AI Apps Like Chat Gpt

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

• 

  GoodRx

  GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is an American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform and free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications. GoodRx compares prescription drug prices at more than 75,000 pharmacies in the United States. The platform allows users to consult a doctor online and obtain a prescription for certain types of medications. == History == === Financial performance === GoodRx was founded in Santa Monica, California in 2011. GoodRx experienced substantial growth in net income in 2017 ($9 million), 2018 ($44 million), and 2019 ($66 million), but recorded a loss of $293.6 million in 2020 due to IPO-related expenses. In September 2020, GoodRx went public on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol GDRX. The company priced its initial public offering at $33 per share, above the expected range of $24 to $28, raising more than $1.1 billion at an initial valuation of approximately $12.7 billion. In the first half of 2020, the company reported revenues of $257 million and net income of $55 million. GoodRx generated $745.4 million in revenue for the full year 2021, a 35.36% increase over 2020. During the first half of 2021, the company’s share price declined by 10.7%. The decline was attributed to increased competition in online pharmacy services and slower user growth. GoodRx reported full-year revenue of $766.6 million, with adjusted EBITDA reaching $213.5 million, exceeding guidance in the fourth quarter. GoodRx reported that 41% of prescriptions filled using its coupons were newly adherent, meaning they would not have been filled without the service. GoodRx reported a full-year 2023 revenue of $750.3 million, a decrease of 2.1% from 2022. However, its fourth-quarter revenue increased by 7% year-over-year. GoodRx achieved an Adjusted EBITDA of $217.4 million for the year and an Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 28.6%. In 2024, GoodRx achieved 6% revenue growth with $792.3 million for the full year and turned a net loss into a positive net income of $16.4 million. The company also demonstrated strong operational efficiency, with a 32.8% increase in full-year Adjusted EBITDA. In Q2 2025, GoodRx reported revenue of $203.1 million, a 1.2% increase from the previous year, and a net income of $12.8 million, a significant 92% jump, which resulted in a 6.3% net income margin. However, prescription transaction revenue declined by 3% due to a decrease in monthly active consumers, but this was offset by strong 32% growth in its Pharma Manufacturer Solutions business. GoodRx also saw a 7% decrease in subscription revenue. === Mergers and acquisitions === In 2019, GoodRx acquired HeyDoctor, a telemedicine company, to integrate virtual healthcare services into the platform. In 2021, a health video content producer, HealthiNation was acquired by GoodRx, which helped provide consumers with health information and offered pharmaceutical manufacturers new ways to reach relevant audiences. In April 2022, GoodRx acquired VitaCare Prescription Services from TherapeuticsMD to strengthen its pharma manufacturer solutions business. === Partnerships === In 2017, the company announced partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies to negotiate lower prescription drug costs. GoodRx has deep relationships with major pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, Walmart, CVS Caremark, and Publix, to allow customers to use GoodRx discounts and Gold benefits. GoodRx began its partnership with CVS Caremark in July 2023 to automatically apply coupons to insured CVS customers purchasing generic prescriptions at certain locations. In April 2024, GoodRx added Publix into its network, allowing GoodRx Gold members to use their cards at Publix Pharmacies. GoodRx partners with Pharmacy Benefit Management like Caremark, Express Scripts, and MedImpact to apply their savings directly to eligible insurance plans and members. GoodRx partners with companies like Affirm, Benefitfocus, and DoorDash to integrate their services that offer members discounts and financial flexibility for prescriptions. GoodRx also partners with organizations like the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation to support broader access to care. In October 2022, GoodRx launched Provider Mode, which allows healthcare providers to use the app to compare costs of drugs for patients based on different payment methods and drug alternatives. In 2025, GoodRx partnered with Novo Nordisk to offer discounted cash-pay access to semaglutide products like Ozempic and Wegovy through its platform and participating pharmacies. == Products and services == GoodRx started its telemedicine service GoodRx Care in September 2019. It lets people talk to a licensed provider online for common issues and get prescriptions even if they don't have insurance. They also run condition-specific subscription plans that bundle online doctor visits, FDA-approved meds, and home delivery into one monthly payment. On the weight management side, GoodRx offers prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide through their telemedicine platform. This got a boost when the oral version of Wegovy became widely available in the US in early 2026. GoodRx works with drug makers like Novo Nordisk to make some medications (including semaglutide options) more affordable for people paying cash. The telemedicine part took off after GoodRx bought HeyDoctor in 2019 and brought their virtual care tools into the main platform. == Key people == The Santa Monica-based startup was founded in September 2011 by Trevor Bezdek and former Facebook executives Doug Hirsch and Scott Marlette. Marlette was one of the first 20 employees at Facebook and built Facebook's photo application. In 2005, Hirsch was the Vice President of Product at Facebook, working closely with Mark Zuckerberg. Bezdek and Hirsch served as co-chief executive officers until April 2023, when they stepped down from those roles and technology executive Scott Wagner was appointed interim chief executive officer. Bezdek became chair of the board, while Hirsch took on the role of chief mission officer. In December 2024, GoodRx announced that healthcare executive Wendy Barnes would become president and chief executive officer effective January 1, 2025. As of 2025, Barnes serves as the company’s CEO, while Trevor Bezdek and Scott Wagner serve as co-chairs of the board, and Doug Hirsch remains involved as a co-founder and senior executive. == Controversy == On February 25, 2020, Consumer Reports published an article stating that GoodRx shared user data—specifically, pseudonymized advertising ID numbers that companies use to track the behavior of web users across websites, the names of the drugs that users browsed, and the pharmacies where users sought to fill prescriptions—with Google, Facebook, and around twenty other Internet-based companies. A few days later, GoodRx released a statement saying that it had made changes to prevent user search data on medical conditions and pharmaceuticals from being shared with Facebook. In March 2020, GoodRx stopped sending data about user prescriptions to Facebook. On February 1, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission fined GoodRx US$1.5 million for violations of the Breach Notification Rule and the Federal Trade Commission Act for allegedly failing to obtain specific, informed, and unambiguous consent from users before disclosing health-related information to Facebook and Google. In November 2024, independent pharmacies filed at least three class action lawsuits against GoodRx and major pharmacy benefit managers. The cases, brought by independent pharmacies in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, allege that GoodRx and the PBMs collaborated to suppress reimbursements for generic prescription drugs. They allege that agreements using GoodRx’s software suppressed reimbursements for generic drugs and violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The suits claim the practices amount to price fixing which harms small pharmacies while benefiting PBMs and their affiliates. GoodRx settled both the 2023 FTC action and the 2025 class action lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.

