Ziad Obermeyer

Ziad Obermeyer (Arabic: زياد أوبرماير) is a Lebanese American physician and researcher whose work focuses on machine learning, health policy, and clinical decision-making in medicine. He is the Blue Cross of California Distinguished Associate Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He is known for his research on racial bias in health care algorithms and the use of artificial intelligence in health care. == Early life and education == Obermeyer was born in Beirut, Lebanon, and raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard College and a Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in History and Science from the University of Cambridge. He received his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from Harvard Medical School in 2008. Before pursuing medicine, Obermeyer worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Company, advising pharmaceutical and global health clients in New Jersey, Geneva, and Tokyo. After completing his medical degree, he trained as an emergency physician at Mass General Brigham (MGB) in Boston, Massachusetts. He later continued practicing emergency medicine at the Fort Defiance Indian Hospital on the Navajo Nation in Arizona. == Academic career == Obermeyer served as an Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School from 2014 to 2020. In 2020, he joined the University of California, Berkeley as an Associate Professor and the Blue Cross of California Distinguished Professor at the School of Public Health. == Research focus == === Algorithmic racial bias in healthcare === In 2019, Obermeyer and economist Sendhil Mullainathan examined a commercial healthcare algorithm by UnitedHealth Group, used in hospitals and by insurers to identify patients with complex health needs. The study found that the algorithm underestimated the health needs of Black patients compared to white patients with similar conditions and that reformulating it would reduce racial bias. In 2020, Obermeyer analyzed an algorithm used to allocate CARE Act relief funding to hospitals. The study identified allocation patterns that favored hospitals with higher revenues over hospitals serving larger numbers of COVID-19 patients who are predominantly Black. === Clinical decision-making === In 2021, Obermeyer and colleagues examined physician decision-making in cardiac care using machine learning models. The study found that physicians misdiagnose cases when they rely on symptoms representative of a heart attack, such as chest pain, over other symptoms. === Pain assessment === Obermeyer developed a deep learning approach to investigate the severity of osteoarthritis in underserved communities. == Policy and regulatory work == Following the publication of the 2019 algorithmic racial bias study, the New York Department of Financial Services and Department of Health launched an investigation into UnitedHealth Group's algorithm, requesting that the company cease using it, citing discriminatory business practices. Also related to this study, in December 2019, Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden released letters to the Federal Trade Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services asking to investigate potential discrimination in decision-making algorithms against marginalized communities in healthcare. The senators also wrote to major healthcare companies, including Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, about their internal safeguards against racial bias in their technology. In 2021, Obermeyer and colleagues at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business released the Algorithmic Bias Playbook, a resource for policymakers and technical teams working in healthcare on how to measure and mitigate algorithmic racial bias. Obermeyer testified before the U.S. Senate Financial Committee in February 2024 on artificial intelligence in healthcare, recommending transparency requirements for AI developers and independent algorithm evaluations. In December 2025, he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the role of AI in affordable healthcare and the impact of its integration on the workforce. == Organizations == In 2021, Obermeyer cofounded Nightingale Open Science, a non-profit that creates new medical imaging datasets available for research, and Dandelion Health, a health data analytics company. In June 2023, the company launched a program to audit and evaluate the performance of algorithms to identify potential racial, ethnic, and geographic bias, funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the SCAN Foundation. Dandelion Health partnered with the American Heart Association in 2025 to power an AI assessment lab for cardiovascular algorithms. Obermeyer is a founding faculty member of the University of California, Berkeley–University of California, San Francisco joint program in computational precision health. == Recognition == TIME magazine named Obermeyer one of the 100 most influential people in artificial intelligence in 2023. He has served as a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Investigator since 2022, and as a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research since 2023. He was designated an Emerging Leader by the National Academy of Medicine in 2020. Obermeyer's racial bias study received the Willard G. Manning Memorial Award for the Best Research in Health Econometrics from the American Society of Health Economists (ASHEcon) in 2021 and the Responsible Business Education Award from the Financial Times in 2022.

