AI For Students Exam Generator — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
VideoPoet is a large language model developed by Google Research in 2023 for video making. It can be asked to animate still images. The model accepts text, images, and videos as inputs, with a program to add feature for any input to any format generated content. VideoPoet was publicly announced on December 19, 2023. It uses an autoregressive language model.
Read more →
Jen-Hsun "Jensen" Huang (Chinese: 黃仁勳; Wade–Giles: Huáng Jén-hsūn; Tâi-lô: N̂g Jîn-hun; born February 17, 1963) is a Taiwanese and American business executive and electrical engineer who is the founder, president, and CEO of Nvidia, the world's most valuable company. As of 2026, Forbes estimates his net worth at over US$200 billion, making him the seventh-wealthiest individual in the world. The son of Taiwanese immigrants, Huang spent his childhood in Taiwan and Thailand before moving to the United States, where he was a student in Kentucky and Oregon. After earning a master's degree from Stanford University, Huang launched Nvidia in 1993 from a Denny's restaurant in San Jose, California, at age 30 and has remained its president and CEO ever since. He led the company out of near-bankruptcy during the 1990s and oversaw its expansion into GPU production, high-performance computing, and artificial intelligence (AI). Under Huang, Nvidia experienced rapid growth during the AI boom, becoming the first company to reach a market capitalization of over $5 trillion in October 2025. In 2021 and 2024, Time magazine included Huang in their list of the most influential people. In 2025, he was named as one of the "Architects of AI" for Time's Person of the Year. == Early life and education == Huang was born in Taipei, Taiwan, on February 17, 1963, and moved to the southern city of Tainan as a child. He is the younger of two sons of Huang Hsing-tai, a chemical engineer at an oil refinery, and Lo Tsai-hsiu, a schoolteacher. They were a middle-class Taiwanese family that relocated often, and were native speakers of Taiwanese Hokkien. Each day, Jensen's mother randomly selected 10 words from the dictionary to teach her sons English. When he was five years old, Huang's family moved to Thailand to support his father's refinery career and remained there for approximately four years. He attended Ruamrudee International School while in Bangkok. In the late 1960s, Hsing-tai traveled from Taiwan to New York City to train under an air conditioning company and, after returning home, resolved to send his sons to the United States. At age nine, Jensen, despite not yet being able to speak English fluently, was sent by his parents to live in the United States. He and his older brother moved in 1973 to live with an uncle in Tacoma, Washington, escaping widespread social unrest in Thailand. Both Huang's aunt and uncle were recent immigrants to Washington state; they accidentally enrolled him and his brother in the Oneida Baptist Institute, a religious reform academy in Kentucky for troubled youth, mistakenly believing it to be a prestigious boarding school. In order to afford the academy's tuition, Jensen's parents sold nearly all their possessions. When he was 10 years old, Huang lived with his older brother in the Oneida boys' dormitory. Each student was expected to work every day, and his brother was assigned to perform manual labor on a nearby tobacco farm. Because he was too young to attend classes at the reform academy, Huang was educated at a separate public school—the Oneida Elementary school in Oneida, Kentucky—arriving as "an undersized Asian immigrant with long hair and heavily accented English" and was frequently bullied and beaten. In Oneida, Huang cleaned toilets every day, learned to play table-tennis, joined the swimming team, and appeared in Sports Illustrated at age 14. He taught his illiterate roommate, a "17-year-old covered in tattoos and knife scars," how to read in exchange for being taught how to bench press. In 2002, Huang said he remembered his life in Kentucky "more vividly than just about any other". Two years after Huang arrived in Oneida, his parents moved to the United States and settled in Beaverton, Oregon, after which the brothers withdrew from school in Kentucky to live back with them. As a teenager, Huang attended Aloha High School in Aloha, Oregon, where he excelled academically. He skipped two grades, graduated at age 16, and became a nationally ranked table-tennis player in addition to being a member of its mathematics, computer, and science clubs. In 1977, the school purchased an Apple II computer. Huang used the machine to play Super Star Trek, a text-based game, and to program in BASIC, creating his own version of Snake. Beginning at age 15, Huang got his first job working the graveyard shift at a local Denny's restaurant as a dishwasher, busboy, and waiter from 1978 to 1983. After high school, he chose to enroll at Oregon State University due to its low in-state tuition. He studied electrical engineering and graduated in 1984 with a bachelor's degree with highest honors. Huang later recalled, "I was the youngest kid in school, in class" and the only student who "looked like a child". Years later, while working as a microchip designer in Silicon Valley, he concurrently pursued graduate night classes at Stanford University, where he earned a master's degree in electrical engineering in 1992. == AMD and LSI Logic == After graduating from college, Huang was a microchip designer in Silicon Valley. He was recruited for positions at Texas Instruments, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), and LSI Logic, ultimately choosing the California-based AMD due to already being familiar with the company. Huang designed AMD microprocessors while simultaneously attending Stanford and raising his two children. However, when he heard of new chip design processes at LSI Logic, Huang left AMD to assume a role as a technical officer at the LSI Corporation, working under a startup company, Sun Microsystems, where he met engineers Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem. LSI was in contract with Sun Microsystems and had introduced Huang to Malachowsky and Priem, who were working on a new graphics accelerator card. While the three produced the card's manufacturing process, the relationship between Malachowsky and Priem became strained as the two disputed the chip's design, leading to infighting; according to Malachowsky, they "broke every tool that LSI Logic had in their standard portfolio". In 1989, Huang, Malachowsky, and Priem finalized the accelerator, which they called the "GX graphics engine". GX was a widespread financial success; the sales of the graphics engine contributed to Sun Microsystem's revenue increasing from $262 million in 1987 to $656 million in 1990, and Huang was promoted to be the director of LSI's CoreWare, a division that manufactured chips for hardware vendors. == Nvidia == === Founding (1993) === When business began to slow for Sun Microsystems after 1990, Huang, along with Priem and Malachowsky, each resigned their jobs to pursue a venture together in making graphics chips for PC games. They initially named their new company "NVision" until Huang suggested that the company be named "Nvidia" based on the Latin word invidia, as Priem wanted competitors to turn "green with envy". They eventually dropped the "i" to honor the NV1 chip that they were then developing. The three met frequently in 1992 at a Denny's roadside diner in East San Jose to formulate a business plan. Huang chose for them to meet at Denny's due to his prior work experience at the restaurant chain and because it was "quieter than home and had cheap coffee". The three founded the company during one meeting at a breakfast booth at the diner. To formally incorporate the company, Huang found a lawyer, James Gaither of Cooley Godward, who demanded the $200 in cash in Huang's pockets to capitalize the company. After that meeting, Huang went back to Priem and Malachowsky to ask each of them for $200 for their respective shares of the company, which meant that Nvidia's initial capital was $600. On April 5, 1993, Huang personally signed Nvidia's original articles of incorporation into effect. Although he left LSI, Huang remained in good standing with the company and was able to secure funding for Nvidia from LSI's CEO, Wilfred Corrigan, who introduced Huang to venture capitalist Don Valentine. An account cited how Huang's presentation pitch went badly. Valentine, the leader of Sequoia Capital, chose to invest in Nvidia through Corrigan's support, as did Sutter Hill Ventures. The funding enabled Nvidia to begin development efforts toward its first chip and to begin paying wages for its employees. By the first day of operation, Huang was made Nvidia's president and CEO. Even though Huang, at age 30, was younger than Priem and Malachowsky, both Priem and Malachowsky believed that he was prepared to be CEO. According to Priem, "we basically deferred to Jensen on day one" and told Huang, "you're in charge of running the company—all the stuff Chris and I don't know how to do". === President and CEO (1993–present) === As of 2024, Huang has been Nvidia's chief executive for over three decades, a tenure described by The Wall Street Journal as "almost unheard of in fast-moving Silicon Valley". He owns 3.6% of Nvidia's stock, which went public in 1999. He earned US$24.6 million as CEO i
Read more →
