Best Free AI Image Generator

Best Free AI Image Generator — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  North Atlantic Population Project

  The North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) is a collaboration of historical demographers in Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to produce a massive census microdata collection for the North Atlantic Region in the late-nineteenth century. The database includes complete individual-level census enumerations for each country, and provides information on over 110 million people. This large scale allows detailed analysis of small geographic areas and population subgroups. The NAPP database is designed to be compatible with the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), and is disseminated through the IPUMS data-access system at the Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota. Major collaborators on the project include Lisa Dillon, University of Montreal; Chad Gaffield, University of Ottawa; Ólöf Garðarsdóttir, Statistics Iceland; Marianne Jarnes Erikstad, University of Tromsø; Jan Oldervall University of Bergen; Evan Roberts, University of Minnesota; Steven Ruggles, University of Minnesota; Kevin Schürer, UK Data Archive; Gunnar Thorvaldsen, University of Tromsø; and Matthew Woollard, UK Data Archive. The project is also coordinated by the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota.

  Read more →
• 

  Shakey the robot

  Shakey the Robot was the first general-purpose mobile robot able to reason about its own actions. While other robots would have to be instructed on each individual step of completing a larger task, Shakey could analyze commands and break them down into basic chunks by itself. Due to its nature, the project combined research in robotics, computer vision, and natural language processing. Because of this, it was the first project that melded logical reasoning and physical action. Shakey was developed at the Artificial Intelligence Center of Stanford Research Institute (now called SRI International). Some of the most notable results of the project include the A search algorithm, the Hough transform, and the visibility graph method. == History == Shakey was developed from approximately 1966 through 1972 with Charles Rosen, Nils Nilsson and Peter Hart as project managers. Other major contributors included Alfred Brain, Sven Wahlstrom, Bertram Raphael, Richard Duda, Richard Fikes, Thomas Garvey, Helen Chan Wolf and Michael Wilber. The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) based on a SRI proposal submitted in April 1964 for research in "Intelligent Automata", later "Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance". It was originally designed to have two retractable arms. Now retired from active duty, Shakey is currently on view in a glass display case at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. The project inspired numerous other robotics projects, most notably the Centibots. == Software == The robot's programming was primarily done in LISP. The Stanford Research Institute Problem Solver (STRIPS) planner it used was conceived as the main planning component for the software it utilized. As the first robot that was a logical, goal-based agent, Shakey experienced a limited world. A version of Shakey's world could contain a number of rooms connected by corridors, with doors and light switches available for the robot to interact with. Shakey had a short list of available actions within its planner. These actions involved traveling from one location to another, turning the light switches on and off, opening and closing the doors, climbing up and down from rigid objects, and pushing movable objects around. The STRIPS automated planner could devise a plan to enact all the available actions, even though Shakey himself did not have the capability to execute all the actions within the plan personally. An example mission for Shakey might be something like, an operator types the command "push the block off the platform" at a computer console. Shakey looks around, identifies a platform with a block on it, and locates a ramp in order to reach the platform. Shakey then pushes the ramp over to the platform, rolls up the ramp onto the platform, and pushes the block off the platform. == Hardware == Physically, the robot was particularly tall, and had an antenna for a radio link, sonar range finders, a television camera, on-board processors, and collision detection sensors ("bump detectors"). The robot's tall stature and tendency to shake resulted in its name: We worked for a month trying to find a good name for it, ranging from Greek names to whatnot, and then one of us said, 'Hey, it shakes like hell and moves around, let’s just call it Shakey.' == Research results == The development of Shakey provided far-reaching impact on the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as computer science in general. Some of the more notable results include the development of the A search algorithm, which is widely used in pathfinding and graph traversal, the process of plotting an efficiently traversable path between points; the Hough transform, which is a feature extraction technique used in image analysis, computer vision, and digital image processing; and the visibility graph method for finding Euclidean shortest paths among obstacles in the plane. == Media and awards == In 1969 the SRI published "SHAKEY: Experimentation in Robot Learning and Planning", a 24-minute video. The project then received media attention. This included an article in the New York Times on April 10, 1969. In 1970, Life referred to Shakey as the "first electronic person"; and in November 1970 National Geographic Magazine covered Shakey and the future of computers. The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's AI Video Competition's awards are named "Shakeys" because of the significant impact of the 1969 video. Shakey was inducted into Carnegie Mellon University's Robot Hall of Fame in 2004 alongside such notables as ASIMO and C-3PO. Shakey has been honored with an IEEE Milestone in Electrical Engineering and Computing. Shakey was showcased in the BBC's Towards Tomorrow: Robot (1967) documentary.

