In computer graphics, depth peeling is an exact multipass method of order-independent transparency that extracts transparent fragments into depth layers and composites those layers in depth order. Depth peeling has the advantage of being able to generate correct results even for complex images containing intersecting transparent objects. == Method == Depth peeling works by rendering the image multiple times. Depth peeling uses two Z buffers, one that works conventionally, and one that is not modified, and sets the minimum distance at which a fragment can be drawn without being discarded. For each pass, the previous pass' conventional Z-buffer is used as the minimal Z-buffer, so each pass removes already-captured nearer fragments and draws the next depth layer behind them. The resulting images can then be composited in depth order to form a single image. A major drawback of classical depth peeling is performance: it requires one geometry pass per peeled layer, so scenes with high depth complexity require many passes that each re-rasterize the transparent geometry. Later variants reduce the number of passes by peeling multiple layers or both front and back layers in a pass. Dual depth peeling reduces the geometry-pass count from N to N/2+1 by peeling one layer from the front and one from the back in each pass, while multi-layer depth peeling peels several layers per pass and reported up to an 8x speed-up in RGBA8 settings.
Vulnerabilities Equities Process
The Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP) is a process used by the U.S. federal government to determine on a case-by-case basis how it should treat zero-day computer security vulnerabilities: whether to disclose them to the public to help improve general computer security, or to keep them secret for offensive use against the government's adversaries. The VEP was first developed during the period 2008–2009, but only became public in 2016, when the government released a redacted version of the VEP in response to a FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Following public pressure for greater transparency in the wake of the Shadow Brokers affair, the U.S. government made a more public disclosure of the VEP process in November 2017. == Participants == According to the VEP plan published in 2017, the Equities Review Board (ERB) is the primary forum for interagency deliberation and determinations concerning the VEP. The ERB meets monthly, but may also be convened sooner if an immediate need arises. The ERB consists of representatives from the following agencies: Office of Management and Budget Office of the Director of National Intelligence (including the Intelligence Community-Security Coordination Center) United States Department of the Treasury United States Department of State United States Department of Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force) Department of Homeland Security (including the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and the United States Secret Service) United States Department of Energy United States Department of Defense (to include the National Security Agency, including Information Assurance and Signals Intelligence elements), United States Cyber Command, and DoD Cyber Crime Center) United States Department of Commerce Central Intelligence Agency The National Security Agency serves as the executive secretariat for the VEP. == Process == According to the November 2017 version of the VEP, the process is as follows: === Submission and notification === When an agency finds a vulnerability, it will notify the VEP secretariat as soon as is possible. The notification will include a description of the vulnerability and the vulnerable products or systems, together with the agency's recommendation to either disseminate or restrict the vulnerability information. The secretariat will then notify all participants of the submission within one business day, requesting them to respond if they have an relevant interest. === Equity and discussions === An agency expressing an interest must indicate whether it concurs with the original recommendation to disseminate or restrict within five business days. If it does not, it will hold discussions with the submitting agency and the VEP secretariat within seven business days to attempt to reach consensus. If no consensus is reached, the participants will suggest options for the Equities Review Board. === Determination to disseminate or restrict === Decisions whether to disclose or restrict a vulnerability should be made quickly, in full consultation with all concerned agencies, and in the overall best interest of the competing interests of the missions of the U.S. government. As far as possible, determinations should be based on rational, objective methodologies, taking into account factors such as prevalence, reliance, and severity. If the review board members cannot reach consensus, they will vote on a preliminary determination. If an agency with an equity disputes that decision, they may, by providing notice to the VEP secretariat, elect to contest the preliminary determination. If no agency contests a preliminary determination, it will be treated as a final decision. === Handling and follow-on actions === If vulnerability information is released, this will be done as quickly as possible, preferably within seven business days. Disclosure of vulnerabilities will be conducted according to guidelines agreed on by all members. The submitting agency is presumed to be most knowledgeable about the vulnerability and, as such, will be responsible for disseminating vulnerability information to the vendor. The submitting agency may elect to delegate dissemination responsibility to another agency on its behalf. The releasing agency will promptly provide a copy of the disclosed information to the VEP secretariat for record keeping. Additionally, the releasing agency is expected to follow up so the ERB can determine whether the vendor's action meets government requirements. If the vendor chooses not to address a vulnerability, or is not acting with urgency consistent with the risk of the vulnerability, the releasing agency will notify the secretariat, and the government may take other mitigation steps. == Criticism == The VEP process has been criticized for a number of deficiencies, including restriction by non-disclosure agreements, lack of risk ratings, special treatment for the NSA, and less than whole-hearted commitment to disclosure as the default option. == UK equivalent == British intelligence agencies—GCHQ in particular—follow a similar approach, also known as the Equities Process, to determine whether to disclose or retain security vulnerabilities. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was amended in 2022 to bring oversight of the operation of the process within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Details of the process were made public in 2018.
