AdaBoost (short for Adaptive Boosting) is a statistical classification meta-algorithm formulated by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire in 1995, who won the 2003 Gödel Prize for their work. It can be used in conjunction with many types of learning algorithm to improve performance. The output of multiple weak learners is combined into a weighted sum that represents the final output of the boosted classifier. Usually, AdaBoost is presented for binary classification, although it can be generalized to multiple classes or bounded intervals of real values. AdaBoost is adaptive in the sense that subsequent weak learners (models) are adjusted in favor of instances misclassified by previous models. In some problems, it can be less susceptible to overfitting than other learning algorithms. The individual learners can be weak, but as long as the performance of each one is slightly better than random guessing, the final model can be proven to converge to a strong learner. Although AdaBoost is typically used to combine weak base learners (such as decision stumps), it has been shown to also effectively combine strong base learners (such as deeper decision trees), producing an even more accurate model. Every learning algorithm tends to suit some problem types better than others, and typically has many different parameters and configurations to adjust before it achieves optimal performance on a dataset. AdaBoost (with decision trees as the weak learners) is often referred to as the best out-of-the-box classifier. When used with decision tree learning, information gathered at each stage of the AdaBoost algorithm about the relative 'hardness' of each training sample is fed into the tree-growing algorithm such that later trees tend to focus on harder-to-classify examples. == Training == AdaBoost refers to a particular method of training a boosted classifier. A boosted classifier is a classifier of the form F T ( x ) = ∑ t = 1 T f t ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{T}(x)=\sum _{t=1}^{T}f_{t}(x)} where each f t {\displaystyle f_{t}} is a weak learner that takes an object x {\displaystyle x} as input and returns a value indicating the class of the object. For example, in the two-class problem, the sign of the weak learner's output identifies the predicted object class and the absolute value gives the confidence in that classification. Each weak learner produces an output hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} which fixes a prediction h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} for each sample in the training set. At each iteration t {\displaystyle t} , a weak learner is selected and assigned a coefficient α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} such that the total training error E t {\displaystyle E_{t}} of the resulting t {\displaystyle t} -stage boosted classifier is minimized. E t = ∑ i E [ F t − 1 ( x i ) + α t h ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle E_{t}=\sum _{i}E[F_{t-1}(x_{i})+\alpha _{t}h(x_{i})]} Here F t − 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{t-1}(x)} is the boosted classifier that has been built up to the previous stage of training and f t ( x ) = α t h ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{t}(x)=\alpha _{t}h(x)} is the weak learner that is being considered for addition to the final classifier. === Weighting === At each iteration of the training process, a weight w i , t {\displaystyle w_{i,t}} is assigned to each sample in the training set equal to the current error E ( F t − 1 ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle E(F_{t-1}(x_{i}))} on that sample. These weights can be used in the training of the weak learner. For instance, decision trees can be grown which favor the splitting of sets of samples with large weights. == Derivation == This derivation follows Rojas (2009): Suppose we have a data set { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x N , y N ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{N},y_{N})\}} where each item x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} has an associated class y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} , and a set of weak classifiers { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} each of which outputs a classification k j ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{j}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} for each item. After the ( m − 1 ) {\displaystyle (m-1)} -th iteration our boosted classifier is a linear combination of the weak classifiers of the form: C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) = α 1 k 1 ( x i ) + ⋯ + α m − 1 k m − 1 ( x i ) , {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})=\alpha _{1}k_{1}(x_{i})+\cdots +\alpha _{m-1}k_{m-1}(x_{i}),} where the class will be the sign of C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})} . At the m {\displaystyle m} -th iteration we want to extend this to a better boosted classifier by adding another weak classifier k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , with another weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} : C m ( x i ) = C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) + α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{m}(x_{i})=C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})+\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})} So it remains to determine which weak classifier is the best choice for k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , and what its weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} should be. We define the total error E {\displaystyle E} of C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} as the sum of its exponential loss on each data