  Read more →
• 

  List of large language models

  A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===

  Read more →
• 

  You Only Look Once

  You Only Look Once (YOLO) is a series of real-time object detection systems based on convolutional neural networks. First introduced by Joseph Redmon et al. in 2015, YOLO has undergone several iterations and improvements, becoming one of the most popular object detection frameworks. The name "You Only Look Once" refers to the fact that the algorithm requires only one forward propagation pass through the neural network to make predictions, unlike previous region proposal-based techniques like R-CNN that require thousands for a single image. == Overview == Compared to previous methods like R-CNN and OverFeat, instead of applying the model to an image at multiple locations and scales, YOLO applies a single neural network to the full image. This network divides the image into regions and predicts bounding boxes and probabilities for each region. These bounding boxes are weighted by the predicted probabilities. === OverFeat === OverFeat was an early influential model for simultaneous object classification and localization. Its architecture is as follows: Train a neural network for image classification only ("classification-trained network"). This could be one like the AlexNet. The last layer of the trained network is removed, and for every possible object class, initialize a network module at the last layer ("regression network"). The base network has its parameters frozen. The regression network is trained to predict the ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} coordinates of two corners of the object's bounding box. During inference time, the classification-trained network is run over the same image over many different zoom levels and croppings. For each, it outputs a class label and a probability for that class label. Each output is then processed by the regression network of the corresponding class. This results in thousands of bounding boxes with class labels and probability. These boxes are merged until only one single box with a single class label remains. == Versions == There are two parts to the YOLO series. The original part contained YOLOv1, v2, and v3, all released on a website maintained by Joseph Redmon. === YOLOv1 === The original YOLO algorithm, introduced in 2015, divides the image into an S × S {\displaystyle S\times S} grid of cells. If the center of an object's bounding box falls into a grid cell, that cell is said to "contain" that object. Each grid cell predicts B bounding boxes and confidence scores for those boxes. These confidence scores reflect how confident the model is that the box contains an object and how accurate it thinks the box is that it predicts. In more detail, the network performs the same convolutional operation over each of the S 2 {\displaystyle S^{2}} patches. The output of the network on each patch is a tuple as follows: ( p 1 , … , p C , c 1 , x 1 , y 1 , w 1 , h 1 , … , c B , x B , y B , w B , h B ) {\displaystyle (p_{1},\dots ,p_{C},c_{1},x_{1},y_{1},w_{1},h_{1},\dots ,c_{B},x_{B},y_{B},w_{B},h_{B})} where p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is the conditional probability that the cell contains an object of class i {\displaystyle i} , conditional on the cell containing at least one object. x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are the center coordinates, width, and height of the j {\displaystyle j} -th predicted bounding box that is centered in the cell. Multiple bounding boxes are predicted to allow each prediction to specialize in one kind of bounding box. For example, slender objects might be predicted by j = 2 {\displaystyle j=2} while stout objects might be predicted by j = 1 {\displaystyle j=1} . c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} is the predicted intersection over union (IoU) of each bounding box with its corresponding ground truth. The network architecture has 24 convolutional layers followed by 2 fully connected layers. During training, for each cell, if it contains a ground truth bounding box, then only the predicted bounding boxes with the highest IoU with the ground truth bounding boxes is used for gradient descent. Concretely, let j {\displaystyle j} be that predicted bounding box, and let i {\displaystyle i} be the ground truth class label, then x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are trained by gradient descent to approach the ground truth, p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is trained towards 1 {\displaystyle 1} , other p i ′ {\displaystyle p_{i'}} are trained towards zero. If a cell contains no ground truth, then only c 1 , c 2 , … , c B {\displaystyle c_{1},c_{2},\dots ,c_{B}} are trained by gradient descent to approach zero. === YOLOv2 === Released in 2016, YOLOv2 (also known as YOLO9000) improved upon the original model by incorporating batch normalization, a higher resolution classifier, and using anchor boxes to predict bounding boxes. It could detect over 9000 object categories. It was also released on GitHub under the Apache 2.0 license. === YOLOv3 === YOLOv3, introduced in 2018, contained only "incremental" improvements, including the use of a more complex backbone network, multiple scales for detection, and a more sophisticated loss function. === YOLOv4 and beyond === Subsequent versions of YOLO (v4, v5, etc.) have been developed by different researchers, further improving performance and introducing new features. These versions are not officially associated with the original YOLO authors but build upon their work. As of 2026, versions up to YOLO26 have been released..

