Social media therapy is a form of expressive therapy. It uses the act of creating and sharing user-generated content as a way of connecting with and understanding people. Social media therapy combines different expressive therapy aspects of talk therapy, art therapy, writing therapy, and drama therapy and applies them to the web domain. Within social media therapy, synchronous or asynchronous dialogue occurs through exchanges of audio, text or visual information. The digital content is published online to serve as a form of therapy. == Background == Time spent online via email, websites, instant messaging and social media has increased: since 1999, more than 2,554 million people have become internet users. This alters the way people communicate with each other, and alters the connotation of certain words. The concepts of "identity", "friend", "like" and "connected" have adapted alongside technology. People are influenced by data sharing, social marketing, and technological tools. There are multiple therapeutic services offered through the internet. E-therapy, online counseling, cyber therapy, and social media therapy are similar in that each utilizes the internet in order to provide therapy for patients. == Controversy == There are pros and cons when it comes to the subject of online therapy. Criticism of providing therapy through online methods comes from concerns over the lack of physical contact. There are important features of therapy created through face-to-face therapy such as transference and countertransference that can not be created through online therapy. Patricia R. Recupero and Samara E. Rainey stated in their article "Informed Consent to E-Therapy" of American Journal of Psychotherapy that the lack of face-to-face interaction increased the risk of misdiagnosis and misunderstanding between the E-therapist and patient, thereby increasing the risk of uncertainty for the clinician. There are also concerns over the internet creating a distraction from the therapy itself. Confidentiality and privacy concerns have been raised as well. However, several systematic reviews have found that online psychotherapy can produce clinical outcomes comparable to face-to-face treatment, suggesting that physical distance does not inherently reduce therapeutic effectiveness.
Haskins Laboratories
Haskins Laboratories, Inc. is an independent research laboratory, founded in 1935 and located in New Haven, Connecticut since 1970. Many current Haskins researchers are affiliated with Yale University's Child Study Center and/or the University of Connecticut. Haskins is a multidisciplinary and international community of researchers who conduct basic research on spoken and written language and global literacy. A guiding perspective of their research has been to view speech and language as emerging from biological processes, including those of adaptation, response to stimuli, and conspecific interaction. Haskins Laboratories has a long history of technological and theoretical innovation, from creating systems of rules for speech synthesis and development of an early working prototype of a reading machine for the blind to developing the landmark concept of phonemic awareness as the critical preparation for learning to read an alphabetic writing system. == Research tools and facilities == Haskins Laboratories is equipped, in-house, with a comprehensive suite of tools and capabilities to advance its mission of research into language and literacy. As of 2014, these included: Anechoic chamber Electroencephalography BioSemi 264 electrode, 24 bit Active Two System EGI 128 electrode, Geodesic EEG System 300 Electromagnetic articulography (EMMA) Carstens AG501 NDI WAVE Eye tracking: HL is equipped with 3 SR Research eye-trackers. 2 Model Eyelink 1000 systems. 1 Model Eyelink 1000plus system. Magnetic resonance imaging: Haskins has access to MRI scanners through agreements with the University of Connecticut and the Yale School of Medicine. On-site, HL has a Linux computer cluster dedicated to analysis of MRI data. Motion capture: HL is equipped with a Vicon motion capture system with one Basler high-speed digital camera, six Vicon MX T-20 cameras and a Vicon MX Giganet for synching camera data and connecting cameras to the data capture computer. Near infrared spectroscopy: HL has a TechEn CW6 8x8 system (four emitters; eight detectors). Ultrasound sonogram == History == Many researchers have contributed to scientific breakthroughs at Haskins Laboratories since its founding. All of them are indebted to the pioneering work and leadership of Caryl Parker Haskins, Franklin S. Cooper, Alvin Liberman, Seymour Hutner and Luigi Provasoli. The history presented here focuses on the research program of the division of Haskins Laboratories that, since the 1940s, has been most well known for its work in the areas of speech, language, and reading. === 1930s === Caryl Haskins and Franklin S. Cooper established Haskins Laboratories in 1935. It was originally affiliated with Harvard University, MIT, and