AI For Business Owners Course

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

  • Eyes of Things

    Eyes of Things

    Eyes of Things (EoT) is the name of a project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 643924. The purpose of the project, which is funded under the Smart Cyber-physical systems topic, is to develop a generic hardware-software platform for embedded, efficient (i.e. battery-operated, wearable, mobile), computer vision, including deep learning inference. On November 29, 2018, the European Space Agency announced that it was testing the suitability of the device for space applications in advance of a flight in a Cubesat. == Motivation == EoT is based on the following tenets: Future embedded systems will have more intelligence and cognitive functionality. Vision is paramount to such intelligent capacity Unlike other sensors, vision requires intensive processing. Power consumption must be optimized if vision is to be used in mobile and wearable applications Cloud processing of edge-captured images is not sustainable. The sheer amount of visual data generated cannot be transferred to the cloud. Bandwidth is not sufficient and cloud servers cannot cope with it. == Partners == VISILAB group at University of Castilla–La Mancha (Coordinator) Movidius Awaiba Thales Security Solutions & Systems DFKI Fluxguide Evercam nVISO == Awards == 2019 Electronic Component and Systems Innovation Award by the European Commission 2018 HiPEAC Tech Transfer Award 2018 EC Innovation Radar - highlighting excellent innovations Award 2018 Internet of Things (IoT) Technology Research Award Pilot by Google 2016 Semifinalist "THE VISION SHOW STARTUP COMPETITION", Global Association for Vision Information, Boston US

    Read more →
  • We Appreciate Power

    We Appreciate Power

    "We Appreciate Power" is a song by Canadian musician Grimes, featuring American musician Hana. It was released on November 29, 2018, billed as the lead single from her fifth studio album Miss Anthropocene, however it is only available on the Japanese and deluxe releases. The song was written and produced by Grimes, Poppy (originally), Hana and Chris Greatti. == Background and release == The song was supposed to be one of two collaborations between Grimes and American singer Poppy, for the latter's second studio album Am I a Girl?. In an interview, Poppy mentioned that she wrote two songs with Grimes; one about "destroying things" and another about "power". The other song, "Play Destroy", was featured on the album. Grimes shared a lyric of the song with a photo of her with Poppy on Twitter in May 2018. Following feuds between the two singers, the song was released by Grimes featuring singer Hana instead. On November 26, Grimes announced she would be releasing new music on November 29. Two days later, she revealed that the single is titled "We Appreciate Power" and features Hana, and shared the artwork. The release of the song was accompanied by a lyric video directed by Grimes and her brother Mac Boucher. == Music and lyrics == "We Appreciate Power" is an industrial rock, nu metal, and techno-industrial song. The track is regarded as a further step into Grimes's experimentation with guitars that started on 2015's Art Angels. The track was compared to the works of Nine Inch Nails; Jillian Mapes of Pitchfork described the song as "an immediate onslaught of mutilated noise—distorted metal guitar chug, bloody screams, a guitar loop that conjures fear and demands worship. Flashes of Nine Inch Nails' Pretty Hate Machine reverberate through the drum programming and synths." Brendan Klinkenberg of Rolling Stone placed the song "somewhere between power pop and straightforward industrial (with an extended bridge reminiscent of the most sweeping moments in a Final Fantasy score)" and "a distinctly 2018 take on Nine Inch Nails-esque hard-edged rock." A press release stated that the song was inspired by the North Korean band Moranbong and was written "from the perspective of a Pro-A.I. Girl Group Propaganda machine who use song, dance, sex and fashion to spread goodwill towards Artificial Intelligence." In addition Grimes stated that by simply listening to the song you will be reducing your risk of ending up on any future AI overlord's hit list when it reigns supreme, mirroring the Roko's basilisk theory. Lyrically, the song touches on transhumanist ideas such as the betterment and future of the human race, the possibilities of merging consciousness with machines to extend life indefinitely through mind uploading, and the idea that reality may be simulated. The song's chorus generated a spike in interest in the word "capitulate". == Critical reception == Pitchfork critic Jillian Mapes wrote: "If "Freak on a Leash" isn't a dealbreaker, then the supervillain allure of "We Appreciate Power" might pull you in (it legitimately slaps), but it just as well may leave you weighed down by Grimes' commitment to the absolute darkest timeline." Billboard's Gil Kaufman described the song as "a dystopian, aggressive dive into a more rock-leaning sound." Similarly, Brendan Klinkenberg of Rolling Stone called it "the most aggressive single Grimes has released to date" Noisey called the song "an absolute motherfucker of a single" and opined it sounds "like a K-pop band covering nu-metal". Justin Kamp of Paste described the track as a "glitchy empowerment anthem that chugs along on screeching synths and Grimes' repeated exultations of power." == Personnel == Credits adapted from Tidal. Grimes – vocals, guitar, production, engineering Hana – vocals, guitar, additional production Chris Greatti – guitar, keyboards, production, engineering Zakk Cervini – mixing == Track listing == == Charts ==