Multi-task learning

Multi-task learning (MTL) is a subfield of machine learning in which multiple learning tasks are solved at the same time, while exploiting commonalities and differences across tasks. This can result in improved learning efficiency and prediction accuracy for the task-specific models, when compared to training the models separately. Inherently, Multi-task learning is a multi-objective optimization problem having trade-offs between different tasks. Early versions of MTL were called "hints". In a widely cited 1997 paper, Rich Caruana gave the following characterization:Multitask Learning is an approach to inductive transfer that improves generalization by using the domain information contained in the training signals of related tasks as an inductive bias. It does this by learning tasks in parallel while using a shared representation; what is learned for each task can help other tasks be learned better. In the classification context, MTL aims to improve the performance of multiple classification tasks by learning them jointly. One example is a spam-filter, which can be treated as distinct but related classification tasks across different users. To make this more concrete, consider that different people have different distributions of features which distinguish spam emails from legitimate ones, for example an English speaker may find that all emails in Russian are spam, not so for Russian speakers. Yet there is a definite commonality in this classification task across users, for example one common feature might be text related to money transfer. Solving each user's spam classification problem jointly via MTL can let the solutions inform each other and improve performance. Further examples of settings for MTL include multiclass classification and multi-label classification. Multi-task learning works because regularization induced by requiring an algorithm to perform well on a related task can be superior to regularization that prevents overfitting by penalizing all complexity uniformly. One situation where MTL may be particularly helpful is if the tasks share significant commonalities and are generally slightly under sampled. However, as discussed below, MTL has also been shown to be beneficial for learning unrelated tasks. == Methods == The key challenge in multi-task learning, is how to combine learning signals from multiple tasks into a single model. This may strongly depend on how well different task agree with each other, or contradict each other. There are several ways to address this challenge: === Task grouping and overlap === Within the MTL paradigm, information can be shared across some or all of the tasks. Depending on the structure of task relatedness, one may want to share information selectively across the tasks. For example, tasks may be grouped or exist in a hierarchy, or be related according to some general metric. Suppose, as developed more formally below, that the parameter vector modeling each task is a linear combination of some underlying basis. Similarity in terms of this basis can indicate the relatedness of the tasks. For example, with sparsity, overlap of nonzero coefficients across tasks indicates commonality. A task grouping then corresponds to those tasks lying in a subspace generated by some subset of basis elements, where tasks in different groups may be disjoint or overlap arbitrarily in terms of their bases. Task relatedness can be imposed a priori or learned from the data. Hierarchical task relatedness can also be exploited implicitly without assuming a priori knowledge or learning relations explicitly. For example, the explicit learning of sample relevance across tasks can be done to guarantee the effectiveness of joint learning across multiple domains. === Exploiting unrelated tasks: Auxiliary learning === In auxiliary learning, one attempts learning a group of principal tasks using a group of auxiliary tasks, unrelated to the principal ones. With the right unrelated tasks, joint learning of unrelated tasks which use the same input data have been shown to be beneficial, and provide significant improvement over standard MTL. The reason is that prior knowledge about task relatedness can lead to sparser and more informative representations for each task grouping, essentially by screening out idiosyncrasies of the data distribution. It has been proposed to build on a prior multitask methodology by favoring a shared low-dimensional representation within each task grouping, and imposing a penalty on tasks from different groups which encourages the two representations to be orthogonal. Learning with auxiliary unrelated