AI Assistant Editor

AI Assistant Editor — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Transduction (machine learning)

    Transduction (machine learning)

    In logic, statistical inference, and supervised learning, transduction or transductive inference is reasoning from observed, specific (training) cases to specific (test) cases. In contrast, induction is reasoning from observed training cases to general rules, which are then applied to the test cases. The distinction is most interesting in cases where the predictions of the transductive model are not achievable by any inductive model. Note that this is caused by transductive inference on different test sets producing mutually inconsistent predictions. Transduction was introduced in a computer science context by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1990s, motivated by his view that transduction is preferable to induction since, according to him, induction requires solving a more general problem (inferring a function) before solving a more specific problem (computing outputs for new cases): "When solving a problem of interest, do not solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. Try to get the answer that you really need but not a more general one.". An example of learning which is not inductive would be in the case of binary classification, where the inputs tend to cluster in two groups. A large set of test inputs may help in finding the clusters, thus providing useful information about the classification labels. The same predictions would not be obtainable from a model which induces a function based only on the training cases. Some people may call this an example of the closely related semi-supervised learning, since Vapnik's motivation is quite different. The most well-known example of a case-bases learning algorithm is the k-nearest neighbor algorithm, which is related to transductive learning algorithms. Another example of an algorithm in this category is the Transductive Support Vector Machine (TSVM). A third possible motivation of transduction arises through the need to approximate. If exact inference is computationally prohibitive, one may at least try to make sure that the approximations are good at the test inputs. In this case, the test inputs could come from an arbitrary distribution (not necessarily related to the distribution of the training inputs), which wouldn't be allowed in semi-supervised learning. An example of an algorithm falling in this category is the Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM). == Historical context == The mode of inference from particulars to particulars, which Vapnik came to call transduction, was already distinguished from the mode of inference from particulars to generalizations in part III of the Cambridge philosopher and logician W.E. Johnson's 1924 textbook, Logic. In Johnson's work, the former mode was called 'eduction' and the latter was called 'induction'. Bruno de Finetti developed a purely subjective form of Bayesianism in which claims about objective chances could be translated into empirically respectable claims about subjective credences with respect to observables through exchangeability properties. An early statement of this view can be found in his 1937 La Prévision: ses Lois Logiques, ses Sources Subjectives and a mature statement in his 1970 Theory of Probability. Within de Finetti's subjective Bayesian framework, all inductive inference is ultimately inference from particulars to particulars. == Example problem == The following example problem contrasts some of the unique properties of transduction against induction. A collection of points is given, such that some of the points are labeled (A, B, or C), but most of the points are unlabeled (?). The goal is to predict appropriate labels for all of the unlabeled points. The inductive approach to solving this problem is to use the labeled points to train a supervised learning algorithm, and then have it predict labels for all of the unlabeled points. With this problem, however, the supervised learning algorithm will only have five labeled points to use as a basis for building a predictive model. It will certainly struggle to build a model that captures the structure of this data. For example, if a nearest-neighbor algorithm is used, then the points near the middle will be labeled "A" or "C", even though it is apparent that they belong to the same cluster as the point labeled "B", compared to semi-supervised learning. Transduction has the advantage of being able to consider all of the points, not just the labeled points, while performing the labeling task. In this case, transductive algorithms would label the unlabeled points according to the clusters to which they naturally belong. The points in the middle, therefore, would most likely be labeled "B", because they are packed very close to that cluster. An advantage of transduction is that it may be able to make better predictions with fewer labeled points, because it uses the natural breaks found in the unlabeled points. One disadvantage of transduction is that it builds no predictive model. If a previously unknown point is added to the set, the entire transductive algorithm would need to be repeated with all of the points in order to predict a label. This can be computationally expensive if the data is made available incrementally in a stream. Further, this might cause the predictions of some of the old points to change (which may be good or bad, depending on the application). A supervised learning algorithm, on the other hand, can label new points instantly, with very little computational cost. == Transduction algorithms == Transduction algorithms can be broadly divided into two categories: those that seek to assign discrete labels to unlabeled points, and those that seek to regress continuous labels for unlabeled points. Algorithms that seek to predict discrete labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a clustering algorithm. Two classes of algorithms can be used: flat clustering and hierarchical clustering. The latter can be further subdivided into two categories: those that cluster by partitioning, and those that cluster by agglomerating. Algorithms that seek to predict continuous labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a manifold learning algorithm. === Partitioning transduction === Partitioning transduction can be thought of as top-down transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of partition-based clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Consider the set of all points to be one large partition. While any partition P contains two points with conflicting labels: Partition P into smaller partitions. For each partition P: Assign the same label to all of the points in P. Of course, any reasonable partitioning technique could be used with this algorithm. Max flow min cut partitioning schemes are very popular for this purpose. === Agglomerative transduction === Agglomerative transduction can be thought of as bottom-up transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of agglomerative clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Compute the pair-wise distances, D, between all the points. Sort D in ascending order. Consider each point to be a cluster of size 1. For each pair of points {a,b} in D: If (a is unlabeled) or (b is unlabeled) or (a and b have the same label) Merge the two clusters that contain a and b. Label all points in the merged cluster with the same label. === Continuous Label Transduction === These methods seek to regress continuous labels, often via manifold learning techniques. The idea is to learn a low-dimensional representation of the data and infer values smoothly across the manifold. == Applications and related concepts == Transduction is closely related to: Semi-supervised learning – uses both labeled and unlabeled data but typically induces a model. Case-based reasoning – such as the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) algorithm, often considered a transductive method. Transductive Support Vector Machines (TSVM) – extend standard SVMs to incorporate unlabeled test data during training. Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM) – an approximation method that makes transductive predictions when exact inference is too costly.

