AI Apps Free

AI Apps Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Local-first software

  Local-first software is a software engineering approach in which an application stores its data primarily on the user's own device rather than on remote servers. Users can read and write data without an Internet connection, and changes are synchronized across devices in the background when connectivity is available. The approach differs from conventional cloud-based applications, where the server holds the authoritative copy of user data and the client acts as a thin client. The term was coined in a 2019 paper published by researchers at Ink & Switch, an independent research lab, and presented at the Onward! conference at ACM SIGPLAN. The paper, sometimes referred to as a manifesto, was authored by Martin Kleppmann, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hardenberg, and Mark McGranaghan. == Background == Before the widespread adoption of Internet-connected software in the 2000s, most desktop applications stored data as files on the user's local disk. Users had direct access to their files and could copy, back up, or delete them at will. The rise of software as a service (SaaS) and cloud-based applications like Google Docs shifted data storage to centralized servers. While cloud applications made real-time collaboration across devices straightforward, they introduced a dependency on the service provider: if the provider discontinued the service or experienced an outage, users could lose access to their data. A related concept, "offline-first," emerged in the early 2010s and focused on making web applications resilient to network interruptions. The local-first approach built on these earlier efforts while placing greater emphasis on long-term data ownership and end-to-end encryption. == Origins == === Ink & Switch manifesto === Ink & Switch is an industrial research lab co-founded by Adam Wiggins, who had earlier co-founded Heroku. Martin Kleppmann, an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science and Technology at the University of Cambridge, was a co-author of the 2019 paper. The manifesto proposed seven "ideals" for local-first software: Fast — Operations respond without network round-trips. Multi-device — Data synchronizes across a user's devices. Offline — Users can read and write data without a network connection. Collaboration — Multiple users can work on the same data concurrently. Longevity — Data remains accessible even if the software vendor ceases operation. Privacy — End-to-end encryption protects user data. User control — The vendor cannot restrict how users access or use their data. The paper surveyed existing approaches to data storage and collaboration — ranging from email attachments and Dropbox-style file synchronization to web applications and mobile backends — and argued that none of them satisfied all seven ideals simultaneously. === Role of CRDTs === The manifesto identified conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) as a promising technical foundation for local-first applications. CRDTs are data structures that allow multiple replicas to be edited independently and then merged without conflicts, a property first formalized in research by Marc Shapiro and colleagues around 2011. Kleppmann and collaborators at Ink & Switch developed Automerge, an open-source CRDT library for JSON documents, to make these algorithms available to application developers. == Adoption and community == Developer interest in the local-first approach grew after the 2019 paper spread on Hacker News and at developer conferences In August 2023, Wired published a feature article on the movement, describing it as an effort to reduce reliance on large cloud providers. The first Local-First Conf took place on 30 May 2024 in Berlin, with talks by Kleppmann and developers from companies including Linear and Anytype. The community has continued to expand, with regular "LoFi" meetups, a podcast (localfirst.fm), and a third edition of the conference planned for Berlin in July 2026. == Criticisms and limitations == Developers and commentators have pointed out practical difficulties with the local-first approach. Synchronizing data between multiple devices that may be offline for extended periods introduces complexity that cloud-based architectures avoid. Conflict resolution, even with CRDTs, can produce results that are technically consistent but semantically unexpected to users. Schema migrations across thousands of client devices running different application versions pose another difficulty that does not arise with server-side databases. Web browsers impose storage limits and may evict locally stored data. Safari, for instance, has been reported to clear IndexedDB data after seven days of inactivity on a given site, which undermines the assumption that local data is persistent. There is also disagreement within the local-first community about whether a fully decentralized architecture is required. The original manifesto described decentralization as the "logical end goal," but a number of products that identify as local-first still depend on centralized servers for authentication, backup, or synchronization. In a talk at Local-First Conf 2024, Kleppmann said the seven ideals are better understood as a "gradient" rather than a strict checklist.

  Read more →
• 

  METR

  Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR) (MEE-tər), is a nonprofit research institute, based in Berkeley, California, that evaluates frontier AI models' capabilities to carry out long-horizon, agentic tasks that some researchers argue could pose catastrophic risks to society. METR has worked with leading AI companies to conduct pre-deployment model evaluations and contribute to system cards, including OpenAI's o3, o4-mini, GPT-4o and GPT-4.5, and Anthropic's Claude models. METR's CEO and founder is Beth Barnes, a former alignment researcher at OpenAI who left in 2022 to form ARC Evals, the evaluation division of Paul Christiano's Alignment Research Center. In December 2023, ARC Evals was spun off into an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit and renamed METR. == Research == A substantial amount of METR's research is focused on evaluating the capabilities of AI systems to conduct research and development of AI systems themselves, including RE-Bench, a benchmark designed to test whether AIs can "solve research engineering tasks and accelerate AI R&D". === Doubling time estimates === In March 2025, METR published a paper noting that the length of software engineering tasks that the leading AI model could complete had a doubling time of around 7 months between 2019 and 2024. In January 2026, METR released a new version of their time horizon estimates model (Time Horizon 1.1). According to the updated model, the rate of progress of AI capabilities has increased since 2023, with a post-2023 doubling time estimated at 130.8 days (4.3 months). Progress is thus estimated to be 20% more rapid. === Time horizon measurements === METR releases a "task-completion time horizon" for analysed AI models. This measures the "task duration (measured by human expert completion time) at which an AI agent is predicted to succeed with a given level of reliability." The metric is reported in two variants: the 50%-time horizon, which gives the task duration at which an AI model is estimated to succeed 50% of the time, and the 80%-time horizon, which gives the task duration at which an AI model is estimated to succeed 80% of the time. METR has published two versions of the underlying model: Time Horizon 1.0 and Time Horizon 1.1, the latter introduced in January 2026. As of 9 May 2026, the best-performing model is Claude Mythos, with a 50%-time horizon of likely at least 16 hours and an 80%-time horizon of 3 hours and 6 minutes. METR notes that "[m]easurements above 16 [hours] are unreliable with [their] current task suite". The following table provides time horizon estimates ordered by each model's release date:

  Read more →
• 

  Stewart Nelson

  Stewart Nelson is an American mathematician and programmer from The Bronx who co-founded Systems Concepts. == Biography == From a young age, Nelson was tinkering with electronics, aided and abetted by his father who was a physicist that had become an engineer. Stewart attended Poughkeepsie High School, graduating in the spring of 1963. From his first few days of High School, Stewart displayed his talents for hacking the international telephone trunk lines, along with an uncanny skill for picking combination locks, although this was always done as innocent entertainment. He simply loved the challenge of seeing how quickly he could accomplish this feat. His quirky sense of humor was always visible, as was his disdain for any rule that got in the way of his gaining knowledge. Stewart was an inspiration to the school's Tech-elec Club, as well as a ringleader in the founding of the school's pirate radio station. Nelson enrolled at MIT in 1963 and quickly became known for hooking up the AI Lab's PDP-1 (and later the PDP-6) to the telephone network, making him one of the first phreakers. Nelson later accomplished other feats like hard-wiring additional instructions into the PDP-1. Nelson was hired by Ed Fredkin's Information International Inc. at the urging of Marvin Minsky to work on PDP-7 programs at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Nelson was known as a brilliant software programmer. He was influential in LISP, the assembly instructions for the Digital Equipment Corporation PDP, and a number of other systems. The group of young hackers was known for working on systems after hours. One night, Nelson and others decided to rewire MIT's PDP-1 as a prank. Later, Margaret Hamilton tried to use the DEC-supplied DECAL assembler on the machine and it crashed repeatedly.