tasks poses two major challenges: Finding useful auxiliary tasks and combining losses of all tasks in a useful way. Some methods can learn these from data together with the training process, and combine tasks efficiently. === Transfer of knowledge === Related to multi-task learning is the concept of knowledge transfer. Whereas traditional multi-task learning implies that a shared representation is developed concurrently across tasks, transfer of knowledge implies a sequentially shared representation. Large scale machine learning projects such as the deep convolutional neural network GoogLeNet, an image-based object classifier, can develop robust representations which may be useful to further algorithms learning related tasks. For example, the pre-trained model can be used as a feature extractor to perform pre-processing for another learning algorithm. Or the pre-trained model can be used to initialize a model with similar architecture which is then fine-tuned to learn a different classification task. === Multiple non-stationary tasks === Traditionally Multi-task learning and transfer of knowledge are applied to stationary learning settings. Their extension to non-stationary environments is termed Group online adaptive learning (GOAL). Sharing information could be particularly useful if learners operate in continuously changing environments, because a learner could benefit from previous experience of another learner to quickly adapt to their new environment. Such group-adaptive learning has numerous applications, from predicting financial time-series, through content recommendation systems, to visual understanding for adaptive autonomous agents. === Multi-task optimization === Multi-task optimization focuses on solving optimizing the whole process. The paradigm has been inspired by the well-established concepts of transfer learning and multi-task learning in predictive analytics. The key motivation behind multi-task optimization is that if optimization tasks are related to each other in terms of their optimal solutions or the general characteristics of their function landscapes, the search progress can be transferred to substantially accelerate the search on the other. The success of the paradigm is not necessarily limited to one-way knowledge transfers from simpler to more complex tasks. In practice an attempt is to intentionally solve a more difficult task that may unintentionally solve several smaller problems. There is a direct relationship between multitask optimization and multi-objective optimization. In some cases, the simultaneous training of seemingly related tasks may hinder performance compared to single-task models. Commonly, MTL models employ task-specific modules on top of a joint feature representation obtained using a shared module. Since this joint representation must capture useful features across all tasks, MTL may hinder individual task performance if the different tasks seek conflicting representation, i.e., the gradients of different tasks point to opposing directions or differ significantly in magnitude. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as negative transfer. To mitigate this issue, various MTL optimization methods have been proposed. It has been reported that meta-knowledge transfer could help avoid negative transfer.Besides, the per-task gradients are combined into a joint update direction through various aggregation algorithms or heuristics. There are several common approaches for multi-task optimization: Bayesian optimization, evolutionary computation, and approaches based on Game theory. ==== Multi-task Bayesian optimization ==== Multi-task Bayesian optimization is a modern model-based approach that leverages the concept of knowledge transfer to speed up the automatic hyperparameter optimization process of machine learning algorithms. The method builds a multi-task Gaussian process model on the data originating from different searches progressing in tandem. The captured inter-task dependencies are thereafter utilized to better inform the subsequent sampling of candidate solutions in respective search spaces. ==== Evolutionary multi-tasking ==== Evolutionary multi-tasking has been explored as a means of exploiting the implicit parallelism of population-based search algorithms to simultaneously progress multiple distinct optimization tasks. By mapping all task

Construction of t-norms