  Read more →
• 

  Instantaneously trained neural networks

  Instantaneously trained neural networks are feedforward artificial neural networks that create a new hidden neuron node for each novel training sample. The weights to this hidden neuron separate out not only this training sample but others that are near it, thus providing generalization. This separation is done using the nearest hyperplane that can be written down instantaneously. In the two most important implementations the neighborhood of generalization either varies with the training sample (CC1 network) or remains constant (CC4 network). These networks use unary coding for an effective representation of the data sets. This type of network was first proposed in a 1993 paper of Subhash Kak. Since then, instantaneously trained neural networks have been proposed as models of short term learning and used in web search, and financial time series prediction applications. They have also been used in instant classification of documents and for deep learning and data mining. As in other neural networks, their normal use is as software, but they have also been implemented in hardware using FPGAs and by optical implementation. == CC4 network == In the CC4 network, which is a three-stage network, the number of input nodes is one more than the size of the training vector, with the extra node serving as the biasing node whose input is always 1. For binary input vectors, the weights from the input nodes to the hidden neuron (say of index j) corresponding to the trained vector is given by the following formula: w i j = { − 1 , for x i = 0 + 1 , for x i = 1 r − s + 1 , for i = n + 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}={\begin{cases}-1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=0\\+1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=1\\r-s+1,&{\mbox{for }}i=n+1\end{cases}}} where r {\displaystyle r} is the radius of generalization and s {\displaystyle s} is the Hamming weight (the number of 1s) of the binary sequence. From the hidden layer to the output layer the weights are 1 or -1 depending on whether the vector belongs to a given output class or not. The neurons in the hidden and output layers output 1 if the weighted sum to the input is 0 or positive and 0, if the weighted sum to the input is negative: y = { 1 if ∑ x i ≥ 0 0 if ∑ x i < 0 {\displaystyle y=\left\{{\begin{matrix}1&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}\geq 0\\0&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}<0\end{matrix}}\right.} == Other networks == The CC4 network has also been modified to include non-binary input with varying radii of generalization so that it effectively provides a CC1 implementation. In feedback networks the Willshaw network as well as the Hopfield network are able to learn instantaneously.

  Read more →
• 

  Information Coding Classification

  The Information Coding Classification (ICC) is a classification system covering almost all extant 6500 knowledge fields (knowledge domains). Its conceptualization goes beyond the scope of the well known library classification systems, such as Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Library of Congress Classification (LCC), by extending also to knowledge systems that so far have not afforded to classify literature. ICC actually presents a flexible universal ordering system for both literature and other kinds of information, set out as knowledge fields. From a methodological point of view, ICC differs from the above-mentioned systems along the following three lines: Its main classes are not based on disciplines but on nine live stages of development, so-called ontical levels. It breaks them roughly down into hierarchical steps by further nine categories which makes decimal number coding possible. The contents of a knowledge field is earmarked via a digital position scheme, which makes the first hierarchical step refer to the nine ontical levels (object areas as subject categories), and the second hierarchical step refer to nine functionally ordered form categories. Respective knowledge fields permit to step down by the same principle to a third and forth level, and even further to a fifth and sixth level. Finally, knowledge field subdivisions will have to conform to said digital position scheme. Hence, for a given knowledge field identical codes will mark identical categories under respective numbers of the coding system. This mnemotechnical aspect of the system helps memorizing and straightaway retrieving the whereabouts of respective interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary fields. The first two hierarchical levels may be regarded as a top- or upper ontology for ontologies and other applications. The terms of the first three hierarchical levels were set out in German and English in Wissensorganisation. Entwicklung, Aufgabe, Anwendung, Zukunft, on pp. 82 to 100. It was published in 2014 and available so far only in German. In the meantime, also the French terms of the knowledge fields have been collected. Competence for maintenance and further development rests with the German Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) e.V. == Historical development == At the end of 1970, Prof. Alwin Diemer, Univ.of Düsseldorf proposed to Ingetraut Dahlberg to undertake a philosophical dissertation on The universal classification system of knowledge, its ontological, epistemological, and information theoretical foundations. Diemer had in mind an innovating ontological approach for such a system based on the whole spectrum of kinds of being and complying with epistemological requirements. The third requirement had already been taken up somehow in the Indian Colon Classification, yet it still called for explanations and additions. In 1974, the dissertation was published in German entitled Grundlagen universaler Wissensordnung. It started with conceptual clarifications, and why and how the term „universal“ was linked to knowledge, including knowledge fields, such as commodity science, artefacts, statistics, patents, standardization, communication, utility services et al. In chapter 3, six universal classification systems (DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, CC and BBK) were presented, analyzed and compared. While preparing the dissertation, Dahlberg started with elaborating the new universal system by first gleaning a lot of extant designations of knowledge fields from whatever available reference works. This was funded by the German Documentation Society (DGD) (1971-2) under the title of Order system of knowledge fields. In addition, the syllabuses of German universities and polytechniques were explored for relevant terms and documented (1975). Thereafter, it seemed necessary to add definitions from special dictionaries and encyclopediae; it soon appeared that the 12.500 terms included numerous synonyms, so that the whole collection boiled down to about 6.500 concept designations (Project Logstruktur, supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) 1976-78). The outcome of this work was the formulation of 30 theses which ended up in 12 principles for the new system, published 40 years later under. These principles refer not only to theoretical foundations but also to structure and other organizational aspects of the whole array of knowledge fields. In 1974, the digital position scheme for field subdivision had already been developed to allow for classifying classification literature in the bibliographical section of the first issue of the Journal International Classification. In 1977, the entire ICC was ready for presentation at a seminar in Bangalore, India. A publication of the first three hierarchical levels appeared however only in 1982. It was applied to the bibliography of classification systems and thesauri in vol.1 of the International Classification and Indexing Bibliography; it has been updated. == Governing principles == These were published in full length in the book Wissensorganisation. Entwicklung, Aufgabe, Anwendung, Zukunft and the article Information Coding Classification. Geschichtliches, Prinzipien, Inhaltliches, hence it suffices to just mention their topics with some necessary additions. Principle 1: Concept theoretical approaches. Concepts are the contents of ICC, they are understood as being units of knowledge. The „birth“ of a concept. Where do the characteristics, the knowledge elements come from? How do conceptual relations arise? Principle 2: The four kinds of concept relations and their applications. Principle 3: Decimal numbers form the ICC codes as its universal language. Principle 4: The nine ontical levels of ICC. They were grouped under three captions: Prolegomena (1-3), life sciences (4-6) and human output (7-9): Structure and form Matter and energy Cosmos and earth Biosphere Anthroposphere Sociosphere Material products (economics and technology) Intellectual products (knowledge and information) Spiritual products (products of mind and culture) Principle 5: Knowledge fields are structured by categories, based on the Aristotelian form-categories, under a digital position scheme, a kind of scaling rule for subdividing a given field as follows: General area: problems, theories, principles (axiom and structure) Object area: objects, kinds, parts, properties of objects Activity area: methods, processes, activities Field properties or first characterization Persons or secondary characterization Societies or tertiary characterization Influences from outside Applications of the field to other fields Field information and synthesizing tasks The digital position scheme, called Systematifier, has also been used for structuring the entire system via the categories figuring on the upper zero level. An example of its application is the structure of the classification system for knowledge organization literature Gliederung der Klassifikationsliteratur. (A simplified version with an additional introduction is given in, p. 71) Principle 6: The ontical levels outlined under principle 4 conform to the „integrative level theory“ which means that every level is integrated in the following one. In addition, each knowledge area presumes the following one. Principle 7: The combination potential of knowledge fields (interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity)is determined by the digital position scheme. (Examples are given in, p. 103-4) Principle 8: The categories of the zero-level are general concepts, their possible subdivisions could once be used for classificatory statements. (These subdivisions still need elaboration) Principle 9 and 10: These relate to the combination potential of classificatory statements with space and time concepts. (Still to be elaborated) Principle 11: The system's mnemotechnical aspect relies on the fixed system position codes and on the 3x3 form- and subject-categories. Principle 12: The combination potential of system position 1, 8 and 9 make ICC to a self-networking system which complies with the present scientific development. == In matrix form == The first two levels of ICC can be represented by following matrix. The first hierarchical level of the 9 subject categories results from the first vertical array under codes 1-9. The second hierarchical level of subject categories is structured by the 9 functionally ordered form categories, listed in the first horizontal line under codes 01-09. Some exceptions are mentioned in principle 7. == Research == === Exploration of automatic classification === For classifying web documents as conceived by Jens Hartmann, University of Karlsruhe, Prof.Walter Koch, University of Graz, has explored in his Institute for Applied Information Technology Research Society (AIT) the application of ICC to automatically classifying metadata of some 350.000 documents. This was facilitated by data generated within the framework of an E

