Office automation refers to the varied computer machinery and software used to digitally create, collect, store, manipulate, and relay office information needed for accomplishing basic tasks. Raw data storage, electronic transfer, and the management of electronic business information comprise the basic activities of an office automation system. Office automation helps in optimizing or automating existing office procedures. The backbone of office automation is a local area network, which allows users to transfer data, mail and voice across the network. All office functions, including dictation, typing, filing, copying, fax, telex, microfilm and records management, telephone and telephone switchboard operations, fall into this category. Office automation was a popular term in the 1970s and 1980s as the desktop computer exploded onto the scene. Advantages of office automation include that it can get many tasks accomplished faster, it eliminates the need for a large staff, less storage is required to store data, and multiple people can update data simultaneously in the event of changes in schedule. == Outline == Businesses can easily purchase and stock their wares with the aid of technology. Many of the manual tasks that used to be done by hand can now be done through hand held devices and UPC and SKU coding. In the retail setting, automation also increases choice. Customers can easily process their payments through automated credit card machines and no longer have to wait in line for an employee to process and manually type in the credit card numbers. Office payrolls have been automated, which means no one has to manually cut checks, and those checks that are cut can be printed through computer programs. Direct deposit can be automatically set up and this further reduces the manual process, and most employees who participate in direct deposit often find their paychecks come earlier than if they'd have to wait for their checks to be written and then cleared by the bank. Other ways automation has reduced employee manpower on tasks is automated voice direction. Through the use of prompts, automated phone menus and directed calls, the need for employees to be dedicated to answer the phones has been reduced, and in some cases, eliminated.
Fuse Mediation Router
Fuse Mediation Router is an open source tool for integrating services using Enterprise Integration Patterns based on Apache Camel for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is certified, productized and fully supported by the people who wrote the code. Fuse Mediation Router uses a standard method of notation to go from diagram to implementation without coding. Fuse Mediation Router is a rule-based routing and process mediation engine that combines the ease of basic POJO development with the clarity of the standard Enterprise Integration Patterns. It can be deployed inside any container or be used stand-alone, and works directly with any kind of transport or messaging model to rapidly integrate existing services and applications. Fuse Mediation Router is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. == Tooling == FuseSource offers graphical, Eclipse-based tooling for Apache Camel for download.
Mira Murati
Ermira "Mira" Murati (born 16 December 1988) is an Albanian-American business executive. She launched an AI startup called Thinking Machines Lab in February 2025. Previously she was the chief technology officer of OpenAI, and a senior product manager at Tesla. == Early life and education == Murati was born on 16 December 1988 in Vlorë, Albania. She is fluent in Italian. At age 16, she won a United World Colleges (UWC) scholarship to study at Pearson College on Vancouver Island in Canada, from which she graduated in 2007 with an International Baccalaureate. After Pearson, she went to the United States to pursue further studies through a dual-degree program, earning a Bachelor of Arts from Colby College in 2011, and a Bachelor of Engineering degree from Dartmouth College's Thayer School of Engineering in 2012. == Career == === Early career === Murati interned in 2011 as a summer analyst at Goldman Sachs in Tokyo, Japan. She then briefly worked for Zodiac Aerospace as an intern before joining the electric car company Tesla in 2013 as a product manager on the Model X. From 2016 to 2018, she worked for the augmented reality start-up Leap Motion (now Ultraleap). === OpenAI === In 2018, she joined OpenAI as the VP of Applied AI and partnerships. She became chief technology officer (CTO) in May 2022. She led OpenAI's work on ChatGPT, Dall-E, Codex and Sora, while overseeing its research, product and safety teams. She oversaw technical advancements and direction of OpenAI's various projects, including the development of advanced AI models and tools. Murati worked on several of OpenAI's notable products, such as the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) series of language models. Commenting about the potential loss of creative jobs to AI, Murati said that "maybe [the jobs] shouldn’t have been there in the first place". In October 2023, Murati was ranked 57th on Fortune's list of "The 100 Most Powerful Women in Business of 2023". In November 2023, Murati became interim