Play Integrity API (formerly known as SafetyNet) consists of several application programming interfaces (APIs) offered by the Google Play Services to support security sensitive applications and enforce DRM. Currently, these APIs include device integrity verification, app verification, recaptcha and web address verification. It uses an environment called DroidGuard to perform the attestation. == Attestation == The SafetyNet Attestation API, one of the APIs under the SafetyNet umbrella, provides verification that the integrity of the device is not compromised. In practice, non-official ROMs such as LineageOS fail the hardware attestation and thus prevent the user from using a non-compliant ROM with third-party apps (mainly banking) that require the API. Due to this, some consider this a monopolistic practice deterring the entrance of competing mobile operating systems in the market. It requires a network connection to Google servers and validates the hardware signatures. Amongst the checks, the API looks for bootloader unlock status, ROM signatures, kernel strings, it also uses AVB2.0 and dm-verity attestations. Upon successful checks, Google Play will mark the device as Certified. The attestation runs in an environment called DroidGuard (com.google.android.gms.unstable). The SafetyNet Attestation API (one of the four APIs under the SafetyNet umbrella) has been deprecated. As of 6 October 2023, Google planned to replace it with the Play Integrity API by the end of January 2025. The transition ended on 20 May 2025, breaking applications which hadn't been updated. These attestations are offered by Google Play Services and thus are not available on free Android environments, like AOSP. Therefore, developers can require the API to be available and may refuse to execute on AOSP builds. == Google Play Protect == Under the same umbrella, Play Protect is a mechanism to find and remove "vulnerable" apps from one's Android device as well as store apps. Although it's meant to scan for malware-containing apps, it also looks for non-DRM compliant apps. == Criticism == Multiple groups have criticised SafetyNet and the Play Integrity API. Criticisms include that it offers weaker protection compared to alternatives such as Android's hardware attestation API, which provides a stronger form of verification while having the ability to remain compatible with more secure Android operating systems like GrapheneOS. Critics argued it undermines competition by effectively requiring developers to rely on Google's proprietary services, strengthening its monopoly over the Android ecosystem and disadvantaging alternative, privacy-focused operating systems. Users have also developed tools, such as the Play Integrity Fix module for Magisk/KernelSU/APatch, which tricks the attestation using leaked fingerprints of vulnerable devices. Furthermore, some have questioned the effectiveness of the attestation, claiming it does not deliver the level of security promised by Google and instead serves more as a form of vendor lock-in than a meaningful security measure. Activists have also raised concerns that it may violate antitrust and competition laws, like the Digital Markets Act.
Creately
Creately is a SaaS visual collaboration tool with diagramming and design capabilities designed by Cinergix. The application is mostly known for creating flowcharts, organization charts, project charts, UML diagrams, mind maps, and other business visuals. == History == The initial beta version of Creately was released by Chandika Jayasundara. Hiraash Thawfeek, Nick Foster and Charanjit Singh joined the project in the same year. Chandika Jayasundara is CEO of Cinergix. The headquarters of the company is located at Mentone, Victoria, Australia. == Features and reception == Creately provides predefined templates and diagram elements for incorporating in the projects. It provides drag and drop feature with which both predefined and custom made shapes can be included to build the desired diagram while the same workspace can be shared with multiple persons for collaboration. Some experts have reviewed the application by commenting on its lacking in accessible integration options as its downside. The company claims Creately to have integration feature with Slack, Confluence while not having the integration with Zapier and OneDrive yet. It is compatible with Google Drive and Dropbox. The software is available as both freemium and paid option.
Miss AI
Miss AI is an annual international artificial intelligence beauty pageant run by the British company Fanvue. It is the first beauty pageant for AI-generated personas. == History == Miss AI's inaugural contest was organized by Fanvue as a part of the World AI Creator Awards (WAICAs) in 2024. The winner is selected by a panel of judges which consists of both humans and AI-generated individuals. The Moroccan virtual influencer Kenza Layli was crowned with the inaugural title while Lalina Valina and Olivia C remained the first and second runners-up respectively. == Competition == The creators are eligible to take part in this competition as long as the models are entirely AI-generated and have a social media presence. The judges evaluate contestants' three main categories – Beauty, Tech, & Social clout and rank them according the overall points earned from these categories. The Guardian commented that "AI models take every toxic gendered beauty norm and bundle them up into completely unrealistic package". == Winners ==
Ideogram (text-to-image model)
Ideogram is a freemium text-to-image model developed by Ideogram, Inc. using deep learning methodologies to generate digital images from natural language descriptions known as prompts. The model is capable of generating legible text in the images compared to other text-to-image models. == History == Ideogram was founded in 2022 by Mohammad Norouzi, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, and Jonathan Ho to develop a better text-to-image model. It was first released with its 0.1 model on August 22, 2023, after receiving $16.5 million in seed funding, which itself was led by Andreessen Horowitz and Index Ventures. In February 2024, Ideogram raised $80 million after its 1.0 model release in the same year. In August 2024, Ideogram released its 2.0 model. This model has several styles such as realistic, design, 3D, and anime and better capability in generating text. In February 2025, Ideogram released 2a model. This model was designed for speed and optimized for graphics design and photography generation. In March 2025, Ideogram released its 3.0 model. This model has improved realism and understanding of complex text layout, although like other generative AI models, it still struggles with ambigram creation.
