Friendly artificial intelligence (friendly AI or FAI) is hypothetical artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would have a positive (benign) effect on humanity or at least align with human interests such as fostering the improvement of the human species. It is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence and is closely related to machine ethics. While machine ethics is concerned with how an artificially intelligent agent should behave, friendly artificial intelligence research is focused on how to practically bring about this behavior and ensuring it is adequately constrained. == Etymology and usage == The term was coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for popularizing the idea, to discuss superintelligent artificial agents that reliably implement human values. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig's leading artificial intelligence textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, describes the idea: Yudkowsky (2008) goes into more detail about how to design a Friendly AI. He asserts that friendliness (a desire not to harm humans) should be designed in from the start, but that the designers should recognize both that their own designs may be flawed, and that the robot will learn and evolve over time. Thus the challenge is one of mechanism design—to define a mechanism for evolving AI systems under a system of checks and balances, and to give the systems utility functions that will remain friendly in the face of such changes. "Friendly" is used in this context as technical terminology, and picks out agents that are safe and useful, not necessarily ones that are "friendly" in the colloquial sense. The concept is primarily invoked in the context of discussions of recursively self-improving artificial agents that rapidly explode in intelligence, on the grounds that this hypothetical technology would have a large, rapid, and difficult-to-control impact on human society. == Risks of unfriendly AI == The roots of concern about artificial intelligence are very old. Kevin LaGrandeur showed that the dangers specific to AI can be seen in ancient literature concerning artificial humanoid servants such as the golem, or the proto-robots of Gerbert of Aurillac and Roger Bacon. In those stories, the extreme intelligence and power of these humanoid creations clash with their status as slaves (which by nature are seen as sub-human), and cause disastrous conflict. By 1942 these themes prompted Isaac Asimov to create the "Three Laws of Robotics"—principles hard-wired into all the robots in his fiction, intended to prevent them from turning on their creators, or allowing them to come to harm. In modern times as the prospect of superintelligent AI looms nearer, philosopher Nick Bostrom has said that superintelligent AI systems with goals that are not aligned with human ethics are intrinsically dangerous unless extreme measures are taken to ensure the safety of humanity. He put it this way: Basically we should assume that a 'superintelligence' would be able to achieve whatever goals it has. Therefore, it is extremely important that the goals we endow it with, and its entire motivation system, is 'human friendly.' In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky called for the creation of "friendly AI" to mitigate existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence. He explains: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." Steve Omohundro says that a sufficiently advanced AI system will, unless explicitly counteracted, exhibit a number of basic "drives", such as resource acquisition, self-preservation, and continuous self-improvement, because of the intrinsic nature of any goal-driven systems and that these drives will, "without special precautions", cause the AI to exhibit undesired behavior. Alexander Wissner-Gross says that AIs driven to maximize their future freedom of action (or causal path entropy) might be considered friendly if their planning horizon is longer than a certain threshold, and unfriendly if their planning horizon is shorter than that threshold. Luke Muehlhauser, writing for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, recommends that machine ethics researchers adopt what Bruce Schneier has called the "security mindset": Rather than thinking about how a system will work, imagine how it could fail. For instance, he suggests even an AI that only makes accurate predictions and communicates via a text interface might cause unintended harm. In 2014, Luke Muehlhauser and Nick Bostrom underlined the need for 'friendly AI'; nonetheless, the difficulties in designing a 'friendly' superintelligence, for instance via programming counterfactual moral thinking, are considerable. == Coherent extrapolated volition == Yudkowsky advances the Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) model. According to him, our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted". Rather than a Friendly AI being designed directly by human programmers, it is to be designed by a "seed AI" programmed to first study human nature and then produce the AI that humanity would want, given sufficient time and insight, to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The appeal to an objective through contingent human nature (perhaps expressed, for mathematical purposes, in the form of a utility function or other decision-theoretic formalism), as providing the ultimate criterion of "Friendliness", is an answer to the meta-ethical problem of defining an objective morality; extrapolated volition is intended to be what humanity objectively would want, all things considered, but it can only be defined relative to the psychological and cognitive qualities of present-day, unextrapolated humanity. == Other approaches == Steve Omohundro has proposed a "scaffolding" approach to AI safety, in which one provably safe AI generation helps build the next provably safe generation. Seth Baum argues that the development of safe, socially beneficial artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence is a function of the social psychology of AI research communities and so can be constrained by extrinsic measures and motivated by intrinsic measures. Intrinsic motivations can be strengthened when messages resonate with AI developers; Baum argues that, in contrast, "existing messages about beneficial AI are not