Det Syntetiske Parti (English: The Synthetic Party) is a political party driven by artificial intelligence (AI), founded in May 2022 in Denmark. The party aims to represent non-voters and fringe political parties while raising awareness of AI's societal role and exploring how it can be integrated into democratic processes. == Founder == The founder and continuous party secretary is Asker Bryld Staunæs, a philosopher from Aarhus University and a conceptual artist. == Main goal == The political goals have been machine learned from texts by Danish fringe parties since 1970 and represent the 20 percent of Danes who do not vote in the election. The party is synthetic; as such, many of the policies, such as universal basic income, can be contradictory to one another. == International collaborations == The Synthetic Party has signed bilateral collaboration agreements with the Finnish AI Party and AI Party (Japan) concerning the development of a global project created around artificial intelligence and politics These collaborations were expanded during the exhibition-event Synthetic Summit (28 February – 13 April 2025) at Kunsthal Aarhus, curated by Computer Lars (Asker Bryld Staunæs) on behalf of The Synthetic Party. The summit staged parliamentary scenography, performances, and computer sculptures, and invited both the public and policymakers to encounter an international line-up of AI parties and virtual politicians. Aarhus University described the event as part of Staunæs's PhD research, positioning it as an international top-meeting of virtual politicians. Participants included the Japanese AI Party, the Swedish AI Party, the Finnish AI Party, Parker Politics (New Zealand), Lex AI (Brazil), the Simiyya collective (Egypt/Sweden), the Synthetic Party (Denmark), and Wiktoria Cukt 2.0 (Poland). As part of the summit, the one-day AI World Congress was held on 1 March 2025, structured as a performative assembly where each group participated through both machinic agents and human delegates. Sessions were chaired by participating parties, with Computer Lars delivering the opening presentation. Throughout the day, contributions were synthesized into a common record using a shared AI system. The congress concluded with the adoption of the Synthetic Summit Resolution, a collectively authored treaty of algorithmic governance. Signatories included Floor Kist and Nick Gerritsen (Parker Politics), Michihito Matsuda (Japanese AI Party), Emma Bexell (Swedish AI Party), Samee Haapa (Finnish AI Party), Pedro Markun (Lex AI), Kristian T. Madsen and Michael Birkebæk Jensen (NextGen Democracy / DemAI), Asker Bryld Staunæs, Benjamin Asger Krog Møller, Caroline Sofie Axelsson, Life with Artificials (The Synthetic Party), and Piotr Wyrzykowski (Wiktoria Cukt 2.0).
Read more →
AutoGPT is an open-source autonomous software agent that uses OpenAI's large language models, such as GPT-4, to attempt to achieve a goal specified by a user in natural language. Unlike chatbots that require continuous user commands, AutoGPT works autonomously by breaking the main goal into smaller sub-tasks and using tools like web browsing and file management to complete them. Released in March 2023, the project quickly gained popularity on GitHub and social media, with users creating agents for tasks like software development, market research, and content creation. One notable experiment, ChaosGPT, was tasked with destroying humanity, which brought mainstream attention to the technology's potential. However, AutoGPT is known for significant limitations, including a tendency to get stuck in loops, hallucinate information, and incur high operational costs due to its reliance on paid APIs. == Background == AutoGPT was released on March 30, 2023, by Toran Bruce Richards, the founder of video game company Significant Gravitas Ltd. It was one of the first widely accessible applications to showcase the autonomous capabilities of GPT-4, which had been released weeks earlier. Richards's goal was to create a model that could respond to real-time feedback and pursue objectives with a long-term outlook without needing constant human intervention. The application operates by prompting a user to define an agent's name, role, and main objective, including up to five sub-goals to achieve it. AutoGPT then works independently to reach its objective. The project is publicly available on GitHub but requires users to install it in a development environment like Docker and have a paid OpenAI account to obtain the necessary API key. In October 2023, the project's parent company, Significant Gravitas Ltd., raised $12 million in venture funding to support further development. == Capabilities == The overarching capability of AutoGPT is the breaking down of a large task into various sub-tasks without the need for user input. These sub-tasks are then chained together and performed sequentially to yield a larger result as originally laid out by the user input. One of the distinguishing features of AutoGPT is its ability to connect to the internet. This allows for up-to-date information retrieval to help complete tasks. In addition, AutoGPT maintains short-term memory for the current task, which allows it to provide context to subsequent sub-tasks needed to achieve the larger goal. Another feature is its ability to store and organize files so users can better structure their data for future analysis and extension. AutoGPT is also multimodal, which means that it can take in both text and images as input. With these features, AutoGPT is claimed to be capable of automating workflows, analyzing data, and coming up with new suggestions. == Applications == === Software === AutoGPT can be used to develop software applications from scratch. AutoGPT can also debug code and generate test cases. Observers suggest that AutoGPT's ability to write, debug, test, and edit code may extend to AutoGPT's own source code, enabling self-improvement. === Business === AutoGPT can be used to do market research, analyze investments, research products and write product reviews, create a business plan or improve operations, and create content such as a blog or podcast. One user has used AutoGPT to conduct product research and write a summary on the best headphones. Another user has used AutoGPT to summarize recent news events and prepare an outline for a podcast. === Other === AutoGPT was used to create ChefGPT, an AI agent able to independently explore the internet to generate and save unique recipes. AutoGPT was also used to create ChaosGPT, an AI agent tasked to “destroy humanity, establish global dominance, cause chaos and destruction, control humanity through manipulation, and attain immortality”. ChaosGPT reportedly researched nuclear weapons and tweeted disparagingly about humankind. == Limitations == AutoGPT is susceptible to frequent mistakes, primarily because it relies on its own feedback, which can compound errors. In contrast, non-autonomous models can be corrected by users overseeing their outputs. Furthermore, AutoGPT has a tendency to hallucinate or to present false or misleading information as fact when responding. AutoGPT can be constrained by the cost associated with running it as its recursive nature requires it to continually call the OpenAI API on which it is built. Every step required in one of AutoGPT's tasks requires a corresponding call to GPT-4 at a cost of at least about $0.03 for every 1000 tokens used for inputs and $0.06 for every 1000 tokens for output when choosing the cheapest option. For reference, 1000 tokens roughly result in 750 words. Another limitation is AutoGPT's tendency to get stuck in infinite loops. Developers believe that this is a result of AutoGPT's inability to remember, as it is unaware of what it has already done and repeatedly attempts the same subtask without end. Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI which creates GPT-4, further explains that it is AutoGPT's “finite context window” that can limit its performance and cause it to “go off the rails”. Like other autonomous agents, AutoGPT is prone to distraction and unable to focus on its objective due to its lack of long-term memory, leading to unpredictable and unintended behavior. == Reception == AutoGPT became the top trending repository on GitHub after its release and has since repeatedly trended on Twitter. In April 2023, Avram Piltch wrote for Tom's Hardware that AutoGPT 'might be too autonomous to be useful,' as it did not ask questions to clarify requirements or allow corrective interventions by users. Piltch nonetheless noted that such tools have "a ton of potential" and should improve with better language models and further development. Malcolm McMillan from Tom's Guide mentioned that AutoGPT may not be better than ChatGPT for tasks involving conversation, as ChatGPT is well-suited for situations in which advice, rather than task completion, is sought. Will Knight from Wired wrote that AutoGPT is not a foolproof task-completion tool. When given a test task of finding a public figure's email address, he noted that it was not able to accurately find the email address. Clara Shih, Salesforce Service Cloud CEO commented that "AutoGPT illustrates the power and unknown risks of generative AI," and that due to usage risks, enterprises should include a human in the loop when using such technologies. Performance is reportedly enhanced when using AutoGPT with GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5. For example, one reviewer who tested it on a task of finding the best laptops on the market with pros and cons found that AutoGPT with GPT-4 created a more comprehensive report than one by GPT 3.5.
