AI For Young Learners Pdf

AI For Young Learners Pdf — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Alias Eclipse

  Eclipse was a professional 2D image editing program available on Silicon Graphics and Windows workstations. Designed to manipulate high-resolution images like digitized movie frames and photographs for print, it offered color correction tools, image processing effects, rudimentary paint features, and spline-based drawing and masking. == History == Eclipse was originally developed in the late 1980s by Full Color Computing, an early provider of photo retouch and color prepress software for Silicon Graphics workstations. Alias Research (later Alias Systems Corporation), a developer of professional 3D graphics applications for the SGI platform, purchased the rights to Eclipse in fall 1990. Alias developed Eclipse through the early to mid-1990s, releasing version 2.5 in 1995 with improvements to the speed of color correction, effects, and rendering. Xyvision's Contex Prepress division purchased exclusive rights to Eclipse from Alias in 1996, and released version 3.0 the following year. Eclipse was subsequently sold to German developer Form & Vision GmbH, which continued development and ported it to the Windows platform. In 1999, Form & Vision released a demo of Eclipse 3.1.3 on the SGI platform which was limited to 1600 x 1600 pixel images, then ceased development of Eclipse on the SGI platform. Eclipse was thereafter developed exclusively for the Windows platform, culminating with version 3.1.4 in 2001. In the same year the firm went bankrupt. == Features == Eclipse was designed to work with very large images that could not be manipulated in real time on contemporary computer systems due to memory limitations, and thus allowed the user to make modifications to a lower-resolution copy of the original image in "proxy mode." Brush strokes, color corrections, and other edits were saved in proxy mode, then applied to the full-size image in post processing. This method also allowed for batch processing of a high-resolution image sequence using the edits applied to the original proxy image. Other features included color correction and separation, warping, special effects, text, and shape masking. Wavelet image compression created by LuraTech was added to Eclipse 3.1.4

  Read more →
• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Operation Serenata de Amor

  Operation Serenata de Amor is an artificial intelligence project designed to analyze public spending in Brazil. The project has been funded by a recurrent financing campaign since September 7, 2016, and came in the wake of major scandals of misappropriation of public funds in Brazil, such as the Mensalão scandal and what was revealed in the Operation Car Wash investigations. The analysis began with data from the National Congress then expanded to other types of budget and instances of government, such as the Federal Senate. The project is built through collaboration on GitHub and using a public group with more than 600 participants on Telegram. The name "Serenata de Amor," which means "serenade of love," was taken from a popular cashew cream bonbon produced by Chocolates Garoto in Brazil. == Modules == Throughout development of the project, new modules have been newly introduced in addition to the main repository: The main repository, serenata-de-amor, serves as the starting point for investigative work. Rosie is the robot programmed to identify public funds expenses with discrepancies, starting with CEAP (Quota for Exercise of Parliamentary Activity); it analyzes each of the reimbursements requested by the deputies and senators, indicating the reasons that lead it to believe they are suspicious. From Rosie was born whistleblower, which tweets under the name of @RosieDaSerenata, distributing the results found on social media. Jarbas (Github repository) is a data visualization tool which shows a complete list of reimbursements made available by the Chamber of Deputies and mined by Rosie. Toolbox is a Python installable package that supports the development of Serenata de Amor and Rosie. == History == Operation Serenata de Amor is an Artificial intelligence project for analysis of public expenditures. It was conceived in March 2016 by data scientist Irio Musskopf, sociologist Eduardo Cuducos and entrepreneur Felipe Cabral. The project was financed collectively in the Catarse platform, where it reached 131% of the collection goal paying 3 months of project development. Ana Schwendler, also a data scientist, Pedro Vilanova "Tonny", data journalist, Bruno Pazzim, software engineer, Filipe Linhares, a frontend engineer, Leandro Devegili, an entrepreneur and André Pinho took the first steps towards constructing the platform, such as collecting and structuring the first datasets. Jessica Temporal, data scientist and Yasodara Córdova "Yaso", researcher, Tatiana Balachova "Russa", UX designer, joined the project after the financing took place. The members created a recurring financing campaign, expanding the analysis of public spending to the Federal Senate. Donors make monthly payments ranging from 5 BRL to 200 BRL to maintain group activities. The monthly amount collected is around 10,000 BRL. == Results == In January 2017, concluding the period financed by the initial campaign, the group carried out an investigation into the suspicious activities found by the data analysis system. 629 complaints were made to the Ombudsman's Office of the Chamber of Deputies, questioning expenses of 216 federal deputies. In addition, the Facebook project page has more than 25,000 followers, and users frequently cite the operation as a benchmark in transparency in the Brazilian government. One of the examples of results obtained by the operation is the case of the Deputy who had to return about 700 BRL to the House after his expenses were analyzed by the platform. The platform was able to analyze more than 3 million notes, raising about 8,000 suspected cases in public spending. The community that supports the work of the team benefits from open source repositories, with licenses open for the collaboration. So much so that the two main data scientists of the project presented it at the CivicTechFest in Taipei, obtaining several mentions even in the international press. The technical leader presented the project in Poland during DevConf2017 in Kraków. It was also presented in the Google News Lab in 2017. It was presented by Yaso, when she was the Director of the initiative, at the MIT Media Lab/Berkman Klein Center Initiative for Artificial Intelligence ethics, and at the Artificial Intelligence and Inclusion Symposium, an initiative of the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC). It was also presented both by Irio and Yaso at the Digital Harvard Kennedy School, over a lunch seminar, where the transparency of the platform and the main solutions found were discussed, so that the code and data are always available to verify its suitability. This infographic provides information about the first results of Operation Serenata de Amor, a project that analyzes open data on public spending to find discrepancies. The project was presented by Yaso to the House Audit and Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in August 2017, and raised the interest of House officials who work with open data. The operation has been a source of inspiration for other civic projects that aim to work with similar goals, demonstrating the broader impact of artificial intelligence also in industry in Brazil. Participation of several team members in events throughout Brazil and abroad can be found on the Internet, such as presentation at OpenDataDay, held at Calango Hackerspace in the Federal District, Campus Party Bahia, Campus Party Brasilia, Friends of Tomorrow, XIII National Meeting of Internal Control, in the event USP Talks Hackfest against corruption in João Pessoa, the latter being also highlighted in the National Press.

