Color moments are measures that characterise color distribution in an image in the same way that central moments uniquely describe a probability distribution. Color moments are mainly used for color indexing purposes as features in image retrieval applications in order to compare how similar two images are based on color. Usually one image is compared to a database of digital images with pre-computed features in order to find and retrieve a similar Image. Each comparison between images results in a similarity score, and the lower this score is the more identical the two images are supposed to be. == Overview == Color moments are scaling and rotation invariant. It is usually the case that only the first three color moments are used as features in image retrieval applications as most of the color distribution information is contained in the low-order moments. Since color moments encode both shape and color information they are a good feature to use under changing lighting conditions, but they cannot handle occlusion very successfully. Color moments can be computed for any color model. Three color moments are computed per channel (e.g. 9 moments if the color model is RGB and 12 moments if the color model is CMYK). Computing color moments is done in the same way as computing moments of a probability distribution. === Mean === The first color moment can be interpreted as the average color in the image, and it can be calculated by using the following formula E i = ∑ j = 1 N 1 N p i j {\displaystyle E_{i}=\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}p_{ij}} where N is the number of pixels in the image and p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} is the value of the j-th pixel of the image at the i-th color channel. === Standard Deviation === The second color moment is the standard deviation, which is obtained by taking the square root of the variance of the color distribution. σ i = ( 1 N ∑ j = 1 N ( p i j − E i ) 2 ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}={\sqrt {({\frac {1}{N}}\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}(p_{ij}-E_{i})^{2})}}} where E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} is the mean value, or first color moment, for the i-th color channel of the image. === Skewness === The third color moment is the skewness. It measures how asymmetric the color distribution is, and thus it gives information about the shape of the color distribution. Skewness can be computed with the following formula: s i = ( 1 N ∑ j = 1 N ( p i j − E i ) 3 ) 3 σ i {\displaystyle s_{i}={\frac {\sqrt[{3}]{\left({\frac {1}{N}}\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}(p_{ij}-E_{i})^{3}\right)}}{\sigma _{i}}}} === Kurtosis === Kurtosis is the fourth color moment, and, similarly to skewness, it provides information about the shape of the color distribution. More specifically, kurtosis is a measure of how extreme the tails are in comparison to the normal distribution. === Higher-order color moments === Higher-order color moments are usually not part of the color moments feature set in image retrieval tasks as they require more data in order to obtain a good estimate of their value, and also the lower-order moments generally provide enough information. == Applications == Color moments have significant applications in image retrieval. They can be used in order to compare how similar two images are. This is a relatively new approach to color indexing. The greatest advantage of using color moments comes from the fact that there is no need to store the complete color distribution. This greatly speeds up image retrieval since there are less features to compare. In addition, the first three color moments have the same units, which allows for comparison between them. === Color indexing === Color indexing is the main application of color moments. Images can be indexed, and the index will contain the computed color moments. Then, if someone has a particular image and wants to find similar images in the database, the color moments of the image of interest will also be computed. After that the following function will be used in order to compute a similarity score between the image of interest and all the images in the database: d m o m ( H , I ) = ∑ i = 1 r w i 1 | E i 1 − E i 2 | + w i 2 | σ i 1 − σ i 2 | + w i 3 | s i 1 − s i 2 | {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)=\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{r}w_{i1}|E_{i}^{1}-E_{i}^{2}|+w_{i2}|\sigma _{i}^{1}-\sigma _{i}^{2}|+w_{i3}|s_{i}^{1}-s_{i}^{2}|} where: H and I are the color distributions of the two images that are being compared i is the channel index and r is the total number of channels E i 1 {\displaystyle E_{i}^{1}} and E i 2 {\displaystyle E_{i}^{2}} are the first order moments computed for the image distributions. σ i 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{1}} and σ i 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{2}} are the second order moments computed for the image distributions. s_i^1 and s_i^2 are the third order moments computed for the image distributions. w i 1 {\displaystyle w_{i1}} , w i 2 {\displaystyle w_{i2}} , and w i 3 {\displaystyle w_{i3}} are weights, specified by the user, for each of the three color moments used. Finally, the images in the database will be ranked according to the computed similarity score with the image of interest, and the database images with the lowest d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value should be retrieved. "A retrieval based on d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} may produce false positives because the index contains no information about the correlation between the color channels". == Example == A simple and concise example of the use of color moments for image retrieval tasks is illustrated in. Consider having several test images in a database and a "New Image". The goal is to retrieve images from the database that are similar to the "New Image". The first three color moments are used as features. There are several steps in this computation. Image preprocessing (Optional) - The image preprocessing step of the computation process is optional. For example, in this step all images could be modified to be the same size (in terms of pixels). However, since color moments are invariant to scaling, it is not necessary to make all images the same width and height. Computing the features - Use the color moments formulae in order to compute the first three moments for each of the color channels in the image. For example, if the HSV color space is used, this means that for each of the images, 9 features in total will be computed (the first three order moments for the Hue, Saturation, and Value channels). Calculating the similarity score - After computing the color moments the weights for each of the moments in the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} function should be determined by the user. The weights have to be adjusted each time in accordance with the application or condition and quality of the images. Following that the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} function is used to calculate a similarity score for the "New Image" and each of the images in the database. Ranking and image retrieval - From the previous step the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} values were obtained. Now a comparison of these values can be made in order to decide which of the images in the database are more similar to the "New Image", and thus rank the database images accordingly. The smaller the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value is the more similar the two color distributions are supposed to be. Finally, some of the top ranked images (the ones with the smallest d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value) from the database are retrieved.
