Magic Quadrant (MQ) is a series of market research reports published by research and advisory firm Gartner that rely on proprietary qualitative data analysis methods to demonstrate market trends, such as direction, maturity, and participants. Their analyses are conducted for several specific technology industries and are updated every 1–2 years: once an updated report has been published, its predecessor is "retired". == Rating == Gartner rates vendors upon two criteria: completeness of vision and ability to execute. Completeness of vision – Reflects the vendor's innovation, and whether the vendor drives or follows the market. Ability to execute – Summarizes factors such as the vendor's financial viability, market responsiveness, product development, sales channels and customer base. The two component scores lead to a vendor position in one of four quadrants: === Leaders === Vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant have the highest composite scores for their completeness of vision and ability to execute. A vendor in the Leaders quadrant has the market share, credibility, and marketing & sales capabilities needed to drive the acceptance of new technologies. These vendors demonstrate a clear understanding of market needs, they are innovators and thought leaders, and they have well-articulated plans that customers and prospects can use when designing their infrastructures and strategies. In addition, they have a presence in the five major geographical regions, consistent financial performance, and broad platform support. === Challengers === Vendors in the "Challengers" quadrant have high scores mainly for their ability to execute. They both participate in the market and execute well enough to be a serious threat to vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant. They have strong products, as well as sufficiently credible market position and resources to sustain continued growth. Financial viability is not an issue for vendors in the "Challengers" quadrant, but they lack the size and influence of vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant due to their relative lack of vision. === Visionaries === Vendors in the "Visionaries" quadrant have high scores mainly for their completeness of vision. They deliver innovative products that address operationally or financially important end-user problems at a broad scale, but have not yet demonstrated the ability to capture market share or maintain sustainable levels of profitability. Visionary vendors are frequently privately held companies and acquisition targets for larger, established companies. The likelihood of acquisition often reduces the risks associated with installing their systems. === Niche Players === Vendors in the "Niche Players" quadrant have relatively low scores for both their ability to execute and their completeness of vision. They are often narrowly focused on specific market or vertical segments. This quadrant often also includes vendors that are adapting their existing products to enter the market under consideration, or larger vendors having difficulty developing and executing on their vision. == Gartner Critical Capabilities == Gartner Critical Capabilities complement Magic Quadrant analysis to offer deeper insight into the products and services offered by multiple vendors by a comparative analysis that scores competing products or services against a set of critical differentiators identified by Gartner. Gartner has periodically ended Magic Quadrant listings for IT Service Management, Web Content Management, and other industries as those markets have fully matured or other factors rendered the analytic framework inapplicable. == Criticism == The Magic Quadrant, and analysts in general, skew the market: according to research, by applying their methodologies to describe a market, they change that marketplace to fit their tools. Another criticism is that open source vendors are not considered sufficiently by analysts like Gartner, as has been published in an online discussion between a VP from Talend and a German Research VP from Gartner. On May 29, 2009 (2009-05-29), software vendor ZL Technologies filed a federal lawsuit against Gartner that challenged the "legitimacy" of Gartner's Magic Quadrant rating system. Gartner filed a motion to dismiss by claiming First Amendment protection since it contends that its MQ reports contain "pure opinion", which legally means opinions that are not based on fact. The court threw out the ZL case because it lacked a specific complaint. The decision was upheld on appeal.
Universal psychometrics
Universal psychometrics encompasses psychometrics instruments that could measure the psychological properties of any intelligent agent. Up until the early 21st century, psychometrics relied heavily on psychological tests that require the subject to cooperate and answer questions, the most famous example being an intelligence test. Such methods are only applicable to the measurement of human psychological properties. As a result, some researchers have proposed the idea of universal psychometrics - they suggest developing testing methods that allow for the measurement of non-human entities' psychological properties. For example, it has been suggested that the Turing test is a form of universal psychometrics. This test involves having testers (without any foreknowledge) attempt to distinguish a human from a machine by interacting with both (while not being to see either individuals). It is supposed that if the machine is equally intelligent to a human, the testers will not be able to distinguish between the two, i.e., their guesses will not be better than chance. Thus, Turing test could measure the intelligence (a psychological variable) of an AI. Other instruments proposed for universal psychometrics include reinforcement learning and measuring the ability to predict complexity.