  Read more →
• 

  Lynda Soderholm

  Lynda Soderholm is a physical chemist at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory with a specialty in f-block elements. She is a senior scientist and the lead of the Actinide, Geochemistry & Separation Sciences Theme within Argonne's Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. Her specific role is the Separation Science group leader within Heavy Element Chemistry and Separation Science (HESS), directing basic research focused on low-energy methods for isolating lanthanide and actinide elements from complex mixtures. She has made fundamental contributions to understanding f-block chemistry and characterizing f-block elements. Soderholm became a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2013, and is also an Argonne Distinguished Fellow. == Early life and education == Soderholm was awarded her PhD in 1982 by McMaster University under the direction of Prof John Greedan. Her dissertation focused on characterizing the structural and magnetic properties of a series of ternary f-ion oxides. After graduating, she was awarded a NATO postdoctoral fellow at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France from 1982 until 1985. After a short postdoctoral appointment as an Argonne postdoctoral fellow she was promoted to staff scientist the same year. Over several years, she moved up the ranks, becoming a senior chemist in 2001. She was also an adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame from 2003 until 2007. In 2021, Soderholm was appointed interim Division Director for the Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. == Career and research == === Uncovering structure of Yttrium-123 Superconductor === Early in her career, Soderholm focused on the characterizing the magnetic and electronic behavior of compounds containing f-ions (lanthanides and actinides) with a focus on high-Tc materials, compounds that are superconducting under usually high temperatures. She was part of the research group that first determined the structure of YBa2Cu3O7. Their discovery formed the foundation for the further developments in the broad field of superconductivity. === Understanding f-ion speciation in solution === Continuing her interest in the f-elements, Soderholm shifted her focus from solid-state materials to nanoparticles and solutions, taking advantage of advances in X-ray structural probes made available by synchrotron facilities. Building on her earlier work using neutron scattering, her team became the first to discover that plutonium exists in solution as tiny, well-defined nanoparticles. This work solved a longstanding problem in understanding transport of plutonium in the environment and resulted in the development of a new, patented approach to separating plutonium during nuclear reprocessing. === Using machine learning to evaluate molecular structures === Soderholm's more recent projects use machine learning to understand the influence of complex molecular structuring in solutions, in connection with low-energy processes for separation of f-block elements from complex mixtures. == Awards and honors == University of Chicago Board of Governors' Distinguished Performance Award, 2009. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013. Argonne Distinguished Fellow, 2016 DOE materials sciences research competition for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishments in Solid State Physics, 1987. == Select publications == Beno, M. A.; Soderholm, L.; Capone, D. W., II; Hinks, D. G.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Grace, J. D.; Schuller, I. K.; Segre, C. U.; Zhang, K., Structure of the single-phase high-temperature superconductor yttrium barium copper oxide (YBa2Cu3O7−δ). Appl. Phys. Lett. 1987, 51 (1), 57–9. Soderholm, L.; Zhang, K.; Hinks, D. G.; Beno, M. A.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Segre, C. U.; Schuller, I. K., Incorporation of praseodymium in YBa2Cu3O7−δ: electronic effects on superconductivity. Nature (London) 1987, 328 (6131), 604–5. Antonio, M. R.; Williams, C. W.; Soderholm, L., Berkelium redox speciation. Radiochim. Acta 2002, 90 (12), 851–856. Soderholm, L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Neuefeind, J., Determination of actinide speciation in solution using high-energy X-ray scattering. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2005, 383 (1), 48–55. Forbes, T. Z.; Burns, P. C.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Synthesis, structure, and magnetism of Np2O5. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129 (10), 2760–2761. Soderholm, L.; Almond, P. M.; Skanthakumar, S.; Wilson, R. E.; Burns, P. C., The structure of the plutonium oxide nanocluster [Pu38O56Cl54(H2O)8]14-. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47 (2), 298–302. Jensen, M. P.; Gorman-Lewis, D.; Aryal, B.; Paunesku, T.; Vogt, S.; Rickert, P. G.; Seifert, S.; Lai, B.; Woloschak, G. E.; Soderholm, L., An iron-dependent and transferrin-mediated cellular uptake pathway for plutonium. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7 (8), 560–565. Wilson, R. E.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Separation of Plutonium Oxide Nanoparticles and Colloids. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50 (47), 11234–11237. Knope, K. E.; Soderholm, L., Solution and solid-state structural chemistry of actinide hydrates and their hydrolysis and condensation products. Chem. Rev. 2013, 113 (2), 944–994. Luo, G.; Bu, W.; Mihaylov, M.; Kuzmenko, I.; Schlossman, M. L.; Soderholm, L., X-ray reflectivity reveals a nonmonotonic ion-density profile perpendicular to the surface of ErCl3 aqueous solutions. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117 (37), 19082–19090. Jin, G. B.; Lin, J.; Estes, S. L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Influence of countercation hydration enthalpies on the formation of molecular complexes: A thorium-nitrate example. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (49), 18003–18008. == Patents == Solvent extraction system for plutonium colloids and other oxide nano-particles, (2016).

