AI For Business Development

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

• 

  Clone tool

  The clone tool, as it is known in Adobe Photoshop, Inkscape, GIMP, and Corel PhotoPaint, is used in digital image editing to replace information for one part of a picture with information from another part. In other image editing software, its equivalent is sometimes called a rubber stamp tool or a clone brush. == Applications == The clone tool can remove objects by copying a nearby background. The user selects a matching location as the source, then paints over the element to be hidden. A typical use for the tool is in object removal – more colloquially, "airbrushing" or "photoshopping" out an unwanted part of the image. If a part of an image is removed simply by cutting it out, then a hole is left in the background. The Clone tool can fill in this hole convincingly with a copy of the existing background from elsewhere in the image. A common use for this tool is to retouch skin, particularly in portraits, to remove blemishes and make skin tones more even. Cloning can also be used to remove other unwanted elements, such as telephone wires, an unwanted bird in the sky, and the like. A more automated method of object removal uses texture synthesis to fill in gaps. Of these, patch-based texture synthesis or "image quilting" is essentially an automated application of the clone tool, choosing the optimal source area so as to patch over with a minimal seam. In some cases, the undesired object is mixed with the remainder of the image, and a simple circular brush, even with feathering, would not work. For these cases, some programs allow an object to be selected by color/outline so other areas are not affected. Other programs allow edge/color sensitive brushes to deal with such objects. == Healing tool == A similar tool is the healing tool, which occurs in variants such as the healing brush or spot healing tool. These incorporate the existing texture, rather than painting it over.

  Read more →
• 

  Partial-order planning

  Partial-order planning is an approach to automated planning that maintains a partial ordering between actions and only commits ordering between actions when forced to, that is, ordering of actions is partial. Also this planning doesn't specify which action will come out first when two actions are processed. By contrast, total-order planning maintains a total ordering between all actions at every stage of planning. Given a problem in which some sequence of actions is needed to achieve a goal, a partial-order plan specifies all actions that must be taken, but specifies an ordering between actions only where needed. Consider the following situation: a person must travel from the start to the end of an obstacle course. The course is composed of a bridge, a see-saw, and a swing-set. The bridge must be traversed before the see-saw and swing-set are reachable. Once reachable, the see-saw and swing-set can be traversed in any order, after which the end is reachable. In a partial-order plan, ordering between these obstacles is specified only when needed. The bridge must be traversed first. Second, either the see-saw or swing-set can be traversed. Third, the remaining obstacle can be traversed. Then the end can be traversed. Partial-order planning relies upon the principle of least commitment for its efficiency. == Partial-order plan == A partial-order plan or partial plan is a plan which specifies all actions that must be taken, but only specifies the order between actions when needed. It is the result of a partial-order planner. A partial-order plan consists of four components: A set of actions (also known as operators). A partial order for the actions. It specifies the conditions about the order of some actions. A set of causal links. It specifies which actions meet which preconditions of other actions. Alternatively, a set of bindings between the variables in actions. A set of open preconditions. It specifies which preconditions are not fulfilled by any action in the partial-order plan. To keep the possible orders of the actions as open as possible, the set of order conditions and causal links must be as small as possible. A plan is a solution if the set of open preconditions is empty. A linearization of a partial order plan is a total order plan derived from the particular partial order plan; in other words, both order plans consist of the same actions, with the order in the linearization being a linear extension of the partial order in the original partial order plan. === Example === For example, a plan for baking a cake might start: go to the store get eggs; get flour; get milk pay for all goods go to the kitchen This is a partial plan because the order for finding eggs, flour and milk is not specified, the agent can wander around the store reactively accumulating all the items on its shopping list until the list is complete. == Partial-order planner == A partial-order planner is an algorithm or program which will construct a partial-order plan and search for a solution. The input is the problem description, consisting of descriptions of the initial state, the goal and possible actions. The problem can be interpreted as a search problem where the set of possible partial-order plans is the search space. The initial state would be the plan with the open preconditions equal to the goal conditions. The final state would be any plan with no open preconditions, i.e. a solution. The initial state is the starting conditions, and can be thought of as the preconditions to the task at hand. For a task of setting the table, the initial state could be a clear table. The goal is simply the final action that needs to be accomplished, for example setting the table. The operators of the algorithm are the actions by which the task is accomplished. For this example there may be two operators: lay (tablecloth), and place (glasses, plates, and silverware). === Plan space === The plan space of the algorithm is constrained between its start and finish. The algorithm starts, producing the initial state and finishes when all parts of the goal have been achieved. In the setting a table example, two types of actions exist that must be addressed: the put-out and lay operators. Four unsolved operators also exist: Action 1, lay-tablecloth, Action 2, Put-out (plates), Action 3, Put-out (silverware), and Action 4, Put-out (glasses). However, a threat arises if Action 2, 3, or 4 comes before Action 1. This threat is that the precondition to the start of the algorithm will be unsatisfied as the table will no longer be clear. Thus, constraints exist that must be added to the algorithm that force Actions 2, 3, and 4 to come after Action 1. Once these steps are completed, the algorithm will finish and the goal will have been completed. === Threats === As seen in the algorithm presented above, partial-order planning can encounter certain threats, meaning orderings that threaten to break connected actions, thus potentially destroying the entire plan. There are two ways to resolve threats: Promotion Demotion Promotion orders the possible threat after the connection it threatens. Demotion orders the possible threat before the connection it threatens. Partial-order planning algorithms are known for being both sound and complete, with sound being defined as the total ordering of the algorithm, and complete being defined as the capability to find a solution, given that a solution does in fact exist. == Partial-order vs. total-order planning == Partial-order planning is the opposite of total-order planning, in which actions are sequenced all at once and for the entirety of the task at hand. The question arises when one has two competing processes, which one is better? Anthony Barret and Daniel Weld have argued in their 1993 book, that partial-order planning is superior to total-order planning, as it is faster and thus more efficient. They tested this theory using Korf’s taxonomy of subgoal collections, in which they found that partial-order planning performs better because it produces more trivial serializability than total-order planning. Trivial serializability facilitates a planner’s ability to perform quickly when dealing with goals that contain subgoals. Planners perform more slowly when dealing with laboriously serializable or nonserializable subgoals. The determining factor that makes a subgoal trivially or laboriously serializable is the search space of different plans. They found that partial-order planning is more adept at finding the quickest path, and is therefore the more efficient of these two main types of planning. == The Sussman anomaly == Partial-order plans are known to easily and optimally solve the Sussman anomaly. Using this type of incremental planning system solves this problem quickly and efficiently. This was a result of partial-order planning that solidified its place as an efficient planning system. == Disadvantages to partial-order planning == One drawback of this type of planning system is that it requires a lot more computational power for each node. This higher per-node cost occurs because the algorithm for partial-order planning is more complex than others. This has important artificial intelligence implications. When coding a robot to do a certain task, the creator needs to take into account how much energy is needed. Though a partial-order plan may be quicker it may not be worth the energy cost for the robot. The creator must be aware of and weigh these two options to build an efficient robot.