  Read more →
• 

  Ogle app

  Ogle is a free smartphone based social media application. It is available for iOS and Android. Ogle acts like a school wide forum that lets users and users' classmates share and interact. Users can share photos, videos, questions, even thoughts and watch submissions grow in popularity as other users vote and comment on them. == App Features == Campus Feed: Interact by watching and posting videos or pictures to your campus story. Photos and Videos: share what you want with many different timing options. Interact: Chat with friends and groups, or share a moment for all to see. Real-name system: choose to register an account with username and profile picture. Custom Stickers: Create stickers to add creativity and zest to your pictures. Flash Interaction: All private chat and group chat history will be deleted after 24 hours on Ogle Chat. == Controversies == Users can post anything on Ogle using text, photos, and videos. As a result, some Ogle user's sense of anonymity, posts have targeted specific schools and students with abusive and hurtful content. The Ogle app's user anonymity makes it difficult for school officials to quickly investigate issues that occur within the Ogle app. On March 28, 2016, three people were arrested after violent threats were made against an Anaheim high school. 18-year-old Miguel Meza was arrested Sunday afternoon during a traffic stop, along with his passenger, 23-year-old Johnny Aguilar. Police said both men had loaded handguns. Aguilar was also accused of violating his probation. "It is concerning the fact that they did have firearms, but we don't have a crystal ball. We can't determine if they possessed those firearms to engage in some kind of school violence or if they had it for another reason," Sgt. Daron Wyatt with the Anaheim Police Department said. Officials said Meza and Aguilar have known gang ties and detectives began investigating Meza after threats were made against the school on Ogle. On February 29, 2016, Santa Cruz County sheriff's deputies arrested a 16-year-old Aptos High School student Friday, accused of making an online threat of gun violence at Aptos High and Monte Vista Christian."He basically told detectives that it was all a joke. It's not a joke. You have multiple resources being spent to investigate these cases," said Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Sgt. Roy Morales. The schools remained open throughout the week, with a huge police presence on campus. In an anonymous emailed statement to the Daily Pilot on Thursday, the "Ogle team" said: "We are aware of the concern, and cyberbullying is absolutely NOT our intention for the app. Our goal for this app is to create a free and safe community space for students, for a better communication. We are currently working around the clock to improve the app. As a matter of fact, we are also in contact with local police departments, anti-bullying organizations and local high schools to try to help the students." In response to these incidents, Ogle expressed that they takes the safety of its users seriously and does not condone any type of behavior that is illegal or in violation of its content policies. The company also said it has instituted a content moderation team to increase review and identify and remove inappropriate content, and take action against “those who violate our community guidelines.”

