In cryptography, plaintext usually means unencrypted information pending input into cryptographic algorithms, usually encryption algorithms. This usually refers to data that is transmitted or stored unencrypted. == Overview == With the advent of computing, the term plaintext expanded beyond human-readable documents to mean any data, including binary files, in a form that can be viewed or used without requiring a key or other decryption device. Information—a message, document, file, etc.—if to be communicated or stored in an unencrypted form is referred to as plaintext. Plaintext is used as input to an encryption algorithm; the output is usually termed ciphertext, particularly when the algorithm is a cipher. Codetext is less often used, and almost always only when the algorithm involved is actually a code. Some systems use multiple layers of encryption, with the output of one encryption algorithm becoming "plaintext" input for the next. == Secure handling == Insecure handling of plaintext can introduce weaknesses into a cryptosystem by letting an attacker bypass the cryptography altogether. Plaintext is vulnerable in use and in storage, whether in electronic or paper format. Physical security means the securing of information and its storage media from physical, attack—for instance by someone entering a building to access papers, storage media, or computers. Discarded material, if not disposed of securely, may be a security risk. Even shredded documents and erased magnetic media might be reconstructed with sufficient effort. If plaintext is stored in a computer file, the storage media, the computer and its components, and all backups must be secure. Sensitive data is sometimes processed on computers whose mass storage is removable, in which case physical security of the removed disk is vital. In the case of securing a computer, useful (as opposed to handwaving) security must be physical (e.g., against burglary, brazen removal under cover of supposed repair, installation of covert monitoring devices, etc.), as well as virtual (e.g., operating system modification, illicit network access, Trojan programs). Wide availability of keydrives, which can plug into most modern computers and store large quantities of data, poses another severe security headache. A spy (perhaps posing as a cleaning person) could easily conceal one, and even swallow it if necessary. Discarded computers, disk drives and media are also a potential source of plaintexts. Most operating systems do not actually erase anything— they simply mark the disk space occupied by a deleted file as 'available for use', and remove its entry from the file system directory. The information in a file deleted in this way remains fully present until overwritten at some later time when the operating system reuses the disk space. With even low-end computers commonly sold with many gigabytes of disk space and rising monthly, this 'later time' may be months later, or never. Even overwriting the portion of a disk surface occupied by a deleted file is insufficient in many cases. Peter Gutmann of the University of Auckland wrote a celebrated 1996 paper on the recovery of overwritten information from magnetic disks; areal storage densities have gotten much higher since then, so this sort of recovery is likely to be more difficult than it was when Gutmann wrote. Modern hard drives automatically remap failing sectors, moving data to good sectors. This process makes information on those failing, excluded sectors invisible to the file system and normal applications. Special software, however, can still extract information from them. Some government agencies (e.g., US NSA) require that personnel physically pulverize discarded disk drives and, in some cases, treat them with chemical corrosives. This practice is not widespread outside government, however. Garfinkel and Shelat (2003) analyzed 158 second-hand hard drives they acquired at garage sales and the like, and found that less than 10% had been sufficiently sanitized. The others contained a wide variety of readable personal and confidential information. See data remanence. Physical loss is a serious problem. The US State Department, Department of Defense, and the British Secret Service have all had laptops with secret information, including in plaintext, lost or stolen. Appropriate disk encryption techniques can safeguard data on misappropriated computers or media. On occasion, even when data on host systems is encrypted, media that personnel use to transfer data between systems is plaintext because of poorly designed data policy. For example, in October 2007, HM Revenue and Customs lost CDs that contained the unencrypted records of 25 million child benefit recipients in the United Kingdom. Modern cryptographic systems resist known plaintext or even chosen plaintext attacks, and so may not be entirely compromised when plaintext is lost or stolen. Older systems resisted the effects of plaintext data loss on security with less effective techniques—such as padding and Russian copulation to obscure information in plaintext that could be easily guessed.
Drops (app)
Drops is a language learning app that was created in Estonia by Daniel Farkas and Mark Szulyovszky in 2015. It is the second product from the company, after their first app, LearnInvisible, had issues in retaining a user's engagement over the required time period. The languages available include Native Hawaiian and Māori, and was classified as one of the fifty "Most Innovative Companies" for 2019 by Fast Company. The company partnered with Global Eagle Entertainment to include Travel Talk, a feature intended to focus on words and phrases frequently used by travelers. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the number of users increased by 55 percent in the United States and 92 percent in the United Kingdom. Droplets, a language app for children, includes profiles for multiple teachers working with remote students. The company also produces an app called Scripts, intended to help users learn to write alphabets. The app was purchased by the Norwegian company Kahoot! on 24 November 2020.
World model (artificial intelligence)
A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate
Deadbot
A deadbot, deathbot, or griefbot is a digital avatar, created with artificial intelligence, which resembles a person who is dead. Griefbots employ natural language processing and machine-learning techniques to approximate the style and personality of a deceased person. They may appear as chatbots, voice assistants, or animated avatars, and are often trained on an individual's digital remains. == History == Among the earliest researchers, Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad of the University of Washington, developed the Grandpa Bot project, a conversational simulation of his late father designed for his children to interact with. Other efforts include journalist James Vlahos's Dadbot, which evolved into the commercial platform HereAfter AI. Hossein Rahnama's Augmented Eternity research at MIT Media Lab and Toronto Metropolitan University, and game designer Jason Rohrer's "Project December", have enabled users to converse with language-model representations of loved ones. Early commercial projects such as Eternime, founded by Marius Ursache, also popularized the notion of interactive digital immortality. == Cultural and societal impact == Scholars have proposed frameworks and critiques addressing the ethics of these technologies. Tomasz Hollanek and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska developed a design-ethics taxonomy distinguishing the data donor, data recipient, and interactant. Edina Harbinja and Lilian Edwards formalized the concept of post-mortem privacy, and Carl J. Öhman at the Oxford Internet Institute studied the management of large-scale digital remains. Cultural acceptance varies: while some view them as expressions of remembrance, others regard them as unsettling or ethically problematic. Concerns have been raised about deadbots' potential for creating psychological harm. Griefbots are considered part of the phenomenon of artificial intimacy.
Qloo
Qloo (pronounced "clue") is a company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to understand taste and cultural correlations. It provides companies with an application programming interface (API). It received funding from Leonardo DiCaprio, Elton John, Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange and others. Qloo establishes consumer preference correlations via machine learning across data spanning cultural domains including music, film, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. The recommender system uses AI to predict correlations for further applications. == History == Qloo was founded in 2012 by chief executive officer Alex Elias and chief operating officer Jay Alger. Qloo initially launched an app designed for consumers, allowing them to understand their own tastes and receive personalized recommendations. The company amassed several million users and built a large catalog of cultural entities and corresponding user sentiment. In 2012, Qloo raised $1.4 million in seed funding from investors including Cedric the Entertainer, and venture capital firm Kindler Capital. Qloo had a public beta release in November 2012 after its initial funding. In 2013, the company raised an additional $1.6 million from Cross Creek Pictures founding partner Tommy Thompson, and Samih Toukan and Hussam Khoury, founders of Maktoob, an Internet services company purchased by Yahoo! for $164 million in 2009. On November 14, 2013, a website and an iPhone app were announced. The company later released an Android app, and tablet versions, in mid-2014. In 2015, Twitter approached Qloo about powering personalized social feeds and targeted eCommerce ads on the platform based on what users were posting. Qloo developed an enterprise-grade API to support Twitter’s needs. Twitter ended up pivoting to enable brands to use the social platform for customer service and support, but Qloo was able to sell access to its cultural intelligence via API to many other enterprise clients, marking the official transition from a B2C company to a B2B company. In 2016, Qloo secured $4.5 million in venture capital investment. The $4.5 million was split between a number of investors, including Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange, and Leonardo DiCaprio. In July 2017, Qloo raised $6.5 million in funding rounds from AXA Strategic Ventures, and Elton John. Following the investment, the founders stated in an interview with Tech Crunch that they would use the investment to expand Qloo's database. They hoped the move would secure larger contracts with corporate clients. At the time, clients already included Fortune 500 companies such as Twitter, PepsiCo, and BMW. In 2019, the company announced that it had acquired cultural recommendation service TasteDive, with Alex Elias becoming chairman of TasteDive. In September 2019, Qloo was named among the Top 14 Artificial Intelligence APIs by ProgrammableWeb. In 2022, Qloo raised $15M in Series B funding from Eldridge and AXA Venture Partners, enabling the privacy-centric AI leader to expand its team of world-class data scientists, enrich its technology, and build on its sales channels in order to continue to offer premier insights into global consumer taste for Fortune 500 companies across the globe. Qloo was recognized as the "Best Decision Intelligence Company" at the 2023 AI Breakthrough Awards. Also in 2023, the company was awarded a Top Performer Award by SourceForge. As of 2024, Qloo is a three-time Inc. 5000 honoree: No. 360 (2022), No. 344 (2021), No. 187 (2020). Qloo raised $25 million Series C round on February 21, 2024. The round was led by AI Ventures with participation from AXA Venture Partners, Eldridge, and Moderne Ventures, allowing Qloo to address new commercial surface areas for Taste AI, including on-device learning and foundational models leveraging Qloo, as well as introduce self-service platform to make consumer and taste analytics available to small and mid-sized enterprises and individuals. Qloo also announced pursuing opportunistic M&A using its balance sheet along the lines of the TasteDive acquisition completed, which expanded Qloo's first-party data moat and corpus of cultural learning. This latest financing brought the total amount raised since the company's founding in 2012 to over $56 million. == Services and features == Qloo calls itself a cultural AI platform to provide real-time correlation data across domains of culture and entertainment including: film, music, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. Each category contains subcategories. Qloo’s knowledge of a user's taste in one category can be utilized to offer suggestions in other categories. Users then rate the suggestions, providing it with feedback for future suggestions. Qloo has partnerships with companies such as Expedia and iTunes. == Technology == Qloo’s Taste AI technology uses machine learning to decode and predict consumers’ interests, maintaining user anonymity. It is powered by 3.7 billion lifestyle entities (brands, music, film, TV, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, travel, and more) and trillions of anonymized consumer behavioral signals. Through AI, Qloo identifies patterns in these data signals, making predictions about how much interest a person or group has in a concept or thing. Central to Qloo’s technology are algorithms designed to detect and mitigate biases within datasets and models, allowing Qloo to assess the fairness of its AI systems with a focus on attributes such as age, gender, and race, enabling the company to fine-tune its AI models to align with their ethical standards. They also use visualization tools to probe the behavior of their AI models for conducting counterfactual analyses and for comparing the performances of the AI models across diverse demographic segments. Qloo’s Taste AI doesn’t collect or use any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Instead, it derives recommendations for audience segments based on co-occurrences between lifestyle entities and anonymized behavioral signals. == Applications == Starbucks uses Qloo to create in-store music playlists tailored to specific neighborhoods. Hershey’s uses Qloo to customize the content of assorted candy bags. Michelin uses Qloo to serve recommendations in its Michelin Guide app. Netflix leverages Qloo’s technology to enhance merchandising by identifying actors who resonate with certain demographics. Qloo also works with PepsiCo, Samsung, The New York Mets, BuzzFeed, and Ticketmaster, Universal Music Group, and OOH advertising company JCDecaux.
Natural language processing
Natural language processing (NLP) is the processing of natural language information by a computer. NLP is a subfield of computer science and is closely associated with artificial intelligence. NLP is also related to information retrieval, knowledge representation, computational linguistics, and linguistics more broadly. Major processing tasks in an NLP system include: speech recognition, text classification, natural language understanding, and natural language generation. == History == Natural language processing has its roots in the 1950s. Already in 1950, Alan Turing published an article titled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence, though at the time that was not articulated as a problem separate from artificial intelligence. The proposed test includes a task that involves the automated interpretation and generation of natural language. === Symbolic NLP (1950s – early 1990s) === The premise of symbolic NLP is often illustrated using John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment: Given a collection of rules (e.g., a Chinese phrasebook, with questions and matching answers), the computer emulates natural language understanding (or other NLP tasks) by applying those rules to the data it confronts. 1950s: The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem. However, real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that ten years of research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding for machine translation was dramatically reduced. Little further research in machine translation was conducted in America (though some research continued elsewhere, such as Japan and Europe) until the late 1980s when the first statistical machine translation systems were developed. 1960s: Some notably successful natural language processing systems developed in the 1960s were SHRDLU, a natural language system working in restricted "blocks worlds" with restricted vocabularies, and ELIZA, a simulation of Rogerian psychotherapy, written by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964 and 1966. Despite using minimal information about human thought or emotion, ELIZA was able to produce interactions that appeared human-like. When the "patient" exceeded the very small knowledge base, ELIZA might provide a generic response, for example, responding to "My head hurts" with "Why do you say your head hurts?". Ross Quillian's successful work on natural language was demonstrated with a vocabulary of only twenty words, because that was all that would fit in a computer memory at the time. 1970s: During the 1970s, many programmers began to write "conceptual ontologies", which structured real-world information into computer-understandable data. Examples are MARGIE (Schank, 1975), SAM (Cullingford, 1978), PAM (Wilensky, 1978), TaleSpin (Meehan, 1976), QUALM (Lehnert, 1977), Politics (Carbonell, 1979), and Plot Units (Lehnert 1981). During this time, the first chatterbots were written (e.g., PARRY). 