The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (also called Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence or AI convention) is an international treaty on artificial intelligence. It was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe (CoE) and signed on 5 September 2024. The treaty aims to ensure that the development and use of AI technologies align with fundamental human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law, addressing risks such as misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and threats to public institutions. More than 50 countries, including the EU member states, have endorsed the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. == Background == The development of the Framework Convention on AI emerged in response to growing concerns over the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of artificial intelligence. The Council of Europe, which has historically played a key role in setting human rights standards across Europe, initiated discussions on AI governance in 2020, leading to the drafting of a binding legal framework. The process of creating the Framework Convention began in 2019 with the ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) assessing the feasibility of the instrument. In 2022, the Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) took over the process, drafting and negotiating the text of the Convention. The treaty is designed to complement existing international human rights instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. == Structure and content == The Convention establishes fundamental principles for AI governance, including transparency, accountability, non-discrimination, and human rights protection through eight chapters and 26 articles. Adopted in 2024, this landmark treaty addresses AI governance through seven core principles and detailed implementation mechanisms. It mandates risk and impact assessments to mitigate potential harms and provides safeguards such as the right to challenge AI-driven decisions. It applies to public authorities and private entities acting on their behalf but excludes national security and defense activities. Implementation is overseen by a Conference of the Parties, ensuring compliance and international cooperation. Activities within the AI system lifecycle must adhere to seven fundamental principles, ensuring compliance with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The treaty also establishes remedies, procedural rights and safeguards, and risk and impact management requirements to promote accountability, transparency, and responsible AI development. The treaty consists of five chapters. Chapter I contains general provisions. Chapter II states the general obligation to protect human rights and the integrity of democratic processes and respect of the rule of law. The main principles and rights are contained in Chapter III, which consists of Articles 6 to 13. Chapter IV (Articles 14 to 15) sets up the legal remedies. Chapter V states the risk and impact management framework. Chapter VI facilitates the implementation criteria of the treaty. Chapter VII sets the co-operation and oversight mechanisms. Chapter VIII contains various concluding clauses. Article 1 declares the objectives of the treaty, to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. == Entry into force == The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five ratification made by five countries, including three member states of the Council of Europe. == Competing approaches == While the CoE's AI Convention represents a multilateral effort to regulate AI through a human rights-based approach, alternative frameworks have also been proposed. One notable example is the Munich Draft for a Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights, an initiative led by legal scholars and policymakers in Germany. The Munich Draft advocates for stronger safeguards against AI-related risks, emphasizing stricter data protection measures, accountability for AI developers, and explicit prohibitions on high-risk AI applications, such as mass surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons. Unlike the CoE convention, which focuses on balancing innovation with regulation, the Munich Draft takes a more precautionary stance, calling for tighter controls over AI deployment in sensitive domains. Other competing international efforts include the OECD’s AI Principles, the GPAI (Global Partnership on AI), and the European Union's AI Act, each of which offers different regulatory strategies to govern AI at regional and global levels. == Signatories == Signatories include Andorra, Canada, the European Union, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. == Endorsement == The treaty was widely endorsed by leading AI policy experts, including Stuart J. Russell, Virginia Dignum, Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem, Pascal Pichonnaz, Maria Helen Murphy, Angella Ndaka, Hannes Werthner, Katja Langenbucher, Gry Hasselbalch, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Kutoma Wakunuma, Gianclaudio Malgieri, Oreste Pollicino, Nagla Rizk, Giovanni Sartor, Lee Tiedrich, Ingrid Schneider, Eduardo Bertoni, Garry Kasparov, Merve Hikcok, and Marc Rotenberg. The treaty was also endorsed by notable political leaders, including Theodoros Roussopoulos, President of the Parliamentart Assembly in the Council of Europe, and Christopher Holmes, Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and by the International Bar Association (IBA), and personally by Almudena Arpón de Mendívil, President of the IBA. The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) has been carrying out a campaign to promote endorsement of the treaty by urging various countries to sign and ratify the treaty. The CAIDP further urged the countries to make a clear and firm commitment to ensure the full inclusion of the private sector under the treaty’s provisions.