Tip and cue
Tip and cue, sometimes referred to as tip and que, tipping and cueing, or tipping and queing, is a method for satellite imagery and reconnaissance satellites to automatically coordinate tracking of objects across different satellites in real or near real-time. This technique ensures continuous tracking of targets as they move across different regions by handing them off between satellites, sharing satellite imagery and collateral across discrete satellites. The coordination between various satellites and their complementary sensors allows for more accurate and efficient data collection. This system is particularly useful in scenarios requiring real-time monitoring and rapid response; the method significantly improves situational awareness and operational effectiveness. Tip and cue techniques involve integrating various sensor systems, each playing a specific role in the tracking process. As a target moves, it is handed off from one satellite to another, ensuring continuous monitoring. This coordination optimizes data collection and analysis, enhancing overall tracking accuracy. The real-time information gathered by these satellites is critical for decision-making in various applications, including defense and surveillance. By leveraging multiple satellites and their sensors, it provides broader coverage and more reliable tracking, and the continuous handoff between satellites ensures there are no gaps in monitoring, essential for high-stakes applications. The real-time data provided by this system allows for timely and informed decisions, improving response times and outcomes. Tip and cue methodologies are a part of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT. Robert Cardillo, a former director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, highlighted the importance of tip and cue methods to their data collection efforts in 2015. == Historical Development == The concept of tip and cue in satellite monitoring has its origins in early military applications designed to enhance missile detection and tracking systems. During the Cold War, advancements in infrared sensing technologies laid the groundwork for more sophisticated tip and cue techniques. The integration of different sensor types, such as radar and optical sensors, in the 1990s expanded the capabilities of tip and cue systems beyond military applications. These advancements have made tip and cue techniques essential for various civilian uses, including disaster monitoring and environmental surveillance. Significant progress was made with the advent of high-speed data processing and communication technologies in the early 2000s, further refining the method. Advanced algorithms and data fusion techniques have been introduced to better integrate information from multiple sensors. Machine learning technologies now play a crucial role in improving detection and prediction capabilities, allowing for more adaptive and efficient tracking. Richmond and Brennan of Lockheed Martin, presenting to the annual technical conference of the Maui Space Surveillance Complex (formerly the Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS)), discussed the algorithms needed for 'tip and cue', to facilitate "multi-phenomenology data fusion." The Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) at Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Australia, operated by the United States Space Force and designed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, was reported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to be a leader in creating and improving tip and cue techniques, from a large library of orbital object data. == Technical overview == Tip and cue systems utilize a network of at least two satellites equipped with complementary sensor technologies to track moving objects in real-time. The method involves detecting a target with a primary sensor, such as an infrared or photographic sensor, which then cues secondary sensors on the same or other satellites for more detailed monitoring. This handoff process between discrete systems ensures continuous tracking as the target moves across different areas, leveraging each systems strengths. Data collected by these systems and sensors are rapidly processed and shared among the network, enhancing situational awareness. This coordination optimizes resource usage and improves the accuracy of tracking moving objects over large areas. The primary sensors detect initial targets based on specific signatures, such as heat or movement, and then cue secondary sensors to gather more precise data. This ensures that each sensor operates within its optimal range, maintaining high tracking accuracy and reliability. The integration of various sensor types, including optical, radar, and infrared, allows the system to function effectively under different conditions and environments. Real-time data processing and communication between satellites and ground stations are crucial for timely and accurate target tracking. Satellites using tip and cue processes may use either passive or active scanning methodoloigies. These systems may also leverage both orbital and ground-based ELINT (electronic signals intelligence). == Known use cases == Tip and cue systems have been extensively utilized in military applications, particularly for missile detection and defense. These systems enable early detection of missile launches using infrared sensors, which then cue other sensors to track the missile's trajectory more accurately. In environmental monitoring, tip and cue techniques help track natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes by coordinating various satellite sensors for comprehensive data collection and analysis. Surveillance and reconnaissance operations also benefit from tip and cue systems, which provide continuous and precise tracking of moving objects, enhancing situational awareness. Additionally, these systems are used in maritime surveillance to monitor ship movements and detect illegal activities such as smuggling and piracy. Tip and cue systems are used in disaster management. For instance, during wildfires, infrared sensors can detect heat signatures, prompting other sensors to gather detailed imagery and data on fire spread and intensity. This coordinated approach allows for real-time monitoring and rapid response, crucial for mitigating damage and saving lives. Similarly, in hurricane tracking, satellites equipped with various sensors can monitor storm development and progression, providing timely information for emergency management agencies. The integration of multiple sensor types ensures accurate and comprehensive coverage of these dynamic and fast-changing events. In maritime surveillance, or maritime domain awareness (MDA), tip and cue systems enhance the detection and monitoring of vessel movements, contributing to maritime security. By coordinating satellite sensors, these systems can track ships over vast ocean areas, identifying potential threats or illegal activities such as smuggling, piracy, and illegal fishing. The ability to maintain continuous surveillance and share data in real-time with maritime authorities improves response times and enforcement capabilities. This application of tip and cue systems not only aids in law enforcement but also supports environmental conservation efforts by monitoring protected marine areas. Automatic Identification System (AIS) is one of the most important sources of data for the MDA agencies. AIS is used in order for ships to know each other's whereabouts, they transmit a signal from ship to ship and to shore. Lately, the system has been developed into satellite system, so called satellite AIS, which makes the system more effective. All ocean-going vessels above 300 tons, are supposed to use and transmit via AIS according to the International Maritime Organization. The satellite constellations help facilitate this with tip and cue methodologies.