  Read more →
• 

  ClearForest

  ClearForest was an Israeli software company that developed and marketed text analytics and text mining solutions. == History == Founded in 1998, ClearForest had its headquarters just outside Boston and a development center in Or Yehuda. The company was acquired by Reuters in April, 2007. It now markets its services under the names Calais, OpenCalais, and OneCalais. ClearForest was previously venture-backed; its last funding round was led by Greylock Ventures and closed in 2005. Other investors included DB Capital Partners, Pitango, Walden Israel, Booz Allen, JP Morgan Partners and HarbourVest Partners. On February 7, 2008 Reuters announced the launch of Open Calais, a named-entity recognition and semantic analysis service that uses ClearForest technology. On April 30, 2007, Reuters announced that it would acquire ClearForest. Sources estimate the acquisition to be for $25 Million. == Solutions and products == ClearForest offers several hosted solutions, including: OpenCalais, a free web service and open API (for commercial and non-commercial use) that performs named-entity recognition and enables automatic metadata generation using the ClearForest financial module. Semantic Web Services (SWS), an on-demand service that makes ClearForest's natural language processing tools available as a standard web service. A subset of ClearForest's capabilities is available via SWS at no cost. Gnosis, a free Firefox extension that uses SWS to analyze the content of a web page. Gnosis identifies named entities such as people, companies, organizations, geographies and products on the page being viewed. Gnosis also automatically processes pages from Wikipedia, providing additional links for people, geographies and other entities which were not explicitly linked within the subject article. Harvest, a real-time machine-readable news service that uses SWS to process a company's news and document feeds and return machine-readable information about people, companies, locations and over 200 other entities facts and events. ClearForest also offers Text Analytics solutions targeted at specific business problems, including: Equity valuation for hedge funds and alternative investments firms Metadata & database creation for publishers and information providers/services Tapping "voice of customer" for market and survey research firms Quality Early Warning for vehicle, capital equipment & durable goods manufacturers

  Read more →
• 

  Brill tagger

  The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.

  Read more →
• 

  Aggregation (linguistics)

  In linguistics, aggregation is a subtask of natural language generation, which involves merging syntactic constituents (such as sentences and phrases) together. Sometimes aggregation can be done at a conceptual level. == Examples == A simple example of syntactic aggregation is merging the two sentences John went to the shop and John bought an apple into the single sentence John went to the shop and bought an apple. Syntactic aggregation can be much more complex than this. For example, aggregation can embed one of the constituents in the other; e.g., we can aggregate John went to the shop and The shop was closed into the sentence John went to the shop, which was closed. From a pragmatic perspective, aggregating sentences together often suggests to the reader that these sentences are related to each other. If this is not the case, the reader may be confused. For example, someone who reads John went to the shop and bought an apple may infer that the apple was bought in the shop; if this is not the case, then these sentences should not be aggregated. == Algorithms and issues == Aggregation algorithms must do two things: Decide when two constituents should be aggregated Decide how two constituents should be aggregated, and create the aggregated structure The first issue, deciding when to aggregate, is poorly understood. Aggegration decisions certainly depend on the semantic relations between the constituents, as mentioned above; they also depend on the genre (e.g., bureaucratic texts tend to be more aggregated than instruction manuals). They probably should depend on rhetorical and discourse structure. The literacy level of the reader is also probably important (poor readers need shorter sentences). But we have no integrated model which brings all these factors together into a single algorithm. With regard to the second issue, there have been some studies of different types of aggregation, and how they should be carried out. Harbusch and Kempen describe several syntactic aggregation strategies. In their terminology, John went to the shop and bought an apple is an example of forward conjunction Reduction Much less is known about conceptual aggregation. Di Eugenio et al. show how conceptual aggregation can be done in an intelligent tutoring system, and demonstrate that performing such aggregation makes the system more effective (and that conceptual aggregation make a bigger impact than syntactic aggregation). == Software == Unfortunately there is not much software available for performing aggregation. However the SimpleNLG system does include limited support for basic aggregation. For example, the following code causes SimpleNLG to print out The man is hungry and buys an apple.

  Read more →
• 

  Albert One

  Albert One is an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Robby Garner and designed to mimic the way humans make conversations using a multi-faceted approach in natural language programming. == History == In both 1998 and 1999, Albert One won the Loebner Prize Contest, a competition between chatterbots. Some parts of Albert were deployed on the internet beginning in 1995, to gather information about what kinds of things people would say to a chatterbot. Another element of Albert One involved the building of a large database of human statements, and associated replies. This portion of the project was tested at the 1994-1997 Loebner Prize contests. Albert was the first of Robby Garner's multifaceted bots. The Albert One system was composed of several subsystems. Among those were a version of Eliza, the therapist, Elivs, another Eliza-like bot, and several other helper applications working together in a hierarchical arrangement. As a continuation of the stimulus-response library, various other database queries and assertions were tested to arrive at each of Albert's responses. Robby went on to develop networked examples of this kind of hierarchical "glue" at The Turing Hub.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial consciousness