  Read more →
• 

  Glossary of computer graphics

  This is a glossary of terms relating to computer graphics. For more general computer hardware terms, see glossary of computer hardware terms. == 0–9 == 2D convolution Operation that applies linear filtering to image with a given two-dimensional kernel, able to achieve e.g. edge detection, blurring, etc. 2D image 2D texture map A texture map with two dimensions, typically indexed by UV coordinates. 2D vector A two-dimensional vector, a common data type in rasterization algorithms, 2D computer graphics, graphical user interface libraries. 2.5D Also pseudo 3D. Rendering whose result looks 3D while actually not being 3D or having great limitations, e.g. in camera degrees of freedom. 3D graphics pipeline A graphics pipeline taking 3D models and producing a 2D bitmap image result. 3D paint tool A 3D graphics application for digital painting of multiple texture map image channels directly onto a rotated 3D model, such as zbrush or mudbox, also sometimes able to modify vertex attributes. 3D scene A collection of 3D models and lightsources in world space, into which a camera may be placed, describing a scene for 3D rendering. 3D unit vector A unit vector in 3D space. 4D vector A common datatype in graphics code, holding homogeneous coordinates or RGBA data, or simply a 3D vector with unused W to benefit from alignment, naturally handled by machines with 4-element SIMD registers. 4×4 matrix A matrix commonly used as a transformation of homogeneous coordinates in 3D graphics pipelines. 7e3 format A packed pixel format supported by some graphics processing units (GPUs) where a single 32-bit word encodes three 10-bit floating-point color channels, each with seven bits of mantissa and three bits of exponent. == A == AABB Axis-aligned bounding box (sometimes called "axis oriented"), a bounding box stored in world coordinates; one of the simplest bounding volumes. Additive blending A compositing operation where d s t = d s t + s r c , {\displaystyle dst=dst+src,} without the use of an alpha channel, used for various effects. Also known as linear dodge in some applications. Affine texture mapping Linear interpolation of texture coordinates in screen space without taking perspective into account, causing texture distortion. Aliasing Unwanted effect arising when sampling high-frequency signals, in computer graphics appearing e.g. when downscaling images. Antialiasing methods can prevent it. Alpha channel An additional image channel (e.g. extending an RGB image) or standalone channel controlling alpha blending. Ambient lighting An approximation to the light entering a region from a wide range of directions, used to avoid needing an exact solution to the rendering equation. Ambient occlusion (AO) Effect approximating, in an inexpensive way, one aspect of global illumination by taking into account how much ambient light is blocked by nearby geometry, adding visual clues about the shape. Analytic model A mathematical model for a phenomenon to be simulated, e.g. some approximation to surface shading. Contrasts with Empirical models based purely on recorded data. Anisotropic filtering Advanced texture filtering improving on mipmapping, preventing aliasing while reducing blur in textured polygons at oblique angles to the camera. Anti-aliasing Methods for filtering and sampling to avoid visual artifacts associated with the uniform pixel grid in 3D rendering. Array texture A form of texture map containing an array of 2D texture slices selectable by a 3rd 'W' texture coordinate; used to reduce state changes in 3D rendering. Augmented reality Computer-rendered content inserted into the user's view of the real world. AZDO Approaching zero driver overhead, a set of techniques aimed at reducing the CPU overhead in preparing and submitting rendering commands in the OpenGL pipeline. A compromise between the traditional GL API and other high-performance low-level rendering APIs. == B == Back-face culling Culling (discarding) of polygons that are facing backwards from the camera. Baking Performing an expensive calculation offline, and caching the results in a texture map or vertex attributes. Typically used for generating lightmaps, normal maps, or low level of detail models. Barycentric coordinates Three-element coordinates of a point inside a triangle. Beam tracing Modification of ray tracing which instead of lines uses pyramid-shaped beams to address some of the shortcomings of traditional ray tracing, such as aliasing. Bicubic interpolation Extension of cubic interpolation to 2D, commonly used when scaling textures. Bilinear interpolation Linear interpolation extended to 2D, commonly used when scaling textures. Binding Selecting a resource (texture, buffer, etc.) to be referenced by future commands. Billboard A textured rectangle that keeps itself oriented towards the camera, typically used e.g. for vegetation or particle effects. Binary space partitioning (BSP) A data structure that can be used to accelerate visibility determination, used e.g. in Doom engine. Bit depth The number of bits per pixel, sample, or texel in a bitmap image (holding one or more image channels, typical values being 4, 8, 16, 24, 32) Bitmap Image stored by pixels. Bit plane A format for bitmap images storing 1 bit per pixel in a contiguous 2D array; Several such parallel arrays combine to produce the a higher-bit-depth image. Opposite of packed-pixel format. Blend operation A render state controlling alpha blending, describing a formula for combining source and destination pixels. Bone Coordinate systems used to control surface deformation (via Weight maps) during skeletal animation. Typically stored in a hierarchy, controlled by key frames, and other procedural constraints. Bounding box One of the simplest type of bounding volume, consisting of axis-aligned or object-aligned extents. Bounding volume A mathematically simple volume, such as a sphere or a box, containing 3D objects, used to simplify and accelerate spatial tests (e.g. for visibility or collisions). BRDF Bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs), empirical models defining 4D functions for surface shading indexed by a view vector and light vector relative to a surface. Bump mapping Technique similar to normal mapping that instead of normal maps uses so called bump maps (height maps). BVH Bounding volume hierarchy is a tree structure on a set of geometric objects. == C == Camera A virtual camera from which rendering is performed, also sometimes referred to as 'eye'. Camera space A space with the camera at the origin, aligned with the viewer's direction, after the application of the world transformation and view transformation. Cel shading Cartoon-like shading effect. Clipping Limiting specific operations to a specific region, usually the view frustum. Clipping plane A plane used to clip rendering primitives in a graphics pipeline. These may define the view frustum or be used for other effects. Clip space Coordinate space in which clipping is performed. Clip window A rectangular region in screen space, used during clipping. A clip window may be used to enclose a region around a portal in portal rendering. CLUT A table of RGB color values to be indexed by a lower-bit-depth image (typically 4–8 bits), a form of vector quantization. Color bleeding Unwanted effect in texture mapping. A color from a border of unmapped region of the texture may appear (bleed) in the mapped result due to interpolation. Color channels The set of channels in a bitmap image representing the visible color components, i.e. distinct from the alpha channel or other information. Color resolution Command buffer A region of memory holding a set of instructions for a graphics processing unit for rendering a scene or portion of a scene. These may be generated manually in bare metal programming, or managed by low level rendering APIs, or handled internally by high level rendering APIs. Command list A group of rendering commands ready for submission to a graphics processing unit, see also Command buffer. Compute API An API for efficiently processing large amounts of data. Compute shader A compute kernel managed by a rendering API, with easy access to rendering resources. Cone tracing Modification of ray tracing which instead of lines uses cones as rays in order to achieve e.g. antialiasing or soft shadows. Connectivity information Indices defining [rendering primitive]s between vertices, possibly held in index buffers. describes geometry as a graph or hypergraph. CSG Constructive solid geometry, a method for generating complex solid models from boolean operations combining simpler modelling primitives. Cube mapping A form of environment reflection mapping in which the environment is captured on a surface of a cube (cube map). Culling Before rendering begins, culling removes objects that don't significantly contribute to the rendered result (e.g. being obscured or outside camera view). == D == Decal A "sticker" picture applied onto a surface (e.g. a