Pommerman Challenge
The Pommerman Challenge is a multi-agent game to test autonomous artificial intelligence systems. == Game structure == Two-agent team compete against each other on an 11 x 11 board. Each agent can observe only part of the board, and the agents cannot communicate. The goal is to knock down the opponents. Agents place explosives to destroy walls and collect power-ups that appear from those walls, while avoiding death. Game objects can move unpredictably or be moved by an agent. == Play == The game involves real-time decision making. Agents must choose moves in about .1 seconds. == Algorithms == The real-time requirement limits the use of compute-heavy techniques such as Monte Carlo tree search. The branching factor at each move can be as large as 1,296, because all four agents act in each step, choosing among six possibilities. The agents choose by accounting for explosions, which have lifetimes of 10 steps. Explosions derail tree search techniques, as searches with less than 10 levels ignore explosions while deeper searches consider too many choices (given the branching factor). A hybrid approach uses a limited-depth tree search followed by exploring a deterministic/pessimistic scenario. Limiting the depth keeps the search tree small. The deterministic approach can predict far in the future, by omitting branching. "Good" actions are often those that perform well under pessimistic scenarios, particularly if safety is important. Identifying the worst sequence of positions for an object can suggest where to move it. After generating pessimistic scenarios, the agent quantifies the survivability of each move, notionally the number of positions in which the agent can then remain safely (without encountering other agents). == Competitions == 3 competitions were organized with slightly changing rules during 2018–2019. === Online - FFA === This round was a warm-up online event, where each competitor controlled only one agent. Results: 1st: Agent47Agent by Yichen Gong 2nd: aiKiller by Márton Görög === NeurIPS 2018 - Team === The first Pommerman competition with in-person finals. Results: 1st: hakozakijunctions by Toshihiro Takahashi 2nd: eisenach by Márton Görög 3rd: dypm by Takayuki Osogami The 3 best performing solutions used online tree search. === NeurIPS 2019 - Team Radio === The second competition with in-person finals improved communication between teammate agents. Results: 1st: Márton Görög 2nd: Paul Jasek 3rd: Yifan Zhang
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services
The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services (Chinese: 生成式人工智能服务管理暂行办法; pinyin: Shēngchéng shì réngōng zhìnéng fúwù guǎnlǐ zànxíng bànfǎ) are a set of regulations governing public-facing generative artificial intelligence services in China. Issued on 10 July 2023 and effective from 15 August 2023, they were China's first binding regulation specifically targeting generative AI. They have been described as among the earliest such regulations adopted by any country. The measures were jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and six other national bodies: the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and the National Radio and Television Administration. Among the measures' most prominent requirements is that generative AI services must uphold Core Socialist Values and must not generate content that could subvert state power, harm national security, or undermine social stability. The measures also require providers of public-facing generative AI services to undergo security assessments and register their algorithms with the CAC. As of December 2025, 748 generative AI services had completed the filing process at the national level. == Background == The Interim Measures build on two earlier sets of regulations targeting specific algorithm applications. The Administrative Provisions on Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services, effective from March 2022, established China's algorithm registry and required providers of recommendation algorithms with "public opinion properties or social mobilization capabilities" to file with the CAC and undergo security assessments. The Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services, effective from January 2023, extended similar requirements to algorithms used for generating synthetic media such as deepfakes. In April 2023, the CAC released a draft of the generative AI regulation for public comment. The draft included several requirements that attracted attention, including that generated content should "embody Core Socialist Values" and that training data should be "true and accurate". The public consultation period ran until May 2023. The final version, published in July 2023, was substantially revised from the draft. According to an analysis by the Future of Privacy Forum, changes appeared to reflect feedback from industry stakeholders including Baidu, Xiaomi, SenseTime, and others, as well as input from government-affiliated research institutes. The final measures adopted a more permissive tone, with the CAC describing its approach as "inclusive and prudent" (包容审慎) and emphasising "classified and graded" (分类分级) supervision. == Scope == The measures apply to services that use generative AI technology to provide text, images, audio, video, or other content to the public within mainland China (Article 2). They do not apply to organisations that develop or use generative AI internally without offering services to the domestic public, such as industry associations, enterprises, and research institutions. Overseas providers whose services are accessible to users in China are also subject to the