  Read more →
• 

  Diffbot

  Diffbot is a developer of machine learning and computer vision algorithms and public APIs for extracting data from web pages / web scraping to create a knowledge base. == Overview == The company has gained interest from its application of computer vision technology to web pages, wherein it visually parses a web page for important elements and returns them in a structured format. In 2015 Diffbot announced it was working on its version of an automated "knowledge graph" by crawling the web and using its automatic web page extraction to build a large database of structured web data. In 2019 Diffbot released their Knowledge Graph which has since grown to include over two billion entities (corporations, people, articles, products, discussions, and more), and ten trillion "facts." == Features == The company's products allow software developers to analyze web home pages and article pages, and extract the "important information" while ignoring elements deemed not core to the primary content. In August 2012 the company released its Page Classifier API, which automatically categorizes web pages into specific "page types". As part of this, Diffbot analyzed 750,000 web pages shared on the social media service Twitter and revealed that photos, followed by articles and videos, are the predominant web media shared on the social network. In September 2020 the company released a Natural Language Processing API for automatically building Knowledge Graphs from text. The company raised $2 million in funding in May 2012 from investors including Andy Bechtolsheim and Sky Dayton. Diffbot's customers include Adobe, AOL, Cisco, DuckDuckGo, eBay, Instapaper, Microsoft, Onswipe and Springpad.

