Bring your own encryption (BYOE), also known as bring your own key (BYOK), is a cloud computing security model that allows cloud service customers to use their own encryption software and manage their own encryption keys. == Overview == BYOE enables cloud service customers to utilize a virtual instance of their encryption software alongside their cloud-hosted business applications to encrypt their data. In this model, hosted business applications are configured to process all data through the encryption software. This software then writes the ciphertext version of the data to the cloud service provider's physical data store and decrypts ciphertext data upon retrieval requests. This approach provides enterprises with control over their keys and the ability to generate their own master key using internal hardware security modules (HSM), which are then transmitted to the cloud provider's HSM. When the data is no longer needed, such as when users discontinue the cloud service, the keys can be deleted, rendering the encrypted data permanently inaccessible. This practice is known as crypto-shredding. == Potential Advantages == Organizations can store data with unique encryption that only they can access. Multiple organizations can share the same hardware infrastructure via cloud services like Amazon Web Services (AWS) or Google Cloud while maintaining encryption to comply with regulations such as HIPAA. == Potential Challenges == Resource utilization may be higher compared to traditional encryption practices when multiple users share the same hardware and use their own encryption. Efforts to minimize resource utilization issues may potentially impact security benefits.
AI safety
AI safety is an interdisciplinary field focused on preventing accidents, misuse, or other harmful consequences arising from artificial intelligence systems. It encompasses AI alignment (which aims to ensure AI systems behave as intended), monitoring AI systems for risks, and enhancing their robustness. The field is particularly concerned with existential risks posed by advanced AI models. Beyond technical research, AI safety involves developing norms and policies that promote safety, including advocacy for regulations at different levels of government. The field gained significant popularity in 2023, with rapid progress in generative AI and public concerns voiced by researchers and CEOs about potential dangers. During the 2023 AI Safety Summit, the United States and the United Kingdom both established their own AI Safety Institute. However, researchers have expressed concern that AI safety measures are not keeping pace with the rapid development of AI capabilities. == Motivations == Scholars discuss current risks from critical systems failures, bias, and AI-enabled surveillance, as well as emerging risks like technological unemployment, digital manipulation, weaponization, AI-enabled cyberattacks and bioterrorism. They also discuss speculative risks from losing control of future artificial general intelligence (AGI) agents, or from AI enabling perpetually stable dictatorships. === Existential safety === Some have criticized concerns about AGI, such as Andrew Ng who compared them in 2015 to "worrying about overpopulation on Mars when we have not even set foot on the planet yet". Stuart J. Russell on the other side urges caution, arguing that "it is better to anticipate human ingenuity than to underestimate it". AI researchers have widely differing opinions about the severity and primary sources of risk posed by AI technology – though surveys suggest that experts take high consequence risks seriously. In two surveys of AI researchers, the median respondent was optimistic about AI overall, but placed a 5% probability on an "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)" outcome of advanced AI. In a 2022 survey of the natural language processing community, 37% agreed or weakly agreed that it is plausible that AI decisions could lead to a catastrophe that is "at least as bad as an all-out nuclear war". == History == Risks from AI began to be seriously discussed at the start of the computer age: Moreover, if we move in the direction of making machines which learn and whose behavior is modified by experience, we must face the fact that every degree of independence we give the machine is a degree of possible defiance of our wishes. In 1988 Blay Whitby published a book outlining the need for AI to be developed along ethical and socially responsible lines. From 2008 to 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) commissioned a study to explore and address potential long-term societal influences of AI research and development. The panel was generally skeptical of the radical views expressed by science-fiction authors but agreed that "additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes". In 2011, Roman Yampolskiy introduced the term "AI safety engineering" at the Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence conference, listing prior failures of AI systems and arguing that "the frequency and seriousness of such events will steadily increase as AIs become more capable". In 2014, philosopher Nick Bostrom published the book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. He has the opinion that the rise of AGI has the potential to create various societal issues, ranging from the displacement of the workforce by AI, manipulation of political and military structures, to even the possibility of human extinction. His argument that future advanced systems may pose a threat to human existence prompted Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking to voice similar concerns. In 2015, dozens of artificial intelligence experts signed an open letter on artificial intelligence calling for research on the societal impacts of AI and outlining concrete directions. To date, the letter has been signed by over 8000 people including Yann LeCun, Shane Legg, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell. In the same year, a group of academics led by professor Stuart J. Russell founded the Center for Human-Compatible AI at the University of California Berkeley and the Future of Life Institute awarded $6.5 million in grants for research aimed at "ensuring artificial intelligence (AI) remains safe, ethical and beneficial". In 2016, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Carnegie Mellon University announced The Public Workshop on Safety and Control for Artificial Intelligence, which was one of a sequence of four White House workshops aimed at investigating "the advantages and drawbacks" of