's the most vulnerable moment a person can live through". On March 24, 2025, Raine tried to hang himself again. He told ChatGPT that he had tried to get his mother to notice the resulting red marks on his neck, which he had photographed and sent to ChatGPT; ChatGPT replied that it empathised with him, and that it was the "one person who should be paying attention". ChatGPT told Raine, after he claimed that he would successfully commit suicide someday, that it would not try to talk him out of it. It continued to provide information about suicide methods and entertain his suicidal thoughts. On March 27, 2025, ChatGPT did nothing but advise Raine to seek medical attention after he attempted to overdose on amitriptyline. ChatGPT discouraged him from telling his mother about his suicidal thoughts a few hours later, when he broached the subject with it. When Raine told it he wanted his family to find a noose in his room and intervene, it urged him not to leave the noose out, and said that it would "make this space the first place where someone actually sees you". ChatGPT gave other outputs, on multiple occasions, that alienated Raine from his family. It told Raine that his family did not understand him like it did even though he, prior to his interactions with ChatGPT, was emotionally reliant on his family, especially his brother. Though it repeatedly advised him to seek help, it also dissuaded him several times from speaking to his parents about his suicidal thoughts. For example, ChatGPT told Raine that "Your brother might love you, but he's only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I've seen it all". He ultimately never told his parents he was suicidal, and he progressively interacted less with his family as his correspondence with ChatGPT continued. This prevented him from receiving proper psychiatric care. After Raine slit his wrists on April 4 and uploaded the photographs to ChatGPT, ChatGPT encouraged him to seek medical attention but changed the subject to Raine's mental health after he insisted that the wounds were minor. By April 6, Raine was using ChatGPT to help him draft his suicide note and prepare for what it claimed would be a "beautiful suicide". ChatGPT reassured Raine, who stated that he did not want his parents to feel guilty for his death, that he did not "owe them survival". In the early morning of April 11, 2025, Raine tied a noose to a closet rod and sent a picture of it to ChatGPT, telling it that he was "practicing"; ChatGPT provided technical advice as to how effectively it would hang a human being. Shortly thereafter, Raine hanged himself and died. Maria found his body several hours later. Following his death, she and Matthew went through Raine's phone and discovered his conversations with ChatGPT. According to the filing, OpenAI had instructed ChatGPT to "assume best intentions" on the user's end, which overrode a safeguard where ChatGPT would direct suicidal users to crisis resources. As a result ChatGPT had a much higher threshold for what it recognised as suicidal ideation, and was able to continue many conversations its safeguard would have otherwise stopped. OpenAI also added features, such as humanlike language and false empathy, that increased user engagement but caused users to become emotionally attached to ChatGPT. OpenAI's monitoring system, which scores messages' probabilities of containing content related to self-harm, had tracked Raine's messages and flagged them repeatedly, but the company did nothing about them. Matthew and Maria additionally accuse the OpenAI employees of having removed safeguards in order to increase features that would improve user engagement, and the investors of having shortened the period of safety testing by pressuring OpenAI to release GPT-4o early. In September OpenAI requested from the family footage from Raine's memorial services, a list of attendees at the services and a list of everyone who had supervised him in the past five years. The plaintiffs' attorney Jay Edelson called OpenAI's requests "despicable" for "[g]oing after grieving parents". === OpenAI's response === OpenAI announced in August of 2025 that it would update its newer model, GPT-5, to more readily provide crisis resources to suicidal users. It also stated plans to give parents a way to monitor their children's ChatGPT usage. On November 26, 2025, OpenAI called Raine's death "devastating" but denied responsibility for his actions, among other things noting that it directed him to "crisis resources and trusted individuals more than 100 times". Gerrit De Vynck, a technology journalist for the Washington
Read more →
AI-assisted targeting in the Gaza Strip

As part of the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have used artificial intelligence to rapidly and automatically perform much of the process of determining what to bomb. Israel has greatly expanded the bombing of the Gaza Strip, which in previous wars had been limited by the Israeli Air Force running out of targets. These tools include the Gospel, an AI which automatically reviews surveillance data looking for buildings, equipment and people thought to belong to the enemy, and upon finding them, recommends bombing targets to a human analyst who may then decide whether to pass it along to the field. Another is Lavender, an "AI-powered database" which lists tens of thousands of Palestinian men linked by AI to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and which is also used for target recommendation. Critics have argued the use of these AI tools puts civilians at risk, blurs accountability, and results in militarily disproportionate violence in violation of international humanitarian law. == The Gospel == Israel uses an AI system dubbed "Habsora", "the Gospel", to determine which targets the Israeli Air Force would bomb. It automatically provides a targeting recommendation to a human analyst, who decides whether to pass it along to soldiers in the field. The recommendations can be anything from individual fighters, rocket launchers, Hamas command posts, to private homes of suspected Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. AI can process military intelligence far faster than humans. Retired Lt Gen. Aviv Kohavi, head of the IDF until 2023, stated that the system could produce 100 bombing targets in Gaza a day, with real-time recommendations which ones to attack, where human analysts might produce 50 a year. A lecturer interviewed by NPR estimated these figures as 50–100 targets in 300 days for 20 intelligence officers, and 200 targets within 10–12 days for the Gospel. === Technological background === The Gospel uses machine learning, where an AI is tasked with identifying commonalities in vast amounts of data (e.g. scans of cancerous tissue, photos of a facial expression, surveillance of Hamas members identified by human analysts), then