  Read more →
• 

  Stereo cameras

  The stereo cameras approach is a method of distilling a noisy video signal into a coherent data set that a computer can begin to process into actionable symbolic objects, or abstractions. Stereo cameras is one of many approaches used in the broader fields of computer vision and machine vision. == Calculation == In this approach, two cameras with a known physical relationship (i.e. a common field of view the cameras can see, and how far apart their focal points sit in physical space) are correlated via software. By finding mappings of common pixel values, and calculating how far apart these common areas reside in pixel space, a rough depth map can be created. This is very similar to how the human brain uses stereoscopic information from the eyes to gain depth cue information, i.e. how far apart any given object in the scene is from the viewer. The camera attributes must be known, focal length and distance apart etc., and a calibration done. Once this is completed, the systems can be used to sense the distances of objects by triangulation. Finding the same singular physical point in the two left and right images is known as the correspondence problem. Correctly locating the point gives the computer the capability to calculate the distance that the robot or camera is from the object. On the BH2 Lunar Rover the cameras use five steps: a bayer array filter, photometric consistency dense matching algorithm, a Laplace of Gaussian (LoG) edge detection algorithm, a stereo matching algorithm and finally uniqueness constraint. == Uses == This type of stereoscopic image processing technique is used in applications such as 3D reconstruction, robotic control and sensing, crowd dynamics monitoring and off-planet terrestrial rovers; for example, in mobile robot navigation, tracking, gesture recognition, targeting, 3D surface visualization, immersive and interactive gaming. Although the Xbox Kinect sensor is also able to create a depth map of an image, it uses an infrared camera for this purpose, and does not use the dual-camera technique. Other approaches to stereoscopic sensing include time of flight sensors and ultrasound.