  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 →
• 

  Multi-armed bandit

  In probability theory and machine learning, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K- or N-armed bandit problem) is named from imagining a gambler at a row of slot machines (sometimes known as "one-armed bandits"), who has to decide which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them, and whether to continue with the current machine or try a different machine. More generally, it is a problem in which a decision maker iteratively selects one of multiple fixed choices (i.e., arms or actions) when the properties of each choice are only partially known at the time of allocation, and may become better understood as time passes. A fundamental aspect of bandit problems is that choosing an arm does not affect the properties of the arm or other arms. Instances of the multi-armed bandit problem include the task of iteratively allocating a fixed, limited set of resources between competing (alternative) choices in a way that minimizes the regret. A notable alternative setup for the multi-armed bandit problem includes the "best arm identification (BAI)" problem where the goal is instead to identify the best choice by the end of a finite number of rounds. The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic reinforcement learning problem that exemplifies the exploration–exploitation tradeoff dilemma. In contrast to general reinforcement learning, the selected actions in bandit problems do not affect the reward distribution of the arms. The multi-armed bandit problem also falls into the broad category of stochastic scheduling. In the problem, each machine provides a random reward from a probability distribution specific to that machine, that is not known a priori. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines. The trade-off between exploration and exploitation is also faced in machine learning. In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model problems such as managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. In early versions of the problem, the gambler begins with no initial knowledge about the machines. Herbert Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "some aspects of the sequential design of experiments". A theorem, the Gittins index, first published by John C. Gittins, gives an optimal policy for maximizing the expected discounted reward. == Empirical motivation == The multi-armed bandit problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called "exploration") and optimize their decisions based on existing knowledge (called "exploitation"). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize their total value over the period of time considered. There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example: clinical trials investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing patient losses, adaptive routing efforts for minimizing delays in a network, financial portfolio design In these practical examples, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff in machine learning. The model has also been used to control dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of which project to work on, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility. Originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II, it proved so intractable that, according to Peter Whittle, the problem was proposed to be dropped over Germany so that German scientists could also waste their time on it. The version of the problem now commonly analyzed was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952. == The multi-armed bandit model == The multi-armed bandit (short: bandit or MAB) can be seen as a set of real distributions B = { R 1 , … , R K } {\displaystyle B=\{R_{1},\dots ,R_{K}\}} , each distribution being associated with the rewards delivered by one of the K ∈ N + {\displaystyle K\in \mathbb {N} ^{+}} levers. Let μ 1 , … , μ K {\displaystyle \mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K}} be the mean values associated with these reward distributions. The gambler iteratively plays one lever per round and observes the associated reward. The objective is to maximize the sum of the collected rewards. The horizon H {\displaystyle H} is the number of rounds that remain to be played. The bandit problem is formally equivalent to a one-state Markov decision process. The regret ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after T {\displaystyle T} rounds is defined as the expected difference between the reward sum associated with an optimal strategy and the sum of the collected rewards: ρ = T μ ∗ − ∑ t = 1 T r ^ t {\displaystyle \rho =T\mu ^{}-\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\widehat {r}}_{t}} , where μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is the maximal reward mean, μ ∗ = max k { μ k } {\displaystyle \mu ^{}=\max _{k}\{\mu _{k}\}} , and r ^ t {\displaystyle {\widehat {r}}_{t}} is the reward in round t {\displaystyle t} . A zero-regret strategy is a strategy whose average regret per round ρ / T {\displaystyle \rho /T} tends to zero with probability 1 when the number of played rounds tends to infinity. Intuitively, zero-regret strategies are guaranteed to converge to a (not necessarily unique) optimal strategy if enough rounds are played. == Variations == A common formulation is the Binary multi-armed bandit or Bernoulli multi-armed bandit, which issues a reward of one with probability p {\displaystyle p} , and otherwise a reward of zero. Another formulation of the multi-armed bandit has each arm representing an independent Markov machine. Each time a particular arm is played, the state of that machine advances to a new one, chosen according to the Markov state evolution probabilities. There is a reward depending on the current state of the machine. In a generalization called the "restless bandit problem", the states of non-played arms can also evolve over time. There has also been discussion of systems where the number of choices (about which arm to play) increases over time. Computer science researchers have studied multi-armed bandits under worst-case assumptions, obtaining algorithms to minimize regret in both finite and infinite (asymptotic) time horizons for both stochastic and non-stochastic arm payoffs. === Best arm identification === An important variation of the classical regret minimization problem in multi-armed bandits is best arm identification (BAI), also known as pure exploration. This problem is crucial in various applications, including clinical trials, adaptive routing, recommendation systems, and A/B testing. In BAI, the objective is to identify the arm having the highest expected reward. An algorithm in this setting is characterized by a sampling rule, a decision rule, and a stopping rule, described as follows: Sampling rule: ( a t ) t ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (a_{t})_{t\geq 1}} is a sequence of actions at each time step Stopping rule: τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a (random) stopping time which suggests when to stop collecting samples Decision rule: a ^ τ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau }} is a guess on the best arm based on the data collected up to time τ {\displaystyle \tau } There are two predominant settings in BAI: Fixed budget setting: Given a time horizon T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} minimizing probability of error δ {\displaystyle \delta } . Fixed confidence setting: Given a confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} with the least possible amount of trials and with probability of error P ( a ^ τ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau }\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } . For example using a decision rule, we could use m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} where m {\displaystyle m} is the machine no.1 (you can use a different variable respectively) and 1 {\displaystyle 1} is the amount for each time an attempt is made at pulling the lever, where ∫ ∑ m 1 , m 2 , ( . . . ) = M {\displaystyle \int \sum m_{1},m_{2},(...)=M} , identify M {\displaystyle M} as the sum of each attempts m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} , (...) as needed, and from there you can get a ratio, sum or mean as quantitative probability and sample your formulation for each slots. You can also do ∫ ∑ k ∝ i N − (