Read more →
The term phrase structure grammar was originally introduced by Noam Chomsky as the term for grammar studied previously by Emil Post and Axel Thue (Post canonical systems). Some authors, however, reserve the term for more restricted grammars in the Chomsky hierarchy: context-sensitive grammars or context-free grammars. In a broader sense, phrase structure grammars are also known as constituency grammars. The defining character of phrase structure grammars is thus their adherence to the constituency relation, as opposed to the dependency relation of dependency grammars. == History == In 1956, Chomsky wrote, "A phrase-structure grammar is defined by a finite vocabulary (alphabet) Vp, and a finite set Σ of initial strings in Vp, and a finite set F of rules of the form: X → Y, where X and Y are strings in Vp." == Constituency relation == In linguistics, phrase structure grammars are all those grammars that are based on the constituency relation, as opposed to the dependency relation associated with dependency grammars; hence, phrase structure grammars are also known as constituency grammars. Any of several related theories for the parsing of natural language qualify as constituency grammars, and most of them have been developed from Chomsky's work, including Government and binding theory Generalized phrase structure grammar Head-driven phrase structure grammar Lexical functional grammar The minimalist program Nanosyntax Further grammar frameworks and formalisms also qualify as constituency-based, although they may not think of themselves as having spawned from Chomsky's work, e.g. Arc pair grammar, and Categorial grammar.
Read more →
The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, was a failed 2024 California bill intended to "mitigate the risk of catastrophic harms from AI models so advanced that they are not yet known to exist". Specifically, the bill would have applied to models which cost more than $100 million to train and were trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 1026 integer or floating-point operations. SB 1047 would have applied to all AI companies doing business in California—the location of the company would not matter. The bill would have created protections for whistleblowers and required developers to perform risk assessments of their models prior to release, with guidance from the Government Operations Agency. It would also have established CalCompute, a University of California public cloud computing cluster for startups, researchers and community groups. == Background == The rapid increase in capabilities of AI systems in the 2020s, including the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, caused some researchers and members of the public to become concerned about the existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems. Hundreds of tech executives and AI researchers, including two of the so-called "Godfathers of AI", Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, signed a statement in May 2023 calling for the mitigation of the "risk of extinction from AI" to be a global priority alongside "pandemics and nuclear war". However, the plausibility of these risks is still widely debated. Strong regulation of AI has been criticized for purportedly causing regulatory capture by large AI companies like OpenAI, a phenomenon in which regulation advances the interest of larger companies at the expense of smaller competition and the public in general, although OpenAI ended up opposing the bill. Other advocates of AI regulation aim to prevent bias and privacy violations, rather than existential risks. For example, some experts who view existential concerns as overblown and unrealistic view them as a distraction from near-term harms of AI like discriminatory automated decision making. In the face of existential concerns, technology companies have made voluntary commitments to conduct safety testing, for example at the AI Safety Summit and AI Seoul Summit. In 2023, not long before the bill was proposed, Governor Newsom of California and President Biden issued executive orders on artificial intelligence. State Senator Wiener said SB 1047 draws heavily on the Biden executive order, and is motivated by the absence of unified federal legislation on AI safety. Historically, California has passed regulation on several tech issues itself, including consumer privacy and net neutrality, in the absence of action by Congress. == History == === Proposal and voting === The bill was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener first proposed AI legislation for California through an intent bill called SB 294, the Safety in Artificial Intelligence Act, in September 2023. On February 7, 2024, Wiener introduced SB 1047. On May 21, SB 1047 passed the Senate 32–1. The bill was significantly amended by Wiener on August 15, 2024, in response to industry advice. Amendments included adding clarifications, and removing the creation of a "Frontier Model Division" and the penalty of perjury. On August 28, the bill passed the State Assembly 48–16. Then, due to the amendments, the bill was once again voted on by the Senate, passing 30–9. === Veto by governor === On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. The deadline for California lawmakers to overrule Newsom's veto was November 30, 2024. Newsom cited concerns over the bill's regulatory framework targeting only large AI models based on their computational size, while not taking into account whether the models are deployed in high-risk environments. Newsom emphasized that this approach could create a false sense of security, overlooking smaller models that might present equally significant risks. He acknowledged the need for AI safety protocols but stressed the importance of adaptability in regulation as AI technology continues to evolve rapidly. Governor Newsom also committed to working with technology experts, federal partners, and research institutions, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; and Stanford University's Human-Centered AI (HAI) Institute, led by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. He announced plans to collaborate with these entities to advance responsible AI development, aiming to protect the public while fostering innovation. == Provisions == SB 1047 would have covered AI models with training compute over 1026 integer or floating-point operations and a cost of over $100 million. If a covered model is fine-tuned using more than $10 million, the resulting model would also have been covered. The bill would have defined critical harms with respect to four categories: Creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Autonomous crimes causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Other harms of comparable severity Developers would have needed to create a "safety and security protocol" before training covered models. Before deployment, they would have submitted a statement of compliance, confirming they took reasonable care to take measures to prevent covered models that pose an unreasonable risk of critical harms. The statement would have included risk assessments and descriptions of their compliance process. These rules would have applied to both covered models and their derivatives, including post-training modifications, with annual third-party audits required starting in 2026. Safeguards to reduce risk included the ability to shut down the model, which has been variously described as a "kill switch" and "circuit breaker". Whistleblowing provisions would have protected employees who report safety problems and incidents. Additionally, SB 1047 would have created a public cloud computing cluster called CalCompute, associated with the University of California, to support startups, researchers, and community groups that lack large-scale computing resources. === Compliance and supervision === SB 1047 would have required developers, beginning January 1, 2026, to annually retain a third-party auditor to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of the bill, as provided. The Government Operations Agency would have reviewed the results of safety tests and incidents, and issue guidance, standards, and best practices. The bill would have created a Board of Frontier Models to supervise the application of the bill by the Government Operations Agency. It is would be composed of 9 members. == Reception == === Subjects of debate === Proponents of the bill described its provisions as simple and narrowly focused, with Sen. Scott Weiner describing it as a "light-touch, basic safety bill". This was disputed by critics of the bill, who described the bill's language as vague and criticized it as consolidating power in the largest AI companies at the expense of smaller ones. Proponents, in turn, argued that the bill only applies to models trained using more than 1026 FLOPS and with over $100 million, or fine-tuned with more than $10 million, and that the threshold could be increased if needed. The penalty of perjury was also a subject of debate, and was eventually removed through an amendment. The scope of the "kill switch" requirement was also reduced, following concerns from open-source developers. The use of the term "reasonable assurance" in the bill was also controversial, and it was eventually amended to "reasonable care". Critics then argued that "reasonable care" imposed an excessive burden by requiring confidence that models could not be used to cause catastrophic harm; proponents claimed that the standard did not require certainty and that it already applied to AI developers under existing law. === Support and opposition === Individual supporters of the bill included Turing Award recipients Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, Elon Musk, Bill de Blasio, Kevin Esvelt, Dan Hendrycks, Vitalik Buterin, OpenAI whistleblowers Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, Lawrence Lessig, Sneha Revanur, Stuart Russell, Jan Leike, actors Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, and Rosie Perez, Scott Aaronson, and Max Tegmark. Over 120 Hollywood celebrities, including Mark Hamill, Jane Fonda, and J. J. Abrams, also signed a statement in support of the bill. Max Tegmark likened the bill's focus on holding companies responsible for the harms caused by their models to the FDA requiring clinical trials before a company can release a drug to the market. Organizations sponsoring the bill included the Center for AI Safety, Economic Security California and Encode. The la
Read more →
