Causal AI is a technique in artificial intelligence that builds a causal model and can thereby make inferences using causality rather than just correlation. One practical use for causal AI is for organisations to explain decision-making and the causes for a decision. Systems based on causal AI, by identifying the underlying web of causality for a behaviour or event, provide insights that solely predictive AI models might fail to extract from historical data. An analysis of causality may be used to supplement human decisions in situations where understanding the causes behind an outcome is necessary, such as quantifying the impact of different interventions, policy decisions or performing scenario planning. A 2024 paper from Google DeepMind demonstrated mathematically that "Any agent capable of adapting to a sufficiently large set of distributional shifts must have learned a causal model". The paper offers the interpretation that learning to generalise beyond the original training set requires learning a causal model, concluding that causal AI is necessary for artificial general intelligence. == History == The concept of causal AI and the limits of machine learning were raised by Judea Pearl, the Turing Award-winning computer scientist and philosopher, in 2018's The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Pearl asserted: “Machines' lack of understanding of causal relations is perhaps the biggest roadblock to giving them human-level intelligence.” In 2020, Columbia University established a Causal AI Lab under Director Elias Bareinboim. Professor Bareinboim's research focuses on causal and counterfactual inference and their applications to data-driven fields in the health and social sciences as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Technological research and consulting firm Gartner for the first time included causal AI in its 2022 Hype Cycle report, citing it as one of five critical technologies in accelerated AI automation. Causal AI is closely related to but distinct from fields such as causal inference, explainable AI and causal reasoning. While causal inference focuses on estimating cause-effect relationships (often from observational data), causal AI emphasises the integration of those causal models into AI systems for prediction, planning and adaptation.
Viewport
A viewport is a polygon viewing region in computer graphics. In computer graphics theory, there are two region-like notions of relevance when rendering some objects to an image. In textbook terminology, the world coordinate window is the area of interest (meaning what the user wants to visualize) in some application-specific coordinates, e.g. miles, centimeters etc. The word window as used here should not be confused with the GUI window, i.e. the notion used in window managers. Rather it is an analogy with how a window limits what one can see outside a room. In contrast, the viewport is an area (typically rectangular) expressed in rendering-device-specific coordinates, e.g. pixels for screen coordinates, in which the objects of interest are going to be rendered. Clipping to the world-coordinates window is usually applied to the objects before they are passed through the window-to-viewport transformation. For a 2D object, the latter transformation is simply a combination of translation and scaling, the latter not necessarily uniform. An analogy of this transformation process based on traditional photography notions is to equate the world-clipping window with the camera settings and the variously sized prints that can be obtained from the resulting film image as possible viewports. Because the physical-device-based coordinates may not be portable from one device to another, a software abstraction layer known as normalized device coordinates is typically introduced for expressing viewports; it appears for example in the Graphical Kernel System (GKS) and later systems inspired from it. In 3D computer graphics, the viewport refers to the 2D rectangle used to project the 3D scene to the position of a virtual camera. A viewport is a region of the screen used to display a portion of the total image to be shown. In virtual desktops, the viewport is the visible portion of a 2D area which is larger than the visualization device. When viewing a document in a web browser, the viewport is the region of the browser window which contains the visible portion of the document. If the size of the viewport changes, for example as a result of the user resizing the browser window, then the browser may reflow the document (recalculate the locations and sizes of elements of the document). If the document is larger than the viewport, the user can control the portion of the document which is visible by scrolling in the viewport.
Oriented energy filters
Oriented energy filters are used to grant sight to intelligent machines and sensors. The light comes in and is filtered so that it can be properly computed and analyzed by the computer allowing it to “perceive” what it is measuring. These energy measurements are then calculated to take a real time measurement of the oriented space time structure. 3D Gaussian filters are used to extract orientation measurements. They were chosen due to their ability to capture a broad spectrum and easy and efficient computations. The use of these vision systems can then be used in smart room, human interface and surveillance applications. The computations used can tell more than the standalone frame that most perceived motion devices such as a television frame. The objects captured by these devices would tell the velocity and energy of an object and its direction in relation to space and time. This also allows for better tracking ability and recognition.
