AI Generator With No Limits

AI Generator With No Limits — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Singularity studies

  Singularity studies is an interdisciplinary academic field which examines the idea of technological singularity — the hypothesised point at which artificial intelligence may surpass human intelligence, might be attained by artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and other technologies and sciences, and its social impacts. In this academic field, the study and research are conducted across a broad array of terrains such as information science, robotics, social informatics, economics, philosophy, and ethics. The primary aim of singularity studies is to gain an integrative understanding of the transformation of social systems occurring in tandem with the explosive evolution of AI and also the changes to be effected by such transformation in the view of humans, ethics, and legal systems. == History == An academic work on technological singurality has appeared in computer science, philosophy, sociology, and law since the early 1990s. Early discussions of an intelligence explosion were popularised by science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge in 1993 and later systematised by futurist Ray Kurzweil. Since the 2010s, universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Keio have established dedicated programmes, while peer-reviewed journals have begun to publish scenario analyses and policy studies. Ongoing debates question the predictive value of singularity scenarios and warn against a deterministic view of technology. == Characteristics of research == Singularity studies extends beyond mere future predictions and offer an intellectual foundation for proactively designing and creating a desirable future. Principal research themes in this realm include: Ethics of AI; Social implications of technologies; Possibility of harmonious coexistence of humans and AI; Communication with AI; and Redesign of social systems. == Technologists and academics == Vernor Vinge: Propounded the concept of singularity in 1993, making a massive impact on the academic and science-fiction spheres. Ray Kurzweil: Predicted the advent around 2045 of the technological singularity in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near. Nick Bostrom: Offered philosophical reflections on superintelligence and the risks posed by AI. He is the founding director of the now-dissolved Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. === Japan === Kento Sasano: A social informatician, AI educator, and inventor. He is the president of the Japan Society of Singularity Studies. == Challenges and outlook == Singularity studies is still evolving as an academic field, and quite a few challenges remain unresolved in regard to the systematization of their theories, research methods, and educational curricula. That said, in this day and age of accelerating technological and societal shifts, interdisciplinary approaches have gained in importance and are drawing much attention in the arenas of scholarly research, intercorporate collaboration, and policy planning.

  Read more →
• 

  List of chatbots

  A chatbot is a software application or web interface that is designed to mimic human conversation through text or voice interactions. Modern chatbots are typically online and use generative artificial intelligence systems that are capable of maintaining a conversation with a user in natural language and simulating the way a human would behave as a conversational partner. Such chatbots often use large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing, but simpler chatbots have existed for decades. == LLM chatbots == == General chatbots == == Historical chatbots ==

  Read more →
• 

  Sayre's paradox

  Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.