  Read more →
• 

  Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence

  The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI, pronounced "gee-pay") is an international initiative established to guide the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a manner that respects human rights and the shared democratic values of its members. The partnership was first proposed by Canada and France at the 2018 44th G7 summit, and officially launched in June 2020. GPAI is hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). GPAI seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by supporting research and applied activities in areas that are directly relevant to policymakers in the realm of AI. It brings together experts from industry, civil society, governments, and academia to collaborate on the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence. == History == The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence was announced on the margins of the 2018 G7 Summit by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. It officially launched on June 15, 2020 with fifteen founding members: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hosts a dedicated secretariat to support GPAI's governing bodies and activities. UNESCO joined the partnership in December 2020 as an observer. On November 11, 2021, Czechia, Israel and few more EU countries also joined the GPAI, bringing the total membership to 25 countries. Since the November 2022 summit, the list of members stands at 29. Austria, Chile, Finland, Malaysia, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland were invited. The seven, however, are pending membership approval. == Membership == The following 29 members of the GPAI are: Argentina Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark France Germany India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Republic of Korea Senegal Serbia Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States European Union Invited members: Austria (pending membership approval) Chile (pending membership approval) Finland (pending membership approval) Malaysia (pending membership approval) Norway (pending membership approval) Slovakia (pending membership approval) Switzerland (pending membership approval) == Organization == GPAI's experts collaborate across several Working Groups themes: Responsible AI (including an ad-hoc subgroup on AI and Pandemic Response), Data Governance, Future of Work, and Innovation & Commercialization. GPAI's Working Groups are supported by two Centres of Expertise: one in Montreal that supports the first two Working Groups, and one in Paris that supports the latter two. It also has a Steering Committee, the elected chair of which has also been to date elected chair of the Multi Stakeholder Group (MEG). These chairs have been: Jordan Zed and Baroness Joanna Shields (Shields, MEG chair; 2020-2021), Joanna Shields and Renaud Vedel (Shields, MEG chair; 2021-2022), Yoichi Iida and Inma Martinez (Martinez, MEG chair; 2023-2024) GPAI has a rotating presidency and host (much like the G7). The presidencies to date have been: Canada (2020) France (2021) Japan (2022) India (2023)

  Read more →
• 

  Cellular neural network

  In computer science and machine learning, Cellular Neural Networks (CNN) or Cellular Nonlinear Networks (CNN) are a parallel computing paradigm similar to neural networks, with the difference that communication is allowed between neighbouring units only. Typical applications include image processing, analyzing 3D surfaces, solving partial differential equations, reducing non-visual problems to geometric maps, modelling biological vision and other sensory-motor organs. CNN is not to be confused with convolutional neural networks (also colloquially called CNN). == CNN architecture == Due to their number and variety of architectures, it is difficult to give a precise definition for a CNN processor. From an architecture standpoint, CNN processors are a system of finite, fixed-number, fixed-location, fixed-topology, locally interconnected, multiple-input, single-output, nonlinear processing units. The nonlinear processing units are often referred to as neurons or cells. Mathematically, each cell can be modeled as a dissipative, nonlinear dynamical system where information is encoded via its initial state, inputs and variables used to define its behavior. Dynamics are usually continuous, as in the case of Continuous-Time CNN (CT-CNN) processors, but can be discrete, as in the case of Discrete-Time CNN (DT-CNN) processors. Each cell has one output, by which it communicates its state with both other cells and external devices. Output is typically real-valued, but can be complex or even quaternion, i.e. a Multi-Valued CNN (MV-CNN). Most CNN processors, processing units are identical, but there are applications that require non-identical units, which are called Non-Uniform Processor CNN (NUP-CNN) processors, and consist of different types of cells. === Chua-Yang CNN === In the original Chua-Yang CNN (CY-CNN) processor, the state of the cell was a weighted sum of the inputs and the output was a piecewise linear function. However, like the original perceptron-based neural networks, the functions it could perform were limited: specifically, it was incapable of modeling non-linear functions, such as XOR. More complex functions are realizable via Non-Linear CNN (NL-CNN) processors. Cells are defined in a normed gridded space like two-dimensional Euclidean geometry. However, the cells are not limited to two-dimensional spaces; they can be defined in an arbitrary number of dimensions and can be square, triangle, hexagonal, or any other spatially invariant arrangement. Topologically, cells can be arranged on an infinite plane or on a toroidal space. Cell interconnect is local, meaning that all connections between cells are within a specified radius (with distance measured topologically). Connections can also be time-delayed to allow for processing in the temporal domain. Most CNN architectures have cells with the same relative interconnects, but there are applications that require a spatially variant topology, i.e. Multiple-Neighborhood-Size CNN (MNS-CNN) processors. Also, Multiple-Layer CNN (ML-CNN) processors, where all cells on the same layer are identical, can be used to extend the capability of CNN processors. The definition of a system is a collection of independent, interacting entities forming an integrated whole, whose behavior is distinct and qualitatively greater than its entities. Although connections are local, information exchange can happen globally through diffusion. In this sense, CNN processors are systems because their dynamics are derived from the interaction between the processing units and not within processing units. As a result, they exhibit emergent and collective behavior. Mathematically, the relationship between a cell and its neighbors, located within an area of influence, can be defined by a coupling law, and this is what primarily determines the behavior of the processor. When the coupling laws are modeled by fuzzy logic, it is a fuzzy CNN. When these laws are modeled by computational verb logic, it becomes a computational verb CNN. Both fuzzy and verb CNNs are useful for modelling social networks when the local couplings are achieved by linguistic terms. == History == The idea of CNN processors was introduced by Leon Chua and Lin Yang in 1988. In these articles, Chua and Yang outline the underlying mathematics behind CNN processors. They use this mathematical model to demonstrate, for a specific CNN implementation, that if the inputs are static, the processing units will converge, and can be used to perform useful calculations. They then suggest one of the first applications of CNN processors: image processing and pattern recognition (which is still the largest application to date). Leon Chua is still active in CNN research and publishes many of his articles in the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, of which he is an editor. Both IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems and the International Journal of Bifurcation also contain a variety of useful articles on CNN processors authored by other knowledgeable researchers. The former tends to focus on new CNN architectures and the latter more on the dynamical aspects of CNN processors. In 1993, Tamas Roska and Leon Chua introduced the first algorithmically programmable analog CNN processor in the world. The multi-national effort was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and researched by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the University of California. This article proved that CNN processors were producible and provided researchers a physical platform to test their CNN theories. After this article, companies started to invest into larger, more capable processors, based on the same basic architecture as the CNN Universal Processor. Tamas Roska is another key contributor to CNNs. His name is often associated with biologically inspired information processing platforms and algorithms, and he has published numerous key articles and has been involved with companies and research institutions developing CNN technology. === Literature === Two references are considered invaluable since they manage to organize the vast amount of CNN literature into a coherent framework: An overview by Valerio Cimagalli and Marco Balsi. The paper provides a concise intro to definitions, CNN types, dynamics, implementations, and applications. "Cellular Neural Networks and Visual Computing Foundations and Applications", written by Leon Chua and Tamas Roska, which provides examples and exercises. The book covers many different aspects of CNN processors and can serve as a textbook for a Masters or Ph.D. course. Other resources include The proceedings of "The International Workshop on Cellular Neural Networks and Their Applications" provide much CNN literature. The proceedings are available online, via IEEE Xplore, for conferences held in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2006. There was also a workshop held in Santiago de Composetela, Spain. Topics included theory, design, applications, algorithms, physical implementations and programming and training methods. For an understanding of the analog semiconductor based CNN technology, AnaLogic Computers has their product line, in addition to the published articles available on their homepage and their publication list. They also have information on other CNN technologies such as optical computing. Many of the commonly used functions have already been implemented using CNN processors. A good reference point for some of these can be found in image processing libraries for CNN based visual computers such as Analogic’s CNN-based systems. == Related processing architectures == CNN processors could be thought of as a hybrid between artificial neural network (ANN) and Continuous Automata (CA). === Artificial Neural Networks === The processing units of CNN and NN are similar. In both cases, the processor units are multi-input, dynamical systems, and the behavior of the overall systems is driven primarily through the weights of the processing unit’s linear interconnect. However, in CNN processors, connections are made locally, whereas in ANN, connections are global. For example, neurons in one layer are fully connected to another layer in a feed-forward NN and all the neurons are fully interconnected in Hopfield networks. In ANNs, the weights of interconnections contain information on the processing system’s previous state or feedback. But in CNN processors, the weights are used to determine the dynamics of the system. Furthermore, due to the high inter-connectivity of ANNs, they tend not exploit locality in either the data set or the processing and as a result, they usually are highly redundant systems that allow for robust, fault-tolerant behavior without catastrophic errors. A cross between an ANN and a CNN processor is a Ratio Memory CNN (RMCNN). In RMCNN processors, the cell interconnect is local and topologically invariant, but the weights are used to store