Generative AI pornography
Generative AI pornography or simply AI pornography is a digitally created pornography produced through generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Unlike traditional pornography, which involves real actors and cameras, this content is synthesized entirely by AI algorithms. These algorithms, including generative adversarial networks (GANs) and text-to-image models, generate lifelike images, videos, or animations from textual descriptions or datasets. == Functions and production strategies == AI pornography platforms, beyond account creation and social media linking, primarily enable users to generate sexual images through feature selection or text prompting. Users can customize bodies, clothing, and sociodemographic traits, and browse categorized galleries of user‑generated content. Several sites also support short pornographic videos or GIFs and modification tools such as nudifiers, deepfakes, and facemorphing. Platforms often allow fine‑tuning of parameters such as settings, style, or theme, and provide prompt enhancers or suggestions to improve outputs. Users may edit generated images, refine prior prompts, modify others’ work, or upload personal material as a basis, with iterative and collaborative content creation. Some websites additionally host interactive “erobots,” customizable in real time for appearance, personality, memories, speech, and profession, enabling tailored sexual and non‑sexual interactions. Less common features include VR integration, AI porn games, audio or doodle prompts, and consensual replication of individuals with verification. == History == The use of generative AI in the adult industry began in the late 2010s, initially focusing on AI-generated art, music, and visual content. This trend accelerated in 2022 with Stability AI's release of Stable Diffusion (SD), an open-source text-to-image model that enables users to generate images, including NSFW content, from text prompts using the LAION-Aesthetics subset of the LAION-5B dataset. Despite Stability AI's warnings against sexual imagery, SD's public release led to dedicated communities exploring both artistic and explicit content, sparking ethical debates over open-access AI and its use in adult media. By 2020, AI tools had advanced to generate highly realistic adult content, amplifying calls for regulation. === AI-generated influencers === One application of generative AI technology is the creation of AI-generated influencers on platforms such as OnlyFans and Instagram. These AI personas interact with users in ways that can mimic real human engagement, offering an entirely synthetic but convincing experience. While popular among niche audiences, these virtual influencers have prompted discussions about authenticity, consent, and the blurring line between human and AI-generated content, especially in adult entertainment. === The growth of AI porn sites === By 2023, websites dedicated to AI-generated adult content had gained traction, catering to audiences seeking customizable experiences. These platforms allow users to create or view AI-generated pornography tailored to their preferences. These platforms enable users to create or view AI-generated adult content appealing to different preferences through prompts and tags, customizing body type, facial features, and art styles. Tags further refine the output, creating niche and diverse content. Many sites feature extensive image libraries and continuous content feeds, combining personalization with discovery and enhancing user engagement. AI porn sites, therefore, attract those seeking unique or niche experiences, sparking debates on creativity and the ethical boundaries of AI in adult media. == Ethical concerns and misuse == The growth of generative AI pornography has also attracted some cause for criticism. AI technology can be exploited to create non-consensual pornographic material, posing risks similar to those seen with deepfake revenge porn and AI-generated NCII (Non-Consensual Intimate Image). A 2023 analysis found that 98% of deepfake videos online are pornographic, with 99% of the victims being women. Some famous celebrities victims of deepfake include Scarlett Johansson, Taylor Swift, and Maisie Williams. OpenAI is exploring whether NSFW content, such as erotica, can be responsibly generated in age-appropriate contexts while maintaining its ban on deepfakes. This proposal has attracted criticism from child safety campaigners who argue it undermines OpenAI's mission to develop "safe and beneficial" AI. Additionally, the Internet Watch Foundation has raised concerns about AI being used to generate sexual abuse content involving children. === AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery (AI Undress) === Generative AI have extensively been used to produce pornography images and videos of non-consenting individuals. 404 Media reported a particular AI generated porn bot on Telegram has more than 100,000 monthly users. Alibaba, the Chinese tech company, released an AI video generation model in 2025 called Wan 2.1, which was modified to produce non-consensual pornography. Several US states are taking actions against using deepfake apps and sharing them on the internet. In 2024, San Francisco filed a landmark lawsuit to shut down "undress" apps that allow users to generate non-consensual AI nude images, citing violations of state laws. The case aligns with California's recent legislation—SB 926, SB 942, and SB 981—championed by Senators Aisha Wahab and Josh Becker and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. These bills aim to protect individuals from AI-generated explicit images by criminalizing non-consensual distribution, mandating disclosures, and empowering victims to report and remove harmful content from platforms. === Differences from deepfake pornography === While both generative AI pornography and deepfake pornography