The repertory grid is an interviewing technique which uses nonparametric factor analysis to determine an idiographic measure of personality. It was devised by George Kelly in around 1955 and is based on his personal construct theory of personality. == Introduction == The repertory grid is a technique for identifying the ways that a person construes (interprets or gives meaning to) his or her experience. It provides information from which inferences about personality can be made, but it is not a personality test in the conventional sense. It is underpinned by the personal construct theory developed by George Kelly, first published in 1955. A grid consists of four parts: A topic: it is about some part of the person's experience. A set of elements, which are examples or instances of the topic. Working as a clinical psychologist, Kelly was interested in how his clients construed people in the roles they adopted towards the client, and so, originally, such terms as "my father", "my mother", "an admired friend" and so forth were used. Since then, the grid has been used in much wider settings (educational, occupational, organisational) and so any well-defined set of words, phrases, or even brief behavioral vignettes can be used as elements. For example, to see how a person construes the purchase of a car, a list of vehicles within that person's price range could be a set of elements. A set of constructs. These are the basic terms that the client uses to make sense of the elements, and are always expressed as a contrast. Thus the meaning of "good" depends on whether you intend to say "good versus poor", as if you were construing a theatrical performance, or "good versus evil", as if you were construing the moral or ontological status of some more fundamental experience. A set of ratings of elements on constructs. Each element is positioned between the two extremes of the construct using a 5- or 7-point rating scale system; this is done repeatedly for all the constructs that apply; and thus its meaning to the client is modeled, and statistical analysis varying from simple counting, to more complex multivariate analysis of meaning, is made possible. Constructs are regarded as personal to the client, who is psychologically similar to other people depending on the extent to which they would tend to use similar constructs, and similar ratings, in relating to a particular set of elements. The client is asked to consider the elements three at a time, and to identify a way in which two of the elements might be seen as alike, but distinct from, contrasted to, the third. For example, in considering a set of people as part of a topic dealing with personal relationships, a client might say that the element "my father" and the element "my boss" are similar because they are both fairly tense individuals, whereas the element "my wife" is different because she is "relaxed". And so we identify one construct that the individual uses when thinking about people: whether they are "tense as distinct from relaxed". In practice, good grid interview technique would delve a little deeper and identify some more behaviorally explicit description of "tense versus relaxed". All the elements are rated on the construct, further triads of elements are compared and further constructs elicited, and the interview would continue until no further constructs are obtained. == Using the repertory grid == Careful interviewing to identify what the individual means by the words initially proposed, using a 5-point rating system could be used to characterize the way in which a group of fellow-employees are viewed on the construct "keen and committed versus energies elsewhere", a 1 indicating that the left pole of the construct applies ("keen and committed") and a 5 indicating that the right pole of the construct applies ("energies elsewhere"). On being asked to rate all of the elements, our interviewee might reply that Tom merits a 2 (fairly keen and committed), Mary a 1 (very keen and committed), and Peter a 5 (his energies are very much outside the place of employment). The remaining elements (another five people, for example) are then rated on this construct. Typically (and depending on the topic) people have a limited number of genuinely different constructs for any one topic: 6 to 16 are common when they talk about their job or their occupation, for example. The richness of people's meaning structures comes from the many different ways in which a limited number of constructs can be applied to individual elements. A person may indicate that Tom is fairly keen, very experienced, lacks social skills, is a good technical supervisor, can be trusted to follow complex instructions accurately, has no sense of humour, will always return a favour but only sometimes help his co-workers, while Mary is very keen, fairly experienced, has good social and technical supervisory skills, needs complex instructions explained to her, appreciates a joke, always returns favours, and is very helpful to her co-workers: these are two very different and complex pictures, using just 8 constructs about a person's co-workers. Important information can be obtained by including self-elements such as "Myself as I am now"; "Myself as I would like to be" among other elements, where the topic permits. == Analysis of results == A single grid can be analysed for both content (eyeball inspection) and structure (cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and a variety of structural indices relating to the complexity and range of the ratings being the chief techniques used). Sets of grids are dealt with using one or other of a variety of content analysis techniques. A range of associated techniques can be used to provide precise, operationally defined expressions of an interviewee's constructs, or a detailed expression of the interviewee's personal values, and all of these techniques are used in a collaborative way. The repertory grid is emphatically not a standardized "psychological test"; it is an exercise in the mutual negotiation of a person's meanings. The repertory grid has found favour among both academics and practitioners in a great variety of fields because it provides a way of describing people's construct systems (loosely, understanding people's perceptions) without prejudging the terms of reference—a kind of personalized grounded theory. Unlike a conventional rating-scale questionnaire, it is not the investigator but the interviewee who provides the constructs on which a topic is rated. Market researchers, trainers, teachers, guidance counsellors, new product developers, sports scientists, and knowledge capture specialists are among the users who find the technique (originally developed for use in clinical psychology) helpful. == Relationship to other tools == In the book Personal Construct Methodology, researchers Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L.G. Shaw noted that they "have also found concept mapping and semantic network tools to be complementary to repertory grid tools and generally use both in most studies" but that they "see less use of network representations in PCP [personal construct psychology] studies than is appropriate". They encouraged practitioners to use semantic network techniques in addition to the repertory grid.
Read more →
A pattern language is an organized and coherent set of patterns, each of which describes a problem and the core of a solution that can be used in many ways within a specific field of expertise. The term was coined by architect Christopher Alexander and popularized by his 1977 book A Pattern Language. A pattern language can also be an attempt to express the deeper wisdom of what brings aliveness within a particular field of human endeavor, through a set of interconnected patterns. Aliveness is one placeholder term for "the quality that has no name": a sense of wholeness, spirit, or grace, that while of varying form, is precise and empirically verifiable. Alexander claims that ordinary people can use this design approach to successfully solve very large, complex design problems. == What is a pattern? == When a designer designs something – whether a house, computer program, or lamp – they must make many decisions about how to solve problems. A single problem is documented with its typical place (the syntax), and use (the grammar) with the most common and recognized good solution seen in the wild, like the examples seen in dictionaries. Each such entry is a single design pattern. Each pattern has a name, a descriptive entry, and some cross-references, much like a dictionary entry. A documented pattern should explain why that solution is good in the pattern's contexts. Elemental or universal patterns such as "door" or "partnership" are versatile ideals of design, either as found in experience or for use as components in practice, explicitly described as holistic resolutions of the forces in recurrent contexts and circumstances, whether in architecture, medicine, software development or governance, etc. Patterns might be invented or found and studied, such as the naturally occurring patterns of design that characterize human environments. Like all languages, a pattern language has vocabulary, syntax, and grammar – but a pattern language applies to some complex activity other than communication. In pattern languages for design, the parts break down in this way: The language description – the vocabulary – is a collection of named, described solutions to problems in a field of interest. These are called design patterns. So, for example, the language for architecture describes items like: settlements, buildings, rooms, windows, latches, etc. Each solution includes syntax, a description that shows where the solution fits in a larger, more comprehensive or more abstract design. This automatically links the solution into a web of other needed solutions. For example, rooms have ways to get light, and ways to get people in and out. The solution includes grammar that describes how the solution solves a problem or produces a benefit. So, if the benefit is unneeded, the solution is not used. Perhaps that part of the design can be left empty to save money or other resources; if people do not need to wait to enter a room, a simple doorway can replace a waiting room. In the language description, grammar and syntax cross index (often with a literal alphabetic index of pattern names) to other named solutions, so the designer can quickly think from one solution to related, needed solutions, and document them in a logical way. In Christopher Alexander's book A Pattern Language, the patterns are in decreasing order by size, with a separate alphabetic index. The web of relationships in the index of the language provides many paths through the design process. This simplifies the design work because designers can start the process from any part of the problem they understand and work toward the unknown parts. At the same time, if the pattern language has worked well for many projects, there is reason to believe that even a designer who does not completely understand the design problem at first will complete the design process, and the result will be usable. For example, skiers coming inside must shed snow