point, given as follows: E = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C m ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{m}(x_{i})}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} Letting w i ( 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(1)}=1} and w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} for m > 1 {\displaystyle m>1} , we have: E = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} We can split this summation between those data points that are correctly classified by k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} (so y i k m ( x i ) = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=1} ) and those that are misclassified (so y i k m ( x i ) = − 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=-1} ): E = ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ( e α m − e − α m ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}}\\&=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}\left(e^{\alpha _{m}}-e^{-\alpha _{m}}\right)\end{aligned}}} Since the only part of the right-hand side of this equation that depends on k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} is ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} , we see that the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} is the one in the set { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} that minimizes ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} [assuming that α m > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}>0} ], i.e. the weak classifier with the lowest weighted error (with weights w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} ). To determine the desired weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} with the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that we just determined, we differentiate: d E d α m = d ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m ) d α m {\displaystyle {\frac {dE}{d\alpha _{m}}}={\frac {d(\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}})}{d\alpha _{m}}}} The value of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes the above expression is: α m = 1 2 ln ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}}\right)} We calculate the weighted error rate of the weak classifier to be ϵ m = ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{m}={\frac {\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}}}} , so it follows that: α m = 1 2 ln ( 1 − ϵ m ϵ m ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {1-\epsilon _{m}}{\epsilon _{m}}}\right)} which is the negative logit function multiplied by 0.5. Due to the convexity of E {\displaystyle E} as a function of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} , this new expression for α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} gives the global minimum of the loss function. Note: This derivation only applies when k m ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} , though it can be a good starting guess in other cases, such as when the weak learner is biased ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b } , a ≠ − b {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b\},a\neq -b} ), has multiple leaves ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b , … , n } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b,\dots ,n\}} ) or is some other function k m ( x ) ∈ R {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \mathbb {R} } . Thus we have derived the AdaBoost algorithm: At each
Open Data Center Alliance
opendatacenteralliance.org appears to have been closed down. The Open Data Center Alliance is an independent organization created in Oct. 2010 with the assistance of Intel to coordinate the development of standards for cloud computing. Approximately 100 companies, which account for more than $50bn of IT spending, have joined the Alliance, including BMW, Royal Dutch Shell and Marriott Hotels. "The Alliance's Cloud 2015 vision is aimed at creating a federated cloud where common standards will be laid down for those in the hardware and software arena." == Usage Model Roadmap == The organization sees a growing need for solutions developed in an open, industry-standard and multivendor fashion, and has thus created a usage model roadmap featuring 19 prioritized usage models. The usage models provide detailed requirements for data center and cloud solutions, and will include detailed technical documentation discussing the requirements for technology deployments. To further its roadmap development, the steering committee established five initial technical workgroups in the areas of infrastructure, management, regulation & ecosystem, security and services. The organization delivered a 0.50 usage model roadmap to Open Data Center Alliance technical workgroups in Oct. 2010, and delivered a full 1.0 roadmap for public use in June 2011. == Membership == The steering committee consists of BMW, Capgemini, China Life, China Unicom Group, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Lockheed Martin, Marriott International, Inc., National Australia Bank, Royal Dutch Shell, Terremark and UBS. Other members include AT&T, CERN, eBay, Logica, Motorola Mobility Inc. and Nokia. "The demands on the IT organisations are coming at such an alarming rate that there are many, many different solutions being developed today that maybe don't work with each other. We need one voice, one road map, so that companies are able to say to manufacturers here is a clear vision of what they should be developing their product to do." says Marvin Wheeler, of Terremark, chairman of the Alliance. "While it's unclear how successful this alliance will be, it is at least shedding the spotlight on cloud interoperability, a big emerging issue," said Larry Dignan of ZDNet.