    Read more →
  • Clanker

    Clanker

    Clanker is a derogatory term for robots and artificial intelligence (AI) software. The term has been used in Star Wars media, first appearing in the franchise's 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando. In 2025, the term became widely used to express hatred or distaste for machines ranging from delivery robots to large language models. This trend has been attributed to anxiety around the negative societal effects of AI. == In science fiction == The term has been previously used in science fiction literature, first appearing in a 1958 article by William Tenn in which he uses it to describe robots from science fiction films like Metropolis. The Star Wars franchise began using the term as a slur against droids in the 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando before being prominently used in the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which follows a galaxy-wide war between the Galactic Republic's clone troopers and the Confederacy of Independent Systems' battle droids. In Star Wars media, robots—more commonly known as droids—are routinely depicted as the subjects of discrimination. For example, in the original Star Wars film, C-3PO and R2-D2 are abducted by Jawas and sold to the family of Luke Skywalker. When visiting a cantina in Mos Eisley, both droids are refused service by the bartender, who remarks that "We don't serve their kind." In Star Wars lore, the term clanker had entered use by the time of the franchise's High Republic Era and became prominent during the Clone Wars, in which clone troopers regularly use the phrase against battle droids. == AI backlash == The growing popularity of the term clanker reflects an increase in direct contact between people and AI systems. On sidewalks, delivery robots impede mobility and cause safety issues. In digital spaces, cybersecurity experts have raised concerns about the rising number of bots online, which now make up a large portion of internet traffic. A 2025 report estimated that about one in five social media accounts are automated. The term is also a reaction to AI advocacy from industrialists like Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who have championed the integration of AI into nearly every aspect of modern life. This includes efforts by major companies and startups alike, such as Amazon's development of humanoid robots to replace human workers in service industries. Such initiatives have further fueled public skepticism, reinforcing the association of clanker with unease over automation and the displacement of human roles. A global survey conducted by the research firm Gartner in December 2023 found that 64% of customers would prefer companies to avoid using AI in customer service, with another 53% stating they would consider switching to a different company if they discovered AI was handling their service interactions. Another report by Ernst & Young, published in July 2025, found that 42% of employees across Europe are worried that the use of AI in the workplace may threaten their employment. Criticism has also been directed at the technology itself. Some of the backlash stems from concerns about the resource consumption of AI systems, their frequent reliance on copyrighted material without consent, and questions about the intentions of the corporations behind them. There are also concerns about the potential cognitive effects of relying heavily on AI. A study, authored by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University, warns that regular dependence on AI may leave users mentally unprepared for real-world problem solving, likening the effect to cognitive atrophy. In June 2025, United States Senator Ruben Gallego tweeted that his "new bill makes sure you don't have to talk to a clanker if you don't want to", referring to proposed legislation that would require call centers to disclose their use of automated customer service agents to callers in the United States and offer the option to switch to a human representative. == Analysis == Linguist Adam Aleksic has described clanker as an evolution of racial slurs that anthropomorphize robotic systems. Internet memes incorporating the term often reference historical discrimination against marginalized groups such as African Americans. Based on the work of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, American news website Axios has argued that clanker is merely a derogatory word, rather than a slur, because it does not perpetuate social inequities. NPR has noted the irony that the word robot was coined by Karel Čapek for his 1920 science-fiction play R.U.R. as a similar criticism of industrialization forcing workers to become devoid of their humanity. Aleksic has observed that robot can be further traced to the Proto-Slavic noun orbъ, which means 'slave'. While other science fiction media include pejoratives for androids and robots, such as skinjob and toaster from the Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica franchises, respectively, clanker is believed to have gained popularity because its usage is intuitive and flexible. Whereas AI slop describes low-quality output from artificial intelligence, clanker belittles the underlying computer systems.