always framed well". Baum advocates for "cooperative relationships, and positive framing of AI researchers" and cautions against characterizing AI researchers as "not want(ing) to pursue beneficial designs". In his book Human Compatible, AI researcher Stuart J. Russell lists three principles to guide the development of beneficial machines. He emphasizes that these principles are not meant to be explicitly coded into the machines; rather, they are intended for the human developers. The principles are as follows: The machine's only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. The "preferences" Russell refers to "are all-encompassing; they cover everything you might care about, arbitrarily far into the future." Similarly, "behavior" includes any choice between options, and the uncertainty is such that some probability, which may be quite small, must be assigned to every logically possible human preference. == Public policy == James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention, suggested that "a public-private partnership has to be created to bring A.I.-makers together to share ideas about security—something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, but in partnership with corporations." He urges AI researchers to convene a meeting similar to the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, which discussed risks of biotechnology. John McGinnis encourages governments to accelerate friendly AI research. Because the goalposts of friendly AI are not necessarily eminent, he suggests a model similar to the National Institutes of Health, where "Peer review panels of computer and cognitive scientists would sift through projects and choose those that are designed both to advance AI and assure that such advances would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards." McGinnis feels that peer review is better "than regulation to address technical issues that are not possible to capture through bureaucratic mandates". McGinnis notes that his proposal stands in contrast to that of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which generally aims to avoid government involvement in friendly AI. == Criticism == Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely and that, therefore, friendly AI is unlik
Multi-scale approaches
The scale space representation of a signal obtained by Gaussian smoothing satisfies a number of special properties, scale-space axioms, which make it into a special form of multi-scale representation. There are, however, also other types of "multi-scale approaches" in the areas of computer vision, image processing and signal processing, in particular the notion of wavelets. The purpose of this article is to describe a few of these approaches: == Scale-space theory for one-dimensional signals == For one-dimensional signals, there exists quite a well-developed theory for continuous and discrete kernels that guarantee that new local extrema or zero-crossings cannot be created by a convolution operation. For continuous signals, it holds that all scale-space kernels can be decomposed into the following sets of primitive smoothing kernels: the Gaussian kernel : g ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t exp ( − x 2 / 2 t ) {\displaystyle g(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}\exp({-x^{2}/2t})} where t > 0 {\displaystyle t>0} , truncated exponential kernels (filters with one real pole in the s-plane): h ( x ) = exp ( − a x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({-ax})} if x ≥ 0 {\displaystyle x\geq 0} and 0 otherwise where a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} h ( x ) = exp ( b x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({bx})} if x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle x\leq 0} and 0 otherwise where b > 0 {\displaystyle b>0} , translations, rescalings. For discrete signals, we can, up to trivial translations and rescalings, decompose any discrete scale-space kernel into the following primitive operations: the discrete Gaussian kernel T ( n , t ) = I n ( α t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=I_{n}(\alpha t)} where α , t > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha ,t>0} where I n {\displaystyle I_{n}} are the modified Bessel functions of integer order, generalized binomial kernels corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x-1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x+1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} , first-order recursive filters corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + α f o u t ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\alpha f_{out}(x-1)} where α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + β f o u t ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\beta f_{out}(x+1)} where β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} , the one-sided Poisson kernel p ( n , t ) = e − t t n n ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{n}}{n!}}} for n ≥ 0 {\displaystyle n\geq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} p ( n , t ) = e − t t − n ( − n ) ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{-n}}{(-n)!}}} for n ≤ 0 {\displaystyle n\leq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} . From this classification, it is apparent that we require a continuous semi-group structure, there are only three classes of scale-space kernels with a continuous scale parameter; the Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of continuous signals, the discrete Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of discrete signals and the time-causal Poisson kernel that forms a temporal scale-space over discrete time. If we on the other hand sacrifice the continuous semi-group structure, there are more options: For discrete signals, the use of generalized binomial kernels provides a formal basis for defining the smoothing operation in a pyramid. For temporal data, the one-sided truncated exponential kernels and the first-order recursive filters provide a way to define time-causal scale-spaces that allow for efficient numerical implementation and respect causality over time without access to the future. The first-order recursive filters also provide a framework for defining recursive approximations to the Gaussian kernel that in a weaker sense preserve some of the scale-space properties.