Effective accelerationism
Effective accelerationism (e/acc) is a 21st-century ideological movement that advocates for an explicitly pro-technology stance. Its proponents believe that unrestricted technological progress, especially driven by artificial intelligence, is a solution to universal human problems, such as poverty, war, and climate change. They perceive themselves as a counterweight to more cautious views on technological innovation and often label their opponents derogatorily as "doomers" or "decels" (short for decelerationists). The movement carries utopian undertones and advocates for faster AI progress to ensure human survival and propagate consciousness throughout the universe. Although effective accelerationism has been described as a fringe movement and as cult-like, it has gained mainstream visibility in 2023. A number of high-profile Silicon Valley figures, including investors Marc Andreessen and Garry Tan, explicitly endorsed it by adding "e/acc" to their public social media profiles. == Etymology and central beliefs == Effective accelerationism, a portmanteau of "effective altruism" and "accelerationism", is a fundamentally techno-optimist movement. According to Guillaume Verdon, one of the movement's founders, its aim is for human civilization to "clim[b] the Kardashev gradient", meaning its purpose is for human civilization to rise to next levels on the Kardashev scale by maximizing energy usage. To achieve this goal, effective accelerationism wants to accelerate technological progress. It is strongly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI), because it sees AGI as fundamental for climbing the Kardashev scale. The movement therefore advocates for unrestricted development and deployment of artificial intelligence. Regulation of artificial intelligence and government intervention in markets more generally is met with opposition. Many of its proponents have libertarian views and think that AGI will be most aligned if many AGIs compete against each other on the marketplace. The founders of the movement see it as rooted in Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life, which is focused on entropy and thermodynamics. According to them, the universe aims to increase entropy, and life is a way of increasing it. By spreading life throughout the universe and making life use up ever increasing amounts of energy, the universe's purpose would thus be fulfilled. == History == === Intellectual origins === While Nick Land is seen as the intellectual originator of contemporary accelerationism in general, the precise origins of effective accelerationism remain unclear. The earliest known reference to the movement can be traced back to a May 2022 newsletter published by four pseudonymous authors known by their X (formerly Twitter) usernames @BasedBeffJezos, @bayeslord, @zestular and @creatine_cycle. Effective accelerationism is an extension of the TESCREAL movement, being etymologically derived from Effective Altruism and heavily rooted in the older Silicon Valley subcultures of transhumanism and extropianism (which similarly emphasized the value of progress and resisted efforts to restrain the development of technology), alongside elements of singularitarianism, cosmism, and longtermism. It is also often considered to have emerged at least in part from the work of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (of which Nick Land was a leading member, alongside writers such as Mark Fisher and Sadie Plant). It is sometimes compared and contrasted with the work of philosopher Benjamin Bratton on planetary computation. === Disclosure of the identity of BasedBeffJezos === Forbes disclosed in December 2023 that the @BasedBeffJezos persona is maintained by Guillaume Verdon, a Canadian former Google quantum computing engineer and theoretical physicist. The revelation was supported by a voice analysis conducted by the National Center for Media Forensics of the University of Colorado Denver, which further confirmed the match between Jezos and Verdon. The magazine justified its decision to disclose Verdon's identity on the grounds of it being "in the public interest". On 29 December 2023 Guillaume Verdon was interviewed by Lex Fridman on the Lex Fridman Podcast and introduced as the "creator of the effective accelerationism movement". === Second Trump presidency === Following Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, several prominent tech industry figures expressed support for positions aligned with effective accelerationism, particularly regarding deregulation and technological advancement. The potential appointment of Elon Musk to government roles focused on auditing federal programs drew support from venture capitalists who anticipated reduced regulatory oversight of the technology sector. Notable tech figures publicly connected these developments to the movement's principles. Aaron Levie, CEO of Box, expressed support for "removing unnecessary red tape and over-regulation", while Mark Pincus, early Facebook investor and Zynga founder, explicitly referenced "effective accelerationism" in his post-election commentary. Venture capitalists viewed the incoming administration as an opportunity to ease regulations that had affected technology mergers and acquisitions during the