measures. == Key provisions == === Content requirements === Article 4 sets out the core content obligations. Providers and users of generative AI services must uphold the Core Socialist Values. The measures prohibit generating content that incites subversion of national sovereignty or the socialist system, endangers national security or the nation's image, incites separatism, promotes terrorism or extremism, promotes ethnic hatred or discrimination, or contains violence, obscenity, or false information prohibited by law. These content prohibitions largely mirror those in Article 12 of the Cybersecurity Law and in prior regulations governing online content. Article 4 also requires that models be designed and trained to avoid discrimination, that services respect intellectual property rights, and that providers take effective measures to improve the transparency and accuracy of generated content. === Training data and labelling === Article 7 requires providers to ensure that training data is of high quality and legitimately sourced, and that it does not infringe upon intellectual property rights. Where personal information is used, consent must be obtained. The final version of this provision removed language from the draft that would have held providers responsible for the "legitimacy" of all pretraining data, replacing it with a requirement to "employ effective measures to improve the quality of training data". Article 8 requires providers to establish labelling rules for training data and to conduct quality assessments of data annotations. Article 12 requires that generated images, videos, and other synthetic content be labelled as AI-generated. === User rights and privacy === Article 11 requires providers to protect user privacy, to minimise the collection and retention of personal data, and to refrain from unlawfully sharing user information. Users have the right to request review, correction, or deletion of their personal information. Article 10 requires providers to take measures to prevent excessive dependence on or addiction to generative AI services by minors. === Security assessment and algorithm filing === Article 17 requires that providers of generative AI services with "public opinion properties or the capacity for social mobilization" (具有舆论属性或者社会动员能力) carry out security assessments and complete algorithm filing procedures in accordance with the Administrative Provisions on Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services. == Implementation == === Algorithm filing process === In practice, the filing requirements under the Interim Measures have developed into a two-tier process. The first tier is the standard algorithm filing (算法备案) under the pre-existing Algorithm Recommendation Provisions, which involves submitting information about an algorithm's design, purpose, and data sources to the CAC. This process is primarily a registration mechanism. For public-facing generative AI products, there is an additional, more rigorous process commonly referred to as the "large model filing" (大模型备案). This involves submitting a security self-assessment report, data annotation rules, a keyword blocking list, and evaluation test question sets. The process includes technical testing at the provincial level, followed by review at the national CAC level. The algorithm filing targets specific algorithms, while the large model filing evaluates the broader system architecture, training data, model parameters, and potential social impact. The CAC publishes lists of generative AI services that have successfully completed the filing process. The first such list was published on 2 April 2024. According to the CAC's year-end announcements, 302 generative AI services had completed national-level filing by the end of 2024 (of which 238 were new that year), alongside 105 applications that completed local-level registration. By the end of 2025, the cumulative total had risen to 748 national-level filings and 435 local-level registrations. === Content compliance and testing === According to the Carnegie Endowment, the CAC has conducted compliance audits of generative AI services with a particular focus on ensuring appropriate responses to queries about politically sensitive topics. The large model filing process requires providers to pass both provincial-level and national-level technical testing before their services can be made available to the public. On 1 March 2024, the National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity (TC260) published TC260-003, the Basic Security Requirements for Generative AI Services (生成式人工智能服务安全基本要求), a technical standard that provides detailed guidance on the security assessments required under the Interim Measures. The standard covers requirements for training data safety, model security, and content safety evaluation, and is used as a reference for the filing process. == Analysis == === Relationship to broader Chinese internet regulation === The content requirements in the Interim Measures extend China's existing framework for online information control to generative AI. Legal scholars have noted that the "Core Socialist Values" provision and the specific content prohibitions are consistent with longstanding requirements imposed on internet platforms under the Cybersecurity Law and related regulations. The Asia Society Policy Institute has described the Chinese government's highest regulatory priority in this area as retaining control of information, noting that content-related obligations receive stricter enforcement than other provisions. === Nature of the filing system === The character of the filing system has been debated by scholars. Angela Huyue Zh