AI App Use In Hindi

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

• 

  Signal transfer function

  The signal transfer function (SiTF) is a measure of the signal output versus the signal input of a system such as an infrared system or sensor. There are many general applications of the SiTF. Specifically, in the field of image analysis, it gives a measure of the noise of an imaging system, and thus yields one assessment of its performance. == SiTF evaluation == In evaluating the SiTF curve, the signal input and signal output are measured differentially; meaning, the differential of the input signal and differential of the output signal are calculated and plotted against each other. An operator, using computer software, defines an arbitrary area, with a given set of data points, within the signal and background regions of the output image of the infrared sensor, i.e. of the unit under test (UUT), (see "Half Moon" image below). The average signal and background are calculated by averaging the data of each arbitrarily defined region. A second order polynomial curve is fitted to the data of each line. Then, the polynomial is subtracted from the average signal and background data to yield the new signal and background. The difference of the new signal and background data is taken to yield the net signal. Finally, the net signal is plotted versus the signal input. The signal input of the UUT is within its own spectral response. (e.g. color-correlated temperature, pixel intensity, etc.). The slope of the linear portion of this curve is then found using the method of least squares. == SiTF curve == The net signal is calculated from the average signal and background, as in signal to noise ratio (imaging)#Calculations. The SiTF curve is then given by the signal output data, (net signal data), plotted against the signal input data (see graph of SiTF to the right). All the data points in the linear region of the SiTF curve can be used in the method of least squares to find a linear approximation. Given n {\displaystyle n\,} data points ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}\,,y_{i}\,)} a best fit line parameterized as y = m x + b {\displaystyle y=mx+b\,} is given by: m = ∑ x i y i n − ∑ x i n ∑ y i n ∑ x i 2 n − ( ∑ x i n ) 2 b = ∑ y i n − m ∑ x i n {\displaystyle m={\frac {{\frac {\sum x_{i}y_{i}}{n}}-{\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}}{\frac {\sum y_{i}}{n}}}{{\frac {\sum x_{i}^{2}}{n}}-({\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}})^{2}}}\qquad \qquad b={\frac {\sum y_{i}}{n}}-m{\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}}}