and store equipment. The messy snow and boot cleaners should stay outside. The equipment needs care, so the racks should be inside. == Many patterns form a language == Just as words must have grammatical and semantic relationships to each other in order to make a spoken language useful, design patterns must be related to each other in position and utility order to form a pattern language. Christopher Alexander's work describes a process of decomposition, in which the designer has a problem (perhaps a commercial assignment), selects a solution, then discovers new, smaller problems resulting from the larger solution. Occasionally, the smaller problems have no solution, and a different larger solution must be selected. Eventually all of the remaining design problems are small enough or routine enough to be solved by improvisation by the builders, and the "design" is done. The actual organizational structure (hierarchical, iterative, etc.) is left to the discretion of the designer, depending on the problem. This explicitly lets a designer explore a design, starting from some small part. When this happens, it's common for a designer to realize that the problem is actually part of a larger solution. At this point, the design almost always becomes a better design. In the language, therefore, each pattern has to indicate its relationships to other patterns and to the language as a whole. This gives the designer using the language a great deal of guidance about the related problems that must be solved. The most difficult part of having an outside expert apply a pattern language is in fact to get a reliable, complete list of the problems to be solved. Of course, the people most familiar with the problems are the people that need a design. So, Alexander famously advocated on-site improvisation by concerned, empowered users, as a powerful way to form very workable large-scale initial solutions, maximizing the utility of a design, and minimizing the design rework. The desire to empower users of architecture was, in fact, what led Alexander to undertake a pattern language project for architecture in the first place. == Design problems in a context == An important aspect of design patterns is to identify and document the key ideas that make a good system different from a poor system (that may be a house, a computer program or an object of daily use), and to assist in the design of future systems. The idea expressed in a pattern should be general enough to be applied in very different systems within its context, but still specific enough to give constructive guidance. The range of situations in which the problems and solutions addressed in a pattern apply is called its context. An important part in each pattern is to describe this context. Examples can further illustrate how the pattern applies to very different situation. For instance, Alexander's pattern "A PLACE TO WAIT" addresses bus stops in the same way as waiting rooms in a surgery, while still proposing helpful and constructive solutions. The "Gang-of-Four" book Design Patterns by Gamma et al. proposes solutions that are independent of the programming language, and the program's application domain. Still, the problems and solutions described in a pattern can vary in their level of abstraction and generality on the one side, and specificity on the other side. In the end this depends on the author's preferences. However, even a very abstract pattern will usually contain examples that are, by nature, absolutely concrete and specific. Patterns can also vary in how far they are proven in the real world. Alexander gives each pattern a rating by zero, one or two stars, indicating how well they are proven in real-world examples. It is generally claimed that all patterns need at least some existing real-world examples. It is, however, conceivable to document yet unimplemented ideas in a pattern-like format. The patterns in Alexander's book also vary in their level of scale – some describing how to build a town or neighbourhood, others dealing with individual buildings and the interior of rooms. Alexander sees the low-scale artifacts as constructive elements of the large-scale world, so they can be connected to a hierarchic network. === Balancing of forces === A pattern must characterize the problems that it is meant to solve, the context or situation where these problems arise, and the conditions under which the proposed solutions can be recommended. Often these problems arise from a conflict of different interests or "forces". A pattern emerges as a dialogue that will then help to balance the forces and finally make a decision. For instance, there could be a pattern suggesting a wireless telephone. The forces would be the need to communicate, and the need to get other things done at the same time (cooking, inspecting the bookshelf). A very specific pattern would be just "WIRELESS TELEPHONE". More general patterns would be "WIRELESS DEVICE" or "SECONDARY ACTIVITY", suggesting that a secondary activity (such as talking on t
Read more →
Tesla Dojo is a series of supercomputers designed and built by Tesla for computer vision video processing and recognition. It was used for training Tesla's machine learning models to improve its Full Self-Driving (FSD) advanced driver-assistance system. It went into production in July 2023. Dojo's goal was to efficiently process millions of terabytes of video data captured from real-life driving situations from Tesla's 4+ million cars. This goal led to a considerably different architecture than conventional supercomputer designs. In August 2025, Bloomberg News reported that the Dojo project had been disbanded, though it was restarted in January 2026. == History == Tesla operates several massively parallel computing clusters for developing its Autopilot advanced driver assistance system. Its primary unnamed cluster using 5,760 Nvidia A100 graphics processing units (GPUs) was touted by Andrej Karpathy in 2021 at the fourth International Joint Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CCVPR 2021) to be "roughly the number five supercomputer in the world" at approximately 81.6 petaflops, based on scaling the performance of the Nvidia Selene supercomputer, which uses similar components. However, the performance of the primary Tesla GPU cluster has been disputed, as it was not clear if this was measured using single-precision or double-precision floating point numbers (FP32 or FP64). Tesla also operates a second 4,032 GPU cluster for training and a third 1,752 GPU cluster for automatic labeling of objects. The primary unnamed Tesla GPU cluster has been used for processing one million video clips, each ten seconds long, taken from Tesla Autopilot cameras operating in Tesla cars in the real world, running at 36 frames per second. Collectively, these video clips contained six billion object labels, with depth and velocity data; the total size of the data set was 1.5 petabytes. This data set was used for training a neural network intended to help Autopilot computers in Tesla cars understand roads. By August 2022, Tesla had upgraded the primary GPU cluster to 7,360 GPUs. Dojo was first mentioned by Elon Musk in April 2019 during Tesla's "Autonomy Investor Day". In August 2020, Musk stated it was "about a year away" due to power and thermal issues. Dojo was officially announced at Tesla's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Day on August 19, 2021. Tesla revealed details of the D1 chip and its plans for "Project Dojo", a datacenter that would house 3,000 D1 chips; the first "Training Tile" had been completed and delivered the week before. In October 2021, Tesla released a "Dojo Technology" whitepaper describing the Configurable Float8 (CFloat8) and Configurable Float16 (CFloat16) floating point formats and arithmetic operations as an extension of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard 754. At the follow-up AI Day in September 2022, Tesla announced it had built several System Trays and one Cabinet. During a test, the company stated that Project Dojo drew 2.3 megawatts (MW) of power before tripping a local San Jose, California power substation. At the time, Tesla was assembling one Training Tile per day. In August 2023, Tesla powered on Dojo for production use as well as a new training cluster configured with 10,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs. In January 2024, Musk described Dojo as "a long shot worth taking because the payoff is potentially very high. But it's not something that is a high probability." In June 2024, Musk explained that ongoing construction work at Gigafactory Texas is for a computing cluster claiming that it is planned to comprise an even mix of "Tesla AI" and Nvidia/other hardware with a total thermal design power of at first 130 MW and eventually exceeding 500 MW. In August 2025, Bloomberg News reported that the Dojo project was disbanded, though Musk announced it would be restarted in January 2026 with a new chip iteration. == Technical architecture == The fundamental unit of the Dojo supercomputer is the D1 chip, designed by a team at Tesla led by ex-AMD CPU designer Ganesh Venkataramanan, including Emil Talpes, Debjit Das Sarma, Douglas Williams, Bill Chang, and Rajiv Kurian. The D1 chip is manufactured by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) using 7 nanometer (nm) semiconductor nodes, has 50 billion transistors and a large die size of 645 mm2 (1.0 square inch). Updating at Artificial Intelligence (AI) Day in 2022, Tesla announced that Dojo would scale by deploying multiple ExaPODs, in which there would be: 10 Cabinets per ExaPOD (1,062,000 cores, 3,000 D1 chips) 2 System Trays per Cabinet (106,200 cores, 300 D1 chips) 6 Training Tiles per System Tray (53,100 cores, along with host interface hardware) 25 D1 chips per Training Tile (8,850 cores) 354 computing cores per D1 chip According to Venkataramanan, Tesla's senior director of Autopilot hardware, Dojo will have more than an exaflop (a million teraflops) of computing power. For comparison, according to Nvidia, in August 2021, the (pre-Dojo) Tesla AI-training center used 720 nodes, each with eight Nvidia A100 Tensor Core GPUs for 5,760 GPUs in total, providing up to 1.8 exaflops of performance. === D1 chip === Each node (computing core) of the D1 processing chip is a general purpose 64-bit CPU with a superscalar core. It supports internal instruction-level parallelism, and includes simultaneous multithreading (SMT). It doesn't support virtual memory and uses limited memory protection mechanisms. Dojo software/applications manage chip resources. The D1 instruction set supports both 64-bit scalar and 64-byte single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) vector instructions. The integer unit mixes reduced instruction set computer (RISC-V) and custom instructions, supporting 8, 16, 32, or 64 bit integers. The