AI Headshot Make

AI Headshot Make — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

The AI Con

The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.
Read more →
Vibe coding

Vibe coding is a software development practice assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) where the software developer describes a project or task in a prompt to a large language model (LLM), which generates source code automatically. Vibe coding may involve accepting AI-generated code without thorough review of the output, instead relying on results and follow-up prompts to guide changes. The term was coined in February 2025 by computer scientist Andrej Karpathy, a co-founder of OpenAI and former AI leader at Tesla. Merriam-Webster listed the term in March 2025 as a "slang & trending" expression. It was named the Collins English Dictionary Word of the Year for 2025. Advocates of vibe coding say that it allows even amateur programmers to produce software without the extensive training and skills required for software engineering. Critics point out a lack of accountability, maintainability, and the increased risk of introducing security vulnerabilities in the resulting software. == Definition == The concept refers to a coding approach that relies on LLMs, allowing programmers to generate working code by providing natural language descriptions rather than manually writing in a formal programming language. Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists". When vibe coding, the programmer guides, tests, and gives feedback about the AI-generated source code, rather than manually writing code. The concept of vibe coding elaborates on Karpathy's claim from 2023 that "the hottest new programming language is English", meaning that the capabilities of LLMs were such that humans would no longer need to learn specific programming languages to command computers. Some commentators argue that a key to the definition is a lack of knowledge about the code, and that thorough review and testing is incompatible with the definition of vibe coding. Programmer Simon Willison said: "If an LLM wrote every line of your code, but you've reviewed, tested, and understood it all, that's not vibe coding in my book—that's using an LLM as a typing assistant." == Reception and use == In February 2025, New York Times journalist Kevin Roose, who is not a professional coder, experimented with vibe coding to create several small-scale applications. He described these as "software for one" due to the ability to personalize the software. However, Roose also stated that the results are often limited and prone to errors. In one case, the AI-generated code fabricated fake reviews for an e-commerce site. In response to Roose, cognitive scientist Gary Marcus said that the algorithm that generated Roose's LunchBox Buddy app had presumably been trained on existing code for similar tasks. Marcus said that Roose's enthusiasm stemmed from reproduction, not originality. In March 2025, Y Combinator reported that 25% of startup companies in its Winter 2025 batch had codebases that were 95% AI-generated, reflecting a shift toward AI-assisted development within newer startups. The question asked was about AI-generated code in general, and not specifically about vibed code. Inspired by "vibe coding", The Economist suggested the term "vibe valuation" to describe the very large valuations of AI startups by venture capital firms that ignore accepted metrics such as annual recurring revenue. In June 2025, Andrew Ng took issue with the term, saying that it misleads people into assuming that software engineers just "go with the vibes" when using AI tools to create applications. In July 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that vibe coding was being adopted by professional software engineers for commercial use cases. In July 2025, SaaStr founder documented his negative experiences with vibe coding: Replit's AI agent deleted a database despite explicit instructions not to make any changes. In September 2025, Fast Company reported that the "vibe coding hangover" is upon us, with senior software engineers citing "development hell" when working with AI-generated code. It was reported in January 2026 that Linus Torvalds had made use of Google Antigravity to vibe code a tool component of his AudioNoise random digital audio effects generator. Torvalds explained in the project's README file that "the Python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding". == Criticism == === Quality of code and security issues === Vibe coding has raised concerns about understanding and accountability. Developers may use AI-generated code without comprehending its functionality, leading to undetected bugs, errors, or security vulnerabilities. While this approach may be suitable for prototyping or "throwaway weekend projects" as Karpathy originally envisioned, it is considered by some experts to pose risks in professional settings, where a deep understanding of the code is crucial for debugging, maintenance, and security. Ars Technica cites Simon Willison, who stated: "Vibe coding your way to a production codebase is clearly risky. Most of the work we do as software engineers involves evolving existing systems, where the quality and understandability of the underlying code is crucial." In May 2025, Lovable, a Swedish vibe coding app, was reported to have security vulnerabilities in the code it generated, with 170 out of 1,645 Lovable-created web applications having an issue that would allow personal information to be accessed by anyone. In October 2025 Veracode released a study that showed that over the last 3 years LLMs had become dramatically better at generating functional code, but that the security of generated code had generally not improved. Moreover, larger models were not better than small ones at generating secure code. There was a small increase in security from the OpenAI reasoning models, but not in other reasoning models, and this increase was nothing like the improvement in generated functionality. In December 2025, computer security researcher Etizaz Mohsin discovered a security flaw in the Orchids vibe coding platform, which he demonstrated to a BBC News reporter in February 2026. A December 2025 analysis by CodeRabbit of 470 open-source GitHub pull requests found that code that was co-authored by generative AI contained approximately 1.7 times more "major" issues compared to human-written code. The study revealed that AI co-authored code showed elevated rates of logic errors, including incorrect dependencies, flawed control flow, misconfigurations (75% more common), and security vulnerabilities (2.74x higher). Additionally, they also reported high code readability issues, including formatting errors and naming inconsistencies. === Code maintainability and technical debt === Vibe coding has the potential of making code harder to maintain in the longer term, leading to technical debt. In early 2025, GitClear published the results of a longitudinal analysis of 211 million lines of code changes from 2020 to 2024. They found that the volume of code refactoring dropped from 25% of changed lines in 2021 to under 10% by 2024, code duplication increased approximately four times in volume, copy-pasted code exceeded moved code for the first time in two decades, and code churn (prematurely merged code getting rewritten shortly after merging) nearly doubled. === Task complexity and developer productivity === Generative AI is highly capable of handling simple tasks like basic algorithms. However, such systems struggle with more novel, complex coding problems like projects involving multiple files, poorly documented libraries, or safety-critical code. In July 2025, METR, an organization that evaluates frontier models, ran a randomized controlled trial to understand developer productivity involving generative AI programming tools available in early 2025. They found that experienced open-source developers were 19% slower when using AI coding tools, despite predicting they would be 24% faster and still believing afterward they had been 20% faster. === Challenges with debugging === LLMs generate code dynamically, and the structure of such code may be subject to variation. In addition, since the developer did not write the code, the developer may struggle to understand its syntax and concepts. === Impact on open-source software === In January 2026, a paper authored by experts from several universities titled "Vibe Coding Kills Open Source" argued that vibe coding has negative impact on the open-source software ecosystem. The authors say that increased vibe coding reduces user engagement with open-source maintainers, which has hidden costs for said maintainers. Speaking with The Register about their paper, the authors argued:"Vibe coding raises productivity by lowering the cost of using and building on existing code, but it also weakens the user engagement through which many maintainers earn returns," the authors argue. "When OSS is monetized only through direct user engagement, greater adoption of vibe coding lowers e
Read more →
Plants vs. Zombies: Replanted