  Artificial consciousness, also known as machine consciousness, synthetic consciousness, or digital consciousness, is consciousness hypothesized to be possible for artificial intelligence. It is also the corresponding field of study, which draws insights from philosophy of mind, philosophy of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and neuroscience. The term "sentience" can be used when specifically designating ethical considerations stemming from a form of phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, or the ability to feel qualia). Since sentience involves the ability to experience ethically positive or negative (i.e., valenced) mental states, it may justify welfare concerns and legal protection, as with non-human animals. Some scholars believe that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain; these mechanisms are labeled the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Some further believe that constructing a system (e.g., a computer system) that can emulate this NCC interoperation would result in a system that is conscious. Some scholars reject the possibility of non-biological conscious beings. == Philosophical views == As there are many hypothesized types of consciousness, there are many potential implementations of artificial consciousness. In the philosophical literature, perhaps the most common taxonomy of consciousness is into "access" and "phenomenal" variants. Access consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that can be apprehended, while phenomenal consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that seemingly cannot be apprehended, instead being characterized qualitatively in terms of "raw feels", "what it is like" or qualia. === Plausibility debate === Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can be realized only in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution. In his 2001 article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility," Giorgio Buttazzo says that a common objection to artificial consciousness is that, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, unreprogrammation (which means can 'no longer be reprogrammed', from rethinking), emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components." For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness. ==== Thought experiments ==== David Chalmers proposed two thought experiments intending to demonstrate that "functionally isomorphic" systems (those with the same "fine-grained functional organization", i.e., the same information processing) will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are based on biological neurons or digital hardware. The "fading qualia" is a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment. It involves replacing, one by one, the neurons of a brain with a functionally identical component, for example based on a silicon chip. Chalmers makes the hypothesis, knowing it in advance to be absurd, that "the qualia fade or disappear" when neurons are replaced one-by-one with identical silicon equivalents. Since the original neurons and their silicon counterparts are functionally identical, the brain's information processing should remain unchanged, and the subject's behaviour and introspective reports would stay exactly the same. Chalmers argues that this leads to an absurd conclusion: the subject would continue to report normal conscious experiences even as their actual qualia fade away. He concludes that the subject's qualia actually don't fade, and that the resulting robotic brain, once every neuron is replaced, would remain just as sentient as the original biological brain. Similarly, the "dancing qualia" thought experiment is another reductio ad absurdum argument. It supposes that two functionally isomorphic systems could have different perceptions (for instance, seeing the same object in different colors, like red and blue). It involves a switch that alternates between a chunk of brain that causes the perception of red, and a functionally isomorphic silicon chip, that causes the perception of blue. Since both perform the same function within the brain, the subject would not notice any change during the switch. Chalmers argues that this would be highly implausible if the qualia were truly switching between red and blue, hence the contradiction. Therefore, he concludes that the equivalent digital system would not only experience qualia, but it would perceive the same qualia as the biological system (e.g., seeing the same color). Greg Egan's short story Learning To Be Me (mentioned in §In fiction), illustrates how undetectable duplication of the brain and its functionality could be from a first-person perspective. Critics object that Chalmers' proposal begs the question in assuming that all mental properties and external connections are already sufficiently captured by abstract causal organization. Van Heuveln et al. argue that the dancing qualia argument contains an equivocation fallacy, conflating a "change in experience" between two systems with an "experience of change" within a single system. Mogensen argues that the fading qualia argument can be resisted by appealing to vagueness at the boundaries of consciousness and the holistic structure of conscious neural activity, which suggests consciousness may require specific biological substrates rather than being substrate-independent. Anil Seth argues that the complexity of brain neurons intrinsically matters in addition to their function and that it is not possible to replace any part of the brain with a perfect silicon equivalent. He points out that some of biological neurons exhibit activity aimed at cleaning up metabolic waste products, and writes that a perfect silicon replacement would require a silicon-based metabolism, but silicon is not suitable for creating such artificial metabolism. ==== In large language models ==== In 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made a viral claim that Google's LaMDA chatbot was sentient. Lemoine supplied as evidence the chatbot's humanlike answers to many of his questions; however, the chatbot's behavior was judged by the scientific community as likely a consequence of mimicry, rather than machine sentience. Lemoine's claim was widely derided for being ridiculous. Moreover, attributing consciousness based solely on the basis of LLM outputs or the immersive experience created by an algorithm is considered a fallacy. However, while philosopher Nick Bostrom states that LaMDA is unlikely to be conscious, he additionally poses the question of "what grounds would a person have for being sure about it?" One would have to have access to unpublished information about LaMDA's architecture, and also would have to understand how consciousness works, and then figure out how to map the philosophy onto the machine: "(In the absence of these steps), it seems like one should be maybe a little bit uncertain. [...] there could well be other systems now, or in the relatively near future, that would start to satisfy the criteria." David Chalmers argued in 2023 that LLMs today display impressive conversational and general intelligence abilities, but are likely not conscious yet, as they lack some features that may be necessary, such as recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. Nonetheless, he considers that non-biological systems can be conscious, and suggested that future, extended models (LLM+s) incorporating these elements might eventually meet the criteria for consciousness, raising both profound scientific questions and significant ethical challenges. However, the view that consciousness can exist without biological phenomena is controversial and some reject it. Kristina Šekrst cautions that anthropomorphic terms such as "hallucination" can obscure important ontological differences between artificial and human cognition. While LLMs may produce human-like outputs, she argues that it does not justify ascribing mental states or consciousness to them. Instead, she advocates for an epistemological framework (such as reliabilism) that recognizes the distinct nature of AI knowledge production. She suggests that apparent understanding in LLMs may be a sophisticated form of AI hallucination. She also questions what would happen if an LLM were trained without any mention of consciousness. === Testing === Sentience is an inherently first-person phenomenon. Because of that, and due to the lack of an empirical definition of sentience, directly measuring it may be impossible. Although systems may display numerous behaviors correlated with sentience, determining whether a system is sentient is known as the hard pr