custom vector math unit is optimized for machine learning kernels and supports multiple data formats, with a mix of precisions and numerical ranges, many of which are compiler composable. Up to 16 vector formats can be used simultaneously. ==== Node ==== Each D1 node uses a 32-byte fetch window holding up to eight instructions. These instructions are fed to an eight-wide decoder which supports two threads per cycle, followed by a four-wide, four-way SMT scalar scheduler that has two integer units, two address units, and one register file per thread. Vector instructions are passed further down the pipeline to a dedicated vector scheduler with two-way SMT, which feeds either a 64-byte SIMD unit or four 8×8×4 matrix multiplication units. The network on-chip (NOC) router links cores into a two-dimensional mesh network. It can send one packet in and one packet out in all four directions to/from each neighbor node, along with one 64-byte read and one 64-byte write to local SRAM per clock cycle. Hardware native operations transfer data, semaphores and barrier constraints across memories and CPUs. System-wide double data rate 4 (DDR4) synchronous dynamic random-access memory (SDRAM) memory works like bulk storage. ==== Memory ==== Each core has a 1.25 megabytes (MB) of SRAM main memory. Load and store speeds reach 400 gigabytes (GB) per second and 270 GB/sec, respectively. The chip has explicit core-to-core data transfer instructions. Each SRAM has a unique list parser that feeds a pair of decoders and a gather engine that feeds the vector register file, which together can directly transfer information across nodes. ==== Die ==== Twelve nodes (cores) are grouped into a local block. Nodes are arranged in an 18×20 array on a single die, of which 354 cores are available for applications. The die runs at 2 gigahertz (GHz) and totals 440 MB of SRAM (360 cores × 1.25 MB/core). It reaches 376 teraflops using 16-bit brain floating point (BF16) numbers or using configurable 8-bit floating point (CFloat8) numbers, which is a Tesla proposal, and 22 teraflops at FP32. Each die comprises 576 bi-directional serializer/deserializer (SerDes) channels along the perimeter to link to other dies, and moves 8 TB/sec across all four die edges. Each D1 chip has a thermal design power of approximately 400 watts. === Training Tile === The water-cooled Training Tile packages 25 D1 chips into a 5×5 array. Each tile supports 36 TB/sec of aggregate bandwidth via 40 input/output (I/O) chips - half the bandwidth of the chip mesh network. Each tile supports 10 TB/sec of on-tile bandwidth. Each tile has 11 GB of SRAM memory (25 D1 chips × 360 cores/D1 × 1.25 MB/core). Each tile achieves 9 petaflops at BF16/CFloat8 precision (25 D1 chips × 376 TFLOP/D1). Each tile consumes 15 kilowatts; 288 amperes at 52 volts. === System Tray === Six tiles are aggregated into a System Tray, which is integrated with a host interface. Each host interface includes 512 x86 cores, providing a Linux-based user environment. Previously, the Dojo System Tray was known as the Training Matrix, which includes six Training Tiles, 20 Dojo Interface Processor cards across four host servers, and Ethernet-l
Read more →
The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a New York State law that imposes transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large frontier artificial intelligence models. The law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025. It was sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The RAISE Act is the second U.S. state law to regulate frontier AI model developers, following California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), which was signed in September 2025. Hochul signed the bill on the condition that the legislature would pass chapter amendments to bring the law closer to the California model. The amending bills (A9449/S8828) were introduced in January 2026; as of February 2026 they remain in committee, though the Governor's office and legal commentators treat the agreed-upon amendments as representing the final form of the law. == Provisions == The following describes the RAISE Act as it is expected to operate after the agreed-upon chapter amendments take effect. The law is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027. === Scope === The law applies to "large frontier developers," defined as companies with annual revenues exceeding $500 million that develop "frontier models," which are foundation models trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations (FLOPs). The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had instead defined large developers based on having spent over $100 million in aggregate compute costs, and also included a provision prohibiting deployment of frontier models posing "unreasonable risk of critical harm"; both were removed as part of the negotiations between Hochul and the legislature. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are exempt, as is the state's Empire AI consortium. === Safety and transparency framework === Large frontier developers must write, implement, and publicly publish a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, secure unreleased model weights against unauthorized access, use third-party evaluators, govern internal use of frontier models, and respond to safety incidents. The framework must describe these measures "in detail," a requirement that goes beyond the California TFAIA's requirement to describe a developer's "approach." The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and material modifications must be published with justification within 30 days. Before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model, developers must publish a transparency report including the model's release date, supported languages and output modalities, intended uses, and any restrictions on use. Large frontier developers must additionally include summaries of catastrophic risk assessments and the extent of third-party involvement. === Catastrophic risk and incident reporting === The law defines "catastrophic risk" as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier model will contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage, arising from a frontier model providing expert-level assistance in creating chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; engaging in cyberattacks or conduct equivalent to crimes such as murder, assault, or theft without meaningful human oversight; or evading the control of its developer or user. Loss of equity value is explicitly excluded from the definition of property damage. "Critical safety incidents" include unauthorized access to model weights resulting in death or injury, materialization of a catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, and a model using deceptive techniques to subvert developer controls outside of an evaluation context in a manner that increases catastrophic risk. Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. === Enforcement === The chapter amendments establish a new office within the New York State Department of Financial Services to oversee compliance, receive incident reports, and publish annual reports on AI safety beginning in 2028. Large frontier developers must file disclosure statements with this office and pay pro rata assessments to fund its operations. The New York Attorney General may bring civil actions, with penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had set penalties at up to $10 million and $30 million respectively. The law does not create a private right of action. == Legislative history == The bill was introduced in the Assembly on March 5, 2025, by Assemblymember Alex Bores, and in the Senate on March 27, 2025, by Senator Andrew Gounardes. After a series of amendments, the legislature passed the bill in June 2025. Governor Hochul did not immediately sign the bill, using nearly all the time available under New York law before acting; had she not signed by the end of 2025, the bill would have been pocket vetoed. The tech industry lobbied against the bill during this period, and Hochul initially proposed a near-complete rewrite modeled on California's TFAIA. Legislators resisted the extent of the changes, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a version that used the California law as a base but preserved several provisions that went beyond it, including the 72-hour incident reporting timeline and the creation of a dedicated enforcement office. Hochul signed the original bill (S6953-B/A6453-B) on December 19, 2025, with the legislature committing to pass chapter amendments formalizing the agreed changes in the January 2026 session. The amending bills (A9449 in the Assembly, S8828 in the Senate) were introduced on January 6 and January 8, 2026. OpenAI and Anthropic expressed support for the law. Anthropic's head of external affairs Sarah Heck said the two state laws "should inspire Congress to build on them." The super PAC network Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, subsequently announced plans to challenge Bores in a future election. == Federal preemption debate == Hochul signed the RAISE Act eight days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on December 11, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws deemed to conflict with a "minimally burdensome" national AI policy. On January 9, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force as called for by the executive order. The executive order also threatened states with loss of certain federal broadband funding if their AI laws were found to be onerous. Legal commentators have noted several potential avenues for federal challenge, including arguments that the law constitutes compelled speech, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by creating a patchwork of state regulations, or is preempted by federal AI policy. == Comparison with California's TFAIA == The RAISE Act was designed to align with California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, signed on September 29, 2025. Both laws use the same 1026 FLOP threshold to define frontier models and the same $500 million revenue threshold to define large developers. Both require public safety frameworks, transparency reports, and incident reporting. The RAISE Act's 72-hour incident reporting window is stricter than the TFAIA's 15-day window, though both require faster reporting for incidents posing imminent physical risk (24 hours under the RAISE Act, immediate under the TFAIA). The RAISE Act establishes a dedicated enforcement office within the Department of Financial Services, whereas California routes reports through the Office of Emergency Services. The RAISE Act requires developers to describe their safety measures "in detail" and how they "handle" various risks, whereas the TFAIA requires developers to describe their "approach."