Moral Machine
Moral Machine is an online platform, developed by Iyad Rahwan's Scalable Cooperation group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that generates moral dilemmas and collects information on the decisions that people make between two destructive outcomes. The platform is the idea of Iyad Rahwan and social psychologists Azim Shariff and Jean-François Bonnefon, who conceived of the idea ahead of the publication of their article about the ethics of self-driving cars. The key contributors to building the platform were MIT Media Lab graduate students Edmond Awad and Sohan Dsouza. The presented scenarios are often variations of the trolley problem, and the information collected would be used for further research regarding the decisions that machine intelligence must make in the future. For example, as artificial intelligence plays an increasingly significant role in autonomous driving technology, research projects like Moral Machine help to find solutions for challenging life-and-death decisions that will face self-driving vehicles. Moral Machine was active from January 2016 to July 2020. The Moral Machine continues to be available on their website for people to experience. == The experiment == The Moral Machine was an ambitious project; it was the first attempt at using such an experimental design to test a large number of humans in over 200 countries worldwide. The study was approved by the Institute Review Board (IRB) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The setup of the experiment asks the viewer to make a decision on a single scenario in which a self-driving car is about to hit pedestrians. The user can decide to have the car either swerve to avoid hitting the pedestrians or keep going straight to preserve the lives it is transporting. Participants can complete as many scenarios as they want to, however the scenarios themselves are generated in groups of thirteen. Within this thirteen, a single scenario is entirely random while the other twelve are generated from a space in a database of 26 million different possibilities. They are chosen with two dilemmas focused on each of six dimensions of moral preferences: character gender, character age, character physical fitness, character social status, character species, and character number. The experiment setup remains the same throughout multiple scenarios but each scenario tests a different set of factors. Most notably, the characters involved in the scenario are different in each one. Characters may include ones such as: Stroller, girl, boy, pregnant, Male Doctor, Female Doctor, Female Athlete, Executive Female, Male Athlete, Executive Male, Large Woman, Large Man, homeless, old man, old woman, dog, criminal, and a cat. Through these different characters researchers were able to understand how a wide variety of people will judge scenarios based on those involved. == Analysis == The Moral Machine collected 40 million moral decisions from 4 million participants in 233 countries, analysis of which revealed trends within individual countries and humanity as a whole. It tested for nine factors: preference for sparing humans versus pets, passengers versus pedestrians, men versus women, young versus elderly, fit versus overweight, higher versus lower social status, jaywalkers versus law abiders, larger versus smaller groups, and inaction (i.e. staying on course) versus swerving. Globally, participants favored human lives over lives of animals like dogs and cats. They preferred to spare more lives if possible, and younger lives as opposed to older. Babies were most often spared with cats being the least spared. In terms of gender variations, people tended to spare men over women for doctors and the elderly. All countries generally shared the preference to spare pedestrians over passengers and law-abiders over criminals. Participants from less wealthy countries showed a higher tendency of sparing pedestrians who crossed illegally compared to those from more wealthy and developed countries. This is most likely due to their experience living in a society where individuals are more likely to deviate from rules due to less stringent enforcement of laws. Countries of higher economic inequality overwhelmingly prefer to save wealthier individuals over poorer ones. === Cultural differences === Researchers subdivided 130 countries with similar results into three ‘cultural clusters’. North America and European countries with significant Christian populations had a higher preference for inaction on the part of the driver and thus had less of a preference for sparing pedestrians as compared to other clusters. East Asian and Islamic countries, together constituting the second cluster, did not have as much preference to spare younger humans compared to the other two clusters and had a higher preference for sparing law-abiding humans. Latin America and Francophone countries had a higher preference for sparing women, the young, the fit, and those of higher status, but a lower preference for sparing humans over pets or other animals. Individualistic cultures tended to spare larger groups, and collectivist cultures had a stronger preference for sparing the