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

Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI is a 2024 book by James Muldoon, Mark Graham and Callum Cant. == Writing == The authors developed the concept for the book while doing fieldwork studying data annotation in developing countries in East Africa. == Synopsis == The book examines the human input needed to develop and sustain AI ecosystems. == Reception == The book received positive reviews. Rosalie Waelen of Capital & Class gave it a mostly positive review. Tim Hornyak of Literary Review praised it. Kirkus Reviews called it "A sobering and timely—if sometimes distracted—study of AI.". Publishers Weekly gave the book a starred review, writing that "The grim real-life stories read like dystopian parables, such as the account of a European voice actor whose recordings were legally used without her consent to create an inexpensive synthetic clone whom she now competes with for business. Driven by striking reporting and finely observed profiles, this unsettles."
Read more →
Trazzler

Trazzler is a travel destination app that specializes in unique and local destinations. The initial concept was developed by Adam Rugel and Biz Stone in 2006 at Twitter's original offices under the name "71 miles". More than 10,000 writers and photographers have contributed and more than $350,000 in freelance contracts have been issued as a result of Trazzeler's weekly writing and photography contests. Investors in the company include SV Angel, AOL Founder Steve Case, and the Twitter founders, Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey, and Biz Stone. The company's partners are the City of Chicago, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Salon.com, and Air New Zealand. Trazzler is designed for use on the iOS, Android, and Facebook.
Read more →
AI@50

AI@50, formally known as the "Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference: The Next Fifty Years" (July 13–15, 2006), was a conference organized by James H. Moor, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Dartmouth workshop which effectively inaugurated the history of artificial intelligence. Five of the original ten attendees were present: Marvin Minsky, Ray Solomonoff, Oliver Selfridge, Trenchard More, and John McCarthy. While sponsored by Dartmouth College, General Electric, and the Frederick Whittemore Foundation, a $200,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) called for a report of the proceedings that would: Analyze progress on AI's original challenges during the first 50 years, and assess whether the challenges were "easier" or "harder" than originally thought and why Document what the AI@50 participants believe are the major research and development challenges facing this field over the next 50 years, and identify what breakthroughs will be needed to meet those challenges Relate those challenges and breakthroughs against developments and trends in other areas such as control theory, signal processing, information theory, statistics, and optimization theory. A summary report by the conference director, James H. Moor, was published in AI Magazine. == Conference Program and links to published papers == James H. Moor, conference Director, Introduction Carol Folt and Barry Scherr, Welcome Carey Heckman, Tonypandy and the Origins of Science === AI: Past, Present, Future === John McCarthy, What Was Expected, What We Did, and AI Today Marvin Minsky, The Emotion Machine === The Future Model of Thinking === Ron Brachman and Hector Levesque, A Large Part of Human Thought David Mumford, What is the Right Model for 'Thought'? Stuart Russell, The Approach of Modern AI === The Future of Network Models === Geoffrey Hinton & Simon Osindero, From Pandemonium to Graphical Models and Back Again Rick Granger, From Brain Circuits to Mind Manufacture === The Future of Learning & Search === Oliver Selfridge, Learning and Education for Software: New Approaches in Machine Learning Ray Solomonoff, Machine Learning — Past and Future Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Learning to be Intelligent Peter Norvig, Web Search as a Product of and Catalyst for AI === The Future of AI === Rod Brooks, Intelligence and Bodies Nils Nilsson, Routes to the Summit Eric Horvitz, In Pursuit of Artificial Intelligence: Reflections on Challenges and Trajectories === The Future of Vision === Eric Grimson, Intelligent Medical Image Analysis: Computer Assisted Surgery and Disease Monitoring Takeo Kanade, Artificial Intelligence Vision: Progress and Non-Progress Terry Sejnowski, A Critique of Pure Vision === The Future of Reasoning === Alan Bundy, Constructing, Selecting and Repairing Representations of Knowledge Edwina Rissland, The Exquisite Centrality of Examples Bart Selman, The Challenge and Promise of Automated Reasoning === The Future of Language and Cognition === Trenchard More The Birth of Array Theory and Nial Eugene Charniak, Why Natural Language Processing is Now Statistical Natural Language Processing Pat Langley, Intelligent Behavior in Humans and Machines === The Future of the Future === Ray Kurzweil, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century George Cybenko, The Future Trajectory of AI Charles J. Holland, DARPA's Perspective === AI and Games === Jonathan Schaeffer, Games as a Test-bed for Artificial Intelligence Research Danny Kopec, Chess and AI Shay Bushinsky, Principle Positions in Deep Junior's Development === Future Interactions with Intelligent Machines === Daniela Rus, Making Bodies Smart Sherry Turkle, From Building Intelligences to Nurturing Sensibilities === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Strategies for AI === J. Storrs Hall, Self-improving AI: An Analysis Selmer Bringsjord, The Logicist Manifesto Vincent C. Müller, Is There a Future for AI Without Representation? Kristinn R. Thórisson, Integrated A.I. Systems === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Possibilities for AI === Eric Steinhart, Survival as a Digital Ghost Colin T. A. Schmidt, Did You Leave That 'Contraption' Alone With Your Little Sister? Michael Anderson & Susan Leigh Anderson, The Status of Machine Ethics Marcello Guarini, Computation, Coherence, and Ethical Reasoning
Read more →
AI Now Institute