Read more →
Safe Superintelligence Inc. (SSI Inc.) is an Israeli-American artificial intelligence company founded by Ilya Sutskever, the former chief scientist of OpenAI; Daniel Gross, former head of Apple’s AI efforts; and Daniel Levy, an investor and AI researcher. The company's mission is to focus on safely developing a superintelligence, a computer-based agent capable of surpassing human intelligence. == History == On May 15, 2024, OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever left OpenAI after a board dispute where he voted to fire Sam Altman amid concerns about communication and trust. Sutskever and others additionally believed that OpenAI was neglecting its original focus on safety in favor of pursuing opportunities for commercialization. On June 19, 2024, Sutskever posted on X that he was starting SSI Inc, with the goal to safely develop superintelligent AI, alongside Daniel Levy, and Daniel Gross. The company, composed of a small team, is split between Palo Alto, California and Tel Aviv, Israel. In September 2024, SSI revealed it had raised $1 billion from venture capital firms including SV Angel, DST Global, Sequoia Capital, and Andreessen Horowitz. The money will be used to build up more computing power and hire top individuals in the field. In March 2025, SSI reached a $30 billion valuation in a funding round led by Greenoaks Capital. This is six times its previous $5 billion valuation from September 2024. Despite not yet generating revenue and having approximately 20 employees, the company has attracted significant investor interest, largely due to co-founder Ilya Sutskever's reputation and its focus on developing safe superintelligence. In April 2025, Google Cloud announced a partnership to provide TPUs for SSI's research. In the first half of 2025, Meta attempted to acquire SSI but was rebuffed by Sutskever. In July 2025, co-founder Gross left the company to join Meta Superintelligence Labs, and Sutskever became the CEO of SSI.
Read more →
Group concept mapping is a structured methodology for organizing the ideas of a group on any topic of interest and representing those ideas visually in a series of interrelated maps. It is a type of integrative mixed method, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis. Group concept mapping allows for a collaborative group process with groups of any size, including a broad and diverse array of participants. Since its development in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University, it has been applied to various fields and contexts, including community and public health, social work, health care, human services,, instructional interventions, and biomedical research and evaluation. == Overview == Group concept mapping integrates qualitative group processes with multivariate analysis to help a group organize and visually represent its ideas on any topic of interest through a series of related maps. It combines the ideas of diverse participants to show what the group thinks and values in relation to the specific topic of interest. It is a type of structured conceptualization used by groups to develop a conceptual framework, often to help guide evaluation and planning efforts. Group concept mapping is participatory in nature, allowing participants to have an equal voice and to contribute through various methods. A group concept map visually represents all the ideas of a group and how they relate to each other, and depending on the scale, which ideas are more relevant, important, or feasible. == Process == Group concept mapping involves a structured multi-step process, including brainstorming, sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, and the generation and interpretation of multiple maps. The first step requires participants to brainstorm a large set of statements relevant to the topic of interest, usually in response to a focus prompt. Participants are then asked to individually sort those statements into categories based on their perceived similarity and rate each statement on one or more scales, such as importance or feasibility. The data is then analyzed using The Concept System software, which creates a series of interrelated maps using multidimensional scaling (MDS) of the sort data, hierarchical clustering of the MDS coordinates applying Ward's method, and the computation of average ratings for each statement and cluster of statements. The resulting maps display the individual statements in two-dimensional space with more similar statements located closer to each other, and grouped into clusters that partition the space on the map. The Concept System software also creates other maps that show the statements in each cluster rated on one or more scales, and absolute or relative cluster ratings between two cluster sets. As a last step in the process, participants are led through a structured interpretation session to better understand and label all the maps. == History == Group concept mapping was developed as a methodology in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University. Trochim is considered to be a leading evaluation expert, and he has taught evaluation and research methods at Cornell since 1980. Originally called "concept mapping", the methodology has evolved since its inception with the maturation of the field and the continued advancement of the software, which is now a Web application. == Uses == Group concept mapping can be used with any group for any topic of interest. It is often used by government agencies, academic institutions, national associations, not-for-profit and community-based organizations, and private businesses to help turn the ideas of the group into measurable actions. This includes in the areas of organizational development, strategic planning, needs assessment, curriculum development, research, and evaluation. Group concept mapping is well-documented, well-established methodology, and it has been used in hundreds of published papers. == Versus concept mapping and mind mapping == More generally, concept mapping is any process used for visually representing relationships between ideas in pictures or diagrams. A concept map is typically a diagram of multiple ideas, often represented as boxes or circles, linked in a graph (network) structure through arrows and words where each idea is connected to another. The technique was originally developed in the 1970s by Joseph D. Novak at Cornell University. Concept mapping may be done by an individual or a group. A mind map is a diagram used to visually represent information, centering on one word or idea with categories and sub-categories radiating off of it in a tree structure. Popularized by Tony Buzan in the 1970s, mind mapping is often a spontaneous exercise done by an individual or group to gather information about what they think around a single topic. Unlike Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps, group concept mapping has a structured mathematical process (sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis) for organizing and visually representing multiple ideas of a group through a series of specific steps. In other words, in group concept mapping, the resulting visual representations are mathematically generated from mixed (qualitative and quantitative) data collected from a group of research subjects, whereas in Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps the visual representations are drawn directly by the subjects resulting in diagrams that are qualitative data and final product at the same time.
Read more →
Web Dynpro (WD) is a web application technology developed by SAP SE that focuses on the development of server-side business applications. For modern releases (for instance as of NetWeaver 750, software layer SAP_UI) the user interface is rendered according to the HTML5 web standard. Since Netweaver 754 (software layer SAP_UI, ABAP Platform 1909) a touch enabled user interface is available. The newly released versions usually follow the SAP Fiori design principles. One of its main design features is that the user interface is defined in an entirely declarative manner. Web Dynpro applications can be developed using either the Java (Web Dynpro for Java, WDJ or WD4J) or ABAP (Web Dynpro ABAP, WDA or WD4A) development infrastructure. == Overview == The earliest version of Web Dynpro appeared in 2003 and was based on Java. This variant was released approximately 18 months before the ABAP variant. As of 2010, the Java variant of Web Dynpro was put into maintenance mode. WD follows a design architecture based on an interpretation of the MVC design pattern and uses a model driven development approach ("minimize coding, maximize design"). The Web Dynpro Framework is a server-side runtime environment into which many dedicated "hook methods" are available. The developer then places their own custom coding within these hook methods in order to implement the desired business functionality. These hook methods belong to one of the broad categories of either "life-cycle" and "round-trip"; that is, those methods that are concerned with the life-cycle of a software component (i.e. processing that takes place at start up and shut down etc.), and those methods that are concerned with processing the fixed sequence of events that take place during a client-initiated round trip to the server. Web Dynpro is aimed at the development of business applications that follow standardized UI principles, applications that connect to backend systems and which are scalable. Key Capabilities Declarative way of development: Web Dynpro offers a graphical and declarative means of UI development. UI controls, building blocks, views and windows are modeled, and the business logic can be coded separately. Separation of user interface and business logic: One advantage of Web Dynpro over SAP GUI is the separation between business logic and user interface, and the structured development process with less implementation effort. Support of stateful application: The state of the application is kept in the back-end. This leads to a reduced data transfer from ABAP server to browser and vice versa. Regarding Web Dynpro ABAP there is only one programming language (ABAP) and only one system necessary. Therefore, development can be easier and cost efficient.
