AI Art Or Not

AI Art Or Not — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Competition in artificial intelligence

Competition in artificial intelligence refers to the rivalry among companies, research institutions, and governments to develop and deploy the most capable artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The competition spans multiple domains, including large language models (LLMs), autonomous vehicles, robotics, computer vision systems, natural language processing (NLP), and AI-optimized hardware. == Background == Competition in AI is driven by potential economic, strategic, and scientific advantages. Breakthroughs in AI can enhance productivity, enable new products and services, and provide geopolitical leverage. The field has experienced rapid progress since the mid-2010s, particularly in machine learning and artificial neural networks, leading to intense rivalry among leading actors. == Corporate competition == Major technology companies are among the most visible competitors in AI. In the United States, firms such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Anthropic, and Nvidia compete in building advanced LLMs, generative AI platforms, and AI-optimized graphics processing units (GPUs). In China, companies such as Baidu, Alibaba Group, Tencent, and startups such DeepSeek have become leaders in AI deployment, often with state backing. The "[war for talent]" in AI research has become a defining feature of corporate competition. Leading firms often recruit top AI researchers from rivals, sometimes offering multi-million-dollar compensation packages. == National competition == Governments see leadership in AI as a strategic priority. The United States has funded AI research for military, economic, and societal applications, while China has set a target to lead the world in AI by 2030 through its "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan". Other nations, including the UK, India, Israel, Russia, South Korea, and members of the European Union, have launched national AI strategies. In February 2026 Anthropic said Chinese companies - DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax - were conducting "distillation attacks" in an attempt to copy their model's capabilities, and warned that business wars were closely tied to geopolitical ones: "foreign labs that illicitly distill American models can remove safeguards, feeding model capabilities into their own military, intelligence, and surveillance systems." == Sectors of competition == === Large language models and chatbots competition === Competition to produce the most capable generative text models, with benchmarks such as MMLU and ARC used to evaluate performance has been on scale since the emergence of AI. These systems leverage deep learning, especially transformer architectures, to understand and generate human-like language. Companies and research groups globally compete to develop chatbots that are more capable, reliable, and context-aware. Among the most well-known chatbots is ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. Since its public release in 2022, ChatGPT has rapidly gained widespread attention for its ability to engage in coherent and versatile conversations, assist with creative writing, and solve complex problems. In response, technology firms introduced competing chatbots aiming to challenge or surpass ChatGPT's capabilities. Notably, DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, launched an advanced chatbot integrated with their R1 language model, emphasizing strong natural language understanding and multilingual support. Similarly, Grok, developed by xAI (company), integrates conversational AI into vehicles and digital assistants, combining natural language processing with real-time data for personalized user interaction. These chatbots not only compete in language tasks but also demonstrate strategic reasoning capabilities by playing complex games such as chess and Go. This form of competition is reminiscent of historic AI milestones set by programs such as Deep Blue and AlphaGo. The OpenAI’s ChatGPT has been tested in playing chess at various levels, while DeepSeek’s chatbot showcased its prowess in online chess tournaments in early 2024, winning several matches against human and AI opponents. Grok, leveraging Tesla's vast data infrastructure, has demonstrated real-time strategic decision-making in simulation environments that include chess-like games. The competition pushes rapid innovation, with firms racing to improve chatbot conversational depth, reduce biases, increase factual accuracy, and integrate multimodal inputs like images and videos. At the same time, the competition raises questions about AI safety, ethical use, and the societal impacts of increasingly human-like chatbots. === Autonomous vehicles === Companies such as Waymo, Tesla, and Baidu are racing to deploy safe and reliable self-driving car technology. === AI chips === Rivalry between Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and Huawei in designing processors optimized for AI workloads. === Military applications === Development of AI-enabled drones, surveillance systems, and decision-support tools, with associated ethical debates. == Events == In 2023, OpenAI released GPT-4, prompting competitors such as Google DeepMind to accelerate the release of their own models, including Gemini. In 2024, Chinese AI company DeepSeek launched the R1 model, leading OpenAI to release an open-source system, GPT-OSS, as a strategic countermeasure. In 2022, Tesla and Waymo both expanded autonomous taxi services in U.S. cities, competing for regulatory approval and public trust. The U.S. Department of Defense's Project Maven and China's AI-enabled surveillance programs have been cited as examples of military AI rivalry. In 2025, Microsoft hired several senior engineers from Google DeepMind, highlighting the ongoing "talent poaching" competition in the AI sector. == Risks and concerns == Critics warn that unrestrained competition in AI can undermine safety, ethics, and governance. Concerns include the proliferation of biased or unsafe models, escalation in autonomous weapons, and reduced cooperation on safety standards.
Read more →
Automatic image annotation

