In cryptography, the branch number is a numerical value that characterizes the amount of diffusion introduced by a vectorial Boolean function F that maps an input vector a to output vector F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} . For the (usual) case of a linear F the value of the differential branch number is produced by: applying nonzero values of a (i.e., values that have at least one non-zero component of the vector) to the input of F; calculating for each input value a the Hamming weight W {\displaystyle W} (number of nonzero components), and adding weights W ( a ) {\displaystyle W(a)} and W ( F ( a ) ) {\displaystyle W(F(a))} together; selecting the smallest combined weight across for all nonzero input values: B d ( F ) = min a ≠ 0 ( W ( a ) + W ( F ( a ) ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq 0}{\min }}(W(a)+W(F(a)))} . If both a and F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} have s components, the result is obviously limited on the high side by the value s + 1 {\displaystyle s+1} (this "perfect" result is achieved when any single nonzero component in a makes all components of F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} to be non-zero). A high branch number suggests higher resistance to the differential cryptanalysis: the small variations of input will produce large changes on the output and in order to obtain small variations of the output, large changes of the input value will be required. The term was introduced by Daemen and Rijmen in early 2000s and quickly became a typical tool to assess the diffusion properties of the transformations. == Mathematics == The branch number concept is not limited to the linear transformations, Daemen and Rijmen provided two general metrics: differential branch number, where the minimum is obtained over inputs of F that are constructed by independently sweeping all the values of two nonzero and unequal vectors a, b ( ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is a component-by-component exclusive-or): B d ( F ) = min a ≠ b ( W ( a ⊕ b ) + W ( F ( a ) ⊕ F ( b ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq b}{\min }}(W(a\oplus b)+W(F(a)\oplus F(b))} ; for linear branch number, the independent candidates α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } are independently swept; they should be nonzero and correlated with respect to F (the L A T ( α , β ) {\displaystyle LAT(\alpha ,\beta )} coefficient of the linear approximation table of F should be nonzero): B l ( F ) = min α ≠ 0 , β , L A T ( α , β ) ≠ 0 ( W ( α ) + W ( β ) ) {\displaystyle B_{l}(F)={\underset {\alpha \neq 0,\beta ,LAT(\alpha ,\beta )\neq 0}{\min }}(W(\alpha )+W(\beta ))} .
FoundationDB
FoundationDB is a free and open-source multi-model distributed NoSQL database owned by Apple Inc. with a shared-nothing architecture. The product was designed around a "core" database, with additional features supplied in "layers." The core database exposes an ordered key–value store with transactions. The transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties. Transactions are used to implement a variety of data models via layers. The FoundationDB Alpha program began in January 2012 and concluded on March 4, 2013, with their public Beta release. Their 1.0 version was released for general availability on August 20, 2013. On March 24, 2015, it was reported that Apple has acquired the company. A notice on the FoundationDB web site indicated that the company has "evolved" its mission and would no longer offer downloads of the software. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license. == Main features == The main features of FoundationDB include the following: Ordered key–value store In addition to supporting standard key-based reads and writes, the ordering property enables range reads that can efficiently scan large swaths of data. Transactions Transaction processing employs multiversion concurrency control for reads and optimistic concurrency for writes. Transactions can span multiple keys stored on multiple machines. ACID properties FoundationDB guarantees serializable isolation and strong durability via redundant storage on disk before transactions are considered committed. Layers Layers map new data models, APIs, and query languages to the FoundationDB core. They employ FoundationDB's ability to update multiple data elements in a single transaction, ensuring consistency. An example is their SQL layer. Commodity clusters FoundationDB is designed for deployment on distributed clusters of commodity hardware running Linux. Replication FoundationDB stores each piece of data on multiple machines according to a configurable replication factor. Triple replication is the recommended mode for clusters of 5 or more machines. Scalability FoundationDB is designed to support horizontal scaling through the addition of machines to a cluster while automatically handling data replication and partitioning. Systems supported FoundationDB supports packages for Linux, Windows, and macOS. The Linux version supports production clusters, while the Windows and macOS versions support local operation for development purposes. Configurations on Amazon EC2 are also supported. Programming language bindings FoundationDB supports language bindings for Python, Go, Ruby, Node.js, Java, PHP, and C, all of which are made available with the product. == Design limitations == The design of FoundationDB results in several limitations: Long transactions FoundationDB does not support transactions running over five seconds. Large transactions Transaction size cannot exceed 10 MB of total written keys and values. Large keys and values Keys cannot exceed 10 kB in size. Values cannot exceed 100 kB in size. == History == FoundationDB, headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, was started in 2009 by Nick Lavezzo, Dave Rosenthal, and Dave Scherer, drawing on their experience in executive and technology roles at their previous company, Visual Sciences. In March 2015 the FoundationDB Community site was updated to state that the company had changed directions and would no longer be offering downloads of its product. The company was acquired by Apple Inc., which was confirmed March 25, 2015. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license.