  Read more →
• 

  Logic Theorist

  Logic Theorist is a computer program completed in 1956 by Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon, and Cliff Shaw. It was the first program deliberately engineered to perform automated reasoning, and has been described as "the first artificial intelligence program". Logic Theorist proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter two of Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, and found new and shorter proofs for some of them. == History == In 1955, when Newell and Simon began to work on the Logic Theorist, the field of artificial intelligence did not yet exist; the term "artificial intelligence" would not be coined until the following summer. Simon was a political scientist who had previously studied the way bureaucracies function as well as developing his theory of bounded rationality (for which he would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978). He believed the study of business organizations requires, like artificial intelligence, an insight into the nature of human problem solving and decision making. Simon has stated that when consulting at RAND Corporation in the early 1950s, he saw a printer typing out a map, using ordinary letters and punctuation as symbols. This led him to think that a machine that could manipulate symbols could simulate decision making and possibly even the process of human thought. The program that printed the map had been written by Newell, a RAND scientist studying logistics and organization theory. For Newell, the decisive moment was in 1954 when Oliver Selfridge came to RAND to describe his work on pattern matching. Watching the presentation, Newell suddenly understood how the interaction of simple, programmable units could accomplish complex behavior, including the intelligent behavior of human beings. "It all happened in one afternoon," he would later say. It was a rare moment of scientific epiphany. "I had such a sense of clarity that this was a new path, and one I was going to go down. I haven't had that sensation very many times. I'm pretty skeptical, and so I don't normally go off on a toot, but I did on that one. Completely absorbed in it—without existing with the two or three levels consciousness so that you're working, and aware that you're working, and aware of the consequences and implications, the normal mode of thought. No. Completely absorbed for ten to twelve hours." Newell and Simon began to talk about the possibility of teaching machines to think. Their first project was a program that could prove mathematical theorems like the ones used in Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. They enlisted the help of computer programmer Cliff Shaw, also from RAND, to develop the program. (Newell says "Cliff was the genuine computer scientist of the three".) The first version was hand-simulated: they wrote the program onto 3x5 cards and, as Simon recalled:In January 1956, we assembled my wife and three children together with some graduate students. To each member of the group, we gave one of the cards, so that each one became, in effect, a component of the computer program ... Here was nature imitating art imitating nature. They succeeded in showing that the program could successfully prove theorems as well as a talented mathematician. Eventually Shaw was able to run the program on the computer at RAND's Santa Monica facility. In the summer of 1956, John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon and Nathan Rochester organized a conference on the subject of what they called "artificial intelligence" (a term coined by McCarthy for the occasion). Newell and Simon proudly presented the group with the Logic Theorist. It was met with a lukewarm reception. Pamela McCorduck writes "the evidence is that nobody save Newell and Simon themselves sensed the long-range significance of what they were doing." Simon confides that "we were probably fairly arrogant about it all" and adds: They didn't want to hear from us, and we sure didn't want to hear from them: we had something to show them! ... In a way it was ironic because we already had done the first example of what they were after; and second, they didn't pay much attention to it. Logic Theorist soon proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter 2 of the Principia Mathematica. The proof of theorem 2.85 was actually more elegant than the proof produced laboriously by hand by Russell and Whitehead (2026-03-20: What is called here Theorem 2.85 is, in fact, numbered as 2.53 in the page 107 of the 1963 Cambridge University Press edition (https://www.uhu.es/francisco.moreno/gii_mac/docs/Principia_Mathematica_vol1.pdf) and which appears, under the same 2.53 number, on page 112 of the 1910 CUP Edition, according to the digitalization on wikibooks (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Whitehead%27s_Principia_Mathematica/Part_1/Section_A#Discussion_2)). Simon was able to show the new proof to Russell himself who "responded with delight". They attempted to publish the new proof in The Journal of Symbolic Logic, but it was rejected on the grounds that a new proof of an elementary mathematical theorem was not notable, apparently overlooking the fact that one of the authors was a computer program. Newell and Simon formed a lasting partnership, founding one of the first AI laboratories at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and developing a series of influential artificial intelligence programs and ideas, including the General Problem Solver, Soar, and their unified theory of cognition. == Architecture == The Logic Theorist is a program that performs logical processes on logical expressions. The Logic Theorist operates on the following principles: === Expressions === An expression is made of elements. There are two kinds of memories: working and storage. Each working memory contains a single element. The Logic Theorist usually uses 1 to 3 working memories. Each storage memory is a list representing a full expression or a set of elements. In particular, it contains all the axioms and proven logical theorems. An expression is an abstract syntax tree, each node being an element with up to 11 attributes. For example, the logical expression ¬ P → ( Q ∧ ¬ P ) {\displaystyle \neg P\to (Q\wedge \neg P)} is represented as a tree with a root element representing → {\displaystyle \to } . Among the attributes of the root element are pointers to the two elements representing the subexpressions ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} and Q ∧ ¬ P {\displaystyle Q\wedge \neg P} . === Processes === There are four kinds of processes, from the lowest to the highest level. Instruction: These are similar to assembly code. They may either perform a primitive operation on an expression in working memory, or perform a conditional jump to another instruction. An example is "put the right sub-element of working-memory 1 to working-memory 2" Elementary process: These are similar to subroutines. A sequence of instructions that can be called. Method: A sequence of elementary processes. There are 4 methods: substitution: given an expression, it attempts to transform it to a proven theorem or axiom by substitutions of variables and logical connectives. detachment: given expression B {\displaystyle B} , it attempts to find a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B ′ {\displaystyle A\to B'} , where B ′ {\displaystyle B'} yields B {\displaystyle B} after substitution, then attempts to prove A {\displaystyle A} by substitution. chaining forward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} , then attempt to prove B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} by substitution. chaining backward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} , then attempt to prove A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} by substitution. executive control method: This method applies each of the 4 methods in sequence to each theorem to be proved. == Logic Theorist's influence on AI == Logic Theorist introduced several concepts that would be central to AI research: Reasoning as search Logic Theorist explored a search tree: the root was the initial hypothesis, each branch was a deduction based on the rules of logic. Somewhere in the tree was the goal: the proposition the program intended to prove. The pathway along the branches that led to the goal was a proof – a series of statements, each deduced using the rules of logic, that led from the hypothesis to the proposition to be proved. Heuristics Newell and Simon realized that the search tree would grow exponentially and that they needed to "trim" some branches, using "rules of thumb" to determine which pathways were unlikely to lead to a solution. They called these ad hoc rules "heuristics", using a term introduced by George Pólya in his classic book on mathematical proof, How to Solve It. (Newell had taken courses from Pólya at Stanford). Heuristics would become an important area o