  Read more →
• 

  Ideonomy

  Ideonomy is a combinatorial "science of ideas" developed by American independent scholar Patrick M. Gunkel (1947–2017). Specifically, Ideonomy is concerned with the systematic organization of ideas and the discovery of the rules behind how ideas combine, diverge, and transform. Gunkel defined ideonomy as "the science of the laws of ideas and of the application of such laws to the generation of all possible ideas in connection with any subject, idea, or thing." In his 1992 book A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren compared ideonomy to a "mining operation" that excavates meanings and thought to discover treasures hidden deep within language. Sources from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate that ideonomy was useful to academic researchers in fields including biology, toxicology, and nursing/patient care. Beginning in the 2010s, academics in a wide range of fields including machine learning, marketing, computational modeling, and cybersecurity have relied on materials generated for ideonomy to provide methodological support for their research. == Etymology and definition == The word "ideonomy" combines the Greek roots ideo- (from idea, meaning pattern or form) and -nomy (from nomos, meaning law or custom). The suffix -nomy suggests the laws concerning or the totality of knowledge about a given subject, as in astronomy or taxonomy. In a note posted on the MIT ideonomy website, Gunkel states that the word was supposedly first coined by the French Encyclopedists to refer to a science of ideas. No evidence is provided for this statement, however. The concept bears some relationship to Antoine Destutt de Tracy's "ideology" (1796), which originally meant a systematic science of ideas before acquiring its modern political connotations. Gunkel provided several metaphorical descriptions of ideonomy: An "idea bank": a computer network enabling systematic exploration of infinite possible ideas A "kaleidoscope" that can exhibit all possible combinations and transformations of ideas A "prism" capable of diffracting any idea into its cognitive components A "gigantic microscope for magnifying the ideocosm" == History and development == In 1984, Gunkel received a five-year unsolicited grant from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York to develop ideonomy. A June 1, 1987 article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal brought Gunkel and ideonomy to wider public attention. Some academics were interested in using ideonomy's techniques, including biologist Betsey Dyer, who published several contemporaneous peer-reviewed studies citing ideonomy. Academic researchers in the field of toxicology and nursing/patient care also used ideonomy. However, ideonomy's broadest contribution to date came beginning in the 2010s, as a list of personality traits generated for combinatorial matching was used by researchers in artificial intelligence to code human emotions for machine-learning tasks, develop computational models related to personality, develop a measurement framework for influencer-brand recommender systems, and aid information awareness/cybersecurity assessment. == Methodology == The foundational empirical method of ideonomy involves the systematic creation of extensive lists. Gunkel's apartment reportedly contained thousands of lists on every conceivable topic. Gunkel termed each list an "organon," which he described as expanding through "combination, permutation, transformation, generalization, specialization, intersection, interaction, reapplication, recursive use, etc. of existing organons." The ideonomic process follows a progressive structure. The ideonomist begins with a simple list of examples of a particular idea, concept, or thing. The list need not be exhaustive. By studying this list, the ideonomist isolates and identifies types. This categorical analysis then reveals missing items, allowing the primary list to be improved and refined. Gunkel emphasized that list items must not only cover genuine categories of nature but also be formulated in ways that yield the largest possible number of syntactically coherent possibilities when combined. The core technique of ideonomy is "ideocombinatorics"—the systematic intersection and combination of items from different lists to generate novel composite concepts. Gunkel developed computer programs to automate this process. For example, combining a list of 230 Universal Elementary Shapes (pits, pyramids, trenches, hemispheres, needles) with a list of 74 Types of Order (recurrence, identity, likeness of parts) yields 17,020 possible "shapes of order." These combinations, when phrased as questions ("Can there be pits of recurrence?"), could suggest new categories of phenomena worthy of investigation. The computer-generated output is typically repetitive and often meaningless. However, with sufficient frequency, the combinations yield results that are unexpectedly interesting and fruitful. In one documented case, Gunkel's programs generated 45,540 questions about toxins for microbiologist David Bermudes. One question—"Can hierarchies of cell process be used as a basis for classifying toxic action?"—prompted Bermudes to develop a novel approach to classifying biological toxins by the type of molecule they attack, rather than by chemical structure or physiological system affected. According to one contemporaneous account of ideonomy, "Gunkel takes for his field all fields and all ideas about anything. He uses a computer to generate lists of words and phrases and by juxtaposition reviews the resultant patterns for novel ideas. The computer is ideal for this task because the mind would rebel at the formidable processing task ideonomy involves. What we have here is computer generated originality." == Applications == Gunkel and his supporters identified several practical applications for ideonomic methods: Scientific research: Biologist Betsey Dyer of Wheaton College published research crediting ideonomy for helping to generate ideas. Medical science: When Austin pathologist Michael T. O'Brien was presented with the ideonomically-generated question "Can arteries have rashes?", he initially dismissed it as nonsense. Upon reflection, he realized that large arteries are supplied with blood by tiny vessels that might become inflamed and dilated, analogous to skin vessels in a rash—a phenomenon potentially worth researching. Analogical thinking: Harvard law professor Robert Clark used ideonomic analogies to write a research paper comparing plant structure with human hierarchies. Artificial intelligence: Douglas Lenat, a researcher at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, suggested that Gunkel's lists enumerating types of human mistakes could help design AI systems capable of recognizing and correcting their own errors. == Reception and criticism == Ideonomy received mixed reactions from the academic and scientific communities. Prominent supporters included: Edward Fredkin, former director of MIT's computer science laboratory, who praised Gunkel's "provocative ideas on artificial intelligence." Marvin Minsky, AI scientist and MIT professor, who described ideonomy as "perhaps the most extensive study of ways to generate ideas." Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who noted Gunkel's "encyclopedic scope" Robert C. Clark, Harvard law professor, who called Gunkel "the most intelligent person I ever met" However, skeptics questioned whether ideonomy constituted a genuine science. Fredkin himself noted that Gunkel "pours out about 60 ideas a minute, and 59 of them are bad," though he added that "even with one good idea out of 60, it's still an amazing accomplishment." Douglas Lenat observed that brainstorming with Gunkel was "a bit like being hit over the head by the muse with a sledgehammer" and that "he puts people off." Gunkel himself acknowledged that ideonomy was in its infancy and might seem "absurdly utopian." His planned magnum opus on ideonomy remained incomplete, and was posted on an MIT website thanks to faculty advisor Whitman Richards. Gunkel wrote: "Pioneering in a completely new field, yes in a new science, is almost unreal. It is heartbreaking, it is pitiable, it is almost inhuman. Honestly, it is a hell. There is nothing heroic about it." == Related concepts == Gunkel identified several historical precedents for ideonomic thinking: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): The philosopher's work on a universal characteristic (characteristica universalis) and calculus of reasoning Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869): Creator of Roget's Thesaurus, which organized concepts into a systematic taxonomy Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907): Developer of the periodic table, demonstrating how combining lists of element families could reveal previously unseen connections Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974): The Caltech astrophysicist whom Gunkel called the "grandfather of ideonomy" for his development of "morphological research"—systematic exploration of all possible solutions t