  Read more →
• 

  Buddhism and artificial intelligence

  The relationship between Buddhist philosophy and artificial intelligence (AI) includes how principles such as the reduction of suffering and ethical responsibility may influence AI development. Buddhist scholars and philosophers have explored questions such as whether AI systems could be considered sentient beings under Buddhist definitions, and how Buddhist ethics might guide the design and application of AI technologies. Some Buddhist scholars, including Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma, have analyzed the ethical implications of AI, emphasizing the distinction between satisfying sensory desires and pursuing the reduction of suffering. Other thinkers, such as Thomas Doctor and colleagues, have proposed applying the Bodhisattva vow—a commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings—as a guiding principle for AI system design. Buddhist scholars and ethicists have examined Buddhist ethical principles, such as nonviolence, in relation to AI, focusing on the need to ensure that AI technologies are not used to cause harm. == Context == === Sentient beings === A major goal in Buddhist philosophy is the removal of suffering for all sentient beings, an aspiration often referred to in the Bodhisattva vow. Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to Buddhist principles have raised questions about whether artificial systems could be considered sentient beings or how such systems might be developed in ways that align with Buddhist concepts. Buddhists have varying opinions about AI sentience, but if AI systems are determined to be sentient under Buddhist definitions, their suffering would also need to be addressed and alleviated in accordance with the principles of Buddhist thought. == Buddhist principles in AI system design == === Nonviolence and AI === The broadest ethical concern is that artificial intelligence should align with the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. From this perspective, AI systems should not be designed or used to cause harm. === Instrumental and transcendental goals === Scholars Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma have argued that the advancement of artificial intelligence can only be considered instrumentally good, rather than good a priori, from a Buddhist perspective. They propose two main goals for AI designers and developers: to set ethical and pragmatic objectives for AI systems, and to fulfill these objectives in morally permissible ways. Promta and Himma identify two potential purposes for creating AI systems. The first is to fulfill our sensory desires and survival instincts, similar to other tools. They suggest that many AI developers implicitly prioritize this goal by focusing on technicalities rather than broader functionalities. The second, and more important goal according to Buddhist teachings, is to transcend these desires and instincts. In texts like the Brahmajāla Sutta and minor Malunkya Sutta, the Buddha emphasizes that sensory desires and survival instincts confine beings to suffering, and that eliminating suffering is the primary goal of human life. Promta and Himma argue that AI has the potential to assist humanity in transcending suffering by helping individuals overcome survival-driven instincts. === Intelligence as care === Thomas Doctor, Olaf Witkowski, Elizaveta Solomonova, Bill Duane, and Michael Levin propose redefining intelligence through the concept of "intelligence as care," and promote it as a slogan. Inspired by the Bodhisattva vow, they suggest this principle could guide AI system design. The Bodhisattva vow involves a formal commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings, with four primary objectives: Liberating all beings from suffering. Extirpating all forms of suffering. Mastering endless techniques of practicing Dharma (Pali: dhammakkhandha, Sanskrit: dharmaskandha). Achieving ultimate enlightenment (Sanskrit: अनुत्तर सम्यक् सम्बोधि, Romanized: anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi). This approach positions AI as a tool for exercising infinite care and alleviating stress and suffering for sentient beings. Doctor et al. emphasize that AI development should align with these altruistic principles.