previous years. == Relation to other movements == === Traditional accelerationism === Traditional accelerationism, as developed by the British philosopher Nick Land, sees the acceleration of technological change as a way to bring about a fundamental transformation of current culture, society, and the political economy. This is done through capitalism, which Land views as "an autonomous force that’s reconfiguring society" that can overcome its limits if intensified. Land's work has also been characterized as concerning "the supposedly inevitable 'disintegration of the human species' when artificial intelligence improves sufficiently." While both concern ideas like a technocapital singularity and AGI progress, effective accelerationism focuses on using AGI for the greatest ethical good for conscious life and civilization (whether human or machine), as well as expanding civilization and maximizing energy usage in order to align with the "will of the universe". Land focuses on capitalist self-optimization as the driver of modernity, progress, and the eroding of existing social orders. Land has expressed support for effective accelerationism, while Thomas Murphy referred to the movement as "Nick Land diluted for LinkedIn". === Effective altruism === Effective accelerationism diverges from the principles of effective altruism, which prioritizes using evidence and reasoning to identify the most effective ways to altruistically improve the world. This divergence comes primarily from one of the causes effective altruists focus on – AI existential risk. Effective altruists (particularly longtermists) argue that AI companies should be cautious and strive to develop safe AI systems, as they fear that any misaligned AGI could eventually lead to human extinction. Proponents of effective accelerationism generally consider existential risks from AGI to be negligible, and claim that even if they were not, decentralized free markets would much better mitigate this risk than centralized governmental regulation. === Degrowth === Effective accelerationism stands in stark contrast with the degrowth movement, sometimes described by it as "decelerationism" or "decels". The degrowth movement advocates for reducing economic activity and consumption to address ecological and social issues. Effective accelerationism on the contrary embraces technological progress, energy consumption and the dynamics of capitalism, rather than advocating for a reduction in economic activity. == Reception == The "Techno-Optimist Manifesto", a 2023 essay by Marc Andreessen, has been described by the Financial Times and the German Süddeutsche Zeitung as espousing the views of effective accelerationism. Mother Jones also characterized it as expressing effective accelerationism and reported that Andressen cited Land's work. David Swan of The Sydney Morning Herald has criticized effective accelerationism due to its opposition to government and industry self-regulation. He argues that "innovations like AI needs thoughtful regulations and guardrails ... to avoid the myriad mistakes Silicon Valley has already made." During the 2023 Reagan National Defense Forum, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo cautioned against embracing the "move fast and break things" mentality associated with "effective acceleration [sic]". She emphasized the need to exercise caution in dealing with AI, stating "that's too dangerous. You can't break things when you are talking about AI." In a similar vein, Ellen Huet argued on Bloomberg News that some of the ideas of the movement were "deeply unsettling", focusing especially on Guillaume Verdon's "post-humanism" and the view that "natural selection could lead AI to replace us as the dominant spe
DAYDREAMER
DAYDREAMER is a goal-based agent and cognitive architecture developed at the University of California, Los Angeles by Erik T. Mueller and Michael G. Dyer beginning in 1983. The system models the human stream of thought and how it is triggered and directed by emotions, simulating human daydreaming. Taking situational descriptions as input, DAYDREAMER produces English-language daydreams as output and encodes new daydreams, plans, and planning strategies for later reuse. The program comprises five components: a scenario generator based on relaxed planning, a dynamic episodic memory, a collection of personal goals and control goals, an emotion component, and domain knowledge of interpersonal relations and everyday occurrences. The source code was released under a free software license in 2015. == History == Erik Mueller began DAYDREAMER in 1983 while he was a doctoral student in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying under Michael G. Dyer. Initial development of the project was supported by a grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation with matching funds from the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Additionally, Mueller was supported by an Atlantic Richfield Doctoral Fellowship and Dyer by an IBM Faculty Development Award. The first published descriptions of the program appeared in 1985 at the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles and at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society in Irvine. Work on the program continued, and a book, Daydreaming in