Union College in Schenectady, NY. Caryl Haskins conducted research in microbiology, radiation physics, and other fields in Cambridge, MA and Schenectady. In 1939 Haskins Laboratories moved its center to New York City. Seymour Hutner joined the staff to set up a research program in microbiology, genetics, and nutrition. The descendant of the division led by Hutner program eventually became a department of Pace University in New York. The two identically named organizations are no longer formally affiliated. === 1940s === The U. S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, under Vannevar Bush asked Haskins Laboratories to evaluate and develop technologies for assisting blinded World War II veterans. Experimental psychologist Alvin Liberman joined Haskins Laboratories to assist in developing a "sound alphabet" to represent the letters in a text for use in a reading machine for the blind. Luigi Provasoli joined Haskins Laboratories to set up a research program in marine biology. The program in marine biology moved to Yale University in 1970 and disbanded with Provasoli's retirement in 1978. === 1950s === Franklin S. Cooper invented the pattern playback, a machine that converts pictures of the acoustic patterns of speech back into sound. With this device, Alvin Liberman, Cooper, and Pierre Delattre (and later joined by Katherine Safford Harris, Leigh Lisker, Arthur Abramson, and others), discovered the acoustic cues for the perception of phonetic segments (consonants and vowels). Liberman and colleagues proposed a motor theory of speech perception to resolve the acoustic complexity: they hypothesized that we perceive speech by tapping into a biological specialization, a speech module, that contains knowledge of the acoustic consequences of articulation. Liberman, aided by Frances Ingemann and others, organized the results of the work on speech cues into a groundbreaking set of rules for speech synthesis by the Pattern Playback. === 1960s === Franklin S. Cooper and Katherine Safford Harris, working with Peter MacNeilage, were the first researchers in the U.S. to use electromyographic techniques, pioneered at the University of Tokyo, to study the neuromuscular organization of speech. Leigh Lisker and Arthur Abramson looked for simplification at the level of articulatory action in the voicing of certain contrasting consonants. They showed that many acoustic properties of voicing contrasts arise from variations in voice onset time, the relative phasing of the onset of vocal cord vibration and the end of a consonant. Their work has been widely replicated and elaborated, here and abroad, over the following decades. Donald Shankweiler and Michael Studdert-Kennedy used a dichotic listening technique (presenting different nonsense syllables simultaneously to opposite ears) to demonstrate the dissociation of phonetic (speech) and auditory (nonspeech) perception by finding that phonetic structure devoid of meaning is an integral part of language, typically processed in the left cerebral hemisphere. Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler, and Studdert-Kennedy summarized and interpreted fifteen years of research in "Perception of the Speech Code", still among the most cited papers in the speech literature. It set the agenda for many years of research at Haskins and elsewhere by describing speech as a code in which speakers overlap (or coarticulate) segments to form syllables. Researchers at Haskins connected their first computer to a speech synthesizer designed by Haskins Laboratories' engineers. Ignatius Mattingly, with British collaborators, John N. Holmes and J.N. Shearme, adapted the Pattern playback rules to write the first computer program for synthesizing continuous speech from a phonetically spelled input. A further step toward a reading machine for the blind combined Mattingly's program with an automatic look-up procedure for converting alphabetic text into strings of phonetic symbols. === 1970s === In 1970, Haskins Laboratories moved to New Haven, Connecticut, and entered into affiliation agreements with Yale University and the University of Connecticut; Haskins remains fully independent of both Yale and UConn, administratively and financially. The lab's original location in New Haven, at 270 Crown Street (from 1970 to 2005), was leased from Yale University. Isabelle Liberman, Donald Shankweiler, and Alvin Liberman teamed up with Ignatius Mattingly to study the relationship between speech perception and reading, a topic implicit in Haskins Laboratories' research program since its inception. They developed the concept of phonemic awareness, the knowledge that would-be readers must be aware of the phonemic structure of their language in order to be able to read. Leonard Katz related the work to contemporary cognitive theory and provided expertise in experimental design and data analysis. Under the broad rubric of the "alphabetic principle", this is the core of the lab's present program of reading pedagogy. Patrick Nye joined Haskins