rely on synthetic media, they differ in their methods and ethical considerations. Deepfake pornography typically involves altering existing footage of real individuals, often without their consent, using AI to superimpose faces, undress said persons, or modify scenes. In contrast, generative AI pornography is created using algorithms, producing hyper-realistic content without the need to upload real pictures of people. Hany Farid, digital image analysis expert, also described the difference between "AI porn" and "deepfake porn." == Legality == The legality of generative AI pornography varies widely by jurisdiction and remains an evolving issue. In some countries, laws addressing digital impersonation, obscenity, or deepfake technologies may indirectly apply, particularly when AI-generated content involves the likeness of real individuals without consent. The absence of a physical performer further complicates traditional regulatory frameworks, which are often grounded in performer protection and distribution laws. In the United States, legal responses have primarily focused on non-consensual deepfakes and impersonation. Some states, such as Virginia, California, and Texas, have enacted legislation criminalising the creation or distribution of non-consensual explicit deepfake content. However, there is no comprehensive federal law addressing AI-generated pornography, leaving a patchwork of legal interpretations and enforcement standards across different jurisdictions. According to a 2023 report, South Korea accounts for approximately 53% of global deepfake pornography production. In September 2024, South Korea's National Assembly amended the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, introducing two significant reforms related to deepfake content. The first criminalises the possession, viewing, purchase, and storage of non-consensual deepfake material, with penalties of up to three years in prison or fines of up to 30 million won (approximately USD 20,000). The second reform specifically addresses the exploitation of minors, establishing that individuals who use deepfakes to threaten or blackmail minors face a minimum of three years' imprisonment, and at least five years if they coerce minors into unwanted acts. In England and Wales the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has legislated against the creation, or the request for creation, of intimate images by nudifying software or websites of another person who has not consented to this. However as of January 2026 this has not yet been brought into force.
Supreme Commander (video game)
Supreme Commander (sometimes SupCom) is a 2007 real-time strategy video game designed by Chris Taylor and developed by his company, Gas Powered Games. The game is considered to be a spiritual successor, not a direct sequel, to Taylor's 1997 game Total Annihilation. First announced in the August 2005 edition of PC Gamer magazine, the game was released in Europe on February 16, 2007, and in North America on February 20. The standalone expansion Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance was released on November 6 of the same year. The sequel, Supreme Commander 2, was released in 2010. Nowadays, the original Supreme Commander is played through the community client called Forged Alliance Forever; the game has been further developed and balanced, and offers a wide variety of community mods. The gameplay of Supreme Commander focuses on using a giant bipedal mech called an Armored Command Unit (ACU), the so-called "Supreme Commander", to build a base, upgrading units to reach higher technology tiers, and conquering opponents. The player can command one of three factions: the Aeon Illuminate, the Cybran Nation, or the United Earth Federation (UEF). The expansion game added the Seraphim faction. Supreme Commander was highly anticipated in pre-release previews, and was well received by critics, with a Metacritic average of 86 out of 100. == Gameplay == Supreme Commander, like its spiritual predecessors, Total Annihilation and Spring, begins with the player solely possessing a single, irreplaceable construction unit called the "Armored Command Unit," or ACU, the titular Supreme Commander. Normally the loss of this unit results in the loss of the game (Skirmish missions can be set for a variety of victory conditions). These mech suits are designed to be transported through quantum gateways across the galaxy and contain all the materials and blueprints necessary to create an army from a planet's native resources in hours. All standard units except Commanders and summoned Support Commanders (sACU) are self-sufficient robots. All units and structures belong to one of four technology tiers, or "Tech" levels, each tier being stronger and/or more efficient than the previous. Certain lower-tier structures can be upgraded into higher ones without having to rebuild them. The first tier is available at the start of the game and consists of small, relatively weak units and structures. The second tier expands the player's abilities greatly, especially in terms of stationary weapons and shielding, and introduces upgraded versions of tier one units. The third tier level has very powerful assault units designed to overcome the fortifications of the most entrenched player. The fourth tier is a limited range of "experimental" technology. These are usually massive units which take a lot of time and energy to produce, but provide a significant tactical advantage. Supreme Commander features a varied skirmish AI. The typical Easy' and Normal modes are present, but the Hard difficulty level has four possible variants. Horde AI will swarm the player with hordes of lower level units, Tech AI will upgrade its units as fast as possible and assault the player with advanced units, the Balanced AI attempts to find a balance between the two, and the Supreme AI decides which of the three hard