Humans and Machines, was published by Ablex Publishing in 1990. The program was implemented on top of GATE, a knowledge-representation and inference substrate developed by Mueller and Uri Zernik at UCLA, and was originally written in T, a dialect of Scheme. In 2015, Mueller released the DAYDREAMER source code, version 3.5, a Common Lisp rewrite of the original T implementation, on GitHub under the GNU General Public License version 2. The release comprised approximately 12,000 lines of Common Lisp code, along with the GATE knowledge-representation substrate on which DAYDREAMER had originally been built. == Architecture == The program operates in two modes. In daydreaming mode it daydreams continuously until interrupted, while performance mode allows it to demonstrate behavior it has learned through daydreaming. === Emotion and control goals === Emotions and daydreaming form a feedback loop for DAYDREAMER. Emotions activate goals that produce daydreams, and the resulting daydreams modify existing emotions and trigger new ones, which prompt subsequent daydreaming. Recall of a goal success produces a positive emotion whereas recall of a goal failure produces a negative emotion. Emotions activate a set of goals, called control goals, which direct the course of a daydream. The program has four control goals. "Rationalization" generates reasons why an unsatisfactory outcome is in fact acceptable, in order to reduce a negative emotion and maintain self-esteem. "Revenge" is activated by anger when a failure is caused by another and reduces negative emotion through imagined retaliation. "Failure/success reversal" imagines alternative scenarios in which a failure was prevented or a success did not occur as a means of learning planning strategies for future situations. "Preparation" generates hypothetical future scenarios in order to rehearse plans and actions for events that have not yet occurred. === Scenario generator and relaxed planning === The scenario generator produces the sequence of events that make up a daydream. It operates under multiple, often conflicting personal goals rather than pursuing a single goal, applies relaxation rules that permit the generation of non-realistic scenarios, and it draws on episodic memory of past experiences both as subject matter and as a source of planning knowledge. The personal goals that guide the scenario generator include health, food, sex, friendship, love, possessions, self-esteem, social esteem, enjoyment, and achievement. These goals are organized into a goal tree that specifies their relative importance at any given time. Relaxation rules allow the program to set aside its ordinary constraints when generating a scenario. The four constraints that may be relaxed are the behavior of others, the daydreamer's own attributes, physical constraints, and social constraints. The degree of relaxation varies with the active control goal. For example a failure-reversal goal aimed at alternatives uses a low level of relaxation, whereas a revenge goal aimed at a retaliation uses a high level. === Episodic memory and analogy === DAYDREAMER's episodic memory stores its personal and vicarious experiences along with the daydreams it generates. The memory is described as dynamic because it is continually modified during daydreaming such that previously daydreamed episodes become available alongside real ones. As it daydreams, the program indexes daydreams, future plans or actions, and planning strategies into memory. Episodes are organized and retrieved using surface-level similarities, emotions, abstract themes, and Plot Units which are abstract configurations of positive and negative outcomes developed by Wendy Lehnert. A recalled episode is adapted to the current situation through analogy, which requires less effort than generating an equivalent scenario from scratch. == Sample output == In the sample experience from the source code, called LOVERS1, DAYDREAMER begins from an initial situation in which it has a job, is not romantically involved, and is at home. Starting in daydreaming mode, it activates a top-level goal to be in a romantic relationship because it is not currently in one, and a positive motivating emotion of interest becomes associated with that goal. The program then activates a goal to be entertained and pursues seeing a film as a way to achieve it. Facts asserted into memory are converted to English and produced as output, such as "I want to be going out with someone" and "I have to go see a movie". == Reception and influence == DAYDREAMER has been cited in research on computational models of creativity, emotion, and narrative. Linda Wills and Janet Kolodner cite the program as an example of work on opportunism in their study of serendipitous recognition in design. Joseph Bates, A. Bryan Loyall, and W. Scott Reilly of the Carnegie Mellon Oz Project cite DAYDREAMER among prior work in their description of an architecture combining action, emotion, and social behavior. Rafael Pérez y Pérez, Ricardo Sosa, and Christian Lemaitre cite Mueller's DAYDREAMER as one of the few computer models at the time to model daydreaming during the creative process. Jichen Zhu and D. Fox Harrell likewise cite the program in their work on imagining and agency in generative interactive narrative.