  Read more →
• 

  You Only Look Once

  You Only Look Once (YOLO) is a series of real-time object detection systems based on convolutional neural networks. First introduced by Joseph Redmon et al. in 2015, YOLO has undergone several iterations and improvements, becoming one of the most popular object detection frameworks. The name "You Only Look Once" refers to the fact that the algorithm requires only one forward propagation pass through the neural network to make predictions, unlike previous region proposal-based techniques like R-CNN that require thousands for a single image. == Overview == Compared to previous methods like R-CNN and OverFeat, instead of applying the model to an image at multiple locations and scales, YOLO applies a single neural network to the full image. This network divides the image into regions and predicts bounding boxes and probabilities for each region. These bounding boxes are weighted by the predicted probabilities. === OverFeat === OverFeat was an early influential model for simultaneous object classification and localization. Its architecture is as follows: Train a neural network for image classification only ("classification-trained network"). This could be one like the AlexNet. The last layer of the trained network is removed, and for every possible object class, initialize a network module at the last layer ("regression network"). The base network has its parameters frozen. The regression network is trained to predict the ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} coordinates of two corners of the object's bounding box. During inference time, the classification-trained network is run over the same image over many different zoom levels and croppings. For each, it outputs a class label and a probability for that class label. Each output is then processed by the regression network of the corresponding class. This results in thousands of bounding boxes with class labels and probability. These boxes are merged until only one single box with a single class label remains. == Versions == There are two parts to the YOLO series. The original part contained YOLOv1, v2, and v3, all released on a website maintained by Joseph Redmon. === YOLOv1 === The original YOLO algorithm, introduced in 2015, divides the image into an S × S {\displaystyle S\times S} grid of cells. If the center of an object's bounding box falls into a grid cell, that cell is said to "contain" that object. Each grid cell predicts B bounding boxes and confidence scores for those boxes. These confidence scores reflect how confident the model is that the box contains an object and how accurate it thinks the box is that it predicts. In more detail, the network performs the same convolutional operation over each of the S 2 {\displaystyle S^{2}} patches. The output of the network on each patch is a tuple as follows: ( p 1 , … , p C , c 1 , x 1 , y 1 , w 1 , h 1 , … , c B , x B , y B , w B , h B ) {\displaystyle (p_{1},\dots ,p_{C},c_{1},x_{1},y_{1},w_{1},h_{1},\dots ,c_{B},x_{B},y_{B},w_{B},h_{B})} where p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is the conditional probability that the cell contains an object of class i {\displaystyle i} , conditional on the cell containing at least one object. x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are the center coordinates, width, and height of the j {\displaystyle j} -th predicted bounding box that is centered in the cell. Multiple bounding boxes are predicted to allow each prediction to specialize in one kind of bounding box. For example, slender objects might be predicted by j = 2 {\displaystyle j=2} while stout objects might be predicted by j = 1 {\displaystyle j=1} . c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} is the predicted intersection over union (IoU) of each bounding box with its corresponding ground truth. The network architecture has 24 convolutional layers followed by 2 fully connected layers. During training, for each cell, if it contains a ground truth bounding box, then only the predicted bounding boxes with the highest IoU with the ground truth bounding boxes is used for gradient descent. Concretely, let j {\displaystyle j} be that predicted bounding box, and let i {\displaystyle i} be the ground truth class label, then x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are trained by gradient descent to approach the ground truth, p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is trained towards 1 {\displaystyle 1} , other p i ′ {\displaystyle p_{i'}} are trained towards zero. If a cell contains no ground truth, then only c 1 , c 2 , … , c B {\displaystyle c_{1},c_{2},\dots ,c_{B}} are trained by gradient descent to approach zero. === YOLOv2 === Released in 2016, YOLOv2 (also known as YOLO9000) improved upon the original model by incorporating batch normalization, a higher resolution classifier, and using anchor boxes to predict bounding boxes. It could detect over 9000 object categories. It was also released on GitHub under the Apache 2.0 license. === YOLOv3 === YOLOv3, introduced in 2018, contained only "incremental" improvements, including the use of a more complex backbone network, multiple scales for detection, and a more sophisticated loss function. === YOLOv4 and beyond === Subsequent versions of YOLO (v4, v5, etc.) have been developed by different researchers, further improving performance and introducing new features. These versions are not officially associated with the original YOLO authors but build upon their work. As of 2026, versions up to YOLO26 have been released..