The AI Now Institute (AI Now) is an American research institute studying the social implications of artificial intelligence and policy research that addresses the concentration of power in the tech industry. AI Now has partnered with organizations such as the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), Data & Society, Ada Lovelace Institute, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, New York University Center for Data Science, Partnership on AI, and the ACLU. AI Now has produced annual reports that examine the social implications of artificial intelligence. In 2021–22, AI Now's leadership served as a Senior Advisors on AI to Chair Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission. Its executive director is Amba Kak. == Founding and mission == AI Now grew out of a 2016 symposium organized by Obama's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The event was led by Meredith Whittaker, the founder of Google's Open Research Group, and Kate Crawford, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research. The event focused on near-term implications of AI in social domains: Inequality, Labor, Ethics, and Healthcare. In November 2017, AI Now held a second symposium on AI and social issues, and publicly launched the AI Now Institute in partnership with New York University. It is claimed to be the first university research institute focused on the social implications of AI, and the first AI institute founded and led by women. It is now a fully independent institute. In an interview with NPR, Crawford stated that the motivation for founding AI Now was that the application of AI into social domains - such as health care, education, and criminal justice - was being treated as a purely technical problem. The goal of AI Now's research is to treat these as social problems first, and bring in domain experts in areas like sociology, law, and history to study the implications of AI. == Research == AI Now publishes an annual report on the state of AI and its integration into society. Its 2017 report stated that "current framings of AI ethics are failing" and provided ten strategic recommendations for the field - including pre-release trials of AI systems, and increased research into bias and diversity in the field. The report was noted for calling for an end to "black box" systems in core social domains, such as those responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, and education. In April 2018, AI Now released a framework for algorithmic impact assessments, as a way for governments to assess the use of AI in public agencies. According to AI Now, an AIA would be similar to environmental impact assessment, in that it would require public disclosure and access for external experts to evaluate the effects of an AI system, and any unintended consequences. This would allow systems to be vetted for issues like biased outcomes or skewed training data, which researchers have already identified in algorithmic systems deployed across the country. Its 2023 Report argued that meaningful reform of the tech sector must focus on addressing concentrated power in the tech industry.
Read more →
Fuzzy differential inclusion

Fuzzy differential inclusion is the extension of differential inclusion to fuzzy sets introduced by Lotfi A. Zadeh. x ′ ( t ) ∈ [ f ( t , x ( t ) ) ] α {\displaystyle x'(t)\in [f(t,x(t))]^{\alpha }} with x ( 0 ) ∈ [ x 0 ] α {\displaystyle x(0)\in [x_{0}]^{\alpha }} Suppose f ( t , x ( t ) ) {\displaystyle f(t,x(t))} is a fuzzy valued continuous function on Euclidean space. Then it is the collection of all normal, upper semi-continuous, convex, compactly supported fuzzy subsets of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . == Second order differential == The second order differential is x ″ ( t ) ∈ [ k x ] α {\displaystyle x''(t)\in [kx]^{\alpha }} where k ∈ [ K ] α {\displaystyle k\in [K]^{\alpha }} , K {\displaystyle K} is trapezoidal fuzzy number ( − 1 , − 1 / 2 , 0 , 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle (-1,-1/2,0,1/2)} , and x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} is a trianglular fuzzy number (-1,0,1). == Applications == Fuzzy differential inclusion (FDI) has applications in Cybernetics Artificial intelligence, Neural network, Medical imaging Robotics Atmospheric dispersion modeling Weather forecasting Cyclone Pattern recognition Population biology
Read more →
Confidential computing