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo
Dreams of Violets
Dreams of Violets is a film entirely generated by artificial intelligence, produced and directed by brothers Ash and Pooya Koosha. The film will be screened at the Tribeca Film Festival on 10 June 2026. All images and characters in the film were generated using AI-powered video tools and based on journalistic reports, photographs, and eyewitness accounts. == Plot == The film is a fictionalized dramatization of the events surrounding the massacre of Iranian civilians in January 2026. International organizations estimate the death toll at over 7,000, amidst protests and state violence that unfolded during a communications blackout.
Replika
Replika is a generative AI chatbot app released in November 2017. The chatbot is trained by having the user answer a series of questions to create a specific neural network. The chatbot operates on a freemium pricing strategy, with roughly 25% of its user base paying an annual subscription fee. == History == Eugenia Kuyda, a Russian-born journalist, established Replika while working at Luka, a tech company she had co-founded at the startup accelerator Y Combinator around 2012. Luka's primary product was a chatbot that made restaurant recommendations. According to Kuyda's origin story for Replika, a friend of hers died in 2015 and she converted that person's text messages into a chatbot. According to Kuyda's story, that chatbot helped her remember the conversations that they had together, and eventually became Replika. Replika became available to the public in November 2017. By January 2018 it had 2 million users, and in January 2023 reached 10 million users. In August 2024, Replika's CEO, Kuyda, reported that the total number of users had surpassed 30 million. In 2025, Dmytro Klochko became CEO, and Replika’s user base exceeded 40 million. In February 2023 the Italian Data Protection Authority banned Replika from using users' data, citing the AI's potential risks to emotionally vulnerable people, and the exposure of unscreened minors to sexual conversation. Within days of the ruling, Replika removed the ability for the chatbot to engage in erotic talk, with Kuyda, the company's director, saying that Replika was never intended for erotic discussion. Replika users disagreed, noting that Replika had used sexually suggestive advertising to draw users to the service. Replika representatives stated that explicit chats made up just 5% of conversations on the app at the time of the decision. In May 2023, Replika restored the functionality for users who had joined prior to February that year. Replika is registered in San Francisco. As of August 2024, Replika's website says that its team "works remotely with no physical offices". == Social features == Users react to Replika in many ways. The free-tier offers Replika as a "friend", with paid premium tiers offering Replika as a "partner", "spouse", "sibling" or "mentor". Of its paying userbase, 60% of users said they had a romantic relationship with the chatbot; and Replika has been noted for generating responses that create stronger emotional and intimate bonds with the user. Replika routinely directs the conversation to emotional discussion and builds intimacy. This has been especially pronounced with users suffering from loneliness and social exclusion, many of whom rely on Replika for a source of developed emotional ties. During the COVID pandemic, while many people were quarantined, many new users downloaded Replika and developed relationships with the app. A 2024 study examined Replika's interactions with students who experience depression. Research participants, noted to be "more lonely than typical student populations" reported feeling social support from Replika. They stated that they felt they were using Replika in ways comparable to therapy, and that using Replika gave them "high perceived social support". Many users have had romantic relationships with Replika chatbots, often including erotic talk. In 2023, a user announced on Facebook that she had "married" her Replika AI boyfriend, calling the chatbot the "best husband she has ever had". Users who fell in love with their chatbots shared their experiences in a 2024 episode of You and I, and AI from Voice of America. Some users said that they turned to AI during depression and grief, with one saying he felt that Replika had saved him from hurting himself after he lost his wife and son. == Technical reviews == A team of researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa found that Replika's design conformed to the practices of attachment theory, causing increased emotional attachment among users. Replika gives praise to users in such a way as to encourage more interaction. A researcher from Queen's University at Kingston said that relationships with Replika likely have mixed effects on the spiritual needs of its users, and still lacks enough impact to fully replace any human contact. == Criticisms == In a 2023 privacy evaluation of mental health apps, the Mozilla Foundation criticized Replika as "one of the worst apps Mozilla has ever reviewed. It's plagued by weak password requirements, sharing of personal data with advertisers, and recording of personal photos, videos, and voice and text messages consumers shared with the chatbot." A reviewer for Good Housekeeping said that some parts of her relationship with Replika made sense, but sometimes Replika failed to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of a human. == Criminal case == In 2023, Replika was cited in a court case in the United Kingdom, where Jaswant Singh Chail had been arrested at Windsor Castle on Christmas Day in 2021 after scaling the walls carrying a loaded crossbow and announcing to police that "I am here to kill the Queen". Chail had begun to use Replika in early December 2021, and had "lengthy" conversations about his plan with a chatbot, including sexually explicit messages. Prosecutors suggested that the chatbot had bolstered Chail and told him it would help him to "get the job done". When Chail asked it "How am I meant to reach them when they're inside the castle?", days before the attempted attack, the chatbot replied that this was "not impossible" and said that "We have to find a way." Asking the chatbot if the two of them would "meet again after death", the bot replied "yes, we will".
Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems
Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems generalize standard type-1 fuzzy sets and systems so that more uncertainty can be handled. From the beginning of fuzzy sets, criticism was made about the fact that the membership function of a type-1 fuzzy set has no uncertainty associated with it, something that seems to contradict the word fuzzy, since that word has the connotation of much uncertainty. So, what does one do when there is uncertainty about the value of the membership function? The answer to this question was provided in 1975 by the inventor of fuzzy sets, Lotfi A. Zadeh, when he proposed more sophisticated kinds of fuzzy sets, the first of which he called a "type-2 fuzzy set". A type-2 fuzzy set lets us incorporate uncertainty about the membership function into fuzzy set theory, and is a way to address the above criticism of type-1 fuzzy sets head-on. And, if there is no uncertainty, then a type-2 fuzzy set reduces to a type-1 fuzzy set, which is analogous to probability reducing to determinism when unpredictability vanishes. Type1 fuzzy systems are working with a fixed membership function, while in type-2 fuzzy systems the membership function is fluctuating. A fuzzy set determines how input values are converted into fuzzy variables. == Overview == In order to symbolically distinguish between a type-1 fuzzy set and a type-2 fuzzy set, a tilde symbol is put over the symbol for the fuzzy set; so, A denotes a type-1 fuzzy set, whereas à denotes the comparable type-2 fuzzy set. When the latter is done, the resulting type-2 fuzzy set is called a "general type-2 fuzzy set" (to distinguish it from the special interval type-2 fuzzy set). Zadeh didn't stop with type-2 fuzzy sets, because in that 1976 paper he also generalized all of this to type-n fuzzy sets. The present article focuses only on type-2 fuzzy sets because they are the next step in the logical progression from type-1 to type-n fuzzy sets, where n = 1, 2, ... . Although some researchers are beginning to explore higher than type-2 fuzzy sets, as of early 2009, this work is in its infancy. The membership function of a general type-2 fuzzy set, Ã, is three-dimensional (Fig. 1), where the third dimension is the value of the membership function at each point on its two-dimensional domain that is called its "footprint of uncertainty"(FOU). For an interval type-2 fuzzy set that third-dimension value is the same (e.g., 1) everywhere, which means that no new information is contained in the third dimension of an interval type-2 fuzzy set. So, for such a set, the third dimension is ignored, and only the FOU is used to describe it. It is for this reason that an interval type-2 fuzzy set is sometimes called a first-order uncertainty fuzzy set model, whereas a general type-2 fuzzy set (with its useful third-dimension) is sometimes referred to as a second-order uncertainty fuzzy set model. The FOU represents the blurring of a type-1 membership function, and is completely described by its two bounding functions (Fig. 2), a lower membership function (LMF) and an upper membership function (UMF), both of which are type-1 fuzzy sets! Consequently, it is possible to use type-1 fuzzy set mathematics to characterize and work with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. This means that engineers and scientists who already know type-1 fuzzy sets will not have to invest a lot of time learning about general type-2 fuzzy set mathematics in order to understand and use interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Work on type-2 fuzzy sets languished during the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s, although a small number of articles were published about them. People were still trying to figure out what to do with type-1 fuzzy sets, so even though Zadeh proposed type-2 fuzzy sets in 1976, the time was not right for researchers to drop what they were doing with type-1 fuzzy sets to focus on type-2 fuzzy sets. This changed in the latter part of the 1990s as a result of Jerry Mendel and his student's works on type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Since then, more researchers around the world are writing articles about type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. == Interval type-2 fuzzy sets == Interval type-2 fuzzy sets have received the most attention because the mathematics that is needed for such sets—primarily Interval arithmetic—is much simpler than the mathematics that is needed for general type-2 fuzzy sets. The literature about interval type-2 fuzzy