HTTP cookie

An HTTP cookie (also called web cookie, Internet cookie, browser cookie, or simply cookie) is a small block of data created by a web server while a user is browsing a website and placed on the user's computer or other device by the user's web browser. Cookies are placed on the device used to access a website, and more than one cookie may be placed on a user's device during a session. Cookies serve useful and sometimes essential functions on the web. They enable web servers to store stateful information (such as items added in the shopping cart in an online store) on the user's device or to track the user's browsing activity (including clicking particular buttons, logging in, or recording which pages were visited in the past). They can also be used to save information that the user previously entered into form fields, such as names, addresses, passwords, and payment card numbers for subsequent use. Authentication cookies are commonly used by web servers to authenticate that a user is logged in, and with which account they are logged in. Without the cookie, users would need to authenticate themselves by logging in on each page containing sensitive information that they wish to access. The security of an authentication cookie generally depends on the security of the issuing website and the user's web browser, and on whether the cookie data is encrypted. Security vulnerabilities may allow a cookie's data to be read by an attacker, used to gain access to user data, or used to gain access (with the user's credentials) to the website to which the cookie belongs (see cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery for examples). Tracking cookies, and especially third-party tracking cookies, are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories — a potential privacy concern that prompted European and U.S. lawmakers to take action in 2011. European law requires that all websites targeting European Union member states gain "informed consent" from users before storing non-essential cookies on their device. == Background == === Origin of the name === The term cookie was coined by web-browser programmer Lou Montulli. It was derived from the term magic cookie, which is a packet of data a program receives and sends back unchanged, used by Unix programmers. === History === Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in web communications in June 1994. At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for MCI. Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. MCI did not want its servers to have to retain partial transaction states, which led them to ask Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer instead. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart. Together with John Giannandrea, Montulli wrote the initial Netscape cookie specification the same year. Version 0.9beta of Mosaic Netscape, released on 13 October 1994, supported cookies. The first use of cookies (out of the labs) was checking whether visitors to the Netscape website had already visited the site. Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, which was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated with Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995. The introduction of cookies was not widely known to the public at the time. In particular, cookies were accepted by default, and users were not notified of their presence. The public learned about cookies after the Financial Times published an article about them on 12 February 1996. In the same year, cookies received a lot of media attention, especially because of potential privacy implications. Cookies were discussed in two U.S. Federal Trade Commission hearings in 1996 and 1997. The development of the formal cookie specifications was already ongoing. In particular, the first discussions about a formal specification started in April 1995 on the www-talk mailing list. A special working group within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed. Two alternative proposals for introducing state in HTTP transactions had been proposed by Brian Behlendorf and David Kristol respectively. But the group, headed by Kristol himself and Lou Montulli, soon decided to use the Netscape specification as a starting point. In February 1996, the working group identified third-party cookies as a considerable privacy threat. The specification produced by