  Read more →
• 

  BigDog

  BigDog is a dynamically stable quadruped military robot platform that was created in 2005 by Boston Dynamics with the Harvard University Concord Field Station. It was funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), but the project was shelved after the BigDog's gas engine was deemed too loud for combat. == History == BigDog was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the hopes that it would be able to serve as a mechanic pack mule to accompany soldiers in terrain too rough for conventional vehicles. Instead of wheels or treads, BigDog uses four legs for movement, allowing it to move across surfaces that would be difficult for wheels. The legs contain a variety of sensors, including joint position and ground contact. BigDog also features a laser gyroscope and a stereo vision system. BigDog is 3 feet (0.91 m) long, stands 2.5 feet (0.76 m) tall, and weighs 240 pounds (110 kg), making it about the size of a small mule. It is capable of traversing difficult terrain, running at four miles per hour (6.4 km/h), carrying 340 pounds (150 kg), and climbing a 35 degree incline. Locomotion is controlled by an onboard computer that receives input from the robot's various sensors. Navigation and balance are also managed by the control system. BigDog's walking pattern is controlled through four legs, each equipped with four low-friction hydraulic cylinder actuators that power the joints. BigDog's locomotion behaviors can vary greatly. It can stand up, sit down, walk with a crawling gait that lifts one leg at a time, walk with a trotting gait lifting diagonal legs, or trot with a running gait. The travel speed of BigDog varies from a 0.62 mph (1 km/h) crawl to a 3.3 mph (5.3 km/h) trot. The BigDog project was headed by Dr. Martin Buehler, who received the Joseph Engelberger Award from the Robotics Industries Association in 2012 for the work. Dr. Buehler while previously a professor at McGill University, headed the robotics lab there, developing four-legged walking and running robots. Built onto the actuators are sensors for joint position and force, and movement is ultimately controlled through an onboard computer which manages the sensors. Approximately 50 sensors are located on BigDog. These measure the attitude and acceleration of the body, motion, and force of joint actuators as well as engine speed, temperature and hydraulic pressure inside the robot's internal engine. Low-level control, such as position and force of the joints, and high-level control such as velocity and altitude during locomotion, are both controlled through the onboard computer. BigDog was featured in episodes of Web Junk 20 and Hungry Beast, and in articles in New Scientist, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and The Wall Street Journal. In September 2011 Boston Dynamics released video footage of a new generation of BigDog known as AlphaDog. The footage shows AlphaDog's ability to walk on rough terrain and recover its balance when kicked from the side. The refined equivalent has been designed by Boston Dynamics to exceed the BigDog in terms of capabilities and use to dismounted soldiers. In February 2012, with further DARPA support, the militarized Legged Squad Support System (LS3) variant of BigDog demonstrated its capabilities during a hike over a rough terrain. Starting in the summer of 2012, DARPA planned to complete the overall development of the system and refine its key capabilities in 18 months, ensuring its worth to dismounted warfighters before it is rolled out to squads operating in-theatre. BigDog must be able to demonstrate its ability to complete a 20-mile (32 km) trail in 24 hours, without refuelling, while carrying a 325-pound (150 kg) load. A refinement of its vision sensors will also be conducted. At the end of February 2013, Boston Dynamics released video footage of a modified BigDog with an arm. The arm could pick up objects and throw them. The robot is relying on its legs and torso to help power the motions of the arm. It is believed that it can lift weights around 55 pounds (25 kg). This work was funded by the United States Army Research Laboratory and paved the way for integrating manipulators with quadrupeds as found on Spot, the spiritual successor of BigDog. === Discontinuation === At the end of December 2013, the BigDog project was discontinued. Despite hopes that it would one day work like a pack mule for US soldiers in the field, the gasoline-powered engine was deemed too noisy for use in combat, and it could be heard from hundreds of meters away. A similar project for an all-electric robot named Spot in 2016 was much quieter, but could only carry 45 pounds (20 kg). Both projects are no longer in progress, but the Spot was only released in 2020. == Hardware == BigDog is powered by a small two-stroke, one-cylinder, 15-brake-horsepower (11 kW) engine operating at 9,000 RPM. The engine drives a hydraulic pump, which in turn drives the hydraulic leg actuators. Each leg has four actuators (two for the hip joint, and two each for the knee and ankle joints), for a total of 16. Each actuator unit consists of a hydraulic cylinder, servo valve, position sensor, and force sensor. Onboard computing power is a ruggedized PC/104 board stack with two computers, one running a Pentium M processor running QNX (used for sensor data processing) and another running a Core Duo processor (used for visual data processing). == Gallery ==