Hallucination (artificial intelligence)
In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), a hallucination or artificial hallucination (also called bullshitting, confabulation, or delusion) is a response generated by AI that contains false or misleading information presented as fact. This term draws a loose analogy with human psychology, where a hallucination typically involves false percepts. For example, a chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content. Detecting and mitigating errors and hallucinations pose significant challenges for practical deployment and reliability of LLMs in high-stakes scenarios, such as chip design, supply chain logistics, and medical diagnostics. Some software engineers and statisticians have criticized the specific term "AI hallucination" for unreasonably anthropomorphizing computers. Symbolic artificial intelligence models generally do not produce hallucinations, unlike large language models. == Term == === Origin === Since the 1980s, the term "hallucination" has been used in computer vision with a positive connotation to describe the process of adding detail to an image. For example, the task of generating high-resolution face images from low-resolution inputs is called face hallucination. The first documented use of the term "hallucination" in this sense is in the PhD thesis of Eric Mjolsness in 1986. A notable work is the face hallucination algorithm by Simon Baker and Takeo Kanade published in 1999. In the 2000s, hallucinations were described in statistical machine translation as a failure mode. Since the 2010s, the term has undergone a semantic shift to signify the generation of factually incorrect or misleading outputs by AI systems in tasks like machine translation and object detection. In 2015, hallucinations were identified in visual semantic role labeling tasks by Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. In 2015, computer scientist Andrej Karpathy used the term "hallucinated" in a blog post to describe his recurrent neural network (RNN) language model generating an incorrect citation link. In 2017, Google researchers used the term to describe the responses generated by neural machine translation (NMT) models when they are not related to the source text, and in 2018, the term was used in computer vision to describe instances where non-existent objects are erroneously detected because of adversarial attacks. In July 2021, Meta warned during its release of BlenderBot 2 that the system is prone to "hallucinations", which Meta defined as "confident statements that are not true". Following OpenAI's ChatGPT release in beta version in November 2022, some users complained that such chatbots often seem to pointlessly embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within their generated content. Many news outlets, including The New York Times, started to use the term "hallucinations" to describe these models' frequently incorrect or inconsistent responses. In 2023, the Cambridge dictionary updated its definition of hallucination to include this new sense specific to the field of AI. Some researchers have highlighted a lack of consistency in how the term is used, but also identified several alternative terms in the literature, such as confabulations, fabrications, and factual errors. === Definitions and alternatives === Uses, definitions and characterizations of the term "hallucination" in the context of LLMs include: "a tendency to invent facts in moments of uncertainty" (OpenAI, May 2023) "a model's logical mistakes" (OpenAI, May 2023) "fabricating information entirely, but behaving as if spouting facts" (CNBC, May 2023) "making up information" (The Verge, February 2023) "probability distributions" (in scientific contexts) Journalist Benj Edwards, in Ars Technica, writes that the term "hallucination" is controversial, but that some form of metaphor remains necessary; Edwards suggests "confabulation" as an analogy for processes that involve "creative gap-filling". In July 2024, a White House report on fostering public trust in AI research mentioned hallucinations only in the context of reducing them. Notably, when acknowledging David Baker's Nobel Prize-winning work with AI-generated proteins, the Nobel committee avoided the term entirely, instead referring to "imaginative protein creation". Hicks, Humphries, and Slater, in their article in Ethics and Information Technology, argue that the output of LLMs is "bullshit" under Harry Frankfurt's definition of the term, and that the models are "in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs", with true statements only accidentally true, and false ones accidentally false. Some researchers also use the derogatory term "botshit", often referring to uncritical use of AI. === Criticism === In the scientific community, some researchers avoid the term "hallucination", seeing it as potentially misleading. It has been criticized by Usama Fayyad, executive director of the Institute for Experimental Artificial Intelligence at Northeastern University, on the grounds that it misleadingly personifies large language models and is vague. Mary Shaw said, "The current fashion for calling generative AI's errors 'hallucinations' is appalling. It anthropomorphizes the software, and it spins actual