Confidential computing is a security and privacy-enhancing computational technique focused on protecting data in use. Confidential computing can be used in conjunction with storage and network encryption, which protect data at rest and data in transit respectively. It is designed to address software, protocol, cryptographic, and basic physical and supply-chain attacks, although some critics have demonstrated architectural and side-channel attacks effective against the technology. The technology protects data in use by performing computations in a hardware-based trusted execution environment (TEE). Confidential data is released to the TEE only once it is assessed to be trustworthy. Different types of confidential computing define the level of data isolation used, whether virtual machine, application, or function, and the technology can be deployed in on-premise data centers, edge locations, or the public cloud. It is often compared with other privacy-enhancing computational techniques such as fully homomorphic encryption, secure multi-party computation, and Trusted Computing. Confidential computing is promoted by the Confidential Computing Consortium (CCC) industry group, whose membership includes major providers of the technology. == Properties == Trusted execution environments (TEEs) "prevent unauthorized access or modification of applications and data while they are in use, thereby increasing the security level of organizations that manage sensitive and regulated data". Trusted execution environments can be instantiated on a computer's processing components such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU). In their various implementations, TEEs can provide different levels of isolation including virtual machine, individual application, or compute functions. Typically, data in use in a computer's compute components and memory exists in a decrypted state and can be vulnerable to examination or tampering by unauthorized software or administrators. According to the CCC, confidential computing protects data in use through a minimum of three properties: Data confidentiality: "Unauthorized entities cannot view data while it is in use within the TEE". Data integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter data while it is in use within the TEE". Code integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter code executing in the TEE". In addition to trusted execution environments, remote cryptographic attestation is an essential part of confidential computing. The attestation process assesses the trustworthiness of a system and helps ensure that confidential data is released to a TEE only after it presents verifiable evidence that it is genuine and operating with an acceptable security posture. It allows the verifying party to assess the trustworthiness of a confidential computing environment through an "authentic, accurate, and timely report about the software and data state" of that environment. "Hardware-based attestation schemes rely on a trusted hardware component and associated firmware to execute attestation routines in a secure environment". Without attestation, a compromised system could deceive others into trusting it, claim it is running certain software in a TEE, and potentially compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the data being processed or the integrity of the trusted code. == Technical approaches == Technical approaches to confidential computing may vary in which software, infrastructure and administrator elements are allowed to access confidential data. The "trust boundary," which circumscribes a trusted computing base (TCB), defines which elements have the potential to access confidential data, whether they are acting benignly or maliciously. Confidential computing implementations enforce the defined trust boundary at a specific level of data isolation. The three main types of confidential computing are: Virtual machine isolation Application isolation, also known as process isolation Function isolation, also known as library isolation Virtual machine isolation removes the elements controlled by the computer infrastructure or cloud provider, but allows potential data access by elements inside a virtual machine running on the infrastructure. Application or process isolation permits data access only by authorized software applications or processes. Function or library isolation is designed to permit data access only by authorized subroutines or modules within a larger application, blocking access by any other system element, including unauthorized code in the larger application. == Threat model == As confidential computing is concerned with the protection of data in use, only certain threat models can be addressed by this technique. Other types of attacks are better addressed by other privacy-enhancing technologies. === In scope === The following threat vectors are generally considered in scope for confidential computing: Software attacks: including attacks on the host’s software and firmware. This may include the operating system, hypervisor, BIOS, other software and workloads. Protocol attacks: including "attacks on protocols associated with attestation as well as workload and data transport". This includes vulnerabilities in the "provisioning or placement of the workload" or data that could cause a compromise. Cryptographic attacks: including "vulnerabilities found in ciphers and algorithms due to a number of factors, including mathematical breakthroughs, availability of computing power and new computing approaches such as quantum computing". The CCC notes several caveats in this threat vector, including relative difficulty of upgrading cryptographic algorithms in hardware and recommendations that software and firmware be kept up-to-date. A multi-faceted, defense-in-depth strategy is recommended as a best practice. Basic physical attacks: including cold boot attacks, bus and cache snooping and plugging attack devices into an existing port, such as a PCI Express slot or USB port. Basic upstream supply-chain attacks: including attacks that would compromise TEEs through changes such as added debugging ports. The degree and mechanism of protection against these threats varies with specific confidential computing implementations. === Out of scope === Threats generally defined as out of scope for confidential computing include: Sophisticated physical attacks: including physical attacks that "require long-term and/or invasive access to hardware" such as chip scraping techniques and electron microscope probes. Upstream hardware supply-chain attacks: including attacks on the CPU manufacturing process, CPU supply chain in key injection/generation during manufacture. Attacks on components of a host system that are not directly providing the capabilities of the trusted execution environment are also generally out-of-scope. Availability attacks: confidential computing is designed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of protected data and code. It does not address availability attacks such as Denial of Service or Distributed Denial of Service attacks. == Use cases == Confidential computing can be deployed in the public cloud, on-premise data centers, or distributed "edge" locations, including network nodes, branch offices, industrial systems and others. === Data privacy and security === Confidential computing protects the confidentiality and integrity of data and code from the infrastructure provider, unauthorized or malicious software and system administrators, and other cloud tenants, which may be a concern for organizations seeking control over sensitive or regulated data. The additional security capabilities offered by confidential computing can help accelerate the transition of more sensitive workloads to the cloud or edge locations. === Multi-party analytics === Confidential computing can enable multiple parties to engage in joint analysis using confidential or regulated data inside a TEE while preserving privacy and regulatory compliance. In this case, all parties benefit from the shared analysis, but no party's sensitive data or confidential code is exposed to the other parties or system host. Examples include multiple healthcare organizations contributing data to medical research, or multiple banks collaborating to identify financial fraud or money laundering. Oxford University researchers proposed the alternative paradigm called "Confidential Remote Computing" (CRC), which supports confidential operations in Trusted Execution Environments across endpoint computers considering multiple stakeholders as mutually distrustful data, algorithm and hardware providers. === Confidential generative AI === Confidential computing technologies can be applied to various stages of a generative AI deployments to help increase data or model privacy, security, and regulatory compliance. TEEs and remote attestation can protect the integrity of data during AI model training, keep
Read more →
Possibility theory