Automatic image annotation (also known as automatic image tagging or linguistic indexing) is the process by which a computer system automatically assigns metadata in the form of captioning or keywords to a digital image. This application of computer vision techniques is used in image retrieval systems to organize and locate images of interest from a database. This method can be regarded as a type of multi-class image classification with a very large number of classes - as large as the vocabulary size. Typically, image analysis in the form of extracted feature vectors and the training annotation words are used by machine learning techniques to attempt to automatically apply annotations to new images. The first methods learned the correlations between image features and training annotations. Subsequently, techniques were developed using machine translation to attempt to translate the textual vocabulary into the 'visual vocabulary,' represented by clustered regions known as blobs. Subsequent work has included classification approaches, relevance models, and other related methods. The advantages of automatic image annotation versus content-based image retrieval (CBIR) are that queries can be more naturally specified by the user. At present, Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) generally requires users to search by image concepts such as color and texture or by finding example queries. However, certain image features in example images may override the concept that the user is truly focusing on. Traditional methods of image retrieval, such as those used by libraries, have relied on manually annotated images, which is expensive and time-consuming, especially given the large and constantly growing image databases in existence.
Read more →
Read–write conflict

In computer science, in the field of databases, read–write conflict, also known as unrepeatable reads, is a computational anomaly associated with interleaved execution of transactions. Specifically, a read–write conflict occurs when a "transaction requests to read an entity for which an unclosed transaction has already made a write request." Given a schedule S S = [ T 1 T 2 R ( A ) R ( A ) W ( A ) C o m . R ( A ) W ( A ) C o m . ] {\displaystyle S={\begin{bmatrix}T1&T2\\R(A)&\\&R(A)\\&W(A)\\&Com.\\R(A)&\\W(A)&\\Com.&\end{bmatrix}}} In this example, T1 has read the original value of A, and is waiting for T2 to finish. T2 also reads the original value of A, overwrites A, and commits. However, when T1 reads from A, it discovers two different versions of A, and T1 would be forced to abort, because T1 would not know what to do. This is an unrepeatable read. This could never occur in a serial schedule, in which each transaction executes in its entirety before another begins. Strict two-phase locking (Strict 2PL) or Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI) prevent this conflict. == Real-world example == Alice and Bob are using a website to book tickets for a specific show. Only one ticket is left for the specific show. Alice signs on first to see that only one ticket is left, and finds it expensive. Alice takes time to decide. Bob signs on and also finds one ticket left, and orders it instantly. Bob purchases and logs off. Alice decides to buy a ticket, to find there are no tickets. This is a typical read–write conflict situation.
Read more →
Friendly artificial intelligence