lives of older people. For instance, China ranked far below the world average for preference to spare the younger over elderly, while the average respondent from the US exhibited a much higher tendency to save younger lives and larger groups. == Applications of the data == The findings from the moral machine can help decision makers when designing self-driving automotive systems. Designers must make sure that these vehicles are able to solve problems on the road that aligns with the moral values of humans around it. This is a challenge because of the complex nature of humans who may all make different decisions based on their personal values. However, by collecting a large amount of decisions from humans all over the world, researchers can begin to understand patterns in the context of a particular culture, community, and people. == Other features == The Moral Machine was deployed in June 2016. In October 2016, a feature was added that offered users the option to fill a survey about their demographics, political views, and religious beliefs. Between November 2016 and March 2017, the website was progressively translated into nine languages in addition to English (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish). Overall, the Moral Machine offers four different modes, with the focus being on the data-gathering feature of the website, called the Judge mode. This means that the Moral Machine, in addition to providing their own scenarios for users to judge, also invites users to create their own scenarios to be submitted and approved so that other people may also judge those scenarios. Data is also open sourced for anyone to explore via an interactive map that is featured on the Moral Machine website. == In the literature == Studies and research on the Moral Machine have taken a wide variety of approaches. However, theological examinations of the topic are still scarce where two bodies of work that examine such perspective currently exist in this regard: One is Buddhist while the other is Christian.
Daisy Intelligence
Daisy Intelligence is a Canadian artificial intelligence (AI) company that provides data analysis services to help retailers, mainly grocers and supermarkets, to determine optimal pricing and promotional mix. The company also helps insurance companies detect fraudulent claims. The company uses a subset of AI known as reinforcement learning. In October 2019, the company moved from the suburban Vaughan, Ontario, to downtown Toronto, joining other AI and technology startups concentrated in the King Street East area. In 2019, the company was ranked No. 39 on The Globe and Mail's annual list of Canada's "top growing companies by three-year revenue growth."
Aurora (supercomputer)
Aurora is an exascale supercomputer that was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and designed by Intel and Cray for Argonne National Laboratory. It was briefly the second fastest supercomputer in the world from November 2023 to June 2024. The cost was estimated in 2019 to be US$500 million. Olivier Franza is the chief architect and principal investigator of this design. == History == In 2013 DOE presented a proposal for an "exascale" supercomputer, capable of speeds in the neighborhood of 1 exaFLOP (1018 floating point mathematical operations per second) with a maximum power consumption of 20 megawatts (MW) by 2020. Aurora was first announced in 2015 and to be finished in 2018. It was expected to have a speed of 180 petaFLOPS which would be around the speed of Summit. Aurora was meant to be the most powerful supercomputer at the time of its launch and to be built by Cray with Intel processors. Later, in 2017, Intel announced that Aurora would be delayed to 2021 but scaled up to 1 exaFLOP. In March 2019, DOE said that it would build the first supercomputer with a performance of one exaFLOP in the United States in 2021. In October 2020, DOE said that Aurora would be delayed again for a further six months, and would no longer be the first exascale computer in the US. In late October 2021 Intel announced that Aurora would now exceed 2 exaFLOPS in peak double-precision compute – That claim however never was realized. The system was fully installed on June 22, 2023. In May 2024, Aurora appeared at number two on the Top500 supercomputer list, with a performance of 1.012 exaFLOPS, marking the second entry of an exascale capable system on the Top500. == Usage == Functions include research on brain structure, nuclear fusion, low carbon technologies, subatomic particles, cancer and cosmology. It will also develop new materials that will be useful for batteries and more efficient solar cells. It is to be available to the general scientific community. == Architecture == Aurora has 10,624 nodes, with each node being composed of two Intel Xeon Max processors, six Intel Max series GPUs and a unified memory architecture, providing a maximum computing power of 130 teraFLOPS per node. It has around 10 petabytes of memory and 230 petabytes of storage. The machine is stated to consume around 39 MW of power. For comparison, the fastest computer in the world today, El Capitan uses 30 MW, while another Top 500 System, Frontier uses 24 MW.