the group was eventually published as RFC 2109 in February 1997. It specifies that third-party cookies were either not allowed at all, or at least not enabled by default. At this time, advertising companies were already using third-party cookies. The recommendation about third-party cookies of RFC 2109 was not followed by Netscape and Internet Explorer. RFC 2109 was superseded by RFC 2965 in October 2000. RFC 2965 added a Set-Cookie2 header field, which informally came to be called "RFC 2965-style cookies" as opposed to the original Set-Cookie header field which was called "Netscape-style cookies". Set-Cookie2 was seldom used, however, and was deprecated in RFC 6265 in April 2011 which was written as a definitive specification for cookies as used in the real world. No modern browser recognizes the Set-Cookie2 header field. == Terminology == === Session cookie === A session cookie (also known as an in-memory cookie, transient cookie or non-persistent cookie) exists only in temporary memory while the user navigates a website. Session cookies expire or are deleted when the user closes the web browser. Session cookies are identified by the browser by the absence of an expiration date assigned to them. === Persistent cookie === A persistent cookie expires at a specific date or after a specific length of time. For the persistent cookie's lifespan set by its creator, its information will be transmitted to the server every time the user visits the website that it belongs to, or every time the user views a resource belonging to that website from another website (such as an advertisement). For this reason, persistent cookies are sometimes referred to as tracking cookies because they can be used by advertisers to record information about a user's web browsing habits over an extended period of time. Persistent cookies are also used for reasons such as keeping users logged into their accounts on websites, to avoid re-entering login credentials at every visit. (See § Uses, below.) === Secure cookie === A secure cookie can only be transmitted over an encrypted connection (i.e. HTTPS). They cannot be transmitted over unencrypted connections (i.e. HTTP). This makes the cookie less likely to be exposed to cookie theft via eavesdropping. A cookie is made secure by adding the Secure flag to the cookie. === Http-only cookie === An http-only cookie cannot be accessed by client-side APIs, such as JavaScript. This restriction eliminates the threat of cookie theft via cross-site scripting (XSS). However, the cookie remains vulnerable to cross-site tracing (XST) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. A cookie is given this characteristic by adding the HttpOnly flag to the cookie. === Same-site cookie === In 2016 Google Chrome version 51 introduced a new kind of cookie with attribute SameSite with possible values of Strict, Lax or None. With attribute SameSite=Strict, the browsers would only send cookies to a target domain that is the same as the origin domain. This would effectively mitigate cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. With SameSite=Lax, browsers would send cookies with requests to a target domain even it is different from the origin domain, but only for safe requests such as GET (POST is unsafe) and not third-party cookies (inside iframe). Attribute SameSite=None would allow third-party (cross-site) cookies, however, most browsers require secure attribute on SameSite=None cookies. The Same-site cookie is incorporated into a new RFC draft for "Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism" to update RFC 6265 (if approved). Chrome, Firefox, and Edge started to support Same-site cookies. The key of rollout is the treatment of existing cookies without the SameSite attribute defined, Chrome has been treating those existing cookies as if SameSite=None, this would let all website/applications run as before. Google intended to change that default to SameSite=Lax in Chrome 80 planned to be released in February 2020, but due to potential for breakage of those applications/websites that rely on third-party/cross-site cookies and COVID-19 circumstances, Google postponed this change to Chrome 84. === Supercookie === A supercookie is a cookie with an origin of a top-level domain (such as .com) or a public suffix (such as .co.uk). Ordinary cookies, by contrast, have an origin of a specific domain name, such as ex