  Read more →
• 

  Hallucination (artificial intelligence)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial psychology

  Artificial psychology (AP) has had multiple meanings dating back to 19th century, with recent usage related to artificial intelligence (AI).Artificial psychology is a theoretical field related to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and psychology, which explores how advanced AI systems may develop human-like decision-making processes. In 1999, Zhiliang Wang and Lun Xie presented a theory of artificial psychology based on artificial intelligence. They analyze human psychology using information science research methods and artificial intelligence research to probe deeper into the human mind. == Main Theory == Dan Curtis (b. 1963) proposed AP is a theoretical discipline. The theory considers the situation when an artificial intelligence approaches the level of complexity where the intelligence meets two conditions: Condition I A: Makes all of its decisions autonomously B: Is capable of making decisions based on information that is New Abstract Incomplete C: The artificial intelligence is capable of reprogramming itself based on the new data, allowing it to evolve. D: And is capable of resolving its own programming conflicts, even in the presence of incomplete data. This means that the intelligence autonomously makes value-based decisions, referring to values that the intelligence has created for itself. Condition II All four criteria are met in situations that are not part of the original operating program When both conditions are met, then, according to this theory, the possibility exists that the intelligence will reach irrational conclusions based on real or created information. At this point, the criteria are met for intervention which will not necessarily be resolved by simple re-coding of processes due to extraordinarily complex nature of the codebase itself; but rather a discussion with the intelligence in a format which more closely resembles classical (human) psychology. If the intelligence cannot be reprogrammed by directly inputting new code, but requires the intelligence to reprogram itself through a process of analysis and decision based on information provided by a human, in order for it to overcome behavior which is inconsistent with the machines purpose or ability to function normally, then artificial psychology is by definition, what is required. The level of complexity that is required before these thresholds are met is currently a subject of extensive debate. The theory of artificial psychology does not address the specifics of what those levels may be, but only that the level is sufficiently complex that the intelligence cannot simply be recoded by a software developer, and therefore dysfunctionality must be addressed through the same processes that humans must go through to address their own dysfunctionalities. Along the same lines, artificial psychology does not address the question of whether or not the intelligence is conscious. As of 2022, the level of artificial intelligence does not approach any threshold where any of the theories or principles of artificial psychology can even be tested, and therefore, artificial psychology remains a largely theoretical discipline. Even at a theoretical level, artificial psychology remains an advanced stage of artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Vulnerability Discovery Model

  A Vulnerability Discovery Model (VDM) uses discovery event data with software reliability models for predicting the same. A thorough presentation of VDM techniques is available in. Numerous model implementations are available in the MCMCBayes open source repository. Several VDM examples include: Alhazmi-Malaiya: Time based model (Alhazmi-Malaiya Logistic (AML) model) Alhazmi-Malaiya: Effort based model Rescorla: Quadratic Model and Exponential Model Anderson: Thermodynamic Model Kim: Weibull Model Linear Model Hump-Shaped Model Independent and Dependent Model Vulnerability Discovery Modeling using Bayesian model averaging Multivariate Vulnerability Discovery Models