In mathematics, t-norms are a special kind of binary operations on the real unit interval [0, 1]. Various constructions of t-norms, either by explicit definition or by transformation from previously known functions, provide a plenitude of examples and classes of t-norms. This is important, e.g., for finding counter-examples or supplying t-norms with particular properties for use in engineering applications of fuzzy logic. The main ways of construction of t-norms include using generators, defining parametric classes of t-norms, rotations, or ordinal sums of t-norms. Relevant background can be found in the article on t-norms. == Generators of t-norms == The method of constructing t-norms by generators consists in using a unary function (generator) to transform some known binary function (most often, addition or multiplication) into a t-norm. In order to allow using non-bijective generators, which do not have the inverse function, the following notion of pseudo-inverse function is employed: Let f: [a, b] → [c, d] be a monotone function between two closed subintervals of extended real line. The pseudo-inverse function to f is the function f (−1): [c, d] → [a, b] defined as f ( − 1 ) ( y ) = { sup { x ∈ [ a , b ] ∣ f ( x ) < y } for f non-decreasing sup { x ∈ [ a , b ] ∣ f ( x ) > y } for f non-increasing. {\displaystyle f^{(-1)}(y)={\begin{cases}\sup\{x\in [a,b]\mid f(x)y\}&{\text{for }}f{\text{ non-increasing.}}\end{cases}}} === Additive generators === The construction of t-norms by additive generators is based on the following theorem: Let f: [0, 1] → [0, +∞] be a strictly decreasing function such that f(1) = 0 and f(x) + f(y) is in the range of f or in [f(0+), +∞] for all x, y in [0, 1]. Then the function T: [0, 1]2 → [0, 1] defined as T(x, y) = f (-1)(f(x) + f(y)) is a t-norm. Alternatively, one may avoid using the notion of pseudo-inverse function by having T ( x , y ) = f − 1 ( min ( f ( 0 + ) , f ( x ) + f ( y ) ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=f^{-1}\left(\min \left(f(0^{+}),f(x)+f(y)\right)\right)} . The corresponding residuum can then be expressed as ( x ⇒ y ) = f − 1 ( max ( 0 , f ( y ) − f ( x ) ) ) {\displaystyle (x\Rightarrow y)=f^{-1}\left(\max \left(0,f(y)-f(x)\right)\right)} . And the biresiduum as ( x ⇔ y ) = f − 1 ( | f ( x ) − f ( y ) | ) {\displaystyle (x\Leftrightarrow y)=f^{-1}\left(\left|f(x)-f(y)\right|\right)} . If a t-norm T results from the latter construction by a function f which is right-continuous in 0, then f is called an additive generator of T. Examples: The function f(x) = 1 – x for x in [0, 1] is an additive generator of the Łukasiewicz t-norm. The function f defined as f(x) = –log(x) if 0 < x ≤ 1 and f(0) = +∞ is an additive generator of the product t-norm. The function f defined as f(x) = 2 – x if 0 ≤ x < 1 and f(1) = 0 is an additive generator of the drastic t-norm. Basic properties of additive generators are summarized by the following theorem: Let f: [0, 1] → [0, +∞] be an additive generator of a t-norm T. Then: T is an Archimedean t-norm. T is continuous if and only if f is continuous. T is strictly monotone if and only if f(0) = +∞. Each element of (0, 1) is a nilpotent element of T if and only if f(0) < +∞. The multiple of f by a positive constant is also an additive generator of T. T has no non-trivial idempotents. (Consequently, e.g., the minimum t-norm has no additive generator.) === Multiplicative generators === The isomorphism between addition on [0, +∞] and multiplication on [0, 1] by the logarithm and the exponential function allow two-way transformations between additive and multiplicative generators of a t-norm. If f is an additive generator of a t-norm T, then the function h: [0, 1] → [0, 1] defined as h(x) = e−f (x) is a multiplicative generator of T, that is, a function h such that h is strictly increasing h(1) = 1 h(x) · h(y) is in the range of h or equal to 0 or h(0+) for all x, y in [0, 1] h is right-continuous in 0 T(x, y) = h (−1)(h(x) · h(y)). Vice versa, if h is a multiplicative generator of T, then f: [0, 1] → [0, +∞] defined by f(x) = −log(h(x)) is an additive generator of T. == Parametric classes of t-norms == Many families of related t-norms can be defined by an explicit formula depending on a parameter p. This section lists the best known parameterized families of t-norms. The following definitions will be used in the list: A family of t-norms Tp parameterized by p is increasing if Tp(x, y) ≤ Tq(x, y) for all x, y in [0, 1] whenever p ≤ q (similarly for decreasing and strictly increasing or decreasing). A family of t-norms Tp is continuous with respect to the parameter p if lim p → p 0 T p = T p 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{p\to p_{0}}T_{p}=T_{p_{0}}} for all values p0 of the parameter. === Schweizer–Sklar t-norms === The family of Schweizer–Sklar t-norms, introduced by Berthold Schweizer and