  Read more →
• 

  Confidential computing

  Confidential computing is a security and privacy-enhancing computational technique focused on protecting data in use. Confidential computing can be used in conjunction with storage and network encryption, which protect data at rest and data in transit respectively. It is designed to address software, protocol, cryptographic, and basic physical and supply-chain attacks, although some critics have demonstrated architectural and side-channel attacks effective against the technology. The technology protects data in use by performing computations in a hardware-based trusted execution environment (TEE). Confidential data is released to the TEE only once it is assessed to be trustworthy. Different types of confidential computing define the level of data isolation used, whether virtual machine, application, or function, and the technology can be deployed in on-premise data centers, edge locations, or the public cloud. It is often compared with other privacy-enhancing computational techniques such as fully homomorphic encryption, secure multi-party computation, and Trusted Computing. Confidential computing is promoted by the Confidential Computing Consortium (CCC) industry group, whose membership includes major providers of the technology. == Properties == Trusted execution environments (TEEs) "prevent unauthorized access or modification of applications and data while they are in use, thereby increasing the security level of organizations that manage sensitive and regulated data". Trusted execution environments can be instantiated on a computer's processing components such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU). In their various implementations, TEEs can provide different levels of isolation including virtual machine, individual application, or compute functions. Typically, data in use in a computer's compute components and memory exists in a decrypted state and can be vulnerable to examination or tampering by unauthorized software or administrators. According to the CCC, confidential computing protects data in use through a minimum of three properties: Data confidentiality: "Unauthorized entities cannot view data while it is in use within the TEE". Data integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter data while it is in use within the TEE". Code integrity: "Unauthorized entities cannot add, remove, or alter code executing in the TEE". In addition to trusted execution environments, remote cryptographic attestation is an essential part of confidential computing. The attestation process assesses the trustworthiness of a system and helps ensure that confidential data is released to a TEE only after it presents verifiable evidence that it is genuine and operating with an acceptable security posture. It allows the verifying party to assess the trustworthiness of a confidential computing environment through an "authentic, accurate, and timely report about the software and data state" of that environment. "Hardware-based attestation schemes rely on a trusted hardware component and associated firmware to execute attestation routines in a secure environment". Without attestation, a compromised system could deceive others into trusting it, claim it is running certain software in a TEE, and potentially compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the data being processed or the integrity of the trusted code. == Technical approaches == Technical approaches to confidential computing may vary in which software, infrastructure and administrator elements are allowed to access confidential data. The "trust boundary," which circumscribes a trusted computing base (TCB), defines which elements have the potential to access confidential data, whether they are acting benignly or maliciously. Confidential computing implementations enforce the defined trust boundary at a specific level of data isolation. The three main types of confidential computing are: Virtual machine isolation Application isolation, also known as process isolation Function isolation, also known as library isolation Virtual machine isolation removes the elements controlled by the computer infrastructure or cloud provider, but allows potential data access by elements inside a virtual machine running on the infrastructure. Application or process isolation permits data access only by authorized software applications or processes. Function or library isolation is designed to permit data access only by authorized subroutines or modules within a larger application, blocking access by any other system element, including unauthorized code in the larger application. == Threat model == As confidential computing is concerned with the protection of data in use, only certain threat models can be addressed by this technique. Other types of attacks are better addressed by other privacy-enhancing technologies. === In scope === The following threat vectors are generally considered in scope for confidential computing: Software attacks: including attacks on the host’s software and firmware. This may include the operating system, hypervisor, BIOS, other software and workloads. Protocol attacks: including "attacks on protocols associated with attestation as well as workload and data transport". This includes vulnerabilities in the "provisioning or placement of the workload" or data that could cause a compromise. Cryptographic attacks: including "vulnerabilities found in ciphers and algorithms due to a number of factors, including mathematical breakthroughs, availability of computing power and new computing approaches such as quantum computing". The CCC notes several caveats in this threat vector, including relative difficulty of upgrading cryptographic algorithms in hardware and recommendations that software and firmware be kept up-to-date. A multi-faceted, defense-in-depth strategy is recommended as a best practice. Basic physical attacks: including cold boot attacks, bus and cache snooping and plugging attack devices into an existing port, such as a PCI Express slot or USB port. Basic upstream supply-chain attacks: including attacks that would compromise TEEs through changes such as added debugging ports. The degree and mechanism of protection against these threats varies with specific confidential computing implementations. === Out of scope === Threats generally defined as out of scope for confidential computing include: Sophisticated physical attacks: including physical attacks that "require long-term and/or invasive access to hardware" such as chip scraping techniques and electron microscope probes. Upstream hardware supply-chain attacks: including attacks on the CPU manufacturing process, CPU supply chain in key injection/generation during manufacture. Attacks on components of a host system that are not directly providing the capabilities of the trusted execution environment are also generally out-of-scope. Availability attacks: confidential computing is designed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of protected data and code. It does not address availability attacks such as Denial of Service or Distributed Denial of Service attacks. == Use cases == Confidential computing can be deployed in the public cloud, on-premise data centers, or distributed "edge" locations, including network nodes, branch offices, industrial systems and others. === Data privacy and security === Confidential computing protects the confidentiality and integrity of data and code from the infrastructure provider, unauthorized or malicious software and system administrators, and other cloud tenants, which may be a concern for organizations seeking control over sensitive or regulated data. The additional security capabilities offered by confidential computing can help accelerate the transition of more sensitive workloads to the cloud or edge locations. === Multi-party analytics === Confidential computing can enable multiple parties to engage in joint analysis using confidential or regulated data inside a TEE while preserving privacy and regulatory compliance. In this case, all parties benefit from the shared analysis, but no party's sensitive data or confidential code is exposed to the other parties or system host. Examples include multiple healthcare organizations contributing data to medical research, or multiple banks collaborating to identify financial fraud or money laundering. Oxford University researchers proposed the alternative paradigm called "Confidential Remote Computing" (CRC), which supports confidential operations in Trusted Execution Environments across endpoint computers considering multiple stakeholders as mutually distrustful data, algorithm and hardware providers. === Confidential generative AI === Confidential computing technologies can be applied to various stages of a generative AI deployments to help increase data or model privacy, security, and regulatory compliance. TEEs and remote attestation can protect the integrity of data during AI model training, keep

