AI App Inventor

AI App Inventor — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  List of ARM Cortex-M development tools

  This is a list of development tools for 32-bit ARM Cortex-M-based microcontrollers, which consists of Cortex-M0, Cortex-M0+, Cortex-M1, Cortex-M3, Cortex-M4, Cortex-M7, Cortex-M23, Cortex-M33, Cortex-M35P, Cortex-M52, Cortex-M55, and Cortex-M85 cores. == Development toolchains == IDE, compiler, linker, debugger, flashing (in alphabetical order): Ac6 System Workbench for STM32 (based on Eclipse and the GNU GCC toolchain with direct support for all ST-provided evaluation boards, Eval, Discovery and Nucleo, debug with ST-LINK) ARM Development Studio 5 by ARM Ltd. Atmel Studio by Atmel (based on Visual Studio and GNU GCC Toolchain) Code Composer Studio by Texas Instruments CoIDE by CooCox (note - website dead since 2018) Crossware Development Suite for ARM by Crossware CrossWorks for ARM by Rowley Dave by Infineon. For XMC processors only. Includes project wizard, detailed register decoding and a code library still under development. DRT by SOMNIUM Technologies. Based on GCC toolchain and proprietary linker technology. Available as a plugin for Atmel Studio and an Eclipse-based IDE. EmBitz (formerly Em::Blocks) – free, fast (non-eclipse) IDE for ST-LINK (live data updates), OpenOCD, including GNU Tools for ARM and project wizards for ST, Atmel, EnergyMicro etc. Embeetle IDE - free, fast (non-eclipse) IDE. Works both on Linux and Windows. emIDE by emide – free Visual Studio Style IDE including GNU Tools for ARM GNU ARM Eclipse – A family of Eclipse CDT extensions and tools for GNU ARM development GNU Tools (aka GCC) for ARM Embedded Processors by ARM Ltd – free GCC for bare metal IAR Embedded Workbench for ARM by IAR Systems ICC by ImageCraft Keil MDK-ARM by Keil LPCXpresso by NXP (formerly Red Suite by Code Red Technologies) MikroC by mikroe – mikroC MULTI by Green Hills Software, for all Arm 7, 9, Cortex-M, Cortex-R, Cortex-A Ride and RKit for ARM by Raisonance SEGGER Embedded Studio for ARM by Segger. SEGGER Ozone by Segger. STM32CubeIDE by STMicroelectronics - Combines STCubeMX with TrueSTUDIO into a single Eclipse style package Sourcery CodeBench by Mentor Graphics TASKING VX-Toolset by Altium TrueSTUDIO by Atollic Visual Studio by Microsoft as IDE, with GNU Tools as compiler/linker – e.g. supported by VisualGDB VXM Design's Buildroot toolchain for Cortex. It integrates GNU toolchain, Nuttx, filesystem and debugger/flasher in one build. winIDEA/winIDEAOpen by iSYSTEM YAGARTO – free GCC (no longer supported) Code::Blocks (EPS edition) (debug with ST-LINK no GDB and no OpenOCD required) IDE for Arduino ARM boards Arduino – IDE for Atmel SAM3X (Arduino Due) Energia – Arduino IDE for Texas Instruments Tiva and CC3200 Notes: == Debugging tools == JTAG and/or SWD debug interface host adapters (in alphabetical order): Black Magic Probe by 1BitSquared. CMSIS-DAP by Mbed. Crossconnect by Rowley Associates. DSTREAM by ARM Holdings Green Hills Probe and SuperTrace Probe by Green Hills Software. iTAG by iSYSTEM. I-jet by IAR Systems. Jaguar by Crossware. J-Link by Segger Supports JTAG and SWD. Supports ARM7, ARM9, ARM11, Cortex-A, Cortex-M, Cortex-R, Renesas RX, Microchip PIC32. Eclipse plug-in available. Supports GDB, RDI, Ozone debuggers. J-Trace by Segger. Supports JTAG, SWD, and ETM trace on Cortex-M. JTAGjet by Signum. LPC-LINK by Embedded Artists (for NXP) This is only embedded on NXP LPCXpresso development boards. LPC-LINK 2 by NXP. This device can be reconfigured to support 3 different protocols: J-LINK by Segger, CMSIS-DAP by ARM, Redlink by Code Red. Multilink debug probes, Cyclone in-system programming/debugging interfaces, and a GDB Server plug-in for Eclipse-based ARM IDEs by PEmicro. OpenOCD open source GDB server supports a variety of JTAG probes OpenOCD Eclipse plug-in available in GNU ARM Eclipse Plug-ins. AK-OPENJTAG by Artekit (Open JTAG-compatible). AK-LINK by Artekit. PEEDI by RONETIX Debug Probe by Raspberry Pi. RLink by Raisonance. ST-LINK/V2 by STMicroelectronics The ST-LINK/V2 debugger embedded on STM32 Nucleo and Discovery development boards can be converted to SEGGER J-LINK protocol. TRACE32 Debugger and ETM/ITM Trace by Lauterbach. ULINK by Keil. Debugging tools and/or debugging plug-ins (in alphabetical order): Memfault Error Analysis for post mortem debugging Percepio Tracealyzer, RTOS trace visualizer (with Eclipse plugin). Segger SystemView, RTOS trace visualizer. == Real-time operating systems == Commonly referred to as RTOS: == C/C++ software libraries == The following are free C/C++ libraries: ARM Cortex libraries: Cortex Microcontroller Software Interface Standard (CMSIS) libopencm3 (formerly called libopenstm32) libmaple for STM32F1 chips LPCOpen for NXP LPC chips Alternate C standard libraries: Bionic libc, dietlibc, EGLIBC, glibc, klibc, musl, Newlib, uClibc FAT file system libraries: EFSL, FatFs, Petit FatFs Fixed-point math libraries: libfixmath, fixedptc, FPMLib Encryption libraries: Comparison of TLS implementations wolfSSL == Non-C/C++ computer languages and software libraries ==