Caffe (software)
Caffe (Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding) is a deep learning framework, originally developed at University of California, Berkeley. It is open source, under a BSD license. It is written in C++, with a Python interface. == History == Yangqing Jia created the Caffe project during his PhD at UC Berkeley, while working the lab of Trevor Darrell. The first version, called "DeCAF", made its first appearance in Spring 2013 when it was used for the ILSVRC challenge (later called ImageNet). The library was named Caffe and released to the public in December 2013. It reached end-of-support in 2018. It is hosted on GitHub. == Features == Caffe supports many different types of deep learning architectures geared towards image classification and image segmentation. It supports CNN, RCNN, LSTM and fully-connected neural network designs. Caffe supports GPU- and CPU-based acceleration computational kernel libraries such as Nvidia cuDNN and Intel MKL. == Applications == Caffe is being used in academic research projects, startup prototypes, and even large-scale industrial applications in vision, speech, and multimedia. Yahoo! has also integrated Caffe with Apache Spark to create CaffeOnSpark, a distributed deep learning framework. == Caffe2 == In April 2017, Facebook announced Caffe2, which included new features such as recurrent neural network (RNN). At the end of March 2018, Caffe2 was merged into PyTorch.
Ethics of artificial intelligence
The ethics of artificial intelligence covers a broad range of topics within AI that are considered to have particular ethical stakes. This includes algorithmic biases, fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy, and regulation, particularly where systems influence or automate human decision-making. It also covers various emerging or potential future challenges such as machine ethics (how to make machines that behave ethically), lethal autonomous weapon systems, arms race dynamics, AI safety and alignment, technological unemployment, AI-enabled misinformation, how to treat certain AI systems if they have a moral status (AI welfare and rights), artificial superintelligence and existential risks. Some application areas may also have particularly important ethical implications, like healthcare, education, criminal justice, or the military. == Machine ethics == Machine ethics (or machine morality) is the field of research concerned with designing Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs), robots or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally or as though moral. To account for the nature of these agents, it has been suggested to consider certain philosophical ideas, like the standard characterizations of agency, rational agency, moral agency, and artificial agency, which are related to the concept of AMAs. There are discussions on creating tests to see if an AI is capable of making ethical decisions. Alan Winfield concludes that the Turing test is flawed and the requirement for an AI to pass the test is too low. A proposed alternative test is one called the Ethical Turing Test, which would improve on the current test by having multiple judges decide if the AI's decision is ethical or unethical. Neuromorphic AI could be one way to create morally capable robots, as it aims to process information similarly to humans, nonlinearly and with millions of interconnected artificial neurons. Similarly, whole-brain emulation (scanning a brain and simulating it on digital hardware) could also in principle lead to human-like robots, thus capable of moral actions. And large language models are capable of approximating human moral judgments. Inevitably, this raises the question of the environment in which such robots would learn about the world and whose morality they would inherit – or if they end up developing human 'weaknesses' as well: selfishness, pro-survival attitudes, inconsistency, scale insensitivity, etc. In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that attempts to teach robots right from wrong will likely advance understanding of human ethics by motivating humans to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation. As one example, it has introduced normative ethicists to the controversial issue of which specific learning algorithms to use in machines. For simple decisions, Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky have argued that decision trees (such as ID3) are more transparent than neural networks and genetic algorithms, while Chris Santos-Lang argued in favor of machine learning on the grounds that the norms of any age must be allowed to change and that natural failure to fully satisfy these particular norms has been essential in making humans less vulnerable to criminal "hackers". Some researchers frame machine ethics as part of the broader AI control or value alignment problem: the difficulty of ensuring that increasingly capable systems pursue objectives that remain compatible with human values and oversight. Stuart Russell has argued that beneficial systems should be designed to (1) aim at realizing human preferences, (2) remain uncertain about what those preferences are, and (3) learn about them from human