  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 →
• 

  Future of Life Institute

  The Future of Life Institute (FLI) is a nonprofit organization which aims to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks, with a focus on existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). FLI's work includes grantmaking, educational outreach, and advocacy within the United Nations, United States government, and European Union institutions. The founders of the Institute include MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, UCSC cosmologist Anthony Aguirre, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. == Purpose == FLI's stated mission is to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks. FLI's philosophy focuses on the potential risk to humanity from the development of human-level or superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but also works to mitigate risk from biotechnology, nuclear weapons and global warming. == History == === Founding === FLI was founded in March 2014 by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, DeepMind research scientist Viktoriya Krakovna, Tufts University postdoctoral scholar Meia Chita-Tegmark, and UCSC physicist Anthony Aguirre. === Activism === Starting in 2017, FLI has offered an annual "Future of Life Award", with the first awardee being Vasili Arkhipov. The same year, FLI released Slaughterbots, a short arms-control advocacy film. FLI released a sequel in 2021. In 2018, FLI drafted a letter calling for "laws against lethal autonomous weapons". Signatories included Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, and Mustafa Suleyman. In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper. In response, Tegmark said that the institute had only become aware of Nya Dagbladet's positions during due diligence processes a few months after the grant was initially offered, and that the grant had been immediately revoked. === Open letter on an AI pause === In March 2023, FLI published a letter titled "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter". This called on major AI developers to agree on a verifiable six-month pause of any systems "more powerful than GPT-4" and to use that time to institute a framework for ensuring safety; or, failing that, for governments to step in with a moratorium. The letter said: "recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no-one - not even their creators - can understand, predict, or reliably control". The letter referred to the possibility of "a profound change in the history of life on Earth" as well as potential risks of AI-generated propaganda, loss of jobs, human obsolescence, and society-wide loss of control. Prominent signatories of the letter included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Evan Sharp, Chris Larsen, and Gary Marcus; AI lab CEOs Connor Leahy and Emad Mostaque; politician Andrew Yang; deep-learning researcher Yoshua Bengio; and Yuval Noah Harari. Marcus stated "the letter isn't perfect, but the spirit is right." Mostaque stated, "I don't think a six month pause is the best idea or agree with everything but there are some interesting things in that letter." In contrast, Bengio explicitly endorsed the six-month pause in a press conference. Musk predicted that "Leading AGI developers will not heed this warning, but at least it was said." Some signatories, including Musk, said they were motivated by fears of existential risk from artificial general intelligence. Some of the other signatories, such as Marcus, instead said they signed out of concern about risks such as AI-generated propaganda. The authors of one of the papers cited in FLI's letter, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" including Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, and Margaret Mitchell, criticised the letter. Mitchell said that “by treating a lot of questionable ideas as a given, the letter asserts a set of priorities and a narrative on AI that benefits the supporters of FLI. Ignoring active harms right now is a privilege that some of us don’t have.” === Open letter on prohibiting superintelligence === In October 2025, another letter, the "Statement on Superintelligence", was published. It called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence not lifted before there is "broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably" and "strong public buy-in". FLI director Anthony Aguirre explained that "time is running out", expecting that the technology could arrive in as little as one to two years and counting on "widespread realization among society at all its levels" to stop it. He added that "whether it's soon or it takes a while, after we develop superintelligence, the machines are going to be in charge" and "that is not an experiment that we want to just run toward". The list of signatories included Nobel laureates Geoffrey Hinton, Daron Acemoglu, Beatrice Fihn, Frank Wilczek and John C. Mather as well as Hinton's fellow "godfather" of modern AI Yoshua Bengio, Steve Wozniak, Steve Bannon, Paolo Benanti, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The letter was also signed by the actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Stephen Fry, rapper Will.i.am and author Yuval Noah Harari. Former national security advisor Susan Rice, and OpenAI member of technical staff Leo Gao also signed their names to the letter. Polling released alongside the letter showed that 64% of American agreed that superintelligence "shouldn't be developed until it's provably safe and controllable" and only 5% believed it should be developed as quickly as possible. == Operations == === Advocacy === FLI has actively contributed to policymaking on AI. In October 2023, for example, U.S. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer invited FLI to share its perspective on AI regulation with selected senators. In Europe, FLI successfully advocated for the inclusion of more general AI systems, such as GPT-4, in the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act. In military policy, FLI coordinated the support of the scientific community for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. At the UN and elsewhere, the institute has also advocated for a treaty on autonomous weapons. === Research grants === The FLI research program started in 2015 with an initial donation of $10 million from Elon Musk. In this initial round, a total of $7 million was awarded to 37 research projects. In July 2021, FLI announced that it would launch a new $25 million grant program with funding from the Russian–Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin. === Conferences === In 2014, the Future of Life Institute held its opening event at MIT: a panel discussion on "The Future of Technology: Benefits and Risks", moderated by Alan Alda. The panelists were synthetic biologist George Church, geneticist Ting Wu, economist Andrew McAfee, physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. Since 2015, FLI has organised biannual conferences with the stated purpose of bringing together AI researchers from academia and industry. As of April 2023, the following conferences have taken place: "The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges" conference in Puerto Rico (2015). The stated goal was to identify promising research directions that could help maximize the future benefits of AI. At the conference, FLI circulated an open letter on AI safety which was subsequently signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and many artificial intelligence researchers. The Beneficial AI conference in Asilomar, California (2017), a private gathering of what The New York Times called "heavy hitters of A.I." (including Yann LeCun, Elon Musk, and Nick Bostrom). The institute released a set of principles for responsible AI development that came out of the discussion at the conference, signed by Yoshua Bengio, Yann LeCun, and many other AI researchers. These principles may have influenced the regulation of artificial intelligence and subsequent initiatives, such as the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. The beneficial AGI conference in Puerto Rico (2019). The stated focus of the meeting was answering long-term questions with the goal of ensuring that artificial general intelligence is beneficial to humanity. == In the media == "The Fight to Define When AI is 'High-Risk'" in Wired. "Lethal Autonomous Weapons exist; They Must Be Banned" in IEEE Spectrum. "United States and Allies Protest U.N. Talks to Ban Nuclear Weapons" in The New York Times. "Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat?" in The Chronicle of Higher Education, including interviews with FLI founders Max Tegmark, Jaan Tallinn and Viktoriya Krakovna. "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?", an interview with Max Tegmark on the ideas behind FLI in The Atlantic.