Abe Sklar in the early 1960s, is given by the parametric definition T p S S ( x , y ) = { T min ( x , y ) if p = − ∞ ( x p + y p − 1 ) 1 / p if − ∞ < p < 0 T p r o d ( x , y ) if p = 0 ( max ( 0 , x p + y p − 1 ) ) 1 / p if 0 < p < + ∞ T D ( x , y ) if p = + ∞ . {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {SS} }(x,y)={\begin{cases}T_{\min }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=-\infty \\(x^{p}+y^{p}-1)^{1/p}&{\text{if }}-\infty −∞ Continuous if and only if p < +∞ Strict if and only if −∞ < p ≤ 0 (for p = −1 it is the Hamacher product) Nilpotent if and only if 0 < p < +∞ (for p = 1 it is the Łukasiewicz t-norm). The family is strictly decreasing for p ≥ 0 and continuous with respect to p in [−∞, +∞]. An additive generator for T p S S {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {SS} }} for −∞ < p < +∞ is f p S S ( x ) = { − log ⁡ x if p = 0 1 − x p p otherwise. {\displaystyle f_{p}^{\mathrm {SS} }(x)={\begin{cases}-\log x&{\text{if }}p=0\\{\frac {1-x^{p}}{p}}&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} === Hamacher t-norms === The family of Hamacher t-norms, introduced by Horst Hamacher in the late 1970s, is given by the following parametric definition for 0 ≤ p ≤ +∞: T p H ( x , y ) = { T D ( x , y ) if p = + ∞ 0 if p = x = y = 0 x y p + ( 1 − p ) ( x + y − x y ) otherwise. {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {H} }(x,y)={\begin{cases}T_{\mathrm {D} }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=+\infty \\0&{\text{if }}p=x=y=0\\{\frac {xy}{p+(1-p)(x+y-xy)}}&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The t-norm T 0 H {\displaystyle T_{0}^{\mathrm {H} }} is called the Hamacher product. Hamacher t-norms are the only t-norms which are rational functions. The Hamacher t-norm T p H {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {H} }} is strict if and only if p < +∞ (for p = 1 it is the product t-norm). The family is strictly decreasing and continuous with respect to p. An additive generator of T p H {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {H} }} for p < +∞ is f p H ( x ) = { 1 − x x if p = 0 log ⁡ p + ( 1 − p ) x x otherwise. {\displaystyle f_{p}^{\mathrm {H} }(x)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1-x}{x}}&{\text{if }}p=0\\\log {\frac {p+(1-p)x}{x}}&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} === Frank t-norms === The family of Frank t-norms, introduced by M.J. Frank in the late 1970s, is given by the parametric definition for 0 ≤ p ≤ +∞ as follows: T p F ( x , y ) = { T m i n ( x , y ) if p = 0 T p r o d ( x , y ) if p = 1 T L u k ( x , y ) if p = + ∞ log p ⁡ ( 1 + ( p x − 1 ) ( p y − 1 ) p − 1 ) otherwise. {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {F} }(x,y)={\begin{cases}T_{\mathrm {min} }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=0\\T_{\mathrm {prod} }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=1\\T_{\mathrm {Luk} }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=+\infty \\\log _{p}\left(1+{\frac {(p^{x}-1)(p^{y}-1)}{p-1}}\right)&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The Frank t-norm T p F {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {F} }} is strict if p < +∞. The family is strictly decreasing and continuous with respect to p. An additive generator for T p F {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {F} }} is f p F ( x ) = { − log ⁡ x if p = 1 1 − x if p = + ∞ log ⁡ p − 1 p x − 1 otherwise. {\displaystyle f_{p}^{\mathrm {F} }(x)={\begin{cases}-\log x&{\text{if }}p=1\\1-x&{\text{if }}p=+\infty \\\log {\frac {p-1}{p^{x}-1}}&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} === Yager t-norms === The family of Yager t-norms, introduced in the early 1980s by Ronald R. Yager, is given for 0 ≤ p ≤ +∞ by T p Y ( x , y ) = { T D ( x , y ) if p = 0 max ( 0 , 1 − ( ( 1 − x ) p + ( 1 − y ) p ) 1 / p ) if 0 < p < + ∞ T m i n ( x , y ) if p = + ∞ {\displaystyle T_{p}^{\mathrm {Y} }(x,y)={\begin{cases}T_{\mathrm {D} }(x,y)&{\text{if }}p=0\\\max \left(0,1-((1-x)^{p}+(1-y)^{p})^{1/p}\right)&{\text{if }}0

AI@50