  Read more →
• 

  Pattern language

  A pattern language is an organized and coherent set of patterns, each of which describes a problem and the core of a solution that can be used in many ways within a specific field of expertise. The term was coined by architect Christopher Alexander and popularized by his 1977 book A Pattern Language. A pattern language can also be an attempt to express the deeper wisdom of what brings aliveness within a particular field of human endeavor, through a set of interconnected patterns. Aliveness is one placeholder term for "the quality that has no name": a sense of wholeness, spirit, or grace, that while of varying form, is precise and empirically verifiable. Alexander claims that ordinary people can use this design approach to successfully solve very large, complex design problems. == What is a pattern? == When a designer designs something – whether a house, computer program, or lamp – they must make many decisions about how to solve problems. A single problem is documented with its typical place (the syntax), and use (the grammar) with the most common and recognized good solution seen in the wild, like the examples seen in dictionaries. Each such entry is a single design pattern. Each pattern has a name, a descriptive entry, and some cross-references, much like a dictionary entry. A documented pattern should explain why that solution is good in the pattern's contexts. Elemental or universal patterns such as "door" or "partnership" are versatile ideals of design, either as found in experience or for use as components in practice, explicitly described as holistic resolutions of the forces in recurrent contexts and circumstances, whether in architecture, medicine, software development or governance, etc. Patterns might be invented or found and studied, such as the naturally occurring patterns of design that characterize human environments. Like all languages, a pattern language has vocabulary, syntax, and grammar – but a pattern language applies to some complex activity other than communication. In pattern languages for design, the parts break down in this way: The language description – the vocabulary – is a collection of named, described solutions to problems in a field of interest. These are called design patterns. So, for example, the language for architecture describes items like: settlements, buildings, rooms, windows, latches, etc. Each solution includes syntax, a description that shows where the solution fits in a larger, more comprehensive or more abstract design. This automatically links the solution into a web of other needed solutions. For example, rooms have ways to get light, and ways to get people in and out. The solution includes grammar that describes how the solution solves a problem or produces a benefit. So, if the benefit is unneeded, the solution is not used. Perhaps that part of the design can be left empty to save money or other resources; if people do not need to wait to enter a room, a simple doorway can replace a waiting room. In the language description, grammar and syntax cross index (often with a literal alphabetic index of pattern names) to other named solutions, so the designer can quickly think from one solution to related, needed solutions, and document them in a logical way. In Christopher Alexander's book A Pattern Language, the patterns are in decreasing order by size, with a separate alphabetic index. The web of relationships in the index of the language provides many paths through the design process. This simplifies the design work because designers can start the process from any part of the problem they understand and work toward the unknown parts. At the same time, if the pattern language has worked well for many projects, there is reason to believe that even a designer who does not completely understand the design problem at first will complete the design process, and the result will be usable. For example, skiers coming inside must shed snow and store equipment. The messy snow and boot cleaners should stay outside. The equipment needs care, so the racks should be inside. == Many patterns form a language == Just as words must have grammatical and semantic relationships to each other in order to make a spoken language useful, design patterns must be related to each other in position and utility order to form a pattern language. Christopher Alexander's work describes a process of decomposition, in which the designer has a problem (perhaps a commercial assignment), selects a solution, then discovers new, smaller problems resulting from the larger solution. Occasionally, the smaller problems have no solution, and a different larger solution must be selected. Eventually all of the remaining design problems are small enough or routine enough to be solved by improvisation by the builders, and the "design" is done. The actual organizational structure (hierarchical, iterative, etc.) is left to the discretion of the designer, depending on the problem. This explicitly lets a designer explore a design, starting from some small part. When this happens, it's common for a designer to realize that the problem is actually part of a larger solution. At this point, the design almost always becomes a better design. In the language, therefore, each pattern has to indicate its relationships to other patterns and to the language as a whole. This gives the designer using the language a great deal of guidance about the related problems that must be solved. The most difficult part of having an outside expert apply a pattern language is in fact to get a reliable, complete list of the problems to be solved. Of course, the people most familiar with the problems are the people that need a design. So, Alexander famously advocated on-site improvisation by concerned, empowered users, as a powerful way to form very workable large-scale initial solutions, maximizing the utility of a design, and minimizing the design rework. The desire to empower users of architecture was, in fact, what led Alexander to undertake a pattern language project for architecture in the first place. == Design problems in a context == An important aspect of design patterns is to identify and document the key ideas that make a good system different from a poor system (that may be a house, a computer program or an object of daily use), and to assist in the design of future systems. The idea expressed in a pattern should be general enough to be applied in very different systems within its context, but still specific enough to give constructive guidance. The range of situations in which the problems and solutions addressed in a pattern apply is called its context. An important part in each pattern is to describe this context. Examples can further illustrate how the pattern applies to very different situation. For instance, Alexander's pattern "A PLACE TO WAIT" addresses bus stops in the same way as waiting rooms in a surgery, while still proposing helpful and constructive solutions. The "Gang-of-Four" book Design Patterns by Gamma et al. proposes solutions that are independent of the programming language, and the program's application domain. Still, the problems and solutions described in a pattern can vary in their level of abstraction and generality on the one side, and specificity on the other side. In the end this depends on the author's preferences. However, even a very abstract pattern will usually contain examples that are, by nature, absolutely concrete and specific. Patterns can also vary in how far they are proven in the real world. Alexander gives each pattern a rating by zero, one or two stars, indicating how well they are proven in real-world examples. It is generally claimed that all patterns need at least some existing real-world examples. It is, however, conceivable to document yet unimplemented ideas in a pattern-like format. The patterns in Alexander's book also vary in their level of scale – some describing how to build a town or neighbourhood, others dealing with individual buildings and the interior of rooms. Alexander sees the low-scale artifacts as constructive elements of the large-scale world, so they can be connected to a hierarchic network. === Balancing of forces === A pattern must characterize the problems that it is meant to solve, the context or situation where these problems arise, and the conditions under which the proposed solutions can be recommended. Often these problems arise from a conflict of different interests or "forces". A pattern emerges as a dialogue that will then help to balance the forces and finally make a decision. For instance, there could be a pattern suggesting a wireless telephone. The forces would be the need to communicate, and the need to get other things done at the same time (cooking, inspecting the bookshelf). A very specific pattern would be just "WIRELESS TELEPHONE". More general patterns would be "WIRELESS DEVICE" or "SECONDARY ACTIVITY", suggesting that a secondary activity (such as talking on t