  Read more →
• 

  Chinchilla (language model)

  Chinchilla is a family of large language models (LLMs) developed by the research team at Google DeepMind, presented in March 2022. == Models == It is named "chinchilla" because it is a further development over a previous model family named Gopher. Both model families were trained in order to investigate the scaling laws of large language models. It claimed to outperform GPT-3. It considerably simplifies downstream utilization because it requires much less computer power for inference and fine-tuning. Based on the training of previously employed language models, it has been determined that if one doubles the model size, one must also have twice the number of training tokens. This hypothesis has been used to train Chinchilla by DeepMind. Similar to Gopher in terms of cost, Chinchilla has 70B parameters and four times as much data. Chinchilla has an average accuracy of 67.5% on the Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, which is 7% higher than Gopher's performance. Chinchilla was still in the testing phase as of January 12, 2023. Chinchilla contributes to developing an effective training paradigm for large autoregressive language models with limited compute resources. The Chinchilla team recommends that the number of training tokens is twice for every model size doubling, meaning that using larger, higher-quality training datasets can lead to better results on downstream tasks. It has been used for the Flamingo vision-language model. == Architecture == Both the Gopher family and Chinchilla family are families of transformer models. In particular, they are essentially the same as GPT-2, with different sizes and minor modifications. Gopher family uses RMSNorm instead of LayerNorm; relative positional encoding rather than absolute positional encoding. The Chinchilla family is the same as the Gopher family, but trained with AdamW instead of Adam optimizer. The Gopher family contains six models of increasing size, from 44 million parameters to 280 billion parameters. They refer to the largest one as "Gopher" by default. Similar naming conventions apply for the Chinchilla family. Table 1 of shows the entire Gopher family: Table 4 of compares the 70-billion-parameter Chinchilla with Gopher 280B.

  Read more →
• 

  Image analysis

  Image analysis or imagery analysis is the extraction of meaningful information from images; mainly from digital images by means of digital image processing techniques. Image analysis tasks can be as simple as reading bar coded tags or as sophisticated as identifying a person from their face. Computers are indispensable for the analysis of large amounts of data, for tasks that require complex computation, or for the extraction of quantitative information. On the other hand, the human visual cortex is an excellent image analysis apparatus, especially for extracting higher-level information, and for many applications — including medicine, security, and remote sensing — human analysts still cannot be replaced by computers. For this reason, many important image analysis tools such as edge detectors and neural networks are inspired by human visual perception models. == Digital == Digital Image Analysis or Computer Image Analysis is when a computer or electrical device automatically studies an image to obtain useful information from it. Note that the device is often a computer but may also be an electrical circuit, a digital camera or a mobile phone. It involves the fields of computer or machine vision, and medical imaging, and makes heavy use of pattern recognition, digital geometry, and signal processing. This field of computer science developed in the 1950s at academic institutions such as the MIT A.I. Lab, originally as a branch of artificial intelligence and robotics. It is the quantitative or qualitative characterization of two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) digital images. 2D images are, for example, to be analyzed in computer vision, and 3D images in medical imaging. The field was established in the 1950s—1970s, for example with pioneering contributions by Azriel Rosenfeld, Herbert Freeman, Jack E. Bresenham, or King-Sun Fu. == Techniques == There are many different techniques used in automatically analysing images. Each technique may be useful for a small range of tasks, however there still aren't any known methods of image analysis that are generic enough for wide ranges of tasks, compared to the abilities of a human's image analysing capabilities. Examples of image analysis techniques in different fields include: 2D and 3D object recognition, image segmentation, motion detection e.g. Single particle tracking, video tracking, optical flow, medical scan analysis, 3D Pose Estimation. == Deep learning == Since the early 2010s, deep learning methods have substantially advanced the field of image analysis. In 2012, a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) known as AlexNet achieved a significant reduction in error rates on the ImageNet large-scale image classification benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of deep learning for visual recognition tasks. Subsequent architectures such as ResNet introduced residual connections that enabled training of much deeper networks, further improving accuracy across image analysis tasks. Real-time object detection became practical with frameworks such as YOLO (You Only Look Once), which unified detection and classification into a single network pass. In 2020, the Vision Transformer (ViT) demonstrated that transformer architectures, originally developed for natural language processing, could achieve competitive results on image classification when applied directly to sequences of image patches. More recently, foundation models trained on large-scale datasets have enabled zero-shot generalisation across image analysis tasks. The Segment Anything Model (SAM), trained on over one billion masks, can segment arbitrary objects in images without task-specific fine-tuning. These advances have made image analysis techniques increasingly accessible through browser-based tools and open-source implementations. == Applications == The applications of digital image analysis are continuously expanding through all areas of science and industry, including: anatomy, allows for precise measurements, visualization, and statistical analysis of anatomical structures. assay micro plate reading, such as detecting where a chemical was manufactured. astronomy, such as calculating the size of a planet. automated species identification (e.g. plant and animal species) defense error level analysis filtering machine vision, such as to automatically count items in a factory conveyor belt. materials science, such as determining if a metal weld has cracks. medicine, such as detecting cancer in a mammography scan. metallography, such as determining the mineral content of a rock sample. microscopy, such as counting the germs in a swab. automatic number plate recognition; optical character recognition, such as automatic license plate detection. remote sensing, such as detecting intruders in a house, and producing land cover/land use maps. robotics, such as to avoid steering into an obstacle. security, such as detecting a person's eye color or hair color. == Object-based == Object-based image analysis (OBIA) involves two typical processes, segmentation and classification. Segmentation helps to group pixels into homogeneous objects. The objects typically correspond to individual features of interest, although over-segmentation or under-segmentation is very likely. Classification then can be performed at object levels, using various statistics of the objects as features in the classifier. Statistics can include geometry, context and texture of image objects. Over-segmentation is often preferred over under-segmentation when classifying high-resolution images. Object-based image analysis has been applied in many fields, such as cell biology, medicine, earth sciences, and remote sensing. For example, it can detect changes of cellular shapes in the process of cell differentiation.; it has also been widely used in the mapping community to generate land cover. When applied to earth images, OBIA is known as geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA), defined as "a sub-discipline of geoinformation science devoted to (...) partitioning remote sensing (RS) imagery into meaningful image-objects, and assessing their characteristics through spatial, spectral and temporal scale". The international GEOBIA conference has been held biannually since 2006. OBIA techniques are implemented in software such as eCognition or the Orfeo toolbox.