Actor-critic algorithm
The actor-critic algorithm (AC) is a family of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms that combine policy-based RL algorithms such as policy gradient methods, and value-based RL algorithms such as value iteration, Q-learning, SARSA, and TD learning. An AC algorithm consists of two main components: an "actor" that determines which actions to take according to a policy function, and a "critic" that evaluates those actions according to a value function. Some AC algorithms are on-policy, some are off-policy. Some apply to either continuous or discrete action spaces. Some work in both cases. == Overview == The actor-critic methods can be understood as an improvement over pure policy gradient methods like REINFORCE via introducing a baseline. === Actor === The actor uses a policy function π ( a | s ) {\displaystyle \pi (a|s)} , while the critic estimates either the value function V ( s ) {\displaystyle V(s)} , the action-value Q-function Q ( s , a ) , {\displaystyle Q(s,a),} the advantage function A ( s , a ) {\displaystyle A(s,a)} , or any combination thereof. The actor is a parameterized function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ | s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot |s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a | s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a | s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)da=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to improve the actor. That is, to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t r t ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}r_{t}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The goal of policy gradient method is to optimize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent on the policy gradient ∇ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla J(\theta )} . As detailed on the policy gradient method page, there are many unbiased estimators of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ j ≤ T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A j | S j ) ⋅ Ψ j | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq j\leq T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{j}|S_{j})\cdot \Psi _{j}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where Ψ j {\textstyle \Psi _{j}} is a linear sum of the following: ∑ 0 ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i R i ) {\textstyle \sum _{0\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i}R_{i})} . γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})} : the REINFORCE algorithm. γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) − b ( S j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})-b(S_{j})} : the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm. Here b {\displaystyle b} is an arbitrary function. γ j ( R j + γ V π θ ( S j + 1 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+1})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(1) learning. γ j Q π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} . γ j A π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} : Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C). γ j ( R j + γ R j + 1 + γ 2 V π θ ( S j + 2 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma R_{j+1}+\gamma ^{2}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+2})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(2) learning. γ j ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(n) learning. γ j ∑ n = 1 ∞ λ n − 1 1 − λ ⋅ ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\lambda ^{n-1}}{1-\lambda }}\cdot \left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(λ) learning, also known as GAE (generalized advantage estimate). This is obtained by an exponentially decaying sum of the TD(n) learning terms. === Critic === In the unbiased estimators given above, certain functions such as V π θ , Q π θ , A π θ {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }},Q^{\pi _{\theta }},A^{\pi _{\theta }}} appear. These are approximated by the critic. Since these functions all depend on the actor, the critic must learn alongside the actor. The critic is learned by value-based RL algorithms. For example, if the critic is estimating the state-value function V π θ ( s ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }}(s)} , then it can be learned by any value function approximation method. Let the critic be a function approximator V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} with parameters ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The simplest example is TD(1) learning, which trains the critic to minimize the TD(1) error: δ i = R i + γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} The critic parameters are updated by gradient descent on the squared TD error: ϕ ← ϕ − α ∇ ϕ ( δ i ) 2 = ϕ + α δ i ∇ ϕ V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \phi \leftarrow \phi -\alpha \nabla _{\phi }(\delta _{i})^{2}=\phi +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\phi }V_{\phi }(S_{i})} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate. Note that the gradient is taken with respect to the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(S_{i})} only, since the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})} constitutes a moving target, and the gradient is not taken with respect to that. This is a common source of error in implementations that use automatic differentiation, and requires "stopping the gradient" at that point. Similarly, if the critic is estimating the action-value function Q π θ {\displaystyle Q^{\pi _{\theta }}} , then it can