  Read more →
• 

  Versata

  Versata is a privately held software company, one of several business units under the ESW Capital umbrella. Versata acquires underperforming or financially struggling enterprise software companies, integrates them into their portfolio, and makes operational changes to improve the viability and performance of the companies. == History == === Early years (1991–2000) === This company was founded in 1991 with the name Image Innovations; Naren Bakshi was co-founder and president, Kevin Fletcher Tweedy was vice president of technology, and they sold a development tool set named Image Application WorkBench that worked with Plexus Software's imaging platform. In 1997, the company name changed to Vision Software. They sold a small suite of software: Vision Builder for accelerated coding; and Vision StoryBoard Pro for creating software documentation. In 1998, their flagship product was a Java development tool named Vision JADE. In January 2000, the company changed names again, this time to Versata, and their e-business automation system, Versata Logic Suite, had three components: Versata Logic Server to host business rules written in Java, Versata Studio for developing the business rules, and Versata Connectors for connecting the logic server to IBM database servers. === Public company (2000–2006) === They went public in March 2000 during the dot-com bubble, raising about $94 million and reaching a market capitalization of over $2.5 billion despite reporting just $13 million in revenue and a $21 million loss in the prior year. In November 2000, Versata expanded into the business workflow area with the acquisition of Verve, Inc. and its workflow management system by the same name. From early 2001 through mid-2003, Versata's revenues were in quarter-over-quarter decline until Alan Baratz took over as CEO. Five consecutive quarters of growth followed until early 2005, when revenues once again took a downward plunge. In mid-2005, the company was notified by NASDAQ that it no longer met NASDAQ's requirements for continued listing, related to maintenance of a minimum amount of shareholder's equity, market value, or net income. In July 2005, Versata was delisted from NASDAQ and publicly traded on the OTC (also known as the Pink Sheets). == Versata, a business unit of ESW Capital == In January 2006, Austin-based Trilogy, Inc. acquired the company and took it private. Trilogy then proceeded to merge portions of Trilogy, specifically, Trilogy Technology Group, into Versata and began acquiring further companies, reorganizing dramatically and offshoring most technical positions to its office in Bangalore, India. From 2006 to 2008, Versata continued to make acquisitions mostly in US. Most of the employees in the acquired companies were laid -off with the majority work being offshored to its India office in Bangalore. In early 2009, Versata made another major overhaul of its business model when it asked all its employees in India to work as contractors through oDesk for a gDev which is an entity incorporated by Trilogy to manage its outsourcing activities. The only employees left in Versata were the ones in US. == Acquisitions == a Corizon was acquired by Metatomix, while Metatomix was part of Versata. b Infopia was acquired by Everest Software, while Everest Software was part of Versata. c Symphony Commerce was acquired by Quantum Retail, while Quantum Retail was part of Versata. == Legal disputes == === Patent infringement and "poison pill" lawsuits with Selectica === The legal disputes with Selectica began in 2004 (before Trilogy acquired Versata in January 2006) and lasted until 2010. While there were many suits and counter-suits, they largely centered around three issues: 2004–2006: Patent infringement in configure, price, and quote (CPQ) software 2005–2007: Patent infringement in contract lifecycle management (CLM) software 2008–2010: The "poison pill" lawsuit In 2004, Selectica and Trilogy had competing CPQ software: Selectica sold Solutions Advisor and Deal Optimization, while Trilogy sold Selling Chain. In April of that year, Trilogy Software sued Selectica for patent infringement. In 2005, before the court ruling, Trilogy made several offers to buy Selectica, but the board rejected them. In January 2006, the court ordered Selectica to pay Trilogy $7.5 million in damages. Four days after the January 2006 judgment in the first lawsuit, Trilogy announced its acquisition of Versata for an undisclosed amount. In 2005, Selectica had acquired the Determine CLM software platform, which included features that overlapped with some offered by Versata. In October 2006, Versata filed a second patent infringement lawsuit. The case was settled in 2007, with Selectica agreeing to pay Trilogy and Versata $10 million, plus up to $7.5 million in additional contingent payments. In 2008, Versata began acquiring Selectica stock. By December, Selectica's board amended its shareholder rights plan to adopt a "poison pill" with an unusually low trigger threshold: if any shareholder acquired more than 4.99% of company stock, their ownership would be diluted. The board explained that the move was meant to protect Selectica's net operating losses (NOLs), which were tax-deductible if the company returned to profitability. Under IRS Section 382, a significant change in stock ownership could cause those NOLs to be disqualified. Versata intentionally triggered the poison pill and also offered to sell back the stocks at a profit (greenmailing them), which prompted a legal dispute over whether Selectica's board had the authority to set such a low threshold and whether defending NOLs justified triggering shareholder dilution. The case ultimately reached the Delaware Supreme Court, which upheld the poison pill in October 2010, ruling in favor of Selectica. === Intellectual property lawsuit over joint development with Sun Microsystems === In 1998, Sun Microsystems hired Trilogy to help Sun's developers in California create a software configurator (later named the WC5 Configurator) that Sun's customers could use to modify products they wanted to buy, customizing products to have the features they wanted. Trilogy worked on the WC5 Configurator for several years, then Sun transferred the work to Oracle to finish. Trilogy believed that they owned the copyright to the work they'd done for Sun, and in 2006 after the merger with Versata they sued Sun for more than $100 million in damages. In April 2009, a jury ruled in favor of Sun and rejected Versata's claims. === Patent lawsuit and ruling on patents of abstract ideas with SAP === SAP developed Pricing Engine, a component in their enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. It competed with an older Trilogy product called Pricer, which was part of Trilogy's Selling Chain platform in the mid-1990s before they merged with Versata. In April 2007—the year after Trilogy acquired Versata—Versata filed a lawsuit against SAP for patent infringement. In August 2009, the jury agreed with Versata and awarded them $139 million. The court granted a new trial on damages and in September 2011, in the retrial, the jury awarded Versata $345 million. This then went to the US Court of Appeals, which in May 2013 affirmed the $345 million damages award, plus interest that had accumulated. In October 2014, Versata and SAP settled their litigation for an undisclosed amount of money. With the dispute between Versata and SAP settled, in June 2013 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviewed the validity of the patent itself, and issued a decision in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, stating that the disputed items were abstract ideas and thus under the US patent law not patentable. In July 2015, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB's decision that the challenged items were not patentable. === Trade secrets and damages dispute with Internet Brands === Internet Brands was formerly known as CarsDirect and AutoData Solutions. Like Trilogy, they made software for automakers that helped customers compare vehicles online. In the late 1990s, Trilogy and Internet Brands tried to combine their products but failed to do so, and after a December 1999 lawsuit they made a settlement agreement in May 2001. In 2008, Versata sued Internet Brands claiming they had violated the settlement agreement by making presentations to potential clients stating they had a license from Versata to use and sell Versata technical solutions; and doing so had cost Versata business with Chrysler. Internet Brands' countersuit argued that Versata had misappropriated trade secrets and asked the jury to use Versata's business relationship with Toyota—including revenue from Toyota contracts—as a benchmark to calculate damages. The jury agreed and used that data to determine a $2 million damages award in favor of Internet Brands’ subsidiary, AutoData Solutions. Versata appealed the decision, and in January 2014 the court upheld the $2 million award to Internet Brands. === Patent challenges a

  Read more →
• 

  Toolchain

  A toolchain is a set of software development tools used to build and otherwise develop software. Often, the tools are executed sequentially and form a pipeline such that the output of one tool is the input for the next. Sometimes the term is used for a set of related tools that are not necessarily executed sequentially. A relatively common and simple toolchain consists of the tools to build for a particular operating system (OS) and CPU architecture: a compiler, a linker, and a debugger. With a cross-compiler, a toolchain can support cross-platform development. For building more complex software systems, many other tools may be in the toolchain. For example, for a video game, the toolchain may include tools for preparing sound effects, music, textures, 3-dimensional models and animations, and for combining these resources into the finished product.

  Read more →
• 

  Protégé (software)

  Protégé is a free, open source ontology editor and a knowledge management system. The Protégé meta-tool was first built by Mark Musen in 1987 and has since been developed by a team at Stanford University. The software is the most popular and widely used ontology editor in the world. == Overview == Protégé provides a graphical user interface to define ontologies. It also includes deductive classifiers to validate that models are consistent and to infer new information based on the analysis of an ontology. Like Eclipse, Protégé is a framework for which various other projects suggest plugins. This application is written in Java and makes heavy use of Swing to create the user interface. According to their website, there are over 300,000 registered users. A 2009 book calls it "the leading ontological engineering tool". Protégé is developed at Stanford University and is made available under the BSD 2-clause license. Earlier versions of the tool were developed in collaboration with the University of Manchester.