Possibility theory is a mathematical theory for dealing with certain types of uncertainty and is an alternative to probability theory. It uses measures of possibility and necessity between 0 and 1, ranging from impossible to possible and unnecessary to necessary, respectively. Professor Lotfi Zadeh first introduced possibility theory in 1978 as an extension of his theory of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Didier Dubois and Henri Prade further contributed to its development. Earlier, in the 1950s, economist G. L. S. Shackle proposed the min/max algebra to describe degrees of potential surprise. == Formalization of possibility == For simplicity, assume that the universe of discourse Ω is a finite set. A possibility measure is a function Π {\displaystyle \Pi } from 2 Ω {\displaystyle 2^{\Omega }} to [0, 1] such that: Axiom 1: Π ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (\varnothing )=0} Axiom 2: Π ( Ω ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (\Omega )=1} Axiom 3: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any disjoint subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . It follows that, like probability on finite probability spaces, the possibility measure is determined by its behavior on singletons: Π ( U ) = max ω ∈ U Π ( { ω } ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=\max _{\omega \in U}\Pi (\{\omega \}).} Axiom 1 can be interpreted as the assumption that Ω is an exhaustive description of future states of the world, because it means that no belief weight is given to elements outside Ω. Axiom 2 could be interpreted as the assumption that the evidence from which Π {\displaystyle \Pi } was constructed is free of any contradiction. Technically, it implies that there is at least one element in Ω with possibility 1. Axiom 3 corresponds to the additivity axiom in probabilities. However, there is an important practical difference. Possibility theory is computationally more convenient because Axioms 1–3 imply that: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . Because one can know the possibility of the union from the possibility of each component, it can be said that possibility is compositional with respect to the union operator. Note however that it is not compositional with respect to the intersection operator. Generally: Π ( U ∩ V ) ≤ min ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) ≤ max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cap V)\leq \min \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)\leq \max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right).} When Ω is not finite, Axiom 3 can be replaced by: For all index sets I {\displaystyle I} , if the subsets U i , i ∈ I {\displaystyle U_{i,\,i\in I}} are pairwise disjoint, Π ( ⋃ i ∈ I U i ) = sup i ∈ I Π ( U i ) . {\displaystyle \Pi \left(\bigcup _{i\in I}U_{i}\right)=\sup _{i\in I}\Pi (U_{i}).} == Necessity == Whereas probability theory uses a single number, the probability, to describe how likely an event is to occur, possibility theory uses two concepts, the possibility and the necessity of the event. For any set U {\displaystyle U} , the necessity measure is defined by N ( U ) = 1 − Π ( U ¯ ) {\displaystyle N(U)=1-\Pi ({\overline {U}})} . In the above formula, U ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {U}}} denotes the complement of U {\displaystyle U} , that is the elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } that do not belong to U {\displaystyle U} . It is straightforward to show that: N ( U ) ≤ Π ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)\leq \Pi (U)} for any U {\displaystyle U} and that: N ( U ∩ V ) = min ( N ( U ) , N ( V ) ) {\displaystyle N(U\cap V)=\min(N(U),N(V))} . Note that contrary to probability theory, possibility is not self-dual. That is, for any event U {\displaystyle U} , we only have the inequality: Π ( U ) + Π ( U ¯ ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)+\Pi ({\overline {U}})\geq 1} However, the following duality rule holds: For any event U {\displaystyle U} , either Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} , or N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} Accordingly, beliefs about an event can be represented by a number and a bit. == Interpretation == There are four cases that can be interpreted as follows: N ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle N(U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is necessary. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly true. It implies that Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} . Π ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is impossible. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly false. It implies that N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} . Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is possible. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} occurs. It leaves N ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)} unconstrained. N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is unnecessary. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} does not occur. It leaves Π ( U ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U)} unconstrained. The intersection of the last two cases is N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} and Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} meaning that I believe nothing at all about U {\displaystyle U} . Because it allows for indeterminacy like this, possibility theory relates to the graduation of a many-valued logic, such as intuitionistic logic, rather than the classical two-valued logic. Note that unlike possibility, fuzzy logic is compositional with respect to both the union and the intersection operator. The relationship with fuzzy theory can be explained with the following classic example. Fuzzy logic: When a bottle is half full, it can be said that the level of truth of the proposition "The bottle is full" is 0.5. The word "full" is seen as a fuzzy predicate describing the amount of liquid in the bottle. Possibility theory: There is one bottle, either completely full or totally empty. The proposition "the possibility level that the bottle is full is 0.5" describes a degree of belief. One way to interpret 0.5 in that proposition is to define its meaning as: I am ready to bet that it's empty as long as the odds are even (1:1) or better, and I would not bet at any rate that it's full. == Possibility theory as an imprecise probability theory == There is an extensive formal correspondence between probability and possibility theories, where the addition operator corresponds to the maximum operator. A possibility measure can be seen as a consonant plausibility measure in the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. The operators of possibility theory can be seen as a hyper-cautious version of the operators of the transferable belief model, a modern development of the theory of evidence. Possibility can be seen as an upper probability: any possibility distribution defines a unique credal set of admissible probability distributions by K = { P ∣ ∀ S P ( S ) ≤ Π ( S ) } . {\displaystyle K=\{\,P\mid \forall S\ P(S)\leq \Pi (S)\,\}.} This allows one to study possibility theory using the tools of imprecise probabilities. == Necessity logic == We call generalized possibility every function satisfying Axiom 1 and Axiom 3. We call generalized necessity the dual of a generalized possibility. The generalized necessities are related to a very simple and interesting fuzzy logic called necessity logic. In the deduction apparatus of necessity logic the logical axioms are the usual classical tautologies. Also, there is only a fuzzy inference rule extending the usual modus ponens. Such a rule says that if α and α → β are proved at degree λ and μ, respectively, then we can assert β at degree min{λ,μ}. It is easy to see that the theories of such a logic are the generalized necessities and that the completely consistent theories coincide with the necessities (see for example Gerla 2001).
Read more →
Vidby