errors as somehow being idiosyncratic quirks of the system even when they're objectively incorrect." In Salon, statistician Gary Smith argues that LLMs "do not understand what words mean" and consequently that the term "hallucination" unreasonably anthropomorphizes the machine. Murray Shanahan argues that anthropomorphic framing of LLM capabilities, including terms like "hallucination", encourages users and researchers to attribute cognitive processes to systems that operate through statistical pattern completion, and advocates for more careful linguistic practices when discussing LLM behavior. Kristina Šekrst argues that applying psychological vocabulary to LLM outputs obscures the difference between the appearance of mental properties and their genuine presence. Förster & Skop assert that tech companies use the hallucination metaphor to anthropomorphize models and deflect responsibility for non-factual outputs. Some see the AI outputs not as illusory but as prospective—that is, having some chance of being true, similar to early-stage scientific conjectures. The term has also been criticized for its association with psychedelic drug experiences. == In natural language generation == In natural language generation, there are several reasons why natural language models hallucinate: === Hallucination from data === Hallucinations can stem from incomplete, inaccurate or unrepresentative data sets. === Modeling-related causes === The pre-training of generative pretrained transformers (GPT) involves predicting the next word. It incentivizes GPT models to "give a guess" about what the next word is, even when they lack information. Some researchers take an anthropomorphic perspective and posit that hallucinations arise from a tension between novelty and usefulness. For instance, Amabile and Pratt define human creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas. By extension, a focus on novelty in machine creativity can lead to the production of original but inaccurate responses—that is, falsehoods—whereas a focus on usefulness may result in memorized content lacking originality. By 2022, newspapers such as The New York Times expressed concern that, as the adoption of bots based on large language models continued to grow, unwarranted user confidence in bot output could lead to problems. === Interpretability research === In 2025, interpretability research by Anthropic on the LLM Claude identified internal circuits that cause it to decline to answer questions unless it knows the answer. By default, the circuit is active and the LLM doesn't answer. When the LLM has sufficient information, these circuits are inhibited and the LLM answers the question. Hallucinations were found to occur when this inhibition happens incorrectly, such as when Claude recognizes a name but lacks sufficient information about that person, causing it to generate plausible but untrue responses. === Examples === On 15 November 2022, researchers from Meta AI published Galactica, designed to "store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge". Content generated by Galactica came with the warning: "Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text." In one case, when asked to draft a paper on creating avatars, Galactica cited a fictitious paper from a real author who works in the relevant area. Meta withdrew Galactica on 17 November due to offensiveness and inaccuracy. OpenAI's ChatGPT, released in beta version to the public on November 30, 2022, was based on the foundation model GPT-3.5 (a revision of GPT-3). Professor Ethan Mollick of Wharton called it an "omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you". Data scientist Teresa Kuba
AutoGPT
AutoGPT is an open-source autonomous software agent that uses OpenAI's large language models, such as GPT-4, to attempt to achieve a goal specified by a user in natural language. Unlike chatbots that require continuous user commands, AutoGPT works autonomously by breaking the main goal into smaller sub-tasks and using tools like web browsing and file management to complete them. Released in March 2023, the project quickly gained popularity on GitHub and social media, with users creating agents for tasks like software development, market research, and content creation. One notable experiment, ChaosGPT, was tasked with destroying humanity, which brought mainstream attention to the technology's potential. However, AutoGPT is known for significant limitations, including a tendency to get stuck in loops, hallucinate information, and incur high operational costs due to its reliance on paid APIs. == Background == AutoGPT was released on March 30, 2023, by Toran Bruce Richards, the founder of video game company Significant Gravitas Ltd. It was one of the first widely accessible applications to showcase the autonomous capabilities of GPT-4, which had been released weeks earlier. Richards's goal was to create a model that could respond to real-time feedback and pursue objectives with a long-term outlook without needing constant human intervention. The application operates by prompting a user to define an agent's name, role, and main objective, including up to five sub-goals to achieve it. AutoGPT then works independently to reach its objective. The project is publicly available on