AI@50, formally known as the "Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference: The Next Fifty Years" (July 13–15, 2006), was a conference organized by James H. Moor, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Dartmouth workshop which effectively inaugurated the history of artificial intelligence. Five of the original ten attendees were present: Marvin Minsky, Ray Solomonoff, Oliver Selfridge, Trenchard More, and John McCarthy. While sponsored by Dartmouth College, General Electric, and the Frederick Whittemore Foundation, a $200,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) called for a report of the proceedings that would: Analyze progress on AI's original challenges during the first 50 years, and assess whether the challenges were "easier" or "harder" than originally thought and why Document what the AI@50 participants believe are the major research and development challenges facing this field over the next 50 years, and identify what breakthroughs will be needed to meet those challenges Relate those challenges and breakthroughs against developments and trends in other areas such as control theory, signal processing, information theory, statistics, and optimization theory. A summary report by the conference director, James H. Moor, was published in AI Magazine. == Conference Program and links to published papers == James H. Moor, conference Director, Introduction Carol Folt and Barry Scherr, Welcome Carey Heckman, Tonypandy and the Origins of Science === AI: Past, Present, Future === John McCarthy, What Was Expected, What We Did, and AI Today Marvin Minsky, The Emotion Machine === The Future Model of Thinking === Ron Brachman and Hector Levesque, A Large Part of Human Thought David Mumford, What is the Right Model for 'Thought'? Stuart Russell, The Approach of Modern AI === The Future of Network Models === Geoffrey Hinton & Simon Osindero, From Pandemonium to Graphical Models and Back Again Rick Granger, From Brain Circuits to Mind Manufacture === The Future of Learning & Search === Oliver Selfridge, Learning and Education for Software: New Approaches in Machine Learning Ray Solomonoff, Machine Learning — Past and Future Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Learning to be Intelligent Peter Norvig, Web Search as a Product of and Catalyst for AI === The Future of AI === Rod Brooks, Intelligence and Bodies Nils Nilsson, Routes to the Summit Eric Horvitz, In Pursuit of Artificial Intelligence: Reflections on Challenges and Trajectories === The Future of Vision === Eric Grimson, Intelligent Medical Image Analysis: Computer Assisted Surgery and Disease Monitoring Takeo Kanade, Artificial Intelligence Vision: Progress and Non-Progress Terry Sejnowski, A Critique of Pure Vision === The Future of Reasoning === Alan Bundy, Constructing, Selecting and Repairing Representations of Knowledge Edwina Rissland, The Exquisite Centrality of Examples Bart Selman, The Challenge and Promise of Automated Reasoning === The Future of Language and Cognition === Trenchard More The Birth of Array Theory and Nial Eugene Charniak, Why Natural Language Processing is Now Statistical Natural Language Processing Pat Langley, Intelligent Behavior in Humans and Machines === The Future of the Future === Ray Kurzweil, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century George Cybenko, The Future Trajectory of AI Charles J. Holland, DARPA's Perspective === AI and Games === Jonathan Schaeffer, Games as a Test-bed for Artificial Intelligence Research Danny Kopec, Chess and AI Shay Bushinsky, Principle Positions in Deep Junior's Development === Future Interactions with Intelligent Machines === Daniela Rus, Making Bodies Smart Sherry Turkle, From Building Intelligences to Nurturing Sensibilities === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Strategies for AI === J. Storrs Hall, Self-improving AI: An Analysis Selmer Bringsjord, The Logicist Manifesto Vincent C. Müller, Is There a Future for AI Without Representation? Kristinn R. Thórisson, Integrated A.I. Systems === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Possibilities for AI === Eric Steinhart, Survival as a Digital Ghost Colin T. A. Schmidt, Did You Leave That 'Contraption' Alone With Your Little Sister? Michael Anderson & Susan Leigh Anderson, The Status of Machine Ethics Marcello Guarini, Computation, Coherence, and Ethical Reasoning

Generative engine optimization

Generative engine optimization (GEO) is one of the names given to the practice of structuring digital content and managing online presence to improve visibility in responses generated by generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The practice influences the way large language models (LLMs) retrieve, summarize, and present information in response to user queries. Related terms include answer engine optimization (AEO) and artificial intelligence optimization (AIO). The concept of GEO first appeared in response to generative AI technologies being integrated into mainstream search and information retrieval systems. Tools are used to monitor how websites and brands are cited, referenced, or incorporated into responses produced by large language models. == Terminology == Several overlapping terms describe related practices, and usage varies across practitioners, vendors, and publications. No consensus definition distinguishing these terms had been established in the academic literature as of early 2026, and the terms are frequently used interchangeably in trade and practitioner contexts. Other terms for the same concept include answer engine optimization (AEO), large language model optimization (LLMO), artificial intelligence optimization (AIO), and AI SEO. In 2026, Google released documentation entitled "Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search." According to this documentation, "optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO.” This position had previously been shared at conferences, with 2026 being the first time Google released official documentation stating it. == Factors influencing generative engine optimization == By early 2026, the focus of GEO practitioners shifted from simple keyword placement to "semantic relevance", a metric driven by the integration of advertising into conversational AI. OpenAI and Google began monetizing AI search results, which is not currently considered an aspect of generative engine optimization but is adjacent.

AIXI

AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{

2024 Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League

On 27 April 2024, the inaugural race of the Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League was held at the Yas Marina Circuit in Abu Dhabi. The race, originally scheduled to last eight laps, was ultimately shortened to six laps due to various complications, including subpar performance. It involved four self-driving race cars, only two of which – German cars Hailey and Constructor AI – finished the race; the other two did not finish. == Background == === Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League (A2RL) === The A2RL is an autonomous racing championship based in Abu Dhabi and organized by ASPIRE, part of the Advanced Technology Research Council. It is one of two active autonomous car racing championships, the second being the US-based Indy Autonomous Challenge. Unlike the IAC, which primarily focuses on time trials, simulated races, and challenges for teams, the A2RL's car races are closer to a standard grand prix formula race format. Both use Dallara-supplied racecars; the IAC uses the AV-24 chassis derived from Indy NXT's IL-15, while the A2RL chassis is designated EAV-24 and is derived from the SF-23 chassis used in Japanese Super Formula races. === Entrants === In total, eight teams were part of the A2RL in 2024, but only four would compete in the race proper. The list of teams in 2024 is: Fly Eagle (China/UAE) Code19 Racing (United States) Constructor University (Germany) Kinetiz (Singapore/UAE) Humda Lab (Hungary) PoliMove (Italy) Unimore (Italy) Technical University of Munich (Germany) Most teams come from universities and many, such as PoliMove and TUM, already have experience with autonomous racing, primarily from competing in the IAC. All teams had two months to code and test their AIs. Unlike most international open-wheel racing tournaments, such as Formula 1 or Formula E, no free practice sessions were undertaken. === TII Pre-race demonstration === Prior to the race itself, a mock 1v1 duel between former F1 driver Danill Kvyat and a self-driving car from the non-competing TII Racing team took place; the autonomous car was green and had number 01, while Kvyat's car was red and had number 00. Kvyat spent most of the duel in the pits. Kvyat himself said: "I'm not racing autonomous cars here. It won't be a flat-out race". == Qualifying == === Qualifying report === As only four of the eight entrants would compete in the main event, qualifying time trials were held to determine the four main race competitors, as well as their positions in the grid. Only the cars with the four best lap times over three time trial sessions held on Friday and Saturday would qualify. Multiple errors and setbacks occurred during qualifying. In the first session, Maveric AI, Code19's car, left the track and stopped just after turn 14 due to connectivity issues. Fly Eagle's car, Feiying, had multiple upsets; at one point, Feiying ran into localization issues and began swerving left and right before stopping just before turn 10. Later, Feiying swerved again and nearly hit the wall at the back straight, near the support pits, due to further localization issues. Sparkz, the Kinetiz team's car, swerved and crashed into the wall near yacht berths 51-56 after turn 11, damaging the front right wheel's axle and partially