    Read more →
  • The Fractal Prince

    The Fractal Prince

    The Fractal Prince is the second science fiction novel by Hannu Rajaniemi and the second novel to feature the post-human gentleman thief Jean le Flambeur. It was published in Britain by Gollancz in September 2012, and by Tor in the same year in the US. The novel is the second in the trilogy, following The Quantum Thief (2010) and preceding The Causal Angel (2014). == Plot summary == After the events of The Quantum Thief, Jean le Flambeur and Mieli are on their way to Earth. Jean is trying to open the Schrödinger's Box he retrieved from the memory palace on the Oubliette. After making little progress, he is prodded by the ship Perhonen to talk to Mieli, who turns out to be possessed by the pellegrini again. This time, Jean identifies Mieli's employer as a Sobornost Founder, Joséphine Pellegrini, and gets her to reveal how he got captured, thereby picking up the clues to make plans for his next heist. No sooner is that done than an attack comes from the Hunter. The ship and crew barely survived that, and Jean realizes that he has to find a better way to open the Box - fast. Mieli has been very quiet after they left Mars. She has given up almost everything to the pellegrini, even her identity, as she has promised to let the pellegrini make gogols of her in exchange for rescuing the thief. Yet, having to work with the thief is testing her, especially when the thief eventually does something even more unforgivable than stealing Sydän's jewel from her. In the city of Sirr, on an Earth ravaged by wildcode, Tawaddud and Dunyazad are sisters and members of the powerful Gomelez family. Tawaddud is the black sheep of the family, having run away from her husband and consorted with a notorious jinn, a disembodied intelligence from the wildcode desert. Now Cassar Gomelez, her father, hopes to get her to curry favor with a gogol merchant, Abu Nuwas, so that he has enough votes in the Council for the upcoming decision to renegotiate the Cry of Wrath Accords with the Sobornost. Soon, Tawaddud is embroiled in an investigation with a Sobornost envoy into the murder that triggered the need for her father to forge a new alliance in the first place, and forced to confront old secrets that will change Sirr forever. Somewhere else, in a bookshop and on a beach, a young boy is at play. His mother has told him not to talk to strangers, but there has never been anyone here before. Until now. Should he talk to them? == Influences == In the acknowledgments, Rajaniemi cites the influence of "Andy Clark, Douglas Hofstadter, Maurice Leblanc, Jan Potocki and [...] The Arabian Nights." === Self-loops === In the novel, the idea that the mind is a self-loop may have been influenced by the theories of the Professor of Philosophy, Andy Clark, and the book I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter. === Frame stories === The novel uses frame stories rather extensively, a feature also of The Arabian Nights and Jan Potocki's The Manuscript Found in Saragossa. Several characters in Sirr are the namesakes of characters in these two earlier works as well. The events in The Quantum Thief are also retold at least once by Jean le Flambeur in the course of the events in this novel. == Reception == The novel has received generally positive reviews. However, criticisms of the novel still revolve around Rajaniemi's uncompromising "show, don't tell" style. For example, Amy Goldschlager, writing for the Los Angeles Review of Books, suggested that "[a] bit more explication of the physics involved (“surfing the deficit angle”?) would really be helpful, more helpful than the description of the Schrödinger’s Cat problem given earlier in the book".