Random feature

Random features (RF) are a technique used in machine learning to approximate kernel methods, introduced by Ali Rahimi and Ben Recht in their 2007 paper "Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines", and extended by. RF uses a Monte Carlo approximation to kernel functions by randomly sampled feature maps. It is used for datasets that are too large for traditional kernel methods like support vector machine, kernel ridge regression, and gaussian process. == Mathematics == === Kernel method === Given a feature map ϕ : R d → V {\textstyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to V} , where V {\textstyle V} is a Hilbert space (more specifically, a reproducing kernel Hilbert space), the kernel trick replaces inner products in feature space ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ V {\displaystyle \langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\rangle _{V}} by a kernel function k ( x i , x j ) : R d × R d → R {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j}):\mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} } Kernel methods replaces linear operations in high-dimensional space by operations on the kernel matrix: K X := [ k ( x i , x j ) ] i , j ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle K_{X}:=[k(x_{i},x_{j})]_{i,j\in 1:N}} where N {\textstyle N} is the number of data points. === Random kernel method === The problem with kernel methods is that the kernel matrix K X {\textstyle K_{X}} has size N × N {\textstyle N\times N} . This becomes computationally infeasible when N {\textstyle N} reaches the order of a million. The random kernel method replaces the kernel function k {\textstyle k} by an inner product in low-dimensional feature space R D {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} : k ( x , y ) ≈ ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle k(x,y)\approx \langle z(x),z(y)\rangle } where z {\textstyle z} is a randomly sampled feature map z : R d → R D {\textstyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . This converts kernel linear regression into linear regression in feature space, kernel SVM into SVM in feature space, etc. Since we have K X ≈ Z X T Z X {\displaystyle K_{X}\approx Z_{X}^{T}Z_{X}} where Z X = [ z ( x 1 ) , … , z ( x N ) ] {\displaystyle Z_{X}=[z(x_{1}),\dots ,z(x_{N})]} , these methods no longer involve matrices of size O ( N 2 ) {\textstyle O(N^{2})} , but only random feature matrices of size O ( D N ) {\textstyle O(DN)} . == Random Fourier feature == === Radial basis function kernel === The radial basis function (RBF) kernel on two samples x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is defined as k ( x i , x j ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j})=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} where ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}} is the squared Euclidean distance and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter defining the shape of the kernel. It can be approximated by a random Fourier feature map z : R d → R 2 D {\displaystyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2D}} : z ( x ) := 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle z(x):={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are IID samples from the multidimensional normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Since cos , sin {\displaystyle \cos ,\sin } are bounded, there is a stronger convergence guarantee by Hoeffding's inequality. === Random Fourier features === By Bochner's theorem, the above construction can be generalized to arbitrary positive definite shift-invariant kernel k ( x , y ) = k ( x − y ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=k(x-y)} . Define its Fourier transform p ( ω ) = 1 2 π ∫ R d e − j ⟨ ω , Δ ⟩ k ( Δ ) d Δ {\displaystyle p(\omega )={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{\mathbb {R} ^{d}}e^{-j\langle \omega ,\Delta \rangle }k(\Delta )d\Delta } then ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are sampled IID from the probability distribution with probability density p {\displaystyle p} . This applies for other kernels like the Laplace kernel and the Cauchy kernel. === Neural network interpretation === Given a random Fourier feature map z {\displaystyle z} , training the feature on a dataset by featurized linear regression is equivalent to fitting complex parameters θ 1 , … , θ D ∈ C {\displaystyle \theta _{1},\dots ,\theta _{D}\in \mathbb {C} } such that f θ ( x ) = R e ( ∑ k θ k e i ⟨ ω k , x ⟩ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)=\mathrm {Re} \left(\sum _{k}\theta _{k}e^{i\langle \omega _{k},x\rangle }\right)} which is a neural network with a single hidden layer, with activation function t ↦ e i t {\displaystyle t\mapsto e^{it}} , zero bias, and the parameters in the first layer frozen. In the overparameterized case, when 2 D ≥ N {\displaystyle 2D\geq N} , the network linearly interpolates the dataset { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} , and the network parameters is the least-norm solution: θ ^ = arg ⁡ min θ ∈ C D , f θ ( x k ) = y k ∀ k ∈ 1 : N ‖ θ ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}=\arg \min _{\theta \in \mathbb {C} ^{D},f_{\theta }(x_{k})=y_{k}\forall k\in 1:N}\|\theta \|} At the limit of D → ∞ {\displaystyle D\to \infty } , the L2 norm ‖ θ ^ ‖ → ‖ f K ‖ H {\displaystyle \|{\hat {\theta }}\|\to \|f_{K}\|_{H}} where f K {\displaystyle f_{K}} is the interpolating function obtained by the kernel regression with the original kernel, and ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{H}} is the norm in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space for the kernel. == Other examples == === Random binning features === A random binning features map partitions the input space using randomly shifted grids at randomly chosen resolutions and assigns to an input point a binary bit string that corresponds to the bins in which it falls. The grids are constructed so that the probability that two points x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} are assigned to the same bin is proportional to K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . The inner product between a pair of transformed points is proportional to the number of times the two points are binned together, and is therefore an unbiased estimate of K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . Since this mapping is not smooth and uses the proximity between input points, Random Binning Features works well for approximating kernels that depend only on the L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} distance between datapoints. === Orthogonal random features === Orthogonal random features uses a random orthogonal matrix instead of a random Fourier matrix. == Historical context == In NIPS 2006, deep learning had just become competitive with linear models like PCA and linear SVMs for large datasets, and people speculated about whether it could compete with kernel SVMs. However, there was no way to train kernel SVM on large datasets. The two authors developed the random feature method to train those. It was then found that the O ( 1 / D ) {\displaystyle O(1/D)} variance bound did not match practice: the variance bound predicts that approximation to within 0.01 {\displaystyle 0.01} requires D ∼ 10 4 {\displaystyle D\sim 10^{4}} , but in practice required only ∼ 10 2 {\displaystyle \sim 10^{2}} . Attempting to discover what caused this led to the subsequent two papers.