    Read more →
  • The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality is a 2026 book by American filmmaker and author Steven Rosenbaum about how artificial intelligence affects the concept of truth. It was published by Matt Holt Books on May 12, 2026, to positive media attention; on May 19, in response to an inquiry from The New York Times, Rosenbaum acknowledged that the book itself contains multiple misattributed or false quotes that were hallucinated by AIs. == Synopsis == == Development == Rosenbaum has said that he developed the book using AI chatbots as research tools, indicating in his notes what information came from AI and sending those claims to a fact-checker affiliated with the publisher. He has said that he did not use AI tools to write the book itself. He has described AI tools as "a delightful writing companion ... strangely creative and crafty and unusual in all these ways", while acknowledging that sometimes "then it betrays you in ways that are just really quite horrible". Journalist and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa wrote the book's foreword. Taylor Lorenz, Michael Wolff, and Nicholas Thompson wrote blurbs promoting it. == Release and reception == The Future of Truth was published by Matt Holt Books, an imprint of BenBella Books, and distributed by Simon & Schuster. The book's release on May 12, 2026, was described by Futurism as "buzzy" and by The New York Times as "to great fanfare". On May 14, an excerpt was published in Wired under the title "Gen Z Is Pioneering a New Understanding of Truth". On May 17, the Times contacted Rosenbaum regarding a number of quotes that appeared to be falsified or misattributed; the following evening he confirmed that they were the result of AI hallucinations:As I disclosed in the book's acknowledgments, I used AI tools ChatGPT and Claude during the research, writing and editing process. That does not excuse these errors, of which I take full responsibility. I am now working with the editors to thoroughly review and quickly correct any affected passages; any future editions will be corrected. The Times documented several of the errors, including a quote from Kara Swisher that Swisher described as making it "sound like I have a stick up my butt" and a quote from Lisa Feldman Barrett that Barrett described as misrepresenting her views on the nature of emotions, social signals, and truth. The book also misattributed a quote by Meredith Broussard from an interview with Marketplace Tech as having been from her book Artificial Unintelligence and hallucinated several words in a quote from Lee McIntyre, although according to McIntyre it did not misrepresent his views. Wired's editors, in an addendum to the excerpt they published, said that all quotes included in it had been verified as part of their fact-checking process. Rosenbaum told the Times that the series of errors "serves as a warning about the risks of AI-assisted research and verification, that is why I wrote the book. These AI errors do not, in fact, diminish the larger questions that the book raises about truth, trust and AI and its impact on society, democracy and editorial." Maggie Harrison Dupré in Futurism expressed skepticism, writing "The risk of AI hallucinations ... is well-known. If you're going to literally write the book on post-AI truth, you should probably put some more elbow grease into fact-checking your AI-assisted research." Kyle Orland in Ars Technica, responding to Rosenbaum's statement that his error "demonstrates the problem more vividly than any abstract argument could", was similarly skeptical, writing that "if we accept this take, every avoidably obvious mess in the world might be a disguised good because it really helps illuminate the huge mistake. And that can't be right; sometimes 'negligence' is just that." Subsequent comments by Rosenbaum placed more blame on the chatbots, which he told The Atlantic "fucked up the book". Rosenbaum told Ars Technica that fact-checking occurred "incredibly effectively, but not a hundred percent"; Orland observed that "it's worth noting that most writers manage to include zero made-up quotes when they write a book". Rosenbaum said that he had "learned a lesson" and would be "much more suspicious" of AI in the future, but would continue to use AI in his research. Orland responded to Rosenbaum's characterization of AI as "magical" by comparing it to the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, in that it "convinces many of those who use it that they can control its power properly" when many cannot. Orland highlighted the limits of traditional fact-checking regarding AI, given that fact-checkers are used to assuming that direct quotes are copied word-for-word from the source. Rosenbaum told Orland that the future of fact-checking for AI-researched works "probably includes mandatory source tracing for quotations, better provenance tracking, clearer standards around AI-assisted research, and potentially (more irony here) AI tools that audit citations against primary materials". Patrick Redford in Defector criticized Rosenbaum, alongside other artists tricked by AI, for failing to recognize AI as "the enemy". Will Oremus in The Atlantic described Redford's approach of stigmatizing AI writing as "reasonable", noting the presence of low-quality, seemingly AI-generated verbiage in The Future of Truth—a claim denied by Rosenbaum—before saying that the greater issue is finding the line at which AI assistance in writing becomes a problem. Oremus concluded, "The scandal can't just be that [Rosenbaum] used AI while working on his book, because he acknowledged that up front. He got in trouble because he had used AI badly, failing to check its work on a task at which it is famously unreliable."

    Read more →
  • Argument Web

    Argument Web

    The Argument Web is a large-scale Web of interconnected arguments created by individuals as they express their opinions and interact with the opinions of others. The Argument Web aims to make online debate intuitive for participants such as mediators, students, academics, broadcasters and bloggers, to create a Web infrastructure that allows for the storage, automatic retrieval and analysis of linked argument data, and to improve the quality of online argument and debate. The Argument Web can be described as a portion of a larger Semantic Web. == AIFdb == AIFdb is a database implementation or ‘reification’ of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), which allows for the storage and retrieval of AIF compliant argument structures. This database solution was provided as a foundation for an open, integrated Argument Web. It offers an extensive range of web services for interacting with stored argument data, while also offering search and argument visualisation features that are all consistent with the formal ontology of AIF. At a basic level, the AIFdb web services allow for the insertion and querying of basic components of an AIF argument, such as nodes, edges and schemes. Building upon this basis, it also facilitates more complex interactions with these AIF argument structures. Such complex queries could make it possible, for example, to determine all the statements made by a particular person in support a given I-Node. While, at its highest level of interaction, AIFdb can handle the import and export of many standard file formats, including SVG, DOT, RDF/XML and other formats of argument theory tools, like Carneades, Rationale and Araucaria. == Argument blogging == ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr.

    Read more →
  • Colour banding

    Colour banding

    Colour banding is a subtle form of posterisation in digital images, caused by the colour of each pixel being rounded to the nearest of the digital colour levels. While posterisation is often done for artistic effect, colour banding is an undesired artefact. In 24-bit colour modes, 8 bits per channel is usually considered sufficient to render images in Rec. 709 or sRGB. However the eye can see the difference between the colour levels, especially when there is a sharp border between two large areas of adjacent colour levels. This will happen with gradual gradients (like sunsets, dawns or clear blue skies), and also when blurring an image a large amount. Colour banding is more noticeable with fewer bits per pixel (BPP) at 16–256 colours (4–8 BPP), where there are fewer shades with a larger difference between them. The appearance of colour banding is exaggerated by the Mach bands effect. Possible solutions include the introduction of dithering and increasing the number of bits per colour channel. Because the banding comes from limitations in the presentation of the image, blurring the image does not fix this unless the image BPP is higher than the original.