  Read more →
• 

  Empirical risk minimization

  In statistical learning theory, the principle of empirical risk minimization defines a family of learning algorithms based on evaluating performance over a known and fixed dataset. The core idea is based on an application of the law of large numbers; more specifically, we cannot know exactly how well a predictive algorithm will work in practice (i.e. the "true risk") because we do not know the true distribution of the data, but we can instead estimate and optimize the performance of the algorithm on a known set of training data. The performance over the known set of training data is referred to as the "empirical risk". == Background == The following situation is a general setting of many supervised learning problems. There are two spaces of objects X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} and we would like to learn a function h : X → Y {\displaystyle \ h:X\to Y} (often called hypothesis) which outputs an object y ∈ Y {\displaystyle y\in Y} , given x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} . To do so, there is a training set of n {\displaystyle n} examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} is an input and y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in Y} is the corresponding response that is desired from h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} . To put it more formally, assuming that there is a joint probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} over X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , and that the training set consists of n {\displaystyle n} instances ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} drawn i.i.d. from P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . The assumption of a joint probability distribution allows for the modelling of uncertainty in predictions (e.g. from noise in data) because y {\displaystyle y} is not a deterministic function of x {\displaystyle x} , but rather a random variable with conditional distribution P ( y | x ) {\displaystyle P(y|x)} for a fixed x {\displaystyle x} . It is also assumed that there is a non-negative real-valued loss function L ( y ^ , y ) {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)} which measures how different the prediction y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of a hypothesis is from the true outcome y {\displaystyle y} . For classification tasks, these loss functions can be scoring rules. The risk associated with hypothesis h ( x ) {\displaystyle h(x)} is then defined as the expectation of the loss function: R ( h ) = E [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ L ( h ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) . {\displaystyle R(h)=\mathbf {E} [L(h(x),y)]=\int L(h(x),y)\,dP(x,y).} A loss function commonly used in theory is the 0-1 loss function: L ( y ^ , y ) = { 1 if y ^ ≠ y 0 if y ^ = y {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}\neq y\\0&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}=y\end{cases}}} . The ultimate goal of a learning algorithm is to find a hypothesis h ∗ {\displaystyle h^{}} among a fixed class of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for which the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} is minimal: h ∗ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R ( h ) . {\displaystyle h^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,{R(h)}.} For classification problems, the Bayes classifier is defined to be the classifier minimizing the risk defined with the 0–1 loss function. == Formal definition == In general, the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} cannot be computed because the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} is unknown to the learning algorithm. However, given a sample of iid training data points, we can compute an estimate, called the empirical risk, by computing the average of the loss function over the training set; more formally, computing the expectation with respect to the empirical measure: R emp ( h ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n L ( h ( x i ) , y i ) . {\displaystyle \!R_{\text{emp}}(h)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(h(x_{i}),y_{i}).} The empirical risk minimization principle states that the learning algorithm should choose a hypothesis h ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}} which minimizes the empirical risk over the hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : h ^ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R emp ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,R_{\text{emp}}(h).} Thus, the learning algorithm defined by the empirical risk minimization principle consists in solving the above optimization problem. == Properties == Guarantees for the performance of empirical risk minimization depend strongly on the function class selected as well as the distributional assumptions made. In general, distribution-free methods are too coarse, and do not lead to practical bounds. However, they are still useful in deriving asymptotic properties of learning algorithms, such as consistency. In particular, distribution-free bounds on the performance of empirical risk minimization given a fixed function class can be derived using bounds on the VC complexity of the function class. For simplicity, considering the case of binary classification tasks, it is possible to bound the probability of the selected classifier, ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} being much worse than the best possible classifier ϕ ∗ {\displaystyle \phi ^{}} . Consider the risk L {\displaystyle L} defined over the hypothesis class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} with growth function S ( C , n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}({\mathcal {C}},n)} given a dataset of size n {\displaystyle n} . Then, for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} : P ( L ( ϕ n ) − L ( ϕ ∗ ) > ϵ ) ≤ 8 S ( C , n ) exp ⁡ { − n ϵ 2 / 32 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} \left(L(\phi _{n})-L(\phi ^{})>\epsilon \right)\leq {\mathcal {8}}S({\mathcal {C}},n)\exp\{-n\epsilon ^{2}/32\}} Similar results hold for regression tasks. These results are often based on uniform laws of large numbers, which control the deviation of the empirical risk from the true risk, uniformly over the hypothesis class. === Impossibility results === It is also possible to show lower bounds on algorithm performance if no distributional assumptions are made. This is sometimes referred to as the No free lunch theorem. Even though a specific learning algorithm may provide the asymptotically optimal performance for any distribution, the finite sample performance is always poor for at least one data distribution. This means that no classifier can improve on the error for a given sample size for all distributions. Specifically, let ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} and consider a sample size n {\displaystyle n} and classification rule ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} , there exists a distribution of ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle (X,Y)} with risk L ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle L^{}=0} (meaning that perfect prediction is possible) such that: E L n ≥ 1 / 2 − ϵ . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq 1/2-\epsilon .} It is further possible to show that the convergence rate of a learning algorithm is poor for some distributions. Specifically, given a sequence of decreasing positive numbers a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} converging to zero, it is possible to find a distribution such that: E L n ≥ a i {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq a_{i}} for all n {\displaystyle n} . This result shows that universally good classification rules do not exist, in the sense that the rule must be low quality for at least one distribution. === Computational complexity === Empirical risk minimization for a classification problem with a 0-1 loss function is known to be an NP-hard problem even for a relatively simple class of functions such as linear classifiers. Nevertheless, it can be solved efficiently when the minimal empirical risk is zero, i.e., data is linearly separable. In practice, machine learning algorithms cope with this issue either by employing a convex approximation to the 0–1 loss function (like hinge loss for SVM), which is easier to optimize, or by imposing assumptions on the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} (and thus stop being agnostic learning algorithms to which the above result applies). In the case of convexification, Zhang's lemma majors the excess risk of the original problem using the excess risk of the convexified problem. Minimizing the latter using convex optimization also allow to control the former. == Tilted empirical risk minimization == Tilted empirical risk minimization is a machine learning technique used to modify standard loss functions like squared error, by introducing a tilt parameter. This parameter dynamically adjusts the weight of data points during training, allowing the algorithm to focus on specific regions or characteristics of the data distribution. Tilted empirical risk minimization is particularly useful in scenarios with imbalanced data or when there is a need to emphasize errors in certain parts of the prediction space.