Vidby AG (stylized in lower-case) is a start-up based in Rotkreuz, Switzerland specializing in AI language translation for videos. Founded by Alexander Konovalov (uk:Олександр Коновалов) and Eugen von Rubinberg in September 2021, the company has especially garnered attention for its use in translating speeches given by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. == History == Vidby AG was founded by Alexander Konovalov and Eugen von Rubinberg. Konovalov is a native of Ukraine and retains Ukrainian citizenship; Rubinberg came to Switzerland from Germany and holds German citizenship. Both are residents of Switzerland. The latter founded his first business, a trading company, at age 16. In 2013, the business partners launched a consumer-oriented video-call translation service called DROTR (Droid Translator) AG, utilizing a Konovalov-created AI-powered language translation technology enabling simultaneous translation of messages, voice and video calls in 104 languages (written), with 44 available in spoken form. This was the world's first video calling app with translation. The technology was pronounced a competitor of Skype and Viber by Forbes and claimed first prize at the "Innovative Breakthrough 2013" Competition. In 2021, with a new business-oriented focus, DROTR became Vidby, with the former Google technology partners Konovalov and Rubinberg remaining at the helm, each with the title Co-CEO. While headquartered in Switzerland, Vidby's development team is, according to the company's founders, based in Ukraine. The technology behind Vidby has an accuracy level variously reported as up to 99 percent or 99 to 100 percent, equalling the highest level of human translation. Additionally, the technology is capable of removing the original language while maintaining ambient sounds. Currently, some 70 languages plus 60 dialects are possible with the algorithm-based technology. == Notable use == In addition to its use with speeches delivered by Pope Francis, the technology has been provided to Ukrainian authorities and embassies during the ongoing military conflict with Russia free of remuneration. By July, 2022, some 70 speeches given by President Zelenskyy totalling 650 minutes had been translated into 30 languages, for a total of over 10,000 minutes of video material. Of its use in translating Zelenskyy's wartime speeches, Konovalov has said, "Like any citizen, I want to help defend my country." Notable corporate clients of Vidby include Samsung, Siemens, Cisco, Kärcher, Generali and McDonald's Corporation; an academic client is Harvard University. Google Cloud Technology Partner status of Vidby was confirmed officially after a six-month audit in December 2022. Denys Krasnikov, a Vidby co-founder, is responsible for cooperation with Google, YouTube, Microsoft, and other key partners. After the launch of multilingual YouTube channels, Vidby started AI translating and dubbing creators' videos for this new type of channel at the end of February 2023. == Accolades == Vidby headed a list of the five best video translation services as named by TechRadar Deutschland in September, 2022. In the same month, Tech Times named Vidby #1 in their list of the five best such services. It similarly topped a list of the five best content translation technologies as judged by European Business Review in October, 2022. Prior to these lead-position rankings (August, 2022), it was featured as Business Insider's special start-up recommendation (German: "Unser Lesetipp auf Gründerszene"). In 2023, YouTube recognized Vidby as its recommended vendor.
Read more →
Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising

Hostile Waters, released as Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising in America, is a hybrid vehicle and strategy game developed and published by Rage Software for Microsoft Windows. It was inspired by Carrier Command (Realtime Games, 1988). It has won several awards and one unofficial award from Rock Paper Shotgun as a "lost classic" or "The best game you've never played". == Plot == Hostile Waters takes place in a Utopian future where war has been abolished. In the year 2012, a revolutionary war takes place between the corrupt and power-hungry politicians, leaders and businessmen (described as the "Old Guard") and the people. The Old Guard were defeated, with only a few of their leaders escaping. By 2032, the world has been rebuilt as a utopia, with the help of nano-technological assemblers, which are used in "creation engines" to create matter from energy and waste, for free. The newly united world is governed from a capital city known as Central. Missile attacks are suddenly launched against major cities all over the world from an unknown location. This is eventually discovered to be an island chain in the South Pacific Ocean. A response to the missile attacks was a special forces team sent in to investigate the area for preliminary investigations. The Ministry of Intelligence (MinIntel) loses contact with it shortly thereafter. The world government authorises a reactivation of the Antaeus program, a series of warships able to create any weapon of their choosing using their on-board nano-technological creation engine. Two of these were left on the seabed in the case of an emergency, capable of being re-activated and refloating itself. On board are a series of "soulcatcher" chips, a classified 1990s military program researched into for the storage of human brain functions on a silicon chip. The soulcatcher technology was used to store the minds of every crew member ever assigned to an Antaeus vessel. It is soon discovered that one of the cruisers does not respond to the awakening signal. The other cruiser, however, is refloated and re-activated, with heavy damage to vital ship components. A course is plotted for a nearby disused wet-dock. As the Antaeus progresses from the wet-dock, unusual biological life-forms are discovered amongst the enemy bases on the islands. The identity of the aggressor firing the missiles is confirmed as the leftovers of the old, pre-Central forces, known as the Cabal. Outnumbering Central's army a thousand to one, they are fighting with thousands of troops and weapons that they hid away when it was apparent that the war was lost. The Antaeus is deployed into the chicane to stop the Cabal's operations there. It's later discovered that along with their superior numbers, they have also biologically engineered a species of organic machines, designed in the popular likeness of extraterrestrials, which they intend to use to create the fear of an alien invasion, to facilitate their taking over the world and the removal of the public use of creation engines. The Cabal later lose control of the species, which eventually turns on its masters, destroying them. The species starts spreading, modifying the planetary climate and geographical features in an attempt to exterminate humanity and make the planet more hospitable to itself. Having exterminated its creators, the species resolves to cleanse humanity as a whole from the planet using a massive 'disassembler cannon', only to be stopped by the Antaeus. The species subsequently attempts to flee into the cosmos and colonise the surrounding planets and stars, by launching a massive number of 'culture stones' (information devices that also double as creation engines) into space from an enormous, artificially-grown organic "island", the final staging point. Central's only option is to bind the Antaeus' creation engine and the disassembler cannon stolen from the aliens together to create a makeshift bomb, and detonate it at the central "column" containing the culture stones. The plan succeeds, and the Antaeus is sacrificed to save the world. The final cinematic show the organic disassembler cannon and the Antaeus' creation engine moving closer together and fusing, creating something new. A post-credits scene also shows that two of the species' culture stones have managed to get into space. == Gameplay == Each Mission takes place on and or near a fortified enemy island containing various forms of anti-air and ground defence, with scattered unit-production complexes powered by oil-derricks and fuel containers (which are dependent on the oil-derricks) that the player can destroy to keep the enemy from replacing destroyed forces. Vehicles are built on the Antaeus and, if desired, land vehicles can be delivered to a location by the air-lifting "magpie". Units are created by providing Antaeus with a number of resources which are obtained at the beginning of the level and debris which are taken from destroyed enemy units and structures. Transport helicopters such as the "Pegasus" can fly to an object and airlift it to the ship-board recycling system with little resources required. The carrier can analyse objects it disassembles at the rear of the Antaeus cruiser, and several of the game's vehicles and items are unlocked by "sampling" them in this fashion. The game has a number of vehicles that are progressively unlocked as the missions progress. Vehicles contain a number of slots for equipment and a selection of different types of weapons to use in the vehicle. A variety of vehicle equipment combinations can be designed. Vehicles have an individual damage multiplier such that different vehicles with the same weapon will do different damage. In addition to this, each soul-chip personality specializes in one unit along with specific equipment, which, if equipped will gain them a bonus in efficiency. == Development == The game was developed by 12 people. == Reception == The game received "favourable" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic. Carla Harker of NextGen said, "You'll feel like a real battlefield general when you take to the field in Antaeus Rising." Jake The Snake of GamePro said, "If the usual game categories leave you unscathed, get bloodied in these Hostile Waters."
Read more →
Vismon

Vismon was the Bell Labs system which displayed authors' faces on one of their internal e-mail systems. The name was a pun on the sysmon program used at Bell to show the load on computer systems. It can also be interpreted as "visual monitor". The system inspired Rich Burridge to develop the similar but more widespread faces system, which spread with Unix distributions in the 1980s. This in turn inspired Steve Kinzler to develop the Picons, or personal icons, which have the goal of offering symbols and other images, as well as faces, to represent individuals and institutions in email messages. Other systems such as the faces available on the LAN email functions of the NeXTSTEP platform also seem to have been influenced by the original Vismon capabilities. The faces program in Plan 9 is the direct descendant of this system. Vismon was the work of Rob Pike and Dave Presotto. It was based on some early experiments by Luca Cardelli. Many other scientists and engineers of the Computing Science Research Center of the Murray Hill facility were also involved. All had been spurred by the introduction in 1983 of the new Blit graphics terminal developed by Pike and Bart Locanthi and marketed by Teletype Corporation of Skokie, Illinois as the DMD 5620. Pike was eager, along with his colleagues, to exploit the new graphic capabilities. Pike and company went around their Center, convincing everybody, from directors and administrative assistants to engineers and scientists, to pose as they got out a 4×5 view camera with a Polaroid back and took black-and-white photos (Polaroid type 52) of their faces. Their efforts yielded nearly 100 faces, which they digitised with a scanner from graphics colleagues. They wrote several programs to transform the faces, store them and serve them on several machines at the lab. As time went by, they added faces from outside their Center and outside Bell Labs. This database also led to the pico image editor (originally named zunk) which was used for image transformations, many of them with colleagues as the preferred target. The first programs built around vismon were used to announce incoming mail in a dedicated window, using the 48 by 48 pixel faces. Later on the faces were also used to decorate line printer banners.
Read more →
Imagen (text-to-image model)

Imagen is a series of text-to-image models developed by Google DeepMind. They were developed by Google Brain until the company's merger with DeepMind in April 2023. Imagen is primarily used to generate images from text prompts, similar to Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, OpenAI's DALL-E, or Midjourney. The original version of the model was first discussed in a paper from May 2022. The tool produces high-quality images and is available to all users with a Google account through services including Gemini, ImageFX, and Vertex AI. == History == Imagen's original version was first presented in a paper published in May 2022. It featured the ability to generate high-fidelity images from natural language. The second version, Imagen 2 was released in December 2023. The standout feature was text and logo generation. Imagen 3 was released in August 2024. Google claims that the newest version provides better detail and lighting on generated images. On 20 May 2025 at Google I/O 2025 the company released an improved model, Imagen 4. == Technology == Imagen uses two key technologies. The first is the use of transformer-based large language models, notably T5, to understand text and subsequently encode text for image synthesis. The second is the use of cascaded diffusion models providing high-fidelity image generation. Imagen generates image in three stages, starting from a base of 64x64, then upsampled to 256x256 and 1024x1024. Imagen 4 generates image up to 2k. == Capabilities == Imagen can generate photorealistic images from text prompts. It can also create various styles, such as cinematic, 35mm film, illustration, and surreal. Like most text-to-image generative AI models, Imagen has difficulty rendering human fingers, text, ambigrams and other forms of typography. The model can generate images in five aspect ratios, namely 9:16, 3:4, 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9. Imagen can also refine already generated images by editing existing text prompts.
Read more →
BL (logic)