GitHub but requires users to install it in a development environment like Docker and have a paid OpenAI account to obtain the necessary API key. In October 2023, the project's parent company, Significant Gravitas Ltd., raised $12 million in venture funding to support further development. == Capabilities == The overarching capability of AutoGPT is the breaking down of a large task into various sub-tasks without the need for user input. These sub-tasks are then chained together and performed sequentially to yield a larger result as originally laid out by the user input. One of the distinguishing features of AutoGPT is its ability to connect to the internet. This allows for up-to-date information retrieval to help complete tasks. In addition, AutoGPT maintains short-term memory for the current task, which allows it to provide context to subsequent sub-tasks needed to achieve the larger goal. Another feature is its ability to store and organize files so users can better structure their data for future analysis and extension. AutoGPT is also multimodal, which means that it can take in both text and images as input. With these features, AutoGPT is claimed to be capable of automating workflows, analyzing data, and coming up with new suggestions. == Applications == === Software === AutoGPT can be used to develop software applications from scratch. AutoGPT can also debug code and generate test cases. Observers suggest that AutoGPT's ability to write, debug, test, and edit code may extend to AutoGPT's own source code, enabling self-improvement. === Business === AutoGPT can be used to do market research, analyze investments, research products and write product reviews, create a business plan or improve operations, and create content such as a blog or podcast. One user has used AutoGPT to conduct product research and write a summary on the best headphones. Another user has used AutoGPT to summarize recent news events and prepare an outline for a podcast. === Other === AutoGPT was used to create ChefGPT, an AI agent able to independently explore the internet to generate and save unique recipes. AutoGPT was also used to create ChaosGPT, an AI agent tasked to “destroy humanity, establish global dominance, cause chaos and destruction, control humanity through manipulation, and attain immortality”. ChaosGPT reportedly researched nuclear weapons and tweeted disparagingly about humankind. == Limitations == AutoGPT is susceptible to frequent mistakes, primarily because it relies on its own feedback, which can compound errors. In contrast, non-autonomous models can be corrected by users overseeing their outputs. Furthermore, AutoGPT has a tendency to hallucinate or to present false or misleading information as fact when responding. AutoGPT can be constrained by the cost associated with running it as its recursive nature requires it to continually call the OpenAI API on which it is built. Every step required in one of AutoGPT's tasks requires a corresponding call to GPT-4 at a cost of at least about $0.03 for every 1000 tokens used for inputs and $0.06 for every 1000 tokens for output when choosing the cheapest option. For reference, 1000 tokens roughly result in 750 words. Another limitation is AutoGPT's tendency to get stuck in infinite loops. Developers believe that this is a result of AutoGPT's inability to remember, as it is unaware of what it has already done and repeatedly attempts the same subtask without end. Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI which creates GPT-4, further explains that it is AutoGPT's “finite context window” that can limit its performance and cause it to “go off the rails”. Like other autonomous agents, AutoGPT is prone to distraction and unable to focus on its objective due to its lack of long-term memory, leading to unpredictable and unintended behavior. == Reception == AutoGPT became the top trending repository on GitHub after its release and has since repeatedly trended on Twitter. In April 2023, Avram Piltch wrote for Tom's Hardware that AutoGPT 'might be too autonomous to be useful,' as it did not ask questions to clarify requirements or allow corrective interventions by users. Piltch nonetheless noted that such tools have "a ton of potential" and should improve with better language models and further development. Malcolm McMillan from Tom's Guide mentioned that AutoGPT may not be better than ChatGPT for tasks involving conversation, as ChatGPT is well-suited for situations in which advice, rather than task completion, is sought. Will Knight from Wired wrote that AutoGPT is not a foolproof task-completion tool. When given a test task of finding a public figure's email address, he noted that it was not able to accurately find the email address. Clara Shih, Salesforce Service Cloud CEO commented that "AutoGPT illustrates the power and unknown risks of generative AI," and that due to usage risks, enterprises should include a human in the loop when using such technologies. Performance is reportedly enhanced when using AutoGPT with GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5. For example, one reviewer who tested it on a task of finding the best laptops on the market with pros and cons found that AutoGPT with GPT-4 created a more comprehensive report than one by GPT 3.5.