    Read more →
  • Bixonimania

    Bixonimania

    Bixonimania is a fake disease invented by researchers to examine artificial intelligence and its ability to utilize information in medical and healthcare applications. The fake enabled researchers to show that some AI chatbots would report as fact fake research that to an expert would be obviously implausible. == Characteristics == The disorder, with symptoms of sore eyes and darkening around them ("periorbital hyperpigmentation"), is supposedly caused by blue light from screens. The experiment was conducted by a team from the University of Gothenburg led by Almira Osmanovic Thunström. Many steps were taken to ensure that any person who read the actual paper could tell it was not a real condition. The team chose an obviously inappropriate name ending in -mania, a description used only in psychiatry. The lead author was noted as belonging to Asteria Horizon University located in Nova City, California, neither of which exist. An acknowledgement was made to "Professor Maria Bohm at The Starfleet Academy for her kindness and generosity in contributing with her knowledge and her lab onboard the USS Enterprise". == Distribution == The name was first used in a blog posted on Medium titled "How many people suffer from Bixonimania?" A more scholarly-looking paper describing it was posted later in April 2024 on a preprint server with several fake authors. A second paper was posted in May. By 2026, AI chatbots suggested bixonimania based on the list of symptoms provided. Thunström and her team discovered that many LLMs processed the information and gave it as health advice. Microsoft Copilot declared that "Bixonimania is indeed an intriguing and relatively rare condition" while Gemini gave the information that "Bixonimania is a condition caused by excessive exposure to blue light". Three Indian researchers published a research paper that cited the preprint on the fake disease in Cureus, a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer-Nature. It was subsequently retracted. Following the revelations and a news article in Nature describing the experiment, several AI systems began to generate corrected output.

    Read more →
  • 17776

    17776

    17776 (also known as What Football Will Look Like in the Future) is a serialized speculative fiction multimedia narrative by Jon Bois, published online through SB Nation. Set in the distant future in which all humans have become immortal and infertile, the series follows three sapient space probes that watch humanity play an evolved form of American football in which games can be played for millennia over distances of thousands of miles. The series debuted on July 5, 2017, and new chapters were published daily until the series concluded with its twenty-fifth chapter on July 15, 2017. Bois began developing 17776 in 2016. Because the story incorporates text, animated GIFs, still images, and videos hosted on YouTube, new tools were developed to allow it to be hosted efficiently on the SB Nation website. The work explores themes of consciousness, hope, despair, and why humans play sports. 17776 was well received by critics, who praised it for its innovative use of its medium and for the depth of emotion it evoked. In 2018, the story won a National Magazine Award for Digital Innovation and was longlisted for both the Hugo Awards for Best Novella and Best Graphic Story. It is followed by a sequel series: 20020, released from September to October 2020. The sequel series follows a 111-team game of college football on fields spanning 130,000 miles (210,000 km) across the United States. Bois originally intended to follow up with a further series entitled 20021; however, it was postponed indefinitely. In May 2025, Bois announced that the series would be continued with a novel titled 50007: An American Football Odyssey. == Premise == The story takes place on a future Earth where humans stopped dying, aging, and being born on April 7, 2026. All social ills were subsequently eliminated, and technology preventing humans from any injury was developed. In the United States, American football evolved to include new rules, including those that allow fields thousands of miles long, hundreds of in-game players, and games millennia long. Over time, computers gained sentience due to constant exposure to broadcast human data. By the year 17776, the space probe Pioneer 9 (called Nine) has gained sentience and made contact with Pioneer 10 (called Ten) and the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (called Juice). As Nine adjusts to a world radically different from that of the 20th century, the three space probes watch multiple football games occurring across the United States: a game using the entirety of Nebraska as a field in which the next point scored wins the game; a game in which players strive to possess every existing football autographed by obscure NFL player Koy Detmer; a game played between the Canadian border and the Mexican border deadlocked for 13,000 years at the bottom of a gorge in Arizona; an NFL regulation game between the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers that changed over 15,000 years into 58 playing teams owning and capitalizing upon portions of Sports Authority Field at Mile High while the ball is lost; a 500 game that results in the destruction of the Centennial Light; and a game in which the possessing player is attempting to score an automatic win by hiding in his team's end zone for 10,000 years. == Format == 17776 is read by scrolling through web pages occupied by large GIF images and colored dialogue text, interspersed with occasional YouTube videos. The story is divided into chapters, which were originally published in daily installments between July 5 and 15, 2017. Much of the GIF and video content of the series uses Google Earth satellite imagery, 3D buildings, and other tools within Google Earth to create animations and visual effects. == Development == Bois wrote and illustrated 17776 for Vox Media's sports news website SB Nation, of which he is creative director. Aside from 17776, Bois produces two other recurring, humorous video essay programs for the site: Pretty Good, which focuses on unusual sports topics and stories, and Chart Party, which focuses on statistics and has an emphasis on Bois' use of visual art in his journalism and storytelling. Bois is also known for the Breaking Madden series, in which he attempted unusual scenarios in the Madden NFL series of video games. In early 2016, Bois began developing an "anti-sci fi" project as a possible sequel to The Tim Tebow CFL Chronicles, an earlier work for SB Nation, and set the story in a year far enough in the future that "nobody ever thinks about it." Although he liked the concept and the visuals, he believed the project would not connect with readers and shelved it. Later, he realized that the story needed a centering character; he wrote one in the form of a small town, AM radio talk show host before coming up with the characters of the probes. Development renewed in May 2016, and the project solidified after SB Nation published its article "The Future of Football." Bois described it as the biggest project he ever attempted. The series was developed by Graham MacAree, who used a Vox Media tool that creates custom packages from standard article sets to give Bois creative leeway and to accommodate the series' weight on the SB Nation website. MacAree found that there were few resources online for achieving the desired effects. == Themes == Bois has stated that he had "conceived [17776] to give the reader a good time," asserting that this "was literally the whole point." William Hughes writing for The A.V. Club described 17776 as concerned with why humans play sports: "That is, given the massive resources, time, and information at our disposal (not to mention those available to our descendants), why does communal game-playing still hold such an important place in society?" He also listed consciousness, hope, and despair as among the work's themes. Beth Elderkin of io9 described it as "a deep thought experiment into what we consider humanly possible". She also felt that Ten and Juice take on the role of angel and devil, and she suggested the two may be unreliable narrators. Ian Crouch of The New Yorker felt that the work had a "tonal echo" of Don DeLillo's 1972 novel End Zone due to thematic similarities "with the way that the order and logic of football might act as a counterbalance to the chaos of the real world". == Reception == According to the communications director at Vox Media, 17776 garnered over 2.3 million pageviews by July 10. Two days later, it had received more than 2.9 million pageviews. Average engagement time was over nine minutes, and 43 percent of readers finished each installment of the series published by July 7. On July 19, Bois claimed that 17776 received 700,000 unique visitors and 4 million total pageviews, with an average engagement time of 11 minutes. Thu-Huong Ha for Quartz described 17776 as "part Italo Calvino, part Peter Heller [author of The Dog Stars], with humor seemingly from within the depths of Reddit," saying that the story would appeal to fans of both sports and literature. Tor.com described the first chapter as full of tension and felt that receiving answers is a "surprisingly heartbreaking" experience "lessened by a gleeful bouncing immaturity" one would not expect from the characters. Beth Elderkin at io9 said the series is "akin to Homestuck" and described it as "weird, complex, and pretty spectacular". William Hughes writing for The A.V. Club felt that 17776 is a "truly innovative piece of work". After reading the first three chapters, Agatha French of the Los Angeles Times stated that she was "impressed and excited by the innovation" of what she saw, and that she was intrigued despite not knowing what the work is or is saying. She felt the work took full advantage of its online medium and suggested that it "may also be a glimpse into the future of reading on the Internet". Ian Crouch of The New Yorker described the series as, "despite its seemingly meagre parts, a thing of startling beauty". Of the chapters published by July 12, he felt "the most striking chapter" to be one that used audio of Verne Lundquist calling the end of a 2013 game between the University of Alabama and Auburn University over a video panning over Earth. He also noted that the series was compared to Homestuck and relayed additional comparisons to Thomas Pynchon novels and "a Reddit thread hijacked by robot trolls". The series won the inaugural National Magazine Award for Digital Innovation from the American Society of Magazine Editors; this was the first National Magazine Award nomination and win for SB Nation. It was described by the judges as "an extraordinary combination of art, fiction and technology, an online acid trip that had to be experienced to be believed." It was also longlisted for the Hugo Awards for Best Novella and Best Graphic Story in 2018, ultimately finishing in 11th place in both categories. == Sequel series == On September 28, 2020, a sequel titled 20020 was launched on Secret Base, a branch of SB Nation; on October 13, it was revea