  Read more →
• 

  Future of Life Institute

  The Future of Life Institute (FLI) is a nonprofit organization which aims to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks, with a focus on existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). FLI's work includes grantmaking, educational outreach, and advocacy within the United Nations, United States government, and European Union institutions. The founders of the Institute include MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, UCSC cosmologist Anthony Aguirre, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. == Purpose == FLI's stated mission is to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks. FLI's philosophy focuses on the potential risk to humanity from the development of human-level or superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but also works to mitigate risk from biotechnology, nuclear weapons and global warming. == History == === Founding === FLI was founded in March 2014 by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, DeepMind research scientist Viktoriya Krakovna, Tufts University postdoctoral scholar Meia Chita-Tegmark, and UCSC physicist Anthony Aguirre. === Activism === Starting in 2017, FLI has offered an annual "Future of Life Award", with the first awardee being Vasili Arkhipov. The same year, FLI released Slaughterbots, a short arms-control advocacy film. FLI released a sequel in 2021. In 2018, FLI drafted a letter calling for "laws against lethal autonomous weapons". Signatories included Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, and Mustafa Suleyman. In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper. In response, Tegmark said that the institute had only become aware of Nya Dagbladet's positions during due diligence processes a few months after the grant was initially offered, and that the grant had been immediately revoked. === Open letter on an AI pause === In March 2023, FLI published a letter titled "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter". This called on major AI developers to agree on a verifiable six-month pause of any systems "more powerful than GPT-4" and to use that time to institute a framework for ensuring safety; or, failing that, for governments to step in with a moratorium. The letter said: "recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no-one - not even their creators - can understand, predict, or reliably control". The letter referred to the possibility of "a profound change in the history of life on Earth" as well as potential risks of AI-generated propaganda, loss of jobs, human obsolescence, and society-wide loss of control. Prominent signatories of the letter included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Evan Sharp, Chris Larsen, and Gary Marcus; AI lab CEOs Connor Leahy and Emad Mostaque; politician Andrew Yang; deep-learning researcher Yoshua Bengio; and Yuval Noah Harari. Marcus stated "the letter isn't perfect, but the spirit is right." Mostaque stated, "I don't think a six month pause is the best idea or agree with everything but there are some interesting things in that letter." In contrast, Bengio explicitly endorsed the six-month pause in a press conference. Musk predicted that "Leading AGI developers will not heed this warning, but at least it was said." Some signatories, including Musk, said they were motivated by fears of existential risk from artificial general intelligence. Some of the other signatories, such as Marcus, instead said they signed out of concern about risks such as AI-generated propaganda. The authors of one of the papers cited in FLI's letter, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" including Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, and Margaret Mitchell, criticised the letter. Mitchell said that “by treating a lot of questionable ideas as a given, the letter asserts a set of priorities and a narrative on AI that benefits the supporters of FLI. Ignoring active harms right now is a privilege that some of us don’t have.” === Open letter on prohibiting superintelligence === In October 2025, another letter, the "Statement on Superintelligence", was published. It called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence not lifted before there is "broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably" and "strong public buy-in". FLI director Anthony Aguirre explained that "time is running out", expecting that the technology could arrive in as little as one to two years and counting on "widespread realization among society at all its levels" to stop it. He added that "whether it's soon or it takes a while, after we develop superintelligence, the machines are going to be in charge" and "that is not an experiment that we want to just run toward". The list of signatories included Nobel laureates Geoffrey Hinton, Daron Acemoglu, Beatrice Fihn, Frank Wilczek and John C. Mather as well as Hinton's fellow "godfather" of modern AI Yoshua Bengio, Steve Wozniak, Steve Bannon, Paolo Benanti, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The letter was also signed by the actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Stephen Fry, rapper Will.i.am and author Yuval Noah Harari. Former national security advisor Susan Rice, and OpenAI member of technical staff Leo Gao also signed their names to the letter. Polling released alongside the letter showed that 64% of American agreed that superintelligence "shouldn't be developed until it's provably safe and controllable" and only 5% believed it should be developed as quickly as possible. == Operations == === Advocacy === FLI has actively contributed to policymaking on AI. In October 2023, for example, U.S. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer invited FLI to share its perspective on AI regulation with selected senators. In Europe, FLI successfully advocated for the inclusion of more general AI systems, such as GPT-4, in the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act. In military policy, FLI coordinated the support of the scientific community for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. At the UN and elsewhere, the institute has also advocated for a treaty on autonomous weapons. === Research grants === The FLI research program started in 2015 with an initial donation of $10 million from Elon Musk. In this initial round, a total of $7 million was awarded to 37 research projects. In July 2021, FLI announced that it would launch a new $25 million grant program with funding from the Russian–Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin. === Conferences === In 2014, the Future of Life Institute held its opening event at MIT: a panel discussion on "The Future of Technology: Benefits and Risks", moderated by Alan Alda. The panelists were synthetic biologist George Church, geneticist Ting Wu, economist Andrew McAfee, physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. Since 2015, FLI has organised biannual conferences with the stated purpose of bringing together AI researchers from academia and industry. As of April 2023, the following conferences have taken place: "The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges" conference in Puerto Rico (2015). The stated goal was to identify promising research directions that could help maximize the future benefits of AI. At the conference, FLI circulated an open letter on AI safety which was subsequently signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and many artificial intelligence researchers. The Beneficial AI conference in Asilomar, California (2017), a private gathering of what The New York Times called "heavy hitters of A.I." (including Yann LeCun, Elon Musk, and Nick Bostrom). The institute released a set of principles for responsible AI development that came out of the discussion at the conference, signed by Yoshua Bengio, Yann LeCun, and many other AI researchers. These principles may have influenced the regulation of artificial intelligence and subsequent initiatives, such as the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. The beneficial AGI conference in Puerto Rico (2019). The stated focus of the meeting was answering long-term questions with the goal of ensuring that artificial general intelligence is beneficial to humanity. == In the media == "The Fight to Define When AI is 'High-Risk'" in Wired. "Lethal Autonomous Weapons exist; They Must Be Banned" in IEEE Spectrum. "United States and Allies Protest U.N. Talks to Ban Nuclear Weapons" in The New York Times. "Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat?" in The Chronicle of Higher Education, including interviews with FLI founders Max Tegmark, Jaan Tallinn and Viktoriya Krakovna. "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?", an interview with Max Tegmark on the ideas behind FLI in The Atlantic.

  Read more →