be learned by Q-learning or SARSA. In SARSA, the critic maintains an estimate of the Q-function, parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , denoted as Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} . The temporal difference error is then calculated as δ i = R i + γ Q θ ( S i + 1 , A i + 1 ) − Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma Q_{\theta }(S_{i+1},A_{i+1})-Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} . The critic is then updated by θ ← θ + α δ i ∇ θ Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \theta \leftarrow \theta +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\theta }Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} The advantage critic can be trained by training both a Q-function Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} and a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then let A ϕ ( s , a ) = Q ϕ ( s , a ) − V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(s,a)=Q_{\phi }(s,a)-V_{\phi }(s)} . Although, it is more common to train just a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then estimate the advantage by A ϕ ( S i , A i ) ≈ ∑ j ∈ 0 : n − 1 γ j R i + j + γ n V ϕ ( S i + n ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(S_{i},A_{i})\approx \sum _{j\in 0:n-1}\gamma ^{j}R_{i+j}+\gamma ^{n}V_{\phi }(S_{i+n})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} Here, n {\displaystyle n} is a positive integer. The higher n {\displaystyle n} is, the more lower is the bias in the advantage estimation, but at the price of higher variance. The Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) introduces a hyperparameter λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that smoothly interpolates between Monte Carlo returns ( λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , high variance, no bias) and 1-step TD learning ( λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , low variance, high bias). This hyperparameter can be adjusted to pick the optimal bias-variance trade-off in advantage estimation. It uses an exponentially decaying average of n-step returns with λ {\displaystyle \lambda } being the decay strength. == Variants == Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C): Parallel and asynchronous version of A2C. Soft Actor-Critic (SAC): Incorporates entropy maximization for improved exploration. Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG): Specialized for continuous action spaces.
Data annotation
Data annotation is the process of labeling or tagging relevant metadata within a dataset to enable machines to interpret the data accurately. The dataset can take various forms, including images, audio files, video footage, or text. == Applications == Data is a fundamental component in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Training AI models, particularly in computer vision and natural language processing, requires large volumes of annotated data. Proper annotation ensures that machine learning algorithms can recognize patterns and make accurate predictions. Common types of data annotation include classification, bounding boxes, semantic segmentation, and keypoint annotation. Data annotation is used in AI-driven fields, including healthcare, autonomous vehicles, retail, security, and entertainment. By accurately labeling data, machine learning models can perform complex tasks such as object detection, sentiment analysis, and speech recognition with greater precision. This growing demand has led to the emergence of specialized sectors and platforms dedicated to AI training and human-in-the-loop workflows, which often utilize Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to refine model behavior. == In computer vision == === Image classification === Image classification, also known as image categorization, involves assigning predefined labels to images. Machine learning algorithms trained on classified images can later recognize objects and differentiate between categories. For instance, an AI model trained to recognize furniture styles can distinguish between Georgian and Rococo armchairs. === Semantic segmentation === Semantic segmentation assigns each pixel in an image to a specific class, such as trees, vehicles, humans, or buildings. This type of annotation enables machine learning models to differentiate objects by grouping similar pixels, allowing for a detailed understanding of an image. === Bounding boxes === Bounding box annotation involves drawing rectangular boxes around objects in an image. This technique is commonly used in autonomous driving, security surveillance, and retail analytics to detect and classify objects such as pedestrians, vehicles, and products on store shelves. === 3D cuboids === 3D cuboid annotation enhances traditional bounding boxes by adding depth, enabling models to predict an object's spatial orientation, movement, and size. This method is particularly useful for autonomous vehicles and robotics, where understanding object dimensions and depth is critical. === Polygonal annotation === For objects with irregular shapes, such as curved or multi-sided items, polygonal annotation provides more precise labeling than bounding boxes. This technique is often used in applications that require detailed object recognition, such as medical imaging or aerial mapping. === Keypoint annotation === Keypoint annotation marks specific points on an object, such as facial landmarks or body joints, to enable tracking and motion analysis. This method is widely used in facial recognition, emotion detection, sports analytics, and augmented reality applications.