Laboratories to lead a team working on the reading machine for the blind. The project culminated when the addition of an optical character recognizer allowed investigators to assemble the first automatic text-to-speech reading machine. By the end of the decade this technology had advanced to the point where commercial concerns assumed the task of designing and manufacturing reading machines for the blind. In 1973, Franklin S. Cooper was selected to form a panel of six experts charged with investigating the famous 18-minute gap in the White House office tapes of President Richard Nixon related to the Watergate scandal. Building on earlier work, Philip Rubin developed the sinewave synthesis program, which was then used by Robert Remez, Rubin, and colleagues to show that listeners can perceive continuous speech without traditional speech cues from a pattern of sinewaves that track the changing resonances of the vocal tract. This paved the way for a view of speech as a dynamic pattern of trajectories through articulatory-acoustic space. Philip Rubin and colleagues developed Paul Mermelstein's anatomically simplified vocal tract model, originally worked on at Bell Laboratories, into the first articulatory synthesizer that can be controlled in a phy
Teacher forcing
Teacher forcing is an algorithm for training the weights of recurrent neural networks (RNNs). It involves feeding observed sequence values (i.e. ground-truth samples) back into the RNN after each step, thus forcing the RNN to stay close to the ground-truth sequence. The term "teacher forcing" can be motivated by comparing the RNN to a human student taking a multi-part exam where the answer to each part (for example a mathematical calculation) depends on the answer to the preceding part. In this analogy, rather than grading every answer in the end, with the risk that the student fails every single part even though they only made a mistake in the first one, a teacher records the score for each individual part and then tells the student the correct answer, to be used in the next part. The use of an external teacher signal is in contrast to real-time recurrent learning (RTRL). Teacher signals are known from oscillator networks. The promise is, that teacher forcing helps to reduce the training time. The term "teacher forcing" was introduced in 1989 by Ronald J. Williams and David Zipser, who reported that the technique was already being "frequently used in dynamical supervised learning tasks" around that time. A NeurIPS 2016 paper introduced the related method of "professor forcing".
Julia (programming language)
Julia is a dynamic general-purpose programming language. As a high-level language, distinctive aspects of Julia's design include a type system with parametric polymorphism, the use of multiple dispatch as a core programming paradigm, just-in-time compilation and a parallel garbage collection implementation. Notably, Julia does not support classes with encapsulated methods but instead relies on the types of all of a function's arguments to determine which method will be called. By default, Julia is run similarly to scripting languages, using its runtime, and allows for interactions, but Julia programs can also be compiled to small binary standalone executables (or to small libraries for e.g. Python), with e.g. the JuliaC.jl compiler. Julia programs can reuse libraries from other languages, and vice versa. Julia has interoperability with C, C++, Fortran, Rust, Python, and R. Additionally, some Julia packages have bindings to be used from Python and R as libraries. Julia is supported by programmer tools like IDEs (see below) and by notebooks like Pluto.jl, Jupyter, and since 2025, Google Colab officially supports Julia natively. Julia is sometimes used in embedded systems (e.g. has been used in a satellite in space on a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4; 64-bit Pis work best with Julia, and Julia is supported in Raspbian). == History == Work on Julia began in 2009, when Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski, Viral B. Shah, and Alan Edelman set out to create a free language that was both high-level and fast. On 14 February 2012, the team launched a website with a blog post explaining the language's mission. In an interview with InfoWorld in April 2012, Karpinski said about the name of the language, Julia: "There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name." Bezanson said he chose the name on the recommendation of a friend, then years later wrote: Maybe julia stands for "Jeff's uncommon lisp is automated"? Julia's syntax is stable, since version 1.0 in 2018, and Julia has a backward compatibility guarantee for 1.x and also a stability promise for the documented (stable) API, while in the years before in the early development prior to 0.7 the syntax (and semantics) was changed in new versions. All of the (registered package) ecosystem uses the new and improved syntax, and in most cases relies on new APIs that have been added regularly, and in some cases minor