  Read more →
• 

  Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

  The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, also referred to as SB-53, is a 2025 California law which mandates increased transparency for companies building artificial intelligence. SB-53 is primarily focused on assessing and reducing potential catastrophic risks from AI, and is the first bill addressing such risks to be passed into law in America. The bill requires companies to create publicly accessible documents assessing potential "catastrophic risk[s]" from their AI models, as well as publishing documentation on how the model incorporates national and international safety standards. SB-53 also sets up whistleblower protections and procedures for alerting the government to a "critical safety incident". == History == SB-53 was preceded in 2024 by the unsuccessful Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act ("SB-1047"), a proposed bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Afterwords, Newsom created a "Joint California AI Policy Working Group" to provide recommendations for AI regulation, which guided the drafting of SB-53. Senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill on January 7, 2025, and after a series of amendments, SB-53 passed the Senate 29-8 on September 13. Governor Gavin Newsom approved the bill on September 25, passing it into law. == Provisions == SB-53 applies primarily to companies making at least $500 million in yearly gross revenue. It defines a “frontier model” as any AI trained with over 1026 FLOPS (including fine-tuning), including unreleased internal models. Both the financial and computational thresholds must be met before most of the law is applied, although the threshold can be lowered or otherwise updated by the California Department of Technology in an annual review starting in 2027. Most of the bill's provisions are focused on "catastrophic risks" from AI, which are defined as incidents in which a model contributes to more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or causes more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in economic damage from AI-assisted acts (such as cyberattacks or the creation of biological weapons). The bill requires companies to provide publicly accessible safety frameworks for frontier AI models, describing how the company tests for catastrophic risk from its AI, and how it implements protections against such risks. This includes addressing the possibility that the AI may attempt to circumvent internal guardrails or oversight mechanisms. (Certain safety incidents, such as dangerously deceptive model behavior, physical injury, or death, must be reported to California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within 15 days, unless the incident poses imminent physical risk, in which case it must be reported immediately.) The company must follow its published framework, and if any changes are made, the framework should be updated within 30 days, and justification for said changes must also be made public. Additionally, all frontier companies are required to publish basic information about newly released frontier models (such as terms of service, supported languages, and intended use), although only large companies (making over $500 million annually) need to publish full safety frameworks. SB-53 also establishes various whistleblower protections for covered employees. Large companies must have anonymous whistleblowing channels in place which protect employees from retaliation from reporting risks to state or federal authorities if they have reasonable cause to believe that their employer is substantially risking public health and safety.

  Read more →
• 

  Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

  The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, was a failed 2024 California bill intended to "mitigate the risk of catastrophic harms from AI models so advanced that they are not yet known to exist". Specifically, the bill would have applied to models which cost more than $100 million to train and were trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 1026 integer or floating-point operations. SB 1047 would have applied to all AI companies doing business in California—the location of the company would not matter. The bill would have created protections for whistleblowers and required developers to perform risk assessments of their models prior to release, with guidance from the Government Operations Agency. It would also have established CalCompute, a University of California public cloud computing cluster for startups, researchers and community groups. == Background == The rapid increase in capabilities of AI systems in the 2020s, including the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, caused some researchers and members of the public to become concerned about the existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems. Hundreds of tech executives and AI researchers, including two of the so-called "Godfathers of AI", Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, signed a statement in May 2023 calling for the mitigation of the "risk of extinction from AI" to be a global priority alongside "pandemics and nuclear war". However, the plausibility of these risks is still widely debated. Strong regulation of AI has been criticized for purportedly causing regulatory capture by large AI companies like OpenAI, a phenomenon in which regulation advances the interest of larger companies at the expense of smaller competition and the public in general, although OpenAI ended up opposing the bill. Other advocates of AI regulation aim to prevent bias and privacy violations, rather than existential risks. For example, some experts who view existential concerns as overblown and unrealistic view them as a distraction from near-term harms of AI like discriminatory automated decision making. In the face of existential concerns, technology companies have made voluntary commitments to conduct safety testing, for example at the AI Safety Summit and AI Seoul Summit. In 2023, not long before the bill was proposed, Governor Newsom of California and President Biden issued executive orders on artificial intelligence. State Senator Wiener said SB 1047 draws heavily on the Biden executive order, and is motivated by the absence of unified federal legislation on AI safety. Historically, California has passed regulation on several tech issues itself, including consumer privacy and net neutrality, in the absence of action by Congress. == History == === Proposal and voting === The bill was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener first proposed AI legislation for California through an intent bill called SB 294, the Safety in Artificial Intelligence Act, in September 2023. On February 7, 2024, Wiener introduced SB 1047. On May 21, SB 1047 passed the Senate 32–1. The bill was significantly amended by Wiener on August 15, 2024, in response to industry advice. Amendments included adding clarifications, and removing the creation of a "Frontier Model Division" and the penalty of perjury. On August 28, the bill passed the State Assembly 48–16. Then, due to the amendments, the bill was once again voted on by the Senate, passing 30–9. === Veto by governor === On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. The deadline for California lawmakers to overrule Newsom's veto was November 30, 2024. Newsom cited concerns over the bill's regulatory framework targeting only large AI models based on their computational size, while not taking into account whether the models are deployed in high-risk environments. Newsom emphasized that this approach could create a false sense of security, overlooking smaller models that might present equally significant risks. He acknowledged the need for AI safety protocols but stressed the importance of adaptability in regulation as AI technology continues to evolve rapidly. Governor Newsom also committed to working with technology experts, federal partners, and research institutions, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by former California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; and Stanford University's Human-Centered AI (HAI) Institute, led by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. He announced plans to collaborate with these entities to advance responsible AI development, aiming to protect the public while fostering innovation. == Provisions == SB 1047 would have covered AI models with training compute over 1026 integer or floating-point operations and a cost of over $100 million. If a covered model is fine-tuned using more than $10 million, the resulting model would also have been covered. The bill would have defined critical harms with respect to four categories: Creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Autonomous crimes causing mass casualties or at least $500 million of damage Other harms of comparable severity Developers would have needed to create a "safety and security protocol" before training covered models. Before deployment, they would have submitted a statement of compliance, confirming they took reasonable care to take measures to prevent covered models that pose an unreasonable risk of critical harms. The statement would have included risk assessments and descriptions of their compliance process. These rules would have applied to both covered models and their derivatives, including post-training modifications, with annual third-party audits required starting in 2026. Safeguards to reduce risk included the ability to shut down the model, which has been variously described as a "kill switch" and "circuit breaker". Whistleblowing provisions would have protected employees who report safety problems and incidents. Additionally, SB 1047 would have created a public cloud computing cluster called CalCompute, associated with the University of California, to support startups, researchers, and community groups that lack large-scale computing resources. === Compliance and supervision === SB 1047 would have required developers, beginning January 1, 2026, to annually retain a third-party auditor to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of the bill, as provided. The Government Operations Agency would have reviewed the results of safety tests and incidents, and issue guidance, standards, and best practices. The bill would have created a Board of Frontier Models to supervise the application of the bill by the Government Operations Agency. It is would be composed of 9 members. == Reception == === Subjects of debate === Proponents of the bill described its provisions as simple and narrowly focused, with Sen. Scott Weiner describing it as a "light-touch, basic safety bill". This was disputed by critics of the bill, who described the bill's language as vague and criticized it as consolidating power in the largest AI companies at the expense of smaller ones. Proponents, in turn, argued that the bill only applies to models trained using more than 1026 FLOPS and with over $100 million, or fine-tuned with more than $10 million, and that the threshold could be increased if needed. The penalty of perjury was also a subject of debate, and was eventually removed through an amendment. The scope of the "kill switch" requirement was also reduced, following concerns from open-source developers. The use of the term "reasonable assurance" in the bill was also controversial, and it was eventually amended to "reasonable care". Critics then argued that "reasonable care" imposed an excessive burden by requiring confidence that models could not be used to cause catastrophic harm; proponents claimed that the standard did not require certainty and that it already applied to AI developers under existing law. === Support and opposition === Individual supporters of the bill included Turing Award recipients Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, Elon Musk, Bill de Blasio, Kevin Esvelt, Dan Hendrycks, Vitalik Buterin, OpenAI whistleblowers Daniel Kokotajlo and William Saunders, Lawrence Lessig, Sneha Revanur, Stuart Russell, Jan Leike, actors Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, and Rosie Perez, Scott Aaronson, and Max Tegmark. Over 120 Hollywood celebrities, including Mark Hamill, Jane Fonda, and J. J. Abrams, also signed a statement in support of the bill. Max Tegmark likened the bill's focus on holding companies responsible for the harms caused by their models to the FDA requiring clinical trials before a company can release a drug to the market. Organizations sponsoring the bill included the Center for AI Safety, Economic Security California and Encode. The la