Friendly artificial intelligence (friendly AI or FAI) is hypothetical artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would have a positive (benign) effect on humanity or at least align with human interests such as fostering the improvement of the human species. It is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence and is closely related to machine ethics. While machine ethics is concerned with how an artificially intelligent agent should behave, friendly artificial intelligence research is focused on how to practically bring about this behavior and ensuring it is adequately constrained. == Etymology and usage == The term was coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for popularizing the idea, to discuss superintelligent artificial agents that reliably implement human values. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig's leading artificial intelligence textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, describes the idea: Yudkowsky (2008) goes into more detail about how to design a Friendly AI. He asserts that friendliness (a desire not to harm humans) should be designed in from the start, but that the designers should recognize both that their own designs may be flawed, and that the robot will learn and evolve over time. Thus the challenge is one of mechanism design—to define a mechanism for evolving AI systems under a system of checks and balances, and to give the systems utility functions that will remain friendly in the face of such changes. "Friendly" is used in this context as technical terminology, and picks out agents that are safe and useful, not necessarily ones that are "friendly" in the colloquial sense. The concept is primarily invoked in the context of discussions of recursively self-improving artificial agents that rapidly explode in intelligence, on the grounds that this hypothetical technology would have a large, rapid, and difficult-to-control impact on human society. == Risks of unfriendly AI == The roots of concern about artificial intelligence are very old. Kevin LaGrandeur showed that the dangers specific to AI can be seen in ancient literature concerning artificial humanoid servants such as the golem, or the proto-robots of Gerbert of Aurillac and Roger Bacon. In those stories, the extreme intelligence and power of these humanoid creations clash with their status as slaves (which by nature are seen as sub-human), and cause disastrous conflict. By 1942 these themes prompted Isaac Asimov to create the "Three Laws of Robotics"—principles hard-wired into all the robots in his fiction, intended to prevent them from turning on their creators, or allowing them to come to harm. In modern times as the prospect of superintelligent AI looms nearer, philosopher Nick Bostrom has said that superintelligent AI systems with goals that are not aligned with human ethics are intrinsically dangerous unless extreme measures are taken to ensure the safety of humanity. He put it this way: Basically we should assume that a 'superintelligence' would be able to achieve whatever goals it has. Therefore, it is extremely important that the goals we endow it with, and its entire motivation system, is 'human friendly.' In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky called for the creation of "friendly AI" to mitigate existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence. He explains: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." Steve Omohundro says that a sufficiently advanced AI system will, unless explicitly counteracted, exhibit a number of basic "drives", such as resource acquisition, self-preservation, and continuous self-improvement, because of the intrinsic nature of any goal-driven systems and that these drives will, "without special precautions", cause the AI to exhibit undesired behavior. Alexander Wissner-Gross says that AIs driven to maximize their future freedom of action (or causal path entropy) might be considered friendly if their planning horizon is longer than a certain threshold, and unfriendly if their planning horizon is shorter than that threshold. Luke Muehlhauser, writing for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, recommends that machine ethics researchers adopt what Bruce Schneier has called the "security mindset": Rather than thinking about how a system will work, imagine how it could fail. For instance, he suggests even an AI that only makes accurate predictions and communicates via a text interface might cause unintended harm. In 2014, Luke Muehlhauser and Nick Bostrom underlined the need for 'friendly AI'; nonetheless, the difficulties in designing a 'friendly' superintelligence, for instance via programming counterfactual moral thinking, are considerable. == Coherent extrapolated volition == Yudkowsky advances the Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) model. According to him, our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted". Rather than a Friendly AI being designed directly by human programmers, it is to be designed by a "seed AI" programmed to first study human nature and then produce the AI that humanity would want, given sufficient time and insight, to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The appeal to an objective through contingent human nature (perhaps expressed, for mathematical purposes, in the form of a utility function or other decision-theoretic formalism), as providing the ultimate criterion of "Friendliness", is an answer to the meta-ethical problem of defining an objective morality; extrapolated volition is intended to be what humanity objectively would want, all things considered, but it can only be defined relative to the psychological and cognitive qualities of present-day, unextrapolated humanity. == Other approaches == Steve Omohundro has proposed a "scaffolding" approach to AI safety, in which one provably safe AI generation helps build the next provably safe generation. Seth Baum argues that the development of safe, socially beneficial artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence is a function of the social psychology of AI research communities and so can be constrained by extrinsic measures and motivated by intrinsic measures. Intrinsic motivations can be strengthened when messages resonate with AI developers; Baum argues that, in contrast, "existing messages about beneficial AI are not always framed well". Baum advocates for "cooperative relationships, and positive framing of AI researchers" and cautions against characterizing AI researchers as "not want(ing) to pursue beneficial designs". In his book Human Compatible, AI researcher Stuart J. Russell lists three principles to guide the development of beneficial machines. He emphasizes that these principles are not meant to be explicitly coded into the machines; rather, they are intended for the human developers. The principles are as follows: The machine's only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. The "preferences" Russell refers to "are all-encompassing; they cover everything you might care about, arbitrarily far into the future." Similarly, "behavior" includes any choice between options, and the uncertainty is such that some probability, which may be quite small, must be assigned to every logically possible human preference. == Public policy == James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention, suggested that "a public-private partnership has to be created to bring A.I.-makers together to share ideas about security—something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, but in partnership with corporations." He urges AI researchers to convene a meeting similar to the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, which discussed risks of biotechnology. John McGinnis encourages governments to accelerate friendly AI research. Because the goalposts of friendly AI are not necessarily eminent, he suggests a model similar to the National Institutes of Health, where "Peer review panels of computer and cognitive scientists would sift through projects and choose those that are designed both to advance AI and assure that such advances would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards." McGinnis feels that peer review is better "than regulation to address technical issues that are not possible to capture through bureaucratic mandates". McGinnis notes that his proposal stands in contrast to that of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which generally aims to avoid government involvement in friendly AI. == Criticism == Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely and that, therefore, friendly AI is unlik
Read more →
Absher (application)