AI. In the same year, Concrete Problems in AI Safety – one of the first and most influential technical AI Safety agendas – was published. In 2017, the Future of Life Institute sponsored the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, where more than 100 thought leaders formulated principles for beneficial AI including "Race Avoidance: Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards". In 2018, the DeepMind Safety team outlined AI safety problems in specification, robustness, and assurance. The following year, researchers organized a workshop at ICLR that focused on these problem areas. In 2021, Unsolved Problems in ML Safety was published, outlining research directions in robustness, monitoring, alignment, and systemic safety. In 2023, Rishi Sunak said he wants the United Kingdom to be the "geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and to host the first global summit on AI safety. The AI safety summit took place in November 2023, and focused on the risks of misuse and loss of control associated with frontier AI models. During the summit the intention to create the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI was announced. In 2024, The US and UK forged a new partnership on the science of AI safety. The MoU was signed on 1 April 2024 by US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo and UK technology secretary Michelle Donelan to jointly develop advanced AI model testing, following commitments announced at an AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November. In 2025, an international team of 96 experts chaired by Yoshua Bengio published the first International AI Safety Report. The report, commissioned by 30 nations and the United Nations, represents the first global scientific review of potential risks associated with advanced artificial intelligence. It details potential threats stemming from misuse, malfunction, and societal disruption, with the objective of informing policy through evidence-based findings, without providing specific recommendations. == Research focus == AI safety research areas include robustness, monitoring, and alignment. === Robustness === ==== Adversarial robustness ==== AI systems are often vulnerable to adversarial examples or "inputs to machine learning (ML) models that an attacker has intentionally designed to cause the model to make a mistake". For example, in 2013, Szegedy et al. discovered that adding specific imperceptible perturbations to an image could cause it to be misclassified with high confidence. This continues to be an issue with neural networks, though in recent work the perturbations are generally large enough to be perceptible. The image on the right is predicted to be an ostrich after the perturbation is applied. (Left) is a correctly predicted sample, (center) perturbation applied magnified by 10x, (right) adversarial example. Adversarial robustness is often associated with security. Researchers demonstrated that an audio signal could be imperceptibly modified so that speech-to-text systems transcribe it to any message the attacker chooses. Network intrusion and malware detection systems also must be adversarially robust since attackers may design their attacks to fool detectors. Models that represent objectives (reward models) must also be adversarially robust. For example, a reward model might estimate how helpful a text response is and a language model might be trained to maximize this score. Researchers have shown that if a language model is trained for long enough, it will leverage the vulnerabilities of the reward model to achieve a better score and perform worse on the intended task. This issue can be addressed by improving the adversarial robustness of the reward model. More generally, any AI system used to evaluate another AI system must be adversarially robust. This could include monitoring tools, since they could also potentially be tampered with to produce a higher reward. Large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to prom
ArchiMate
ArchiMate ( AR-ki-mayt) is an open and independent enterprise architecture modeling language to support the description, analysis and visualization of architecture within and across business domains in an unambiguous way. ArchiMate is a technical standard from The Open Group and is based on concepts from the now superseded IEEE 1471 standard. It is supported by various tool vendors and consulting firms. ArchiMate is also a registered trademark of The Open Group. The Open Group has a certification program for ArchiMate users, software tools and courses. ArchiMate distinguishes itself from other languages such as Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Business Process Modeling and Notation (BPMN) by its enterprise modelling scope. Also, UML and BPMN are meant for a specific use and they are quite heavy – containing about 150 (UML) and 250 (BPMN) modeling concepts whereas ArchiMate works with just about 50 (in version 2.0). The goal of ArchiMate is to be ”as small as possible”, not to cover every edge scenario imaginable. To be easy to learn and apply, ArchiMate was intentionally restricted “to the concepts that suffice for modeling the proverbial 80% of practical cases". == Overview == ArchiMate offers a common language for describing the construction and operation of business processes, organizational structures, information flows, IT systems, and technical infrastructure. This insight helps the different stakeholders to design, assess, and communicate the consequences of decisions and changes within and between these business domains. The main concepts and relationships of the ArchiMate language can be seen as a framework, the so-called Archimate Framework: It divides the enterprise architecture into a business, application and technology layer. In each layer, three aspects are considered: active elements, an internal structure and elements that define use or communicate information. One of the objectives of the ArchiMate language is to define the relationships between concepts in different architecture domains. The concepts of this language therefore hold the middle between the detailed concepts, which are used for modeling individual domains (for example, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) for modeling software products), and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), which is used for business process modeling. == History == ArchiMate is partly based on the now superseded IEEE 1471 standard. It was developed in the Netherlands by a project team from the Telematica Instituut in cooperation