  Read more →
• 

  Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

  Various observers have predicted the end of Wikipedia since it rose to prominence, with potential pitfalls from lack of quality-control, artificial intelligence or inconsistencies among contributors. Alternative online encyclopedias have been proposed as replacements for Wikipedia, including WolframAlpha, as well as the both now-defunct Knol (from Google) and Owl (from AOL). A 2013 review raised alarms regarding Wikipedia's shortcomings on hoaxes, on vandalism, an imbalance of material, and inadequate quality control of articles. Earlier critiques lamented the vulgar content and absence of sufficient references in articles. Others suggest that the unwarranted deletion of useful articles from Wikipedia may portend its end, which itself inspired the creation of the now inactive Deletionpedia. Contrary to such predictions, Wikipedia has constantly grown in both size and influence. Recent developments with artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects have prompted new predictions that AI applications, which consume free and open content, will replace Wikipedia. == Personnel == Wikipedia is crowdsourced by a few million volunteer editors. Of the millions of registered editors, only tens of thousands contribute the majority of its contents, and a few thousand do quality control and maintenance work. As the encyclopedia expanded in the 2010s, the number of active editors did not grow proportionately. Various sources predicted that Wikipedia will eventually have too few editors to be functional and collapse from lack of participation. English Wikipedia has 818 volunteer administrators who perform various functions, including functions similar to those carried out by a forum moderator. Critics have described their actions as harsh, bureaucratic, biased, unfair, or capricious and predicted that the resulting outrage would lead to the site's closure. Various 2012 articles reported that a decline in English Wikipedia's recruitment of new administrators could end Wikipedia. === Decline in editors (2014–2015) === A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English) Wikipedias. It reported that in other languages, the number of "active editors" (those with at least five edits per month) has been relatively constant since 2008: some 42,000 editors, with narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. In the English Wikipedia, the number of active editors peaked in 2007 at about 50,000 editors, and fell to 30,000 editors in 2014. Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presented the number of active editors for non-English Wikipedias as remaining relatively constant, sustaining their numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in those languages to retain their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis. Though different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies, no comment identified a particular policy difference as potentially making a difference in the rate of editor attrition for English Wikipedia. Editor count showed a slight uptick a year later, and no clear trend after that. In a 2013 article, Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review said that for several years running, the number of Wikipedia editors had been falling, and cited the bureaucratic structure and rules as a factor. Simonite alleged that some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. A January 2016 article in Time by Chris Wilson said Wikipedia might lose many editors because a collaboration of occasional editors and smart software will take the lead. Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and discourages new potential contributors. Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. In 2015, Lih feared for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown feared problems with Wikipedia would remain and rival encyclopedias would not replace it. == Viewers and fundraisers == As of 2015, with more viewing by smartphones, there had been a marked decline in persons who viewed Wikipedia from their computers, and according to The Washington Post "[people are] far less likely to donate". At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation reported reserves equivalent to one year's budgeted expenditures. On the other hand, the number of paid staff had ballooned, so those expenses increased. In 2021, Andreas Kolbe, a former co-editor-in-chief of The Signpost, wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation was reaching its 10-year goal of a US$100 million endowment, five years earlier than planned, which may surprise donors and users around the world who regularly see Wikipedia fundraising banners. He also said accounting methods disguise the size of operating surpluses, top managers earn $300,000 – 400,000 a year, and over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising. == Artificial intelligence == Wikipedia faces a decline in human visitors, raising concerns about its long-term sustainability and community participation. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), when reporting this decline, attributed this in part to the lack of clicks from users of large language models and search engines that are using content from Wikipedia. Data published in August 2025 showed that after the launch of ChatGPT and the rise of other AI-powered search summaries, some types of articles on Wikipedia — especially those that closely resemble the kind of content ChatGPT produces — experienced a noticeable drop in readership. Overall human pageviews reportedly fell by about 8% between 2024 and 2025, suggesting that AI-overviews and chatbots are increasingly being used in place of direct visits to Wikipedia. According to industry web analytics data, ChatGPT's estimated monthly web traffic surpassed that of Wikipedia since May 2025, as visits to ChatGPT continued to grow while Wikipedia’s total site traffic declined. == Timeline of predictions == On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, associate professor of the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University Joseph Reagle conducted a retrospective study of numerous "predictions of the ends of Wikipedia" over two decades, divided into chronological waves: "Early growth (2001–2002)", "Nascent identity (2001–2005)", "Production model (2005–2010)", "Contributor attrition (2009–2017)" and the current period "(2020–)". Each wave brought its distinctive fatal predictions, which never came true; as a result, Reagle concluded Wikipedia was not in danger. Concern grew in 2023 that the ubiquity and proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) may adversely affect Wikipedia. Rapid improvements and widespread application of AI may render Wikipedia obsolete or reduce its importance. A 2023 study found that AI, when applied to Wikipedia, works most efficiently for error-correction, while Wikipedia still needs to be written by humans.

  Read more →
• 

  Revoscalepy

  revoscalepy is a machine learning package in Python created by Microsoft. It is available as part of Machine Learning Services in Microsoft SQL Server 2017 and Machine Learning Server 9.2.0 and later. The package contains functions for creating linear model, logistic regression, random forest, decision tree and boosted decision tree, in addition to some summary functions for inspecting data. Other machine learning algorithms such as neural network are provided in microsoftml, a separate package that is the Python version of MicrosoftML. revoscalepy also contains functions designed to run machine learning algorithms in different compute contexts, including SQL Server, Apache Spark, and Hadoop. In June 2021, Microsoft announced to open source the revoscalepy and RevoScaleR packages, making them freely available under the MIT License.