additional syntax added in a forward compatible way e.g. in Julia 1.7. In the 10 years since the 2012 launch of pre-1.0 Julia, the community has grown. The Julia package ecosystem has over 11.8 million lines of code (including docs and tests). The JuliaCon academic conference for Julia users and developers has been held annually since 2014 with JuliaCon2020 welcoming over 28,900 unique viewers, and then JuliaCon2021 breaking all previous records (with more than 300 JuliaCon2021 presentations available for free on YouTube, up from 162 the year before), and 43,000 unique viewers during the conference. Three of the Julia co-creators are the recipients of the 2019 James H. Wilkinson Prize for Numerical Software (awarded every four years) "for the creation of Julia, an innovative environment for the creation of high-performance tools that enable the analysis and solution of computational science problems." Also, Alan Edelman, professor of applied mathematics at MIT, has been selected to receive the 2019 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award "for outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, and computational science and for contributions to the Julia programming language." Version 0.3 was released in August 2014. Both Julia 0.7 and version 1.0 were released on 8 August 2018. Julia 1.4 added syntax for generic array indexing to handle e.g. 0-based arrays. The memory model was also changed. Julia 1.5 released in August 2020 added record and replay debugging support, for Mozilla's rr tool. The release changed the behavior in the REPL (to soft scope) to the one used in Jupyter, but keeps full compatible with non-REPL code (that retains hard scope). Julia 1.6 was the largest release since 1.0, and it was the long-term support (LTS) version for the longest time. Since Julia 1.7 development is back to time-based releases, and it was released in November 2021 with e.g. a new default random-number generator and Julia 1.7.3 fixed at least one security issue. Julia 1.8 added options for hiding source code when compiling Julia source code to executables. Julia 1.9 has added the ability to precompile packages to native machine code, done automatically; to improve precompilation of packages a new package PrecompileTools.jl was introduced, for use by package developers. Julia 1.10 was released on 25 December 2023 with new features such as parallel garbage collection. Julia 1.11 was released on 7 October 2024, and with it 1.10.5 became the next long-term support (LTS) version (i.e. those became the only two supported versions), since replaced by 1.10.10 released on 27 June, and 1.6 is no longer an LTS version. Julia 1.11 adds e.g. the new public keyword to signal safe public API (Julia users are advised to use such API, not internals, of Julia or packages, and package authors advised to use the keyword, generally indirectly, e.g. prefixed with the @compat macro, from Compat.jl, to also support older Julia versions, at least the LTS version). Julia 1.12 was released on 7 October 2025 (and 1.12.5 on 9 February 2026), and with it a JuliaC.jl package including the juliac compiler that works with it, for making rather small binary executables (much smaller than was possible before; through the use of new so-called trimming feature). Julia 1.10 LTS is an officially still-supported branch, but the 1.11 branch has also been maintained after 1.12 release, with 1.11.8 released and then 1.11.9 released on 8 February 2026. === JuliaCon === Since 2014, the Julia Community has hosted an annual Julia Conference focused on developers and users. The first JuliaCon took place in Chicago and kickstarted the annual occurrence of the conference. Since 2014, the conference has taken place across a number of locations including MIT and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The event audience has grown from a few dozen people to over 28,900 unique attendees during JuliaCon 2020, which took place virtually. JuliaCon 2021 also took place virtually with keynote addresses from professors William Kahan, the primary architect of the IEEE 754 floating-point standard (which virtually all CPUs and languages, including Julia, use), Jan Vitek, Xiaoye Sherry Li, and Soumith Chintala, a co-creator of PyTorch. JuliaCon grew to 43,000 unique attendees and more than 300 presentations (still freely accessible, plus for older years). JuliaCon 2022 will also be virtual held between July 27 and July 29, 2022, for the first time in several languages, not just in English. === Sponsors === The Julia language became a NumFOCUS fiscally sponsored project in 2014 in an effort to ensure the project's long-term sustainability. Jeremy Kepner at MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the founding sponsor of the Julia project in its early days. In addition, funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Intel, and agencies such as NSF, DARPA, NIH, NASA, and FAA have been essential to the development of Julia. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox web browser, with its research grants for H1 2019, sponsored "a member of the official Julia team" for the project "Bringing Julia to the Browser", meaning to Firefox and other web browsers. The Julia language is also supported by individual donors on GitHub. === The Julia company === JuliaHub, Inc. was founded in 2015 as Julia Computing, Inc. by Viral B. Shah, Deepak Vinchhi, Alan Edelman, Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski and Keno Fischer. In June 2017, Julia Computing raised US$4.6 million in seed funding from General Catalyst and Founder Collective, the same month was "granted $910,000 by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to support open-source Julia development, including $160,000 to promote diversity in the Julia community", and in December 2019 the company got $1.1 million funding from the US government to "develop a neural component machine learning tool to reduce the total energy consumption of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings". In July 2021, Julia Computing announced they raised a $24 million Series A round led by Dorilton Ventures, which also owns Formula One team Williams Racing, that partnered with Julia Computing. Williams' Commercial Director said: "Investing in companies building best-in-class cloud technology is a strategic focus for Dorilton and Julia's versatile platform, with revolutionary capabilities in simulation and modelling, is hugely relevant to our business. We look forward to embedding Julia Computing in the world's most technologically advanced sport". In June 2023, JuliaHub received (again, now
Silhouette (clustering)
Silhouette is a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified. It was proposed by Belgian statistician Peter Rousseeuw in 1987. The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette value ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters. A clustering with an average silhouette width of over 0.7 is considered to be "strong", a value over 0.5 "reasonable", and over 0.25 "weak". However, with an increasing dimensionality of the data, it becomes difficult to achieve such high values because of the curse of dimensionality, as the distances become more similar. The silhouette score is specialized for measuring cluster quality when the clusters are convex-shaped, and may not perform well if the data clusters have irregular shapes or are of varying sizes. The silhouette value can be calculated with any distance metric, such as Euclidean distance or Manhattan distance. == Definition == Assume the data have been clustered via any technique, such as k-medoids or k-means, into k {\displaystyle k} clusters. For data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} (data point i {\displaystyle i} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} ), calculate a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} , the average distance that i {\displaystyle i} is from all other points in that cluster: a ( i ) = 1 | C i | − 1 ∑ j ∈ C i , i ≠ j d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle a(i)={\frac {1}{|C_{i}|-1}}\sum _{j\in C_{i},i\neq j}d(i,j)} where | C i | {\displaystyle |C_{i}|} is the number of points belonging to cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} , and d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle d(i,j)} is the distance between data points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} (we divide by | C i | − 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|-1} because the distance d ( i , i ) {\displaystyle d(i,i)} is not included in the sum). a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} can be interpreted as a measure of how well i {\displaystyle i} is assigned to its cluster (the smaller the value, the better the assignment). We then define the mean dissimilarity of point i {\displaystyle i} to some cluster C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} as the mean of the distance from i {\displaystyle i} to all points in C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} (where C j ≠ C i {\displaystyle C_{j}\neq C_{i}} ). For each data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} , we now define b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} as the average distance between i {\displaystyle i} and the points in the closest cluster (hence: "min") that i {\displaystyle i} does not belong to: b ( i ) = min j ≠ i 1 | C j | ∑ l ∈ C j d ( i , l ) {\displaystyle b(i)=\min _{j\neq i}{\frac {1}{|C_{j}|}}\sum _{l\in C_{j}}d(i,l)} The cluster with the smallest mean dissimilarity is said to be the "neighboring cluster" of i {\displaystyle i} because it is the next best fit cluster for point i {\displaystyle i} . We now define a silhouette (value) of one data point i {\displaystyle i} s ( i ) = b ( i ) − a ( i ) max { a ( i ) , b ( i ) } {\displaystyle s(i)={\frac {b(i)-a(i)}{\max\{a(i),b(i)\}}}} , if | C i | > 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|>1} and s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} , if | C i | = 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|=1} , which can also be written as s ( i ) = { 1 − a ( i ) b ( i ) , if a ( i ) < b ( i ) 0 , if a ( i ) = b ( i ) b ( i ) a ( i ) − 1 , if a ( i ) > b ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)={\begin{cases}1-{\frac {a(i)}{b(i)}},&{\mbox{ if }}a(i)