Lighthill report
Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey, commonly known as the Lighthill report, is a scholarly article by James Lighthill, published in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium in 1973. It was compiled by Lighthill for the British Science Research Council as an evaluation of academic research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities", contributing to an AI winter in the United Kingdom. == Publication history == It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by Stuart Sutherland, Roger Needham, Christopher Longuet-Higgins, and Donald Michie. The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the University of Edinburgh's Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK. On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, John McCarthy, Richard Gregory) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report. == Content == While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of basic research in foundational areas such as robotics and language processing". The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of combinatorial explosion when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that whilst AI techniques may have worked within the scope of small problem domains, the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field. The report divides AI research into three categories: Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc. Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology). Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague. Projects in category A had had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge was used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge required by the program quickly grew too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains. Projects in category C had had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. SHRDLU demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in psycholinguistics. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger domains of discourse was considered impractical, again due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion. Projects in category B were held to be failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", was considered entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs were no better than human amateurs. Due to the combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grew impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics. The report stated that it was expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned.
Artificial consciousness
Artificial consciousness, also known as machine consciousness, synthetic consciousness, or digital consciousness, is consciousness hypothesized to be possible for artificial intelligence. It is also the corresponding field of study, which draws insights from philosophy of mind, philosophy of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and neuroscience. The term "sentience" can be used when specifically designating ethical considerations stemming from a form of phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, or the ability to feel qualia). Since sentience involves the ability to experience ethically positive or negative (i.e., valenced) mental states, it may justify welfare concerns and legal protection, as with non-human animals. Some scholars believe that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain; these mechanisms are labeled the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Some further believe that constructing a system (e.g., a computer system) that can emulate this NCC interoperation would result in a system that is conscious. Some scholars reject the possibility of non-biological conscious beings. == Philosophical views == As there are many hypothesized types of consciousness, there are many potential implementations of artificial consciousness. In the philosophical literature, perhaps the most common taxonomy of consciousness is into "access" and "phenomenal" variants. Access consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that can be apprehended, while phenomenal consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that seemingly cannot be apprehended, instead being characterized qualitatively in terms of "raw feels", "what it is like" or qualia. === Plausibility debate === Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can be realized only in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution. In his 2001 article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility," Giorgio Buttazzo says that a common objection to artificial consciousness is that, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, unreprogrammation (which means can 'no longer be reprogrammed', from rethinking), emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components." For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness. ==== Thought experiments ==== David Chalmers proposed two thought experiments intending to demonstrate that "functionally isomorphic" systems (those with the same "fine-grained functional organization", i.e., the same information processing) will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are based on biological neurons or digital hardware. The "fading qualia" is a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment. It involves replacing, one by one, the neurons of a brain with a functionally identical component, for example based on a silicon chip. Chalmers makes the hypothesis, knowing it in advance to be absurd, that "the qualia fade or disappear" when neurons are replaced one-by-one with identical silicon equivalents. Since the original neurons and their silicon counterparts are functionally identical, the brain's information processing should remain unchanged, and the subject's behaviour and introspective reports would stay exactly the same. Chalmers argues that this leads to an absurd conclusion: the subject would continue to report normal conscious experiences even as their actual qualia fade away. He concludes that the subject's qualia actually don't fade, and that the resulting robotic brain, once every neuron is replaced, would remain just as sentient as the original biological brain. Similarly, the "dancing qualia" thought experiment is another reductio ad absurdum argument. It supposes that two functionally isomorphic systems could have different perceptions (for instance, seeing the same object in different colors, like red and blue). It involves a switch that alternates between a chunk of brain that causes the perception of red, and a functionally isomorphic silicon chip, that