  Read more →
• 

  No Fakes Act

  The NO FAKES Act or the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, is proposed United States federal legislation concerning digital replicas. The bill was first introduced in 2023 as a discussion draft, formally introduced in 2024, and reintroduced in 2025. If enacted, the bill would establish a federal right of publicity, giving public figures and private individuals greater control over the creation and use of digital replicas of their likenesses, including artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content. If passed, the NO FAKES Act would create a legal framework for licensing digital replicas, including provisions for liability, safe harbors, and statutory exceptions. The proposal has received broad support from the entertainment and technology industries. However, digital rights organizations have raised concerns that the Act risks chilling protected speech. == Background == === Entertainment industry concerns === Actors’ concerns over studios' use of their digital likeness were one of the primary drivers of the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strike in 2023. Negotiators for SAG-AFTRA alleged that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) sought to use the digital likenesses of actors in perpetuity and would try to replace union members, especially background actors. The AMPTP denied SAG-AFTRA's interpretation of its proposal. In November 2023, AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA reached an agreement on the use of actors’ digital replicas, which included requirements for consent and compensation. Recording labels have also expressed concerns over unauthorized digital replicas of their performers' likeness. In 2023, TikTok user Ghostwriter977 released "Heart on My Sleeve," an AI-produced song in the styles of Drake and the Weeknd. After the song received millions of streams, the Universal Music Group (UMG) initiated takedown requests to TikTok and YouTube, which removed the song from their platforms. The legal arguments attorneys made were not disclosed; however, commentators noted that they likely used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This presented a novel scenario, since UMG did not have licensing rights to "Heart on My Sleeve." According to The Verge, UMG based its DMCA takedown request on an unauthorized sample used at the start of the song for the producer tag. While legal commentators noted that UMG could have asserted a violation of the artists’ rights of publicity, existing state right of publicity laws do not provide notice-and-takedown mechanisms comparable to those under the DMCA. === Legal landscape === Legal scholars have observed that AI-generated digital replicas raise questions under existing copyright and intellectual property law. U.S. copyright law generally requires that original authorship be attributable to a human; however, the extent of human intervention needed to satisfy this requirement is not clear. Copyright holders have filed lawsuits against AI companies alleging unauthorized usage of copyrighted material to train their models, though many of these cases remain pending. In terms of outputs, record labels often hold rights to artists’ musical works but do not necessarily control the artists’ voice, appearance, or likeness in the same way. As a result, AI-generated recordings such as "Heart on My Sleeve" may fall outside the scope of certain traditional copyright protections. Individuals' likenesses have historically been governed under the Lanham Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and right of publicity laws. The right of publicity, recognized in many state-level statutes and common law, allows individuals to bring legal claims against unauthorized commercial use of their identities. It has often, but not exclusively, been applied to celebrities or other recognizable individuals. There is no federal-level right to publicity, and state-level protections vary, especially on issues relating to digital replicas and posthumous rights, which makes it difficult for creators or other individuals to prevent unauthorized use of their likenesses. In July 2024, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report on digital replicas and recommended that Congress create a federal law to protect individuals from unauthorized uses of their digital replicas, noting the inadequacy, narrowness, and inconsistency of existing laws. == Provisions == Under the NO FAKES Act of 2025, a digital replica is defined as "a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual," living or dead. A digital replica can be embodied in sound recordings, images, or audiovisual works in which the individual did not perform or in which the individual did perform but the "fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered." The Act specifies that digital replicas do not include reproduced samples of works authorized by the copyright holder. The Act defines a "right holder" as either the individual who is the subject of a digital replica or an entity that has acquired the rights to that individual’s likeness. The Act grants right holders the exclusive right to authorize the use of an individual’s likeness in a digital replica. This right is not assignable during the individual’s lifetime; however, it can be licensed to a living individual for up to 10 years under certain conditions. Postmortem rights The Act provides that the right does not automatically expire upon an individual’s death. It may be transferred to executors, heirs, or other parties designated by the individual. The right is held by the right holder for 10 years following the individual’s death. If the right holder demonstrates active use of the digital replica within the 2 years preceding the end of the 10-year term, the right may be extended for an additional 5-year period. These five-year extensions may be renewed for up to 70 years after the individual’s death. Liability The Act establishes liability for individuals who knowingly distribute a digital replica without authorization from the right holder, as well as for entities that make available a service primarily designed to produce unlawful digital replicas. Safe harbor provisions Similar to the Communications Decency Act and the DMCA, the Act establishes safe harbor provisions for online service providers. Providers are shielded from liability if they adopt and inform users of a policy for terminating accounts that repeatedly violate the Act. The NO FAKES Act does not require online services to proactively monitor content. Instead, it creates a notice-and-takedown mechanism under which providers must promptly respond to notifications seeking the removal of unauthorized digital replicas. These safe harbor protections apply only if the online service provider designates an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to receive notifications of alleged violations. Remedies The NO FAKES Act provides remedies that are similar to those available under U.S. copyright law. Under the Act, individuals may be held liable for either statutory damages of $5,000 or actual damages for creating or distributing an unauthorized digital replica. The legislation also establishes a tiered liability framework for online service providers. Those that make good faith efforts to comply with the Act may face statutory damages of up to $25,000 per work for violations or actual damages. Providers that do not undertake such compliance efforts may be liable for $5,000 per unauthorized display or transmission of a digital replica, with damages capped at $750,000 per work. Exclusions The Act includes several exceptions to liability that are modeled in part on fair use principles. Digital replicas are excluded from liability when "used in a bona fide news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account;" in a documentary or historical context; or in a way that is "consistent with the public interest." These exclusions do not apply to de minimis uses or to digital replicas that are sexually explicit in nature. The Act further states that licensing requirements do not apply to licenses established through collective bargaining agreements that contain provisions governing the use of digital replicas. The Act does not impose secondary liability on providers of generative artificial intelligence tools or services whose primary purpose is not the creation of unauthorized digital replicas. Preemption The NO FAKES Act preempts laws that protect "an individual's voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica, as defined in this Act, in an expressive work." However, the Act preserves state laws governing digital replicas enacted before January 2, 2025, as well as state laws addressing digital replicas that portray sexually explicit conduct. == History == In 2023, Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Amy Klobuchar, and Th

  Read more →
• 

  Jailbreak (computer science)

  In computer security, jailbreaking is defined as the act of removing limitations that a vendor attempted to hard-code or hard-wire into its hardware and/or software. It is a form of privilege escalation. The term may have originated with the use of toolsets to break out of a chroot or jail in UNIX-like operating systems. This allowed the user to see files outside of the file system that the administrator intended to make available to the application or user in question. The term was first used in its modern meaning in the iPhone/iOS jailbreaking community and has also been used as a term for PlayStation Portable hacking; these devices have repeatedly been subject to jailbreaks, allowing the execution of arbitrary code, and sometimes have had those jailbreaks disabled by vendor updates, especially in the case of iOS devices. == iOS jailbreaking == iOS systems including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch have been subject to iOS jailbreaking efforts since they were released, and continuing with each firmware update. iOS jailbreaking tools have included the option to install package frontends such as Cydia and Installer.app, third-party alternatives to the App Store, as a way to find and install system tweaks and binaries. To prevent iOS jailbreaking, Apple has made the device boot ROM execute checks for SHSH blobs in order to disallow uploads of custom kernels and prevent software downgrades to earlier, jailbreakable firmware. In an "untethered" jailbreak, the iBoot environment is changed to execute a boot ROM exploit and allow submission of a patched low level bootloader or hack the kernel to submit the jailbroken kernel after the SHSH check. == Other phones == A similar method of jailbreaking exists for S60 Platform smartphones, where utilities such as HelloOX allow the execution of unsigned code and full access to system files. or edited firmware (similar to the M33 hacked firmware used for the PlayStation Portable) to circumvent restrictions on unsigned code. Nokia has since issued updates to curb unauthorized jailbreaking, in a manner similar to Apple. Rooting is the equivalent concept for Android phones and other devices. == Console jailbreaking == In the case of gaming consoles, jailbreaking is often used to execute homebrew games. In 2011, Sony, with assistance from law firm Kilpatrick Stockton, sued 21-year-old George Hotz and associates of the group fail0verflow for jailbreaking the PlayStation 3 (see Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz and PlayStation Jailbreak). == AI jailbreaks == Jailbreaking can also occur in systems and software that use generative artificial intelligence models, such as ChatGPT. In jailbreaking attacks on artificial intelligence systems, users are able to manipulate the system to behave differently than it was intended, making it possible to reveal information about how the model was instructed by the vendor (the "system prompt") or to induce it to respond in an anomalous or harmful way. These attacks typically simply require prompting the AIs with specific phrasal templates - no software is typically required, although software could theoretically be used to "industrialise" such exploits, and some research has been done in this direction. In 2024, a consortium of AI firms founded HackAPrompt.com, a competition to encourage users to find new and effective AI jailbreaking techniques. These and other findings from "ethical hackers" have been used by AI model providers to try to improve AI safety.

  Read more →
• 

  Historical Thesaurus of English

  The Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE) is the largest thesaurus in the world. It is called a historical thesaurus as it arranges the whole vocabulary of English, from the earliest written records in Old English to the present, according to the first documented occurrence of a word in the entire history of the English language. The HTE was conceived and begun in 1965 by the English Language & Linguistics department of the University of Glasgow, who have ever since continued to compile the thesaurus. From the 1980s onwards the project was moved from paper-based records to a computer database. Today, the HTE is available to the public online, but a print version, the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (HTOED), was published in 2009. == Main project: The Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE) == The Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE) is a complete database of all the words in the Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries (including Old English), arranged by semantic field and date. In this way, the HTE arranges the whole vocabulary of English, from the earliest written records in Old English to the present, alongside dates of use. It is the first historical thesaurus to be compiled for any of the world's languages and contains 800,000 meanings for 600,000 words, within 230,000 categories. As the HTE website states, "in addition to providing hitherto unavailable information for linguistic and textual scholars, the Historical Thesaurus online is a rich resource for students of social and cultural history, showing how concepts developed through the words that refer to them." === Structure === The work is divided into three main sections: the External World, the Mind, and Society. These are broken down into successively narrower domains. The text eventually discriminates more than 236,000 categories. The second order categories are: === History === The ambitious project was announced at a 1965 meeting of the Philological Society by its originator, Michael Samuels. Work on the HTE started in the same year. In 2017, the University of Glasgow was awarded the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher Education for the HTE. A second edition of the online HTE is currently in progress and is expected to be launched in late 2020. Work is released on the freely-available HTE website when available. == Print edition: Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (HTOED) == On 22 October 2009, after 44 years of work, version 1.0 of the HTE was published by Oxford University Press in a two-volume slipcased set as the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (HTOED). The two hardcover volumes together total nearly 4,500 pages.

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all in action selection

  Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.

