In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, GOFAI (good old-fashioned artificial intelligence) is classical symbolic AI, as opposed to other approaches, such as neural networks, situated robotics, narrow symbolic AI or neuro-symbolic AI. The term was coined by philosopher John Haugeland in his 1985 book Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Haugeland coined the term to address two questions: Can GOFAI produce human-level artificial intelligence in a machine? Is GOFAI the primary method that brains use to display intelligence? AI founder Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1963 that the answers to both these questions was "yes". His evidence was the performance of programs he had co-written, such as Logic Theorist and the General Problem Solver, and his psychological research on human problem solving. AI research in the 1950s and 60s had an enormous influence on intellectual history: it inspired the cognitive revolution, led to the founding of the academic field of cognitive science, and was the essential example in the philosophical theories of computationalism, functionalism and cognitivism in ethics and the psychological theories of cognitivism and cognitive psychology. The specific aspect of AI research that led to this revolution was what Haugeland called "GOFAI". In AI development and technology, GOFAI is used to refer to programs that are built with deliberate, explicit instructions for a single task. This is in contrast to approaches that use machine learning. Examples of GOFAI applications include AlphaGo and Apple's initial Siri design. == Western rationalism == Haugeland places GOFAI within the rationalist tradition in western philosophy, which holds that abstract reason is the "highest" faculty, that it is what separates man from the animals, and that it is the most essential part of our intelligence. This assumption is present in Plato and Aristotle, in Shakespeare, Hobbes, Hume and Locke, it was central to the Enlightenment, to the logical positivists of the 1930s, and to the computationalists and cognitivists of the 1960s. As Shakespeare wrote: What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty ... In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. Symbolic AI in the 1960s was able to successfully simulate the process of high-level reasoning, including logical deduction, algebra, geometry, spatial reasoning and means-ends analysis, all of them in precise English sentences, just like the ones humans used when they reasoned. Many observers, including philosophers, psychologists and the AI researchers themselves became convinced that they had captured the essential features of intelligence. This was not just hubris or speculation -- this was entailed by rationalism. If it was not true, then it brings into question a large part of the entire Western philosophical tradition. Continental philosophy, which included Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger and others, rejected rationalism and argued that our high-level reasoning was limited and prone to error, and that most of our abilities come from our intuitions, culture, and instinctive feel for the situation. Philosophers who were familiar with this tradition were the first to criticize GOFAI and the assertion that it was sufficient for intelligence, such as Hubert Dreyfus and Haugeland. == Haugeland's GOFAI == Critics and supporters of Haugeland's position, from philosophy, psychology, or AI research have found it difficult to define "GOFAI" precisely, and thus the literature contains a variety of interpretations. Drew McDermott, for example, finds Haugeland's description of GOFAI "incoherent" and argues that GOFAI is a "myth". Haugeland coined the term GOFAI in order to examine the philosophical implications of “the claims essential to all GOFAI theories”, which he listed as: 1. our ability to deal with things intelligently is due to our capacity to think about them reasonably (including sub-conscious thinking); and 2. our capacity to think about things reasonably amounts to a faculty for internal “automatic” symbol manipulation This is very similar to the sufficient side of the physical symbol systems hypothesis proposed by Herbert A. Simon and Allen Newell in 1963: "A physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action." It is also similar to Hubert Dreyfus' "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules. " Haugeland's description of GOFAI refers to symbol manipulation governed by a set of instructions for manipulating the symbols. The "symbols" he refers to are discrete physical things that are assigned a definite semantics -- like
PNGOUT
PNGOUT is a freeware command line optimizer for PNG images written by Ken Silverman. The transformation is lossless, meaning that the resulting image is visually identical to the source image. According to its author, this program can often get higher compression than other optimizers by 5–10%. It is possible to compress some inflated PNGs to a size below 1% of the original file. PNGOUT was also available as a plug-in for the freeware image viewer IrfanView and can be enabled as an option when saving files. It allows editing of various PNGOUT settings via a dialog box. PNGOUT integration was removed in IrfanView version 4.58 in favour of OptiPNG. In 2006, a commercial version of PNGOUT with a graphical user interface, known as PNGOUTWin, was released by Ardfry Imaging, a small company Silverman co-founded in 2005. There is also a freeware GUI frontend to PNGOUT available, known as PNGGauntlet. == Main operation == The main function of PNGOUT is to reduce the size of image data contained in the IDAT chunk. This chunk is compressed using the deflate algorithm. Deflate algorithms can vary in speed and compression ratio, with higher compression ratios generally implying lower speed. Ken Silverman wrote a deflate compressor for PNGOUT that is slower than the ones used in most graphics software, but produces smaller files. PNGOUT also performs automatic bit depth, color, and palette reduction where appropriate.