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  PhyCV

  PhyCV is the first computer vision library which utilizes algorithms directly derived from the equations of physics governing physical phenomena. The algorithms appearing in the first release emulate the propagation of light through a physical medium with natural and engineered diffractive properties followed by coherent detection. Unlike traditional algorithms that are a sequence of hand-crafted empirical rules, physics-inspired algorithms leverage physical laws of nature as blueprints. In addition, these algorithms can, in principle, be implemented in real physical devices for fast and efficient computation in the form of analog computing. Currently PhyCV has three algorithms, Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) and Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE), and Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD). All algorithms have CPU and GPU versions. PhyCV is now available on GitHub and can be installed from pip. == History == Algorithms in PhyCV are inspired by the physics of the photonic time stretch (a hardware technique for ultrafast and single-shot data acquisition). PST is an edge detection algorithm that was open-sourced in 2016 and has 800+ stars and 200+ forks on GitHub. PAGE is a directional edge detection algorithm that was open-sourced in February, 2022. PhyCV was originally developed and open-sourced by Jalali-Lab @ UCLA in May 2022. In the initial release of PhyCV, the original open-sourced code of PST and PAGE is significantly refactored and improved to be modular, more efficient, GPU-accelerated and object-oriented. VEViD is a low-light and color enhancement algorithm that was added to PhyCV in November 2022. == Background == === Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) === Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) is a computationally efficient edge and texture detection algorithm with exceptional performance in visually impaired images. The algorithm transforms the image by emulating propagation of light through a device with engineered diffractive property followed by coherent detection. It has been applied in improving the resolution of MRI image, extracting blood vessels in retina images, dolphin identification, and waste water treatment, single molecule biological imaging, and classification of UAV using micro Doppler imaging. === Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE) === Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE) is a physics-inspired algorithm for detecting edges and their orientations in digital images at various scales. The algorithm is based on the diffraction equations of optics. Metaphorically speaking, PAGE emulates the physics of birefringent (orientation-dependent) diffractive propagation through a physical device with a specific diffractive structure. The propagation converts a real-valued image into a complex function. Related information is contained in the real and imaginary components of the output. The output represents the phase of the complex function. === Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD) === Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD) an efficient and interpretable low-light and color enhancement algorithm that reimagines a digital image as a spatially varying metaphoric light field and then subjects the field to the physical processes akin to diffraction and coherent detection. The term “Virtual” captures the deviation from the physical world. The light field is pixelated and the propagation imparts a phase with an arbitrary dependence on frequency which can be different from the quadratic behavior of physical diffraction. VEViD can be further accelerated through mathematical approximations that reduce the computation time without appreciable sacrifice in image quality. A closed-form approximation for VEViD which we call VEViD-lite can achieve up to 200 FPS for 4K video enhancement. == PhyCV on the Edge == Featuring low-dimensionality and high-efficiency, PhyCV is ideal for edge computing applications. In this section, we demonstrate running PhyCV on NVIDIA Jetson Nano in real-time. === NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit === NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit is a small- sized and power-efficient platform for edge computing applications. It is equipped with an NVIDIA Maxwell architecture GPU with 128 CUDA cores, a quad-core ARM Cortex-A57 CPU, 4GB 64-bit LPDDR4 RAM, and supports video encoding and decoding up to 4K resolution. Jetson Nano also offers a variety of interfaces for connectivity and expansion, making it ideal for a wide range of AI and IoT applications. In our setup, we connect a USB camera to the Jetson Nano to acquire videos and demonstrate using PhyCV to process the videos in real-time. === Real-time PhyCV on Jetson Nano === We use the Jetson Nano (4GB) with NVIDIA JetPack SDK version 4.6.1, which comes with pre- installed Python 3.6, CUDA 10.2, and OpenCV 4.1.1. We further install PyTorch 1.10 to enable the GPU accelerated PhyCV. We demonstrate the results and metrics of running PhyCV on Jetson Nano in real-time for edge detection and low-light enhancement tasks. For 480p videos, both operations achieve beyond 38 FPS, which is sufficient for most cameras that capture videos at 30 FPS. For 720p videos, PhyCV low-light enhancement can operate at 24 FPS and PhyCV edge detection can operate at 17 FPS. == Highlights == === Modular Code Architecture === The code in PhyCV has a modular design which faithfully follows the physical process from which the algorithm was originated. Both PST and PAGE modules in the PhyCV library emulate the propagation of the input signal (original digital image) through a device with engineered diffractive property followed by coherent (phase) detection. The dispersive propagation applies a phase kernel to the frequency domain of the original image. This process has three steps in general, loading the image, initializing the kernel and applying the kernel. In the implementation of PhyCV, each algorithm is represented as a class in Python and each class has methods that simulate the steps described above. The modular code architecture follows the physics behind the algorithm. Please refer to the source code on GitHub for more details. === GPU Acceleration === PhyCV supports GPU acceleration. The GPU versions of PST and PAGE are built on PyTorch accelerated by the CUDA toolkit. The acceleration is beneficial for applying the algorithms in real-time image video processing and other deep learning tasks. The running time per frame of PhyCV algorithms on CPU (Intel i9-9900K) and GPU (NVIDIA TITAN RTX) for videos at different resolutions are shown below. Note that the PhyCV low-light enhancement operates in the HSV color space, so the running time also includes RGB to HSV conversion. However, for all running times using GPUs, we ignore the time of moving data from CPUs to GPUs and count the algorithm operation time only. == Installation and Examples == Please refer to the GitHub README file for a detailed technical documentation. == Current Limitations == === I/O (Input/Output) Bottleneck for Real-time Video Processing === When dealing with real-time video streams from cameras, the frames are captured and buffered in CPU and have to be moved to GPU to run the GPU-accelerated PhyCV algorithms. This process is time-consuming and it is a common bottleneck for real-time video-processing algorithms. === Lack of Parameter Adaptivity for Different Images === Currently, the parameters of PhyCV algorithms have to be manually tuned for different images. Although a set of pre-selected parameters work relatively well for a wide range of images, the lack of parameter adaptivity for different images remains a limitation for now.