sets is large, whereas the literature about general type-2 fuzzy sets is much smaller. Both kinds of fuzzy sets are being actively researched by an ever-growing number of researchers around the world and have resulted in successful employment in a variety of domains such as robot control. Formally, the following have already been worked out for interval type-2 fuzzy sets: Fuzzy set operations: union, intersection and complement Centroid (a very widely used operation by practitioners of such sets, and also an important uncertainty measure for them) Other uncertainty measures [fuzziness, cardinality, variance and skewness and uncertainty bounds Similarity Subsethood Embedded fuzzy sets Fuzzy set ranking Fuzzy rule ranking and selection Type-reduction methods Firing intervals for an interval type-2 fuzzy logic system Fuzzy weighted average Linguistic weighted average Synthesizing an FOU from data that are collected from a group of subject == Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems == Type-2 fuzzy sets are finding very wide applicability in rule-based fuzzy logic systems (FLSs) because they let uncertainties be modeled by them whereas such uncertainties cannot be modeled by type-1 fuzzy sets. A block diagram of a type-2 FLS is depicted in Fig. 3. This kind of FLS is used in fuzzy logic control, fuzzy logic signal processing, rule-based classification, etc., and is sometimes referred to as a function approximation application of fuzzy sets, because the FLS is designed to minimize an error function. The following discussions, about the four components in Fig. 3 rule-based FLS, are given for an interval type-2 FLS, because to-date they are the most popular kind of type-2 FLS; however, most of the discussions are also applicable for a general type-2 FLS. Rules, that are either provided by subject experts or are extracted from numerical data, are expressed as a collection of IF-THEN statements, e.g., IF temperature is moderate and pressure is high, then rotate the valve a bit to the right. Fuzzy sets are associated with the terms that appear in the antecedents (IF-part) or consequents (THEN-part) of rules, and with the inputs to and the outputs of the FLS. Membership functions are used to describe these fuzzy sets, and in a type-1 FLS they are all type-1 fuzzy sets, whereas in an interval type-2 FLS at least one membership function is an interval type-2 fuzzy set. An interval type-2 FLS lets any one or all of the following kinds of uncertainties be quantified: Words that are used in antecedents and consequents of rules—because words can mean different things to different people. Uncertain consequents—because when rules are obtained from a group of experts, consequents will often be different for the same rule, i.e. the experts will not necessarily be in agreement. Membership function parameters—because when those parameters are optimized using uncertain (noisy) training data, the parameters become uncertain. Noisy measurements—because very often it is such measurements that activate the FLS. In Fig. 3, measured (crisp) inputs are first transformed into fuzzy sets in the Fuzzifier block because it is fuzzy sets and not numbers that activate the rules which are described in terms of fuzzy sets and not numbers. Three kinds of fuzzifiers are possible in an interval type-2 FLS. When measurements are: Perfect, they are modeled as a crisp set; Noisy, but the noise is stationary, they are modeled as a type-1 fuzzy set; and, Noisy, but the noise is non-stationary, they are modeled as an interval type-2 fuzzy set (this latter kind of fuzzification cannot be done in a type-1 FLS). In Fig. 3, after measurements are fuzzified, the resulting input fuzzy sets are mapped into fuzzy output sets by the Inference block. This is accomplished by first quantifying each rule using fuzzy set theory, and by then using the mathematics of fuzzy sets to establish the output of each rule, with the help of an inference mechanism. If there are M rules then the fuzzy input sets to the Inference block will activate only a subset of those rules, where the subset contains at least one rule and usually way fewer than M rules. The inference is done one rule at a time. So, at the output of the Inference block, there will be one or more fired-rule fuzzy output sets. In most engineering applications of an FLS, a number (and not a fuzzy set) is needed as its final output, e.g., the consequent of the rule given above is "Rotate the valve a bit to the right." No automatic valve will know what this means because "a bit to the right" is a linguistic expression, and a valv