AI safety
AI safety is an interdisciplinary field focused on preventing accidents, misuse, or other harmful consequences arising from artificial intelligence systems. It encompasses AI alignment (which aims to ensure AI systems behave as intended), monitoring AI systems for risks, and enhancing their robustness. The field is particularly concerned with existential risks posed by advanced AI models. Beyond technical research, AI safety involves developing norms and policies that promote safety, including advocacy for regulations at different levels of government. The field gained significant popularity in 2023, with rapid progress in generative AI and public concerns voiced by researchers and CEOs about potential dangers. During the 2023 AI Safety Summit, the United States and the United Kingdom both established their own AI Safety Institute. However, researchers have expressed concern that AI safety measures are not keeping pace with the rapid development of AI capabilities. == Motivations == Scholars discuss current risks from critical systems failures, bias, and AI-enabled surveillance, as well as emerging risks like technological unemployment, digital manipulation, weaponization, AI-enabled cyberattacks and bioterrorism. They also discuss speculative risks from losing control of future artificial general intelligence (AGI) agents, or from AI enabling perpetually stable dictatorships. === Existential safety === Some have criticized concerns about AGI, such as Andrew Ng who compared them in 2015 to "worrying about overpopulation on Mars when we have not even set foot on the planet yet". Stuart J. Russell on the other side urges caution, arguing that "it is better to anticipate human ingenuity than to underestimate it". AI researchers have widely differing opinions about the severity and primary sources of risk posed by AI technology – though surveys suggest that experts take high consequence risks seriously. In two surveys of AI researchers, the median respondent was optimistic about AI overall, but placed a 5% probability on an "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)" outcome of advanced AI. In a 2022 survey of the natural language processing community, 37% agreed or weakly agreed that it is plausible that AI decisions could lead to a catastrophe that is "at least as bad as an all-out nuclear war". == History == Risks from AI began to be seriously discussed at the start of the computer age: Moreover, if we move in the direction of making machines which learn and whose behavior is modified by experience, we must face the fact that every degree of independence we give the machine is a degree of possible defiance of our wishes. In 1988 Blay Whitby published a book outlining the need for AI to be developed along ethical and socially responsible lines. From 2008 to 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) commissioned a study to explore and address potential long-term societal influences of AI research and development. The panel was generally skeptical of the radical views expressed by science-fiction authors but agreed that "additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes". In 2011, Roman Yampolskiy introduced the term "AI safety engineering" at the Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence conference, listing prior failures of AI systems and arguing that "the frequency and seriousness of such events will steadily increase as AIs become more capable". In 2014, philosopher Nick Bostrom published the book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. He has the opinion that the rise of AGI has the potential to create various societal issues, ranging from the displacement of the workforce by AI, manipulation of political and military structures, to even the possibility of human extinction. His argument that future advanced systems may pose a threat to human existence prompted Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking to voice similar concerns. In 2015, dozens of artificial intelligence experts signed an open letter on artificial intelligence calling for research on the societal impacts of AI and outlining concrete directions. To date, the letter has been signed by over 8000 people including Yann LeCun, Shane Legg, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell. In the same year, a group of academics led by professor Stuart J. Russell founded the Center for Human-Compatible AI at the University of California Berkeley and the Future of Life Institute awarded $6.5 million in grants for research aimed at "ensuring artificial intelligence (AI) remains safe, ethical and beneficial". In 2016, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Carnegie