Pol.is
Polis (or Pol.is) is wiki survey software designed for large group collaborations. As a civic technology, Polis allows people to share their opinions and ideas, and its algorithm is intended to elevate ideas that can facilitate better decision-making, especially when there are lots of participants. Polis has been credited for assisting the passage of legislation in Taiwan. Pol.is has been used by governments in the United States, Canada, Singapore, Philippines, Finland, Spain and elsewhere. == History == Pol.is was founded by Colin Megill, Christopher Small, and Michael Bjorkegren after the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements. In Taiwan, pol.is has been "one of the key parts" of vTaiwan's suite of open-source tools for its citizen engagement efforts arising out of the Sunflower Student Movement. vTaiwan claims that of the 26 national issues related to technology discussed on the platform, 80% led to government action. Pol.is is also utilized by "Join," a national platform for online deliberation run by the Taiwanese government. In 2022, Wired reported that Polis was an influence on the Community Notes project at Twitter. In 2023, Megill advised OpenAI on how to facilitate deliberation at scale in a way that was more efficient than Polis, which still required significant human labor and analysis at the time. He helped to award $1 million in grants to teams working on solving the problem of deliberation at scale. In 2023, Anthropic was also exploring steering model behavior using Polis. In 2025, it helped the county that includes Bowling Green, Kentucky make a 25 year plan by facilitating the collection and review of ideas from thousands of residents, representing 10% of the county. 2,370 of 3,940 unique ideas were agreed-upon by over 80% of survey respondents. Ideas were screened by volunteers if they were redundant to an existing idea, off-topic or obscene. == How it works == Pol.is participants are anonymous and cannot reply directly to others posts, in an effort to avoid personal attacks for users. Its algorithms are designed not for engagement and scrolling, but to find areas of agreement to better understand the nuances of a wide range of opinions. Participants are prompted for ideas and vote on other participants' ideas. == Reception == Andrew Leonard, The Financial Times, and VentureBeat describe Pol.is as a possible antidote to the divisiveness of traditional internet discourse by gamifying consensus. Audrey Tang agreed saying, "Polis is quite well known in that it's a kind of social media that instead of polarizing people to drive so called engagement or addiction or attention, it automatically drives bridge making narratives and statements. So only the ideas that speak to both sides or to multiple sides will gain prominence in Polis." Niall Ferguson argues that the approach to utilize tools like Pol.is and Join in Taiwan empowers ordinary people instead of the elite and protects individual freedoms, providing a contrast to the AI-enhanced panopticon model seen in China. Carl Miller praised the technology as having "gamified finding consensus." Darshana Narayanan, in an op-ed in the Economist, argues that open-source machine-learning-based tools like Polis can help to bypass the influence of special interests or experts. Jamie Susskind cited polis and vTaiwan as a model for democracies, particularly around digital policy issues.
Algorithm characterizations
Algorithm characterizations are attempts to formalize the word algorithm. Algorithm does not have a generally accepted formal definition. Researchers are actively working on this problem. This article will present some of the "characterizations" of the notion of "algorithm" in more detail. == The problem of definition == Over the last 200 years, the definition of the algorithm has become more complicated and detailed as researchers have tried to pin down the term. Indeed, there may be more than one type of "algorithm". But most agree that algorithm has something to do with defining generalized processes for the creation of "output" integers from other "input" integers – "input parameters" arbitrary and infinite in extent, or limited in extent but still variable—by the manipulation of distinguishable symbols (counting numbers) with finite collections of rules that a person can perform with paper and pencil. The most common number-manipulation schemes—both in formal mathematics and in routine life—are: (1) the recursive functions calculated by a person with paper and pencil, and (2) the Turing machine or its Turing equivalents—the primitive register-machine or "counter-machine" model, the random-access machine model (RAM), the random-access stored-program machine model (RASP) and its functional equivalent "the computer". When we are doing "arithmetic" we are really calculating by the use of "recursive functions" in the shorthand algorithms we learned in grade school, for example, adding and subtracting. The proofs that every "recursive function" we can calculate by hand we can compute by machine and vice versa—note the usage of the words calculate versus compute—is remarkable. But this equivalence together with the thesis (unproven assertion) that this includes every calculation/computation indicates why so much emphasis has been placed upon the use of Turing-equivalent machines in the definition of specific algorithms, and why the definition of "algorithm" itself often refers back to "the Turing machine". This is discussed in more detail under Stephen Kleene's characterization. The following are summaries of the more famous characterizations (Kleene, Markov, Knuth) together with those that introduce novel elements—elements that further expand the definition or contribute to a more precise definition. [ A mathematical problem and its result can be considered as two points in a space, and the solution consists of a sequence of steps or a path linking them. Quality of the solution is a function of the path. There might be more than one attribute defined for the path, e.g. length, complexity of shape, an ease of generalizing, difficulty, and so on. ] == Chomsky hierarchy == There is more consensus on the "characterization" of the notion