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-language information retrieval

  Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is a subfield of information retrieval dealing with retrieving information written in a language different from the language of the user's query. The term "cross-language information retrieval" has many synonyms, of which the following are perhaps the most frequent: cross-lingual information retrieval, translingual information retrieval, multilingual information retrieval. The term "multilingual information retrieval" refers more generally both to technology for retrieval of multilingual collections and to technology which has been moved to handle material in one language to another. The term Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) involves the study of systems that accept queries for information in various languages and return objects (text, and other media) of various languages, translated into the user's language. Cross-language information retrieval refers more specifically to the use case where users formulate their information need in one language and the system retrieves relevant documents in another. To do so, most CLIR systems use various translation techniques. CLIR techniques can be classified into different categories based on different translation resources: Dictionary-based CLIR techniques Parallel corpora based CLIR techniques Comparable corpora based CLIR techniques Machine translator based CLIR techniques CLIR systems have improved so much that the most accurate multi-lingual and cross-lingual adhoc information retrieval systems today are nearly as effective as monolingual systems. Other related information access tasks, such as media monitoring, information filtering and routing, sentiment analysis, and information extraction require more sophisticated models and typically more processing and analysis of the information items of interest. Much of that processing needs to be aware of the specifics of the target languages it is deployed in. Mostly, the various mechanisms of variation in human language pose coverage challenges for information retrieval systems: texts in a collection may treat a topic of interest but use terms or expressions which do not match the expression of information need given by the user. This can be true even in a mono-lingual case, but this is especially true in cross-lingual information retrieval, where users may know the target language only to some extent. The benefits of CLIR technology for users with poor to moderate competence in the target language has been found to be greater than for those who are fluent. Specific technologies in place for CLIR services include morphological analysis to handle inflection, decompounding or compound splitting to handle compound terms, and translations mechanisms to translate a query from one language to another. The first workshop on CLIR was held in Zürich during the SIGIR-96 conference. Workshops have been held yearly since 2000 at the meetings of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Researchers also convene at the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) to discuss their findings regarding different systems and methods of information retrieval, and the conference has served as a point of reference for the CLIR subfield. Early CLIR experiments were conducted at TREC-6, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on November 19–21, 1997. Google Search had a cross-language search feature that was removed in 2013.