  Read more →
• 

  Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

  Various observers have predicted the end of Wikipedia since it rose to prominence, with potential pitfalls from lack of quality-control, artificial intelligence or inconsistencies among contributors. Alternative online encyclopedias have been proposed as replacements for Wikipedia, including WolframAlpha, as well as the both now-defunct Knol (from Google) and Owl (from AOL). A 2013 review raised alarms regarding Wikipedia's shortcomings on hoaxes, on vandalism, an imbalance of material, and inadequate quality control of articles. Earlier critiques lamented the vulgar content and absence of sufficient references in articles. Others suggest that the unwarranted deletion of useful articles from Wikipedia may portend its end, which itself inspired the creation of the now inactive Deletionpedia. Contrary to such predictions, Wikipedia has constantly grown in both size and influence. Recent developments with artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects have prompted new predictions that AI applications, which consume free and open content, will replace Wikipedia. == Personnel == Wikipedia is crowdsourced by a few million volunteer editors. Of the millions of registered editors, only tens of thousands contribute the majority of its contents, and a few thousand do quality control and maintenance work. As the encyclopedia expanded in the 2010s, the number of active editors did not grow proportionately. Various sources predicted that Wikipedia will eventually have too few editors to be functional and collapse from lack of participation. English Wikipedia has 818 volunteer administrators who perform various functions, including functions similar to those carried out by a forum moderator. Critics have described their actions as harsh, bureaucratic, biased, unfair, or capricious and predicted that the resulting outrage would lead to the site's closure. Various 2012 articles reported that a decline in English Wikipedia's recruitment of new administrators could end Wikipedia. === Decline in editors (2014–2015) === A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English) Wikipedias. It reported that in other languages, the number of "active editors" (those with at least five edits per month) has been relatively constant since 2008: some 42,000 editors, with narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. In the English Wikipedia, the number of active editors peaked in 2007 at about 50,000 editors, and fell to 30,000 editors in 2014. Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presented the number of active editors for non-English Wikipedias as remaining relatively constant, sustaining their numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in those languages to retain their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis. Though different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies, no comment identified a particular policy difference as potentially making a difference in the rate of editor attrition for English Wikipedia. Editor count showed a slight uptick a year later, and no clear trend after that. In a 2013 article, Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review said that for several years running, the number of Wikipedia editors had been falling, and cited the bureaucratic structure and rules as a factor. Simonite alleged that some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. A January 2016 article in Time by Chris Wilson said Wikipedia might lose many editors because a collaboration of occasional editors and smart software will take the lead. Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and discourages new potential contributors. Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. In 2015, Lih feared for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown feared problems with Wikipedia would remain and rival encyclopedias would not replace it. == Viewers and fundraisers == As of 2015, with more viewing by smartphones, there had been a marked decline in persons who viewed Wikipedia from their computers, and according to The Washington Post "[people are] far less likely to donate". At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation reported reserves equivalent to one year's budgeted expenditures. On the other hand, the number of paid staff had ballooned, so those expenses increased. In 2021, Andreas Kolbe, a former co-editor-in-chief of The Signpost, wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation was reaching its 10-year goal of a US$100 million endowment, five years earlier than planned, which may surprise donors and users around the world who regularly see Wikipedia fundraising banners. He also said accounting methods disguise the size of operating surpluses, top managers earn $300,000 – 400,000 a year, and over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising. == Artificial intelligence == Wikipedia faces a decline in human visitors, raising concerns about its long-term sustainability and community participation. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), when reporting this decline, attributed this in part to the lack of clicks from users of large language models and search engines that are using content from Wikipedia. Data published in August 2025 showed that after the launch of ChatGPT and the rise of other AI-powered search summaries, some types of articles on Wikipedia — especially those that closely resemble the kind of content ChatGPT produces — experienced a noticeable drop in readership. Overall human pageviews reportedly fell by about 8% between 2024 and 2025, suggesting that AI-overviews and chatbots are increasingly being used in place of direct visits to Wikipedia. According to industry web analytics data, ChatGPT's estimated monthly web traffic surpassed that of Wikipedia since May 2025, as visits to ChatGPT continued to grow while Wikipedia’s total site traffic declined. == Timeline of predictions == On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, associate professor of the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University Joseph Reagle conducted a retrospective study of numerous "predictions of the ends of Wikipedia" over two decades, divided into chronological waves: "Early growth (2001–2002)", "Nascent identity (2001–2005)", "Production model (2005–2010)", "Contributor attrition (2009–2017)" and the current period "(2020–)". Each wave brought its distinctive fatal predictions, which never came true; as a result, Reagle concluded Wikipedia was not in danger. Concern grew in 2023 that the ubiquity and proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) may adversely affect Wikipedia. Rapid improvements and widespread application of AI may render Wikipedia obsolete or reduce its importance. A 2023 study found that AI, when applied to Wikipedia, works most efficiently for error-correction, while Wikipedia still needs to be written by humans.