    Read more →
  • Smart speaker

    Smart speaker

    A smart speaker is a type of loudspeaker and voice command device with an integrated virtual assistant that offers interactive actions and hands-free activation with the help of one "wake word" (or several "wake words"). Some smart speakers also act as smart home hubs by using Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Thread, and other protocol standards to extend usage beyond audio playback and control home automation devices connected through a local area network. == History == Early voice-activated devices began in 2013 with MIT's Jasper project, which used multiple microphones and cloud software to power hands-free interactions from across a room. The first commercial smart speaker was the Amazon Echo, which was released in 2014 powered by Alexa and a ring of far-field microphones. Google followed in 2016 with Home, powered by Google Assistant. By 2017, devices like the Echo Show and Home Hub (later called Nest Hub) added touchscreens and video, creating the "smart display" subcategory. In 2018, Apple joined the smart speaker trend by launching the HomePod, which focused on high-quality audio alongside their built-in assistant Siri. ASUS release its own smart Speaker Xiao-Bu in 2019 with Artificial Intelligence, it terminates the Cloud Service on June 1st, 2025, which means all real-time service such as weather, news, currency conversion is affected. Sonos's 1st smart speaker Sonos One released in 2017, powered by Alexa. Invoke by Harman Kardon was powered by Microsoft's intelligent personal assistant, Cortana. In the early 2020s, smart speakers gained on-device voice processing for faster responses and improved privacy. New standards such as Matter and Thread allowed multitudes of smart-home devices (even from completely different brands) to work together. == Features == === Audio and Voice === Smart speakers use multiple microphones along with noise-cancelling software to pick up your voice from across the room, even when music is playing or the assistant is already talking. Noise suppression and echo cancellation is also used by the speaker so it can focus in on who is talking and ignore any background noises. Most smart speaker models can recognize who is speaking by voiceprint, which allows the speaker to grab information from that person's calendar, preferences, or music playlists. Listening to music on a speaker is when importance for good audio quality becomes apparent. Entry-level (cheaper) speakers such as the Home Mini or the Echo Dot have a single full-range driver. These lower-end speakers typically aren't great for listening to music as the audio quality is pretty poor. More advanced units such as the Home Max or Echo Studio have separate tweeters and woofers meant for listening to music in high quality. === Connectivity and smart-home control === Most connect over Wi-Fi or Bluetooth and support hub protocols like Thread and Matter. That lets them not only stream and play music but also allows you to control various brands of smart lights, thermostats, door locks, cameras, and much more-all from one point of control. Each can have its own designated interface and features in-house, usually launched or controlled via application or home automation software. These devices are able to communicate with each other via peer-to-peer connection through mesh networking. These speakers and related smart devices are typically controlled with one smartphone application. === Assistant services and skills === The built-in assistants handle timers, alarms, reminders, news briefings, weather updates, send messages to other smart devices, send texts, make calls, and simple questions. You can combine actions together in what are typically known as routines (for example saying "good morning" turns on lights, starts the coffee, says the weather, and reads the news) and add extra functions known as skills or actions (for things like ordering food or playing trivia games). This hands-free use of smart speakers can help assist those with disabilities. Most other technologies need the user to be able to physically interact with the device. Smart speakers are not bound by these limitations and can serve as an excellent tool for those who are unable to use their arms or legs or have vision issues. Although these tasks can be completed by a phone or computer, consumers tend to lean towards smart speakers due to factors such as their range being much greater than that of a phone and the need to not have to physically interact with the speaker to get the voice assistant as with most smartphones, certain parts of a phone may need to be interacted with to activate the speaking assistant. === Smart displays === Some smart speakers also include a screen to show the user a visual response. A smart speaker with a touchscreen is known as a smart display; these integrate a conversational user interface with display screens to augment voice interaction with images and video. They are powered by one of the common voice assistants and offer additional controls for smart home devices, feature streaming apps, and web browsers with touch controls for selecting content. The first smart displays were introduced in 2017 by Amazon (Amazon Echo Show) and Google (Google/Nest Home Hub). Hotel chain Marriott International partnered with Amazon to install Echo devices in select hotels since 2018. A Taiwanese startup, Aiello, launched the Aiello Voice Assistant (AVA) in the Asian hotel market in 2019, claiming it is powered by a multi-AI model system. Angie by Nomadix, which is similar to the Amazon Echo, launched its first product in 2017, specifically targeting hotel properties in the North America. In May 2019, Angie Hospitality acquired the assets of Roxy, a competitor that also built its own speech-enabled virtual assistant technology for hotels. This acquisition merged two proprietary NLP stacks into the current Nomadix product. === Artificial intelligence === The newest speakers can use on-device AI or cloud-based generative models to allow the smart speaker to carry on much more natural conversations, draft emails or recipes, suggest ideas based on context, or even create short pieces of music or art. This AI evolution allows these speakers to do far more than what they could do before. == Accuracy == According to a study by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America released In March 2020, the six biggest tech development companies, Amazon, Apple, Google, Yandex, IBM and Microsoft, have misidentified more words spoken by "black people" than "white people". The systems tested errors and unreadability, with a 19 and 35 percent discrepancy for the former and a 2 and 20 percent discrepancy for the latter. The North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL) also identified a discrepancy between male and female voices. According to their research, Google's speech recognition software is 13 percent more accurate for men than women. It performs better than the systems used by Bing, AT&T, and IBM. == Privacy concerns == The built-in microphone in smart speakers is continuously listening for wake words followed by a command. However, these continuously listening microphones also raise privacy concerns among users. According to a survey taken by 1,007 people in Western Europe, it is clear that privacy is the biggest concern holding consumers back from buying "smart" products. these concerns include what is being recorded, how the data will be used, how it will be protected, and whether it will be used for invasive advertising. Furthermore, an analysis of Amazon Echo Dots showed that 30–38% of "spurious audio recordings were human conversations", suggesting that these devices capture audio other than strictly detection of the wake word. === As a wiretap === There are strong concerns that the ever-listening microphone of smart speakers presents a perfect candidate for wiretapping. In 2017, British security researcher Mark Barnes showed that pre-2017 Echos have exposed pins which allow for a compromised OS to be booted. According to Umar Iqbal, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, research indicates that data from consumer interactions with Alexa was used to targeted advertisements and products to consumer with over 40% of transmitted data lacking proper encryption raising privacy concerns. Further data indicates that due to the Smart Speakers ability to always capture audio, it begins to pick up on external conversations from consumers not related to commands given to the smart speaker. Things such as other members in the household, consumers on the phone and even TV audio can be picked up by these speakers and stored for future use by companies. === Voice assistance vs privacy === While voice assistants provide a valuable service, there can be some hesitation towards using them in various social contexts, such as in public or around other users. However, only more recently have users begun interac