of "simple algorithm". All algorithms need to be specified in a formal language, and the "simplicity notion" arises from the simplicity of the language. The Chomsky (1956) hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. It is used for classifying of programming languages and abstract machines. From the Chomsky hierarchy perspective, if the algorithm can be specified on a simpler language (than unrestricted), it can be characterized by this kind of language, else it is a typical "unrestricted algorithm". Examples: a "general purpose" macro language, like M4 is unrestricted (Turing complete), but the C preprocessor macro language is not, so any algorithm expressed in C preprocessor is a "simple algorithm". See also Relationships between complexity classes. == Features of a good algorithm == The following are desirable features of a well-defined algorithm, as discussed in Scheider and Gersting (1995): Unambiguous Operations: an algorithm must have specific, outlined steps. The steps should be exact enough to precisely specify what to do at each step. Well-Ordered: The exact order of operations performed in an algorithm should be concretely defined. Feasibility: All steps of an algorithm should be possible (also known as effectively computable). Input: an algorithm should be able to accept a well-defined set of inputs. Output: an algorithm should produce some result as an output, so that its correctness can be reasoned about. Finiteness: an algorithm should terminate after a finite number of instructions. Properties of specific algorithms that may be desirable include space and time efficiency, generality (i.e. being able to handle many inputs), or determinism. == 1881 John Venn's negative reaction to W. Stanley Jevons's Logical Machine of 1870 == In early 1870 W. Stanley Jevons presented a "Logical Machine" (Jevons 1880:200) for analyzing a syllogism or other logical form e.g. an argument reduced to a Boolean equation. By means of what Couturat (1914) called a "sort of logical piano [,] ... the equalities which represent the premises ... are "played" on a keyboard like that of a typewriter. ... When all the premises have been "played", the panel shows only those constituents whose sum is equal to 1, that is, ... its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN's geometrical method..." (Couturat 1914:75). For his part John Venn, a logician contemporary to Jevons, was less than thrilled, opining that "it does not seem to me that any contrivances at present known or likely to be discovered really deserve the name of logical machines" (italics added, Venn 1881:120). But of historical use to the developing notion of "algorithm" is his explanation for his negative reaction with respect to a machine that "may subserve a really valuable purpose by enabling us to avoid otherwise inevitable labor": (1) "There is, first, the statement of our data in accurate logical language", (2) "Then secondly, we have to throw these statements into a form fit for the engine to work with – in this case the reduction of each proposition to its elementary denials", (3) "Thirdly, there is the combination or further treatment of our premises after such reduction," (4) "Finally, the results have to be interpreted or read off. This last generally gives rise to much opening for skill and sagacity." He concludes that "I cannot see that any machine can hope to help us except in the third of these steps; so that it seems very doubtful whether any thing of this sort really deserves the name of a logical engine."(Venn 1881:119–121). == 1943, 1952 Stephen Kleene's characterization == This section is longer and more detailed than the others because of its importance to the topic: Kleene was the first to propose that all calculations/computations—of every sort, the totality of—can equivalently be (i) calculated by use of five "primitive recursive operators" plus one special operator called the mu-operator, or be (ii) computed by the actions of a Turing machine or an equivalent model. Furthermore, he opined that either of these would stand as a definition of algorithm. A reader first confronting the words that follow may well be confused, so a brief explanation is in order. Calculation means done by hand, computation means done by Turing machine (or equivalent). (Sometimes an author slips and interchanges the words). A "function" can be thought of as an "input-output box" into which a person puts natural numbers called "arguments" or "parameters" (but only the counting numbers including 0—the nonnegative integers) and gets out a single nonnegative integer (conventionally called "the answer"). Think of the "function-box" as a little man either calculating by hand using "general recursion" or computing by Turing machine (or an equivalent machine). "Effectively calculable/computable" is more generic and means "calculable/computable by some procedure, method, technique ... whatever...". "General recursive" was Kleene's way of writing what today is called just "recursion"; however, "primitive recursion"—calculation by use of the five recursive operators—is a lesser form of recursion that lacks access to the sixth, additional, mu-operator that is needed only in rare instances. Thus most of life goes on requiring only the "primitive recursive functions." === 1943 "Thesis I", 1952 "Church's Thesis" === In 1943 Kleene proposed what has come to be known as Church's thesis: "Thesis I. Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general recursive" (First stated by Kleene in 1943 (reprinted page 274 in Davis, ed. The Undecidable; appears also verbatim in Kleene (1952) p.300) In a nutshell: to calculate any function the only operations a person needs (technically, formally) are the 6 primitive operators of "general" recursion (nowadays called the operators of the mu recursive functions). Kleene's first statement of this was under the section title "12. Algorithmic theories". He would later amplify it in his text (1952) as follows: "Thesis I and its converse provide the exact definition of the notion of a calculation (decision) procedure or algorithm, for the
Brian Deer Classification System