chief executive officer of OpenAI following the removal of Sam Altman from the job. She had collaborated with Ilya Sutskever, whose 52-page memo outlining concerns about Altman relied heavily on screenshots and information she provided, which contributed to the board's decision to oust him. Murati was replaced by Emmett Shear three days later, who left when Altman was reinstated five days later. Following these events, Murati returned to her role as CTO. In June 2024, Dartmouth College awarded Murati an honorary Doctor of Science for having "democratized technology and advanced a better, safer world for us all". In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO to allow her the opportunity to "do my own exploration". This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. === Thinking Machines Lab === In February 2025, Murati launched Thinking Machines Lab, a new public benefit corporation aiming "to make AI systems more widely understood, customizable, and generally capable". She was reported to have hired "a team of about 30 leading researchers and engineers from competitors including Meta, Mistral, and OpenAI." People involved with the startup include OpenAI cofounder John Schulman, and advisors Alec Radford and Bob McGrew. The following month, Bloomberg reported that the company had reached an estimated valuation of $9 billion, with an "average founder stake value" of $1.4 billion. In April 2025, Thinking Machines Lab reportedly aimed for a $2 billion seed round (requiring a minimum investment of $50 million). The round was led by Andreessen Horowitz and included participation from the government of Albania, valuing the company at $12 billion. Thinking Machines Lab follows a governance structure wherein Mira Murati holds a deciding vote on board matters, weighted to provide her with a majority decision-making capability. In October 2025, Thinking Machines Lab announced its first product, Tinker, a tool used to create custom frontier AI models. == Publications == Murati, Ermira (Spring 2022). "Language & Coding Creativity". Daedalus. 151 (2). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS): 156–167. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01907. Retrieved 25 September 2024.
Semantic parameterization
Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process for expressing natural language descriptions of a domain in first-order predicate logic. The process yields a formalization of natural language sentences in Description Logic to answer the who, what and where questions in the Inquiry-Cycle Model (ICM) developed by Colin Potts and his colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The parameterization process complements the Knowledge Acquisition and autOmated Specification (KAOS) method, which formalizes answers to the when, why and how ICM questions in Temporal Logic, to complete the ICM formalization. The artifacts used in the parameterization process include a dictionary that aligns the domain lexicon with unique concepts, distinguishing between synonyms and polysemes, and several natural language patterns that aid in mapping common domain descriptions to formal specifications. == Relationship to other theories == Semantic Parameterization defines a meta-model consisting of eight roles that are domain-independent and reusable. Seven of these roles correspond to Jeffrey Gruber's thematic relations and case roles in Charles Fillmore's case grammar: The Inquiry-Cycle Model (ICM) was introduced to drive elicitation between engineers and stakeholders in requirements engineering. The ICM consists of who, what, where, why, how and when questions. All but the when questions, which require a Temporal Logic to represent such phenomena, have been aligned with the meta-model in semantic parameterization using Description Logic (DL). == Introduction with Example == The semantic parameterization process is based on Description Logic, wherein the TBox is composed of words in a dictionary, including nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and the ABox is partitioned into two sets of assertions: 1) those assertions that come from words in the natural language statement, called the grounding, and 2) those assertions that are inferred by the (human) modeler, called the meta-model. Consider the following unstructured natural language statement (UNLS) (see Breaux et al. for an extended discussion): UNLS1.0 The customer1,1 must not share2,2 the access-code3,3 of the customer1,1 with someone4,4 who is not the provider5,4. The modeler first identifies intensional and extensional polysemes and synonyms, denoted by the subscripts: the first subscript uniquely refers to the intensional index, i.e., the same first index in two or more words refer to the same concept in the TBox; the second subscript uniquely refers to the extensional index, i.e., two same second index in two or more words refer to the same individual in the ABox. This indexing step aligns words in the statement and concepts in the dictionary. Next, the modeler identifies concepts from the dictionary to compose the meta-model. The following table illustrates the complete DL expression that results from applying semantic parameterization.