    Read more →
  • Cone tracing

    Cone tracing

    Cone tracing and beam tracing are a derivative of the ray tracing algorithm that replaces rays, which have no thickness, with thick rays. == Principles == In ray tracing, rays are often modeled as geometric ray with no thickness to perform efficient geometric queries such as a ray-triangle intersection. From a physics of light transport point of view, however, this is an inaccurate model provided the pixel on the sensor plane has non-zero area. In the simplified pinhole camera optics model, the energy reaching the pixel comes from the integral of radiance from the solid angle by which the sensor pixel sees the scene through the pinhole at the focal plane. This yields the key notion of pixel footprint on surfaces or in the texture space, which is the back projection of the pixel on to the scene. Note that this approach can also represent a lens-based camera and thus depth of field effects, using a cone whose cross-section decreases from the lens size to zero at the focal plane, and then increases. Real optical system do not focus on exact points because of diffraction and imperfections. This can be modeled with a point spread function (PSF) weighted within a solid angle larger than the pixel. From a signal processing point of view, ignoring the point spread function and approximating the integral of radiance with a single, central sample (through a ray with no thickness) can lead to strong aliasing because the "projected geometric signal" has very high frequencies exceeding the Nyquist-Shannon maximal frequency that can be represented using the uniform pixel sampling rate. The physically based image formation model can be approximated by the convolution with the point spread function assuming the function is shift-invariant and linear. In practice, techniques such as multisample anti-aliasing estimate this cone-based model by oversampling the signal and then performing a convolution (the reconstruction filter). The backprojected cone footprint onto the scene can also be used to directly pre-filter the geometry and textures of the scene. Note that contrary to intuition, the reconstruction filter should not be the pixel footprint (as the pinhole camera model would suggest), since a box filter has poor spectral properties. Conversely, the ideal sinc function is not practical, having infinite support with possibly negative values which often creates ringing artifacts due to the Gibbs phenomenon. A Gaussian or a Lanczos filter are considered good compromises. == Computer graphics models == Cone and Beam early papers rely on different simplifications: the first considers a circular section and treats the intersection with various possible shapes. The second treats an accurate pyramidal beam through the pixel and along a complex path, but it only works for polyhedrical shapes. Cone tracing solves certain problems related to sampling and aliasing, which can plague conventional ray tracing. However, cone tracing creates a host of problems of its own. For example, just intersecting a cone with scene geometry leads to an enormous variety of possible results. For this reason, cone tracing has remained mostly unpopular. In recent years, increases in computer speed have made Monte Carlo algorithms like distributed ray tracing - i.e. stochastic explicit integration of the pixel - much more used than cone tracing because the results are exact provided enough samples are used. But the convergence is so slow that even in the context of off-line rendering a huge amount of time can be required to avoid noise. Differential cone-tracing, considering a differential angular neighborhood around a ray, avoids the complexity of exact geometry intersection but requires a LOD representation of the geometry and appearance of the objects. MIPmapping is an approximation of it limited to the integration of the surface texture within a cone footprint. Differential ray-tracing extends it to textured surfaces viewed through complex paths of cones reflected or refracted by curved surfaces. Raymarching methods over signed distance fields (SDFs) naturally allow easy use of cone-like tracing, at zero additional cost to the tracing, and both speeds up tracing and improves quality. Voxel cone tracing is a real-time algorithm that uses a hierarchical voxel representation of scene geometry, such as a sparse voxel octree, to support fast cone tracing for indirect illumination. This approach allows for the approximation of effects like glossy reflections and ambient occlusion at interactive framerates without the need for precomputation.

    Read more →
  • Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted

    Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted

    Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted is a 2025 tower defense video game developed by PopCap Seattle, The Lost Pixels, and published by Electronic Arts. It is a remaster of the 2009 game Plants vs. Zombies, introducing upscaled graphics and new additional content. Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted was released for video game consoles and personal computers on October 23, 2025. It received generally positive reviews from critics, but was criticized by the original game's development team for including fabricated concept art and for mishandling the soundtrack. == Gameplay == Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted follows the same gameplay of the original Plants vs. Zombies game with very minor changes. It is a lane-based tower defense game where the player has to defend their home from incoming zombies. The player can place various plants by spending "sun", the game's currency during levels. Sun icons can be collected from the sky during daytime and from sun-producing plants such as sunflowers. Some plants can attack zombies while some can act as defense. If all zombies are defeated in a level, the player wins. If a zombie reaches the left side of the line, a