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  Matrix regularization

  In the field of statistical learning theory, matrix regularization generalizes notions of vector regularization to cases where the object to be learned is a matrix. The purpose of regularization is to enforce conditions, for example sparsity or smoothness, that can produce stable predictive functions. For example, in the more common vector framework, Tikhonov regularization optimizes over min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ x ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\left\|Ax-y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|x\right\|^{2}} to find a vector x {\displaystyle x} that is a stable solution to the regression problem. When the system is described by a matrix rather than a vector, this problem can be written as min X ‖ A X − Y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ X ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \min _{X}\left\|AX-Y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|X\right\|^{2},} where the vector norm enforcing a regularization penalty on x {\displaystyle x} has been extended to a matrix norm on X {\displaystyle X} . Matrix regularization has applications in matrix completion, multivariate regression, and multi-task learning. Ideas of feature and group selection can also be extended to matrices, and these can be generalized to the nonparametric case of multiple kernel learning. == Basic definition == Consider a matrix W {\displaystyle W} to be learned from a set of examples, S = ( X i t , y i t ) {\displaystyle S=(X_{i}^{t},y_{i}^{t})} , where i {\displaystyle i} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to n {\displaystyle n} , and t {\displaystyle t} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to T {\displaystyle T} . Let each input matrix X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} be ∈ R D T {\displaystyle \in \mathbb {R} ^{DT}} , and let W {\displaystyle W} be of size D × T {\displaystyle D\times T} . A general model for the output y {\displaystyle y} can be posed as y i t = ⟨ W , X i t ⟩ F , {\displaystyle y_{i}^{t}=\left\langle W,X_{i}^{t}\right\rangle _{F},} where the inner product is the Frobenius inner product. For different applications the matrices X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} will have different forms, but for each of these the optimization problem to infer W {\displaystyle W} can be written as min W ∈ H E ( W ) + R ( W ) , {\displaystyle \min _{W\in {\mathcal {H}}}E(W)+R(W),} where E {\displaystyle E} defines the empirical error for a given W {\displaystyle W} , and R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is a matrix regularization penalty. The function R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is typically chosen to be convex and is often selected to enforce sparsity (using ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norms) and/or smoothness (using ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norms). Finally, W {\displaystyle W} is in the space of matrices H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} with Frobenius inner product ⟨ … ⟩ F {\displaystyle \langle \dots \rangle _{F}} . == General applications == === Matrix completion === In the problem of matrix completion, the matrix X i t {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}} takes the form X i t = e t ⊗ e i ′ , {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes e_{i}',} where ( e t ) t {\displaystyle (e_{t})_{t}} and ( e i ′ ) i {\displaystyle (e_{i}')_{i}} are the canonical basis in R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} and R D {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . In this case the role of the Frobenius inner product is to select individual elements w i t {\displaystyle w_{i}^{t}} from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . Thus, the output y {\displaystyle y} is a sampling of entries from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . The problem of reconstructing W {\displaystyle W} from a small set of sampled entries is possible only under certain restrictions on the matrix, and these restrictions can be enforced by a regularization function. For example, it might be assumed that W {\displaystyle W} is low-rank, in which case the regularization penalty can take the form of a nuclear norm. R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ ∗ = λ ∑ i | σ i | , {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{}=\lambda \sum _{i}\left|\sigma _{i}\right|,} where σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} , with i {\displaystyle i} from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to min D , T {\displaystyle \min D,T} , are the singular values of W {\displaystyle W} . === Multivariate regression === Models used in multivariate regression are parameterized by a matrix of coefficients. In the Frobenius inner product above, each matrix X {\displaystyle X} is X i t = e t ⊗ x i {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}} such that the output of the inner product is the dot product of one row of the input with one column of the coefficient matrix. The familiar form of such models is Y = X W + b {\displaystyle Y=XW+b} Many of the vector norms used in single variable regression can be extended to the multivariate case. One example is the squared Frobenius norm, which can be viewed as an ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norm acting either entrywise, or on the singular values of the matrix: R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ F 2 = λ ∑ i ∑ j | w i j | 2 = λ Tr ⁡ ( W ∗ W ) = λ ∑ i σ i 2 . {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{F}^{2}=\lambda \sum _{i}\sum _{j}\left|w_{ij}\right|^{2}=\lambda \operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{}W\right)=\lambda \sum _{i}\sigma _{i}^{2}.} In the multivariate case the effect of regularizing with the Frobenius norm is the same as the vector case; very complex models will have larger norms, and, thus, will be penalized more. === Multi-task learning === The setup for multi-task learning is almost the same as the setup for multivariate regression. The primary difference is that the input variables are also indexed by task (columns of Y {\displaystyle Y} ). The representation with the Frobenius inner product is then X i t = e t ⊗ x i t . {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}^{t}.} The role of matrix regularization in this setting can be the same as in multivariate regression, but matrix norms can also be used to couple learning problems across tasks. In particular, note that for the optimization problem min W ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ ‖ W ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{W}\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}} the solutions corresponding to each column of Y {\displaystyle Y} are decoupled. That is, the same solution can be found by solving the joint problem, or by solving an isolated regression problem for each column. The problems can be coupled by adding an additional regularization penalty on the covariance of solutions min W , Ω ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ 1 ‖ W ‖ 2 2 + λ 2 Tr ⁡ ( W T Ω − 1 W ) {\displaystyle \min _{W,\Omega }\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{1}\left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{T}\Omega ^{-1}W\right)} where Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } models the relationship between tasks. This scheme can be used to both enforce similarity of solutions across tasks, and to learn the specific structure of task similarity by alternating between optimizations of W {\displaystyle W} and Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . When the relationship between tasks is known to lie on a graph, the Laplacian matrix of the graph can be used to couple the learning problems. == Spectral regularization == Regularization by spectral filtering has been used to find stable solutions to problems such as those discussed above by addressing ill-posed matrix inversions (see for example Filter function for Tikhonov regularization). In many cases the regularization function acts on the input (or kernel) to ensure a bounded inverse by eliminating small singular values, but it can also be useful to have spectral norms that act on the matrix that is to be learned. There are a number of matrix norms that act on the singular values of the matrix. Frequently used examples include the Schatten p-norms, with p = 1 or 2. For example, matrix regularization with a Schatten 1-norm, also called the nuclear norm, can be used to enforce sparsity in the spectrum of a matrix. This has been used in the context of matrix completion when the matrix in question is believed to have a restricted rank. In this case the optimization problem becomes: min ‖ W ‖ ∗ subject to W i , j = Y i j . {\displaystyle \min \left\|W\right\|_{}~~{\text{ subject to }}~~W_{i,j}=Y_{ij}.} Spectral Regularization is also used to enforce a reduced rank coefficient matrix in multivariate regression. In this setting, a reduced rank coefficient matrix can be found by keeping just the top n {\displaystyle n} singular values, but this can be extended to keep any reduced set of singular values and vectors. == Structured sparsity == Sparse optimization has become the focus of much research interest as a way to find solutions that depend on a small number of variables (see e.g. the Lasso method). In principle, entry-wise sparsity can be enforced by penalizing the entry-wise ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm of the matrix, but the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm is not convex. In practice this can be implemented by convex relaxation to the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm. While entry-wise regularization with an ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm will find solutions with a small number of nonzero elements, applying an ℓ 1 {