  Read more →
• 

  PauseAI

  PauseAI is a global political movement founded in the Netherlands with the stated aim of achieving global coordination to stop the development of more powerful general artificial intelligence systems, at least until it is known how to build them safely, and keep them under democratic control. The movement was established in Utrecht in May 2023 by software entrepreneur Joep Meindertsma. == Proposal == PauseAI's stated goal is to "implement a temporary pause on the training of the most powerful general AI systems". Their website lists some proposed steps to achieve this goal: Set up an international AI safety agency, similar to the IAEA. Only allow training of general AI systems if their safety can be guaranteed. Only allow deployment of models after no dangerous capabilities are present. == Background == During the late 2010s and early 2020s, a rapid improvement in the capabilities of artificial intelligence models known as the AI boom was underway, which included the release of large language model GPT-3, its more powerful successor GPT-4, and image generation models Midjourney and DALL-E. This led to an increased concern about the risks of advanced AI, causing the Future of Life Institute to release an open letter calling for "all AI labs to immediately pause for at least six months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4". The letter was signed by thousands of AI researchers and industry CEOs such as Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, and Elon Musk. == History == Founder Joep Meindertsma first became worried about the existential risk from artificial intelligence after reading philosopher Nick Bostrom's 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. He founded PauseAI in May 2023, putting his job as the CEO of a software firm on hold. Meindertsma claimed the rate of progress in AI alignment research is lagging behind the progress in AI capabilities, and said "there is a chance that we are facing extinction in a short frame of time". As such, he felt an urge to organise people to act. PauseAI's first public action was to protest in front of Microsoft's Brussels lobbying office in May 2023 during an event on artificial intelligence. In November of the same year, they protested outside the inaugural AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park. The Bletchley Declaration that was signed at the summit, which acknowledged the potential for catastrophic risks stemming from AI, was perceived by Meindertsma to be a small first step. But, he argued "binding international treaties" are needed. He mentioned the Montreal Protocol and treaties banning blinding laser weapons as examples of previous successful global agreements. In February 2024, members of PauseAI gathered outside OpenAI's headquarters in San Francisco, in part due to OpenAI changing its usage policy that prohibited the use of its models for military purposes. On 13 May 2024, protests were held across thirteen countries before the AI Seoul Summit, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, Australia, and Norway. Meindertserma said that those attending the summit "need to realize that they are the only ones who have the power to stop this race". Protesters in San Francisco held signs reading "When in doubt, pause", and "Quit your job at OpenAI. Trust your conscience". Jan Leike, head of the "superalignment" team at OpenAI, resigned two days later due to his belief that "safety culture and processes [had] taken a backseat to shiny products".

  Read more →
• 

  AI Futures Project

  The AI Futures Project is a nonprofit research organization based in the United States that specializes in forecasting the development and societal impact of advanced artificial intelligence. The organization is best known for its 2025 scenario forecast, AI 2027, which examines the potential near-term emergence of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and its possible global consequences. == History == The AI Futures Project was founded in 2025 by Daniel Kokotajlo, a former researcher in the governance division of OpenAI. Kokotajlo resigned from OpenAI in April 2024, expressing concerns that the company prioritized rapid product development over AI safety and was advancing without sufficient safeguards. He founded the nonprofit to conduct independent forecasting and policy research. The organization is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States and is funded through donations. It operates with a small research staff and network of advisors drawn from fields including AI policy, forecasting, and risk analysis. == Activities == The mission of the AI Futures Project is to develop detailed scenario forecasts of the trajectory of advanced AI systems to inform policymakers, researchers, and the public. In addition to written reports, the group has conducted tabletop exercises and workshops based on its scenarios, involving participants from academia, technology, and public policy. == AI 2027 == In April 2025, the AI Futures Project released AI 2027, a detailed scenario forecast describing possible developments in AI between 2025 and 2027. The report was authored by Daniel Kokotajlo along with Eli Lifland, Thomas Larsen, and Romeo Dean, with editing assistance from blogger Scott Alexander. The scenario depicts very rapid progress in AI capabilities, including the development of autonomous AI systems capable of recursive self-improvement. AI 2027 presents two alternative endings: one in which international competition over advanced AI leads to catastrophic loss of human control, and another in which coordinated global action slows down development and averts imminent disaster. The authors emphasize that the narratives are hypothetical and intended as planning tools rather than literal forecasts. == Reception == AI 2027 attracted attention from technology journalists and AI researchers. Some commentators praised the report for its level of detail and its usefulness as a strategic planning exercise, while others criticized the scenario as implausibly aggressive in its timelines. The report was cited in policy discussions about AI governance. U.S. Vice President JD Vance reportedly read AI 2027 and referenced its warnings in conversations about international AI coordination. More recent reporting noted that the authors of AI 2027 had publicly revised some of their timelines. According to Kokotajlo, developments since the report's original publication suggested a slower path toward fully autonomous AI research systems than initially forecasted.

  Read more →
• 

  StepFun

  Shanghai Jieyue Xingchen Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd, known as StepFun, is an artificial intelligence (AI) company based in Shanghai, China. It has been dubbed one of China's "AI Tiger" companies by investors. == Background == StepFun was founded in April 2023 by former Microsoft employees. Investors include Tencent, Qiming Venture Partners and Shanghai State-owned Capital Investment. In July 2025 at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, StepFun announced the "Model-Chip Ecosystem Innovation Alliance" which consisted of Chinese developers of large language models (LLMs) and AI chip manufacturers. This included companies such as Huawei, Biren Technology, Moore Threads and Enflame. Another second alliance named the "Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce AI Committee" was also established that included StepFun, SenseTime, MiniMax, MetaX and Iluvatar CoreX. On 25 February 2026, it was reported that StepFun was seeking an initial public offering on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. StepFun focuses on multimodal models which are designed to understand multiple types of input data such as text, video and audio. == Products == In July 2024 at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference, StepFun officially launched Step-2, a trillion-parameter LLM, along with the Step-1.5V multimodal model and the Step-1X image generation model. In February 2025, StepFun and Geely jointly announced the open-sourcing of two multimodal large models to global developers. They were Step-Video-T2V and Step-Audio. In July 2025, StepFun released Step 3. The Model-Chip Ecosystem Innovation Alliance aimed to optimize Step 3 for domestic chips. In April 2025, Step-R1-V-Mini was released. It is a multimodal reasoning model designed for visual interpretation and image understanding. In February 2026, Step-3.5-Flash, a mixture-of-experts model with 196 billion parameters and 11 billion active parameters was released under the free and open-source Apache 2.0 license. It supports tool use and a 256k token context window. == Models ==