  Read more →
• 

  Neurorobotics

  Neurorobotics is the combined study of neuroscience, robotics, and artificial intelligence. It is the science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems. Neural systems include brain-inspired algorithms (e.g. connectionist networks), computational models of biological neural networks (e.g. artificial spiking neural networks, large-scale simulations of neural microcircuits) and actual biological systems (e.g. in vivo and in vitro neural nets). Such neural systems can be embodied in machines with mechanic or any other forms of physical actuation. This includes robots, prosthetic or wearable systems but also, at smaller scale, micro-machines and, at the larger scales, furniture and infrastructures. Neurorobotics is that branch of neuroscience with robotics, which deals with the study and application of science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems like brain-inspired algorithms. It is based on the idea that the brain is embodied and the body is embedded in the environment. Therefore, most neurorobots are required to function in the real world, as opposed to a simulated environment. Beyond brain-inspired algorithms for robots neurorobotics may also involve the design of brain-controlled robot systems. == Major classes of models == Neurorobots can be divided into various major classes based on the robot's purpose. Each class is designed to implement a specific mechanism of interest for study. Common types of neurorobots are those used to study motor control, memory, action selection, and perception. === Locomotion and motor control === Neurorobots are often used to study motor feedback and control systems, and have proved their merit in developing controllers for robots. Locomotion is modeled by a number of neurologically inspired theories on the action of motor systems. Locomotion control has been mimicked using models or central pattern generators, clumps of neurons capable of driving repetitive behavior, to make four-legged walking robots. Other groups have expanded the idea of combining rudimentary control systems into a hierarchical set of simple autonomous systems. These systems can formulate complex movements from a combination of these rudimentary subsets. This theory of motor action is based on the organization of cortical columns, which progressively integrate from simple sensory input into a complex afferent signals, or from complex motor programs to simple controls for each muscle fiber in efferent signals, forming a similar hierarchical structure. Another method for motor control uses learned error correction and predictive controls to form a sort of simulated muscle memory. In this model, awkward, random, and error-prone movements are corrected for using error feedback to produce smooth and accurate movements over time. The controller learns to create the correct control signal by predicting the error. Using these ideas, robots have been designed which can learn to produce adaptive arm movements or to avoid obstacles in a course. === Learning and memory systems === Robots designed to test theories of animal memory systems. Many studies examine the memory system of rats, particularly the rat hippocampus, dealing with place cells, which fire for a specific location that has been learned. Systems modeled after the rat hippocampus are generally able to learn mental maps of the environment, including recognizing landmarks and associating behaviors with them, allowing them to predict the upcoming obstacles and landmarks. Another study has produced a robot based on the proposed learning paradigm of barn owls for orientation and localization based on primarily auditory, but also visual stimuli. The hypothesized method involves synaptic plasticity and neuromodulation, a mostly chemical effect in which reward neurotransmitters such as dopamine or serotonin affect the firing sensitivity of a neuron to be sharper. The robot used in the study adequately matched the behavior of barn owls. Furthermore, the close interaction between motor output and auditory feedback proved to be vital in the learning process, supporting active sensing theories that are involved in many of the learning models. Neurorobots in these studies are presented with simple mazes or patterns to learn. Some of the problems presented to the neurorobot include recognition of symbols, colors, or other patterns and execute simple actions based on the pattern. In the case of the barn owl simulation, the robot had to determine its location and direction to navigate in its environment. === Action selection and value systems === Action selection studies deal with negative or positive weighting to an action and its outcome. Neurorobots can and have been used to study simple ethical interactions, such as the classical thought experiment where there are more people than a life raft can hold, and someone must leave the boat to save the rest. However, more neurorobots used in the study of action selection contend with much simpler persuasions such as self-preservation or perpetuation of the population of robots in the study. These neurorobots are modeled after the neuromodulation of synapses to encourage circuits with positive results. In biological systems, neurotransmitters such as dopamine or acetylcholine positively reinforce neural signals that are beneficial. One study of such interaction involved the robot Darwin VII, which used visual, auditory, and a simulated taste input to "eat" conductive metal blocks. The arbitrarily chosen good blocks had a striped pattern on them while the bad blocks had a circular shape on them. The taste sense was simulated by conductivity of the blocks. The robot had positive and negative feedbacks to the taste based on its level of conductivity. The researchers observed the robot to see how it learned its action selection behaviors based on the inputs it had. Other studies have used herds of small robots which feed on batteries strewn about the room, and communicate its findings to other robots. === Sensory perception === Neurorobots have also been used to study sensory perception, particularly vision. These are primarily systems that result from embedding neural models of sensory pathways in automatas. This approach gives exposure to the sensory signals that occur during behavior and also enables a more realistic assessment of the degree of robustness of the neural model. It is well known that changes in the sensory signals produced by motor activity provide useful perceptual cues that are used extensively by organisms. For example, researchers have used the depth information that emerges during replication of human head and eye movements to establish robust representations of the visual scene. == Biological robots == Biological robots are not officially neurorobots in that they are not neurologically inspired AI systems, but actual neuron tissue wired to a robot. This employs the use of cultured neural networks to study brain development or neural interactions. These typically consist of a neural culture raised on a multielectrode array (MEA), which is capable of both recording the neural activity and stimulating the tissue. In some cases, the MEA is connected to a computer which presents a simulated environment to the brain tissue and translates brain activity into actions in the simulation, as well as providing sensory feedback The ability to record neural activity gives researchers a window into a brain, which they can use to learn about a number of the same issues neurorobots are used for. An area of concern with the biological robots is ethics. Many questions are raised about how to treat such experiments. The central question concerns consciousness and whether or not the rat brain experiences it. There are many theories about how to define consciousness. == Implications for neuroscience == Neuroscientists benefit from neurorobotics because it provides a blank slate to test various possible methods of brain function in a controlled and testable environment. While robots are more simplified versions of the systems they emulate, they are more specific, allowing more direct testing of the issue at hand. They also have the benefit of being accessible at all times, while it is more difficult to monitor large portions of a brain while the human or animal is active, especially individual neurons. The development of neuroscience has produced neural treatments. These include pharmaceuticals and neural rehabilitation. Progress is dependent on an intricate understanding of the brain and how exactly it functions. It is difficult to study the brain, especially in humans, due to the danger associated with cranial surgeries. Neurorobots can improved the range of tests and experiments that can be performed in the study of neural processes.