DreamBooth
DreamBooth is a deep learning generation model used to personalize existing text-to-image models by fine-tuning. It was developed by researchers from Google Research and Boston University in 2022. Originally developed using Google's own Imagen text-to-image model, DreamBooth implementations can be applied to other text-to-image models, where it can allow the model to generate more fine-tuned and personalized outputs after training on three to five images of a subject. == Technology == Pretrained text-to-image diffusion models, while often capable of offering a diverse range of different image output types, lack the specificity required to generate images of lesser-known subjects, and are limited in their ability to render known subjects in different situations and contexts. The methodology used to run implementations of DreamBooth involves the fine-tuning the full UNet component of the diffusion model using a few images (usually 3--5) depicting a specific subject. Images are paired with text prompts that contain the name of the class the subject belongs to, plus a unique identifier. As an example, a photograph of a [Nissan R34 GTR] car, with car being the class); a class-specific prior preservation loss is applied to encourage the model to generate diverse instances of the subject based on what the model is already trained on for the original class. Pairs of low-resolution and high-resolution images taken from the set of input images are used to fine-tune the super-resolution components, allowing the minute details of the subject to be maintained. == Usage == DreamBooth can be used to fine-tune models such as Stable Diffusion, where it may alleviate a common shortcoming of Stable Diffusion not being able to adequately generate images of specific individual people. Such a use case is quite VRAM intensive, however, and thus cost-prohibitive for hobbyist users. The Stable Diffusion adaptation of DreamBooth in particular is released as a free and open-source project based on the technology outlined by the original paper published by Ruiz et. al. in 2022. Concerns have been raised regarding the ability for bad actors to utilise DreamBooth to generate misleading images for malicious purposes, and that its open-source nature allows anyone to utilise or even make improvements to the technology. In addition, artists have expressed their apprehension regarding the ethics of using DreamBooth to train model checkpoints that are specifically aimed at imitating specific art styles associated with human artists; one such critic is Hollie Mengert, an illustrator for Disney and Penguin Random House who has had her art style trained into a checkpoint model via DreamBooth and shared online, without her consent.
Uncertain data
In computer science, uncertain data is data that contains noise that makes it deviate from the correct, intended or original values. In the age of big data, uncertainty or data veracity is one of the defining characteristics of data. Data is constantly growing in volume, variety, velocity and uncertainty (1/veracity). Uncertain data is found in abundance today on the web, in sensor networks, within enterprises both in their structured and unstructured sources. For example, there may be uncertainty regarding the address of a customer in an enterprise dataset, or the temperature readings captured by a sensor due to aging of the sensor. In 2012 IBM called out managing uncertain data at scale in its global technology outlook report that presents a comprehensive analysis looking three to ten years into the future seeking to identify significant, disruptive technologies that will change the world. In order to make confident business decisions based on real-world data, analyses must necessarily account for many different kinds of uncertainty present in very large amounts of data. Analyses based on uncertain data will have an effect on the quality of subsequent decisions, so the degree and types of inaccuracies in this uncertain data cannot be ignored. Uncertain data is found in the area of sensor networks; text where noisy text is found in abundance on social media, web and within enterprises where the structured and unstructured data may be old, outdated, or plain incorrect; in modeling where the mathematical model may only be an approximation of the actual process. When representing such data in a database, an appropriate uncertain database model needs to be selected. == Example data model for uncertain data == One way to represent uncertain data is through probability distributions. Let us take the example of a relational database. There are three main ways to do represent uncertainty as probability distributions in such a database model. In attribute uncertainty, each uncertain attribute in a tuple is subject to its own independent probability distribution. For example, if readings are taken of temperature and wind speed, each would be described by its own probability distribution, as knowing the reading for one measurement would not provide any information about the other. In correlated uncertainty, multiple attributes may be described by a joint probability distribution. For example, if readings are taken of the position of an object, and the x- and y-coordinates stored, the probability of different values may depend on the distance from the recorded coordinates. As distance depends on both coordinates, it may be appropriate to use a joint distribution for these coordinates, as they are not independent. In tuple uncertainty, all the attributes of a tuple are subject to a joint probability distribution. This covers the case of correlated uncertainty, but also includes the case where there is a probability of a tuple not belonging in the relevant relation, which is indicated by all the probabilities not summing to one. For example, assume we have the following tuple from a probabilistic database: Then, the tuple has 10% chance of not existing in the database.