detaching the forward wings. Sparkz would be the only car to not have a set time at the end of the time trials. PoliMove car Eva braked hard without warning at the straight, the LED status indicator turning off, suggesting the AI computer had a system crash or shut itself down. After the sun went down, during the second session, Hailey, the car from the TUM team, went off-track after turn 9 and stopped, its status indicator flashing red, meaning Hailey's AI disengaged itself. Eva had further issues, once again braking hard and spinning out into turn 1. Later, the same thing happened to Feiying; it later swerved left and right and stopped due to further localization issues. The morning after, during the third and final session, Hailey went off-track after turn 5, and were unable to regain the pole position. === Qualifying classification === == Attack/Defend challenge == === Attack/Defend challenge report === In this part of the event, cars would be put on a series of 1v1 duels to see how well they could defend their position or attack to gain one higher. During one such duel, an incident occurred where Hailey rear-ended Eva, sending both off the track and prematurely ending the duel. The challenge was otherwise uneventful. === Attack/Defend challenge results === == Main race == === Race report === Eventually, at around 20:30 Gulf Standard Time on the night of 27 April, the main event (termed the "Grand Final" on-stream) would begin. The starting order was Eva first, Gianna second, Hailey third, and Constructor AI last. The race began with a rolling start. As a safety measure, the first two laps were conducted under virtual safety car (VSC) to make sure the cars stayed together, making them de facto formation laps, even if they counted towards race distance. However, Hailey ended up stopping at the final turn and strayed too far from the cars ahead, and as a result, the VSC conditions were extended for another lap. According to the livestream's on-screen graphics, Hailey was upwards of one minute and 22.3 seconds behind Gianna after the former started moving again. On lap 4, halfway through the planned race, and with Hailey more than 30 seconds behind Gianna, the VSC was lifted, and the green flag finally dropped. At first, the two Italian cars were leading the pack, Eva was the race leader with Gianna 3.2 seconds behind, however, as it entered the chicane, Eva hit the brakes and spun out, with Gianna briefly stopping as it passed Eva. Eva's spin automatically triggered a full-course yellow flag. Normally, under yellow flag conditions, overtaking is not permitted, but with Eva stopped and being moved off the track, it was theoretically permitted to overtake Eva. However, presumably due to an oversight in the AI's code, the cars assumed overtaking Eva, despite being off the track, was not permitted. As a result, both Gianna and Constructor AI stopped as they did not want to overtake Eva due to the yellow flag, with Hailey following suit as it approached. Constructor AI's status indicator was solid red, suggesting the AI had disengaged; however, Gianna's status indicator remained solid purple, showing the AI was still in control. Eva's status indicator was also solid purple, but was soon flashing green, suggesting the AI had disengaged but was ready to take control again. With all cars stalled, and Eva being off the track, the race was effectively red-flagged and suspended. Hailey, Gianna, and Constructor AI drove themselves back to their team's pits; Eva did not, it was towed to the main pits on a flatbed truck. Constructor was the first to arrive at the pits, followed by Gianna and Hailey, in that order. This incident, combined with loss of internet connection, led to Eva retiring - it did not finish the race. Eventually, it was decided to resume the race. With Eva retired, the restart order was Gianna first, Hailey second, and Constructor AI third. The race was also shortened - from eight laps to six. With lap 5 under full-course yellow, this meant all three remaining teams would effectively restart the race on the sixth and final lap. The trio left the pits at 22:25 Gulf Standard Time, and the race resumed two minutes later. At first, Gianna was winning with Hailey 2.6 seconds behind, but then Gianna stopped on turn 5, giving Hailey the lead. Constructor AI also overtook Gianna, but not without briefly stopping. Gianna remained stopped, its status indicator solid red - it did not finish either. With both Italian teams out of the picture, Hailey finished first and won A2RL 2024, with Constructor AI finishing second, 27.2 seconds behind. === Final race classification ===