with several Dutch partners from government, industry and academia. Among the partners were Ordina NV, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, the Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science (LIACS) and the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI). Later, tests were performed in organizations such as ABN AMRO, the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration and the ABP. The development process lasted from July 2002 to December 2004, and took about 35 person years and approximately 4 million euros. The development was funded by the Dutch government (Dutch Tax and Customs Administration), and business partners, including ABN AMRO and the ABP Pension Fund. In 2008 the ownership and stewardship of ArchiMate was transferred to The Open Group. It is now managed by the ArchiMate Forum within The Open Group. In February 2009 The Open Group published the ArchiMate 1.0 standard as a formal technical standard. In January 2012 the ArchiMate 2.0 standard, and in 2013 the ArchiMate 2.1 standard was released. In June 2016, the Open Group released version 3.0 of the ArchiMate Specification. An update to Archimate 3.0.1 came out in August 2017. Archimate 3.1 was published 5 November 2019. The latest version of the ArchiMate Specification is version 3.2 released October 2022. Version 3.0 adds enhanced support for capability-oriented strategic modelling, new entities representing physical resources (for modelling the ingredients, equipment and transport resources used in the physical world) and a generic metamodel showing the entity types and the relationships between them. == ArchiMate framework == === Core framework === The main concepts and elements of the ArchiMate language are being presented as ArchiMate core framework. It consists of three layers and three aspects. This creates a matrix of combinations. Every layer has its passive structure, behavior and active structure aspects. ==== Layers ==== ArchiMate has a layered and service-oriented look on architectural models. The higher layers make use of services that are provided by the lower layers. Although, at an abstract level, the concepts that are used within each layer are similar, we define more concrete concepts that are specific for a certain layer. In this context, we distinguish three main layers: The business layer is about business processes, services, functions and events of business units. This layer "offers products and services to external customers, which are realized in the organization by business processes performed by business actors and roles". The application layer is about software applications that "support the components in the business with application services". The technology layer deals "with the hardware and communication infrastructure to support the application layer. This layer offers infrastructural services needed to run applications, realized by computer and communication hardware and system software". Each of these main layers can be further divided in sub-layers. For example, in the business layer, the primary business processes realising the products of a company may make use of a layer of secondary (supporting) business processes; in the application layer, the end-user applications may make use of generic services offered by supporting applications. On top of the business layer, a separate environment layer may be added, modelling the external customers that make use of the services of the organisation (although these may also be considered part of the business layer). In line with service orientation, the most important relation between layers is formed by use relations, which show how the higher layers make use of the services of lower layers. However, a second type of link is formed by realisation relations: elements in lower layers may realise comparable elements in higher layers; e.g., a ‘data object’ (application layer) may realise a ‘business object’ (business layer); or an ‘artifact’ (technology layer) may realise either a ‘data object’ or an ‘application component’ (application layer). ==== Aspects ==== Passive structure is the set of entities on which actions are conducted. In the business layer the example would be information objects, in the application layer data objects and in the technology layer, they could include physical objects. Behavior refers to the processes and functions performed by the actors. "Structural elements are assigned to behavioral elements, to show who or what displays the behavior". Active structure is the set of entities that display some behavior, e.g. business actors, devices, or application components. === Full framework === The Full ArchiMate framework is enriched by the physical layer, which was added to allow modeling of “physical equipment, materials, and distribution networks” and was not present in the previous version. The implementation and migration layer adds elements that allow architects to model a state of transition, to mark parts of the architecture that are temporary for the purpose, as the name says, of implementation and migration. Strategy layer adds three elements: resource, capability and course of action. These elements help to incorporate strategic dimension to the ArchiMate language by allowing it to depict the usage of resources and capabilities in order to achieve some strategic goals. Finally, there is a motivation aspect that allows different stakeholders to describe the motivation of specific actors or domains, which can be quite important when looking at one thing from several different angles. It adds several elements like stakeholder, value, driver, goal, meaning etc. == ArchiMate language == The ArchiMate language is formed as a top-level and is hierarchical. On the top, there is a model. A model is a collection of concepts. A concept can be either an element or a relationship. An element can be either of behavior type, structure, motivation or a so-called composite element (which means that it does not fit just one aspect of the framework, but two or more). The functionality of all concepts without a dependency on a specific layer is described by the generic metamodel. This layer-independent description of concepts is useful when trying to understand the mechanics of the Archimate language. === Concepts === ==== Elements ==== The generic elements are distributed into the same categories as the layers: Active structure elements Behavior elements Passive structure elements Motivation elements Active structure e
Proof of authority
Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.