Absher (Arabic: أبشر ‘Absher, roughly meaning "good tidings" or "yes, done") is a smartphone application and web portal which allows citizens and residents of Saudi Arabia to use a variety of governmental services. Amongst several other services with the Absher app, it can be used to apply for jobs and Hajj permits, passport info can be updated, and electronic crimes can be reported. The application provides around 280 services for residents of Saudi Arabia including but not limited to making appointments, renewing passports, residents' cards, IDs, driver's licenses and others, and, controversially, enables Saudi men to track the whereabouts of women they control as part of the country's male guardianship system. The app can be downloaded from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store and is supplied by the Saudi Interior Ministry. According to the Ministry of the Interior, Absher has more than 20 million users. As of February 2019, Absher has been downloaded 4.2 million times from the App Store. Some services provided through Absher can also be accessed through the website absher.sa. In March 2021, Saudi Arabia launched the digital version of the Absher for individuals app through which the users can download a copy of their digital ID. Then, new services were added to the platform such as online birth and death registration services, requesting amendments to academic credentials, correcting names in English and marital status and requesting civil records of children. == Impact on women's rights == The app has been criticized by various human rights activists, human rights organisations and international communities. The US and European countries have also condemned the app and urged the kingdom to end its male guardianship system. Absher gained media attention in 2019 for its functions supporting the Saudi policy of male guardianship following an investigation by Business Insider. The app allows for designated guardians to receive notifications if a woman under their guardianship passes through an airport and subsequently gives them the option to withdraw her right to travel. In a few cases, this system has been circumvented by women who have been able to gain control over its settings and use it to allow themselves to travel. US Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote a letter to the CEO's of Apple and Google, criticizing the app and demanding for its removal immediately. Wyden said "American companies should not enable or facilitate the Saudi government's patriarchy," and called the Saudi system of control over women "abhorrent". According to the EU lawmakers, current rules imposed over the women by the Saudi government make women “second-class citizens”. The lawmakers also asked the EU states to continue to build pressure on Riyadh so as to improve the conditions of women and human rights. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Apple and Google of helping "enforce gender apartheid" by hosting the app. US congresswomen Rep. Katherine Clark and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney condemned the kingdom's male guardianship system that reflected from the app, calling Absher a "patriarchal weapon" and asking for its removal. In response to the criticism received by Absher, Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook stated in February 2019 that he intended to investigate the situation. Similarly, Google announced that it would also review the application. After a prompt review, Google declined to remove the app from Google Play, citing that it did not violate the agreed upon terms and conditions of the store. Saudi doctor Khawla Al-Kuraya supported this app an editorial in Bloomberg News. Kuraya wrote that Absher helped Saudi women avoid governmental bureaucracy as it allows their male guardians to process their travel permits anywhere and anytime through Absher. Although she believes that the guardianship system needs to be reconsidered, she thinks that Absher is an important step towards facilitating women-guardians related issues in Saudi Arabia. Absher manager Atiyah Al-Anazy announced in 2019 that two million women were using the application in Saudi Arabia to facilitate their transactions. Some female users stated that the application has made their movement and travel-related issues easier. New measures were introduced that year to allow Saudi women above the age of 18 to travel without their male guardians, which ultimately released male authoritative rights on women. A law was subsequently passed allowing women over the age of 21 to receive a passport and travel without prior male permission.
Read more →
Ontology alignment

Ontology alignment, or ontology matching, is the process of determining correspondences between concepts in ontologies. A set of correspondences is also called an alignment. The phrase takes on a slightly different meaning, in computer science, cognitive science or philosophy. == Computer science == For computer scientists, concepts are expressed as labels for data. Historically, the need for ontology alignment arose out of the need to integrate heterogeneous databases, ones developed independently and thus each having their own data vocabulary. In the Semantic Web context involving many actors providing their own ontologies, ontology matching has taken a critical place for helping heterogeneous resources to interoperate. Ontology alignment tools find classes of data that are semantically equivalent, for example, "truck" and "lorry". The classes are not necessarily logically identical. According to Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007), there are three major dimensions for similarity: syntactic, external, and semantic. Coincidentally, they roughly correspond to the dimensions identified by Cognitive Scientists below. A number of tools and frameworks have been developed for aligning ontologies, some with inspiration from Cognitive Science and some independently. Ontology alignment tools have generally been developed to operate on database schemas, XML schemas, taxonomies, formal languages, entity-relationship models, dictionaries, and other label frameworks. They are usually converted to a graph representation before being matched. Since the emergence of the Semantic Web, such graphs can be represented in the Resource Description Framework line of languages by triples of the form , as illustrated in the Notation 3 syntax. In this context, aligning ontologies is sometimes referred to as "ontology matching". The problem of Ontology Alignment has been tackled recently by trying to compute matching first and mapping (based on the matching) in an automatic fashion. Systems like DSSim, X-SOM or COMA++ obtained at the moment very high precision and recall. The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative aims to evaluate, compare and improve the different approaches. === Formal definition === Given two ontologies i = ⟨ C i , R i , I i , T i , V i ⟩ {\displaystyle i=\langle C_{i},R_{i},I_{i},T_{i},V_{i}\rangle } and j = ⟨ C j , R j , I j , T j , V j ⟩ {\displaystyle j=\langle C_{j},R_{j},I_{j},T_{j},V_{j}\rangle } where C {\displaystyle C} is the set of classes, R {\displaystyle R} is the set of relations, I {\displaystyle I} is the set of individuals, T {\displaystyle T} is the set of data types, and V {\displaystyle V} is the set of values, we can define different types of (inter-ontology) relationships. Such relationships will be called, all together, alignments and can be categorized among different dimensions: similarity vs logic: this is the difference between matchings (predicating about the similarity of ontology terms), and mappings (logical axioms, typically expressing logical equivalence or inclusion among ontology terms) atomic vs complex: whether the alignments we considered are one-to-one, or can involve more terms in a query-like formulation (e.g., LAV/GAV mapping) homogeneous vs heterogeneous: do the alignments predicate on terms of the same type (e.g., classes are related only to classes, individuals to individuals, etc.) or we allow heterogeneity in the relationship? type of alignment: the semantics associated to an alignment. It can be subsumption, equivalence, disjointness, part-of or any user-specified relationship. Subsumption, atomic, homogeneous alignments are the building blocks to obtain richer alignments, and have a well defined semantics in every Description Logic. Let's now introduce more formally ontology matching and mapping. An atomic homogeneous matching is an alignment that carries a similarity degree s ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle s\in [0,1]} , describing the similarity of two terms of the input ontologies i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Matching can be either computed, by means of heuristic algorithms, or inferred from other matchings. Formally we can say that, a matching is a quadruple m = ⟨ i d , t i , t j , s ⟩ {\displaystyle m=\langle id,t_{i},t_{j},s\rangle } , where t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} are homogeneous ontology terms, s {\displaystyle s} is the similarity degree of m {\displaystyle m} . A (subsumption, homogeneous, atomic) mapping is defined as a pair μ = ⟨ t i , t j ⟩ {\displaystyle \mu =\langle t_{i},t_{j}\rangle } , where t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} are homogeneous ontology terms. == Cognitive science == For cognitive scientists interested in ontology alignment, the "concepts" are nodes in a semantic network that reside in brains as "conceptual systems." The focal question is: if everyone has unique experiences and thus different semantic networks, then how can we ever understand each other? This question has been addressed by a model called ABSURDIST (Aligning Between Systems Using Relations Derived Inside Systems for Translation). Three major dimensions have been identified for similarity as equations for "internal similarity, external similarity, and mutual inhibition." == Ontology alignment methods == Two sub research fields have emerged in ontology mapping, namely monolingual ontology mapping and cross-lingual ontology mapping. The former refers to the mapping of ontologies in the same natural language, whereas the latter refers to "the process of establishing relationships among ontological resources from two or more independent ontologies where each ontology is labelled in a different natural language". Existing matching methods in monolingual ontology mapping are discussed in Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007). Approaches to cross-lingual ontology mapping are presented in Fu et al. (2011).
Read more →
Education by algorithm

Education by algorithm refers to automated solutions that algorithmic agents or social bots offer to education, to assist with mundane educational tasks. These are often instrumentalist “educational reforms” or “curriculum transformations”, which have been implemented by policy makers and are supported by proprietary education technologies. New educational policies, mandated by transnational governance forums (like the OECD), have manufactured a connection between economies and education. Governments, schools and universities are expected to introduce or prepare students for an “unknown future”, to “future proof” them against an identified issue or to mitigate a national crisis. Technologies are seen as a catalyst to effect these changes. However, these policies mask a deeper problem, which include the assetization of education and the use of technologies as a means for surveillance and behavior modification. The traces that students and leave, through cookies, logins learning activities, assignments and tests, are collected, facetted, and shared with commercial organizations by these agents, to both predict future behavior and shape it. Techno solutionist thinking has led to managers adopting educational policies and reforms, and looking towards technologies to act as disrupters, liberators or agents to improve efficiency. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many more students had to modify their learning and working circumstances to protect themselves. Academics shifted their assessment practices from the dominant assessment of learning paradigm to an orientation that saw value in "assessment for learning". Big tech assisted, and teaching infrastructure became further privatized, and unbundling of education provision went a step further. Following the return to class, this assessment paradigm became rationalised in education. Leaving the space for algorithmic agents to step in. Academics work was increasingly driven by learning experience platforms and student understanding was extended through interleaving, behavior modification nudges and rewards and scheduled high stakes assessments. This data collection may also be construed as surveillance., or perceived as evidence of a Fourth Industrial Revolution
Read more →
Informedia Digital Library

The Informedia Digital Library is an ongoing research program at Carnegie Mellon University to build search engines and information visualization technology for many types of media. The program has carried out research on spoken document retrieval, video information retrieval, video segmentation, face recognition, and cross-language information retrieval. The Lycos search engine was an early product of the Informedia Digital Library Project. The project is led by Howard Wactlar. Researchers on the project have included: Michael Mauldin, Alex Hauptmann, Michael Christel, Michael Witbrock, Raj Reddy, Takeo Kanade and Scott Stevens.
Read more →
Zé Delivery

Zé Delivery is a startup developed by Brazilian drinks company AmBev which offers an app for delivering drinks. The app is available for Android and iOS. Created in 2016 by AmBev's ZX Ventures hub, the service has an international presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. It is also present in more than 300 Brazilian cities. Because it has an extensive category of alcoholic beverages, the service is only used by people over 18. It also offers soft drinks, juices, energy drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages.
Read more →
Communication-avoiding algorithm

Communication-avoiding algorithms minimize movement of data within a memory hierarchy for improving its running-time and energy consumption. These minimize the total of two costs (in terms of time and energy): arithmetic and communication. Communication, in this context refers to moving data, either between levels of memory or between multiple processors over a network. It is much more expensive than arithmetic. == Formal theory == === Two-level memory model === A common computational model in analyzing communication-avoiding algorithms is the two-level memory model: There is one processor and two levels of memory. Level 1 memory is infinitely large. Level 0 memory ("cache") has size M {\displaystyle M} . In the beginning, input resides in level 1. In the end, the output resides in level 1. Processor can only operate on data in cache. The goal is to minimize data transfers between the two levels of memory. === Matrix multiplication === Corollary 6.2: More general results for other numerical linear algebra operations can be found in. The following proof is from. == Motivation == Consider the following running-time model: Measure of computation = Time per FLOP = γ Measure of communication = No. of words of data moved = β ⇒ Total running time = γ·(no. of FLOPs) + β·(no. of words) From the fact that β >> γ as measured in time and energy, communication cost dominates computation cost. Technological trends indicate that the relative cost of communication is increasing on a variety of platforms, from cloud computing to supercomputers to mobile devices. The report also predicts that gap between DRAM access time and FLOPs will increase 100× over coming decade to balance power usage between processors and DRAM. Energy consumption increases by orders of magnitude as we go higher in the memory hierarchy. United States president Barack Obama cited communication-avoiding algorithms in the FY 2012 Department of Energy budget request to Congress: New Algorithm Improves Performance and Accuracy on Extreme-Scale Computing Systems. On modern computer architectures, communication between processors takes longer than the performance of a floating-point arithmetic operation by a given processor. ASCR researchers have developed a new method, derived from commonly used linear algebra methods, to minimize communications between processors and the memory hierarchy, by reformulating the communication patterns specified within the algorithm. This method has been implemented in the TRILINOS framework, a highly-regarded suite of software, which provides functionality for researchers around the world to solve large scale, complex multi-physics problems. == Objectives == Communication-avoiding algorithms are designed with the following objectives: Reorganize algorithms to reduce communication across all memory hierarchies. Attain the lower-bound on communication when possible. The following simple example demonstrates how these are achieved. === Matrix multiplication example === Let A, B and C be square matrices of order n × n. The following naive algorithm implements C = C + A B: for i = 1 to n for j = 1 to n for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) Arithmetic cost (time-complexity): n2(2n − 1) for sufficiently large n or O(n3). Rewriting this algorithm with communication cost labelled at each step for i = 1 to n {read row i of A into fast memory} - n2 reads for j = 1 to n {read C(i,j) into fast memory} - n2 reads {read column j of B into fast memory} - n3 reads for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) {write C(i,j) back to slow memory} - n2 writes Fast memory may be defined as the local processor memory (CPU cache) of size M and slow memory may be defined as the DRAM. Communication cost (reads/writes): n3 + 3n2 or O(n3) Since total running time = γ·O(n3) + β·O(n3) and β >> γ the communication cost is dominant. The blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication algorithm reduces this dominant term: ==== Blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication ==== Consider A, B and C to be n/b-by-n/b matrices of b-by-b sub-blocks where b is called the block size; assume three b-by-b blocks fit in fast memory. for i = 1 to n/b for j = 1 to n/b {read block C(i,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 reads for k = 1 to n/b {read block A(i,k) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads {read block B(k,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) - {do a matrix multiply on blocks} {write block C(i,j) back to slow memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 writes Communication cost: 2n3/b + 2n2 reads/writes << 2n3 arithmetic cost Making b as large possible: 3b2 ≤ M we achieve the following communication lower bound: 31/2n3/M1/2 + 2n2 or Ω (no. of FLOPs / M1/2) == Previous approaches for reducing communication == Most of the approaches investigated in the past to address this problem rely on scheduling or tuning techniques that aim at overlapping communication with computation. However, this approach can lead to an improvement of at most a factor of two. Ghosting is a different technique for reducing communication, in which a processor stores and computes redundantly data from neighboring processors for future computations. Cache-oblivious algorithms represent a different approach introduced in 1999 for fast Fourier transforms, and then extended to graph algorithms, dynamic programming, etc. They were also applied to several operations in linear algebra as dense LU and QR factorizations. The design of architecture specific algorithms is another approach that can be used for reducing the communication in parallel algorithms, and there are many examples in the literature of algorithms that are adapted to a given communication topology.
Read more →
Conceptions of Library and Information Science

Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) is a series of conferences about historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives in Library and Information Science. == CoLIS conferences == CoLIS 1 1991 in Tampere, Finland CoLIS 2 1996 in Copenhagen, Denmark CoLIS 3 1999 in Dubrovnik, Croatia CoLIS 4 2002 in Seattle, US CoLIS 5 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland CoLIS 6 2007 in Borås, Sweden CoLIS 7 June 2010 in London, at City University London. CoLIS 8 August 19–22, 2013, in Copenhagen, Denmark, at The Royal School of Library and Information Science. CoLIS 9 June 27–29, 2016, in Uppsala, Sweden, at Uppsala University. CoLIS 10 June 16–19, 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Arts CoLIS 11 May 29–June 1, 2022, in Oslo, Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University.
Read more →
Algorithmic logic