  Read more →
• 

  Learning rule

  An artificial neural network's learning rule or learning process is a method, mathematical logic or algorithm which improves the network's performance and/or training time. Usually, this rule is applied repeatedly over the network. It is done by updating the weight and bias levels of a network when it is simulated in a specific data environment. A learning rule may accept existing conditions (weights and biases) of the network, and will compare the expected result and actual result of the network to give new and improved values for the weights and biases. Depending on the complexity of the model being simulated, the learning rule of the network can be as simple as an XOR gate or mean squared error, or as complex as the result of a system of differential equations. The learning rule is one of the factors which decides how fast or how accurately the neural network can be developed. Depending on the process to develop the network, there are three main paradigms of machine learning: supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning. == Background == A lot of the learning methods in machine learning work similar to each other, and are based on each other, which makes it difficult to classify them in clear categories. But they can be broadly understood in 4 categories of learning methods, though these categories don't have clear boundaries and they tend to belong to multiple categories of learning methods - Hebbian - Neocognitron, Brain-state-in-a-box Gradient Descent - ADALINE, Hopfield Network, Recurrent Neural Network Competitive - Learning Vector Quantisation, Self-Organising Feature Map, Adaptive Resonance Theory Stochastic - Boltzmann Machine, Cauchy Machine Though these learning rules might appear to be based on similar ideas, they do have subtle differences, as they are a generalisation or application over the previous rule, and hence it makes sense to study them separately based on their origins and intents. === Hebbian Learning === Developed by Donald Hebb in 1949 to describe biological neuron firing. In the mid-1950s it was also applied to computer simulations of neural networks. Δ w i = η x i y {\displaystyle \Delta w_{i}=\eta x_{i}y} Where η {\displaystyle \eta } represents the learning rate, x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} represents the input of neuron i, and y is the output of the neuron. It has been shown that Hebb's rule in its basic form is unstable. Oja's Rule, BCM Theory are other learning rules built on top of or alongside Hebb's Rule in the study of biological neurons. ==== Perceptron Learning Rule (PLR) ==== The perceptron learning rule originates from the Hebbian assumption, and was used by Frank Rosenblatt in his perceptron in 1958. The net is passed to the activation (transfer) function and the function's output is used for adjusting the weights. The learning signal is the difference between the desired response and the actual response of a neuron. The step function is often used as an activation function, and the outputs are generally restricted to -1, 0, or 1. The weights are updated with w new = w old + η ( t − o ) x i {\displaystyle w_{\text{new}}=w_{\text{old}}+\eta (t-o)x_{i}} where "t" is the target value and "o" is the output of the perceptron, and η {\displaystyle \eta } is called the learning rate. The algorithm converges to the correct classification if: the training data is linearly separable η {\displaystyle \eta } is sufficiently small (though smaller η {\displaystyle \eta } generally means a longer learning time and more epochs) It should also be noted that a single layer perceptron with this learning rule is incapable of working on linearly non-separable inputs, and hence the XOR problem cannot be solved using this rule alone === Backpropagation === Seppo Linnainmaa in 1970 is said to have developed the Backpropagation Algorithm but the origins of the algorithm go back to the 1960s with many contributors. It is a generalisation of the least mean squares algorithm in the linear perceptron and the Delta Learning Rule. It implements gradient descent search through the space possible network weights, iteratively reducing the error, between the target values and the network outputs. ==== Widrow-Hoff Learning (Delta Learning Rule) ==== Similar to the perceptron learning rule but with different origin. It was developed for use in the ADALINE network, which differs from the Perceptron mainly in terms of the training. The weights are adjusted according to the weighted sum of the inputs (the net), whereas in perceptron the sign of the weighted sum was useful for determining the output as the threshold was set to 0, -1, or +1. This makes ADALINE different from the normal perceptron. Delta rule (DR) is similar to the Perceptron Learning Rule (PLR), with some differences: Error (δ) in DR is not restricted to having values of 0, 1, or -1 (as in PLR), but may have any value DR can be derived for any differentiable output/activation function f, whereas in PLR only works for threshold output function Sometimes only when the Widrow-Hoff is applied to binary targets specifically, it is referred to as Delta Rule, but the terms seem to be used often interchangeably. The delta rule is considered to a special case of the back-propagation algorithm. Delta rule also closely resembles the Rescorla-Wagner model under which Pavlovian conditioning occurs. === Competitive Learning === Competitive learning is considered a variant of Hebbian learning, but it is special enough to be discussed separately. Competitive learning works by increasing the specialization of each node in the network. It is well suited to finding clusters within data. Models and algorithms based on the principle of competitive learning include vector quantization and self-organizing maps (Kohonen maps).

  Read more →
• 

  Software durability

  In software engineering, software durability means the solution ability of serviceability of software and to meet user's needs for a relatively long time. Software durability is important for user's satisfaction. For a software security to be durable, it must allow an organization to adjust the software to business needs that are constantly evolving, often in impulsive ways. Durability of software depends on four characteristics mainly; i.e. software trustworthiness, Human Trust for Serviceability, software dependability and software usability.

  Read more →
• 

  Chris Olah

  Christopher Olah (born 1992 or 1993) is a Canadian machine learning researcher and a co-founder of Anthropic. He is known for his work on neural network interpretability, particularly mechanistic interpretability, and for research and tools that visualise internal representations in neural networks. In 2025, Forbes reported he had become a billionaire due to his ownership in Anthropic. == Early life and education == Olah was born in Canada. According to Wired, he left university at age 18 without earning a degree and later received a Thiel Fellowship, which supported him in pursuing independent work. == Career == Olah has worked on interpretability research at Google Brain, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Time called him one of the pioneers of mechanistic interpretability and noted that he pursued this research line first at Google, then at OpenAI, and later at Anthropic, which he co-founded. Wired reported that Olah was involved in neural network visualisation work including DeepDream in 2015, as part of efforts to better understand what neural networks learn. Later coverage linked him to more structured interpretability approaches such as "activation atlases". The Verge covered activation atlases as a collaboration between Google and OpenAI researchers to help inspect neural network representations. At Anthropic, Olah has been identified in major press coverage as leading interpretability work aimed at mapping internal "features" in large language models and relating interpretability findings to AI safety. Quanta Magazine has also quoted Olah in reporting on interpretability and the internal structure of modern language models. Time included Olah in its TIME100 AI list in 2024. === Vatican address on AI ethics === On May 25, 2026, Olah spoke at the Vatican during the official presentation of Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, which addresses artificial intelligence and human dignity. Olah said AI could lead to large-scale displacement of human labor and exacerbate global inequality. He said the commercial and geopolitical incentives driving frontier AI labs often conflict with the public good, and described AI systems as "grown" rather than strictly engineered. Olah called for external moral oversight from religious institutions, scholars, and civil society to hold the technology sector accountable.

  Read more →
• 

  Unique name assumption

  The unique name assumption is a simplifying assumption made in some ontology languages and description logics. In logics with the unique name assumption, different names always refer to different entities in the world. It was included in Ray Reiter's discussion of the closed-world assumption often tacitly included in Database Management Systems (e.g. SQL) in his 1984 article "Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory" (in M. L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, J. W. Schmidt (editors), Data Modelling in Artificial Intelligence, Database and Programming Languages, Springer, 1984, pages 191–233). The standard ontology language OWL does not make this assumption, but provides explicit constructs to express whether two names denote the same or distinct entities. owl:sameAs is the OWL property that asserts that two given names or identifiers (e.g., URIs) refer to the same individual or entity. owl:differentFrom is the OWL property that asserts that two given names or identifiers (e.g., URIs) refer to different individuals or entities.

  Read more →
• 

  Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

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

  Read more →
• 

  Enterprise cognitive system

  Enterprise cognitive systems (ECS) are part of a broader shift in computing, from a programmatic to a probabilistic approach, called cognitive computing. An Enterprise Cognitive System makes a new class of complex decision support problems computable, where the business context is ambiguous, multi-faceted, and fast-evolving, and what to do in such a situation is usually assessed today by the business user. An ECS is designed to synthesize a business context and link it to the desired outcome. It recommends evidence-based actions to help the end-user achieve the desired outcome. It does so by finding past situations similar to the current situation, and extracting the repeated actions that best influence the desired outcome. While general-purpose cognitive systems can be used for different outputs, prescriptive, suggestive, instructive, or simply entertaining, an enterprise cognitive system is focused on action, not insight, to help in assessing what to do in a complex situation. == Key characteristics == ECS have to be: Adaptive: They must learn as information changes, and as goals and requirements evolve. They must resolve ambiguity and tolerate unpredictability. They must be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real time, or near real time. In the Enterprise, near-real time learning from data requires an agile information federation approach to ingest incremental data updates as they occur, and an unsupervised learning approach to ensure that new best practice is leveraged across the organization in a timely manner. Interactive: They must interact easily with users so that those users can define their needs comfortably. They may also interact with other processors, devices, and Cloud services, as well as with people. In the Enterprise, interactions are controlled via existing workflows and UIs. Therefore, embedding best practices directly into these existing interfaces, in the context of a specific step, is critical to ensure maximum end-user adoption. Iterative and stateful: They must aid in defining a problem by asking questions or finding additional source input if a problem statement is ambiguous or incomplete. They must “remember” previous interactions in a process and return information that is suitable for the specific application at that point in time. In the Enterprise, business context is often structured by a business process, and therefore sufficiently data-rich to make relevant recommendations without significant iterations from the end-user. A stateful memory of overall interactions across communication channels is critical for understanding of context, as a static profile will not capture intent and outcome potential the way behavior does. Contextual: They must understand, identify, and extract contextual elements such as meaning, syntax, time, location, appropriate domain, regulations, user's profile, process, task and goal. They may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). In the Enterprise, Context is fragmented and must be aggregated across data types, sources, and locations. In most business environments, such data is captured in existing enterprise information systems, and the effort is linked to quickly source and unify such information. It is rare to have to directly process sensor, audio or visual data in real-time as direct input into the enterprise cognitive system. Instead, these data types are captured by Enterprise Applications and pre-processed into a binary or text format prior to consumption by the System. == Business applications powered by an ECS == Bottlenose – trends and brands monitoring Cybereason – security threat monitoring Dataminr – social media monitoring

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaEvolve

  AlphaEvolve is an evolutionary coding agent for designing advanced algorithms based on large language models such as Gemini. It was developed by Google DeepMind and unveiled in May 2025. == Design == AlphaEvolve aims to autonomously discover and refine algorithms through a combination of large language models (LLMs) and evolutionary computation. AlphaEvolve needs an evaluation function with metrics to optimize, and an initial algorithm. At each step, AlphaEvolve uses the LLM to produce variants of the existing algorithms, and then selects the most effective ones. Unlike domain-specific predecessors like AlphaFold or AlphaTensor, AlphaEvolve is designed as a general-purpose system. It can operate across a wide array of scientific and engineering tasks by automatically modifying code and optimizing for multiple objectives. Its architecture allows it to evaluate code programmatically, reducing reliance on human input and mitigating risks such as hallucinations common in standard LLM outputs. == Achievements == According to Google, across a selection of 50 open mathematical problems, the model was able to rediscover state-of-the-art solutions 75% of the time and discovered improved solutions 20% of the time, for example advancing the kissing number problem. AlphaEvolve was also used to optimize Google's computing ecosystem. Improved data center scheduling heuristics, enabled the recovery of 0.7% of stranded resources. It was also used to optimize TPU circuit design and Gemini's training matrix multiplication kernel. == Open source implementations == Following the publication of AlphaEvolve, several open source implementations have been developed by the research community. One such implementation is OpenEvolve, which implements distributed evolutionary algorithms, multi-language support, integration with various large language model providers, and automated discovery of high-performance GPU kernels that outperform expert-engineered baselines.

  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 →
• 

  CuckooChess

  CuckooChess is an advanced free and open-source chess engine under the GNU General Public License written in Java by Peter Österlund. CuckooChess provides an own GUI, and optionally supports the Universal Chess Interface protocol for the use with external GUIs such as Arena. An Android port is available, where its GUI is also based on Peter Österlund's Stockfish port dubbed DroidFish. The program uses the Chess Cases chess font, created by Matthieu Leschemelle. The name CuckooChess comes due that the transposition table is based on Cuckoo hashing. Android app based chess gaming app Droidfish employs both CuckooChess and Stockfish chess engines. Similarly, Kickstarter funded AI based virtual reality chess game Square Off also uses CuckooChess engine. It has an ELO rating of 2583 (as of July 2018) and a rank of 135‑137 in the Computer Chess Rating List.

  Read more →
• 

  Automated medical scribe

  Automated medical scribes (also called artificial intelligence scribes, AI scribes, digital scribes, virtual scribes, ambient AI scribes, AI documentation assistants, and digital/virtual/smart clinical assistants) are tools for transcribing medical speech, such as patient consultations and dictated medical notes. Many also produce summaries of consultations. Automated medical scribes based on large language models (LLMs, commonly called "AI", short for "artificial intelligence") increased drastically in popularity in 2024. There are privacy and antitrust concerns. Accuracy concerns also exist, and intensify in situations in which tools try to go beyond transcribing and summarizing, and are asked to format information by its meaning, since LLMs do not deal well with meaning (see weak artificial intelligence). Medics using these scribes are generally expected to understand the ethical and legal considerations, and supervise the outputs. The privacy protections of automated medical scribes vary widely. While it is possible to do all the transcription and summarizing locally, with no connection to the internet, most closed-source providers require that data be sent to their own servers over the internet, processed there, and the results sent back (as with digital voice assistants). Some retailers say their tools use zero-knowledge encryption (meaning that the service provider can't access the data). Others explicitly say that they use patient data to train their AIs, or rent or resell it to third parties; the nature of privacy protections used in such situations is unclear, and they are likely not to be fully effective. Most providers have not published any safety or utility data in academic journals, and are not responsive to requests from medical researchers studying their products. == Privacy == Some providers unclear about what happens to user data. Some may sell data to third parties. Some explicitly send user data to for-profit tech companies for secondary purposes, which may not be specified. Some require users to sign consents to such reuse of their data. Some ingest user data to train the software, promising to anonymize it; however, deanonymization may be possible (that is, it may become obvious who the patient is). It is intrinsically impossible to prevent an LLM from correlating its inputs; they work by finding similar patterns across very large data sets. Some information on the patient will be known from other sources (for instance, information that they were injured in an incident on a certain day might be available from the news media; information that they attended specific appointment locations at specific times is probably available to their cellphone provider/apps/data brokers; information about when they had a baby is probably implied by their online shopping records; and they might mention lifestyle changes to their doctor and on a forum or blog). The software may correlate such information with the "anonymized" clinical consultation record, and, asked about the named patient, provide information which they only told their doctor privately. Because a patient's record is all about the same patient, it is all unavoidably linked; in very many cases, medical histories are intrinsically identifiable. Depending on how common a condition and what other data is available, K-anonymity may be useless. Differential privacy could theoretically preserve privacy. Data broker companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have produced or bought up medical scribes, some of which use user data for secondary purposes, which has led to antitrust concerns. Transfer of patient records for AI training has, in the past, prompted legal action. Open-source programs typically do all the transcription locally, on the doctor's own computer. Open-source software is widely used in healthcare, with some national public healthcare bodies holding hack days. === Data resale and commercialization === Several AI medical scribe providers include terms in their service agreements that allow the reuse, sale, or commercialization of de-identified or user-submitted data. Although such data are generally described as anonymized or aggregated, these practices have raised ethical concerns among clinicians and privacy advocates regarding secondary uses of medical information beyond clinical documentation. Freed, an AI transcription and scribe platform, states in its Terms of Use that it may "collect, use, publish, disseminate, sell, transfer, and otherwise exploit" de-identified and aggregated data derived from user inputs. OpenEvidence similarly states that it may "collect, use, transfer, sell, and disclose non-personal information and customer usage data for any purpose including commercial uses." Doximity, which offers an AI-enabled medical scribe as part of its physician platform, grants itself a "nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicensable, royalty-free" license to "copy, prepare derivative works from, improve, distribute, publish, ... analyze, index, tag, [and] commercialize" content submitted by users, subject to its privacy policy. Because these terms allow broad secondary use—including sale, licensing, model-training, derivative works, and commercial exploitation of de-identified or user-submitted data—some commentators have recommended that clinicians review data-handling provisions carefully when adopting AI-scribe tools, particularly in clinical environments where patient privacy and regulatory compliance are critical. === Encryption === Multifactor authentication for access to the data is expected practice. Typically, Diffie–Hellman key exchange is used for encryption; this is the standard method commonly used for things like online banking. This encryption is expensive but not impossible to break; it is not generally considered safe against eavesdroppers with the resources of a nation-state. If content is encrypted between the client and the service provider's remote server (transport cryptography), then the server has an unencrypted copy. This is necessary if the data is used by the service provider (for instance, to train the software). Zero-knowledge encryption implies that the only unencrypted copy is at the client, and the server cannot decrypt the data any more easily than a monster-in-the-middle attacker. == Platforms == Scribes may operate on desktops, laptop, or mobile computers, under a variety of operating systems. These vary in their risks; for instance, mobiles can be lost. The underlying mobile or desktop operating systems are also part of the trusted computing base, and if they are not secure, the software relying on them cannot be secure either. Some AI medical scribe platforms are designed to operate as cloud-based applications that generate structured clinical documentation from clinician–patient conversations. These systems may offer features such as real-time transcription, document generation, and integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems. == Confabulation, omissions, and other errors == Like other LLMs, medical-scribe LLMs are prone to hallucinations, where they make up content based on statistically associations between their training data and the transcription audio. LLMs do not distinguish between trying to transcribe the audio and guessing what words will come next, but perform both processes mixed together. They are especially likely to take short silences or non-speech noises and invent some sort of speech to transcribe them as. LLM medical scribes have been known to confabulate racist and otherwise prejudiced content; this is partly because the training datasets of many LLMs contain pseudoscientific texts about medical racism. They may misgender patients. A survey found that most doctors preferred, in principle, that scribes be trained on data reviewed by medical subject experts. Relevant, accurate training data increases the probability of an accurate transcription, but does not guarantee accuracy. Software trained on thousands of real clinical conversations generated transcripts with lower word error rates. Software trained on manually-transcribed training data did better than software trained with automatically transcribed training data such as YouTube captions. Autoscribes omit parts of the conversation classes as irrelevant. The may wrongly classify pertinent information as irrelevant and omit it. They may also confuse historic and current symptoms, or otherwise misclassify information. They may also simply wrongly transcribe the speech, writing something incorrect instead. If clinicians do not carefully check the recording, such mistakes could make their way into their medical records and cause patient harms. == Patient consent == Professional organizations generally require that scribes be used only with patient consent; some bodies may require written consent. Medics must also abide by local surveillance laws, which may criminalize recording pri

  Read more →
• 

  Cerebellar model articulation controller

  The cerebellar model arithmetic computer (CMAC) is a type of neural network based on a model of the mammalian cerebellum. It is also known as the cerebellar model articulation controller. It is a type of associative memory. The CMAC was first proposed as a function modeler for robotic controllers by James Albus in 1975 (hence the name), but has been extensively used in reinforcement learning and also as for automated classification in the machine learning community. The CMAC is an extension of the perceptron model. It computes a function for n {\displaystyle n} input dimensions. The input space is divided up into hyper-rectangles, each of which is associated with a memory cell. The contents of the memory cells are the weights, which are adjusted during training. Usually, more than one quantisation of input space is used, so that any point in input space is associated with a number of hyper-rectangles, and therefore with a number of memory cells. The output of a CMAC is the algebraic sum of the weights in all the memory cells activated by the input point. A change of value of the input point results in a change in the set of activated hyper-rectangles, and therefore a change in the set of memory cells participating in the CMAC output. The CMAC output is therefore stored in a distributed fashion, such that the output corresponding to any point in input space is derived from the value stored in a number of memory cells (hence the name associative memory). This provides generalisation. == Building blocks == In the adjacent image, there are two inputs to the CMAC, represented as a 2D space. Two quantising functions have been used to divide this space with two overlapping grids (one shown in heavier lines). A single input is shown near the middle, and this has activated two memory cells, corresponding to the shaded area. If another point occurs close to the one shown, it will share some of the same memory cells, providing generalisation. The CMAC is trained by presenting pairs of input points and output values, and adjusting the weights in the activated cells by a proportion of the error observed at the output. This simple training algorithm has a proof of convergence. It is normal to add a kernel function to the hyper-rectangle, so that points falling towards the edge of a hyper-rectangle have a smaller activation than those falling near the centre. One of the major problems cited in practical use of CMAC is the memory size required, which is directly related to the number of cells used. This is usually ameliorated by using a hash function, and only providing memory storage for the actual cells that are activated by inputs. == One-step convergent algorithm == Initially least mean square (LMS) method is employed to update the weights of CMAC. The convergence of using LMS for training CMAC is sensitive to the learning rate and could lead to divergence. In 2004, a recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm was introduced to train CMAC online. It does not need to tune a learning rate. Its convergence has been proved theoretically and can be guaranteed to converge in one step. The computational complexity of this RLS algorithm is O(N3). == Hardware implementation infrastructure == Based on QR decomposition, an algorithm (QRLS) has been further simplified to have an O(N) complexity. Consequently, this reduces memory usage and time cost significantly. A parallel pipeline array structure on implementing this algorithm has been introduced. Overall by utilizing QRLS algorithm, the CMAC neural network convergence can be guaranteed, and the weights of the nodes can be updated using one step of training. Its parallel pipeline array structure offers its great potential to be implemented in hardware for large-scale industry usage. == Continuous CMAC == Since the rectangular shape of CMAC receptive field functions produce discontinuous staircase function approximation, by integrating CMAC with B-splines functions, continuous CMAC offers the capability of obtaining any order of derivatives of the approximate functions. == Deep CMAC == In recent years, numerous studies have confirmed that by stacking several shallow structures into a single deep structure, the overall system could achieve better data representation, and, thus, more effectively deal with nonlinear and high complexity tasks. In 2018, a deep CMAC (DCMAC) framework was proposed and a backpropagation algorithm was derived to estimate the DCMAC parameters. Experimental results of an adaptive noise cancellation task showed that the proposed DCMAC can achieve better noise cancellation performance when compared with that from the conventional single-layer CMAC. == Summary ==