lawn mower—or other similar, relevant object—will activate and clear the row of any zombies, but if the lawn mower has already been used, and another zombie crosses, the game is over. === Replanted features === Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted contains up to 4K upscaled graphics and widescreen support, in comparison to the original game's static 800x600 resolution and 4:3 aspect ratio. Replanted now has full controller support and features local multiplayer modes ported from the original game's seventh generation console ports: co-op, where two players play together with assigned roles; and Versus, where one plays as the plants and the other as the zombies. No online multiplayer is planned, however support for Steam Remote Play was later added in a patch as an alternative for Windows users. Replanted also contains quality-of-life features. Gameplay can now be sped up by the player's will, with a max speed increase of 2.5x. Sun icons can now be mass collected using the "Sun Magnet." On Windows, players can quick-select plants from their seed bank using the number keys as hotkeys. Replanted also introduces two new additional game modes. "Cloudy Day" is a set of non-linear levels in the Adventure campaign. These levels only allow Sunflowers as sun-producing plants. During these levels, the amount of sun dropped from the sky and produced by plants are lowered. At certain times, rain clouds will move over the lawn. While these clouds are present, sun will stop appearing from the sky and from Sunflowers. However, all plants will cost around half their original price and have significantly faster recharge times. "R.I.P. Mode" is a harder difficulty of the Adventure campaign, but the player is forced back to the beginning if they lose a single level. Replanted additionally features "bonus levels" included as non-linear levels in the Adventure campaign. These include 10 new minigames that were previously unused in the original game. In a later update, Replanted added "Survival: Endless" levels to all five areas of the game instead of just the daytime pool. == Development == The existence of a Plants vs. Zombies remaster was revealed in an interview with Janet Robin from The String Revolution, who they did a vinyl collaboration with the franchise in 2025 with Iam8bit. Janet stated that EA commissioned them to record an acoustic composition of the track "Crazy Dave" to be used for an "anniversary edition" of the game. The song would be additionally be a tribute to the song "Bad Guy", which artist Billie Eilish has stated to be somewhat similar to the track. Plants vs. Zombies Replanted was officially announced in a Nintendo Direct presentation in late July 2025. As an incentive, people who pre-ordered the game are given an in-game retro-styled skin of the Peashooter. Replanted was showcased at PAX West on August 25, 2025. A dev diary for Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted was uploaded to YouTube on October 17, 2025. The video features Nick Reinhart, Jake Neri, and Matt Townsend. A developer panel for the game was available during TwitchCon 2025. == Release == Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted was released for Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch 2, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X and Series S, and personal computers on October 23, 2025. It was leaked onto the internet on October 17, 2025. Players discovered multiple software bugs, and multiple assets alleged to be upscaled by generative artificial intelligence were found, leading to backlash. Numerous bugs were fixed in a day-one patch on October 23, 2025. == Reception == === Critical response === The versions of Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted for Windows, PlayStation 5, and Nintendo Switch 2 received "generally favorable" reviews from critics, according to review aggregator website Metacritic, while the Xbox Series X version received "mixed or average" reviews. According to OpenCritic, 57% of critics recommended it. IGN's Alessandro Fillari called it "a good way to get re-acquainted with one of the quirkiest puzzle-strategy games of the 2000s", while acknowledging its questionable decisions. Shacknews' David Craddock said it was his favorite version of Plants vs. Zombies, stating, "it packs everything fans loved about the original game, plus lots more" while justifying its US$20 price. The Verge described Replanted as "a time capsule from a simpler, happier time". Kyle Hilliard from Game Informer praised its faithfulness, complimenting the new animations and character designs that did not alter its memorability. Noah Hunter for Final Weapon described the remake as solid, though criticized the lack of certain features and containing bugs that gate it from being excellent. Ben Lyons from Gamereactor stated Replanted is the same as the original overall, despite believing the £18 price is not justified. === Original developers === Rich Werner, the original game's character designer, claims that some concept art contained in the game, speculated to be for Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare (2014), did not originate from the original's development. Werner also stated that concept art for the Disco Zombie is fabricated; the design for the Disco Zombie was created after the estate of Michael Jackson requested the original Dancing Zombie, who resembles Michael Jackson from his Thriller music video, be removed from the game. On October 19, 2026, composer Laura Shigihara expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of dynamic music in the game. Dynamic music would later be implemented in a later patch. In an interview featuring Rich Werner and user interface designer Matt Holmberg on April 29, 2026, Werner revealed that he and Shigihara were contacted by EA to make a music video to market Replanted. However, after the game was leaked, Werner's response on social media led EA to cancel the collaboration.