BLOOM (language model)
The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.
Tertiary source
A tertiary source is an index or textual consolidation of already published primary and secondary sources that does not provide additional interpretations or analysis of the sources. Some tertiary sources can be used as an aid to find key (seminal) sources, key terms, general common knowledge and established mainstream science on a topic. The exact definition of tertiary varies by academic field. Academic research standards generally do not accept tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as citations, although survey articles are frequently cited rather than the original publication. == Overlap with secondary sources == As is also the case with distinguishing primary and secondary sources in some disciplines, there is not always a clear distinguishing line between secondary and tertiary sources. Depending on the topic of research, a scholar may use a bibliography, dictionary, or encyclopedia as either a tertiary or a secondary source. This causes some difficulty in defining many sources as either one type or the other. In some academic disciplines, the differentiation between a secondary and tertiary source is relative. In the United Nations International Scientific Information System (UNISIST) model, a secondary source is a bibliography, whereas a tertiary source is a synthesis of primary sources. == Types of tertiary sources == Tertiary sources can come in book form or as an online resource. Tertiary sources in book form are frequently organised in alphabetical order, whereas an online tertiary source may be searchable by keyword. Examples of tertiary sources include; reference books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, some textbooks, abstracts, directories, factbooks, handbooks, manuals and compendia. Indexes, bibliographies, concordances, and databases are aggregates of primary and secondary sources and therefore often considered tertiary sources. They may also serve as a point of access to the full or partial text of primary and secondary sources. Almanacs, travel guides, field guides, and timelines are also examples of tertiary sources. Tertiary sources attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview without adding analysis and synthesis of new conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
Knuth–Plass line-breaking algorithm
The Knuth–Plass algorithm is a line-breaking algorithm designed for use in Donald Knuth's typesetting program TeX. It integrates the problems of text justification and hyphenation into a single algorithm by using a discrete dynamic programming method to minimize a loss function that attempts to quantify the aesthetic qualities desired in the finished output. The algorithm works by dividing the text into a stream of three kinds of objects: boxes, which are non-resizable chunks of content, glue, which are flexible, resizeable elements, and penalties, which represent places where breaking is undesirable (or, if negative, desirable). The loss function, known as "badness", is defined in terms of the deformation of the glue elements, and any extra penalties incurred through line breaking. Making hyphenation decisions follows naturally from the algorithm, but the choice of possible hyphenation points within words, and optionally their preference weighting, must be performed first, and that information inserted into the text stream in advance. Knuth and Plass' original algorithm does not include page breaking, but may be modified to interface with a pagination algorithm, such as the algorithm designed by Plass in his PhD thesis. Typically, the cost function for this technique should be modified so that it does not count the space left on the final line of a paragraph; this modification allows a paragraph to end in the middle of a line without penalty. The same technique can also be extended to take into account other factors such as the number of lines or costs for hyphenating long words. == Computational complexity == A naive brute-force exhaustive search for the minimum badness by trying every possible combination of breakpoints would take an impractical O ( 2 n ) {\displaystyle O(2^{n})} time. The classic Knuth-Plass dynamic programming approach to solving the minimization problem is a worst-case O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} algorithm but usually runs much faster, in close to linear time. Solving for the Knuth-Plass optimum can be shown to be a special case of the convex least-weight subsequence problem, which can be solved in O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} time. Methods to do this include the SMAWK algorithm. == Simple example of minimum raggedness metric == For the input text AAA BB CC DDDDD with line width 6, a greedy algorithm that puts as many words on a line as possible while preserving order before moving to the next line, would produce: ------ Line width: 6 AAA BB Remaining space: 0 CC Remaining space: 4 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The sum of squared space left over by this method is 0 2 + 4 2 + 1 2 = 17 {\displaystyle 0^{2}+4^{2}+1^{2}=17} . However, the optimal solution achieves the smaller sum 3 2 + 1 2 + 1 2 = 11 {\displaystyle 3^{2}+1^{2}+1^{2}=11} : ------ Line width: 6 AAA Remaining space: 3 BB CC Remaining space: 1 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The difference here is that the first line is broken before BB instead of after it, yielding a better right margin and a lower cost 11.