  Read more →
• 

  Freddy II

  Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.

  Read more →
• 

  Blockhead (thought experiment)

  Blockhead is a theoretical computer system invented as part of a thought experiment by philosopher Ned Block, which appeared in a paper titled "Psychologism and Behaviorism". Block did not personally name the computer in the paper. == Overview == In "Psychologism and Behaviorism", Block argues that the internal mechanism of a system is important in determining whether that system is intelligent and claims to show that a non-intelligent system could pass the Turing test. Block asks the reader to imagine a conversation lasting any given amount of time. He states that given the nature of language, there are a finite number of syntactically and grammatically correct sentences that can be used to start a conversation. Consequently, there is a limit to how many "sensible" responses can be made to the first sentence, then to the second sentence, and so on until the conversation ends. Block then asks the reader to imagine a computer which had been programmed with all the sentences in theory, if not in practice. Block argues that such a machine could continue a conversation with a person on any topic because the computer would be programmed with every sentence that it was possible to use so the computer would be able to pass the Turing test despite the fact that—according to Block—it was not intelligent. Block says that this does not show that there is only one correct internal structure for generating intelligence but simply that some internal structures do not generate intelligence. The argument is related to John Searle's Chinese room.

  Read more →
• 

  Aidan Gomez

  Aidan Gomez is a British-Canadian computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence, with a focus on natural language processing. He is the co-founder and CEO of the technology company Cohere. == Early life and education == Gomez grew up in Brighton, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics. He was pursuing a PhD in computer science from the University of Oxford. He paused his studies to launch Cohere. He was granted the PhD in 2024. == Career == In 2017, as a 20 year-old intern at Google Brain, Gomez was one of eight authors of the research paper "Attention Is All You Need", which is credited with changing the AI industry and helping lead to the creation of ChatGPT. The paper proposed a novel deep learning architecture called the transformer, that enables machine learning models to analyze large amounts of data for patterns, and then use those patterns to make predictions while leveraging GPU parallelization. It has been commonly adopted for training large language models and in the development of generative AI. In the same year, Gomez founded FOR.ai, a program to help researchers learn machine learning techniques in a collaborative format. An outgrowth of this project was Cohere For AI (now Cohere Labs), which released Aya, an open-source multilingual LLM. As a PhD student, Gomez worked as a machine learning researcher at Google Brain. At that time, he co-authored the paper "One Model to Learn Them All" about multi-task learning by a single neural network. In 2019, Gomez left Google Brain to launch Cohere, an enterprise-focused company that helps businesses implement AI into chatbots, search engines, and other products. As of Sept 2025, Cohere has raised about US$1.6 billion at valuation north of $7 billion, as Gomez leads the company as its CEO. Gomez was named to the 2023 Time 100/AI list of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. He and his fellow Cohere founders Ivan Zhang and Nick Frosst were named number 1 on 2023 Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List. In April 2025, Gomez was elected to the board of Rivian. == Views on AI == Gomez has stated that warnings regarding the existential risk from artificial intelligence are overblown, and that real risks involve the automated spread of misinformation on social media. He said that the United States would win the AI arms race over China.

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge integration

  Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic Neural Analog Reinforcement Calculator

  The Stochastic Neural Analog Reinforcement Calculator (SNARC) is a neural network machine designed by Marvin Minsky. Prompted by a letter from Minsky, George Armitage Miller gathered the funding (a few thousand dollars) for the project from the Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Department of Defense in the summer of 1951 with the work to be carried out by Minsky, who was then a graduate student in mathematics at Princeton University. At the time, a physics graduate student at Princeton, Dean S. Edmonds, volunteered that he was good with electronics and therefore Minsky brought him onto the project. During undergraduate years, Minsky was inspired by the 1943 Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts paper on artificial neurons, and decided to build such a machine. The learning was Skinnerian reinforcement learning, and Minsky talked with Skinner extensively during the development of the machine. They tested the machine on a copy of Shannon's maze, and found that it could learn to solve the maze. Unlike Shannon's maze, this machine did not control a physical robot, but simulated rats running in a maze. The simulation is displayed as an "arrangement of lights", and the circuit was reinforced each time the simulated rat reached the goal. The machine surprised its creators. "The rats actually interacted with one another. If one of them found a good path, the others would tend to follow it." The machine itself is a randomly connected network of approximately 40 Hebb synapses. These synapses each have a memory that holds the probability that signal comes in one input and another signal will come out of the output. There is a probability knob that goes from 0 to 1 that shows this probability of the signals propagating. If the probability signal gets through, a capacitor remembers this function and engages an electromagnetic clutch. At this point, the operator will press a button to give a reward to the machine. This activates a motor on a surplus Minneapolis-Honeywell C-1 gyroscopic autopilot from a B-24 bomber. The motor turns a chain that goes to all 40 synapse machines, checking if the clutch is engaged or not. As the capacitor can only "remember" for a certain amount of time, the chain only catches the most recent updates of the probabilities. Each neuron contained 6 vacuum tubes and a motor. The entire machine is "the size of a grand piano" and contained 300 vacuum tubes. The tubes failed regularly, but the machine would still work despite failures. This machine is considered one of the first pioneering attempts at the field of artificial intelligence. Minsky went on to be a founding member of MIT's Project MAC, which split to become the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, and is now the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In 1985 Minsky became a founding member of the MIT Media Laboratory. According to Minsky, he loaned the machine to students in Dartmouth, and subsequently lost, except for a single neuron. A photo of Minsky's last neuron can be seen here. The photo shows 6 vacuum tubes, one of which is a Sylvania JAN-CHS-6H6GT/G/VT-90A.