  Read more →
• 

  Adversarial stylometry

  Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How

  Read more →
• 

  Airfair

  AirFair was a mobile travel application that checks flights, and shows whether a traveler is owed compensation. == History == AirFair was developed in 2016 by Allay Logic Ltd; a Newcastle-based tech-company. == Services == AirFair offered a free flight check to see if compensation is owed. The app could indicate how much the person is owed within minutes whether the flight was delayed, cancelled or the traveler is refused boarding.

  Read more →
• 

  Application permissions

  Permissions are a means of controlling and regulating access to specific system- and device-level functions by software. Typically, types of permissions cover functions that may have privacy implications, such as the ability to access a device's hardware features (including the camera and microphone), and personal data (such as storage devices, contacts lists, and the user's present geographical location). Permissions are typically declared in an application's manifest, and certain permissions must be specifically granted at runtime by the user—who may revoke the permission at any time. Permission systems are common on mobile operating systems, where permissions needed by specific apps must be disclosed via the platform's app store. == Mobile devices == On mobile operating systems for smartphones and tablets, typical types of permissions regulate: Access to storage and personal information, such as contacts, calendar appointments, etc. Location tracking. Access to the device's internal camera and/or microphone. Access to biometric sensors, including fingerprint readers and other health sensors.. Internet access. Access to communications interfaces (including their hardware identifiers and signal strength where applicable, and requests to enable them), such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC, and others. Making and receiving phone calls. Sending and reading text messages The ability to perform in-app purchases. The ability to "overlay" themselves within other apps. Installing, deleting and otherwise managing applications. Authentication tokens (e.g., OAuth tokens) from web services stored in system storage for sharing between apps. Prior to Android 6.0 "Marshmallow", permissions were automatically granted to apps at runtime, and they were presented upon installation in Google Play Store. Since Marshmallow, certain permissions now require the app to request permission at runtime by the user. These permissions may also be revoked at any time via Android's settings menu. Usage of permissions on Android are sometimes abused by app developers to gather personal information and deliver advertising; in particular, apps for using a phone's camera flash as a flashlight (which have grown largely redundant due to the integration of such functionality at the system level on later versions of Android) have been known to require a large array of unnecessary permissions beyond what is actually needed for the stated functionality. iOS imposes a similar requirement for permissions to be granted at runtime, with particular controls offered for enabling of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and location tracking. == WebPermissions == WebPermissions is a permission system for web browsers. When a web application needs some data behind permission, it must request it first. When it does it, a user sees a window asking him to make a choice. The choice is remembered, but can be cleared lately. Currently the following resources are controlled: geolocation desktop notifications service workers sensors audio capturing devices, like sound cards, and their model names and characteristics video capturing devices, like cameras, and their identifiers and characteristics == Analysis == The permission-based access control model assigns access privileges for certain data objects to application. This is a derivative of the discretionary access control model. The access permissions are usually granted in the context of a specific user on a specific device. Permissions are granted permanently with few automatic restrictions. In some cases permissions are implemented in 'all-or-nothing' approach: a user either has to grant all the required permissions to access the application or the user can not access the application. There is still a lack of transparency when the permission is used by a program or application to access the data protected by the permission access control mechanism. Even if a user can revoke a permission, the app can blackmail a user by refusing to operate, for example by just crashing or asking user to grant the permission again in order to access the application. The permission mechanism has been widely criticized by researchers for several reasons, including; Intransparency of personal data extraction and surveillance, including the creation of a false sense of security; End-user fatigue of micro-managing access permissions leading to a fatalistic acceptance of surveillance and intransparency; Massive data extraction and personal surveillance carried out once the permissions are granted. Some apps, such as XPrivacy and Mockdroid spoof data in order to act as a measure for privacy. Further transparency methods include longitudinal behavioural profiling and multiple-source privacy analysis of app data access.