The Brian Deer Classification System (BDC) is a library classification system used to organize materials in libraries with specialized Indigenous collections. The system was created in the mid-1970s by Canadian librarian A. Brian Deer, a Kahnawake Mohawk. It has been adapted for use in a British Columbia version, and also by a small number of First Nations libraries in Canada. == History and usage == Deer designed his classification system while working in the library of the National Indian Brotherhood (now the Assembly of First Nations) from 1974 to 1976. Instead of using a standard library classification scheme, such as that of the Library of Congress, he created a new system to organize the library's historic indigenous research materials and papers. He later worked at the library of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, where he developed a system for its holdings. He returned to Kahnawake, working at its Cultural Centre at Kahnawake and the Kahnawake Branch branch of the Mohawk Nation Office. His system was flexible, and he created new forms for their collections. The new systems Deer created were designed specifically for the materials in each collection according to the concerns of local Indigenous people at the time (for example, categories included land claims, treaty rights, resource management, and Elders' stories). Between 1978 and 1980, the system was adapted for use in British Columbia by Gene Joseph and Keltie McCall while they were working at the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, becoming known as BDC-BC. Joseph later adapted it further for use in the Xwi7xwa Library at University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Though the Brian Deer Classification was not created as a universal classification solution for Indigenous resources, the system has provided a foundation for specialized libraries to create their own localized classification schemes. Variations of the Brian Deer Classification System are used in a small number of Canadian libraries. One prominent library using BDC is the X̱wi7x̱wa Library at the University of British Columbia, which uses a British Columbia-focused version of BDC along with First Nations House of Learning subject headings. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Resource Centre issued a revised BDC-BC in 2014, with the goal of providing users with a more flexible and culturally appropriate approach to organizing their resources. The Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute in Oujé-Bougoumou, Quebec, implemented a local adaptation of BDC when they opened in 2012. In 2020 the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council in Prince George, British Columbia, shifted from organizing its library with the Dewey Decimal Classification to using a version of the BDC. They added new subject heading categories for topics of local interest such as the crisis of Missing and murdered Indigenous women. Simon Fraser University Library began developing the Indigenous Curriculum Resource Centre (ICRC) in 2020, with the physical space opening in 2023. The ICRC is Call to Action 21 of SFU's Aboriginal Reconciliation Council's final report, Walk This Path With Us. Through its collection, the ICRC supports those interested in learning about how and why decolonizing pedagogy and teaching practices are important. The physical items in the collection are catalogued using a modified Brian Deer Classification system. In 2022 Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s χʷəχʷéy̓əm Indigenous Collection released a revised BDC-BC System. This BDC contains works exclusively with Indigenous authored materials and expands the cuttering systems of previous BDC, with the result that much of the collection reflects a spatial relationality. The implementation of this BDC was possible due to the tireless work at Xwi7xwa Library, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Resource Centre, and Simon Fraser University Library's Indigenous Curriculum Resource Centre. == Structure == The high-level organizational structure of BDC reflects a First Nations worldview, with an emphasis on relationships between and among people, animals, and the land. Subcategories demonstrate the relationships among First Nations by grouping them geographically as opposed to alphabetically; the latter is a practice frequently used for specific topics in the Library of Congress Classification. The top-level hierarchy of the X̱wi7x̱wa Library adaptation of BDC-BC demonstrates the emphasis on access to subjects prioritized by a First Nation collection: Reference Materials Local History History International Education Economic Development Housing and Community Development Criminal Justice System Constitution (Canada) and First Nations Self Government Rights and Title Natural Resources Community Resources Health World View Fine Arts Languages Literature The system is not designed to provide a comprehensive description of all topics of interest to North American Indigenous peoples; in addition, its use is limited in scope, being intended for small and specialized libraries. While English is used in the classification scheme as a common language among First Nations peoples and non-Indigenous library users, Indigenous spellings and terminology that local library users would expect to find are used to provide access. Short and easily remembered call numbers are used to facilitate use by both library workers and patrons, with the recognition that Indigenous libraries often have a small staff and limited resources to devote to cataloging. Beyond its simplicity, one potential drawback of the system is its shortage of clear guidelines for application, which provides flexibility but can also result in inconsistencies within and between library catalogs. Because few libraries use the BDC and there are limited examples for use as case studies, implementing the system and keeping it up-to-date can prove a challenge for libraries with limited resources. However, X̱wi7x̱wa Library head librarian Ann Doyle describes the system as "an important part of the body of Indigenous scholarship" that should be retained as a reflection of Indigenous worldviews, as well as for ease of access for Indigenous library users.