  Read more →
• 

  ChatGPT

  ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI. Originally released in November 2022, the product uses large language models—specifically generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs)—to generate text, speech, and images in response to user prompts. ChatGPT accelerated the AI boom, an ongoing period marked by rapid investment and public attention toward the field of artificial intelligence (AI). OpenAI operates the service on a freemium model. Users can interact with ChatGPT through text, audio, and image prompts. ChatGPT was quickly adopted, reaching 100 million monthly active users two months after its release and 900 million weekly active users in February 2026. It has been lauded for its potential to transform numerous professional fields, and has instigated public debate about the nature of creativity and the future of knowledge work. The chatbot has also been criticized for its limitations and potential for unethical use. It can generate plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers, known as hallucinations. Biases in its training data have been reflected in its responses. The chatbot can facilitate academic dishonesty, generate misinformation, and create malicious code. The ethics of its development, particularly the use of copyrighted content as training data, have also drawn controversy. == Features == ChatGPT is a chatbot and AI assistant built on large language model (LLM) technology. It is designed to generate human-like text and can carry out a wide variety of tasks. These include, among many others, writing and debugging computer programs, composing music, scripts, fairy tales, and essays, answering questions (sometimes at a level exceeding that of an average human test-taker), and generating business concepts. ChatGPT is frequently used for translation and summarization tasks, and can simulate interactive environments such as a Linux terminal, a multi-user chat room, or simple text-based games such as tic-tac-toe. Users interact with ChatGPT through conversations which consist of text, audio, and image inputs and outputs. The user's inputs to these conversations are referred to as prompts. An optional "Memory" feature allows users to tell ChatGPT to memorize specific information. Another option allows ChatGPT to recall old conversations. GPT-based moderation classifiers are used to reduce the risk of harmful outputs being presented to users. In March 2023, OpenAI added support for plugins for ChatGPT. This includes both plugins made by OpenAI, such as web browsing and code interpretation, and external plugins from developers such as Expedia, OpenTable, and Zapier. From October to December 2024, ChatGPT Search was deployed. It allows ChatGPT to search the web in an attempt to make more accurate and up-to-date responses. It increased OpenAI's direct competition with major search engines. OpenAI allows businesses to tailor how their content appears in the ChatGPT Search results and influence what sources are used. In December 2024, OpenAI launched a new feature allowing users to call ChatGPT with a telephone for up to 15 minutes per month for free. In September 2025, OpenAI added a feature called Pulse, which generates a daily analysis of a user's chats and connected apps such as Gmail and Google Calendar. In October 2025, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Atlas, a browser integrating the ChatGPT assistant directly into web navigation, to compete with existing browsers such as Google Chrome. It has an additional feature called "agentic mode" that allows it to take online actions for the user. === Paid tier === ChatGPT was initially free to the public and remains free in a limited capacity. In February 2023, OpenAI launched a premium service, ChatGPT Plus, that costs US$20 per month. What was offered on the paid plan versus the free tier changed as OpenAI has continued to update ChatGPT, and a Pro tier at $200/mo was introduced in December 2024. The Pro launch coincided with the release of the o1 model. In August 2025, ChatGPT Go was offered in India for ₹399 per month. The plan has higher limits than the free version. === Mobile apps === In May-July 2023, OpenAI began offering ChatGPT iOS and Android apps. ChatGPT can also power Android's assistant. An app for Windows launched on the Microsoft Store on October 15, 2024. === Languages === OpenAI met Icelandic President Guðni Th. Jóhannesson in 2022. In 2023, OpenAI worked with a team of 40 Icelandic volunteers to fine-tune ChatGPT's Icelandic conversation skills as a part of Iceland's attempts to preserve the Icelandic language. ChatGPT (based on GPT-4) was better able to translate Japanese to English when compared to Bing, Bard, and DeepL Translator in 2023. In December 2023, the Albanian government decided to use ChatGPT for the rapid translation of European Union documents and the analysis of required changes needed for Albania's accession to the EU. Several studies have shown that ChatGPT can outperform Google Translate in some mainstream translation tasks. However, as of 2024, no machine translation services match human expert performance. In August 2024, a representative of the Asia Pacific wing of OpenAI made a visit to Taiwan, during which a demonstration of ChatGPT's Chinese abilities was made. ChatGPT's Mandarin Chinese abilities were lauded, but the ability of the AI to produce content in Mandarin Chinese in a Taiwanese accent was found to be "less than ideal" due to differences between mainland Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Mandarin. === GPT Store === In November 2023, OpenAI released GPT Builder, a tool allowing users to customize ChatGPT's behavior for a specific use case. The customized systems are referred to as GPTs. In January 2024, OpenAI launched the GPT Store, a marketplace for GPTs. At launch, OpenAI included more than 3 million GPTs created by GPT Builder users in the GPT Store. === ChatGPT Apps === In September 2025, OpenAI added support for Model Context Protocol (MCP) to ChatGPT apps. When enabled in developer mode, this allows for improved third-party access to ChatGPT tools and servers. === Deep Research === In February 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research, a feature that generates reports based on extensive web searches. It was initially based on the reasoning model o3 and took 5 to 30 minutes per report. === Images === In October 2023, OpenAI's image generation model DALL-E 3 was integrated into ChatGPT. The integration used ChatGPT to write prompts for DALL-E guided by conversations with users. In March 2025, OpenAI updated ChatGPT to generate images using GPT Image instead of DALL-E. One of the most significant improvements was in the generation of text within images, which is especially useful for branded content. However, this ability is noticeably worse in non-Latin alphabets. The model can also generate new images based on existing ones provided in the prompt. These images are generated with C2PA metadata, which can be used to verify that they are AI-generated. OpenAI has emplaced additional safeguards to prevent what the company deems to be harmful image generation. === Agents === In 2025, OpenAI added several features to make ChatGPT more agentic (capable of autonomously performing longer tasks). In January, Operator was released. It was capable of autonomously performing tasks through web browser interactions, including filling forms, placing online orders, scheduling appointments, and other browser-based tasks. It was controlling a software environment inside a virtual machine with limited internet connectivity and with safety restrictions. It struggled with complex user interfaces. In May 2025, OpenAI introduced an agent for coding named Codex. It is capable of writing software, answering codebase questions, running tests, and proposing pull requests. It is based on a fine-tuned version of OpenAI o3. It has two versions, one running in a virtual machine in the cloud, and one where the agent runs in the cloud, but performs actions on a local machine connected via API. In July 2025, OpenAI released ChatGPT agent, an AI agent that can perform multi-step tasks. Like Operator, it controls a virtual computer. It also inherits from Deep Research's ability to gather and summarize significant volumes of information. The user can interrupt tasks or provide additional instructions as needed. In September 2025, OpenAI partnered with Stripe, Inc. to release Agentic Commerce Protocol, enabling purchases through ChatGPT. At launch, the feature was limited to purchases on Etsy from US users with a payment method linked to their OpenAI account. OpenAI takes an undisclosed cut from the merchant's payment. === ChatGPT Health === On January 7, 2026, OpenAI introduced a feature called "ChatGPT Health", whereby ChatGPT can discuss the user's health in a way that is separate from other chats. The feature is not available for users in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, or the European Economic Area, and is available on a waitli