    Read more →
  • WebCrow

    WebCrow

    The WebCrow is a research project carried out at the Information Engineering Department of the University of Siena with the purpose of automatically solving crosswords. == The Project == The scientific relevance of the project can be understood considering that cracking crosswords requires human-level knowledge. Unlike chess and related games and there is no closed world configuration space. A first nucleus of technology, such as search engines, information retrieval, and machine learning techniques enable computers to enfold with semantics real-life concepts. The project is based on a software system whose major assumption is to attack crosswords making use of the Web as its primary source of knowledge. WebCrow is very fast and often thrashes human challengers in competitions, especially on multi language crossword schemes. A distinct feature of the WebCrow software system is to combine properly natural language processing (NLP) techniques, the Google web search engine, and constraint satisfaction algorithms from artificial intelligence to acquire knowledge and to fill the schema. The most important component of WebCrow is the Web Search Module (WSM), which implements a domain specific web based question answering algorithm. The way WebCrow approaches crosswords solving is quite different with respect to humans: Whereas we tend to first answer clues we are sure of and then proceed filling the schema by exploiting the already answered clues as hints, WebCrow uses two clearly distinct stages. In the first one, it processes all the clues and tries to answer them all: For each clue it finds many possible candidates and sorts them according to complex ranking models mainly based on a probability criteria. In the second stage, WebCrow uses constraint satisfaction algorithms to fill the grid with the overall most likely combination of clue answers. In order to interact with Google, first of all, WebCrow needs to compose queries on the basis of the given clues. This is done by query expansion, whose purpose is to convert the clue into a query expressed by a simplified and more appropriate language for Google. The retrieved documents are parsed so as to extract a list of word candidates that are congruent with the crossword length constraints. Crosswords can hardly be faced by using encyclopedic knowledge only, since many clues are wordplays or are otherwise purposefully very ambiguous. This enigmatic component of crosswords is faced by a massive use of database of solved crosswords, and by automatic reasoning on a properly organized knowledge base of wired rules. Last but not the least, the final constraint satisfaction step is very effective to fill the correct candidate, even though, unlike humans, the system can not rely on very high confidence on the correctness of the answer. == Competitions == WebCrow speed and effectiveness has been tested many times in man-machine competitions on Italian, English and multi-language crosswords The outcome of the tests is that WebCrow can successfully compete with average human players on single language schemes and reaches expert level performance in multi-language crosswords. However, WebCrow has not reached expert level in single-language crosswords, yet. === ECAI-06 Competition === On August 30, 2006, at the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI2006), 25 conference attendees and 53 internet connected crosswords lovers, competed with WebCrow in an official challenge organized within the conference program. The challenge consisted in 5 different crosswords (2 in Italian, 2 in English and one multi-language in Italian and English) and 15 minutes were assigned for each crossword. WebCrow ranked 21 out of 74 participants in the Italian competition, and won both the bilingual and English competitions. === Other Competitions === Several competitions have been held in Florence, Italy within the Creativity Festival in December 2006, and another official conference competition took place in Hyderabad, India in January 2007, within the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence, where it ranked second out of 25 participants.

    Read more →
  • Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

    Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

    In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

    Read more →
  • Blended artificial intelligence

    Blended artificial intelligence

    Blended artificial intelligence (blended AI) refers to the blending of different artificial intelligence techniques or approaches to achieve more robust and practical solutions. It involves integrating multiple AI models, algorithms, and technologies to leverage their respective strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. == Background == In the context of machine learning, blended AI can involve using different types of models, such as generative AI, decision trees, neural networks, and support vector machines. By combining their results, predictions are more accurate and reliable. This blending of models can be done through techniques like ensemble learning, where multiple models are trained independently and their predictions are combined to make a final decision. Blended AI can also involve combining different AI techniques or technologies, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and expert systems, to tackle complex problems that require a multi-dimensional approach. For example, in a sales scenario AI could be used for lead generation and gathering information from social media such as LinkedIn posts, or understanding a prospect's hobbies and interests. Another blended AI could achieve customer profiling including past interactions and purchasing habits, by them, their industry and growth areas. Blended AI could be used to do predictive analytics to look at historical sales data, market trends, and external factors to generate accurate sales forecasts. This method is critical to gauge and increase "efficiency, revenue, and productivity". Lastly, another could integrate all the information into the CRM to build and maintain better prospect and customer profiles. Blended AI aims to leverage the strengths of different AI techniques and technologies, allowing them to complement each other and create more powerful and comprehensive AI solutions. By combining multiple approaches, blended AI aims to achieve better performance, higher accuracy, improved robustness, and enhanced capabilities in solving diverse and challenging problems.