Algorithmic logic is a calculus of programs that allows the expression of semantic properties of programs by appropriate logical formulas. It provides a framework that enables proving the formulas from the axioms of program constructs such as assignment, iteration and composition instructions and from the axioms of the data structures in question see Mirkowska & Salwicki (1987), Banachowski et al. (1977). The following diagram helps to locate algorithmic logic among other logics. [ P r o p o s i t i o n a l l o g i c o r S e n t e n t i a l c a l c u l u s ] ⊂ [ P r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s o r F i r s t o r d e r l o g i c ] ⊂ [ C a l c u l u s o f p r o g r a m s o r Algorithmic logic ] {\displaystyle \qquad \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Propositional\ logic} \\or\\\mathrm {Sentential\ calculus} \end{array}}\right]\subset \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Predicate\ calculus} \\or\\\mathrm {First\ order\ logic} \end{array}}\right]\subset \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Calculus\ of\ programs} \\or\\{\mbox{Algorithmic logic}}\end{array}}\right]} The formalized language of algorithmic logic (and of algorithmic theories of various data structures) contains three types of well formed expressions: Terms - i.e. expressions denoting operations on elements of data structures, formulas - i.e. expressions denoting the relations among elements of data structures, programs - i.e. algorithms - these expressions describe the computations. For semantics of terms and formulas consult pages on first-order logic and Tarski's semantics. The meaning of a program K {\displaystyle K} is the set of possible computations of the program. Algorithmic logic is one of many logics of programs. Another logic of programs is dynamic logic, see dynamic logic, Harel, Kozen & Tiuryn (2000).
Read more →
List & Label

List & Label is a professional reporting tool for software developers. It provides comprehensive design, print and export functions. The software component runs on Microsoft Windows and can be implemented in desktop, cloud and web applications. List & Label can be used to create user-defined dashboards, lists, invoices, forms and labels. It supports many development environments, frameworks and programming languages such as Microsoft Visual Studio, Embarcadero RAD Studio, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ASP.NET, C++, Delphi, Java, C Sharp and some more. List & Label either retrieves data from various sources via data binding, or works database independent. Reports are designed and created in the so-called List & Label Designer and then exported into a multitude of formats like PDF, Excel, XHTML and RTF. Since version 27 a web report designer for ASP.NET MVC is available. == History == The product was first released in 1992 by combit. The current version is 30. A new major version of List & Label is released every fall, usually in October. Updates are available several times a year via Service Pack. == Features == === Report Designer === The Designer enables users to graphically layout the report. It offers report objects such as tables, charts, crosstabs, gauges, HTML, conditionally formatted text, barcodes, matrix codes, and graphics, and is extensible using third-party add-ons. User applications can interact with the report via the programmable object model of the report. The real-time preview functionality allows users to view changes instantly. Usability features include layer and appearance management, enabling conditional logic to dynamically control the visibility of objects in reports. The Designer also supports the inclusion of multiple report containers in a single project, accommodating complex layouts such as parallel tables and charts. A formula wizard and support for scripting languages such as C# facilitate advanced calculations and logic. The Designer's object model (DOM) provides developers with the ability to modify layouts and behaviors programmatically. === Web Report Designer === The web report designer works browser-based and independent from printer drivers and spoolers - that makes deployments to the cloud easier. Just like the use of the Visual Studio deployment pipeline. === Data Sources === Depending on the programming language, the product offers automatic support for data sources: Databases such as Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, IBM Db2, SQLite, MariaDB, MongoDB, Cosmos DB XML data, CSV Business objects Data sources that can be accessed via OLE DB, ODBC or ADO.NET LINQ data and data from web services GraphQL Additionally, the product offers support for unbound data and can be extended to support other data sources via interfaces. === Output Options === Printer Image Formats (JPEG, BMP, EMF, TIFF, PNG, SVG, HEIF, WebP) Document Formats: PDF, PDF/A, Word (DOCX), Excel (XLS), PowerPoint (PPTX) HTML, XHTML, MHTML Barcodes Plain Text, RTF, CSV, JSON XML, ZIP, Email, JSON List & Label preview file === Target Audience === List & Label can be used in Windows development environments. While it competes most notably on the Microsoft .NET platform with other products such as Crystal Reports, SQL Server Reporting Services, ActiveReports, there are few competing products for other programming languages (e.g. Progress, Alaska Xbase++, Visual DataFlex). == Awards == Reader's Choice Award 2005–2008 Stevie Awards 2021: Best Technology for Data Visualization Top 100 Publisher Award Component Source 2013-2014, 2014-2015,2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022
Read more →
Archetype (information science)