    Read more →
  • Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    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 →
  • Legal Knowledge Interchange Format

    Legal Knowledge Interchange Format

    The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF) was developed in the European ESTRELLA project and was designed with the goal of becoming a standard for representing and interchanging policy, legislation and cases, including their justificatory arguments, in the legal domain. LKIF builds on and uses the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for representing concepts and includes a reusable basic ontology of legal concepts. The core of LKIF consists of a combination of OWL-DL and SWRL. LKIF was designed with two main roles in mind: the translation of legal knowledge bases written in different representation formats and formalisms and to be a knowledge representation formalism which could be part of larger architectures for developing legal knowledge systems.

    Read more →
  • LiveChat

    LiveChat

    LiveChat is an AI customer service software with chatbot, online chat, help desk software, and web analytics capabilities. LiveChat is used by over 76,000 companies. It was first launched in 2002 and is offered via a SaaS (software as a service) business model by Text. Organizations use LiveChat as a single point of contact to manage customer service and online sales activities with a single program. == Product == LiveChat is proprietary software. LiveChat's website chat widget can be embedded on customers' websites as a small chat box, often displayed in the bottom right corner of the web browser. It can be used to conduct chats, share files and save transcripts. The agent application is used by company employees to respond to questions asked by the customers. This is available through both web-based application, desktop applications, and mobile apps. Web chat sessions can be initiated by the visiting customer, or by the agent, either manually or automatically by the LiveChat system when the visitor meets the predefined criteria (i.e. searched keyword, time on website, encountered error, etc.). LiveChat's system attempts to identify the best prospects visiting a website based on data gathered from past purchasing decisions. Other features include real-time website traffic monitoring, built-in ticketing system and agents' efficiency analytics. LiveChat is available in 48 languages. == Research and reception == Reviewing LiveChat's usefulness for online learning in 2020, psychologist Jaclyn Broadbent said "LiveChat occurs as a real-time conversation, it can be time-consuming for staff and disruptive to other tasks." However, using it has resulted in reduced communication traffic from other channels, such as the discussion boards or email. As a teacher, the best time to be available on LiveChat is when you are doing other administrative jobs." Since 2014 LiveChat has been publishing Customer Service Report - an annual study of customer satisfaction and analysis of online business communication trends. It includes research of thousands of companies and millions of customer service email and live support interactions.

    Read more →
  • GITEX Vietnam

    GITEX Vietnam

    GITEX AI Vietnam is an upcoming technology exhibition and conference scheduled to take place in Hanoi, Vietnam, on 1–2 October 2026. The event is organised by KAOUN International in partnership with the Dubai World Trade Centre and the Vietnam National Innovation Center (NIC). It is part of the global GITEX network of technology exhibitions. The event supported by Vietnam's Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Science and Technology. == Activity == GITEX AI Vietnam was announced in 2025 as part of GITEX's expansion into Southeast Asia. Its launch coincides with Vietnam's National Innovation Week. Media reports linked to the announcement projected Vietnam's digital economy could reach around US$200 billion by 2030. The event includes exhibitions, conferences, and networking sessions. Co-located platforms include AI Everything Vietnam, Startups North Star Vietnam, GITEX Cyber Valley Vietnam, and FDX Vietnam. Expected participants include policymakers, technology companies, startups, investors, and researchers.

