Face Swap Live is a mobile app created by Laan Labs that enables users to swap faces with another person in real-time using the device's camera. It was released on December 14, 2015. In addition to swapping faces with another person, the app enables users to create videos using a set of bundled live filters. The app is available on iOS and Android devices. Face Swap Live was named Apple's #2 best-selling paid app in 2016.
DBGallery
DBGallery, short for Database Gallery, is a cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) and on-prem webserver for teams of various sizes. DBGallery enables users to centrally store, manage, catalog, archive, and securely share image, video, and document files. It facilitates version control, detects duplicates, and offers an intuitive and advanced search functionality, making assets easily accessible to all users. It takes advantage of current AI technologies to automatically add significant metadata to images, facilitates custom-trained AI models, and offers bespoke AI features. Additionally, DBGallery provides team management tools, workflow management, an activity audit trail, and other collaborative features that foster a productive environment for both internal and external stakeholders. == History == DBGallery's first public release was December 2007. Since then each year has seen continuous enhancements. 2013 added support for additional non-English languages in its meta-data. 2014 added support for creating custom data fields for tagging and search. In 2015 included the ability to auto-tag images using Reverse Geocoding. 2018 added artificial intelligence (AI) image recognition as a further addition to auto-tagging. March 2020 added complete image collection management via the web (e.g. file and folder drag and drop), a new collection dashboard, custom data layouts, and an improved audit trail. 2021 saw user experience improvements provided by improved styling and performance enhancements. Version 12 was released in October 2021. It added the ability to upload unlimited file sizes and made significant performance improvements for very large collections. June 2022 saw the release of a global duplicate images search. In late 2022, DBGallery began offering significantly reduced cloud storage cost, at a third of its previous prices, which played into its recent high-volume/high-capacity capabilities and its clients' subsequent demand for additional storage. 2023 saw improvements in user and role management, introduced it's mobile app (PWA), and improved custom-trained object detection. Release 14.0 in the spring of 2024 had large sharing improvements and a new find related images feature. Winter 2025's v15 release introduced AI-generated image descriptions, image-to-text, and facial recognition.
Outline of deep learning
The following outline is provided as an overview of, and topical guide to, deep learning: Deep learning is a subfield of machine learning and artificial intelligence based on artificial neural networks with multiple processing layers. It emphasizes representation learning and is widely used in areas such as computer vision, natural language processing, speech recognition, recommender systems, robotics, and generative artificial intelligence. == Ways to categorize deep learning == A field of study A branch of artificial intelligence A subfield of machine learning A subfield of computer science A form of representation learning A class of methods based on artificial neural networks An approach used in computational statistics == History == === Precursors === Cybernetics Perceptron Connectionism Neocognitron Backpropagation === Milestones === LeNet Long short-term memory Deep belief network AlexNet Sequence to sequence learning Generative adversarial network Residual neural network Transformer BERT Generative pre-trained transformer Diffusion model === Related histories === History of artificial intelligence History of machine learning Timeline of machine learning == Core concepts == == Learning settings == Supervised learning Unsupervised learning Self-supervised learning Semi-supervised learning Reinforcement learning Transfer learning Multitask learning Multimodal learning Online machine learning Continual learning == Common tasks == Image classification Object detection Image segmentation Automatic speech recognition Neural machine translation Question answering Automatic summarization Text-to-image model Protein structure prediction == Architectures == === Feedforward and convolutional architectures === Feedforward neural network Multilayer perceptron Convolutional neural network Radial basis function network Residual neural network U-Net === Recurrent and sequence architectures === Recurrent neural network Long short-term memory Gated recurrent unit Sequence to sequence learning Recursive neural network === Representation-learning architectures === Autoencoder Denoising autoencoder Sparse autoencoder Variational autoencoder Restricted Boltzmann machine Deep belief network === Attention and transformer architectures === Attention (machine learning) Transformer BERT Generative pre-trained transformer Vision transformer === Generative and probabilistic architectures === Autoregressive model Diffusion model Energy-based model Generative adversarial network Mixture of experts === Graph and memory architectures === Graph neural network Graph convolutional network Siamese network Neural Turing machine Memory network Echo state network Capsule neural network == Neural network components and techniques == Artificial neuron Activation function Rectified linear unit Sigmoid function Softmax function Embedding Convolution Pooling layer Attention Batch normalization Layer normalization Residual connections == Training and optimization == Backpropagation Gradient descent Stochastic gradient descent Adam optimization Learning rate Loss function Cross-entropy Mean squared error Regularization Dropout Early stopping Batch normalization Data augmentation Transfer learning Knowledge distillation Ensemble learning Curriculum learning == Datasets and benchmarks == CIFAR-10 ImageNet MNIST database Common Objects in Context (COCO) General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark LibriSpeech SQuAD == Applications == === Computer vision === Computer vision Facial recognition system Image classification Image segmentation Medical imaging Object detection Optical character recognition === Natural language processing === Automatic summarization Chatbot Information retrieval Large language model Natural language processing Neural machine translation Question