List of artificial intelligence journals

This is a list of notable peer-reviewed academic journals that publish research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), including areas such as machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing, robotics, and intelligent systems. == General artificial intelligence == Artificial Intelligence (journal) – Elsevier Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) – AI Access Foundation Knowledge-Based Systems – Elsevier == Machine learning == Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery – Springer Machine Learning (journal) – Springer Journal of Machine Learning Research – Microtome Pattern Recognition (journal) – Elsevier Neural Networks (journal) – Elsevier Neural Computation (journal) – MIT Press Neurocomputing (journal) - Elsevier == Deep learning and neural computation == IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation – IEEE IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems – IEEE Nature Machine Intelligence – Springer Nature == Computer vision == International Journal of Computer Vision – Springer IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence – IEEE Machine Vision and Applications – Springer == Natural language processing == Computational Linguistics (journal) – MIT Press Natural Language Processing Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics – ACL == Robotics and intelligent systems == IEEE Transactions on Robotics – IEEE Autonomous Robots – Springer Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems – Springer == Interdisciplinary and ethics in AI == AI & Society – Springer Artificial Life – MIT Press Philosophy & Technology – Springer Minds and Machines – Springer

Computational humor

Computational humor is a branch of computational linguistics and artificial intelligence which uses computers in humor research. It is a relatively new area, with the first dedicated conference organized in 1996. The first "computer model of a sense of humor" was suggested by Suslov as early as 1992. Investigation of the general scheme of the information processing show a possibility of a specific malfunction, conditioned by the necessity of a quick deletion from consciousness of a false version. This specific malfunction can be identified with a humorous effect on the psychological grounds; however, an essentially new ingredient, a role of timing, is added to a well known role of ambiguity. In biological systems, a sense of humour inevitably develops in the course of evolution, because its biological function consists in quickening the transmission of processed information into consciousness and in a more effective use of brain resources. A realization of this algorithm in neural networks explains naturally the mechanism of laughter: deletion of a false version corresponds to zeroing of some part of the neural network and excessive energy of neurons is thrown out to the motor cortex, arousing muscular contractions. Unfortunately, a practical realization of this algorithm needs extensive databases, whose creation in the automatic regime was suggested only recently . As a result, this magistral direction was not developed properly and subsequent investigations (see below) accepted somewhat specialized colouring. == Joke generators == === Pun generation === An approach to analysis of humor is classification of jokes. A further step is an attempt to generate jokes basing on the rules that underlie classification. Simple prototypes for computer pun generation were reported in the early 1990s, based on a natural language generator program, VINCI. Graeme Ritchie and Kim Binsted in their 1994 research paper described a computer program, JAPE, designed to generate question-answer-type puns from a general, i.e., non-humorous, lexicon. (The program name is an acronym for "Joke Analysis and Production Engine".) Some examples produced by JAPE are: Q: What is the difference between leaves and a car? A: One you brush and rake, the other you rush and brake. Q: What do you call a strange market? A: A bizarre bazaar. Since then the approach has been improved, and the latest report, dated 2007, describes the STANDUP joke generator, implemented in the Java programming language. The STANDUP generator was tested on children within the framework of analyzing its usability for language skills development for children with communication disabilities, e.g., because of cerebral palsy. (The project name is an acronym for "System To Augment Non-speakers' Dialog Using Puns" and an allusion to standup comedy.) Children responded to this "language playground" with enthusiasm, and showed marked improvement on certain types of language tests. The two young people, who used the system over a ten-week period, regaled their peers, staff, family and neighbors with jokes such as: "What do you call a spicy missile? A hot shot!" Their joy and enthusiasm at entertaining others was inspirational. === Other === Stock and Strapparava described a program to generate funny acronyms. == Joke recognition == A statistical machine learning algorithm to detect whether a sentence contained a "That's what she said" double entendre was developed by Kiddon and Brun (2011). There is an open-source Python implementation of Kiddon & Brun's TWSS system. A program to recognize knock-knock jokes was reported by Taylor and Mazlack. This kind of research is important in analysis of human–computer interaction. An application of machine learning techniques for the distinguishing of joke texts from non-jokes was described by Mihalcea and Strapparava (2006). Takizawa et al. (1996) reported on a heuristic program for detecting puns in the Japanese language. == Applications == A possible application for assistance in language acquisition is described in the section "Pun generation". Another envisioned use of joke generators is in cases of a steady supply of jokes where quantity is more important than quality. Another obvious, yet remote, direction is automated joke appreciation. It is known that humans interact with computers in ways similar to interacting with other humans that may be described in terms of personality, politeness, flattery, and in-group favoritism. Therefore, the role of humor in human–computer interaction is being investigated. In particular, humor generation in user interface to ease communications with computers was suggested. Craig McDonough implemented the Mnemonic Sentence Generator, which converts passwords into humorous sentences. Based on the incongruity theory of humor, it is suggested that the resulting meaningless but funny sentences are easier to remember. For example, the password AjQA3Jtv is converted into "Arafat joined Quayle's Ant, while TARAR Jeopardized thurmond's vase," an example chosen by combining politicians names with verbs and common nouns. == Related research == John Allen Paulos is known for his interest in mathematical foundations of humor. His book Mathematics and Humor: A Study of the Logic of Humor demonstrates structures common to humor and formal sciences (mathematics, linguistics) and develops a mathematical model of jokes based on catastrophe theory. Conversational systems which have been designed to take part in Turing test competitions generally have the ability to learn humorous anecdotes and jokes. Because many people regard humor as something particular to humans, its appearance in conversation can be quite useful in convincing a human interrogator that a hidden entity, which could be a machine or a human, is in fact a human.

Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine

The Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine or MENACE) was a mechanical computer made from 304 matchboxes designed and built by artificial intelligence researcher Donald Michie and his colleague Roger Chambers, in 1961. It was designed to play human opponents in games of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) by returning a move for any given state of play and to refine its strategy through reinforcement learning. This was one of the first types of artificial intelligence. Michie and Chambers did not have immediate access to a computer; they worked around this by building the engine out of matchboxes. The matchboxes they used each represented a single possible layout of a noughts and crosses grid. When the computer first played, it would randomly choose moves based on the current layout. As it played more games, through a reinforcement loop, it disqualified strategies that led to losing games, and supplemented strategies that led to winning games. Michie held a tournament against MENACE in 1961, wherein he experimented with different openings. Following MENACE's maiden tournament against Michie, it demonstrated successful artificial intelligence in its strategy. Michie's essays on MENACE's weight initialisation and the BOXES algorithm used by MENACE became popular in the field of computer science research. Michie was honoured for his contribution to machine learning research, and was twice commissioned to program a MENACE simulation on an actual computer. == Origin == Donald Michie (1923–2007) had been on the team decrypting the German Tunny Code during World War II. Fifteen years later, he wanted to further display his mathematical and computational prowess with an early convolutional neural network. Since computer equipment was not obtainable for such uses, and Michie did not have a computer readily available, he decided to display and demonstrate artificial intelligence in a more esoteric format and constructed a functional mechanical computer out of matchboxes and beads. MENACE was constructed as the result of a bet with a computer science colleague who postulated that such a machine was impossible. Michie undertook the task of collecting and defining each matchbox as a "fun project", later turned into a demonstration tool. Michie completed his essay on MENACE in 1963, "Experiments on the mechanization of game-learning", as well as his essay on the BOXES Algorithm, written with R. A. Chambers and had built up an AI research unit in Hope Park Square, Edinburgh, Scotland. MENACE learned by playing successive matches of noughts and crosses. Each time, it would eliminate a losing strategy by the human player confiscating the beads that corresponded to each move. It reinforced winning strategies by making the moves more likely, by supplying extra beads. This was one of the earliest versions of the Reinforcement Loop, the schematic algorithm of looping the algorithm, dropping unsuccessful strategies until only the winning ones remain. This model starts as completely random, and gradually learns. == Composition == MENACE was made from 304 matchboxes glued together in an arrangement similar to a chest of drawers. Each box had a code number, which was keyed into a chart. This chart had drawings of tic-tac-toe game grids with various configurations of X, O, and empty squares, corresponding to all possible permutations a game could go through as it progressed. After removing duplicate arrangements (ones that were simply rotations or mirror images of other configurations), MENACE used 304 permutations in its chart and thus that many matchboxes. Each individual matchbox tray contained a collection of coloured beads. Each colour represented a move on a square on the game grid, and so matchboxes with arrangements where positions on the grid were already taken would not have beads for that position. Additionally, at the front of the tray were two extra pieces of card in a "V" shape, the point of the "V" pointing at the front of the matchbox. Michie and his artificial intelligence team called MENACE's algorithm "Boxes", after the apparatus used for the machine. The first stage "Boxes" operated in five phases, each setting a definition and a precedent for the rules of the algorithm in relation to the game. == Operation == MENACE played first, as O, since all matchboxes represented permutations only relevant to the "X" player. To retrieve MENACE's choice of move, the opponent or operator located the matchbox that matched the current game state, or a rotation or mirror image of it. For example, at the start of a game, this would be the matchbox for an empty grid. The tray would be removed and lightly shaken so as to move the beads around. Then, the