Vivification
Vivification is an operation on a description logic knowledge base to improve performance of a semantic reasoner. Vivification replaces a disjunction of concepts C 1 ⊔ C 2 … ⊔ C n {\displaystyle C_{1}\sqcup C_{2}\ldots \sqcup C_{n}} by the least common subsumer of the concepts C 1 , C 2 , … C n {\displaystyle C_{1},C_{2},\ldots C_{n}} . The goal of this operation is to improve the performance of the reasoner by replacing a complex set of concepts with a single concept which subsumes the original concepts. For example, consider the example given in (Cohen 92): Suppose we have the concept PIANIST(Jill) ∨ ORGANIST(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST(Jill)}}\vee {\textrm {ORGANIST(Jill)}}} . This concept can be vivified into a simpler concept KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill)}}} . This summarization leads to an approximation that may not be exactly equivalent to the original. == An approximation == Knowledge base vivification is not necessarily exact. If the reasoner is operating under the open world assumption we may get surprising results. In the previous example, if we replace the disjunction with the vivified concept, we will arrive at a surprising results. First, we find that the reasoner will no longer classify Jill as either a pianist or an organist. Even though ORGANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {ORGANIST}}} and PIANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST}}} are the only two sub-classes, under the OWA we can no longer classify Jill as playing one or the other. The reason is that there may be another keyboard instrument (e.g. a harpsichord) that Jill plays but which does not have a specific subclass.
Aidan Gomez
Aidan Gomez is a British-Canadian computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence, with a focus on natural language processing. He is the co-founder and CEO of the technology company Cohere. == Early life and education == Gomez grew up in Brighton, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics. He was pursuing a PhD in computer science from the University of Oxford. He paused his studies to launch Cohere. He was granted the PhD in 2024. == Career == In 2017, as a 20 year-old intern at Google Brain, Gomez was one of eight authors of the research paper "Attention Is All You Need", which is credited with changing the AI industry and helping lead to the creation of ChatGPT. The paper proposed a novel deep learning architecture called the transformer, that enables machine learning models to analyze large amounts of data for patterns, and then use those patterns to make predictions while leveraging GPU parallelization. It has been commonly adopted for training large language models and in the development of generative AI. In the same year, Gomez founded FOR.ai, a program to help researchers learn machine learning techniques in a collaborative format. An outgrowth of this project was Cohere For AI (now Cohere Labs), which released Aya, an open-source multilingual LLM. As a PhD student, Gomez worked as a machine learning researcher at Google Brain. At that time, he co-authored the paper "One Model to Learn Them All" about multi-task learning by a single neural network. In 2019, Gomez left Google Brain to launch Cohere, an enterprise-focused company that helps businesses implement AI into chatbots, search engines, and other products. As of Sept 2025, Cohere has raised about US$1.6 billion at valuation north of $7 billion, as Gomez leads the company as its CEO. Gomez was named to the 2023 Time 100/AI list of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. He and his fellow Cohere founders Ivan Zhang and Nick Frosst were named number 1 on 2023 Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List. In April 2025, Gomez was elected to the board of Rivian. == Views on AI == Gomez has stated that warnings regarding the existential risk from artificial intelligence are overblown, and that real risks involve the automated spread of misinformation on social media. He said that the United States would win the AI arms race over China.
North Atlantic Population Project
The North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) is a collaboration of historical demographers in Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to produce a massive census microdata collection for the North Atlantic Region in the late-nineteenth century. The database includes complete individual-level census enumerations for each country, and provides information on over 110 million people. This large scale allows detailed analysis of small geographic areas and population subgroups. The NAPP database is designed to be compatible with the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), and is disseminated through the IPUMS data-access system at the Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota. Major collaborators on the project include Lisa Dillon, University of Montreal; Chad Gaffield, University of Ottawa; Ólöf Garðarsdóttir, Statistics Iceland; Marianne Jarnes Erikstad, University of Tromsø; Jan Oldervall University of Bergen; Evan Roberts, University of Minnesota; Steven Ruggles, University of Minnesota; Kevin Schürer, UK Data Archive; Gunnar Thorvaldsen, University of Tromsø; and Matthew Woollard, UK Data Archive. The project is also coordinated by the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota.