  Read more →
• 

  SemEval

  SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented

  Read more →
• 

  Interactive activation and competition networks

  Interactive activation and competition (IAC) networks are artificial neural networks used to model memory and intuitive generalizations. They are made up of nodes or artificial neurons which are arrayed and activated in ways that emulate the behaviors of human memory. The IAC model is used by the parallel distributed processing (PDP) Group and is associated with James L. McClelland and David E. Rumelhart; it is described in detail in their book Explorations in Parallel Distributed Processing: A Handbook of Models, Programs, and Exercises. This model does not contradict any currently known biological data or theories, and its performance is close enough to human performance as to warrant further investigation.

  Read more →
• 

  Composite portrait

  Composite portraiture (also known as composite photographs) is a technique invented by Sir Francis Galton in the 1880s after a suggestion by Herbert Spencer for registering photographs of human faces on the two eyes to create an "average" photograph of all those in the photographed group. Spencer had suggested using onion paper and line drawings, but Galton devised a technique for multiple exposures on the same photographic plate. He noticed that these composite portraits were more attractive than any individual member, and this has generated a large body of research on human attractiveness and averageness one hundred years later. He also suggested in a Royal Society presentation in 1883 that the composites provided an interesting concrete representation of human ideal types and concepts. He discussed using the technique to investigate characteristics of common types of humanity, such as criminals. In his mind, it was an extension of the statistical techniques of averages and correlation. In this sense, it represents one of the first implementations of convolution factor analysis and neural networks in the understanding of knowledge representation in the human mind. Galton also suggested that the technique could be used for creating natural types of common objects. During the late 19th century, English psychometrician Sir Francis Galton attempted to define physiognomic characteristics of health, disease, beauty, and criminality, via a method of composite photography. Galton's process involved the photographic superimposition of two or more faces by multiple exposures. After averaging together photographs of violent criminals, he found that the composite appeared "more respectable" than any of the faces comprising it; this was likely due to the irregularities of the skin across the constituent images being averaged out in the final blend. Since the advancement of computer graphics technology in the early 1990s, Galton's composite technique has been adopted and greatly improved using computer graphics software.

  Read more →
• 

  ComfyUI

  ComfyUI is an open source, node-based program that allows users to generate images from a series of text prompts. It uses free diffusion models such as Stable Diffusion as the base model for its image capabilities combined with other tools such as ControlNet and LCM Low-rank adaptation with each tool being represented by a node in the program. == History == ComfyUI was released on GitHub in January 2023. According to comfyanonymous, the creator, a major goal of the project was to improve on existing software designs in terms of the user interface. The creator had been involved with Stability AI but by 3 June 2024 that involvement had ended and an organization called Comfy Org had been created along with the core developers. In July 2024, Nvidia announced support for ComfyUI within its RTX Remix modding software. In August 2024, support was added for the Flux diffusion model developed by Black Forest Labs, and Comfy Org joined the Open Model Initiative created by the Linux Foundation. As of Sept 2025, the project has 89.2k stars on GitHub. ComfyUI is one of the most popular user interfaces for Stable Diffusion, along with Automatic1111. == Features == ComfyUI's main feature is that it is node based. Each node has a function such as "load a model" or "write a prompt". The nodes are connected to form a control-flow graph called a workflow. When a prompt is queued, a highlighted frame appears around the currently executing node, starting from "load checkpoint" and ending with the final image and its save location. Workflows commonly consist of tens of nodes, forming a complex directed acyclic graph. Node types include loading a model, specifying prompts, samplers, schedulers, VAE decoders, face restoration and upscaling models, LoRAs, embeddings, and ControlNets. Several samplers are supported, such as Euler, Euler_a, dpmpp_2m_sde and dpmpp_3m_sde. Workflows can be saved to a file, allowing users to re-use node workflows and share them with other users. The file format for the workflows is in JSON and can be embedded in the generated images. Users have also created custom extensions to the base system which are exposed as new nodes, such as the extension for AnimateDiff, which aims to create videos. ComfyUI has been described as more complex compared to other diffusion UIs such as Automatic1111. A default node group is also included with the program. As of December 2024, 1,674 nodes were supported. ComfyUI Supports multiple text-to-image models including, Stable Diffusion, Flux and Tencent's Hunyuan-DiT, as well as custom models from Civitai like Pony. == LLMVision extension compromise == In June 2024, a hacker group called "Nullbulge" compromised an extension of ComfyUI to add malicious code to it. The compromised extension, called ComfyUI_LLMVISION, was used for integrating the interface with AI language models GPT-4 and Claude 3, and was hosted on GitHub. Nullbulge hosted a list of hundreds of ComfyUI users' login details across multiple services on its website, while users of the extension reported receiving numerous login notifications. vpnMentor conducted security research on the extension and claimed it could "steal crypto wallets, screenshot the user’s screen, expose device information and IP addresses, and steal files that contain certain keywords or extensions". Nullbulge's website claims they targeted users who committed "one of our sins", which included AI-art generation, art theft, promoting cryptocurrency, and any other kind of theft from artists such as from Patreon. They claimed that they were "a collective of individuals who believe in the importance of protecting artists' rights and ensuring fair compensation for their work" and that they believed that "AI-generated artwork is detrimental to the creative industry and should be discouraged".