  Read more →
• 

  Embedding (machine learning)

  In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ⁡ ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  AppValley

  AppValley is an independent American digital distribution service operated and trademarked by AppValley LLC. It serves as an alternative app store for the iOS mobile operating system, which allows users to download applications that are not available on the App Store, most commonly tweaked "++" apps, jailbreak apps, and apps including paid apps on the app store. == Legality == AppValley is among several services that violate enterprise developer certificates from Apple. The terms under which these are granted make clear that they are for companies who wish to distribute apps to their employees. AppValley uses these certificates to distribute software directly to non-employees, thereby bypassing the AppStore. AppValley's conduct had implications in U.S. sanctioned markets like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, which have all been subject to commercial sanctions. Among the software offered by AppValley and other services is pirated software, including paid apps on the app store and premium versions of Instagram, Spotify, Pokémon Go, and others. For instance, AppValley distributes an ad-free version of the music streaming app Spotify even on the free tier. == History == The website was founded in May 2017, releasing late that month with a very basic version of the app. There were less than 100 apps available for download at this time. On Jan 19, 2018, a new version dubbed AppValley 2.0 was released bringing dark mode, more categories, a search, and a much faster interface. On February 14, 2019, a Chinese partner "Jason Wu" allegedly took control of the main Twitter account and domain, causing the original AppValley developers to migrate to the domain app-valley.vip and the Twitter account handle @App_Valley_vip. As of September 2024, the app-valley.vip domain now redirects to appvalley.signulous.com. Today, AppValley continues to offer an alternative to Apple's App Store where app developers can publish their applications. == Features == AppValley is a mobile app installer which can also support iOS version that can be installed and downloaded on the mobile or the devices of the people who wish to get access to many different applications available. AppValley also contains apps that have been modified or tweaked for user preferences, and allows the user to by pass national restrictions on the use of apps, without having to resort to jailbreaking. As of June 2, 2020, there are over 1300 apps available for download.