Mellon University announced The Public Workshop on Safety and Control for Artificial Intelligence, which was one of a sequence of four White House workshops aimed at investigating "the advantages and drawbacks" of AI. In the same year, Concrete Problems in AI Safety – one of the first and most influential technical AI Safety agendas – was published. In 2017, the Future of Life Institute sponsored the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, where more than 100 thought leaders formulated principles for beneficial AI including "Race Avoidance: Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards". In 2018, the DeepMind Safety team outlined AI safety problems in specification, robustness, and assurance. The following year, researchers organized a workshop at ICLR that focused on these problem areas. In 2021, Unsolved Problems in ML Safety was published, outlining research directions in robustness, monitoring, alignment, and systemic safety. In 2023, Rishi Sunak said he wants the United Kingdom to be the "geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and to host the first global summit on AI safety. The AI safety summit took place in November 2023, and focused on the risks of misuse and loss of control associated with frontier AI models. During the summit the intention to create the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI was announced. In 2024, The US and UK forged a new partnership on the science of AI safety. The MoU was signed on 1 April 2024 by US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo and UK technology secretary Michelle Donelan to jointly develop advanced AI model testing, following commitments announced at an AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November. In 2025, an international team of 96 experts chaired by Yoshua Bengio published the first International AI Safety Report. The report, commissioned by 30 nations and the United Nations, represents the first global scientific review of potential risks associated with advanced artificial intelligence. It details potential threats stemming from misuse, malfunction, and societal disruption, with the objective of informing policy through evidence-based findings, without providing specific recommendations. == Research focus == AI safety research areas include robustness, monitoring, and alignment. === Robustness === ==== Adversarial robustness ==== AI systems are often vulnerable to adversarial examples or "inputs to machine learning (ML) models that an attacker has intentionally designed to cause the model to make a mistake". For example, in 2013, Szegedy et al. discovered that adding specific imperceptible perturbations to an image could cause it to be misclassified with high confidence. This continues to be an issue with neural networks, though in recent work the perturbations are generally large enough to be perceptible. The image on the right is predicted to be an ostrich after the perturbation is applied. (Left) is a correctly predicted sample, (center) perturbation applied magnified by 10x, (right) adversarial example. Adversarial robustness is often associated with security. Researchers demonstrated that an audio signal could be imperceptibly modified so that speech-to-text systems transcribe it to any message the attacker chooses. Network intrusion and malware detection systems also must be adversarially robust since attackers may design their attacks to fool detectors. Models that represent objectives (reward models) must also be adversarially robust. For example, a reward model might estimate how helpful a text response is and a language model might be trained to maximize this score. Researchers have shown that if a language model is trained for long enough, it will leverage the vulnerabilities of the reward model to achieve a better score and perform worse on the intended task. This issue can be addressed by improving the adversarial robustness of the reward model. More generally, any AI system used to evaluate another AI system must be adversarially robust. This could include monitoring tools, since they could also potentially be tampered with to produce a higher reward. Large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to prom
Exploratory blockmodeling
Exploratory blockmodeling is an (inductive) approach (or a group of approaches) in blockmodeling regarding the specification of an ideal blockmodel. This approach, also known as hypotheses-generating, is the simplest approach, as it "merely involves the definition of the block types permitted as well as of the number of clusters." With this approach, researcher usually defines the best possible blockmodel, which then represent the base for the analysis of the whole network. This approach is usually based on: previous analyses and theoretical considerations, using stricker blockmodel and block types, where the structural equivalence is stricker than the regular equivalence and using smaller number of classes. The opposite approach is called a confirmatory blockmodeling.