causes the perception of blue. Since both perform the same function within the brain, the subject would not notice any change during the switch. Chalmers argues that this would be highly implausible if the qualia were truly switching between red and blue, hence the contradiction. Therefore, he concludes that the equivalent digital system would not only experience qualia, but it would perceive the same qualia as the biological system (e.g., seeing the same color). Greg Egan's short story Learning To Be Me (mentioned in §In fiction), illustrates how undetectable duplication of the brain and its functionality could be from a first-person perspective. Critics object that Chalmers' proposal begs the question in assuming that all mental properties and external connections are already sufficiently captured by abstract causal organization. Van Heuveln et al. argue that the dancing qualia argument contains an equivocation fallacy, conflating a "change in experience" between two systems with an "experience of change" within a single system. Mogensen argues that the fading qualia argument can be resisted by appealing to vagueness at the boundaries of consciousness and the holistic structure of conscious neural activity, which suggests consciousness may require specific biological substrates rather than being substrate-independent. Anil Seth argues that the complexity of brain neurons intrinsically matters in addition to their function and that it is not possible to replace any part of the brain with a perfect silicon equivalent. He points out that some of biological neurons exhibit activity aimed at cleaning up metabolic waste products, and writes that a perfect silicon replacement would require a silicon-based metabolism, but silicon is not suitable for creating such artificial metabolism. ==== In large language models ==== In 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made a viral claim that Google's LaMDA chatbot was sentient. Lemoine supplied as evidence the chatbot's humanlike answers to many of his questions; however, the chatbot's behavior was judged by the scientific community as likely a consequence of mimicry, rather than machine sentience. Lemoine's claim was widely derided for being ridiculous. Moreover, attributing consciousness based solely on the basis of LLM outputs or the immersive experience created by an algorithm is considered a fallacy. However, while philosopher Nick Bostrom states that LaMDA is unlikely to be conscious, he additionally poses the question of "what grounds would a person have for being sure about it?" One would have to have access to unpublished information about LaMDA's architecture, and also would have to understand how consciousness works, and then figure out how to map the philosophy onto the machine: "(In the absence of these steps), it seems like one should be maybe a little bit uncertain. [...] there could well be other systems now, or in the relatively near future, that would start to satisfy the criteria." David Chalmers argued in 2023 that LLMs today display impressive conversational and general intelligence abilities, but are likely not conscious yet, as they lack some features that may be necessary, such as recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. Nonetheless, he considers that non-biological systems can be conscious, and suggested that future, extended models (LLM+s) incorporating these elements might eventually meet the criteria for consciousness, raising both profound scientific questions and significant ethical challenges. However, the view that consciousness can exist without biological phenomena is controversial and some reject it. Kristina Šekrst cautions that anthropomorphic terms such as "hallucination" can obscure important ontological differences between artificial and human cognition. While LLMs may produce human-like outputs, she argues that it does not justify ascribing mental states or consciousness to them. Instead, she advocates for an epistemological framework (such as reliabilism) that recognizes the distinct nature of AI knowledge production. She suggests that apparent understanding in LLMs may be a sophisticated form of AI hallucination. She also questions what would happen if an LLM were trained without any mention of consciousness. === Testing === Sentience is an inherently first-person phenomenon. Because of that, and due to the lack of an empirical definition of sentience, directly measuring it may be impossible. Although systems may display numerous behaviors correlated with sentience, determining whether a system is sentient is known as the hard pr
Composite portrait
Composite portraiture (also known as composite photographs) is a technique invented by Sir Francis Galton in the 1880s after a suggestion by Herbert Spencer for registering photographs of human faces on the two eyes to create an "average" photograph of all those in the photographed group. Spencer had suggested using onion paper and line drawings, but Galton devised a technique for multiple exposures on the same photographic plate. He noticed that these composite portraits were more attractive than any individual member, and this has generated a large body of research on human attractiveness and averageness one hundred years later. He also suggested in a Royal Society presentation in 1883 that the composites provided an interesting concrete representation of human ideal types and concepts. He discussed using the technique to investigate characteristics of common types of humanity, such as criminals. In his mind, it was an extension of the statistical techniques of averages and correlation. In this sense, it represents one of the first implementations of convolution factor analysis and neural networks in the understanding of knowledge representation in the human mind. Galton also suggested that the technique could be used for creating natural types of common objects. During the late 19th century, English psychometrician Sir Francis Galton attempted to define physiognomic characteristics of health, disease, beauty, and criminality, via a method of composite photography. Galton's process involved the photographic superimposition of two or more faces by multiple exposures. After averaging together photographs of violent criminals, he found that the composite appeared "more respectable" than any of the faces comprising it; this was likely due to the irregularities of the skin across the constituent images being averaged out in the final blend. Since the advancement of computer graphics technology in the early 1990s, Galton's composite technique has been adopted and greatly improved using computer graphics software.