behaviour and feedback, rather than optimizing a fixed, fully specified goal. Some authors argue that apparent compliance with human values may reflect optimization for evaluation contexts rather than stable internal norms, complicating the assessment of alignment in advanced language models. == Challenges == === Algorithmic biases === AI has become increasingly inherent in facial and voice recognition systems. These systems may be vulnerable to biases and errors introduced by their human creators. Notably, the data used to train them can have biases. According to Allison Powell, associate professor at LSE and director of the Data and Society programme, data collection is never neutral and always involves storytelling. She argues that the dominant narrative is that governing with technology is inherently better, faster and cheaper, but proposes instead to make data expensive, and to use it both minimally and valuably, with the cost of its creation factored in. Friedman and Nissenbaum identify three categories of bias in computer systems: existing bias, technical bias, and emergent bias. In natural language processing, problems can arise from the text corpus—the source material the algorithm uses to learn about the relationships between different words. Large companies such as IBM, Google, etc. that provide significant funding for research and development have made efforts to research and address these biases. One potential solution is to create documentation for the data used to train AI systems. Process mining can be an important tool for organizations to achieve compliance with proposed AI regulations by identifying errors, monitoring processes, identifying potential root causes for improper execution, and other functions. However, there are also limitations to the current landscape of fairness in AI, due to the intrinsic ambiguities in the concept of discrimination, both at the philosophical and legal level. ==== Racial and gender biases ==== Bias can be introduced through historical data used to train AI systems. For instance, Amazon terminated their use of AI hiring and recruitment because the algorithm favored male candidates over female ones. This was because Amazon's system was trained with data collected over a 10-year period that included mostly male candidates. The algorithms learned the biased pattern from the historical data, and generated predictions where these types of candidates were most likely to succeed in getting the job. Therefore, the recruitment decisions made by the AI system turned out to be biased against female and minority candidates. The performance of facial recognition and computer vision models may vary based on race and gender. Facial recognition algorithms made by Microsoft, IBM and Face++ all performed significantly worse on darker-skinned women. Facial recognition was shown to be biased against those with darker skin tones. AI systems may be less accurate for black people, as was the case in the development of an AI-based pulse oximeter that overestimated blood oxygen levels in patients with darker skin, causing issues with their hypoxia treatment. In 2015, controversy erupted after a Black couple were labeled "Gorillas" by Google Photos. Oftentimes the systems are able to easily detect the faces of white people while being unable to register the faces of people who are black. This has led to the ban of police usage of AI materials or software in some U.S. states. The reason for these biases is that AI pulls information from across the internet to influence its responses in each situation. For example, if a facial recognition system was only tested on people who were white, it would make it much harder for it to interpret the facial structure and tones of other races and ethnicities. Biases often stem from the training data rather than the algorithm itself, notably when the data represents past human decisions. A 2020 study that reviewed voice recognition systems from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft found that they have higher error rates when transcribing black people's voices than white people's. Injustice in the use of AI is much harder to eliminate within healthcare systems, as oftentimes diseases and conditions can affect different races and genders differently. This can lead to confusion as the AI may be making decisions based on statistics showing that one patient is more likely to have problems due to their gender or race. This can be perceived as a bias because each patient is a different case, and AI is making decisions based on what it is programmed to group that individual into. This leads to a discussion about what should be considered a biased decision in the distribution of treatment. While it is known that there are differences in how diseases and injuries affect different genders and races, there is a discussion on whether it is fairer to incorporate this into healthcare treatments, or to examine each patient without this knowledge. In modern society there are certain tests for diseases, such as breast cancer, that are recommended to certain groups of people over others because they are more likely to contract the disease in question. If AI implements these statistics