    Read more →
  • Miss AI

    Miss AI

    Miss AI is an annual international artificial intelligence beauty pageant run by the British company Fanvue. It is the first beauty pageant for AI-generated personas. == History == Miss AI's inaugural contest was organized by Fanvue as a part of the World AI Creator Awards (WAICAs) in 2024. The winner is selected by a panel of judges which consists of both humans and AI-generated individuals. The Moroccan virtual influencer Kenza Layli was crowned with the inaugural title while Lalina Valina and Olivia C remained the first and second runners-up respectively. == Competition == The creators are eligible to take part in this competition as long as the models are entirely AI-generated and have a social media presence. The judges evaluate contestants' three main categories – Beauty, Tech, & Social clout and rank them according the overall points earned from these categories. The Guardian commented that "AI models take every toxic gendered beauty norm and bundle them up into completely unrealistic package". == Winners ==

    Read more →
  • Argument technology

    Argument technology

    Argument technology is a sub-field of collective intelligence and artificial intelligence that focuses on applying computational techniques to the creation, identification, analysis, navigation, evaluation and visualisation of arguments and debates. In the 1980s and 1990s, philosophical theories of arguments in general, and argumentation theory in particular, were leveraged to handle key computational challenges, such as modeling non-monotonic and defeasible reasoning and designing robust coordination protocols for multi-agent systems. At the same time, mechanisms for computing semantics of Argumentation frameworks were introduced as a way of providing a calculus of opposition for computing what it is reasonable to believe in the context of conflicting arguments. With these foundations in place, the area was kick-started by a workshop held in the Scottish Highlands in 2000, the result of which was a book coauthored by philosophers of argument, rhetoricians, legal scholars and AI researchers. Since then, the area has been supported by various dedicated events such as the International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA) which has run annually since 2001; the International Workshop on Argument in Multi Agent Systems (ArgMAS) annually since 2004; the Workshop on Argument Mining, annually since 2014, and the Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), biennially since 2006. Since 2010, the field has also had its own journal, Argument & Computation, which was published by Taylor & Francis until 2016 and since then by IOS Press. One of the challenges that argument technology faced was a lack of standardisation in the representation and underlying conception of argument in machine readable terms. Many different software tools for manual argument analysis, in particular, developed idiosyncratic and ad hoc ways of representing arguments which reflected differing underlying ways of conceiving of argumentative structure. This lack of standardisation also meant that there was no interchange between tools or between research projects, and little re-use of data resources that were often expensive to create. To tackle this problem, the Argument Interchange Format set out to establish a common standard that captured the minimal common features of argumentation which could then be extended in different settings. Since about 2018, argument technology has been growing rapidly, with, for example, IBM's Grand Challenge, Project Debater, results for which were published in Nature in March 2021; German research funder, DFG's nationwide research programme on Robust Argumentation Machines, RATIO, begun in 2019; and UK nationwide deployment of The Evidence Toolkit by the BBC in 2019. A 2021 video narrated by Stephen Fry provides a summary of the societal motivations for work in argument technology. Argument technology has applications in a variety of domains, including education, healthcare, policy making, political science, intelligence analysis and risk management and has a variety of sub-fields, methodologies and technologies. == Technologies == === Argument assistant === An argument assistant is a software tool which support users when writing arguments. Argument assistants can help users compose content, review content from one other, including in dialogical contexts. In addition to Web services, such functionalities can be provided through the plugin architectures of word processor software or those of Web browsers. Internet forums, for instance, can be greatly enhanced by such software tools and services. === Argument blogging === ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr. === Argument mapping === Argument maps are visual, diagrammatic representations of arguments. Such visual diagrams facilitate diagrammatic reasoning and promote one's ability to grasp and to make sense of information rapidly and readily. Argument maps can provide structured, semi-formal frameworks for representing arguments using interactive visual language. One avenue of research and development is the design of online platforms to leverage collective intelligence to populate such maps and to integrate data, optimize and assess arguments. === Argument mining === Argument mining, or argumentation mining, is a research area within the natural language processing field. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with the aid of computer programs. === Argument search === An argument search engine is a search engine that is given a topic as a user query and returns a list of arguments for and against the topic or about that topic. Such engines could be used to support informed decision-making or to help debaters prepare for debates. === Automated argumentative essay scoring === The goal of automated argumentative essay scoring systems is to assist students in improving their writing skills by measuring the quality of their argumentative content. === Debate technology === Debate technology focuses on human-machine interaction and in particular providing systems that support, monitor and engage in debate. One of the most high-profile examples of debating technology is IBM's Project Debater which combines scripted communication with very large-scale processing of news articles to identify and construct arguments on the fly in a competitive debating setting. Debating technology also encompasses tools aimed at providing insight into debates, typically using techniques from data science. These analytics have been developed in both academic and commercial settings. === Decision support system === Argument technology can reduce both individual and group biases and facilitate more accurate decisions. Argument-based decision support systems do so by helping users to distinguish between claims and the evidence supporting them, and express their confidence in and evaluate the strength of evidence of competing claims. They have been used to improve predictions of housing market trends, risk analysis, ethical and legal decision making. ==== Ethical decision support system ==== An ethical decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in moral reasoning and decision-making. ==== Legal decision support system ==== A legal decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in legal reasoning and decision-making. === Explainable artificial intelligence === An explainable or transparent artificial intelligence system is an artificial intelligence system whose actions can be easily understood by humans. === Intelligent tutoring system === An intelligent tutoring system is a computer system that aims to provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners, usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. The intersection of argument technology and intelligent tutoring systems includes computer systems which aim to provide instruction in: critical thinking, argumentation, ethics, law, mathematics, and philosophy. === Legal expert system === A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. === Machine ethics === Machine ethics is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with the moral behavior of artificially intelligent beings. As humans argue with respect to morality and moral behavior, argument can be envisioned as a component of machine ethics systems and moral reasoning components. === Proof assistant === In computer science and mathematical logic, a proof assistant or interactive theorem prover is a software tool to assist with the development of formal proofs by human-machine collaboration. This involves some sort of interactive proof editor, or other interface, with which a human can guide the search for proofs, the details of which are stored in, and some steps provided by, a computer. === Ethical considerations === Ethical considerations of argument technology include privacy, transparency, societal concerns, and diversity in representation. These factors cut across different levels such as technology, user interface design, user, service context, and society. There is concern about unethical misuse for "generating arguments on controversial topics with specific stances and deploying them on social platforms". Another issue may concern the design of conclusion-making algorithms, such as e.g. enabling such to conclude that certain key data is needed instead of only making lists of best-fit conclusions or enabling the generation of multi