In the field of informatics, an archetype is a formal re-usable model of a domain concept. Traditionally, the term archetype is used in psychology to mean an idealized model of a person, personality or behaviour (see Archetype). The usage of the term in informatics is derived from this traditional meaning, but applied to domain modelling instead. An archetype is defined by the OpenEHR Foundation (for health informatics) as follows: An archetype is a computable expression of a domain content model in the form of structured constraint statements, based on some reference model. openEHR archetypes are based on the openEHR reference model. Archetypes are all expressed in the same formalism. In general, they are defined for wide re-use, however, they can be specialized to include local particularities. They can accommodate any number of natural languages and terminologies. == Formal specifications == The modern archetype formalism is specified and maintained by the openEHR Foundation, and although originally developed for the health IT domain, is completely domain-independent, and has been used in geospatial modelling, telecommunications, and defence. The archetype formalism consists of a number of specifications including: 'ADL 1.4': original release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL) and Archetype Object Model (AOM); widely implemented in health IT domain; 'ADL 2': modern release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL), Archetype Object Model (AOM), Archetype Identification specification and Archetype Technology Overview. The Archetype Technology Overview provides a short technical overview of the archetype formalism useful for new users. The ADL/AOM 1.4 specifications were provided to ISO TC 215 in 2008 by the openEHR Foundation and became the ISO 13606-2 standard, extant until 2019. ISO TC 215 accepted the AOM 2 specification as the basis for a revision of this standard, which was issued in 2019. In late 2015, the Object Management Group (OMG) accepted an RfP entitled 'Archetype Modeling Language (AML)' as a new candidate standard. This specification is a form of ADL re-engineered as a UML profile so as to enable archetype modelling to be supported within UML tools. == Tools == A number of tools area available for working with archetypes. Most are listed on the openEHR modelling tools page. They include: ADL Designer, a modern AOM2-based web editing application Archetype Editor, an original desktop clinical modelling tool Template Designer, an original desktop clinical templating tool LinkEHR, an archetype and data integration tool ADL Workbench, reference compiler and visualiser tool == Example ==
Read more →
Aidoc

Aidoc Medical is an Israeli technology company that develops computer-aided simple triage and notification systems. Aidoc has obtained U.S. Food and Drug Administration and CE mark approval for its stroke, pulmonary embolism, cervical fracture, intracranial hemorrhage, intra-abdominal free gas, and incidental pulmonary embolism algorithms. Aidoc algorithms are in use in more than 900 hospitals and imaging centers, including Montefiore Nyack Hospital, LifeBridge Health, LucidHealth, Yale New Haven Hospital, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, and Sheba Medical Center. == History == Aidoc was founded in 2016 by Elad Walach as the CEO, Michael Braginsky as the CTO and Guy Reiner as the VP. In April 2017, the company raised $7M, led by TLV Partners, and in April 2019, the company raised another $27M, led by Square Peg capital. There have been several additional rounds of funding as well, bringing Aidoc's total investment to $370M as of July 2025. In August 2018, Aidoc gained FDA clearance for its intracranial hemorrhage system, and in May 2019 it received clearance for the pulmonary embolism system. In January 2020, the system for detecting large-vessel occlusions (LVOs) in head CTA examinations obtained FDA clearance. In October 2024, it was reported that Aidoc is working with NVIDIA to develop a framework for deployment and integration of artificial intelligence tools in healthcare. The Blueprint for Resilient Integration and Deployment of Guided Excellence (BRIDGE) is a guideline to facilitate AI adoption in the healthcare industry. == Products and market == Aidoc has developed a suite of artificial intelligence products that flag both time-sensitive and time-consuming (for the radiologist) abnormalities across the body. The algorithms are developed with large quantities of data to provide diagnostic aid for a broad set of pathologies. The company offers an array of algorithms that span across the body, including for intracranial hemorrhage, spine fractures (C, T & L), free air in the abdomen, pulmonary embolism, and more. It developed "Always-on AI", a term coined by Elad Walach that refers to a type of artificial intelligence that is "Always-on—constantly running in the background and automatically analyzing medical imaging data, identifying urgent findings, and sparing radiologists from "drowning" in vast amounts of irrelevant data. Aidoc's solutions cover medical conditions prevalent in all settings (ED/inpatient/outpatient), including level 1 trauma centers, outpatient imaging centers, teleradiology groups and, are set up in over 200 medical centers worldwide. Notable customers include the University of Rochester Medical Center and Global Diagnostics Australia. Aidoc announced in 2024 that its new Clinical AI Reasoning Engine (CARE1) had been submitted for FDA approval. In September 2025 Aidoc received a "Breakthrough Device Designation" from the FDA for a new multi-triage solution that spans numerous acute findings in CT scans. Aidoc's CARE1 foundation model was the basis of the workflow on which the designation was made, enabling simultaneous coverage of multiple pathologies. This new designation allows parallel FDA review of multiple indications under a single submission. In April 2026, Aidoc raised million in a Series E funding round led by Growth Equity at Goldman Sachs Alternatives, with participation from General Catalyst and NVentures. The financing brought the company's total funding to over million. == Clinical Research == A clinical study on Aidoc’ accuracy of deep convolutional neural networks for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) on CT pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) was performed by the University Hospital of Basel and presented at the European Congress of Radiology, showing that the Aidoc algorithm reached 93% sensitivity and 95% specificity. Clinical research has also been performed to test the diagnostic performance of Aidoc's deep learning-based triage system for the flagging of acute findings in abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations. Overall, the algorithm achieved 93% sensitivity (91/98, 7 false negatives) and 97% specificity (93/96, 3 false-positive) in the detection of acute abdominal findings. Additional clinical research on Aidoc's Intracranial hemorrhage algorithm accuracy was presented at the European Congress of Radiology by Antwerp University Hospital, evaluating the use of its deep learning algorithm for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage on non-contrast enhanced CT of the brain. The University of Washington completed a study on the accuracy of Aidoc's intracranial hemorrhage algorithm.
Read more →