PatchMatch
PatchMatch is an algorithm used to quickly find correspondences (or matches) between small square regions (or patches) of an image. It has various applications in image editing, such as reshuffling or removing objects from images or altering their aspect ratios without cropping or noticeably stretching them. PatchMatch was first presented in a 2011 paper by researchers at Princeton University. == Algorithm == The goal of the algorithm is to find the patch correspondence by defining a nearest-neighbor field (NNF) as a function f : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} of offsets, which is over all possible matches of patch (location of patch centers) in image A, for some distance function of two patches D {\displaystyle D} . So, for a given patch coordinate a {\displaystyle a} in image A {\displaystyle A} and its corresponding nearest neighbor b {\displaystyle b} in image B {\displaystyle B} , f ( a ) {\displaystyle f(a)} is simply b − a {\displaystyle b-a} . However, if we search for every point in image B {\displaystyle B} , the work will be too hard to complete. So the following algorithm is done in a randomized approach in order to accelerate the calculation speed. The algorithm has three main components. Initially, the nearest-neighbor field is filled with either random offsets or some prior information. Next, an iterative update process is applied to the NNF, in which good patch offsets are propagated to adjacent pixels, followed by random search in the neighborhood of the best offset found so far. Independent of these three components, the algorithm also uses a coarse-to-fine approach by building an image pyramid to obtain the better result. === Initialization === When initializing with random offsets, we use independent uniform samples across the full range of image B {\displaystyle B} . This algorithm avoids using an initial guess from the previous level of the pyramid because in this way the algorithm can avoid being trapped in local minima. === Iteration === After initialization, the algorithm attempted to perform iterative process of improving the N N F {\displaystyle NNF} . The iterations examine the offsets in scan order (from left to right, top to bottom), and each undergoes propagation followed by random search. === Propagation === We attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} using the known offsets of f ( x − 1 , y ) {\displaystyle f(x-1,y)} and f ( x , y − 1 ) {\displaystyle f(x,y-1)} , assuming that the patch offsets are likely to be the same. That is, the algorithm will take new value for f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to be arg min ( x , y ) D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x − 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x-1,y)),D(f(x,y-1))}} . So if f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} has a correct mapping and is in a coherent region R {\displaystyle R} , then all of R {\displaystyle R} below and to the right of f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} will be filled with the correct mapping. Alternatively, on even iterations, the algorithm search for different direction, fill the new value to be arg min ( x , y ) { D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x + 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y + 1 ) ) } {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}\{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x+1,y)),D(f(x,y+1))\}} . === Random search === Let v 0 = f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=f(x,y)} , we attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} by testing a sequence of candidate offsets at an exponentially decreasing distance from v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} u i = v 0 + w α i R i {\displaystyle u_{i}=v_{0}+w\alpha ^{i}R_{i}} where R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} is a uniform random in [ − 1 , 1 ] × [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]\times [-1,1]} , w {\displaystyle w} is a large window search radius which will be set to maximum picture size, and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is a fixed ratio often assigned as 1/2. This part of the algorithm allows the f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to jump out of local minimum through random process. === Halting criterion === The often used halting criterion is set the iteration times to be about 4~5. Even with low iteration, the algorithm works well.
Run-to-completion scheduling
Run-to-completion scheduling or nonpreemptive scheduling is a scheduling model in which each task runs until it either finishes, or explicitly yields control back to the scheduler. Run-to-completion systems typically have an event queue which is serviced either in strict order of admission by an event loop, or by an admission scheduler which is capable of scheduling events out of order, based on other constraints such as deadlines. Some preemptive multitasking scheduling systems behave as run-to-completion schedulers in regard to scheduling tasks at one particular process priority level, at the same time as those processes still preempt other lower priority tasks and are themselves preempted by higher priority tasks.