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic Graphics Project

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

  Read more →
• 

  Catastrophic interference

  Catastrophic interference, also known as catastrophic forgetting, is the tendency of an artificial neural network to abruptly and drastically forget previously learned information upon learning new information. Neural networks are an important part of the connectionist approach to cognitive science. The issue of catastrophic interference when modeling human memory with connectionist models was originally brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from McCloskey and Cohen (1989), and Ratcliff (1990). It is a radical manifestation of the 'sensitivity-stability' dilemma or the 'stability-plasticity' dilemma. Specifically, these problems refer to the challenge of making an artificial neural network that is sensitive to, but not disrupted by, new information. Lookup tables and connectionist networks lie on the opposite sides of the stability plasticity spectrum. The former remains completely stable in the presence of new information but lacks the ability to generalize, i.e. infer general principles, from new inputs. On the other hand, connectionist networks like the standard backpropagation network can generalize to unseen inputs, but they are sensitive to new information. Backpropagation models can be analogized to human memory insofar as they have a similar ability to generalize, but these networks often exhibit less stability than human memory. Notably, these backpropagation networks are susceptible to catastrophic interference. This is an issue when modelling human memory, because unlike these networks, humans typically do not show catastrophic forgetting. == Discovery == The term catastrophic interference was originally coined by McCloskey and Cohen (1989) but was also brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from Ratcliff (1990). === The Sequential Learning Problem: McCloskey and Cohen (1989) === McCloskey and Cohen (1989) noted the problem of catastrophic interference during two different experiments with backpropagation neural network modelling. Experiment 1: Learning the ones and twos addition facts In their first experiment they trained a standard backpropagation neural network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit ones problems (i.e., 1 + 1 through 9 + 1, and 1 + 2 through 1 + 9) until the network could represent and respond properly to all of them. The error between the actual output and the desired output steadily declined across training sessions, which reflected that the network learned to represent the target outputs better across trials. Next, they trained the network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit twos problems (i.e., 2 + 1 through 2 + 9, and 1 + 2 through 9 + 2) until the network could represent, respond properly to all of them. They noted that their procedure was similar to how a child would learn their addition facts. Following each learning trial on the twos facts, the network was tested for its knowledge on both the ones and twos addition facts. Like the ones facts, the twos facts were readily learned by the network. However, McCloskey and Cohen noted the network was no longer able to properly answer the ones addition problems even after one learning trial of the twos addition problems. The output pattern produced in response to the ones facts often resembled an output pattern for an incorrect number more closely than the output pattern for a correct number. This is considered to be a drastic amount of error. Furthermore, the problems 2+1 and 1+2, which were included in both training sets, even showed dramatic disruption during the first learning trials of the twos facts. Experiment 2: Replication of Barnes and Underwood (1959) study In their second connectionist model, McCloskey and Cohen attempted to replicate the study on retroactive interference in humans by Barnes and Underwood (1959). They trained the model on A-B and A-C lists and used a context pattern in the input vector (input pattern), to differentiate between the lists. Specifically the network was trained to respond with the right B response when shown the A stimulus and A-B context pattern and to respond with the correct C response when shown the A stimulus and the A-C context pattern. When the model was trained concurrently on the A-B and A-C items then the network readily learned all of the associations correctly. In sequential training the A-B list was trained first, followed by the A-C list. After each presentation of the A-C list, performance was measured for both the A-B and A-C lists. They found that the amount of training on the A-C list in Barnes and Underwood study that lead to 50% correct responses, lead to nearly 0% correct responses by the backpropagation network. Furthermore, they found that the network tended to show responses that looked like the C response pattern when the network was prompted to give the B response pattern. This indicated that the A-C list apparently had overwritten the A-B list. This could be likened to learning the word dog, followed by learning the word stool and then finding that you think of the word stool when presented with the word dog. McCloskey and Cohen tried to reduce interference through a number of manipulations including changing the number of hidden units, changing the value of the learning rate parameter, overtraining on the A-B list, freezing certain connection weights, changing target values 0 and 1 instead 0.1 and 0.9. However, none of these manipulations satisfactorily reduced the catastrophic interference exhibited by the networks. Overall, McCloskey and Cohen (1989) concluded that: at least some interference will occur whenever new learning alters the weights involved in representing old learning the greater the amount of new learning, the greater the disruption in old knowledge interference was catastrophic in the backpropagation networks when learning was sequential but not concurrent === Constraints Imposed by Learning and Forgetting Functions: Ratcliff (1990) === Ratcliff (1990) used multiple sets of backpropagation models applied to standard recognition memory procedures, in which the items were sequentially learned. After inspecting the recognition performance models he found two major problems: Well-learned information was catastrophically forgotten as new information was learned in both small and large backpropagation networks. Even one learning trial with new information resulted in a significant loss of the old information, paralleling the findings of McCloskey and Cohen (1989). Ratcliff also found that the resulting outputs were often a blend of the previous input and the new input. In larger networks, items learned in groups (e.g. AB then CD) were more resistant to forgetting than were items learned singly (e.g. A then B then C...). However, the forgetting for items learned in groups was still large. Adding new hidden units to the network did not reduce interference. Discrimination between the studied items and previously unseen items decreased as the network learned more. This finding contradicts studies on human memory, which indicated that discrimination increases with learning. Ratcliff attempted to alleviate this problem by adding 'response nodes' that would selectively respond to old and new inputs. However, this method did not work as these response nodes would become active for all inputs. A model which used a context pattern also failed to increase discrimination between new and old items. == Proposed solutions == The main cause of catastrophic interference seems to be overlap in the representations at the hidden layer of distributed neural networks. In a distributed representation, each input tends to create changes in the weights of many of the nodes. Catastrophic forgetting occurs because when many of the weights where "knowledge is stored" are changed, it is unlikely for prior knowledge to be kept intact. During sequential learning, the inputs become mixed, with the new inputs being superimposed on top of the old ones. Another way to conceptualize this is by visualizing learning as a movement through a weight space. This weight space can be likened to a spatial representation of all of the possible combinations of weights that the network could possess. When a network first learns to represent a set of patterns, it finds a point in the weight space that allows it to recognize all of those patterns. However, when the network then learns a new set of patterns, it will move to a place in the weight space for which the only concern is the recognition of the new patterns. To recognize both sets of patterns, the network must find a place in the weight space suitable for recognizing both the new and the old patterns. Below are a number of techniques which have empirical support in successfully reducing catastrophic interference in backpropagation neural networks: === Orthogonality === Many of the early techniques in reducing representational overlap involved making either the input vecto