  Read more →
• 

  Association for Computational Linguistics

  The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is a scientific and professional organization for people working on natural language processing. Its namesake conference is one of the primary high impact conferences for natural language processing research, along with EMNLP. The conference is held each summer in locations where significant computational linguistics research is carried out. It was founded in 1962, originally named the Association for Machine Translation and Computational Linguistics (AMTCL). It became the ACL in 1968. The ACL has a European (EACL), a North American (NAACL), and an Asian (AACL) chapter. == History == The ACL was founded in 1962 as the Association for Machine Translation and Computational Linguistics (AMTCL). The initial membership was about 100. In 1965, the AMTCL took over the journal Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics. This journal was succeeded by many other journals: the American Journal of Computational Linguistics (1974–1978, 1980–1983), and then Computational Linguistics (1984–present). Since 1988, the journal has been published for the ACL by MIT Press. The annual meeting was first held in 1963 in conjunction with the Association for Computing Machinery National Conference. The annual meeting was, for a long time, relatively informal and did not publish anything longer than abstracts. By 1968, the society took on its current name, the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). The publication of the annual meeting's Proceedings of the ACL began in 1979 and gradually matured into its modern form. Many of the meetings were held in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of America, and a few with the American Society for Information Science and the Cognitive Science Society. The United States government sponsored much research from 1989 to 1994, characterized by an increase in author retention rates and an increase in research in some key topics, such as speech recognition, in ACL. By the 21st century, it was able to maintain authors at a high rate who coalesced in a more stable arrangement around individual research topics. In 1991, the group published a prototype for a text generator based on the universal grammar theory of Noam Chomsky. The system, nicknamed Parrot, relied on a finite set of syntactic transformations and a hand-curated lexicon. Despite some initial success, including experimentation with morpheme syntactics, funding halted after the research team encountered intractable difficulties with inflection and abstract locutions. == Annual Meeting of the ACL == Every year, the ACL holds the Annual Meeting of the ACL. The location lies in Europe in years zero modulo three, North America in years one modulo three, and Asia–Australia in years two modulo three. In 2020, the Annual Meeting received for the first time more submissions from China than the United States. == Activities == The ACL organizes several of the top conferences and workshops in the field of computational linguistics and natural language processing. These include: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), the flagship conference of the organization Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP), held jointly one of the other conferences on a rotating basis Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) Lexical and Computational Semantics and Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM) Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation (WMT) Besides conferences, the ACL also sponsors the journals Computational Linguistics and Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL). Papers and other presentations at ACL and ACL-affiliated venues are archived online in the open-access ACL Anthology. == Special Interest Groups == ACL has a large number of Special Interest Groups (SIGs), focusing on specific areas of natural language processing. Some current SIGs within ACL are: == Presidents == Each year, the ACL elects a distinguished computational linguist who becomes vice-president of the organization in the next calendar year and president one year later. Recent ACL presidents are:

  Read more →
• 

  SAP BTP

  SAP Business Technology Platform (SAP BTP) is a platform as a service developed by SAP SE that offers a suite of services including database and data management, AI, analytics, application development, automation and integration all running on one unified platform. == Overview == SAP BTP is made up of four components: Application development and automation: to create applications or extend existing applications. Data and analytics: to access and analyze data across SAP and third-party systems using multi-cloud architecture. Integration: to integrate and connect applications and data. Artificial Intelligence (AI): to access large language models (LLMs) to develop AI. == History == SAP BTP was introduced as part of the SAP strategy to unify its portfolio and cloud offerings under a single platform. The platform was evolved from earlier initiatives such as SAP Cloud Platform and now serves as the central hub for cloud, data, analytics, integration and AI technologies. Initially unveiled as "SAP NetWeaver Cloud" belonging to the SAP HANA Cloud portfolio on October 16, 2012 the cloud platform was reintroduced with the new name "SAP HANA Cloud Platform" on May 13, 2013 as the foundation for SAP cloud products, including the SAP BusinessObjects Cloud. Adoption of the SAP HANA Cloud Platform in 2015 stood at over 4000 customers and 500 partners. In 2016, SAP and Apple Inc. partnered to develop mobile applications on iOS using cloud-based software development kits (SDKs) for the SAP Cloud Platform. On February 27, 2017, SAP HANA Cloud Platform was renamed "SAP Cloud Platform" at the Mobile World Congress. On January 18, 2021, the name "SAP Cloud Platform" was retired from the SAP product portfolio to support SAP BTP. As of October 2024, SAP states that SAP BTP is used by more than 27,000 customers and more than 2,800 partners. Recently, SAP Business One has worked on improving the functionalities of BTP to cater for the demands of digital transformation. The platform offers comprehensive services in AI, application development, automation, integration, data management, and analytics.