  Read more →
• 

  Repertory grid

  The repertory grid is an interviewing technique which uses nonparametric factor analysis to determine an idiographic measure of personality. It was devised by George Kelly in around 1955 and is based on his personal construct theory of personality. == Introduction == The repertory grid is a technique for identifying the ways that a person construes (interprets or gives meaning to) his or her experience. It provides information from which inferences about personality can be made, but it is not a personality test in the conventional sense. It is underpinned by the personal construct theory developed by George Kelly, first published in 1955. A grid consists of four parts: A topic: it is about some part of the person's experience. A set of elements, which are examples or instances of the topic. Working as a clinical psychologist, Kelly was interested in how his clients construed people in the roles they adopted towards the client, and so, originally, such terms as "my father", "my mother", "an admired friend" and so forth were used. Since then, the grid has been used in much wider settings (educational, occupational, organisational) and so any well-defined set of words, phrases, or even brief behavioral vignettes can be used as elements. For example, to see how a person construes the purchase of a car, a list of vehicles within that person's price range could be a set of elements. A set of constructs. These are the basic terms that the client uses to make sense of the elements, and are always expressed as a contrast. Thus the meaning of "good" depends on whether you intend to say "good versus poor", as if you were construing a theatrical performance, or "good versus evil", as if you were construing the moral or ontological status of some more fundamental experience. A set of ratings of elements on constructs. Each element is positioned between the two extremes of the construct using a 5- or 7-point rating scale system; this is done repeatedly for all the constructs that apply; and thus its meaning to the client is modeled, and statistical analysis varying from simple counting, to more complex multivariate analysis of meaning, is made possible. Constructs are regarded as personal to the client, who is psychologically similar to other people depending on the extent to which they would tend to use similar constructs, and similar ratings, in relating to a particular set of elements. The client is asked to consider the elements three at a time, and to identify a way in which two of the elements might be seen as alike, but distinct from, contrasted to, the third. For example, in considering a set of people as part of a topic dealing with personal relationships, a client might say that the element "my father" and the element "my boss" are similar because they are both fairly tense individuals, whereas the element "my wife" is different because she is "relaxed". And so we identify one construct that the individual uses when thinking about people: whether they are "tense as distinct from relaxed". In practice, good grid interview technique would delve a little deeper and identify some more behaviorally explicit description of "tense versus relaxed". All the elements are rated on the construct, further triads of elements are compared and further constructs elicited, and the interview would continue until no further constructs are obtained. == Using the repertory grid == Careful interviewing to identify what the individual means by the words initially proposed, using a 5-point rating system could be used to characterize the way in which a group of fellow-employees are viewed on the construct "keen and committed versus energies elsewhere", a 1 indicating that the left pole of the construct applies ("keen and committed") and a 5 indicating that the right pole of the construct applies ("energies elsewhere"). On being asked to rate all of the elements, our interviewee might reply that Tom merits a 2 (fairly keen and committed), Mary a 1 (very keen and committed), and Peter a 5 (his energies are very much outside the place of employment). The remaining elements (another five people, for example) are then rated on this construct. Typically (and depending on the topic) people have a limited number of genuinely different constructs for any one topic: 6 to 16 are common when they talk about their job or their occupation, for example. The richness of people's meaning structures comes from the many different ways in which a limited number of constructs can be applied to individual elements. A person may indicate that Tom is fairly keen, very experienced, lacks social skills, is a good technical supervisor, can be trusted to follow complex instructions accurately, has no sense of humour, will always return a favour but only sometimes help his co-workers, while Mary is very keen, fairly experienced, has good social and technical supervisory skills, needs complex instructions explained to her, appreciates a joke, always returns favours, and is very helpful to her co-workers: these are two very different and complex pictures, using just 8 constructs about a person's co-workers. Important information can be obtained by including self-elements such as "Myself as I am now"; "Myself as I would like to be" among other elements, where the topic permits. == Analysis of results == A single grid can be analysed for both content (eyeball inspection) and structure (cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and a variety of structural indices relating to the complexity and range of the ratings being the chief techniques used). Sets of grids are dealt with using one or other of a variety of content analysis techniques. A range of associated techniques can be used to provide precise, operationally defined expressions of an interviewee's constructs, or a detailed expression of the interviewee's personal values, and all of these techniques are used in a collaborative way. The repertory grid is emphatically not a standardized "psychological test"; it is an exercise in the mutual negotiation of a person's meanings. The repertory grid has found favour among both academics and practitioners in a great variety of fields because it provides a way of describing people's construct systems (loosely, understanding people's perceptions) without prejudging the terms of reference—a kind of personalized grounded theory. Unlike a conventional rating-scale questionnaire, it is not the investigator but the interviewee who provides the constructs on which a topic is rated. Market researchers, trainers, teachers, guidance counsellors, new product developers, sports scientists, and knowledge capture specialists are among the users who find the technique (originally developed for use in clinical psychology) helpful. == Relationship to other tools == In the book Personal Construct Methodology, researchers Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L.G. Shaw noted that they "have also found concept mapping and semantic network tools to be complementary to repertory grid tools and generally use both in most studies" but that they "see less use of network representations in PCP [personal construct psychology] studies than is appropriate". They encouraged practitioners to use semantic network techniques in addition to the repertory grid.