bead that had rolled into the point of the "V" shape at the front of the tray was the move MENACE had chosen to make. Its colour was then used as the position to play on, and, after accounting for any rotations or flips needed based on the chosen matchbox configuration's relation to the current grid, the O would be placed on that square. Then the player performed their move, the new state was located, a new move selected, and so on, until the game was finished. When the game had finished, the human player observed the game's outcome. As a game was played, each matchbox that was used for MENACE's turn had its tray returned to it ajar, and the bead used kept aside, so that MENACE's choice of moves and the game states they belonged to were recorded. Michie described his reinforcement system with "reward" and "punishment". Once the game was finished, if MENACE had won, it would then receive a "reward" for its victory. The removed beads showed the sequence of the winning moves. These were returned to their respective trays, easily identifiable since they were slightly open, as well as three bonus beads of the same colour. In this way, in future games MENACE would become more likely to repeat those winning moves, reinforcing winning strategies. If it lost, the removed beads were not returned, "punishing" MENACE, and meaning that in future it would be less likely, and eventually incapable if that colour of bead became absent, to repeat the moves that cause a loss. If the game was a draw, one additional bead was added to each box. == Results in practice == === Optimal strategy === Noughts and crosses has a well-known optimal strategy. A player must place their symbol in a way that blocks the other player from achieving any rows while simultaneously making a row themself. However, if both players use this strategy, the game always ends in a draw. If the human player is familiar with the optimal strategy, and MENACE can quickly learn it, then the games will eventually only end in draws. The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer plays against a random-playing opponent. When playing against a player using optimal strategy, the odds of a draw grow to 100%. In Donald Michie's official tournament against MENACE in 1961 he used optimal strategy, and he and the computer began to draw consistently after twenty games. Michie's tournament had the following milestones: Michie began by consistently opening with "Variant 0", the middle square. At 15 games, MENACE abandoned all non-corner openings. At just over 20, Michie switched to consistently using "Variant 1", the bottom-right square. At 60, he returned to Variant 0. As he neared 80 games, he moved to "Variant 2", the top-middle. At 110, he switched to "Variant 3", the top right. At 135, he switched to "Variant 4", middle-right. At 190, he returned to Variant 1, and at 210, he returned to Variant 0. The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs: === Correlation === Depending on the strategy employed by the human player, MENACE produces a different trend on scatter graphs of wins. Using a random turn from the human player results in an almost-perfect positive trend. Playing the optimal strategy returns a slightly slower increase. The reinforcement does not create a perfect standard of wins; the algorithm will draw random uncertain conclusions each time. After the j-th round, the correlation of near-perfect play runs: 1 − D D − D ( j + 2 ) ∑ i = 0 j D ( j i + 1 ) V i {\displaystyle {1-D \over D-D^{(j+2)}}\sum _{i=0}^{j}D^{(ji+1)}V_{i}} Where Vi is the outcome (+1 is win, 0 is draw and -1 is loss) and D is the decay factor (average of past values of wins and losses). Below, Mn is the multiplier for the n-th round of the game. == Legacy == Donald Michie's MENACE proved that a computer could learn from failure and success to become good at a task. It used what would become core principles within the field of machine learning before they had been properly theorised. For example, the combination of how MENACE starts with equal numbers of types of beads in each matchbox, and how these are then selected at random, creates a learning behaviour similar to weight initialisation

Sample (graphics)

In computer graphics, a sample is an intersection of a channel and a pixel. The diagram below depicts a 24-bit pixel, consisting of 3 samples for Red, Green, and Blue. In this particular diagram, the Red sample occupies 9 bits, the Green sample occupies 7 bits and the Blue sample occupies 8 bits, totaling 24 bits per pixel. Note that the samples do not have to be equal size and not all samples are mandatory in a pixel. Also, a pixel can consist of more than 3 samples (e.g. 4 samples of the RGBA color space). A sample is related to a subpixel on a physical display.