strategies is best for the map. The single player campaign consists of eighteen missions, six for each faction. The player is an inexperienced Commander who plays a key role in their faction's campaign to bring the "Infinite War" to an end. Despite the low number of campaign missions, each mission can potentially last hours. At the start of a mission, objectives are assigned for the player to complete. Once the player accomplishes them, the map is expanded, sometimes doubling or tripling in size, and new objectives are assigned. As the mission is commonly divided into three segments, the player will often have to overcome several enemy positions to achieve victory. === Resource management === Because humans have developed replication technology, making advanced use of rapid prototyping and nanotechnology, only two types of resources are required to wage war: Energy and Mass. Energy is obtained by constructing power generators on any solid surface (except fuel generators, which can only be built on fuel deposits), while Mass is obtained either by placing mass extractors on limited mass deposit spots (the most efficient method, although it requires map control) or by building mass fabricators to convert energy into mass. Constructor units can gather energy by "reclaiming" it from organic debris such as trees and mass from rocks and wrecked units. Each player has a certain amount of resource storage, which can be expanded by the construction of storage structures. This gives the player reserves in times of shortage or allows them to stockpile resources. If the resource generation exceeds the player's capacity, the material is wasted. On the contrary, if the storages are depleted and the demand of one of the resources exceeds the production, then all the productions speed is reduced. In addition, if an energy deficit occurs, shields will stop working. An adjacency system allows certain structures to benefit from being built directly adjacent to others. Energy-consuming structures will use less energy when built adjacent to power generators and power generators will produce more energy when built adjacent to power storage structures. The same applies to their mass-producing equivalents. Likewise, factories will consume less energy and mass when built adjacent to power generators and mass fabricators/extractors, respectively. However, by placing structures in close proximity, they become more vulnerable to collateral damage if an adjacent structure is destroyed. Furthermore, most resource generation structures can cause chain reactions when destroyed (especially Tier III structures, which produce large amounts of resources but often have large detonations that can wipe out a nearby army). === Warfare === Supreme Commander uses a "strategic zoom" system that allows the player to seamlessly zoom from a detailed close up view of an individual unit all the way out to a view of the entire map, at which point it resembles a fullscreen version of the minimap denoting individual units with icons. The camera also has a free movement mode and can be slaved to track a selected unit and there is a split screen mode which also supports multiple monitors. This system allows Supreme Commander to use vast maps up to 80 km x 80 km, with players potentially controlling a thousand units each. Units in Supreme Commander are built to scale as they would be in the real world. For example, battleships dwarf submarines. Late into the game, the larger "experimental" units, such as the Cybran Monkeylord, an enormous spider-shaped assault unit, can actually crush smaller enemy units by stepping on them. Because of the wide range of planets colonized by humanity in the setting, the theatres of war range from desert to arctic, and all battlespaces are employed. Technologies emerging in modern warfare are frequently employed in Supreme Commander. For example, stealth technology and both tactical and strategic missile and missile defense systems can be used. Supreme Commander introduced several innovations designed to reduce the amount of micromanagement inherent in many RTS games. Engineers units have the command "assist", that will help follow other engineers and help them finish their orders or improve production rate of factories. In addition, engineers with the order "patrol" will repair units, buildings and recycle wrecks in their along their patrol route. Holding the shift key causes any orders given to a unit (or group of units) to be queued. In this manner a unit may be ordered to attack several targets in succession, or to make best speed to a given point on the map and then attack towards a specified location engaging any hostiles it encounters along the way. After orders have been issued, holding the shift key causes all issued orders to be displayed on the map where they can be subsequently modified to accommodate a change of plan. Further, when a unit is ordered to attack a target, the player can issue an order to perform a coordinated attack to another unit. This order coordinates the arrival time of the units at the target automatically by adjusting the speed of the units involved. As in other RTS games, air transports can be used to convey units to specified destinations, in Supreme Commander though by shift queuing orders a transport containing several units can be ordered to drop specific units at subsequent waypoints. An air transport can also be ordered to create a ferry route, an airbridge wherein any land units ordered to the start of the ferry route will be conveyed by the air transport to the specified destination. The output from a production factory can be routed to a ferry route causing all units co
Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine
The Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine or MENACE) was a mechanical computer made from 304 matchboxes designed and built by artificial intelligence researcher Donald Michie and his colleague Roger Chambers, in 1961. It was designed to play human opponents in games of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) by returning a move for any given state of play and to refine its strategy through reinforcement learning. This was one of the first types of artificial intelligence. Michie and Chambers did not have immediate access to a computer; they worked around this by building the engine out of matchboxes. The matchboxes they used each represented a single possible layout of a noughts and crosses grid. When the computer first played, it would randomly choose moves based on the current layout. As it played more games, through a reinforcement loop, it disqualified strategies that led to losing games, and supplemented strategies that led to winning games. Michie held a tournament against MENACE in 1961, wherein he experimented with different openings. Following MENACE's maiden tournament against Michie, it demonstrated successful artificial intelligence in its strategy. Michie's essays on MENACE's weight initialisation and the BOXES algorithm used by MENACE became popular in the field of computer science research. Michie was honoured for his contribution to machine learning research, and was twice commissioned to program a MENACE simulation on an actual computer. == Origin == Donald Michie (1923–2007) had been on the team decrypting the German Tunny Code during World War II. Fifteen years later, he wanted to further display his mathematical and computational prowess with an early convolutional neural network. Since computer equipment was not obtainable for such uses, and Michie did not have a computer readily available, he decided to display and demonstrate artificial intelligence in a more esoteric format and constructed a functional mechanical computer out of matchboxes and beads. MENACE was constructed as the result of a bet with a computer science colleague who postulated that such a machine was impossible. Michie undertook the task of collecting and defining each matchbox as a "fun project", later turned into a demonstration tool. Michie completed his essay on MENACE in 1963, "Experiments on the mechanization of game-learning", as well as his essay on the BOXES Algorithm, written with R. A. Chambers and had built up an AI research unit in Hope Park Square, Edinburgh, Scotland. MENACE learned by playing successive matches of noughts and crosses. Each time, it would eliminate a losing strategy by the human player confiscating the beads that corresponded to each move. It reinforced winning strategies by making the moves more likely, by supplying extra beads. This was one of the earliest versions of the Reinforcement Loop, the schematic algorithm of looping the algorithm, dropping unsuccessful strategies until only the winning ones remain. This model starts as completely random, and gradually learns. == Composition == MENACE was made from 304 matchboxes glued together in an arrangement similar to a chest of drawers. Each box had a code number, which was keyed into a chart. This chart had drawings of tic-tac-toe game grids with various configurations of X, O, and empty squares, corresponding to all possible permutations a game could go through as it progressed. After removing duplicate arrangements (ones that were simply rotations or mirror images of other configurations), MENACE used 304 permutations in its chart and thus that many matchboxes. Each individual matchbox tray contained a collection of coloured beads. Each colour represented a move on a square on the game grid, and so matchboxes with arrangements where positions on the grid were already taken would not have beads for that position. Additionally, at the front of the tray were two extra pieces of card in a "V" shape, the point of the "V" pointing at the front of the matchbox. Michie and his artificial intelligence team called MENACE's algorithm "Boxes", after the apparatus used for the machine. The first stage "Boxes" operated in five phases, each setting a definition and a precedent for the rules of the algorithm in relation to the game. == Operation == MENACE played first, as O, since all matchboxes represented permutations only relevant to the "X" player. To retrieve MENACE's choice of move, the opponent or operator located the matchbox that matched the current game state, or a rotation or mirror image of it. For example, at the start of a game, this would be the matchbox for an empty grid. The tray would be removed and lightly shaken so as to move the beads around. Then, the bead that had rolled into the point of the "V" shape at the front of the tray was the move MENACE had chosen to make. Its colour was then used as the position to play on, and, after accounting for any rotations or flips needed based on the chosen matchbox configuration's relation to the current grid, the O would be placed on that square. Then the player performed their move, the new state was located, a new move selected, and so on, until the game was finished. When the game had finished, the human player observed the game's outcome. As a game was played, each matchbox that was used for MENACE's turn had its tray returned to it ajar, and the bead used kept aside, so that MENACE's choice of moves and the game states they belonged to were recorded. Michie described his reinforcement system with "reward" and "punishment". Once the game was finished, if MENACE had won, it would then receive a "reward" for its victory. The removed beads showed the sequence of the winning moves. These were returned to their respective trays, easily identifiable since they were slightly open, as well as three bonus beads of the same colour. In this way, in future games MENACE would become more likely to repeat those winning moves, reinforcing winning strategies. If it lost, the removed beads were not returned, "punishing" MENACE, and meaning that in future it would be