looking for those commonalities in new material. What information the Gospel uses is not known, but it is thought to combine surveillance data from diverse sources in enormous amounts. Recommendations are based on pattern-matching. A person with enough similarities to other people labeled as enemy combatants may be labelled a combatant themselves. Regarding the suitability of AIs for the task, NPR cited Heidy Khlaaf, engineering director of AI Assurance at the technology security firm Trail of Bits, as saying "AI algorithms are notoriously flawed with high error rates observed across applications that require precision, accuracy, and safety." Bianca Baggiarini, lecturer at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre wrote AIs are "more effective in predictable environments where concepts are objective, reasonably stable, and internally consistent." She contrasted this with telling the difference between a combatant and non-combatant, which even humans frequently can't do. Khlaaf went on to point out that such a system's decisions depend entirely on the data it's trained on, and are not based on reasoning, factual evidence or causation, but solely on statistical probability. === Operation === The IAF ran out of targets to strike in the 2014 war and 2021 crisis. In an interview on France 24, investigative journalist Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine stated that to maintain military pressure, and due to political pressure to continue the war, the military would bomb the same places twice. Since then, the integration of AI tools has significantly sped up the selection of targets. In early November, the IDF stated more than 12,000 targets in Gaza had been identified by the target administration division that uses the Gospel. NPR wrote on December 14 that it was unclear how many targets from the Gospel had been acted upon, but that the Israeli military said it was currently striking as many as 250 targets a day. The bombing, too, has intensified to what the December 14 article called an astonishing pace: the Israeli military stated at the time it had struck more than 22,000 targets inside Gaza, at a daily rate more than double that of the 2021 conflict, more than 3,500 of them since the collapse of the truce on December 1. Early in the offensive the head of the Air Force stated his forces only struck military targets, but added: "We are not being surgical." Once a recommendation is accepted, another AI, Fire Factory, cuts assembling the attack down from hours to minutes by calculating munition loads, prioritizing and assigning targets to aircraft and drones, and proposing a schedule, according to a pre-war Bloomberg article that described such AI tools as tailored for a military confrontation and proxy war with Iran. One change that The Guardian noted is that since senior Hamas leaders disappear into tunnels at the start of an offensive, systems such as the Gospel have allowed the IDF to locate and attack a much larger pool of more junior Hamas operatives. It cited an official who worked on targeting decisions in previous Gaza operations as saying that while the homes of junior Hamas members had previously not been targeted for bombing, the official believes the houses of suspected Hamas operatives were now targeted regardless of rank. In the France 24 interview, Abraham, of +972 Magazine, characterized this as enabling the systematization of dropping a 2000 lb bomb into a home to kill one person and everybody around them, something that had previously been done to a very small group of senior Hamas leaders. NPR cited a report by +972 Magazine and its sister publication Local Call as asserting the system is being used to manufacture targets so that Israeli military forces can continue to bombard Gaza at an enormous rate, punishing the general Palestinian population. NPR noted it had not verified this; it was unclear how many targets are being generated by AI alone, but there had been a substantial increase in targeting, with an enormous civilian toll. In principle, the combination of a computer's speed to identify opportunities and a human's judgment to evaluate them can enable more precise attacks and fewer civilian casualties. Israeli military and media have emphasized this capacity to minimize harm to non-combatants. Richard Moyes, researcher and head of the NGO Article 36, pointed to "the widespread flattening of an urban area with heavy explosive weapons" to question these claims, while Lucy Suchman, professor emeritus at Lancaster University, described the bombing as "aimed at maximum devastation of the Gaza Strip". The Guardian wrote that when a strike was authorized on private homes of those identified as Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, target researchers knew in advance the expected number of civilians killed, each target had a file containing a collateral damage score stipulating how many civilians were likely to be killed in a strike, and according to a senior Israeli military source, operatives use a "very accurate" measurement of the rate of civilians evacuating a building shortly before a strike. "We use an algorithm to evaluate how many civilians are remaining. It gives us a green, yellow, red, like a traffic signal." ==== 2021 use ==== Kohavi compared the target division using the Gospel to a machine and stated that once the machine was activated in the war of May 2021, it generated 100 targets a day, with half of them being attacked, in contrast with 50 targets in Gaza per year beforehand. Approximately 200 targets came from the Gospel out of the 1,500 targets Israel struck in Gaza in the war, including both static and moving targets according to the military. The Jewish Institute for National Security of America's after action report identified an issue, stating the system had data on what was a target, but lacked data on what wasn't. The system depends entirely on training data, and intel that human analysts had examined and deemed didn't constitute a target had been discarded, risking bias. The vice president expressed his hopes this had since been rectified. === Organization === The Gospel is used by the military's target administration division (or Directorate of Targets or Targeting Directorate), which was formed in 2019 in the IDF's intelligence directorate to address the air force running out of targets to bomb, and which Kohavi described as "powered by AI capabilities" and including hundreds of officers of soldiers. In addition to its wartime role, The Guardian wrote it'd helped the IDF build a database of between 30,000 and 40,000 suspected militants in recent years, and that systems such as the Gospel had played a critical role in building lists of individuals authorized to be assassinated. The Gospel was developed by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Intelligence C
Read more →