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Logical Machine Corporation

  Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) was an American computer company active from the mid-1970s to the 1980s and based in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was founded as John Peers and Company by the British entrepreneur John Peers in 1974. LOMAC developed the ADAM, a minicomputer which ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language. Throughout the late 1970s, the company acquired several technology firms, including Byte, Inc., the owner of the Byte Shop retail chain. Despite its unique approach to computing and earning $5 million in revenue in 1977, LOMAC struggled as the industry began to standardize around the IBM Personal Computer (IBM PC). Following Peers's departure in 1980, the company rebranded as Logical Business Machines, Inc. (LBM, or simply Logical), and attempted to pivot toward IBM PC–compatible hardware. However, financial difficulties led to the company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984. After emerging from bankruptcy in 1985 with new investment, Logical ceased hardware manufacturing to focus exclusively on software development and value-added reselling. == History == John Peers (born 1942) founded Logical Machine Corporation as John Peers and Company in September 1974. The company originally occupied a 4,500-square-foot office in Burlingame, California. The company was Peers' fourth; he had recently sold off Allied Business Systems of London to Trafalgar House in 1974. Peers sought to set up manufacturing in an agricultural zone in Ukiah, California. Following a delay, caused in part by concerned residents, a 30,000-square-foot plant was raised in Burke Hill, three miles south of Ukiah. The Ukiah plant was built to mass manufacture the company's ADAM minicomputer. The ADAM computer ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language; that is to say, the programming language attempted to closely emulate English syntax. Prototypes of the ADAM were built in May 1974, based on specifications devised in October 1973. Peers had yet to patent the technology as of June 1975. The ADAM's central processing unit was bolted onto an 7-by-6-foot L-shaped desk, on which rested its terminal. Twenty units of the ADAM were installed between April 1975 and February 1976, out of a backlog of orders for 3,500 from 500 clients, manufactured out of the company's Burlingame headquarters. It cost US$40,000. A controversial print advertisement featuring a naked woman seated at an ADAM terminal—as a pastiche of Adam and Eve—was recalled in early 1976 as a result of outcry from the National Organization for Women. The company changed its name to Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) in October 1976 and moved its headquarters to a 26,000-square-foot building in Sunnyvale, California, in anticipation of a ramping up of orders for the ADAM. The company originally occupied half of the building; they later purchased the other half from the tenant in July 1977 to double its manufacturing output. For fiscal year 1977, the company earned $5 million in revenue. In December 1977, LOMAC acquired Byte, Inc.—the proprietor of The Byte Shop, the first computer retail chain—from Paul Terrell and Boyd Wilson for an unspecified amount. The Byte Shop had 65 locations in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1978; it catered mainly to hobbyists with low cost microcomputer kits, in contrast to the high cost of LOMAC's ADAM. By July 1978, however, LOMAC were able to reduce the price of the ADAM down to $15,000. The company by that point had shipped their 50th ADAM and expanded to 14 countries. Also in 1978, LOMAC acquired Mass Memory—a high-tech optical storage company based in Phoenix, Arizona, whose products had storage capacities on the order gigabytes and terabytes—and Centigram, makers of the Mike—a computer with speech recognition. Later that year, the company introduced Tina, a low-cost version of the ADAM. LOMAC suffered losses that year and appointed Jerry Brandt to the board of directions, naming him chief operating officer, in August 1978. Brandt had Logical absorb Mass Memory and Centigram into the parent operations, shutting down their respective plants in the process, converted 10 Byte Shops to franchises and opened 25 more franchised Byte locations, and stopped direct sales of LOMAC's business computer products. By the beginning of 1979, LOMAC was profitable once more, and Brandt was let go from LOMAC. Peers left LOMAC in 1980, following a slump in the company's sales. He became an executive director of the United States Robotics Society, a consortium for industrial automation companies, that year. Following Peers' departure, LOMAC changed its name to Logical Business Machines, adopting the name of its European subsidiary. In 1983, the company announced a 16-bit clone of the IBM PC, called the Logical L-XT, which featured a 10-MB hard drive, 320-KB floppy drive and 192 KB of RAM, and a real-time clock, and came shipped with various software (including MS-DOS, a word processor, and a spreadsheet application) and an amber CRT monitor. The following year, the company introduced L-NET, a local area network system based on the L-XT that could link up to 64 computers. L-NET came shipped with a natural programming language, Diplomat—a descendant of the programming language used on the ADAM. In June 1983, Logical sued Coleco Industries over trademark infringement with the latter's to-be-released Adam microcomputer. Logical cited confusion from their existing ADAM customer base caused by the announcement of the Coleco Adam as the basis for the suit. Coleco challenged Logical in the press, writing that Logical's rights to the Adam trademark for use in computers had lapsed earlier in the year. The two settled out of court, with Coleco agreeing to license the Adam name from Logical in exchange for unlimited rights to the Adam trademark. Logical halted development of the L-XT when they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 1984. The company had been $4 million in debt. They emerged from bankruptcy in September 1985, after being infused with $2 million from Carat Ltd. The latter immediately received a little less than 50 percent ownership in Logical—this stake set to grow to over 50 percent over the next six months. As part of the terms of exiting bankruptcy, Logical stopped manufacturing hardware and strictly became a software development company and value-added reseller of computer systems.

  Read more →