The Machine Question
The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics is a 2012 nonfiction book by David J. Gunkel that discusses the evolution of the theory of human ethical responsibilities toward non-human things and to what extent intelligent, autonomous machines can be considered to have legitimate moral responsibilities and what legitimate claims to moral consideration they can hold. The book was awarded as the 2012 Best Single Authored Book by the Communication Ethics Division of the National Communication Association. == Content == The book is spread across three chapters, with the first two chapters focusing on an overall review of the history of philosophy and its discussion of moral agency, moral rights, human rights, and animal rights and the third chapter focusing on what defines "thingness" and why machines have been excluded from moral and ethical consideration due to a misuse of the patient/agent binary. The first chapter, titled Moral Agency, breaks down the history of said agency based on what it included and excluded in various parts of history. Gunkel also raises the conflict between discussing the morality of humans toward objects and the theory of the philosophy of technology that "technology is merely a tool: a means to an end". The main issue, he explains, in defining what constitutes an appropriate moral agent is that there will be things left outside of what is included, as the definition is based on a set of characteristics that will inherently not be all-encompassing. The subject of consciousness is broached and subsequently derided by Gunkel because of it being one of the main arguments against machine rights, while Gunkel points out that no "settled definition" of the term exists and that he considers it no better than a synonym used for "the occultish soul". In addition, the issue of the other minds problem entails that no proper understanding of consciousness can come to pass due to the inability to properly understand the mind of a being that is not oneself. The second chapter, titled Moral Patiency, focuses on the patient end of the topic and discusses the expansion of the fields of animal studies and environmental studies. Gunkel describes moral patients as the ones that are to be the object of moral consideration and deserve such consideration even if they lack their own agency, such as animals, thus allowing moral consideration itself to be broader and more inclusive. The topic of other minds is discussed again when examining the question of whether animals can suffer, a question that Gunkel ultimately abandons because it encounters the same problems that the topic of consciousness does. Especially because the subject of animal rights is often only afforded for the animals deemed to be "cute", but often not including "reptiles, insects, or microbes". Gunkel continues on to examine environmental ethics and information ethics, but finds them to be too anthropocentric, just as all the other examined models have been. The third chapter, titled Thinking Otherwise, proposes a combination of Heideggerian ontology and Levinasian ethics to properly discuss the otherness of technology and machines, but finds that the patient/agent binary is unable to be properly extended to confine the extent of "the machine question". In discussing the land ethic philosophy espoused by Aldo Leopold, Gunkel proposes that it is the entire relationship between agent and patient that should have moral consideration and not a specific definition based on either side, as each part contributes to the relationship as a whole and cannot be removed without breaking that relationship. == Critical reception == Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries writer R. S. Stansbury explained that the book is able to use simple examples to discuss difficult topics and separate ideas and that it would be "useful for philosophy students, and for engineering students interested in exploring the ethical implications of their work". Dominika Dzwonkowska, writing for International Philosophical Quarterly, stated that the "unprecedented value of the book is that Gunkel not only analyzes important aspects of the immediate problem but also that he places his discussion in the context of philosophical discussions on such related issues as rights discourse." Mark Coeckelbergh in Ethics and Information Technology noted that focusing on the question itself of the machine question allows further exploration of machine ethics and the expansion of general ethics and that the book's questions point out that "good, critical philosophical reflection on machines is not only about how we should cope with machines, but also about how we (should) think and what role technology plays (and should play) in this thinking." A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews by Colin Allen criticized some of Gunkel's methodology and the indecisiveness of his ultimate answer to the machine question, but also acknowledged that the book "succeeded in connecting the ethics of robots and AI to a much broader ethical discussion than has been represented in the literature on machine ethics to date". Blay Whitby, in a review for AISB Quarterly, lauded The Machine Question for its "clear exposition" and wide range of references to other works, concluding that the book is "essential reading for philosophers interested in AI, robot ethics, or animal ethics". In a twin review of The Machine Question and Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robots by Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology reviewer Jeff Shaw called Gunkel's book a good introduction to the "complex field of robot ethics" and that both books are "highly recommended to both the general reader as well as to experts in the field of robotics, philosophy, and ethics." In a 2017 paper for Ethics and Information Technology, Katharyn Hogan investigated whether the machine question presented by Gunkel in the book is any different from the longstanding animal question. She concludes that the real question that is revealed from this discussion is whether humans deserve any moral preference over artificial life in the first place.