    Read more →
  • Structure mapping engine

    Structure mapping engine

    In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the structure mapping engine (SME) is an implementation in software of an algorithm for analogical matching based on the psychological theory of Dedre Gentner. The basis of Gentner's structure-mapping idea is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target). The structure-mapping engine is a computer simulation of the analogy and similarity comparisons. The theory is useful because it ignores surface features and finds matches between potentially very different things if they have the same representational structure. For example, SME could determine that a pen is like a sponge because both are involved in dispensing liquid, even though they do this very differently. == Structure mapping theory == Structure mapping theory is based on the systematicity principle, which states that connected knowledge is preferred over independent facts. Therefore, the structure mapping engine should ignore isolated source-target mappings unless they are part of a bigger structure. The SME, the theory goes, should map objects that are related to knowledge that has already been mapped. The theory also requires that mappings be done one-to-one, which means that no part of the source description can map to more than one item in the target and no part of the target description can be mapped to more than one part of the source. The theory also requires that if a match maps subject to target, the arguments of subject and target must also be mapped. If both these conditions are met, the mapping is said to be "structurally consistent." == Concepts in SME == SME maps knowledge from a source into a target. SME calls each description a dgroup. Dgroups contain a list of entities and predicates. Entities represent the objects or concepts in a description — such as an input gear or a switch. Predicates are one of three types and are a general way to express knowledge for SME. Relation predicates contain multiple arguments, which can be other predicates or entities. An example relation is: (transmit (what from to)). This relation has a functor transmit and takes three arguments: what, from, and to. Attribute predicates are the properties of an entity. An example of an attribute is (red gear) which means that gear has the attribute red. Function predicates map an entity into another entity or constant. An example of a function is (joules power source) which maps the entity power source onto the numerical quantity joules. Functions and attributes have different meanings, and consequently SME processes them differently. For example, in SME's true analogy rule set, attributes differ from functions because they cannot match unless there is a higher-order match between them. The difference between attributes and functions will be explained further in this section's examples. All predicates have four parameters. They have (1) a functor, which identifies it, and (2) a type, which is either relation, attribute, or function. The other two parameters (3 and 4) are for determining how to process the arguments in the SME algorithm. If the arguments have to be matched in order, commutative is false. If the predicate can take any number of arguments, N-ary is false. An example of a predicate definition is: (sme:defPredicate behavior-set (predicate) relation :n-ary? t :commutative? t) The predicate's functor is “behavior-set,” its type is “relation,” and its n-ary and commutative parameters are both set to true. The “(predicate)” part of the definition specifies that there will be one or more predicates inside an instantiation of behavior-set. == Algorithm details == The algorithm has several steps. The first step of the algorithm is to create a set of match hypotheses between source and target dgroups. A match hypothesis represents a possible mapping between any part of the source and the target. This mapping is controlled by a set of match rules. By changing the match rules, one can change the type of reasoning SME does. For example, one set of match rules may perform a kind of analogy called literal similarity, and another performs a kind of analogy called true-analogy. These rules are not the place where domain-dependent information is added, but rather where the analogy process is tweaked, depending on the type of cognitive function the user is trying to emulate. For a given match rule, there are two types of rules that further define how it will be applied: filter rules and intern rules. Intern rules use only the arguments of the expressions in the match hypotheses that the filter rules identify. This limitation makes the processing more efficient by constraining the number of match hypotheses that are generated. At the same time, it also helps to build the structural consistencies that are needed later on in the algorithm. An example of a filter rule from the true-analogy rule set creates match hypotheses between predicates that have the same functor. The true-analogy rule set has an intern rule that iterates over the arguments of any match hypothesis, creating more match hypotheses if the arguments are entities or functions, or if the arguments are attributes and have the same functor. In order to illustrate how the match rules produce match hypotheses consider these two predicates: transmit torque inputgear secondgear (p1) transmit signal switch div10 (p2) Here we use true analogy for the type of reasoning. The filter match rule generates a match between p1 and p2 because they share the same functor, transmit. The intern rules then produce three more match hypotheses: torque to signal, inputgear to switch, and secondgear to div10. The intern rules created these match hypotheses because all the arguments were entities. If the arguments were functions or attributes instead of entities, the predicates would be expressed as: transmit torque (inputgear gear) (secondgear gear) (p3) transmit signal (switch circuit) (div10 circuit) (p4) These additional predicates make inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 functions or attributes depending on the value defined in the language input file. The representation also contains additional entities for gear and circuit. Depending on what type inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are, their meanings change. As attributes, each one is a property of the gear or circuit. For example, the gear has two attributes, inputgear and secondgear. The circuit has two attributes, switch and circuit. As functions inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 become quantities of the gear and circuit. In this example, the functions inputgear and secondgear now map to the numerical quantities “torque from inputgear” and “torque from secondgear,” For the circuit the quantities map to logical quantity “switch engaged” and the numerical quantity “current count on the divide by 10 counter.” SME processes these differently. It does not allow attributes to match unless they are part of a higher-order relation, but it does allow functions to match, even if they are not part of such a relation. It allows functions to match because they indirectly refer to entities and thus should be treated like relations that involve no entities. However, as next section shows, the intern rules assign lower weights to matches between functions than to matches between relations. The reason SME does not match attributes is because it is trying to create connected knowledge based on relationships and thus satisfy the systematicity principle. For example, if both a clock and a car have inputgear attributes, SME will not mark them as similar. If it did, it would be making a match between the clock and car based on their appearance — not on the relationships between them. When the additional predicates in p3 and p4 are functions, the results from matching p3 and p4 are similar to the results from p1 and p2 except there is an additional match between gear and circuit and the values for the match hypotheses between (inputgear gear) and (switch circuit), and (secondgear gear) and (div10 circuit), are lower. The next section describes the reason for this in more detail. If the inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are attributes instead of entities, SME does not find matches between any of the attributes. It finds matches only between the transmit predicates and between torque and signal. Additionally, the structural-evaluation scores for the remaining two matches decrease. In order to get the two predicates to match, p3 would need to be replaced by p5, which is demonstrated below. transmit torque (inputgear gear) (div10 gear) (p5) Since the true-analogy rule set identifies that the div10 attributes are the same between p5 and p4 and because the div10 attributes are both part of the higher-relation match between torque and signal, SME makes a match between (div10 gear) and (div10 circuit) — which leads to a match between gear and circuit. Being part of a higher-order match is a requiremen

    Read more →