  Read more →
• 

  Decision Model and Notation

  In business analysis, the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) is a standard published by the Object Management Group. It is a standard approach for describing and modeling repeatable decisions within organizations to ensure that decision models are interchangeable across organizations. The DMN standard provides the industry with a modeling notation for decisions that will support decision management and business rules. The notation is designed to be readable by business and IT users alike. This enables various groups to effectively collaborate in defining a decision model: the business people who manage and monitor the decisions, the business analysts or functional analysts who document the initial decision requirements and specify the detailed decision models and decision logic, the technical developers responsible for the automation of systems that make the decisions. The primary goal of DMN is to offer a common notation that all business users can easily understand. This includes business analysts who develop decision requirements and models, technical developers who automate decisions, and businesspeople who manage and monitor those decisions. DMN serves as a standardized link between business decision design and implementation.[4] The DMN standard can be effectively used standalone but it is also complementary to the BPMN and CMMN standards. BPMN defines a special kind of activity, the Business Rule Task, which "provides a mechanism for the process to provide input to a business rule engine and to get the output of calculations that the business rule engine might provide" that can be used to show where in a BPMN process a decision defined using DMN should be used. DMN has been made a standard for Business Analysis according to BABOK v3. == Elements of the standard == The standard includes three main elements Decision Requirements Diagrams that show how the elements of decision-making are linked into a dependency network. Decision tables to represent how each decision in such a network can be made. Business context for decisions such as the roles of organizations or the impact on performance metrics. A Friendly Enough Expression Language (FEEL) that can be used to evaluate expressions in a decision table and other logic formats. == Use cases == The standard identifies three main use cases for DMN Defining manual decision making Specifying the requirements for automated decision-making Representing a complete, executable model of decision-making == Benefits == Using the DMN standard will improve business analysis and business process management, since other popular requirement management techniques such as BPMN and UML do not handle decision making growth of projects using business rule management systems or BRMS, which allow faster changes it facilitates better communications between business, IT and analytic roles in a company it provides an effective requirements modeling approach for predictive analytics projects and fulfills the need for "business understanding" in methodologies for advanced analytics such as CRISP-DM it provides a standard notation for decision tables, the most common style of business rules in a business rule management system (BRMS) == Relationship to BPMN == DMN has been designed to work with BPMN. Business process models can be simplified by moving process logic into decision services. DMN is a separate domain within the OMG that provides an explicit way to connect to processes in BPMN. Decisions in DMN can be explicitly linked to processes and tasks that use the decisions. This integration of DMN and BPMN has been studied extensively. DMN expects that the logic of a decision will be deployed as a stateless, side-effect free Decision Service. Such a service can be invoked from a business process and the data in the process can be mapped to the inputs and outputs of the decision service. == DMN BPMN example == As mentioned, BPMN is a related OMG Standard for process modeling. DMN complements BPMN, providing a separation of concerns between the decision and the process. The example here describes a BPMN process and DMN DRD (Decision Requirements Diagram) for onboarding a bank customer. Several decisions are modeled and these decisions will direct the processes response. === New bank account process === In the BPMN process model shown in the figure, a customer makes a request to open a new bank account. The account application provides the account representative with all the information needed to create an account and provide the requested services. This includes the name, address and various forms of identification. In the next steps of the work flow, the know your customer (KYC) services are called. In the KYC services, the name and address are validated; followed by a check against the international criminal database (Interpol) and the database of persons that are 'politically exposed persons (PEP)'. The PEP is a person who is either entrusted with a prominent political position or a close relative thereof. Deposits from persons on the PEP list are potentially corrupt. This is shown as two services on the process model. Anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations require these checks before the customer account is certified. The results of these services plus the forms of identification are sent to the Certify New Account decision. This is shown as a 'rule' activity, verify account, on the process diagram. If the new customer passes certification, then the account is classified into onboarding for business retail, retail, wealth management and high-value business. Otherwise the customer application is declined. The Classify New Customer Decision classifies the customer. If the verify-account process returns a result of 'Manual' then the PEP or the Interpol check returned a close match. The account representative must visually inspect the name and the application to determine if the match is valid and accept or decline the application. === Certify new account decision === An account is certified for opening if the individual's' address is verified, and if valid identification is provided, and if the applicant is not on a list of criminals or politically exposed persons. These are shown as sub-decisions below the 'certify new account' decision. The account verification services provides a 100% match of the applicants address. For identification to be valid, the customer must provide a driver's license, passport or government issued ID. The checks against PEP and Interpol are 'fuzzy' matches and return matching score values. Scores above 85 are considered a 'match' and scores between 65 and 85 would require a 'manual' screening process. People who match either of these lists are rejected by the account application process. If there is a partial match with a score between 65 and 85, against the Interpol or PEP list then the certification is set to manual and an account representative performs a manual verification of the applicant's data. These rules are reflected in the figure below, which presents the decision table for whether to pass the provided name for the lists checks. === Client category === The client's on-boarding process is driven by what category they fall in. The category is decided by the: Type of client, business or private The size of the funds on deposit And the estimated net worth This decision is shown below: There are 6 business rules that determine the client's category and these are shown in the decision table here: === Summary example === In this example, the outcome of the 'Verify Account' decision directed the responses of the new account process. The same is true for the 'Classify Customer' decision. By adding or changing the business rules in the tables, one can easily change the criteria for these decisions and control the process differently. Modeling is a critical aspect of improving an existing process or business challenge. Modeling is generally done by a team of business analysts, IT personnel, and modeling experts. The expressive modeling capabilities of BPMN allows business analyst to understand the functions of the activities of the process. Now with the addition of DMN, business analysts can construct an understandable model of complex decisions. Combining BPMN and DMN yields a very powerful combination of models that work synergistically to simplify processes. == Relationship to decision mining and process mining == Automated discovery techniques that infer decision models from process execution data have been proposed as well. Here, a DMN decision model is derived from a data-enriched event log, along with the process that uses the decisions. In doing so, decision mining complements process mining with traditional data mining approaches. == cDMN extension == Constraint Decision Model and Notation (cDMN) is a formal notation for expressing knowledge in a tabular, intuitive format. It extends DMN with constraint reasoning and related concepts while aiming to retain the us

