Project Debater is an IBM artificial intelligence project, designed to participate in a full live debate with expert human debaters. It follows on from the Watson project which played Jeopardy! == Development == Project Debater was developed at IBM's lab in Haifa, Israel. The project was proposed by Noam Slonim in 2011 as the IBM Research next Grand Challenge, following Deep Blue and the victory of Watson in Jeopardy! It was exposed for the first time in a closed media event at June 18, 2018, in San Francisco, under the leadership of Ranit Aharonov and Slonim, both from the IBM Research lab in Haifa, Israel. The AI technology debated two human debaters, Noa Ovadia, who was the 2016 Israeli debate champion and Dan Zafrir. The two debated on the topics "We should subsidize space exploration" and "Should we increase the use of telemedicine." A demonstration of Project Debater also aired on the Discovery Channel in June 2018 debating the question of whether sports gambling should be legalized. == Live Debate == On February 11, 2019, Project Debater was revealed to the world in a live debate in San Francisco. Nonpartisan media group Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates hosted the debate which was moderated by journalist John Donvan. The debate took place between Project Debater and Harish Natarajan, who holds the world record in number of debate competition victories. The motion was “We should subsidize preschools.” == That's Debatable Television Show == Project Debater was featured in a television series called “That’s Debatable” presented by Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates and Bloomberg Media. For each episode of “That’s Debatable,” Project Debater provided insight into three distinct debate topics on the redistribution of wealth, modern monetary theory, and a US-China space race. More than 5,000 arguments were submitted online from around the world across the three topics, which were then analyzed and distilled into key points that were highlighted on the television show and discussed by human debaters. == Artificial Intelligence Capabilities == To develop Project Debater, the IBM Research team had to endow the system with the following AI capabilities: Data-driven speech writing and delivery: Project Debater is the first demonstration of a computer that can digest massive corpora, and given a short description of a controversial topic, write a well-structured speech, and deliver it with clarity and purpose, while even incorporating humor where appropriate. Listening comprehension: the ability to identify the key concepts and claims hidden within long continuous spoken language. Four minutes of persuasive speech: the guarantee of producing four minutes of persuasive speech. Modeling human dilemmas: modeling the world of human controversy and dilemmas in a unique knowledge representation, enabling the system to suggest principled arguments as needed. An article on the project was published in Nature in March 2021.
Escapex
Escapex, stylized as escapex, was a mobile app developer specializing in white-label fan engagement apps for celebrities. It was founded by Sephi Shapira in 2014 and has raised $18 million in funding. It allows celebrities to reach fans directly, as well as receiving revenue from fans through its freemium model. == Overview == Shapira is Israeli and previously founded Interchan and MassiveImpact. He graduated from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. The company has raised $18 million in funding. Its 2018 revenue was $5.5 million. In 2016, the company had 57 employees split between Tel Aviv and New York City. The company's General Manager is Joe Cuello, formerly an executive at MTV, then Chief Creative Officer at TuneCore. Their director of social engagement is Rafe Lopresti-Oakes. A press release from the company described the service as having a "proprietary loyalty program" which allows "monetization of social engagement through e-commerce and in-app advertising". App launches typically offered a contest for one fan to meet the celebrity. The app also allows Escapex to collect and monetize user profiles for advertising. The New York Times described the concept of Escapex, musing, "If people love you, why not make money from them?". == Notable apps == The company has created over 350 applications, including: Enrique Iglesias, June 2016 or earlier Akon, June 2016 or earlier Ricky Martin, June 2016 or earlier Rohan Marley and the Bob Marley estate, February 2017 Marc Anthony, March 2017 Prince Royce, March 2017 Jeremy Renner, March 2017, making over $35,000 per month in April 2019 Galen Gering, June 2017 Yandel, June 2017 Greg Vaughan, June 2017 Jason Thompson, June 2017 Niecy Nash, September 2017 Tyler Posey, September 2017 Osric Chau, January 2018 Chris D'Elia Alessandra Ambrosio, making over $35,000 per month in April 2019 Abigail Ratchford, making over $35,000 per month in April 2019 Amber Rose, making over $35,000 per month in April 2019 Dita Von Teese Tommy Chong === Bollywood stars === Escapex has a large roster of Bollywood celebrities, including: Sunny Leone, December 2016 Remo D'Souza, January 2017 Amy Jackson, March 2017 Kajal Aggarwal, March 2017 Nargis Fakhri, April 2017 Disha Patani Sonam Kapoor Salman Khan == Jeremy Renner app == Renner released a mobile app called "Jeremy Renner" (Android) and "Jeremy Renner Official" (iOS) in March 2017. FastCompany wrote extensively about Renner's app in April 2019, calling it "a surprising new kind of social media". The Ringer's Kate Knibbs, explaining how self-referential the app is, summarized it stating "Jeremy Renner’s Jeremy Renner app is the Jeremy Renner of apps." The community developed to include memes, selfies, and a "Happy Rennsday" event on Wednesdays. As early as October 2017 there were claims of censorship, bullying, and "contest-rigging". In September 2019, comedian Stefan Heck wrote about discovering that any replies through the app would appear as if they were sent by Renner himself in push notifications. Heck wrote about notifications making it appear Renner was a big enthusiast of "porno"; other users made it appear Renner was a big fan of Casey Anthony. Renner had to ask Escapex to shut down the app the following day, stating "The app has jumped the shark. Literally." In September 2020, comedian/writer Caroline Goldfarb and actress Sarah Ramos launched The Renner Files podcast, a six-part series investigating the Jeremy Renner app.
Batch cryptography
Batch cryptography is a field of cryptology focused on the design of cryptographic protocols that perform operations—such as encryption, decryption, key exchange, and authentication—on multiple inputs simultaneously, rather than processing each input individually. Batching cryptographic operations can significantly reduce the marginal cost of handling individual inputs—a principle that was first introduced by Amos Fiat in 1989.
Symmetric Boolean function
In mathematics, a symmetric Boolean function is a Boolean function whose value does not depend on the order of its input bits, i.e., it depends only on the number of ones (or zeros) in the input. For this reason they are also known as Boolean counting functions. There are 2n+1 symmetric n-ary Boolean functions. Instead of the truth table, traditionally used to represent Boolean functions, one may use a more compact representation for an n-variable symmetric Boolean function: the (n + 1)-vector, whose i-th entry (i = 0, ..., n) is the value of the function on an input vector with i ones. Mathematically, the symmetric Boolean functions correspond one-to-one with the functions that map n+1 elements to two elements, f : { 0 , 1 , . . . , n } → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1,...,n\}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Symmetric Boolean functions are used to classify Boolean satisfiability problems. == Special cases == A number of special cases are recognized: Majority function: their value is 1 on input vectors with more than n/2 ones Threshold functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k or more ones for a fixed k All-equal and not-all-equal function: their values is 1 when the inputs do (not) all have the same value Exact-count functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k ones for a fixed k One-hot or 1-in-n function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one one One-cold function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one zero Congruence functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with the number of ones congruent to k mod m for fixed k, m Parity function: their value is 1 if the input vector has odd number of ones The n-ary versions of AND, OR, XOR, NAND, NOR and XNOR are also symmetric Boolean functions. == Properties == In the following, f k {\displaystyle f_{k}} denotes the value of the function f : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} when applied to an input vector of weight k {\displaystyle k} . === Weight === The weight of the function can be calculated from its value vector: | f | = ∑ k = 0 n ( n k ) f k {\displaystyle |f|=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{\binom {n}{k}}f_{k}} === Algebraic normal form === The algebraic normal form either contains all monomials of certain order m {\displaystyle m} , or none of them; i.e. the Möbius transform f ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}} of the function is also a symmetric function. It can thus also be described by a simple (n+1) bit vector, the ANF vector f ^ m {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}} . The ANF and value vectors are related by a Möbius relation: f ^ m = ⨁ k 2 ⊆ m 2 f k {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}=\bigoplus _{k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}}f_{k}} where k 2 ⊆ m 2 {\displaystyle k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}} denotes all the weights k whose base-2 representation is covered by the base-2 representation of m (a consequence of Lucas’ theorem). Effectively, an n-variable symmetric Boolean function corresponds to a log(n)-variable ordinary Boolean function acting on the base-2 representation of the input weight. For example, for three-variable functions: f ^ 0 = f 0 f ^ 1 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 f ^ 2 = f 0 ⊕ f 2 f ^ 3 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 ⊕ f 2 ⊕ f 3 {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\hat {f}}_{0}&=&f_{0}\\{\hat {f}}_{1}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\\{\hat {f}}_{2}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{2}\\{\hat {f}}_{3}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\oplus f_{2}\oplus f_{3}\end{array}}} So the three variable majority function with value vector (0, 0, 1, 1) has ANF vector (0, 0, 1, 0), i.e.: Maj ( x , y , z ) = x y ⊕ x z ⊕ y z {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=xy\oplus xz\oplus yz} === Unit hypercube polynomial === The coefficients of the real polynomial agreeing with the function on { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{n}} are given by: f m ∗ = ∑ k = 0 m ( − 1 ) | k | + | m | ( m k ) f k {\displaystyle f_{m}^{}=\sum _{k=0}^{m}(-1)^{|k|+|m|}{\binom {m}{k}}f_{k}} For example, the three variable majority function polynomial has coefficients (0, 0, 1, -2): Maj ( x , y , z ) = ( x y + x z + y z ) − 2 ( x y z ) {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=(xy+xz+yz)-2(xyz)} == Examples ==
Key Transparency
Key Transparency allows communicating parties to verify public keys used in end-to-end encryption. In many end-to-end encryption services, to initiate communication a user will reach out to a central server and request the public keys of the user with which they wish to communicate. If the central server is malicious or becomes compromised, a man-in-the-middle attack can be launched through the issuance of incorrect public keys. The communications can then be intercepted and manipulated. Additionally, legal pressure could be applied by surveillance agencies to manipulate public keys and read messages. With Key Transparency, public keys are posted to a public log that can be universally audited. Communicating parties can verify public keys used are accurate.
Global serializability
In concurrency control of databases, transaction processing (transaction management), and other transactional distributed applications, global serializability (or modular serializability) is a property of a global schedule of transactions. A global schedule is the unified schedule of all the individual database (and other transactional object) schedules in a multidatabase environment (e.g., federated database). Complying with global serializability means that the global schedule is serializable, has the serializability property, while each component database (module) has a serializable schedule as well. In other words, a collection of serializable components provides overall system serializability, which is usually incorrect. A need in correctness across databases in multidatabase systems makes global serializability a major goal for global concurrency control (or modular concurrency control). With the proliferation of the Internet, Cloud computing, Grid computing, and small, portable, powerful computing devices (e.g., smartphones), as well as increase in systems management sophistication, the need for atomic distributed transactions and thus effective global serializability techniques, to ensure correctness in and among distributed transactional applications, seems to increase. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple (and possibly distributed) databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system, where different databases may use different types of concurrency control, is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability globally would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. Achieving global serializability effectively over different types of concurrency control has been open for several years. == The global serializability problem == === Problem statement === The difficulties described above translate into the following problem: Find an efficient (high-performance and fault tolerant) method to enforce Global serializability (global conflict serializability) in a heterogeneous distributed environment of multiple autonomous database systems. The database systems may employ different concurrency control methods. No limitation should be imposed on the operations of either local transactions (confined to a single database system) or global transactions (span two or more database systems). === Quotations === Lack of an appropriate solution for the global serializability problem has driven researchers to look for alternatives to serializability as a correctness criterion in a multidatabase environment (e.g., see Relaxing global serializability below), and the problem has been characterized as difficult and open. The following two quotations demonstrate the mindset about it by the end of the year 1991, with similar quotations in numerous other articles: "Without knowledge about local as well as global transactions, it is highly unlikely that efficient global concurrency control can be provided... Additional complications occur when different component DBMSs [Database Management Systems] and the FDBMSs [Federated Database Management Systems] support different concurrency mechanisms... It is unlikely that a theoretically elegant solution that provides conflict serializability without sacrificing performance (i.e., concurrency and/or response time) and availability exists." === Proposed solutions === Several solutions, some partial, have been proposed for the global serializability problem. Among them: Global conflict graph (serializability graph, precedence graph) checking Distributed Two-phase locking (Distributed 2PL) Distributed Timestamp ordering Tickets (local logical timestamps which define local total orders, and are propagated to determine global partial order of transactions) == Relaxing global serializability == Some techniques have been developed for relaxed global serializability (i.e., they do not guarantee global serializability; see also Relaxing serializability). Among them (with several publications each): Quasi serializability Two-level serializability Another common reason nowadays for Global serializability relaxation is the requirement of availability of internet products and services. This requirement is typically answered by large scale data replication. The straightforward solution for synchronizing replicas' updates of a same database object is including all these updates in a single atomic distributed transaction. However, with many replicas such a transaction is very large, and may span several computers and networks that some of them are likely to be unavailable. Thus such a transaction is likely to end with abort and miss its purpose. Consequently, Optimistic replication (Lazy replication) is often utilized (e.g., in many products and services by Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and alike), while global serializability is relaxed and compromised for eventual consistency. In this case relaxation is done only for applications that are not expected to be harmed by it. Classes of schedules defined by relaxed global serializability properties either contain the global serializability class, or are incomparable with it. What differentiates techniques for relaxed global conflict serializability (RGCSR) properties from those of relaxed conflict serializability (RCSR) properties that are not RGCSR is typically the different way global cycles (span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph are handled. No distinction between global and local cycles exists for RCSR properties that are not RGCSR. RCSR contains RGCSR. Typically RGCSR techniques eliminate local cycles, i.e., provide local serializability (which can be achieved effectively by regular, known concurrency control methods); however, obviously they do not eliminate all global cycles (which would achieve global serializability).
Data exchange
Data exchange is the process of moving data from one information system to another. It often involves transforming data that is native to the source system into a form that is consumable by the target system or to a standardized form that is consumable by any compatible system. In particular, data exchange allows data to be shared between computer programs. Data exchange is similar to data integration except that data may be restructured with possible loss of content. There may be no way to transform a particular collection based on exchange constraints. Conversely, there may be multiple ways to transform the data, in which case one option must be identified in order to achieve compatibility between source and target. There are two main types of data exchange: broadcast and peer-to-peer (a.k.a. unicast). For broadcast, data is transmitted simultaneously to all consumers. Just as a conference call, all participants get the same information from the speaker at the same time. For peer-to-peer, data is sent to a single receiver, defined by a specific address. For example, a letter goes to just one mail box. == Single-domain == In some domains, a multiple source and target schema (proprietary data formats) may exist. An exchange or interchange format is often developed for a single domain, and then necessary routines (mappings) are written to (indirectly) transform/translate each and every source schema to each and every target schema by using the interchange format as an intermediate step. That requires less work than writing and debugging the many routines that would be required to directly translate each source schema directly to each target schema. Examples of these transformative interchange formats include: Standard Interchange Format for geospatial data; Data Interchange Format for spreadsheet data; Open Document Format for spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents; GPS eXchange Format or Keyhole Markup Language for describing GPS data; GDSII for integrated circuit layout. == Representation == A data exchange (a.k.a. interchange) language defines a domain-independent way to represent data. These languages have evolved from being markup and display-oriented to support the encoding of metadata that describes the structural attributes of the information. Practice has shown that certain types of formal languages are better suited for this task than others, since their specification is driven by a formal process instead of particular software implementation. For example, XML is a markup language that was designed to enable the creation of dialects (the definition of domain-specific sublanguages). However, it does not contain domain-specific dictionaries or fact types. Beneficial to a reliable data exchange is the availability of standard dictionaries-taxonomies and tools libraries such as parsers, schema validators, and transformation tools. === XML === The popularity of XML for data exchange on the World Wide Web has several reasons. First of all, it is closely related to the preexisting standards Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and as such a parser written to support these two languages can be easily extended to support XML as well. For example, XHTML has been defined as a format that is formal XML, but understood correctly by most (if not all) HTML parsers. === YAML === YAML was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor with notion similar to reStructuredText and wiki syntax. YAML 1.2 also includes a shorthand notion that is compatible with JSON, and as such any JSON document is also valid YAML; this however does not hold the other way. === REBOL === REBOL was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor. It uses a simple free-form syntax with minimal punctuation and a rich set of data types (such as URL, email, date and time, tuple, string, tag) that respect common standards. It is designed to not need any additional meta-language, being designed in a metacircular fashion which is why the parse dialect used for definitions and transformations of REBOL dialects is also itself a dialect of REBOL. REBOL was used as a source of inspiration for JSON. === Gellish === Gellish English is a formalized subset of natural English (language), which includes a simple grammar and a large, extensible dictionary (taxonomy) that defines the general and domain specific terminology, whereas the concepts are arranged in a hierarchy, which supports inheritance of knowledge and requirements. The dictionary also includes standardized fact types. The terms and relation types together can be used to create and interpret expressions of facts, knowledge, requirements and other information. Gellish can be used in combination with SQL, RDF/XML, OWL and various other meta-languages. The Gellish standard is a combination of ISO 10303-221 (AP221) and ISO 15926. === List === The following describes and compares popular data exchange languages. Columns Schemas – Whether supports representing domain specific data structure definition Flexible – Whether supports extension of the semantic expression capabilities without modifying the schema Semantic verification – Whether supports semantic verification of the correctness of expressions in the language Dictionary – Whether includes a dictionary and a taxonomy (hierarchy) of concepts with inheritance Information model – Whether supports an information model Synonyms and homonyms – Whether supports the use of synonyms and homonyms in expressions Dialecting – Whether is available in multiple natural languages or dialects Web standard – Whether is standardized by a recognized body Transformations – Whether includes a translation to other standards Lightweight – Whether a lightweight version is available Human readable – Whether expressions are understandable without training Compatibility – Which other tools can be used or are required