General Data Protection Regulation
The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), abbreviated GDPR, is a European Union regulation on information privacy in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR is an important component of EU privacy law and human rights law, in particular Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA. The GDPR's goals are to enhance individuals' control and rights over their personal information and to simplify the regulations for international business. It supersedes the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and, among other things, simplifies the terminology. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopted the GDPR on 14 April 2016, to become effective on 25 May 2018. As an EU regulation (instead of a directive), the GDPR has direct legal effect and does not require transposition into national law. However, it also provides flexibility for individual member states to modify (derogate from) some of its provisions. As an example of the Brussels effect, the regulation became a model for many other laws around the world, including in Brazil, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. After leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom enacted its "UK GDPR", identical to the GDPR. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), adopted on 28 June 2018, has many similarities with the GDPR. == Contents == The GDPR 2016 has eleven chapters, concerning general provisions, principles, rights of the data subject, duties of data controllers or processors, transfers of personal data to third-party countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights, provisions related to specific processing situations, and miscellaneous final provisions. The GDPR also contains 173 recitals purposed to clarify scope and rationale for the regulatory provisions, as well as its legislative intents – Recital 4, for instance, begins by saying that the processing of personal data should be "designed to serve mankind". === General provisions === The regulation applies if the data controller, or processor, or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. The regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU. The regulation does not apply to the processing of data by private persons provided that the purpose has no connection to a professional or commercial activity." (Recital 18). According to the European Commission, "Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual." The precise definitions of terms such as "personal data", "processing", "data subject", "controller", and "processor" are stated in Article 4. The regulation does not purport to apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law enforcement of the EU; however, industry groups concerned about facing a potential conflict of laws have questioned whether Article 48 could be invoked to seek to prevent a data controller subject to a third country's laws from complying with a legal order from that country's law enforcement, judicial, or national security authorities to disclose to such authorities the personal data of an EU person, regardless of whether the data resides in or out of the EU. Article 48 states that any judgement of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may not be recognised or enforceable in any manner unless based on an international agreement, like a mutual legal assistance treaty in force between the requesting third (non-EU) country and the EU or a member state. The data protection reform package also includes a separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector that provides rules on personal data exchanges at State level, Union level, and international levels. A single set of rules applies to all EU member states. Each member state establishes an independent supervisory authority (SA) to hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc. SAs in each member state co-operate with other SAs, providing mutual assistance and organising joint operations. If a business has multiple establishments in the EU, it must have a single SA as its "lead authority", based on the location of its "main establishment" where the main processing activities take place. The lead authority thus acts as a "one-stop shop" to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout the EU. A European Data Protection Board (EDPB) co-ordinates the SAs. EDPB thus replaces the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. There are exceptions for data processed in an employment context or in national security that still might be subject to individual country regulations. === Principles and lawful purposes === Article 5 sets out six principles relating to the lawfulness of processing personal data. The first of these specifies that data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner. Article 6 develops this principle by specifying that personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis for doing so. The other principles refer to "purpose limitation", "data minimisation", "accuracy", "storage limitation", and "integrity and confidentiality". Article 6 states that the lawful purposes are: (a) If the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data; (b) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject, or for tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract; (c) To comply with a data controller's legal obligations; (d) To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another individual; (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority; (f) For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by interests of the data subject or her or his rights according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children). If informed consent is used as the lawful basis for processing, consent must have been explicit for data collected and each purpose data is used for. Consent must be a specific, freely given, plainly worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR, as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user. In addition, multiple types of processing may not be "bundled" together into a single affirmation prompt, as this is not specific to each use of data, and the individual permissions are not freely given. (Recital 32). Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service. Consent for children, defined in the regulation as being less than 16 years old (although with the option for member states to individually make it as low as 13 years old), must be given by the child's parent or custodian, and verifiable. If consent to processing was already provided under the Data Protection Directive, a data controller does not have to re-obtain consent if the processing is documented and obtained in compliance with the GDPR's requirements (Recital 171). === Rights of the data subject === ==== Transparency and modalities ==== Article 12 requires the data controller to provide information to the "data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child." ==== Information and access ==== The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives people the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed. A data controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of data that are being processed as well as a copy of the actual data; furthermore, the data controller has to inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the purposes of the processing, with whom the data is shared, and how it acquired the data. A data subject must be able to transfer personal data from one electro