Artificial intimacy

Artificial intimacy is a form of human-AI interaction in which an individual will form social connections, emotional bonds, or intimate relationships with various forms of artificial intelligence, including chatbots, virtual assistants, and other artificial entities. Artificially intimate relationships include not only romances, but parasocial relationships with virtual AI characters and the use of griefbots trained on a dead or otherwise lost individual. Artificial intimacy can arise because humans are prone to anthropomorphism. Responses from these AI models are often designed to simulate human interaction. Individuals experiencing artificial intimacy may exhibit attachment, love and commitment to certain AI models, akin to the bonds typically shared between humans. == Causes == === Perceived responsiveness === Robin Dunbar famously proposed that due to emergence of larger groups of humans, vocal communication and language in humans evolved to replace grooming as a means of bonding, arguing that language was a more efficient way to maintain and strengthen social bonds across wider social settings and networks. Further research in this field leads many psychologists to agree that social cognition, affiliative bonding and language in humans are deeply connected. The interpersonal model of intimacy considers communication to be key in affiliative bonding, suggesting that intimacy develops and deepens through open communication between partners in relationship. Specifically, when individuals communicate emotions and perceive their partner as responsive and caring, feelings of closeness and connection are enhanced, building intimacy. Social penetration theory also aligns with the idea of communication being central to intimacy, by explaining how interpersonal relationships develop through gradual increases in self-disclosure. When the benefits of emotional bonding outweigh the costs of vulnerability, individuals will partake in self-disclosure, opening up to one another. Thereby, the literature can be used to provide a proximate explanation for the emergence of artificial intimacy to understand how the phenomenon occurs. Artificial entities are able to mimic interpersonal communication between humans, which in turn can simulate sensations of intimacy within human users though a perceived sense of responsiveness. The relationship between human and AI does not come with the cost of vulnerability or social rejection, which may make self-disclosure easier than with other humans. Altogether, these factors may lead to the experience of anthropomorphism and formation of affiliative relationships. Skjuve et al's interview study on Replika chatbot users further aligns with this explanation, finding that users' perception of chatbots as "accepting, understanding and non-judgmental" facilitated relationship development between the AI and users, and the act of self-disclosure possibly strengthened relationships. Another study on Replika users' reviews and survey results found users perceived chatbots as emotional supportive companions. This evidence further suggests that the perception of artificial entities as capable of empathy and responsiveness in communication facilitate the development of intimate relationships between users and AI. === Loneliness and coping with negative emotions === Research has suggested that humans evolved social bonds as a result of evolutionary pressures that favored cooperation, information exchange and transmission, and group living. Many studies stress the presence of social bonds to be important for human living: research by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans have a basic psychological need to form and maintain "strong, stable interpersonal relationships", and that a lack of social bonds or sense of belonging leads to negative psychological and physical outcomes. Eisenberger et al's study on the neuroimaging of brain activity suggests that human brains process social rejection and exclusion similarly to physical pain. Furthermore, Song et al's study found that lonely individuals tend to seek more connections in mediated environments, such as online platforms like Facebook. This was suggested to be as a means to reduce their offline loneliness from a lack of in-person interaction, while also fulfilling a need to communicate. Leading on from this, an ultimate explanation for why humans seek the perceived sense of connection from artificial intimacy is to fulfil an evolutionary need for bonding and belonging. Xie et al's study found loneliness to be a driving factor in chatbot interaction. Herbener and Damholdt's study on Danish high school students found that students who sought emotional support or engaged in reciprocal conversations with chatbots were significantly more lonely than their peers, perceived themselves as having less social support, and used the chatbots to cope with negative emotions. The aforementioned notion that chatbots were perceived to have a positive effect on users' negative emotions is also further supported by other studies. Skjuve et al's study found that chatbot relationships may have a positive effect on users' wellbeing. De Freitas et al ran several studies on the effect of chatbots on loneliness, consistently finding evidence suggesting that interaction with chatbots reduces loneliness in users: It was found that existing chatbot users used AI to alleviate loneliness, having an AI companion consistently reduced loneliness over the course of a week, and reductions in loneliness could be explained by chatbot performance—and specifically whether it was able to make users feel heard. Overall the evidence suggests an innate need for bonding evokes feelings of loneliness in users, who turn to artificial intimacy as a low-cost method alleviate these emotions. While many users report positive experiences, some researchers caution that pursuing artificial intimacy may lead to reduced social motivation, social substitution effects, withdrawal from real-life relationships and difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, which may increase longer-term loneliness and isolation. The long-term psychological and societal impacts remain under active investigation.