Read more →
Vilém Flusser (May 12, 1920 – November 27, 1991) was a Czech-born Brazilian philosopher, writer and journalist, best known for his contributions to media studies, communication theory, and the philosophy of language. He lived for a long period in São Paulo (where he became a Brazilian citizen) and later in France, and his works are written in many different languages. His early work was marked by discussion of the thought of Martin Heidegger, and by the influence of existentialism and phenomenology. Phenomenology would play a major role in the transition to the later phase of his work, in which he turned his attention to the philosophy of communication and of artistic production. He contributed to the dichotomy logic theory through history: the period of image worship, and period of text worship, with deviations consequently into idolatry and "textolatry". == Life == Flusser was born in 1920 in Prague, Czechoslovakia into a family of Jewish intellectuals. His father, Gustav Flusser, studied mathematics and physics (under Albert Einstein among others). Vilém attended German and Czech primary schools and later a German grammar school. In 1938, Flusser started to study philosophy at the Juridical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague. In 1939, shortly after the Nazi occupation, Flusser emigrated to London (with Edith Barth, his later wife, and her parents) to continue his studies for one term at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Vilém Flusser lost all of his family in the German concentration camps: his father died in Buchenwald in 1940; his grandparents, his mother and his sister were brought to Theresienstadt and later to Auschwitz where they were killed. The next year, he emigrated to Brazil, living both in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. He started working at a Czech import/export company and then at Stabivolt, a manufacturer of radios and transistors. In 1960 he started to collaborate with the Brazilian Institute of Philosophy (IBF) in São Paulo and published in the Revista Brasileira de Filosofia; by these means he seriously approached the Brazilian intellectual community. Flusser had as his friend and closest interlocutor the Brazilian philosopher Vicente Ferreira da Silva. Flusser and Vicente Ferreira da Silva met in São Paulo in the 1960s and began a close intellectual dialogue that continued until Ferreira da Silva's death in 1963. Flusser wrote several essays on Ferreira da Silva's work and that Ferreira da Silva's concept of "Fundamental ontology” had a significant impact on Flusser's understanding of the nature of reality. During the 60s Flusser published and taught at several schools in São Paulo, being Lecturer for Philosophy of Science at the Escola Politécnica of the University of São Paulo and Professor of Philosophy of Communication at the Escola Dramática and the Escola Superior de Cinema in São Paulo. He also participated actively in the arts, collaborating with the Bienal de São Paulo, among other cultural events. Beginning in the 1950s he taught philosophy and worked as a journalist, before publishing his first book Língua e realidade (Language and Reality) in 1963. In 1972 he decided to leave Brazil. Some say it was because it was becoming difficult to publish because of the military regime. Others dispute this reason, since his work on communication and language did not threaten the military. In 1970, when a reform took place at the University of São Paulo by the Brazilian military government, all Lecturers of Philosophy (members of the Department of Philosophy) were dismissed. Flusser, who taught at the Engineering School (Escola Politécnica), had to leave the university as well. In 1972 he and his wife Edith settled temporarily in Merano (Tyrol). Further short stays in various European countries followed until they moved to Robion in southern France in 1981, where they remained until Flusser's death in 1991. To the end of his life, he was quite active writing and giving lectures around media theory and working with new topics (Philosophy of Photography, Technical Images, etc.). He died in 1991 in a car accident near the Czech–German border, while trying to visit his native city, Prague, to give a lecture. Vilém Flusser is the cousin of David Flusser. == Philosophy == Flusser's essays are short, provocative and lucid, with a resemblance to the style of journalistic articles. Critics have noted he is less a 'systematic' thinker than a 'dialogic' one, purposefully eclectic and provocative (Cubitt 2004). However, his early books, written in the 1960s, primarily in Portuguese, and published in Brazil, have a slightly different style. Flusser's writings relate to each other, however, which means that he intensively works over certain topics and dissects them into a number of brief essays. His main topics of interest were: epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, language philosophy, semiotics, philosophy of science, the history of Western culture, the philosophy of religion, the history of symbolic language, technology, writing, the technical image, photography, migration, media and literature, and, especially in his later years, the philosophy of communication and of artistic production. His writings reflect his wandering life: although the majority of his work was written in German and Portuguese, he also wrote in English and French, with scarce translation to other languages. Because Flusser's writings in different languages are dispersed in the form of books, articles or sections of books, his work as a media philosopher and cultural theorist is only now becoming more widely known. The first book by Flusser to be published in English was Towards a Philosophy of Photography in 1984 by the then new journal European Photography, which was his own translation of the work. The Shape of Things, was published in London in 1999 and was followed by a new translation of Towards a Philosophy of Photography. Flusser's archives have been held by the Academy of Media Arts in Cologne and are currently housed at the Berlin University of the Arts. === Philosophy of photography === Writing about photography in the 1970s and 80s, in the face of the early worldwide impact of computer technologies, Flusser argued that the photograph was the first in a number of technical image forms to have fundamentally changed the way in which the world is seen. Historically, the importance of photography had been that it introduced nothing less than a new epoch: 'The invention of photography constitutes a break in history that can only be understood in comparison to that other historical break constituted by the invention of linear writing.' Whereas ideas might previously have been interpreted in terms of their written form, photography heralded new forms of perceptual experience and knowledge. As Flusser Archive Supervisor Claudia Becker describes, "For Flusser, photography is not only a reproductive imaging technology, it is a dominant cultural technique through which reality is constituted and understood". In this context, Flusser argued that photographs have to be understood in strict separation from 'pre-technical image forms'. For example, he contrasted them to paintings which he described as images that can be sensibly 'decoded', because the viewer is able to interpret what he or she sees as more or less direct signs of what the painter intended. By contrast, even though photography produces images that seem to be 'faithful reproductions' of objects and events they cannot be so directly 'decoded'. The crux of this difference stems, for Flusser, from the fact that photographs are produced through the operations of an apparatus. And the photographic apparatus operates in ways that are not immediately known or shaped by its operator. For example, he described the act of photographing as follows: The photographer's gesture as the search for a viewpoint onto a scene takes place within the possibilities offered by the apparatus. The photographer moves within specific categories of space and time regarding the scene: proximity and distance, bird- and worm's-eye views, frontal- and side-views, short or long exposures, etc. The Gestalt of space–time surrounding the scene is prefigured for the photographer by the categories of his camera. These categories are an a priori for him. He must 'decide' within them: he must press the trigger. Roughly put, the person using a camera might think that they are operating its controls to produce a picture that shows the world the way they want it to be seen, but it is the pre-programmed character of the camera that sets the parameters of this act and it is the apparatus that shapes the meaning of the resulting image. Given the central role of photography to almost all aspects of contemporary life, the programmed character of the photographic apparatus shapes the experience of looking at and interpreting photographs as well as most of the cultural contexts in which we do so. Flusse
Read more →
The Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB-149) was signed into law in Utah in 2024 and amended in 2025. The first state law in the United States specifically regulating generative AI, it went into effect on May 1, 2024. The law requires companies to disclose if their customers interact with AI instead of a human. It also established an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. Amendments to the Act went into effect on May 7, 2025. While the 2024 Act requires companies to disclose generative AI use when asked by customers, the amendments introduced stricter requirements for higher-risk interactions. SB 226 mandates disclosure of AI use in high-risk interactions involving health, financial, and biometric data, or when providing consumers with advice on financial, legal, or healthcare matters.
Read more →