  Read more →
• 

  Prompt engineering

  Prompt engineering is the process of structuring natural language inputs (known as prompts) to produce specified outputs from a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model. Context engineering is the related area of software engineering that focuses on the management of non-prompt contexts supplied to the GenAI model, such as metadata, API tools, and tokens. It can also be defined as the practice of designing and refining input instructions given to a generative AI model to produce more accurate, relevant, or useful outputs. Effective prompt engineering involves understanding how a model interprets language, and may include techniques such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and role assignment. It is increasingly considered a skill for working with large language models (LLMs) in both research and professional contexts. During the 2020s AI boom, prompt engineering became regarded as a business capability across corporations and industries. Employees with the title prompt engineer were hired to create prompts that would increase productivity and efficacy, although the individual title has since lost traction amid AI models that produce better prompts than humans and corporate training in prompting for general employees. Common prompting techniques include multi-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thought prompting, as well as the use of assigning roles to the model. Automated prompt generation methods, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), provide for greater accuracy and a wider scope of functions for prompt engineers. Prompt injection is a type of cybersecurity attack that targets machine learning models through malicious prompts. == Terminology == The Oxford English Dictionary defines prompt engineering as "The action or process of formulating and refining prompts for an artificial intelligence program, algorithm, etc., in order to optimize its output or to achieve a desired outcome; the discipline or profession concerned with this." In 2023, prompt ("an instruction given to an artificial intelligence program, algorithm, etc., which determines or influences the content it generates") was the runner-up to Oxford's word of the year. === Prompt === A prompt is some natural language text that describes and prescribes the task that an artificial intelligence (AI) should perform. A prompt for a text-to-text language model can be a query, a command, or a longer statement referencing context, instructions, and conversation history. The process of prompt engineering may involve designing clear queries, refining wording, providing relevant context, specifying the style of output, and assigning a character for the AI to mimic in order to guide the model toward more accurate, useful, and consistent responses. When communicating with a text-to-image or a text-to-audio model, a typical prompt contains a description of a desired output such as "a high-quality photo of an astronaut riding a horse" or "Lo-fi slow BPM electro chill with organic samples". Prompt engineering may be applied to text-to-image models to achieve a desired subject, style, layout, lighting, and aesthetic. === Techniques === Common terms used to describe various specific prompt engineering techniques include chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). A 2024 survey of the field identified over 50 distinct text-based prompting techniques, 40 multimodal variants, and a vocabulary of 33 terms used across prompting research, highlighting a present lack of standardised terminology for prompt engineering. Vibe coding is an AI-assisted software development method where a user prompts an LLM with a description of what they want and lets it generate or edit the code. In 2025, "vibe coding" was the Collins Dictionary word of the year. === Context engineering === Context engineering is a related process that focuses on the context elements that accompany user prompts, which include system instructions, retrieved knowledge, tool definitions, conversation summaries, and task metadata. Context engineering is performed to improve reliability, provenance and token efficiency in production LLM systems. The concept emphasises operational practices such as token budgeting, provenance tags, versioning of context artifacts, observability (logging which context was supplied), and context regression tests to ensure that changes to supplied context do not silently alter system behaviour. == Rationale == Research has found that the performance of large language models (LLMs) is highly sensitive to choices such as the ordering of examples, the quality of demonstration labels, and even small variations in phrasing. In some cases, reordering examples in a prompt produced accuracy shifts of more than 40 percent. === In-context learning === A model's ability to temporarily learn from prompts is known as in-context learning. In-context learning is an emergent ability of large language models. It is an emergent property of model scale, meaning that breaks in scaling laws occur, leading to its efficacy increasing at a different rate in larger models than in smaller models. Unlike training and fine-tuning, which produce lasting changes, in-context learning is temporary. Training models to perform in-context learning can be viewed as a form of meta-learning, or "learning to learn". === Prompting to estimate model sensitivity === Research consistently demonstrates that LLMs are highly sensitive to subtle variations in prompt formatting, structure, and linguistic properties. Some studies have shown up to 76 accuracy points across formatting changes in few-shot settings. Linguistic features significantly influence prompt effectiveness—such as morphology, syntax, and lexico-semantic changes—which meaningfully enhance task performance across a variety of tasks. Clausal syntax, for example, improves consistency and reduces uncertainty in knowledge retrieval. This sensitivity persists even with larger model sizes, additional few-shot examples, or instruction tuning. To address sensitivity of models and make them more robust, several evaluative methods have been proposed. FormatSpread facilitates systematic analysis by evaluating a range of plausible prompt formats, offering a more comprehensive performance interval. Similarly, PromptEval estimates performance distributions across diverse prompts, enabling robust metrics such as performance quantiles and accurate evaluations under constrained budgets. == Prompting techniques == === Multi-shot === A prompt may include a few examples for a model to learn from in context, an approach called few-shot learning. For example, the prompt may ask the model to complete "maison → house, chat → cat, chien →", with the expected response being dog. === Chain-of-thought === Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a technique that allows large language models (LLMs) to solve a problem as a series of intermediate steps before giving a final answer. In 2022, Google Brain reported that chain-of-thought prompting improves reasoning ability by inducing the model to answer a multi-step problem with steps of reasoning that mimic a train of thought. Chain-of-thought techniques were developed to help LLMs handle multi-step reasoning tasks, such as arithmetic or commonsense reasoning questions. When applied to PaLM, a 540 billion parameter language model, according to Google, CoT prompting significantly aided the model, allowing it to perform comparably with task-specific fine-tuned models on several tasks, achieving state-of-the-art results at the time on the GSM8K mathematical reasoning benchmark. It is possible to fine-tune models on CoT reasoning datasets to enhance this capability further and stimulate better interpretability. As originally proposed by Google, each CoT prompt is accompanied by a set of input/output examples—called exemplars—to demonstrate the desired model output, making it a few-shot prompting technique. However, according to a later paper from researchers at Google and the University of Tokyo, simply appending the words "Let's think step-by-step" was also effective, which allowed for CoT to be employed as a zero-shot technique. ==== Self-consistency ==== Self-consistency performs several chain-of-thought rollouts, then selects the most commonly reached conclusion out of all the rollouts. === Tree-of-thought === Tree-of-thought prompting generalizes chain-of-thought by generating multiple lines of reasoning in parallel, with the ability to backtrack or explore other paths. It can use tree search algorithms like breadth-first, depth-first, or beam. === Text-to-image prompting === In 2022, text-to-image models like DALL-E 2, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney were released to the public. These models take text prompts as input and use them to generate images. Early text-to-image models typically do not understand negation, grammar and sentence structure in the same way as large language models, and may thus requi

  Read more →
• 

  Civitai

  Civitai is an online platform and marketplace for generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) content, primarily focused on AI-generated images and models, and AI-generated videos. == History == Civitai was founded in 2022 by Justin Maier. By January 2023, the site reached 100,000 registered users and 3 million by November. In November 2023, Civitai secured funding from venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. By April 2024, Civitai had 23.2 million monthly accesses. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. == Platform == Civitai allows users to share and download AI models, particularly those used for image generation. The platform supports various AI models, including Stable Diffusion and Flux, and provides a space for users to showcase and monetize their AI-generated content. Users have profile pages and can comment on other users' models and images. The website also features a virtual currency called Buzz that can be used to generate images on Civitai's servers. Buzz can be bought or earned by engaging with the site. The platform is open source. == Controversies == In 2023, 404 Media reported that Civitai began a "Bounties" marketplace where users could commission deepfakes, of real or fake people. Users are rewarded with Buzz for completing Bounties. In December 2023, AI provider OctoML announced it had ended its business relationship with Civitai after concerns were raised users were generating images that “could be categorized as child pornography.”

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →