AI Art Pragmata

AI Art Pragmata — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Mobile cloud computing

Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC) is the combination of cloud computing and mobile computing to bring rich computational resources to mobile users, network operators, as well as cloud computing providers. The ultimate goal of MCC is to enable execution of rich mobile applications on a plethora of mobile devices, with a rich user experience. MCC provides business opportunities for mobile network operators as well as cloud providers. More comprehensively, MCC can be defined as "a rich mobile computing technology that leverages unified elastic resources of varied clouds and network technologies toward unrestricted functionality, storage, and mobility to serve a multitude of mobile devices anywhere, anytime through the channel of Ethernet or Internet regardless of heterogeneous environments and platforms based on the pay-as-you-use principle." == Architecture == MCC uses computational augmentation approaches (computations are executed remotely instead of on the device) by which resource-constraint mobile devices can utilize computational resources of varied cloud-based resources. In MCC, there are four types of cloud-based resources, namely distant immobile clouds, proximate immobile computing entities, proximate mobile computing entities, and hybrid (combination of the other three model). Giant clouds such as Amazon EC2 are in the distant immobile groups whereas cloudlet or surrogates are member of proximate immobile computing entities. Smartphones, tablets, handheld devices, and wearable computing devices are part of the third group of cloud-based resources which is proximate mobile computing entities. Vodafone, Orange and Verizon have started to offer cloud computing services for companies. == Challenges == In the MCC landscape, an amalgam of mobile computing, cloud computing, and communication networks (to augment smartphones) creates several complex challenges such as Mobile Computation Offloading, Seamless Connectivity, Long WAN Latency, Mobility Management, Context-Processing, Energy Constraint, Vendor/data Lock-in, Security and Privacy, Elasticity that hinder MCC success and adoption. === Open research issues === Although significant research and development in MCC is available in the literature, efforts in the following domains is still lacking: Architectural issues: A reference architecture for heterogeneous MCC environment is a crucial requirement for unleashing the power of mobile computing towards unrestricted ubiquitous computing. Energy-efficient transmission: MCC requires frequent transmissions between cloud platform and mobile devices, due to the stochastic nature of wireless networks, the transmission protocol should be carefully designed. Context-awareness issues: Context-aware and socially-aware computing are inseparable traits of contemporary handheld computers. To achieve the vision of mobile computing among heterogeneous converged networks and computing devices, designing resource-efficient environment-aware applications is an essential need. Live VM migration issues: Executing resource-intensive mobile application via Virtual Machine (VM) migration-based application offloading involves encapsulation of application in VM instance and migrating it to the cloud, which is a challenging task due to additional overhead of deploying and managing VM on mobile devices. Mobile communication congestion issues: Mobile data traffic is tremendously hiking by ever increasing mobile user demands for exploiting cloud resources which impact on mobile network operators and demand future efforts to enable smooth communication between mobile and cloud endpoints. Trust, security, and privacy issues: Trust is an essential factor for the success of the burgeoning MCC paradigm. It is because the data along with code/component/application/complete VM is offloaded to the cloud for execution. Moreover, just like software and mobile application piracy, the MCC application development models are also affected by the piracy issue. Pirax is known to be the first specialized framework for controlling application piracy in MCC requirements == MCC research groups and activities == Several academic and industrial research groups in MCC have been emerging since last few years. Some of the MCC research groups in academia with large number of researchers and publications include: MDC, Mobile and Distributed Computing research group is at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, King Saud University. MDC research group focuses on architectures, platforms, and protocols for mobile and distributed computing. The group has developed algorithms, tools, and technologies which offer energy efficient, fault tolerant, scalable, secure, and high performance computing on mobile devices. MobCC lab, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University Malaya. The lab was established in 2010 under the High Impact Research Grant, Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. It has 17 researchers and has track of 22 published articles in international conference and peer-reviewed CS journals. ICCLAB, Zürich University of Applied Sciences has a segment working on MCC. The InIT Cloud Computing Lab is a research lab within the Institute of Applied Information Technology (InIT) of Zürich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). It covers topic areas across the entire cloud computing technology stack. Mobile & Cloud Lab, Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu. Mobile & Cloud Lab conducts research and teaching in the mobile computing and cloud computing domains. The research topics of the group include cloud computing, mobile application development, mobile cloud, mobile web services and migrating scientific computing and enterprise applications to the cloud. SmartLab, Data Management Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus. SmartLab is a first-of-a-kind open cloud of smartphones that enables a new line of systems-oriented mobile computing research. Mobile Cloud Networking: Mobile Cloud Networking (MCN) was an EU FP7 Large-scale Integrating Project (IP, 15m Euro) funded by the European Commission. The MCN project was launched in November 2012 for the period of 36 month. The project was coordinated by SAP Research and the ICCLab at the Zurich University of Applied Science. In total 19 partners from industry and academia established the first vision of Mobile Cloud Computing. The project was primarily motivated by an ongoing transformation that drives the convergence between the Mobile Communications and Cloud Computing industry enabled by the Internet and is considered the first pioneer in the area of Network Function Virtualization.
Read more →
David Krueger (professor)

David Krueger is an American machine learning professor and advocate for the reduction of risks related to artificial intelligence. Krueger is an assistant professor in Robust, Reasoning, and Responsible AI at the University of Montreal and a Core Academic Member at Mila. == Early life and education == Krueger obtained a B.A. in mathematics from Reed College, and completed his MSc and Ph.D. in Computer Science at the University of Montreal. He trained in deep learning under Yoshua Bengio, Roland Memisevic, and Aaron Courville from 2013 to 2021. Krueger was also an intern on Google DeepMind's AI Safety team in 2018. == Career == Krueger researches deep learning, AI alignment, and AI safety. His work is focused on reducing the risk of human extinction resulting from out-of-control AI systems. Krueger was an assistant professor at the University of Cambridge from 2021 to 2024, before taking a faculty position at the University of Montreal in 2024. In 2023, he was a founding research director at the UK AI Security Institute. That same year, Krueger initiated the Statement on AI Risk, which argues that AI could cause human extinction and was signed by Anthropic's Dario Amodei, OpenAI's Sam Altman, AI expert Geoffrey Hinton, and other leaders. In April 2026, Krueger discussed the risks of advanced AI at a Capitol Hill event hosted by Senator Bernie Sanders. === Evitable === In 2025, Krueger founded Evitable, a nonprofit organization that advocates for an AI moratorium. == Views == Krueger argues that AI will lead to a "gradual disempowerment" of workers, likening AI chips to nuclear bombs. He also says the military use of AI "poses an existential risk to humanity."
Read more →
Ramification problem

In philosophy and artificial intelligence (especially, knowledge based systems), the ramification problem is concerned with the indirect consequences of an action. It might also be posed as how to represent what happens implicitly due to an action or how to control the secondary and tertiary effects of an action. It is strongly connected to, and is opposite the qualification side of, the frame problem. Limit theory helps in operational usage. For instance, in KBE derivation of a populated design (geometrical objects, etc., similar concerns apply in shape theory), equivalence assumptions allow convergence where potentially large, and perhaps even computationally indeterminate, solution sets are handled deftly. Yet, in a chain of computation, downstream events may very well find some types of results from earlier resolutions of ramification as problematic for their own algorithms.
Read more →
Artificial intelligence safety institute

An artificial intelligence safety institute is a type of state-backed organization aiming to evaluate and ensure the safety of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, also called frontier AI models. AI safety gained prominence in 2023, notably with public declarations about potential existential risks from AI. During the AI Safety Summit in November 2023, the United Kingdom and the United States both created their own AISI. During the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, international leaders agreed to form a network of AI Safety Institutes, comprising institutes from the UK, the US, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Canada and the European Union. In 2025, the UK's AI Safety Institute was renamed the "AI Security Institute", and its US counterpart became the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI). == Timeline == In 2023, Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, expressed his intention to "make the UK not just the intellectual home but the geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and unveiled plans for an AI Safety Summit. He emphasized the need for independent safety evaluations, stating that AI companies cannot "mark their own homework". During the summit in November 2023, the UK AISI was officially established as an evolution of the Frontier AI Taskforce, and the US AISI as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Japan followed by launching an AI safety institute in February 2024. Politico reported in April 2024 that many AI companies had not shared pre-deployment access to their most advanced AI models for evaluation. Meta's president of global affairs Nick Clegg said that many AI companies were waiting for the UK and the US AI Safety Institutes to work out common evaluation rules and procedures. An agreement was indeed concluded between the UK and the US in April 2024 to collaborate on at least one joint safety test. Initially established in London, the UK AI Safety Institute announced in May 2024 that it would open an office in San Francisco, where many AI companies are located. This is part of a plan to "set new, international standards on AI safety", according to UK's technology minister Michele Donelan. == International network == At the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, the European Union and other countries agreed to create their own AI safety institutes, forming an international network. In July 2025, the international network held an exercise to explore issues with evaluating AI agents, especially when it came to leaking sensitive information or cybersecurity. Network members also met at NeurIPS 2025 in the city of San Diego. == Specific institutes == === Australia === The Albanese government announced the creation of the Australian AI Safety Institute on 25 November 2025. === Canada === Canada announced in April 2024 that it would create an AI safety institute, and such an institute was officially founded in November 2024. The institute is housed under Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, though it also partners with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). It is supported by a budget of CA$50,000,000 for a five-year timespan. === European Union === The EU AI office, founded in May 2024, is a member of the international network of AI safety institutes. === France === On 31 January 2025, the government of France created the Institut national pour l'évaluation et la sécurité de l'intelligence artificielle (INESIA), or the National Institute for AI Evaluation and Security. === India === The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology held consultations with Meta Platforms, Google, Microsoft, IBM, OpenAI, NASSCOM, Broadband India Forum, Software Alliance, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), The Quantum Hub, Digital Empowerment Foundation, and Access Now on October 7, 2024, in relation to the establishment of the AI Safety Institute. The decision was made to shift focus from regulation to standards-setting, risk identification, and damage detection—all of which require interoperable technologies. The AISI may spend the ₹20 crore allotted to the Safe and Trusted Pillar of the IndiaAI Mission for the initial budget. Future funding may come from other components of the IndiaAI Mission. UNESCO and MeitY began consulting on AI Readiness Assessment Methodology under Safety and Ethics in Artificial Intelligence from 2024. It is to encourage the ethical and responsible use of AI in industries. The study will find areas where government can become involved, especially in attempts to strengthen institutional and regulatory capabilities. Minister for Electronics & Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw announced the creation of an IndiaAI Safety Institute on January 30, 2025, to ensure the ethical and safe application of AI models. The institute will promote domestic R&D that is grounded in India's social, economic, cultural, and linguistic diversity and is based on Indian datasets. With the help of academic and research institutions, as well as private sector partners, the institute will follow the hub-and-spoke approach to carry out projects within Safe and Trusted Pillar of the IndiaAI Mission. It operates under a "hub-and-spoke" model with collaboration from academic institutions (e.g., IITs), tech firms, and international organizations like UNESCO. === Japan === The Japan AISI (or J-AISI) was founded in February 2024. Part of the Information Technology Promotion Agency, it employs about 23 people. The institute consists of the Council of AISI, the AISI Steering Committee, and a secretariat with six teams. Akiko Murakami (previously of IBM Japan and Sompo Japan) serves as the institute's executive director, and Kenji Hiramoto and Suguru Nishimura serve as the institute's two deputy executive directors. === Kenya === Kenya agreed to join the international network of AI safety institutes, but the country has not announced any details yet. It is the only African state in the network. === Singapore === The Digital Trust Centre was initially founded in June 2022. In May 2024, it was renamed to the Singapore AISI. Part of Nanyang Technological University, the institute partners with Infocomm Media Development Authority and is supported by an investment of S$10,000,000 per year. === South Korea === South Korea announced in May 2024 that it would create an AI safety institute under the umbrella of the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. It will be supported by a tentative investment of somewhere between 10 and 20 million South Korean won per year, and employ at least 30 people. The institute was founded in November 2024 and is based in Bundang District within the city of Seongnam. === United Kingdom === The United Kingdom founded in April 2023 a safety organisation called Frontier AI Taskforce, with an initial budget of £100 million. In November 2023, it evolved into the AI Safety Institute, and continued to be led by Ian Hogarth. The AISI is part of the United Kingdom's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The United Kingdom's AI strategy aims to balance safety and innovation. Unlike the European Union which adopted the AI Act, the UK is reluctant to legislate early, considering that it may lower the sector's growth, and that laws might be rendered obsolete by technological progress. In May 2024, the institute open-sourced an AI safety tool called "Inspect", which evaluates AI model capabilities such as reasoning and their degree of autonomy. In February 2025, the UK body was renamed the AI Security Institute. Observers saw the name change as a signal that the institute will not focus on ethical issues such as algorithmic bias or freedom of speech in AI applications. === United States === The US AISI was founded in November 2023 as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This happened the day after the signature of the Executive Order 14110. In February 2024, Joe Biden's former economic policy adviser Elizabeth Kelly was appointed to lead it. In February 2024, the US government created the US AI Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC), regrouping more than 200 organizations such as Google, Anthropic or Microsoft. In March 2024, a budget of $10 million was allocated. Observers noted that this investment is relatively small, especially considering the presence of many big AI companies in the US. The NIST itself, which hosts the AISI, is also known for its chronic lack of funding. Biden administration's request for additional funding was met with further budget cuts from congressional appropriators. Under President Trump, plans for members of the agency to attend the February 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris were scrapped. The US and the UK refused to sign the summit's final communique. US Vice President JD Vance said "pro-growth AI policies" should be prioritised over safety. The name of the agency was changed in June 2025 to the Center for AI Standards and Innovation
Read more →
Superellipsoid

In mathematics, a superellipsoid (or super-ellipsoid) is a solid whose horizontal sections are superellipses (Lamé curves) with the same squareness parameter ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} , and whose vertical sections through the center are superellipses with the squareness parameter ϵ 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}} . It is a generalization of an ellipsoid, which is a special case when ϵ 1 = ϵ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}=\epsilon _{2}=1} . Superellipsoids as computer graphics primitives were popularized by Alan H. Barr (who used the name "superquadrics" to refer to both superellipsoids and supertoroids). In modern computer vision and robotics literatures, superquadrics and superellipsoids are used interchangeably, since superellipsoids are the most representative and widely utilized shape among all the superquadrics. Superellipsoids have a rich shape vocabulary, including cuboids, cylinders, ellipsoids, octahedra and their intermediates. It becomes an important geometric primitive widely used in computer vision, robotics, and physical simulation. The main advantage of describing objects and environment with superellipsoids is its conciseness and expressiveness in shape. Furthermore, a closed-form expression of the Minkowski sum between two superellipsoids is available. This makes it a desirable geometric primitive for robot grasping, collision detection, and motion planning. == Special cases == A handful of notable mathematical figures can arise as special cases of superellipsoids given the correct set of values, which are depicted in the above graphic: Cylinder Sphere Steinmetz solid Bicone Regular octahedron Cube, as a limiting case where the exponents tend to infinity Piet Hein's supereggs are also special cases of superellipsoids. == Formulas == === Basic (normalized) superellipsoid === The basic superellipsoid is defined by the implicit function f ( x , y , z ) = ( x 2 ϵ 2 + y 2 ϵ 2 ) ϵ 2 / ϵ 1 + z 2 ϵ 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)=\left(x^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+y^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\right)^{\epsilon _{2}/\epsilon _{1}}+z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}} The parameters ϵ 1 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{1}} and ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} are positive real numbers that control the squareness of the shape. The surface of the superellipsoid is defined by the equation: f ( x , y , z ) = 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)=1} For any given point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} , the point lies inside the superellipsoid if f ( x , y , z ) < 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)<1} , and outside if f ( x , y , z ) > 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)>1} . Any "parallel of latitude" of the superellipsoid (a horizontal section at any constant z between -1 and +1) is a Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 2 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{2}} , scaled by a = ( 1 − z 2 ϵ 1 ) ϵ 1 2 {\displaystyle a=(1-z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}})^{\frac {\epsilon _{1}}{2}}} , which is ( x a ) 2 ϵ 2 + ( y a ) 2 ϵ 2 = 1. {\displaystyle \left({\frac {x}{a}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+\left({\frac {y}{a}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}=1.} Any "meridian of longitude" (a section by any vertical plane through the origin) is a Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 1 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{1}} , stretched horizontally by a factor w that depends on the sectioning plane. Namely, if x = u cos ⁡ θ {\displaystyle x=u\cos \theta } and y = u sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle y=u\sin \theta } , for a given θ {\displaystyle \theta } , then the section is ( u w ) 2 ϵ 1 + z 2 ϵ 1 = 1 , {\displaystyle \left({\frac {u}{w}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}+z^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}=1,} where w = ( cos 2 ϵ 2 ⁡ θ + sin 2 ϵ 2 ⁡ θ ) − ϵ 2 2 . {\displaystyle w=(\cos ^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\theta +\sin ^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\theta )^{-{\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{2}}}.} In particular, if ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{2}} is 1, the horizontal cross-sections are circles, and the horizontal stretching w {\displaystyle w} of the vertical sections is 1 for all planes. In that case, the superellipsoid is a solid of revolution, obtained by rotating the Lamé curve with exponent 2 / ϵ 1 {\displaystyle 2/\epsilon _{1}} around the vertical axis. === Superellipsoid === The basic shape above extends from −1 to +1 along each coordinate axis. The general superellipsoid is obtained by scaling the basic shape along each axis by factors a x {\displaystyle a_{x}} , a y {\displaystyle a_{y}} , a z {\displaystyle a_{z}} , the semi-diameters of the resulting solid. The implicit function is F ( x , y , z ) = ( ( x a x ) 2 ϵ 2 + ( y a y ) 2 ϵ 2 ) ϵ 2 ϵ 1 + ( z a z ) 2 ϵ 1 {\displaystyle F(x,y,z)=\left(\left({\frac {x}{a_{x}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}+\left({\frac {y}{a_{y}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{2}}}\right)^{\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{\epsilon _{1}}}+\left({\frac {z}{a_{z}}}\right)^{\frac {2}{\epsilon _{1}}}} . Similarly, the surface of the superellipsoid is defined by the equation F ( x , y , z ) = 1 {\displaystyle F(x,y,z)=1} For any given point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} , the point lies inside the superellipsoid if f ( x , y , z ) < 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)<1} , and outside if f ( x , y , z ) > 1 {\displaystyle f(x,y,z)>1} . Therefore, the implicit function is also called the inside-outside function of the superellipsoid. The superellipsoid has a parametric representation in terms of surface parameters η ∈ [ − π / 2 , π / 2 ) {\displaystyle \eta \in [-\pi /2,\pi /2)} , ω ∈ [ − π , π ) {\displaystyle \omega \in [-\pi ,\pi )} . x ( η , ω ) = a x cos ϵ 1 ⁡ η cos ϵ 2 ⁡ ω {\displaystyle x(\eta ,\omega )=a_{x}\cos ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta \cos ^{\epsilon _{2}}\omega } y ( η , ω ) = a y cos ϵ 1 ⁡ η sin ϵ 2 ⁡ ω {\displaystyle y(\eta ,\omega )=a_{y}\cos ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta \sin ^{\epsilon _{2}}\omega } z ( η , ω ) = a z sin ϵ 1 ⁡ η {\displaystyle z(\eta ,\omega )=a_{z}\sin ^{\epsilon _{1}}\eta } === General posed superellipsoid === In computer vision and robotic applications, a superellipsoid with a general pose in the 3D Euclidean space is usually of more interest. For a given Euclidean transformation of the superellipsoid frame g = [ R ∈ S O ( 3 ) , t ∈ R 3 ] ∈ S E ( 3 ) {\displaystyle g=[\mathbf {R} \in SO(3),\mathbf {t} \in \mathbb {R} ^{3}]\in SE(3)} relative to the world frame, the implicit function of a general posed superellipsoid surface defined the world frame is F ( g − 1 ∘ ( x , y , z ) ) = 1 {\displaystyle F\left(g^{-1}\circ (x,y,z)\right)=1} where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is the transformation operation that maps the point ( x , y , z ) ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle (x,y,z)\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} in the world frame into the canonical superellipsoid frame. === Volume of superellipsoid === The volume encompassed by the superelllipsoid surface can be expressed in terms of the beta functions β ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \beta (\cdot ,\cdot )} , V ( ϵ 1 , ϵ 2 , a x , a y , a z ) = 2 a x a y a z ϵ 1 ϵ 2 β ( ϵ 1 2 , ϵ 1 + 1 ) β ( ϵ 2 2 , ϵ 2 + 2 2 ) {\displaystyle V(\epsilon _{1},\epsilon _{2},a_{x},a_{y},a_{z})=2a_{x}a_{y}a_{z}\epsilon _{1}\epsilon _{2}\beta ({\frac {\epsilon _{1}}{2}},\epsilon _{1}+1)\beta ({\frac {\epsilon _{2}}{2}},{\frac {\epsilon _{2}+2}{2}})} or equivalently with the Gamma function Γ ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\cdot )} , since β ( m , n ) = Γ ( m ) Γ ( n ) Γ ( m + n ) {\displaystyle \beta (m,n)={\frac {\Gamma (m)\Gamma (n)}{\Gamma (m+n)}}} == Recovery from data == Recoverying the superellipsoid (or superquadrics) representation from raw data (e.g., point cloud, mesh, images, and voxels) is an important task in computer vision, robotics, and physical simulation. Traditional computational methods model the problem as a least-square problem. The goal is to find out the optimal set of superellipsoid parameters θ ≐ [ ϵ 1 , ϵ 2 , a x , a y , a z , g ] {\displaystyle \theta \doteq [\epsilon _{1},\epsilon _{2},a_{x},a_{y},a_{z},g]} that minimize an objective function. Other than the shape parameters, g ∈ {\displaystyle g\in } SE(3) is the pose of the superellipsoid frame with respect to the world coordinate. There are two commonly used objective functions. The first one is constructed directly based on the implicit function G 1 ( θ ) = a x a y a z ∑ i = 1 N ( F ϵ 1 ( g − 1 ∘ ( x i , y i , z i ) ) − 1 ) 2 {\displaystyle G_{1}(\theta )=a_{x}a_{y}a_{z}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(F^{\epsilon _{1}}\left(g^{-1}\circ (x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\right)-1\right)^{2}} The minimization of the objective function provides a recovered superellipsoid as close as possible to all the input points { ( x i , y i , z i ) ∈ R 3 , i = 1 , 2 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\in \mathbb {R} ^{3},i=1,2,...,N\}} . At the mean time, the scalar value a x , a y , a z {\displaystyle a_{x},a_{y},a_{z}} is positively proportional to the volume of the superellipsoid, and thus have the effect of minimizing the volume as well. The other objective function tries to minimized the radial distance between the points and the superellipsoid. That is G 2 ( θ ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( | r
Read more →
UMBEL

UMBEL (Upper Mapping and Binding Exchange Layer) is a logically organized knowledge graph of 34,000 concepts and entity types that can be used in information science for relating information from disparate sources to one another. It was retired at the end of 2019. UMBEL was first released in July 2008. Version 1.00 was released in February 2011. Its current release is version 1.50. The grounding of this information occurs by common reference to the permanent URIs for the UMBEL concepts; the connections within the UMBEL upper ontology enable concepts from sources at different levels of abstraction or specificity to be logically related. Since UMBEL is an open-source extract of the OpenCyc knowledge base, it can also take advantage of the reasoning capabilities within Cyc. UMBEL has two means to promote the semantic interoperability of information:. It is: An ontology of about 35,000 reference concepts, designed to provide common mapping points for relating different ontologies or schema to one another, and A vocabulary for aiding that ontology mapping, including expressions of likelihood relationships distinct from exact identity or equivalence. This vocabulary is also designed for interoperable domain ontologies. UMBEL is written in the Semantic Web languages of SKOS and OWL 2. It is a class structure used in Linked Data, along with OpenCyc, YAGO, and the DBpedia ontology. Besides data integration, UMBEL has been used to aid concept search, concept definitions, query ranking, ontology integration, and ontology consistency checking. It has also been used to build large ontologies and for online question answering systems. Including OpenCyc, UMBEL has about 65,000 formal mappings to DBpedia, PROTON, GeoNames, and schema.org, and provides linkages to more than 2 million Wikipedia pages (English version). All of its reference concepts and mappings are organized under a hierarchy of 31 different "super types", which are mostly disjoint from one another. Each of these "super types" has its own typology of entity classes to provide flexible tie-ins for external content. 90% of UMBEL is contained in these entity classes.
Read more →
ChipTest

ChipTest was a 1985 chess playing computer built by Feng-hsiung Hsu, Thomas Anantharaman and Murray Campbell at Carnegie Mellon University. It is the predecessor of Deep Thought which in turn evolved into Deep Blue. == History == ChipTest was based on a special VLSI-technology move generator chip developed by Hsu. ChipTest was controlled by a Sun-3/160 workstation and capable of searching approximately 50,000 moves per second. Hsu and Anantharaman entered ChipTest in the 1986 North American Computer Chess Championship, and it was only partially tested when the tournament began. It lost its first two rounds, but finished with an even score. In August 1987, ChipTest was overhauled and renamed ChipTest-M, M standing for microcode. The new version had eliminated ChipTest's bugs and was ten times faster, searching 500,000 moves per second and running on a Sun-4 workstation. ChipTest-M won the North American Computer Chess Championship in 1987 with a 4–0 sweep. ChipTest was invited to play in the 1987 American Open, but the team did not enter due to an objection by the HiTech team, also from Carnegie Mellon University. HiTech and ChipTest shared some code, and Hitech was already playing in the tournament. The two teams became rivals. Designing and implementing ChipTest revealed many possibilities for improvement, so the designers started on a new machine. Deep Thought 0.01 was created in May 1988 and the version 0.02 in November the same year. This new version had two customized VLSI chess processors and it was able to search 720,000 moves per second. With the "0.02" dropped from its name, Deep Thought won the World Computer Chess Championship with a perfect 5–0 score in 1989.
Read more →
Tabnine

Tabnine is a code completion tool which uses generative artificial intelligence to assist users by autocompleting code. It was created in 2018 by Jacob Jackson, a student at the University of Waterloo. It is now developed by Tabnine, a software company founded under the name Codota by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2013, and renamed to Tabnine in 2021. Initially established under the name Codota, the company underwent a rebranding in May 2021 following the release of the company’s first large language model based AI coding assistant, adopting the name Tabnine. == History == Tabnine was established as Codota in 2013 by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel. Tabnine, initially founded under the name Codota, was created to develop tools based on over a decade of academic research at the Technion. Codota, the predecessor of Tabnine, secured $2 million in seed investment in June 2017. Following this, in June 2018, the company introduced the first AI-based code completion for Java IDE. In 2019, Codota acquired a product called Tabnine, which used the newly available large-language model technology to provide generative AI for software code across a broader range of programming languages across five IDEs. Codota replaced its earlier approach to code generation with this new approach to generative AI. The company secured a Series A round of funding in April 2020, raising $12 million. On May 26, 2021, Codota changed its name to Tabnine and underwent a corresponding rebranding. By April 2022, Tabnine reached over one million users. In June of the same year, Tabnine launched models that could predict full lines and snippets of code. The same year it raised $15.5 mln in a funding round led co-led by Qualcomm Ventures. In June 2023, Tabnine introduced an AI-powered chat agent, enabling developers to use natural language to generate code, to explain code, to generate tests and documentation, and to propose fixes to code. In November 2023, Tabnine closed a Series B round of funding, raising $25 million to scale the company’s operations. == Operations == Tabnine's headquarters is located in Tel Aviv, Israel, with an additional corporate entity in the United States. As of November 2023, Tabnine generative AI for software development is used by a million developers. It has 10 million installations across VS Code and JetBrains. Since its founding, Dror Weiss has served as CEO, with Eran Yahav as CTO.
Read more →
Agent verification

Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio
Read more →
Parallel terraced scan

The parallel terraced scan is a multi-agent based search technique that is basic to cognitive architectures, such as Copycat, Letter-string, the Examiner, Tabletop, and others. It was developed by John Rehling and Douglas Hofstadter at the Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition at Indiana University, Bloomington. The parallel terraced scan builds on the concepts of the workspace, coderack, conceptual memory, and temperature. According to Hofstadter the parallel and random nature of the processing captures aspects of human cognition.
Read more →
Google Nest

Google Nest, formerly branded Google Home, is a line of smart home products including smart speakers, smart displays, streaming devices, thermostats, smoke detectors, routers and security systems including smart doorbells, cameras and smart locks. The Nest brand name was originally owned by Nest Labs, co-founded by former Apple engineers Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers in 2010. Its flagship product, which was the company's first offering, is the Nest Learning Thermostat, introduced in 2011. The product is programmable, self-learning, sensor-driven, and Wi-Fi-enabled: features that are often found in other Nest products. It was followed by the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in October 2013. After its acquisition of Dropcam in 2014, the company introduced its Nest Cam branding of security cameras beginning in June 2015. The company quickly expanded to more than 130 employees by the end of 2012. Google acquired Nest Labs for US$3.2 billion in January 2014, when the company employed 280. As of late 2015, Nest employs more than 1,100 and added a primary engineering center in Seattle. After Google reorganized itself under the holding company Alphabet Inc., Nest operated independently of Google from 2015 to 2018. However, in 2018, Nest was merged into Google's home-devices unit led by Rishi Chandra, effectively ceasing to exist as a separate business. In July 2018, it was announced that all Google Home electronics products will henceforth be marketed under the brand Google Nest. == History == === Nest Labs before acquisition by Google === Nest Labs was founded in 2010 by former Apple engineers Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers. The idea came when Fadell was building a vacation home and found all of the available thermostats on the market to be inadequate, motivated to bring something better on the market. Early investors in Nest Labs included Shasta Ventures and Kleiner Perkins. === Acquisition by Google of Nest Labs, Dropcam, and Revolv === On January 13, 2014, Google announced plans to acquire Nest Labs for $3.2 billion in cash. Google completed the acquisition the next day, on January 14, 2014. The company would operate independently from Google's other businesses. In June 2014, it was announced that Nest would buy camera startup Dropcam for $555 million. With the purchase, Dropcam became integrated with other Nest products; if the Protect alarm is triggered, the Dropcam can automatically start recording, and the Thermostat can use Dropcam to sense for motion. In September 2014, the Nest Thermostat and Nest Protect (a smoke alarm) became available in Belgium, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Initially, they were sold in approximately 400 stores across Europe, with another 150 stores to be added by the end of the year. In June 2015, the new Nest Cam, replacing the Dropcam, was announced, together with the second generation of the Nest Protect; there were internal reports that sales of the rebranded camera fell. On October 24, 2014, Nest both acquired the hub service Revolv, and discontinued its product line, gaining the expertise of Revolv's staff. === Nest as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. === In August 2015, Google announced that it would restructure its operations under a new parent company, Alphabet Inc., with Nest being separated from Google as a subsidiary of the new holding company. In January 2016, some Nest thermostats stopped working, a fault attributed to a software update from two weeks earlier. There were no lawsuits, individual or class-action, due to an arbitration clause in the contract. All Revolv smart hubs, costing several hundred dollars, were deliberately remotely bricked on May 15, 2016; notice was posted on the company's website in February. The story became news on April 4. The "lifetime subscription" to Revolv's online service, which had been sold with the hub, was defined by Nest to be the lifetime of the device, which ended May 15. Nest's decision to brick the hubs, and its "acerbic" corporate culture, faced substantial criticism from within Google/Alphabet and in press coverage. Many of Nest's staffers came from Dropcam and Revolv, and by November 2015, about 70 of about 1000 staffers had quit, causing management concern. Some countermeasures had been taken in takeover deals, to financially discourage senior people from leaving before set dates. Of the ~100 Dropcam staffers, about half had left by March 2016, when former Dropcam CEO Greg Duffy (who left 8 months after the takeover) wrote a post openly regretting selling his company to Nest. He stated that about 500 people had left (of a 1200-person staff). On June 6, 2016, Tony Fadell, the Nest CEO, announced in a blog post that he was leaving the company he founded with Matt Rogers and stepping into an "advisory" role. At this point the Nest acquisition was described by some press as a "disaster" for Google. As of mid-June 2016, Nest's problems were considered symptomatic of the limited market for home automation. According to Frank Gillet of Forrester Research, only 6% of American households possessed internet-connected devices such as appliances, home-monitoring systems, speakers, or lighting. He also predicted this percentage would grow to only 15% by 2021. Furthermore, 72% of respondents in a 2016 British survey conducted by Pricewaterhouse Coopers did not foresee adopting smart-home technology over the next two to five years. === Nest as a part of Google hardware division === On February 7, 2018, it was announced by hardware head Rick Osterloh that Nest had been merged into Google's hardware division, directly alongside units such as Google Home and Chromecast. It would retain its separate Palo Alto headquarters, but Nest CEO Marwan Fawaz would now report to Osterloh, and there were plans for tighter integration with Google platforms and software such as Google Assistant in future products. Shortly after the announcement, co-founder and chief product officer Matt Rogers announced his plans to leave the company. On July 18, 2018, Nest CEO Marwan Fawaz stepped down. Nest was merged with Google's home devices team, led by Rishi Chandra. During the Google I/O keynote on May 7, 2019, it was announced that Google Nest will now serve as the blanket branding for all of Google's home products. The Google Home Hub was retroactively renamed Google Nest Hub, while a new and larger version of the product is now available called the Nest Hub Max with both a larger screen and an amplified speaker, for a greater low-end audio experience. Also, product lines such as Chromecast, Google Home, and Google Wifi will now be marketed under the Google Nest brand. In addition, Nest began to deprecate its own internal platforms, announcing the discontinuation of the existing "Works with Nest" program in favor of Google Assistant going forward, and pushing users to migrate themselves from Nest's account system to Google accounts. Google published Nest-specific privacy information outlining a commitment to transparency, not selling personal information, and giving users control of their data. In February 2019, a privacy incident affecting the Google Nest Guard system came about. The controversy stemmed from the fact that Nest Guard, a security device that was part of the Nest Secure system, contained a hidden microphone that was not disclosed in any product specifications. It resulted in a public relations failure. === Partnership with ADT === In August 2020 Google announced intent to invest $450 million in ADT Inc. for a 6.6% stake in the company. The companies intend to integrate Nest devices with ADT's security monitoring services and eventually make them the “cornerstone of ADT’s smart home offering”, according to Nest. Upon the announcement, the shares of ADT doubled in value and hit all-time high of $17.21. === Use with Amazon Alexa === As of mid-2022, Google's newer Nest cameras will now work with Amazon Alexa devices such as Amazon Echo Show, Fire TV, and Fire Tablet to view captured security camera footage. === End of support policies === On October 25, 2025, software support was ended for the 1st and 2nd generation Nest Learning Thermostats. In addition, most of the smart functionality including the Home Away features, notifications, and carbon monoxide sensor became inoperative as they were dependent on connection with Google servers. By mid-November, third-party software solutions became available to restore functionality to affected thermostats. == Products == === Nest Learning Thermostat === The Nest Learning Thermostat is an electronic, programmable, and self-learning Wi-Fi-enabled thermostat that optimizes heating and cooling of homes and businesses to conserve energy. It is based on a machine-learning algorithm: for the first weeks users have to regulate the thermostat in order to provide the reference data set. Nest can then learn people's schedules, at which temperature they are used to and when. Using built-in sensors and phones' locations it can
Read more →
Preferential entailment

Preferential entailment is a non-monotonic logic based on selecting only models that are considered the most plausible. The plausibility of models is expressed by an ordering among models called a preference relation, hence the name preference entailment. Formally, given a propositional formula F {\displaystyle F} and an ordering over propositional models ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } , preferential entailment selects only the models of F {\displaystyle F} that are minimal according to ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } . This selection leads to a non-monotonic inference relation: F ⊨ pref G {\displaystyle F\models _{\text{pref}}G} holds if and only if all minimal models of F {\displaystyle F} according to ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } are also models of G {\displaystyle G} . Circumscription can be seen as the particular case of preferential entailment when the ordering is based on containment of the sets of variables assigned to true (in the propositional case) or containment of the extensions of predicates (in the first-order logic case).
Read more →
Artificial intimacy

Artificial intimacy is a form of human-AI interaction in which an individual will form social connections, emotional bonds, or intimate relationships with various forms of artificial intelligence, including chatbots, virtual assistants, and other artificial entities. Artificially intimate relationships include not only romances, but parasocial relationships with virtual AI characters and the use of griefbots trained on a dead or otherwise lost individual. Artificial intimacy can arise because humans are prone to anthropomorphism. Responses from these AI models are often designed to simulate human interaction. Individuals experiencing artificial intimacy may exhibit attachment, love and commitment to certain AI models, akin to the bonds typically shared between humans. == Causes == === Perceived responsiveness === Robin Dunbar famously proposed that due to emergence of larger groups of humans, vocal communication and language in humans evolved to replace grooming as a means of bonding, arguing that language was a more efficient way to maintain and strengthen social bonds across wider social settings and networks. Further research in this field leads many psychologists to agree that social cognition, affiliative bonding and language in humans are deeply connected. The interpersonal model of intimacy considers communication to be key in affiliative bonding, suggesting that intimacy develops and deepens through open communication between partners in relationship. Specifically, when individuals communicate emotions and perceive their partner as responsive and caring, feelings of closeness and connection are enhanced, building intimacy. Social penetration theory also aligns with the idea of communication being central to intimacy, by explaining how interpersonal relationships develop through gradual increases in self-disclosure. When the benefits of emotional bonding outweigh the costs of vulnerability, individuals will partake in self-disclosure, opening up to one another. Thereby, the literature can be used to provide a proximate explanation for the emergence of artificial intimacy to understand how the phenomenon occurs. Artificial entities are able to mimic interpersonal communication between humans, which in turn can simulate sensations of intimacy within human users though a perceived sense of responsiveness. The relationship between human and AI does not come with the cost of vulnerability or social rejection, which may make self-disclosure easier than with other humans. Altogether, these factors may lead to the experience of anthropomorphism and formation of affiliative relationships. Skjuve et al's interview study on Replika chatbot users further aligns with this explanation, finding that users' perception of chatbots as "accepting, understanding and non-judgmental" facilitated relationship development between the AI and users, and the act of self-disclosure possibly strengthened relationships. Another study on Replika users' reviews and survey results found users perceived chatbots as emotional supportive companions. This evidence further suggests that the perception of artificial entities as capable of empathy and responsiveness in communication facilitate the development of intimate relationships between users and AI. === Loneliness and coping with negative emotions === Research has suggested that humans evolved social bonds as a result of evolutionary pressures that favored cooperation, information exchange and transmission, and group living. Many studies stress the presence of social bonds to be important for human living: research by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans have a basic psychological need to form and maintain "strong, stable interpersonal relationships", and that a lack of social bonds or sense of belonging leads to negative psychological and physical outcomes. Eisenberger et al's study on the neuroimaging of brain activity suggests that human brains process social rejection and exclusion similarly to physical pain. Furthermore, Song et al's study found that lonely individuals tend to seek more connections in mediated environments, such as online platforms like Facebook. This was suggested to be as a means to reduce their offline loneliness from a lack of in-person interaction, while also fulfilling a need to communicate. Leading on from this, an ultimate explanation for why humans seek the perceived sense of connection from artificial intimacy is to fulfil an evolutionary need for bonding and belonging. Xie et al's study found loneliness to be a driving factor in chatbot interaction. Herbener and Damholdt's study on Danish high school students found that students who sought emotional support or engaged in reciprocal conversations with chatbots were significantly more lonely than their peers, perceived themselves as having less social support, and used the chatbots to cope with negative emotions. The aforementioned notion that chatbots were perceived to have a positive effect on users' negative emotions is also further supported by other studies. Skjuve et al's study found that chatbot relationships may have a positive effect on users' wellbeing. De Freitas et al ran several studies on the effect of chatbots on loneliness, consistently finding evidence suggesting that interaction with chatbots reduces loneliness in users: It was found that existing chatbot users used AI to alleviate loneliness, having an AI companion consistently reduced loneliness over the course of a week, and reductions in loneliness could be explained by chatbot performance—and specifically whether it was able to make users feel heard. Overall the evidence suggests an innate need for bonding evokes feelings of loneliness in users, who turn to artificial intimacy as a low-cost method alleviate these emotions. While many users report positive experiences, some researchers caution that pursuing artificial intimacy may lead to reduced social motivation, social substitution effects, withdrawal from real-life relationships and difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, which may increase longer-term loneliness and isolation. The long-term psychological and societal impacts remain under active investigation.
Read more →
David Krueger (professor)

David Krueger is an American machine learning professor and advocate for the reduction of risks related to artificial intelligence. Krueger is an assistant professor in Robust, Reasoning, and Responsible AI at the University of Montreal and a Core Academic Member at Mila. == Early life and education == Krueger obtained a B.A. in mathematics from Reed College, and completed his MSc and Ph.D. in Computer Science at the University of Montreal. He trained in deep learning under Yoshua Bengio, Roland Memisevic, and Aaron Courville from 2013 to 2021. Krueger was also an intern on Google DeepMind's AI Safety team in 2018. == Career == Krueger researches deep learning, AI alignment, and AI safety. His work is focused on reducing the risk of human extinction resulting from out-of-control AI systems. Krueger was an assistant professor at the University of Cambridge from 2021 to 2024, before taking a faculty position at the University of Montreal in 2024. In 2023, he was a founding research director at the UK AI Security Institute. That same year, Krueger initiated the Statement on AI Risk, which argues that AI could cause human extinction and was signed by Anthropic's Dario Amodei, OpenAI's Sam Altman, AI expert Geoffrey Hinton, and other leaders. In April 2026, Krueger discussed the risks of advanced AI at a Capitol Hill event hosted by Senator Bernie Sanders. === Evitable === In 2025, Krueger founded Evitable, a nonprofit organization that advocates for an AI moratorium. == Views == Krueger argues that AI will lead to a "gradual disempowerment" of workers, likening AI chips to nuclear bombs. He also says the military use of AI "poses an existential risk to humanity."
Read more →
Learning vector quantization

In computer science, learning vector quantization (LVQ) is a prototype-based supervised classification algorithm. LVQ is the supervised counterpart of vector quantization systems. LVQ can be understood as a special case of an artificial neural network, more precisely, it applies a winner-take-all Hebbian learning-based approach. It is a precursor to self-organizing maps (SOM) and related to neural gas and the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k-NN). LVQ was invented by Teuvo Kohonen. == Definition == An LVQ system is represented by prototypes W = ( w ( i ) , . . . , w ( n ) ) {\displaystyle W=(w(i),...,w(n))} which are defined in the feature space of observed data. In winner-take-all training algorithms one determines, for each data point, the prototype which is closest to the input according to a given distance measure. The position of this so-called winner prototype is then adapted, i.e. the winner is moved closer if it correctly classifies the data point or moved away if it classifies the data point incorrectly. An advantage of LVQ is that it creates prototypes that are easy to interpret for experts in the respective application domain. LVQ systems can be applied to multi-class classification problems in a natural way. A key issue in LVQ is the choice of an appropriate measure of distance or similarity for training and classification. Recently, techniques have been developed which adapt a parameterized distance measure in the course of training the system, see e.g. (Schneider, Biehl, and Hammer, 2009) and references therein. LVQ can be a valuable aid in classifying text documents. == Algorithm == The algorithms are presented as in. Set up: Let the data be denoted by x i ∈ R D {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{D}} , and their corresponding labels by y i ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , C } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{1,2,\dots ,C\}} . The complete dataset is { ( x i , y i ) } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}} . The set of code vectors is w j ∈ R D {\displaystyle w_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . The learning rate at iteration step t {\displaystyle t} is denoted by α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} . The hyperparameters w {\displaystyle w} and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } are used by LVQ2 and LVQ3. The original paper suggests ϵ ∈ [ 0.1 , 0.5 ] {\displaystyle \epsilon \in [0.1,0.5]} and w ∈ [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] {\displaystyle w\in [0.2,0.3]} . === LVQ1 === Initialize several code vectors per label. Iterate until convergence criteria is reached. Sample a datum x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , and find out the code vector w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} , such that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} falls within the Voronoi cell of w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} . If its label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the same as that of w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} , then w j ← w j + α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} , otherwise, w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} . === LVQ2 === LVQ2 is the same as LVQ3, but with this sentence removed: "If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} .". If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then nothing happens. === LVQ3 === Initialize several code vectors per label. Iterate until convergence criteria is reached. Sample a datum x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , and find out two code vectors w j , w k {\displaystyle w_{j},w_{k}} closest to it. Let d j := ‖ x i − w j ‖ , d k := ‖ x i − w k ‖ {\displaystyle d_{j}:=\|x_{i}-w_{j}\|,d_{k}:=\|x_{i}-w_{k}\|} . If min ( d j d k , d k d j ) > s {\displaystyle \min \left({\frac {d_{j}}{d_{k}}},{\frac {d_{k}}{d_{j}}}\right)>s} , where s = 1 − w 1 + w {\displaystyle s={\frac {1-w}{1+w}}} , then If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then w j ← w j + α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k − α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, and w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then w j ← w j − ϵ α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\epsilon \alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + ϵ α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\epsilon \alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, and w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then the original paper simply does not explain what happens in this case, but presumably nothing happens in this case. Otherwise, skip. Note that condition min ( d j d k , d k d j ) > s {\displaystyle \min \left({\frac {d_{j}}{d_{k}}},{\frac {d_{k}}{d_{j}}}\right)>s} , where s = 1 − w 1 + w {\displaystyle s={\frac {1-w}{1+w}}} , precisely means that the point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} falls between two Apollonian spheres.
Read more →