  Read more →
• 

  Responsible AI Safety and Education Act

  The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a New York State law that imposes transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large frontier artificial intelligence models. The law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025. It was sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The RAISE Act is the second U.S. state law to regulate frontier AI model developers, following California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), which was signed in September 2025. Hochul signed the bill on the condition that the legislature would pass chapter amendments to bring the law closer to the California model. The amending bills (A9449/S8828) were introduced in January 2026; as of February 2026 they remain in committee, though the Governor's office and legal commentators treat the agreed-upon amendments as representing the final form of the law. == Provisions == The following describes the RAISE Act as it is expected to operate after the agreed-upon chapter amendments take effect. The law is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027. === Scope === The law applies to "large frontier developers," defined as companies with annual revenues exceeding $500 million that develop "frontier models," which are foundation models trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations (FLOPs). The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had instead defined large developers based on having spent over $100 million in aggregate compute costs, and also included a provision prohibiting deployment of frontier models posing "unreasonable risk of critical harm"; both were removed as part of the negotiations between Hochul and the legislature. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are exempt, as is the state's Empire AI consortium. === Safety and transparency framework === Large frontier developers must write, implement, and publicly publish a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, secure unreleased model weights against unauthorized access, use third-party evaluators, govern internal use of frontier models, and respond to safety incidents. The framework must describe these measures "in detail," a requirement that goes beyond the California TFAIA's requirement to describe a developer's "approach." The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and material modifications must be published with justification within 30 days. Before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model, developers must publish a transparency report including the model's release date, supported languages and output modalities, intended uses, and any restrictions on use. Large frontier developers must additionally include summaries of catastrophic risk assessments and the extent of third-party involvement. === Catastrophic risk and incident reporting === The law defines "catastrophic risk" as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier model will contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage, arising from a frontier model providing expert-level assistance in creating chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; engaging in cyberattacks or conduct equivalent to crimes such as murder, assault, or theft without meaningful human oversight; or evading the control of its developer or user. Loss of equity value is explicitly excluded from the definition of property damage. "Critical safety incidents" include unauthorized access to model weights resulting in death or injury, materialization of a catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, and a model using deceptive techniques to subvert developer controls outside of an evaluation context in a manner that increases catastrophic risk. Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. === Enforcement === The chapter amendments establish a new office within the New York State Department of Financial Services to oversee compliance, receive incident reports, and publish annual reports on AI safety beginning in 2028. Large frontier developers must file disclosure statements with this office and pay pro rata assessments to fund its operations. The New York Attorney General may bring civil actions, with penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had set penalties at up to $10 million and $30 million respectively. The law does not create a private right of action. == Legislative history == The bill was introduced in the Assembly on March 5, 2025, by Assemblymember Alex Bores, and in the Senate on March 27, 2025, by Senator Andrew Gounardes. After a series of amendments, the legislature passed the bill in June 2025. Governor Hochul did not immediately sign the bill, using nearly all the time available under New York law before acting; had she not signed by the end of 2025, the bill would have been pocket vetoed. The tech industry lobbied against the bill during this period, and Hochul initially proposed a near-complete rewrite modeled on California's TFAIA. Legislators resisted the extent of the changes, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a version that used the California law as a base but preserved several provisions that went beyond it, including the 72-hour incident reporting timeline and the creation of a dedicated enforcement office. Hochul signed the original bill (S6953-B/A6453-B) on December 19, 2025, with the legislature committing to pass chapter amendments formalizing the agreed changes in the January 2026 session. The amending bills (A9449 in the Assembly, S8828 in the Senate) were introduced on January 6 and January 8, 2026. OpenAI and Anthropic expressed support for the law. Anthropic's head of external affairs Sarah Heck said the two state laws "should inspire Congress to build on them." The super PAC network Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, subsequently announced plans to challenge Bores in a future election. == Federal preemption debate == Hochul signed the RAISE Act eight days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on December 11, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws deemed to conflict with a "minimally burdensome" national AI policy. On January 9, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force as called for by the executive order. The executive order also threatened states with loss of certain federal broadband funding if their AI laws were found to be onerous. Legal commentators have noted several potential avenues for federal challenge, including arguments that the law constitutes compelled speech, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by creating a patchwork of state regulations, or is preempted by federal AI policy. == Comparison with California's TFAIA == The RAISE Act was designed to align with California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, signed on September 29, 2025. Both laws use the same 1026 FLOP threshold to define frontier models and the same $500 million revenue threshold to define large developers. Both require public safety frameworks, transparency reports, and incident reporting. The RAISE Act's 72-hour incident reporting window is stricter than the TFAIA's 15-day window, though both require faster reporting for incidents posing imminent physical risk (24 hours under the RAISE Act, immediate under the TFAIA). The RAISE Act establishes a dedicated enforcement office within the Department of Financial Services, whereas California routes reports through the Office of Emergency Services. The RAISE Act requires developers to describe their safety measures "in detail" and how they "handle" various risks, whereas the TFAIA requires developers to describe their "approach."

  Read more →