Blockhead (thought experiment)
Blockhead is a theoretical computer system invented as part of a thought experiment by philosopher Ned Block, which appeared in a paper titled "Psychologism and Behaviorism". Block did not personally name the computer in the paper. == Overview == In "Psychologism and Behaviorism", Block argues that the internal mechanism of a system is important in determining whether that system is intelligent and claims to show that a non-intelligent system could pass the Turing test. Block asks the reader to imagine a conversation lasting any given amount of time. He states that given the nature of language, there are a finite number of syntactically and grammatically correct sentences that can be used to start a conversation. Consequently, there is a limit to how many "sensible" responses can be made to the first sentence, then to the second sentence, and so on until the conversation ends. Block then asks the reader to imagine a computer which had been programmed with all the sentences in theory, if not in practice. Block argues that such a machine could continue a conversation with a person on any topic because the computer would be programmed with every sentence that it was possible to use so the computer would be able to pass the Turing test despite the fact that—according to Block—it was not intelligent. Block says that this does not show that there is only one correct internal structure for generating intelligence but simply that some internal structures do not generate intelligence. The argument is related to John Searle's Chinese room.
Executive Order 14110
Executive Order 14110, titled Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (sometimes referred to as "Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence") was the 126th executive order signed by former U.S. President Joe Biden. Signed on October 30, 2023, the order defines the administration's policy goals regarding artificial intelligence (AI), and orders executive agencies to take actions pursuant to these goals. The order is considered to be the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States regarding AI. It was rescinded by U.S. President Donald Trump within hours of his assuming office on January 20, 2025. Policy goals outlined in the executive order pertain to promoting competition in the AI industry, preventing AI-enabled threats to civil liberties and national security, and ensuring U.S. global competitiveness in the AI field. The executive order required a number of major federal agencies to create dedicated "chief artificial intelligence officer" positions within their organizations. == Background == The drafting of the order was motivated by the rapid pace of development in generative AI models in the 2020s, including the release of large language model ChatGPT. Executive Order 14110 is the third executive order dealing explicitly with AI, with two AI-related executive orders being signed by then-President Donald Trump. The development of AI models without policy safeguards has raised a variety of concerns among experts and commentators. These range from future existential risk from advanced AI models to immediate concerns surrounding current technologies' ability to disseminate misinformation, enable discrimination, and undermine national security. In August 2023, Arati Prabhakar, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, indicated that the White House was expediting its work on executive action on AI. A week prior to the executive order's unveiling, Prabhakar indicated that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the order would be released "soon" after. == Policy goals and provisions == The order has been characterized as an effort for the United States to capture potential benefits from AI while mitigating risks associated with AI technologies. Upon signing the order, Biden stated that AI technologies were being developed at "warp speed", and argued that to "realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology". Policy goals outlined by the order include the following: Promoting competition and innovation in the AI industry Upholding civil and labor rights and protecting consumers and their privacy from AI-enabled harms Specifying federal policies governing procurement and use of AI Developing watermarking systems for AI-generated content and warding off intellectual property theft stemming from the use of generative models Maintaining the nation's place as a global leader in AI == Impact on agencies == === Creation of chief AI officer positions === The executive order required a number of large federal agencies to appoint a chief artificial intelligence officer, with a number of departments having already appointed a relevant officer prior to the order. In the days following the order, news publication FedScoop confirmed that the General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States Department of Education appointed relevant chief AI officers. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also confirmed it had elevated an official to serve as its chief AI officer. === Department responsibilities === Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was responsible for developing AI-related security guidelines, including cybersecurity-related matters. The DHS will also work with private sector firms in sectors including the energy industry and other "critical infrastructure" to coordinate responses to AI-enabled security threats. Executive Order 14110 mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch an AI technology competition aimed at reducing occupational burnout among healthcare workers through AI-assisted tools for routine tasks. The order also mandated the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a generative artificial intelligence-focused resource to supplement the existing AI Risk Management Framework. == Analysis == The executive order has been described as the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States government pertaining to AI. Earlier in 2023 prior to the signing of the order, the Biden administration had announced a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, and had secured non-binding AI safety commitments from major tech companies. The issuing of the executive order comes at a time in which lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have pushed for legislation to regulate AI in the 118th United States Congress. According to Axios, despite the wide scope of the executive order, it notably does not touch upon a number of AI-related policy proposals. This includes proposals for a "licensing regime" to government advanced AI models, which has received support from industry leaders including Sam Altman. Additionally, the executive order does not seek to prohibit 'high-risk' uses of AI technology, and does not aim to mandate that tech companies release information surrounding AI systems' training data and models. == Reception == === Political and media reception === The editorial board of the Houston Chronicle described the order as a "first step toward protecting humanity". The issuing of the order received praise from Democratic members of Congress, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA). Representative Don Beyer (D-VA), who leads the House AI Caucus, praised the order as a "comprehensive strategy for responsible innovation", while arguing that Congress must take initiative to pass legislation on AI. The draft of the order received criticism from Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who described it as creating "barriers to innovation disguised as safety measures". === Public reception === Polling from the AI Policy Institute showed that 69% of all voters support the executive order, while 15% oppose it. Breaking it down by party, support was at 78% for Democrats, 65% for independents, and 64% for Republicans. === Industry reception === The executive order received strong criticism from the Chamber of Commerce as well as tech industry groups including NetChoice and the Software and Information Industry Association, all of which count "Big Tech" companies Amazon, Meta, and Google as members. Representatives from the organizations argued that the executive order threatens to hinder private sector innovation. === Civil society reception === According to CNBC, a number of leaders advocacy organizations praised the executive order for its provisions on "AI fairness", while simultaneously urging congressional action to strengthen regulation. Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, praised the order while urging Congress to take initiative to "ensure that innovation makes us more fair, just, and prosperous, rather than surveilled, silenced, and stereotyped". A representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised provisions of the order centered on combating AI-enabled discrimination, while also voiced concern over sections of the order focused on law enforcement and national security. === Second Trump administration === Hours after his inauguration as the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump rescinded the order, labeling it, among several other of Biden's executive orders and actions, as "unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices".