less likely, and eventually incapable if that colour of bead became absent, to repeat the moves that cause a loss. If the game was a draw, one additional bead was added to each box. == Results in practice == === Optimal strategy === Noughts and crosses has a well-known optimal strategy. A player must place their symbol in a way that blocks the other player from achieving any rows while simultaneously making a row themself. However, if both players use this strategy, the game always ends in a draw. If the human player is familiar with the optimal strategy, and MENACE can quickly learn it, then the games will eventually only end in draws. The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer plays against a random-playing opponent. When playing against a player using optimal strategy, the odds of a draw grow to 100%. In Donald Michie's official tournament against MENACE in 1961 he used optimal strategy, and he and the computer began to draw consistently after twenty games. Michie's tournament had the following milestones: Michie began by consistently opening with "Variant 0", the middle square. At 15 games, MENACE abandoned all non-corner openings. At just over 20, Michie switched to consistently using "Variant 1", the bottom-right square. At 60, he returned to Variant 0. As he neared 80 games, he moved to "Variant 2", the top-middle. At 110, he switched to "Variant 3", the top right. At 135, he switched to "Variant 4", middle-right. At 190, he returned to Variant 1, and at 210, he returned to Variant 0. The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs: === Correlation === Depending on the strategy employed by the human player, MENACE produces a different trend on scatter graphs of wins. Using a random turn from the human player results in an almost-perfect positive trend. Playing the optimal strategy returns a slightly slower increase. The reinforcement does not create a perfect standard of wins; the algorithm will draw random uncertain conclusions each time. After the j-th round, the correlation of near-perfect play runs: 1 − D D − D ( j + 2 ) ∑ i = 0 j D ( j i + 1 ) V i {\displaystyle {1-D \over D-D^{(j+2)}}\sum _{i=0}^{j}D^{(ji+1)}V_{i}} Where Vi is the outcome (+1 is win, 0 is draw and -1 is loss) and D is the decay factor (average of past values of wins and losses). Below, Mn is the multiplier for the n-th round of the game. == Legacy == Donald Michie's MENACE proved that a computer could learn from failure and success to become good at a task. It used what would become core principles within the field of machine learning before they had been properly theorised. For example, the combination of how MENACE starts with equal numbers of types of beads in each matchbox, and how these are then selected at random, creates a learning behaviour similar to weight initialisation
Fuzzy concept
A fuzzy concept is an idea of which the boundaries of application can vary considerably according to context or conditions, instead of being fixed once and for all. That means the idea is somewhat vague or imprecise. Yet it is not unclear or meaningless. It has a definite meaning, which can often be made more exact with further elaboration and specification — including a closer definition of the context in which the concept is used. The inverse of a "fuzzy concept" is a "crisp concept" (i.e. a precise concept). Fuzzy concepts are often used to navigate imprecision in the real world, when precise information is not available and an approximate indication is sufficient to be helpful. Although the linguist George Philip Lakoff already defined the semantics of a fuzzy concept in 1973 (inspired by an unpublished 1971 paper by Eleanor Rosch,) the term "fuzzy concept" rarely received a standalone entry in dictionaries, handbooks and encyclopedias. Sometimes it was defined in encyclopedia articles on fuzzy logic, or it was simply equated with a mathematical “fuzzy set”. A fuzzy concept can be "fuzzy" for many different reasons in different contexts. This makes it harder to provide a precise definition that covers all cases. Paradoxically, the definition of fuzzy concepts may itself be somewhat "fuzzy". Lotfi A. Zadeh, known as "the father of fuzzy logic", claimed that "vagueness connotes insufficient specificity, whereas fuzziness connotes unsharpness of class boundaries". Not all scholars agree. With increasing academic literature on the subject, the term "fuzzy concept" is now more widely recognized as a philosophical, linguistic or scientific category, and the study of the characteristics of fuzzy concepts and fuzzy language is known as fuzzy semantics. “Fuzzy logic” has become a generic term for many different kinds of many-valued logics, and is applied in many different areas of research, computer programming and industrial design. For engineers, "Fuzziness is imprecision or vagueness of definition." For computer scientists, a fuzzy concept is an idea which is "to an extent applicable" in a situation. It means that the concept can have gradations of significance or unsharp (variable) boundaries of application — a "fuzzy statement" is a statement which is true "to some extent", and that extent can often be represented by a scaled value (a score). For mathematicians, a "fuzzy concept" is usually a fuzzy set or a combination of such sets (see fuzzy mathematics and fuzzy set theory). In cognitive linguistics, the things that belong to a "fuzzy category" exhibit gradations of family resemblance, and the borders of the category are not clearly defined. Through most of the 20th century, the idea of reasoning with fuzzy concepts faced considerable resistance from Western academic elites. They did not want to endorse the use of imprecise concepts in research or argumentation, and they often regarded fuzzy logic with suspicion, derision or even hostility. That may partly explain why the idea of a "fuzzy concept" did not get a separate entry