1980s: The 1980s and early 1990s mark the heyday of symbolic methods in NLP. Focus areas of the time included research on rule-based parsing (e.g., the development of HPSG as a computational operationalization of generative grammar), morphology (e.g., two-level morphology), semantics (e.g., Lesk algorithm), reference (e.g., within Centering Theory) and other areas of natural language understanding (e.g., in the Rhetorical Structure Theory). Other lines of research were continued, e.g., the development of chatterbots with Racter and Jabberwacky. An important development (that eventually led to the statistical turn in the 1990s) was the rising importance of quantitative evaluation in this period. === Statistical NLP (1990s–present) === Up until the 1980s, most natural language processing systems were based on complex sets of hand-written rules. Starting in the late 1980s, however, there was a revolution in natural language processing with the introduction of machine learning algorithms for language processing. This shift was influenced by increasing computational power (see Moore's law) and a decline in the dominance of Chomskyan linguistic theories (e.g. transformational grammar), whose theoretical underpinnings discouraged the sort of corpus linguistics that underlies the machine-learning approach to language processing. 1990s: Many of the notable early successes in statistical methods in NLP occurred in the field of machine translation, due especially to work at IBM Research, such as IBM alignment models. These systems were able to take advantage of existing multilingual textual corpora that had been produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. However, many systems relied on corpora that were specifically developed for the tasks they were designed to perform. This reliance has been a major limitation to their broader effectiveness and continues to affect similar systems. Consequently, significant research has focused on methods for learning effectively from limited amounts of data. 2000s: With the growth of the web, increasing amounts of raw (unannotated) language data have become available since the mid-1990s. Research has thus increasingly focused on unsupervised and semi-supervised learning algorithms. Such algorithms can learn from data that has not been hand-annotated with the desired answers or using a combination of annotated and non-annotated data. Generally, this task is much more difficult than supervised learning, and typically produces less accurate results for a given amount of input data. However, large quantities of non-annotated data are available (including, among other things, the entire content of the World Wide Web), which can often make up for the worse efficiency if the algorithm used has a low enough time complexity to be practical. 2003: word n-gram model, at the time the best statistical algorithm, is outperformed by a multi-layer perceptron (with a single hidden layer and context length of several words, trained on up to 14 million words, by Bengio et al.) 2010: Tomáš Mikolov (then a PhD student at Brno University of Technology) with co-authors applied a simple recurrent neural network with a single hidden layer to language modeling, and in the following years he went on to develop Word2vec. In the 2010s, representation learning and deep neural network-style (featuring many hidden layers) machine learning methods became widespread in natural language processing. This shift gained momentum due to results showing that such techniques can achieve state-of-the-art results in many natural language tasks, e.g., in language modeling and parsing. This is increasingly important in medicine and healthcare, where NLP helps analyze notes and text in electronic health records that would otherwise be inaccessible for study when seeking to improve care or protect patient privacy. == Approaches: Symbolic, statistical, neural networks == Symbolic approach, i.e., the hand-coding of a set of rules for manipulating symbols, coupled with a dictionary lookup, was historically the first approach used both by AI in general and by NLP in particular: such as by writing grammars or devising heuristic rules for stemming. Machine learning approaches, which include both statistical and neural networks, on the other hand, have many advantages over the symbolic approach: both statistical and neural network methods tend to focus more on the most common cases extracted from a corpus of texts, whereas the rule-based approach needs to provide rules for both rare and common cases equally. language models, produced by either statistical or neural networks methods, are more robust to both unfamiliar (e.g. containing words or structures that have not been seen before) and erroneous input (e.g. with misspelled words or words accidentally omitted) in comparison to the rule-based systems, which are also more costly to produce. the larger such a (probabilistic) language model is, the more accurate it becomes, in contrast to rule-based systems that can gain accuracy only by increasing the amount and complexity of the rules leading to intractability problems. Rule-based systems are commonly used: when the amount of training data is insufficient to successfully apply machine learning methods, e.g., for the machine translation of low-resource languages such as provided by the Apertium system, for preprocessing in NLP pipelines, e.g., tokenization, or for post-processing and transforming the output of NLP pipelines, e.g., for knowledge extraction from syntactic parses. === Statistical approach === In the late 1980s and mid-1990s, the statistical approach ended a peri
AI-complete
In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.