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm selection

  Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm

  Read more →
• 

  Automated medical scribe

  Automated medical scribes (also called artificial intelligence scribes, AI scribes, digital scribes, virtual scribes, ambient AI scribes, AI documentation assistants, and digital/virtual/smart clinical assistants) are tools for transcribing medical speech, such as patient consultations and dictated medical notes. Many also produce summaries of consultations. Automated medical scribes based on large language models (LLMs, commonly called "AI", short for "artificial intelligence") increased drastically in popularity in 2024. There are privacy and antitrust concerns. Accuracy concerns also exist, and intensify in situations in which tools try to go beyond transcribing and summarizing, and are asked to format information by its meaning, since LLMs do not deal well with meaning (see weak artificial intelligence). Medics using these scribes are generally expected to understand the ethical and legal considerations, and supervise the outputs. The privacy protections of automated medical scribes vary widely. While it is possible to do all the transcription and summarizing locally, with no connection to the internet, most closed-source providers require that data be sent to their own servers over the internet, processed there, and the results sent back (as with digital voice assistants). Some retailers say their tools use zero-knowledge encryption (meaning that the service provider can't access the data). Others explicitly say that they use patient data to train their AIs, or rent or resell it to third parties; the nature of privacy protections used in such situations is unclear, and they are likely not to be fully effective. Most providers have not published any safety or utility data in academic journals, and are not responsive to requests from medical researchers studying their products. == Privacy == Some providers unclear about what happens to user data. Some may sell data to third parties. Some explicitly send user data to for-profit tech companies for secondary purposes, which may not be specified. Some require users to sign consents to such reuse of their data. Some ingest user data to train the software, promising to anonymize it; however, deanonymization may be possible (that is, it may become obvious who the patient is). It is intrinsically impossible to prevent an LLM from correlating its inputs; they work by finding similar patterns across very large data sets. Some information on the patient will be known from other sources (for instance, information that they were injured in an incident on a certain day might be available from the news media; information that they attended specific appointment locations at specific times is probably available to their cellphone provider/apps/data brokers; information about when they had a baby is probably implied by their online shopping records; and they might mention lifestyle changes to their doctor and on a forum or blog). The software may correlate such information with the "anonymized" clinical consultation record, and, asked about the named patient, provide information which they only told their doctor privately. Because a patient's record is all about the same patient, it is all unavoidably linked; in very many cases, medical histories are intrinsically identifiable. Depending on how common a condition and what other data is available, K-anonymity may be useless. Differential privacy could theoretically preserve privacy. Data broker companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have produced or bought up medical scribes, some of which use user data for secondary purposes, which has led to antitrust concerns. Transfer of patient records for AI training has, in the past, prompted legal action. Open-source programs typically do all the transcription locally, on the doctor's own computer. Open-source software is widely used in healthcare, with some national public healthcare bodies holding hack days. === Data resale and commercialization === Several AI medical scribe providers include terms in their service agreements that allow the reuse, sale, or commercialization of de-identified or user-submitted data. Although such data are generally described as anonymized or aggregated, these practices have raised ethical concerns among clinicians and privacy advocates regarding secondary uses of medical information beyond clinical documentation. Freed, an AI transcription and scribe platform, states in its Terms of Use that it may "collect, use, publish, disseminate, sell, transfer, and otherwise exploit" de-identified and aggregated data derived from user inputs. OpenEvidence similarly states that it may "collect, use, transfer, sell, and disclose non-personal information and customer usage data for any purpose including commercial uses." Doximity, which offers an AI-enabled medical scribe as part of its physician platform, grants itself a "nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicensable, royalty-free" license to "copy, prepare derivative works from, improve, distribute, publish, ... analyze, index, tag, [and] commercialize" content submitted by users, subject to its privacy policy. Because these terms allow broad secondary use—including sale, licensing, model-training, derivative works, and commercial exploitation of de-identified or user-submitted data—some commentators have recommended that clinicians review data-handling provisions carefully when adopting AI-scribe tools, particularly in clinical environments where patient privacy and regulatory compliance are critical. === Encryption === Multifactor authentication for access to the data is expected practice. Typically, Diffie–Hellman key exchange is used for encryption; this is the standard method commonly used for things like online banking. This encryption is expensive but not impossible to break; it is not generally considered safe against eavesdroppers with the resources of a nation-state. If content is encrypted between the client and the service provider's remote server (transport cryptography), then the server has an unencrypted copy. This is necessary if the data is used by the service provider (for instance, to train the software). Zero-knowledge encryption implies that the only unencrypted copy is at the client, and the server cannot decrypt the data any more easily than a monster-in-the-middle attacker. == Platforms == Scribes may operate on desktops, laptop, or mobile computers, under a variety of operating systems. These vary in their risks; for instance, mobiles can be lost. The underlying mobile or desktop operating systems are also part of the trusted computing base, and if they are not secure, the software relying on them cannot be secure either. Some AI medical scribe platforms are designed to operate as cloud-based applications that generate structured clinical documentation from clinician–patient conversations. These systems may offer features such as real-time transcription, document generation, and integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems. == Confabulation, omissions, and other errors == Like other LLMs, medical-scribe LLMs are prone to hallucinations, where they make up content based on statistically associations between their training data and the transcription audio. LLMs do not distinguish between trying to transcribe the audio and guessing what words will come next, but perform both processes mixed together. They are especially likely to take short silences or non-speech noises and invent some sort of speech to transcribe them as. LLM medical scribes have been known to confabulate racist and otherwise prejudiced content; this is partly because the training datasets of many LLMs contain pseudoscientific texts about medical racism. They may misgender patients. A survey found that most doctors preferred, in principle, that scribes be trained on data reviewed by medical subject experts. Relevant, accurate training data increases the probability of an accurate transcription, but does not guarantee accuracy. Software trained on thousands of real clinical conversations generated transcripts with lower word error rates. Software trained on manually-transcribed training data did better than software trained with automatically transcribed training data such as YouTube captions. Autoscribes omit parts of the conversation classes as irrelevant. The may wrongly classify pertinent information as irrelevant and omit it. They may also confuse historic and current symptoms, or otherwise misclassify information. They may also simply wrongly transcribe the speech, writing something incorrect instead. If clinicians do not carefully check the recording, such mistakes could make their way into their medical records and cause patient harms. == Patient consent == Professional organizations generally require that scribes be used only with patient consent; some bodies may require written consent. Medics must also abide by local surveillance laws, which may criminalize recording pri

  Read more →
• 

  Google Clips

  Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.

  Read more →