Algorithm selection
Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm
Seq2seq
Seq2seq is a family of machine learning approaches used for natural language processing. Originally developed by Lê Viết Quốc, a Vietnamese computer scientist and a machine learning pioneer at Google Brain, this framework has become foundational in many modern AI systems. Applications include language translation, image captioning, conversational models, speech recognition, and text summarization. Seq2seq uses sequence transformation: it turns one sequence into another sequence. == History == One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could conceivably be treated as a problem in cryptography. When I look at an article in Russian, I say: 'This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I will now proceed to decode. seq2seq is an approach to machine translation (or more generally, sequence transduction) with roots in information theory, where communication is understood as an encode-transmit-decode process, and machine translation can be studied as a special case of communication. This viewpoint was elaborated, for example, in the noisy channel model of machine translation. In practice, seq2seq maps an input sequence into a real-numerical vector by using a neural network (the encoder), and then maps it back to an output sequence using another neural network (the decoder). The idea of encoder-decoder sequence transduction had been developed in the early 2010s. The papers most commonly cited as the originators that produced seq2seq are two papers from 2014. In the seq2seq as proposed by them, both the encoder and the decoder were LSTMs. This had the "bottleneck" problem, since the encoding vector has a fixed size, so for long input sequences, information would tend to be lost, as they are difficult to fit into the fixed-length encoding vector. The attention mechanism, proposed in 2014, resolved the bottleneck problem. They called their model RNNsearch, as it "emulates searching through a source sentence during decoding a translation". A problem with seq2seq models at this point was that recurrent neural networks are difficult to parallelize. The 2017 publication of Transformers resolved the problem by replacing the encoding RNN with self-attention Transformer blocks ("encoder blocks"), and the decoding RNN with cross-attention causally-masked Transformer blocks ("decoder blocks"). === Priority dispute === One of the papers cited as the originator for seq2seq is (Sutskever et al 2014), published at Google Brain while they were on Google's machine translation project. The research allowed Google to overhaul Google Translate into Google Neural Machine Translation in 2016. Tomáš Mikolov claims to have developed the idea (before joining Google Brain) of using a "neural language model on pairs of sentences... and then [generating] translation after seeing the first sentence"—which he equates with seq2seq machine translation, and to have mentioned the idea to Ilya Sutskever and Quoc Le (while at Google Brain), who failed to acknowledge him in their paper. Mikolov had worked on RNNLM (using RNN for language modelling) for his PhD thesis, and is more notable for developing word2vec. == Architecture == The main reference for this section is. === Encoder === The encoder is responsible for processing the input sequence and capturing its essential information, which is stored as the hidden state of the network and, in a model with attention mechanism, a context vector. The context vector is the weighted sum of the input hidden states and is generated for every time instance in the output sequences. === Decoder === The decoder takes the context vector and hidden states from the encoder and generates the final output sequence. The decoder operates in an autoregressive manner, producing one element of the output sequence at a time. At each step, it considers the previously generated elements, the context vector, and the input sequence information to make predictions for the next element in the output sequence. Specifically, in a model with attention mechanism, the context vector and the hidden state are concatenated together to form an attention hidden vector, which is used as an input for the decoder. The seq2seq method developed in the early 2010s uses two neural networks: an encoder network converts an input sentence into numerical vectors, and a decoder network converts those vectors to sentences in the target language. The Attention mechanism was grafted onto this structure in 2014 and is shown below. Later it was refined into the encoder-decoder Transformer architecture of 2017. === Training vs prediction === There is a subtle difference between training and prediction. During training time, both the input and the output sequences are known. During prediction time, only the input sequence is known, and the output sequence must be decoded by the network itself. Specifically, consider an input sequence x 1 : n {\displaystyle x_{1:n}} and output sequence y 1 : m {\displaystyle y_{1:m}} . The encoder would process the input x 1 : n {\displaystyle x_{1:n}} step by step. After that, the decoder would take the output from the encoder, as well as the
AI anthropomorphism
AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different