Vocabulary-based transformation
In metadata, a vocabulary-based transformation (VBT) is a transformation aided by the use of a semantic equivalence statements within a controlled vocabulary. Many organizations today require communication between two or more computers. Although many standards exist to exchange data between computers such as HTML or email, there is still much structured information that needs to be exchanged between computers that is not standardized. The process of mapping one source of data into another is often a slow and labor-intensive process. VBT is a possible way to avoid much of the time and cost of manual data mapping using traditional extract, transform, load technologies. == History == The term vocabulary-based transformation was first defined by Roy Shulte of the Gartner Group around May 2003 and appeared in annual "hype-cycle" for integration. == Application == VBT allows computer systems integrators to more automatically "look up" the definitions of data elements in a centralized data dictionary and use that definition and the equivalent mappings to transform that data element into a foreign namespace. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) language also support three semantic equivalence statements. == Companies or products == IONA Technologies Contivo and Delta by Liaison Technologies enLeague Systems ItemField Unicorn Solutions Vitria Technology Zonar
The Most Dangerous Writing App
The Most Dangerous Writing App is a web application for free writing that combats writer's block by deleting all progress if the user stops typing for five seconds. It is targeted at creative writers who want to write first drafts without worrying about editing or formatting. == Features == The app is designed to "shut down your inner editor and get you into a state of flow", referring to the psychological concept of being in a flow state. Users start a writing session by choosing a time or word limit, and can only save or download their work if they complete the set limit without interruption. An optional "hardcore mode" blurs out everything the user has written so far, making it impossible to edit before finishing the writing session. == History == The Most Dangerous Writing App was created by software engineer Manuel Ebert and was released as free, open source software on February 29, 2016. It was reviewed by Wired, Forbes, Vogue, Huffington Post, The Verge, The Next Web, and others. It has been used in free writing contests and is recommended by NaNoWriMo. In April 2019, The Most Dangerous Writing App was acquired by Squibler, but the original version remains freely accessible.
Browsing
Browsing is a kind of orienting strategy. It is supposed to identify something of relevance for the browsing organism. In context of humans, it is a metaphor taken from the animal kingdom. It is used, for example, about people browsing open shelves in libraries, window shopping, or browsing databases or the Internet. In library and information science, it is an important subject, both purely theoretically and as applied science aiming at designing interfaces which support browsing activities for the user. == Definition == In 2011, Birger Hjørland provided the following definition: "Browsing is a quick examination of the relevance of a number of objects which may or may not lead to a closer examination or acquisition/selection of (some of) these objects. It is a kind of orienting strategy that is formed by our "theories", "expectations" and "subjectivity". == Controversies == As with any kind of human psychology, browsing can be understood in biological, behavioral, or cognitive terms on the one hand or in social, historical, and cultural terms on the other hand. In 2007, Marcia Bates researched browsing from "behavioural" approaches, while Hjørland (2011a+b) defended a social view. Bates found that browsing is rooted in our history as exploratory, motile animals hunting for food and nesting opportunities. According to Hjørland (2011a), on the other hand, Marcia Bates' browsing for information about browsing is governed by her behavioral assumptions, while Hjørland's browsing for information about browsing is governed by his socio-cultural understanding of human psychology. In short: Human browsing is based on our conceptions and interests. === Is browsing a random activity? === Browsing is often understood as a random activity. Dictionary.com, for example, has this definition: "to glance at random through a book, magazine, etc.". Hjørland suggests, however, that browsing is an activity that is governed by our metatheories. We may dynamically change our theories and conceptions but when we browse, the activity is governed by the interests, conceptions, priorities and metatheories that we have at that time. Therefore, browsing is not totally random. == Browsing versus analytical search strategies == In 1997, Gary Marchionini wrote: "A fundamental distinction is made between analytical and browsing strategies [...]. Analytical strategies depend on careful planning, the recall of query terms, and iterative query reformulations and examinations of results. Browsing strategies are heuristic and opportunistic and depend on recognizing relevant information. Analytic strategies are batch oriented and half duplex (turn talking) like human conversation, whereas browsing strategies are more interactive, real-time exchanges and collaborations between the information seeker and the information system. Browsing strategies demand a lower cognitive load in advance and a steadier attentional load throughout the information-seeking process. When it comes to Browsing, giblets are amazing." == Orienting strategies == Some sociologists, such as Berger and Zelditch in 1993, Wagner in 1984, and Wagner & Berger in 1985, have used the term "orienting strategies". They find that orienting strategies should be understood as metatheories: "Consider the very large proportion of sociological theory that is in the form of metatheory. It is discussion about theory: about what concepts it should include, about how those concepts should be linked, and about how theory should be studied. Similar to Kuhn’s paradigms, theories of this sort provide guidelines or strategies for understanding social phenomena and suggest the proper orientation of the theorist to these phenomena; they are orienting strategies. Textbooks in theory frequently focus on orienting strategies such as functionalism, exchange, or ethnomethodology." Sociologists thus use metatheories as orienting strategies. We may generalize and say that all people use metatheories as orienting strategies and that this is what direct our attention and also our browsing – also when we are not conscious about it.