REEM
REEM is a prototype humanoid robot built by PAL Robotics in Spain. It is a 1.70 m high humanoid robot with 22 degrees of freedom, with a mobile base with wheels, allowing it to move at 4 km/hour. The upper part of the robot consists of a torso with a touch screen, two motorized arms, which give it a high degree of expression, and a head, which is also motorized. REEM-A and REEM-B are the first and second prototypes of humanoid robots created by PAL Robotics. REEM-B can recognize, grasp and lift objects and walk by itself, avoiding obstacles through simultaneous localization and mapping. The robot accepts voice commands and can recognize faces. == Specifications ==
Enterprise mobile application
The term enterprise mobile application is used in the context of mobile apps created/brought by individual organizations for their workers to carry out the functions required to run the organization. It is the process of building a mobile application for the requirements of an enterprise. An enterprise mobile application belonging to an organization is expected to be used by only the workers of that organization. The definition of enterprise mobile application does not include the mobile apps that an organization create for its customers or consumers of the products or services generated by the organization. == Example == An organization, whether for-profit or non-profit, may create a mobile app for its members to track inventory levels of supplies they distribute to their target communities or materials used in product manufacturing. Such a mobile app comes under the definition of enterprise mobile application. However, the same organization may also create another mobile app to sell their products to end users or spread awareness of their services to various communities, and that mobile app would not come under definition of enterprise mobile application. == Enterprise mobile solution providers == Enterprise Mobile solution providers create and develop apps for individual organizations that can buy instead of creating the apps themselves. Reasons for Organizations buying the apps include time and cost savings, technical expertise. Today Enterprise Mobility is playing track role for enterprise transformation. Today, enterprises needs productivity is a fast way. Enterprise mobility helps business owners to build their work in a progressive way by assisting enterprise mobility solutions.
Computational creativity
Computational creativity (also known as artificial creativity, mechanical creativity, creative computing or creative computation) is a multidisciplinary endeavour that is located at the intersection of the fields of artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and the arts (e.g., computational art as part of computational culture). Is the application of computer systems to emulate human-like creative processes, facilitating the generation of artistic and design outputs that mimic innovation and originality. The goal of computational creativity is to model, simulate or replicate creativity using a computer, to achieve one of several ends: To construct a program or computer capable of human-level creativity. To better understand human creativity and to formulate an algorithmic perspective on creative behavior in humans. To design programs that can enhance human creativity without necessarily being creative themselves. The field of computational creativity concerns itself with theoretical and practical issues in the study of creativity. Theoretical work on the nature and proper definition of creativity is performed in parallel with practical work on the implementation of systems that exhibit creativity, with one strand of work informing the other. The applied form of computational creativity is known as media synthesis. == Theoretical issues == Theoretical approaches concern the essence of creativity. Especially, under what circumstances it is possible to call the model a "creative" if eminent creativity is about rule-breaking or the disavowal of convention. This is a variant of Ada Lovelace's objection to machine intelligence, as recapitulated by modern theorists such as Teresa Amabile. If a machine can do only what it was programmed to do, how can its behavior ever be called creative? Indeed, not all computer theorists would agree with the premise that computers can only do what they are programmed to do—a key point in favor of computational creativity. == Defining creativity in computational terms == Because no single perspective or definition seems to offer a complete picture of creativity, the AI researchers Newell, Shaw and Simon developed the combination of novelty and usefulness into the cornerstone of a multi-pronged view of creativity, one that uses the following four criteria to categorize a given answer or solution as creative: The answer is novel and useful (either for the individual or for society) The answer demands that we reject ideas we had previously accepted The answer results from intense motivation and persistence The answer comes from clarifying a problem that was originally vague Margaret Boden focused on the first two of these criteria, arguing instead that creativity (at least when asking whether computers could be creative) should be defined as "the ability to come up with ideas or artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable". Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi argued that creativity had to be considered instead in a social context, and his DIFI (Domain-Individual-Field Interaction) framework has since strongly influenced the field. In DIFI, an individual produces works whose novelty and value are assessed by the field—other people in society—providing feedback and ultimately adding the work, now deemed creative, to the domain of societal works from which an individual might be later influenced. Whereas the above reflects a top-down approach to computational creativity, an alternative thread has developed among bottom-up computational psychologists involved in artificial neural network research. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example, such generative neural systems were driven by genetic algorithms. Experiments involving recurrent nets were successful in hybridizing simple musical melodies and predicting listener expectations. == Historical evolution of computational creativity == The use computational processes to generate creative artifacts has been present from early times in history. During the late 1800's, methods for composing music combinatorily were explored, involving prominent figures like Mozart, Bach, Haydn, and Kiernberger. This approach extended to analytical endeavors as early as 1934, where simple mechanical models were built to explore mathematical problem solving. Professional interest in the creative aspect of computation also was commonly addressed in early discussions of artificial intelligence. The 1956 Dartmouth Conference, listed creativity, invention, and discovery as key goals for artificial intelligence. As the development of computers allowed systems of greater complexity, the 1970's and 1980's saw invention of early systems that modelled creativity using symbolic or rule-based approaches. The field of creative storytelling investigated several such models. Meehan's TALE-SPIN (1977) generated narratives through simulation of character goals and decision trees. Dehn's AUTHOR (1981) approached generation by simulating an author's process for crafting a story. Beyond narrative generation, computational creativity expanded into artistic and scientific domains. Artistic image generation was one of the disciplines that saw early potential in generated artifacts through computational creativity. One of the most prominent examples was Harold Cohen's AARON, which produced art through composition and adaptation of figures based on a large set of symbolic rules and heuristics for visual composition. Some systems also tackled creativity in scientific endeavors. BACON was said to rediscover natural laws like Boyle's Law and Kepler's law through hypothesis testing in constrained spaces. By the 1990's the modeling techniques became more adaptive, attempting to implement cognitive creative rules for generation. Turner's MINSTREL (1993) introduced TRAMs (Transform Recall Adapt Methods) to simulate creative re-use of prior material for generative storytelling. Meanwhile, Pérez y Pérez's MEXICA (1999) modeled the creative writing process using cycles of engagement and reflection. As systems increasingly incorporated models of internal evaluation, another approach that emerged was that of combining symbolic generation with domain-specific evaluation metrics, modeling generative and selective steps to creativity In the field of generational humor, the JAPE system (1994) generated pun-based riddles using Prolog and WordNet, applying symbolic pattern-matching rules and a large lexical database (WordNet) to compose riddles involving wordplay. WordNet is a system developed by George Miller and his team at Princeton, its platform and inspired word-mapping structures have been used as the backbone of several syntactic and semantic AI programs. A notable system for music generation was David Cope's EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) or Emmy, which was trained in the styles of artists like Bach, Beethoven, or Chopin and generated novel pieces in their style through pattern abstraction and recomposition. In the 2000s and beyond, machine learning began influencing creative system design. Researchers such as Mihalcea and Strapparava trained classifiers to distinguish humorous from non-humorous text, using stylistic and semantic features. Meanwhile custom computational approaches led to chess systems like Deep Blue generating quasi-creative gameplay strategies through search algorithms and parallel processing constrained by specific rules and patterns for evaluation. The institutional development of computational creativity grew along its technical advances. Dedicated workshops such as the IJWCC emerged in the 1990s, growing out of interdisciplinary conferences focused on AI and creativity. By the early 2000s, the field coalesced around annual conferences like the International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC). Recently, with the advent of Deep Learning, Transformers, and further refinement in Machine Learning structures, computational creativity's implementation space has new tools for development. == Machine learning for computational creativity == While traditional computational approaches to creativity rely on the explicit formulation of prescriptions by developers and a certain degree of randomness in computer programs, machine learning methods allow computer programs to learn on heuristics from input data enabling creative capacities within the computer programs. Especially, deep artificial neural networks allow to learn patterns from input data that allow for the non-linear generation of creative artefacts. Before 1989, artificial neural networks have been used to model certain aspects of creativity. Peter Todd (1989) first trained a neural network to reproduce musical melodies from a training set of musical pieces. Then he used a change algorithm to modify the network's input parameters. The network was able to randomly generate new music in a highly uncontrolled manner. In 1992, Todd extended this work, using the so-called distal teacher approach that had been d