answering Sentiment analysis === Speech and audio === Automatic speech recognition Music information retrieval Speaker recognition Speech synthesis === Science and medicine === Bioinformatics Computational biology Drug discovery Medical diagnosis Protein structure prediction === Robotics and control === Autonomous car Computer game bot Control theory Robotics === Recommendation, search, and forecasting === Anomaly detection Forecasting Fraud detection Recommender system Search engine === Generative artificial intelligence === Deepfake Generative artificial intelligence Large language model Speech synthesis Text-to-image model === Computer graphics and video games === Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing (DLAA) Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) == Hardware == AMD Instinct AMD XDNA Application-specific integrated circuit Deep learning processor, Neural processing unit (NPU), or Neural Engine Field-programmable gate array General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU) Graphics processing unit NVIDIA Deep Learning Accelerator (NVDLA) Tensor processing unit Vision processing unit Wafer-scale integration === Supporting software platforms === CUDA Metal ROCm == Software == === Open-source frameworks and libraries === === Neural network software === EDLUT Emergent Encog JOONE Neuroph NeuroSolutions OpenNN Peltarion Synapse SNNS === Platforms, tools, and deployment === Amazon SageMaker Google Colab Hugging Face Kaggle Kubeflow MLflow ONNX OpenVINO TensorFlow Hub == Algorithms for deep learning and neural networks == Backpropagation Conjugate gradient method Generalized Hebbian algorithm Gradient descent Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm Perceptron Quasi-Newton method Wake-sleep algorithm == Methods and related topics == === Representation and metric learning === Contrastive learning Embedding Feature learning Manifold learning Metric learning === Generative modeling === Autoregressive model Diffusion model Generative adversarial network Generative model Variational inference === Efficient and scalable deep learning === Knowledge distillation Low-rank approximation Mixture of experts Quantization Sparsity === Reliability, safety, and interpretability === Adversarial machine learning AI alignment Algorithmic bias Catastrophic forgetting Differential privacy Explainable artificial intelligence Federated learning Hallucination (artificial intelligence) == Conferences and workshops == Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems International Conference on Computer Vision International Conference on Learning Representations International Conference on Machine Learning == Organizations == === Research laboratories and institutions === Allen Institute for AI Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems Google DeepMind Meta AI Mila Microsoft Research Vector Institute === Companies === Anthropic Cerebras Cohere DeepSeek Mistral AI OpenAI Stability AI xAI == Publications == === Books === Deep Learning – Ian Goodfellow and Yoshua Bengio Neural Networks and Deep Learning – Michael Nielsen Perceptrons – Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert === Journals === IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems Neural Networks Neural Computation == Influential persons ==
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
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.
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.
Statistical relational learning
Statistical relational learning (SRL) is a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence and machine learning that is concerned with domain models that exhibit both uncertainty (which can be dealt with using statistical methods) and complex, relational structure. Typically, the knowledge representation formalisms developed in SRL use (a subset of) first-order logic to describe relational properties of a domain in a general manner (universal quantification) and draw upon probabilistic graphical models (such as Bayesian networks or Markov networks) to model the uncertainty; some also build upon the methods of inductive logic programming. Significant contributions to the field have been made since the late 1990s. As is evident from the characterization above, the field is not strictly limited to learning aspects; it is equally concerned with reasoning (specifically probabilistic inference) and knowledge representation. Therefore, alternative terms that reflect the main foci of the field include statistical relational learning and reasoning (emphasizing the importance of reasoning) and first-order probabilistic languages (emphasizing the key properties of the languages with which models are represented). Another term that is sometimes used in the literature is relational machine learning (RML). == Canonical tasks == A number of canonical tasks are associated with statistical relational learning, the most common ones being. collective classification, i.e. the (simultaneous) prediction of the class of several objects given objects' attributes and their relations link prediction, i.e. predicting whether or not two or more objects are related link-based clustering, i.e. the grouping of similar objects, where similarity is determined according to the links of an object, and the related task of collaborative filtering, i.e. the filtering for information that is relevant to an entity (where a piece of information is considered relevant to an entity if it is known to be relevant to a similar entity) social network modelling object identification/entity resolution/record linkage, i.e. the identification of equivalent entries in two or more separate databases/datasets == Representation formalisms == One of the fundamental design goals of the representation formalisms developed in SRL is to abstract away from concrete entities and to represent instead general principles that are intended to be universally applicable. Since there are countless ways in which such principles can be represented, many representation formalisms have been proposed in recent years. In the following, some of the more common ones are listed in alphabetical order: Bayesian logic program BLOG model Markov logic networks Multi-entity Bayesian network Probabilistic logic programs Probabilistic relational model – a Probabilistic Relational Model (PRM) is the counterpart of a Bayesian network in statistical relational learning. Probabilistic soft logic Recursive random field Relational Bayesian network Relational dependency network Relational Markov network Relational Kalman filtering