  Read more →
• 

  Shakey the robot

  Shakey the Robot was the first general-purpose mobile robot able to reason about its own actions. While other robots would have to be instructed on each individual step of completing a larger task, Shakey could analyze commands and break them down into basic chunks by itself. Due to its nature, the project combined research in robotics, computer vision, and natural language processing. Because of this, it was the first project that melded logical reasoning and physical action. Shakey was developed at the Artificial Intelligence Center of Stanford Research Institute (now called SRI International). Some of the most notable results of the project include the A search algorithm, the Hough transform, and the visibility graph method. == History == Shakey was developed from approximately 1966 through 1972 with Charles Rosen, Nils Nilsson and Peter Hart as project managers. Other major contributors included Alfred Brain, Sven Wahlstrom, Bertram Raphael, Richard Duda, Richard Fikes, Thomas Garvey, Helen Chan Wolf and Michael Wilber. The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) based on a SRI proposal submitted in April 1964 for research in "Intelligent Automata", later "Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance". It was originally designed to have two retractable arms. Now retired from active duty, Shakey is currently on view in a glass display case at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. The project inspired numerous other robotics projects, most notably the Centibots. == Software == The robot's programming was primarily done in LISP. The Stanford Research Institute Problem Solver (STRIPS) planner it used was conceived as the main planning component for the software it utilized. As the first robot that was a logical, goal-based agent, Shakey experienced a limited world. A version of Shakey's world could contain a number of rooms connected by corridors, with doors and light switches available for the robot to interact with. Shakey had a short list of available actions within its planner. These actions involved traveling from one location to another, turning the light switches on and off, opening and closing the doors, climbing up and down from rigid objects, and pushing movable objects around. The STRIPS automated planner could devise a plan to enact all the available actions, even though Shakey himself did not have the capability to execute all the actions within the plan personally. An example mission for Shakey might be something like, an operator types the command "push the block off the platform" at a computer console. Shakey looks around, identifies a platform with a block on it, and locates a ramp in order to reach the platform. Shakey then pushes the ramp over to the platform, rolls up the ramp onto the platform, and pushes the block off the platform. == Hardware == Physically, the robot was particularly tall, and had an antenna for a radio link, sonar range finders, a television camera, on-board processors, and collision detection sensors ("bump detectors"). The robot's tall stature and tendency to shake resulted in its name: We worked for a month trying to find a good name for it, ranging from Greek names to whatnot, and then one of us said, 'Hey, it shakes like hell and moves around, let’s just call it Shakey.' == Research results == The development of Shakey provided far-reaching impact on the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as computer science in general. Some of the more notable results include the development of the A search algorithm, which is widely used in pathfinding and graph traversal, the process of plotting an efficiently traversable path between points; the Hough transform, which is a feature extraction technique used in image analysis, computer vision, and digital image processing; and the visibility graph method for finding Euclidean shortest paths among obstacles in the plane. == Media and awards == In 1969 the SRI published "SHAKEY: Experimentation in Robot Learning and Planning", a 24-minute video. The project then received media attention. This included an article in the New York Times on April 10, 1969. In 1970, Life referred to Shakey as the "first electronic person"; and in November 1970 National Geographic Magazine covered Shakey and the future of computers. The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's AI Video Competition's awards are named "Shakeys" because of the significant impact of the 1969 video. Shakey was inducted into Carnegie Mellon University's Robot Hall of Fame in 2004 alongside such notables as ASIMO and C-3PO. Shakey has been honored with an IEEE Milestone in Electrical Engineering and Computing. Shakey was showcased in the BBC's Towards Tomorrow: Robot (1967) documentary.

  Read more →