Non-personal data
Non-Personal Data (NPD) is electronic data that does not contain any information that can be used to identify a natural person. Thus, it can either be data that has no personal information to begin with (such as weather data, stock prices, data from anonymous IoT sensors); or it is data that had personal data that was subsequently pseudoanonymized (for example, identifiable strings substituted with random strings) or anonymized (such as by irreversibly removing all personal data). NPD is part of the overall Data Governance Strategy of a region or country. While personal data are covered by Data Protection Legislation such as GDPR, other kinds of data would fall under the scope of NPD Regulation. == Importance of non-personal data == It has been pointed out that the future is data-driven. What this means is that much of the present innovation taking place in domains such as Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence is fueled by data, which is needed for calibrating the complex models (comprising neural network-based as well as other kinds). The larger the volume, diversity and quality of the data, the higher is the quality of the model, leading to better predictions and explanations. However, there is a flip-side to data availability. The newly-emerging awareness of privacy and the consequent need for powerful Data Protection Regulations (such as GDPR) makes it increasingly difficult or impossible to obtain data in the quantities required. This is a contradiction, and the only way out would be to remove all personal data from data sets (either by Data anonymization or Pseudonymization coupled with noise injection, at which point it becomes NPD. Therefore, many innovation-friendly countries are coming out with regulatory regimes that would ensure that personal data is protected, while, at the same time, non-personal data can be extracted from personal data so that innovation is fostered. In other words, NPD 'unlocks' value that was locked away in data sets that have personally-identifiable information. It is expected that multiple NPD data sets will begin to be available on free or commercial basis from different providers once the regulations are in place. == Emerging regulatory frameworks == Non-Personal Data has significant uses that may be economic, social, political or security-related. Several countries and regions are in the process of regulating the use of NPD. In May 2019, the European Union operationalized its Regulation of the Free Flow of NPD. India announced a nine-member expert committee to make recommendations on the regulation of NPD in 2019, which published its first report in mid-2020. The report was opened for public comments, after which it was revised and published in December 2020. == Proposed NPD regulatory framework in India == The following were the objectives of the proposed Indian regulation as per the revised report: Sovereignty: India has rights over the data of India, its people and organisations. Benefit India: Benefits of data must accrue to India and its people. Benefits the world: Innovation, new models and algorithms for the world. Privacy: Misuse, reidentification and harms must be prevented. Simplicity: The regulations should be simple, digital and unambiguous. Innovation and entrepreneurship: The data should be freely available for innovation and entrepreneurship in India. == Concerns == The major concern in the use of NPD is if there are techniques (statistical or AI-based) by which multiple data sets can be used to extract personally-identifiable data.
Spleak
Spleak was an IM platform where users could publish and rate content. It existed in the form of six bots covering as many subject areas: CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, VoteSpleak, TVSpleak, GameSpleak, and StyleSpleak. == Overview == Users can add a "multi-Spleak" (which contains all of the different Spleak bots in one) or add the separate bots to their IM buddy lists on MSN and AIM. Users are also allowed access to Spleak online by using a CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, or VoteSpleak widget, or through the CelebSpleak and SportSpleak applications with Facebook. Spleak was an alternate reality game and is moving to its own company, Spleak Media Network. "Celebrate Spleak" was introduced throughout 2007, launched in 2008, and was forced to retire in 2009. == Key people == Spleak was co-founded by Morten Lund and Nicolaj Reffstrup. The company's chief executive officer is Morrie Eisenburg; Josh Scott is Vice President in Product and Tyler Wells is Vice President in Engineering.
Certifying algorithm
In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.