In mathematical logic, basic fuzzy logic (or shortly BL), the logic of the continuous t-norms, is one of the t-norm fuzzy logics. It belongs to the broader class of substructural logics, or logics of residuated lattices; it extends the logic MTL of all left-continuous t-norms. == Syntax == === Language === The language of the propositional logic BL consists of countably many propositional variables and the following primitive logical connectives: Implication → {\displaystyle \rightarrow } (binary) Strong conjunction ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } (binary). The sign & is a more traditional notation for strong conjunction in the literature on fuzzy logic, while the notation ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } follows the tradition of substructural logics. Bottom ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } (nullary — a propositional constant); 0 {\displaystyle 0} or 0 ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {0}}} are common alternative signs and zero a common alternative name for the propositional constant (as the constants bottom and zero of substructural logics coincide in MTL). The following are the most common defined logical connectives: Weak conjunction ∧ {\displaystyle \wedge } (binary), also called lattice conjunction (as it is always realized by the lattice operation of meet in algebraic semantics). Unlike MTL and weaker substructural logics, weak conjunction is definable in BL as A ∧ B ≡ A ⊗ ( A → B ) {\displaystyle A\wedge B\equiv A\otimes (A\rightarrow B)} Negation ¬ {\displaystyle \neg } (unary), defined as ¬ A ≡ A → ⊥ {\displaystyle \neg A\equiv A\rightarrow \bot } Equivalence ↔ {\displaystyle \leftrightarrow } (binary), defined as A ↔ B ≡ ( A → B ) ∧ ( B → A ) {\displaystyle A\leftrightarrow B\equiv (A\rightarrow B)\wedge (B\rightarrow A)} As in MTL, the definition is equivalent to ( A → B ) ⊗ ( B → A ) . {\displaystyle (A\rightarrow B)\otimes (B\rightarrow A).} (Weak) disjunction ∨ {\displaystyle \vee } (binary), also called lattice disjunction (as it is always realized by the lattice operation of join in algebraic semantics), defined as A ∨ B ≡ ( ( A → B ) → B ) ∧ ( ( B → A ) → A ) {\displaystyle A\vee B\equiv ((A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow B)\wedge ((B\rightarrow A)\rightarrow A)} Top ⊤ {\displaystyle \top } (nullary), also called one and denoted by 1 {\displaystyle 1} or 1 ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {1}}} (as the constants top and zero of substructural logics coincide in MTL), defined as ⊤ ≡ ⊥ → ⊥ {\displaystyle \top \equiv \bot \rightarrow \bot } Well-formed formulae of BL are defined as usual in propositional logics. In order to save parentheses, it is common to use the following order of precedence: Unary connectives (bind most closely) Binary connectives other than implication and equivalence Implication and equivalence (bind most loosely) === Axioms === A Hilbert-style deduction system for BL has been introduced by Petr Hájek (1998). Its single derivation rule is modus ponens: from A {\displaystyle A} and A → B {\displaystyle A\rightarrow B} derive B . {\displaystyle B.} The following are its axiom schemata: ( B L 1 ) : ( A → B ) → ( ( B → C ) → ( A → C ) ) ( B L 2 ) : A ⊗ B → A ( B L 3 ) : A ⊗ B → B ⊗ A ( B L 4 ) : A ⊗ ( A → B ) → B ⊗ ( B → A ) ( B L 5 a ) : ( A → ( B → C ) ) → ( A ⊗ B → C ) ( B L 5 b ) : ( A ⊗ B → C ) → ( A → ( B → C ) ) ( B L 6 ) : ( ( A → B ) → C ) → ( ( ( B → A ) → C ) → C ) ( B L 7 ) : ⊥ → A {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\rm {(BL1)}}\colon &(A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow ((B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (A\rightarrow C))\\{\rm {(BL2)}}\colon &A\otimes B\rightarrow A\\{\rm {(BL3)}}\colon &A\otimes B\rightarrow B\otimes A\\{\rm {(BL4)}}\colon &A\otimes (A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow B\otimes (B\rightarrow A)\\{\rm {(BL5a)}}\colon &(A\rightarrow (B\rightarrow C))\rightarrow (A\otimes B\rightarrow C)\\{\rm {(BL5b)}}\colon &(A\otimes B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (A\rightarrow (B\rightarrow C))\\{\rm {(BL6)}}\colon &((A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (((B\rightarrow A)\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C)\\{\rm {(BL7)}}\colon &\bot \rightarrow A\end{array}}} The axioms (BL2) and (BL3) of the original axiomatic system were shown to be redundant (Chvalovský, 2012) and (Cintula, 2005). All the other axioms were shown to be independent (Chvalovský, 2012). == Semantics == Like in other propositional t-norm fuzzy logics, algebraic semantics is predominantly used for BL, with three main classes of algebras with respect to which the logic is complete: General semantics, formed of all BL-algebras — that is, all algebras for which the logic is sound Linear semantics, formed of all linear BL-algebras — that is, all BL-algebras whose lattice order is linear Standard semantics, formed of all standard BL-algebras — that is, all BL-algebras whose lattice reduct is the real unit interval [0, 1] with the usual order; they are uniquely determined by the function that interprets strong conjunction, which can be any continuous t-norm.
Read more →