in encyclopedias, handbooks and dictionaries. Yet although people might not be aware of it, the use of fuzzy concepts has risen gigantically in all walks of life from the 1970s onward. That is mainly due to advances in electronic engineering, fuzzy mathematics and digital computer programming. The new technology allows very complex inferences about "variations on a theme" to be anticipated and fixed in a program. The Perseverance Mars rover, a driverless NASA vehicle used to explore the Jezero crater on the planet Mars, features fuzzy logic programming that steers it through rough terrain. Similarly, to the North, the Chinese Mars rover Zhurong used fuzzy logic algorithms to calculate its travel route in Utopia Planitia from sensor data. New neuro-fuzzy computational methods make it possible for machines to identify, measure, adjust and respond to fine gradations of significance with great precision. It means that practically useful concepts can be coded, sharply defined, and applied to all kinds of tasks, even if ordinarily these concepts are never exactly defined. Nowadays engineers, statisticians and programmers often represent fuzzy concepts mathematically, using fuzzy logic, fuzzy values, fuzzy variables and fuzzy sets (see also fuzzy set theory). Fuzzy logic is not "woolly thinking", but a "precise logic of imprecision" which reasons with graded concepts and gradations of truth. Fuzzy concepts and fuzzy logic often play a significant role in artificial intelligence programming, for example because they can model human cognitive processes more easily than other methods. == Origins == Vagueness and fuzziness have probably always been a part of human experience. In the West, ancient texts show that philosophers and scientists were already thinking critically about this in classical antiquity. Most often, they regarded vagueness as a problem: as an obstacle to clear thinking, as a source of confusion, or as an evasive tactic. It got in the way of providing clear orientation, guidance, direction and leadership. Therefore, vagueness became associated with a hermeneutic of suspicion — it was considered as something to avoid, as something undesirable. By contrast, in the ancient Chinese tradition of Daoist thought of Laozi and Zhuang Zhou, "vagueness is not regarded with suspicion, but is simply an acknowledged characteristic of the world around us" — a subject for meditation and a source of insight. === Sorites paradox === The ancient Sorites paradox raised the logical problem, of how we could exactly define the threshold at which a change in quantitative gradation turns into a qualitative or categorical difference. With some physical processes, this threshold seems relatively easy to identify. For example, water turns into steam at 100 °C or 212 °F. Of course, the boiling point depends partly on atmospheric pressure, which decreases at higher altitudes; it is also affected by the level of humidity — in that sense, the boiling point is "somewhat fuzzy", because it can vary under different conditions. Nevertheless, for every altitude, level of air pressure and degree of humidity, we can predict accurately what the boiling point will be, if we know the relevant conditions. With many other processes and gradations, however, the point of change is much more difficult to locate, and remains somewhat vague. Thus, the boundaries between qualitatively different things may be unsharp: we know that there are boundaries, but we cannot define them exactly. For example, to identify "the oldest city in the world", we have to define what counts as a city, and at what point a growing human settlement becomes a city. === The continuum fallacy and Loki's wager === According to the modern idea of the continuum fallacy, the fact that a statement is to an extent vague, does not automatically mean that it has no validity. The question then arises, of how (by what method or approach) we could ascertain and define the validity that the fuzzy statement does have. The Nordic myth of Loki's wager suggested that concepts that lack precise meanings or lack precise boundaries of application cannot be operated with, because they evade any clear definition. However, the 20th-century idea of "fuzzy concepts" proposes that "somewhat vague terms" can be operated with, because we can explicate and define the variability of their application — by assigning numbers to gradations of applicability. This idea sounds simple enough, but it had large implications. === Precursors and pioneers === In Western civilization, the intellectual recognition of fuzzy concepts has been traced back to a diversity of famous and less well-known thinkers, including (among many others) Eubulides, Epicurus, Plato, Cicero, William Ockham and John Buridan, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Friedrich Nietzsche, William James, Hugh MacColl, Charles S. Peirce, Hans Reichenbach, Carl Gustav Hempel, Max Black, Arto Salomaa, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jan Łukasiewicz, Emil Leon Post, Alfred Tarski, Georg Cantor, Nicolai A. Vasiliev, Kurt Gödel, Stanisław Jaśkowski, Willard Van Orman Quine, George J. Klir, Petr Hájek, Joseph Goguen, Ronald R. Yager, Enrique Héctor Ruspini, Jan Pavelka, Didier Dubois, Bernadette Bouchon-Meunier, and Donald Knuth. Across at least two and a half millennia, all of them had something to say about graded concepts with unsharp boundaries. This suggests at least that the awareness of the existence of concepts with "fuzzy" characteristics, in one form or another, has a very long history in human thought. Quite a few 20th century logicians, mathematicians and philosophers also tried to analyze the characteristics of fuzzy concepts as a recognized species, sometimes with the aid of some kind of many-valued logic or substructural logic. An early attempt in the post-WW2 era to create a mathematical theory of sets with gradations of