  Read more →
• 

  RightsCon

  RightsCon is an annual conference on digital rights hosted by Access Now. It convenes international leaders and organizations to discuss global problems including internet censorship, the regulation of algorithms, electronic surveillance, the ethics of technology, online hate speech, content moderation, cyberwarfare, and more. == History == The conference was first convened by Access (today, Access Now) in Silicon Valley in 2011, with the intention of gathering civil society to discuss impacts of the growing tech industry on digital rights and human rights. It sought the participation of leaders from both industry (including companies such as Twitter, Google, Mozilla, and Comcast) and civil society organizations (such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and New America). Keynote speakers included the then-Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner; Egyptian blogger and political prisoner, Alaa Abd El-Fattah; and then-director of public policy at Google, Bob Boorstin. RightsCon organizers have sought to ensure the event is accessible to attendees from across the globe, particularly global majority countries, informing the decision to hold the conference in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. === Online convenings === In 2020, RightsCon was to be held in San José, Costa Rica, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting took place in an online format. In 2021, the 10th edition of RightsCon was again held online from Monday, June 7 to Friday, June 11, 2021, due to the continued global COVID-19 pandemic which altered several digital rights physical meetings. The topics for RightsCon2021 included: Artificial Intelligence (AI), automation, data protection and user control, digital futures, democracy, elections, new business models, content control, peacebuilding, censorship, internet shutdowns, freedom of the media and many others were discussed by several digital rights organizations and individuals. === 2026 cancellation === The 14th RightsCon was scheduled to be held in Zambia from May 5 to 8, 2026. On April 29, 2026, the Zambian government abruptly postponed the conference, writing in a statement that the postponement was "necessitated by the need for comprehensive disclosure […] relating to key thematic issues proposed for discussion during the Summit." In May 2026, the conference was cancelled due to pressure from the Chinese government. In a statement the same day, Access Now wrote that it was "told that diplomats from the People's Republic of China (PRC) were putting pressure on the Government of Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to join us in person." == List of conferences == Past RightsCon conferences include:

  Read more →
• 

  Pax Silica

  Pax Silica is a United States-led international initiative focused on strengthening and coordinating "trusted" supply chains for advanced technologies—especially semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, logistics, and associated energy and data infrastructure. The initiative is coordinated by the US Department of State and was launched in December 2025 alongside the signing of the non-binding Pax Silica Declaration by an initial group of partner countries. The initiative describes itself as a "positive-sum" partnership intended to reduce "coercive dependencies" and improve resilience across the full technology stack, from mineral extraction and processing through chip manufacturing and computing infrastructure. US officials described Pax Silica as a framework for coordinating flagship projects and policy alignment across partner countries, including supply-chain mapping, investment and co-investment initiatives, and protection of critical infrastructure and sensitive technologies. Reuters reported discussions of projects linked to trade and logistics routes and an industrial park initiative in Israel. Gulf countries, such as the UAE and Qatar, are betting on attracting AI companies with cheap energy. Moreover, the UAE's potential to invest in Pax Silica's activities has been noted as a fundamental asset for the initiative. In early 2026, the U.S. announced plans to contribute $250M toward an investmest consortium that's intended to strengthen energy and critical mineral supply chains. == Launch and background == During the 2020s, governments increasingly treated supply-chain resilience in semiconductors, critical minerals, and AI-related computing infrastructure as a national-security priority, amid export controls, industrial policy measures, and geopolitical competition over the technologies underpinning advanced manufacturing and AI. Pax Silica was presented by US officials as an economic-security framework aimed at aligning policies and investment among "trusted partners" that host major technology firms and key industrial capacity. Pacific Forum's analyst Akhil Ramesh, writing for the National Interest magazine, described the initiative as understanding that: "economic security today is inseparable from control over energy, critical minerals, high-end manufacturing, and advanced models." On December 11, 2025, the US Department of State announced the inaugural Pax Silica Summit and a planned signing of the Pax Silica Declaration, describing Pax Silica as the Department's flagship effort on AI and supply-chain security. The initial summit was held in Washington, D.C. on December 12, 2025. The State Department fact sheet described cooperation areas including connectivity and data infrastructure, compute and semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, logistics, mineral refining and processing, and energy. == Membership == Pax Silica participation has been discussed in terms of (1) countries that have signed the declaration and (2) countries invited to summit discussions or publicly reported as prospective signatories but which had not (as of mid-January 2026) signed the declaration. === Countries that signed the Pax Silica Declaration === Seven countries signed the declaration at the December 12, 2025, summit in Washington, D.C.: Australia Israel Japan South Korea Singapore United Kingdom United States Some countries who attended the initial conversations did not immediately sign, while additional countries were invited to join after the discussions concluded. The following are the later signatory countries on the declaration: Greece Netherlands (joined December 17, 2025; "non-signing partner") Qatar (joined January 13, 2026) United Arab Emirates (joined January 14, 2026) India (joined February 20, 2026) Sweden (signed March 17, 2026) Finland (signed April 16, 2026) Philippines (signed April 17, 2026) Norway (signed May 6, 2026) === Countries invited / participating, but not yet signed === At launch, US materials and contemporaneous reporting described additional invited participants and observers, including: Canada – observer/participant in related discussions, per US briefing materials; not listed among signatories. Taiwan – participated in summit sessions according to a State Department briefing; not listed among signatories. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union were also noted by US officials as present in an observer capacity, but are not countries.

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatik

  Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.