  Read more →
• 

  Machine translation software usability

  The sections below give objective criteria for evaluating the usability of machine translation software output. == Stationarity or canonical form == Do repeated translations converge on a single expression in both languages? I.e. does the translation method show stationarity or produce a canonical form? Does the translation become stationary without losing the original meaning? This metric has been criticized as not being well correlated with BLEU (BiLingual Evaluation Understudy) scores. == Adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang == Is the system adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang? The French language has many rules for creating words in the speech and writing of popular culture. Two such rules are: (a) The reverse spelling of words such as femme to meuf. (This is called verlan.) (b) The attachment of the suffix -ard to a noun or verb to form a proper noun. For example, the noun faluche means "student hat". The word faluchard formed from faluche colloquially can mean, depending on context, "a group of students", "a gathering of students" and "behavior typical of a student". The Google translator as of 28 December 2006 doesn't derive the constructed words as for example from rule (b), as shown here: Il y a une chorale falucharde mercredi, venez nombreux, les faluchards chantent des paillardes! ==> There is a choral society falucharde Wednesday, come many, the faluchards sing loose-living women! French argot has three levels of usage: familier or friendly, acceptable among friends, family and peers but not at work grossier or swear words, acceptable among friends and peers but not at work or in family verlan or ghetto slang, acceptable among lower classes but not among middle or upper classes The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts annual evaluations [1] Archived 2009-03-22 at the Wayback Machine of machine translation systems based on the BLEU-4 criterion [2]. A combined method called IQmt which incorporates BLEU and additional metrics NIST, GTM, ROUGE and METEOR has been implemented by Gimenez and Amigo [3]. == Well-formed output == Is the output grammatical or well-formed in the target language? Using an interlingua should be helpful in this regard, because with a fixed interlingua one should be able to write a grammatical mapping to the target language from the interlingua. Consider the following Arabic language input and English language translation result from the Google translator as of 27 December 2006 [4]. This Google translator output doesn't parse using a reasonable English grammar: وعن حوادث التدافع عند شعيرة رمي الجمرات -التي كثيرا ما يسقط فيها العديد من الضحايا- أشار الأمير نايف إلى إدخال "تحسينات كثيرة في جسر الجمرات ستمنع بإذن الله حدوث أي تزاحم". ==> And incidents at the push Carbuncles-throwing ritual, which often fall where many of the victims - Prince Nayef pointed to the introduction of "many improvements in bridge Carbuncles God would stop the occurrence of any competing." == Semantics preservation == Do repeated re-translations preserve the semantics of the original sentence? For example, consider the following English input passed multiple times into and out of French using the Google translator as of 27 December 2006: Better a day earlier than a day late. ==> Améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. ==> Pour améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. As noted above and in, this kind of round-trip translation is a very unreliable method of evaluation. == Trustworthiness and security == An interesting peculiarity of Google Translate as of 24 January 2008 (corrected as of 25 January 2008) is the following result when translating from English to Spanish, which shows an embedded joke in the English-Spanish dictionary which has some added poignancy given recent events: Heath Ledger is dead ==> Tom Cruise está muerto This raises the issue of trustworthiness when relying on a machine translation system embedded in a Life-critical system in which the translation system has input to a Safety Critical Decision Making process. Conjointly it raises the issue of whether in a given use the software of the machine translation system is safe from hackers. It is not known whether this feature of Google Translate was the result of a joke/hack or perhaps an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation. Reporters from CNET Networks asked Google for an explanation on January 24, 2008; Google said only that it was an "internal issue with Google Translate". The mistranslation was the subject of much hilarity and speculation on the Internet. If it is an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation, and not a joke/hack, then this event is a demonstration of a potential source of critical unreliability in the statistical machine translation method. In human translations, in particular on the part of interpreters, selectivity on the part of the translator in performing a translation is often commented on when one of the two parties being served by the interpreter knows both languages. This leads to the issue of whether a particular translation could be considered verifiable. In this case, a converging round-trip translation would be a kind of verification.

  Read more →