  Read more →
• 

  Alex Krizhevsky

  Alex Krizhevsky is a Canadian computer scientist most noted for his work on artificial neural networks and deep learning. In 2012, Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever and their PhD advisor Geoffrey Hinton, at the University of Toronto, developed a powerful visual-recognition network AlexNet using only two GeForce-branded GPU cards. This revolutionized research in neural networks. Previously neural networks were trained on CPUs. The transition to GPUs opened the way to the development of advanced AI models. == AlexNet == Motivated by Sutskever and inspired by Hinton, Krizhevsky developed AlexNet to expand the limits in image recognition and classification. Building on Convolutional Neural Networks and Sutskever’s Deep Neural Network approach of deepening the neural layers far beyond the convention of the time—as well as adding Dropout for training resilience—AlexNet won the ImageNet challenge in 2012. The team presented their paper for AlexNet at NeurIPS (NIPS) 2012. Shortly after AlexNet’s debut, Krizhevsky and Sutskever sold their startup, DNN Research Inc., to Google. Krizhevsky left Google in September 2017 after losing interest in the work, to work at the company Dessa in support of new deep-learning techniques. Many of his numerous papers on machine learning and computer vision are frequently cited by other researchers. He is also the main author of the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets. == Legacy == AlexNet is widely credited with igniting the deep learning revolution. Its success demonstrated the effectiveness of deep neural networks trained on GPUs, leading to rapid progress across multiple domains of artificial intelligence beyond computer vision. The techniques and momentum generated by AlexNet helped shape the development of modern natural language processing models, including large-scale transformer-based models such as BERT and GPT, which power tools like ChatGPT.

  Read more →
• 

  Hallin's spheres

  Hallin's spheres is a theory of news reporting and its rhetorical framing posited by journalism historian Daniel C. Hallin in his 1986 book The Uncensored War to explain the news coverage of the Vietnam War. Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral. The sphere of deviance falls outside the bounds of legitimate debate, and journalists can ignore it. These boundaries shift, as public opinion shifts. Hallin's spheres, which deals with the media, are similar to the Overton window, which deals with public opinion generally, and posits a sliding scale of public opinion on any given issue ranging from conventional wisdom to unacceptable. Hallin used the concept of framing to describe the presentation and reception of issues in public. For example, framing the use of drugs as criminal activity can encourage the public to consider that behavior anti-social. Hallin's work was later referred to in the controversial formulation of the concept of an opinion corridor, in which the range of acceptable public opinion narrows, and opinion outside that corridor moves from legitimate controversy into deviance. == Description == === Sphere of consensus === This sphere contains those topics on which there is widespread agreement, or at least the perception thereof. Within the sphere of consensus, "journalists feel free to invoke a generalized 'we' and to take for granted shared values and shared assumptions". Examples include such things as motherhood and apple pie. For topics in this sphere, journalists feel free to be advocating cheerleaders without having to be neutral or present any opposing view point and be disinterested observers." === Sphere of legitimate controversy === For topics in this sphere rational and informed people hold differing views within limited range. These topics are therefore the most important to cover, and also ones upon which journalists are seemingly obliged to remain disinterested reporters, rather than advocating for or against a particular view. Schudson notes that Hallin, in his influential study of the US media during the Vietnam War, argues that journalism's commitment to objectivity has always been compartmentalized. That is, within a certain sphere—the sphere of legitimate controversy—journalists seek conscientiously to be balanced and objective. The work of Walter Williams professor at the University of Missouri, Rod Petersen, advanced the idea that priming—controlling the narratives that media covers—can be the tool that media use to get deviant news subjects into the legitimate controversial circles of new coverage. === Sphere of deviance === Topics in this sphere are rejected by journalists as being unworthy of general consideration. Such views are perceived as being out of hand, unfounded, taboo, or of such minor consequence that they are not newsworthy. Hallin argues that in the sphere of deviance, "journalists also depart from standard norms of objective reporting and feel authorized to treat as marginal, laughable, dangerous". They either avoid mentioning or ridicule the controversial subject as outside the bounds of acceptable controversy; and they censor the individuals and groups who are associated with it. A simple example: a person claiming that aliens are manipulating college basketball scores might have difficulty finding sports media coverage for such a claim. A more political example: the US media regulator FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" aimed at radio stations, advocated balance between right and left political news and opinions, yet specified that broadcasters did not have to reserve any space or time for Communist viewpoints. == Uses of the terms == Craig Watkins (2001, pp. 92–94) makes use of the Hallin's spheres in a paper examining ABC, CBS, and NBC television network television news coverage of the Million Man March, a demonstration that took place in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Watkins analyzes the dominant framing practices—problem definition, rhetorical devices, use of sources, and images—employed by journalists to make sense of this particular expression of political protest. He argues that Hallin's three spheres are a way for media framing practices to develop specific reportorial contexts, and each sphere develops its own distinct style of news reporting resources by different rhetorical tropes and discourses. Piers Robinson (2001, p. 536) uses the concept in relation to debates that have emerged over the extent to which the mass media serves elite interests or, alternatively, plays a powerful role in shaping political outcomes. His article reviews Hallin's spheres as an example of media-state relations, that highlights theoretical and empirical shortcomings in the 'manufacturing consent' thesis (Chomsky, McChesney). Robinson argues that a more nuanced and bi-directional understanding is needed of the direction of influence between media and the state that builds upon, rather than rejecting, existing theoretical accounts. Hallin's theory assumed a relatively homogenized media environment, where most producers were trying to reach most consumers. A more fractured media landscape can challenge this assumption because different audiences may place topics in different spheres, a concept related to the filter bubble, which posits that many members of the public choose to limit their media consumption to the areas of consensus and deviance that they personally prefer.

  Read more →