    Read more →
  • BulSemCor

    BulSemCor

    The Bulgarian Sense-annotated Corpus (BulSemCor) (Bulgarian: Български семантично анотиран корпус (БулСемКор)) is a structured corpus of Bulgarian texts in which each lexical item is assigned a sense tag. BulSemCor was created by the Department of Computational Linguistics at the Institute for Bulgarian Language of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. == Structure == BulSemCor was created as part of a nationally funded project titled "BulNet – A lexico-semantic network for the Bulgarian Language" (2005–2010). It follows the general methodology of SemCor combined with some specific principles. The corpus for annotation consists of 101,791 tokens covering an excerpt from the Bulgarian "Brown" Corpus modelled on the Brown Corpus.Francis Kucera An important feature of BulSemCor is that the samples are selected using heuristics that provide optimal coverage of ambiguous lexis. BulSemCor is manually sense-annotated according to the Bulgarian WordNet. Its size is comparable to that of other contemporary semantically annotated corpora or pool of acceptable linguistic components. The semantic annotation consists in associating each lexical item in the corpus with exactly one synonym set (synset) in the Bulgarian WordNet that best describes its sense in the particular context. The selection of the best match among the suggested candidates is based on a set of procedures, such as the other synset members, the synset gloss (explanatory definition) and the position of a given candidate in the WordNet structure. == Scale == The number of annotated tokens is 99,480 (the difference in the number of tokens compared to the initial corpus is due to the fact that some of them are not linguistic items). The simple word count is 86,842 and multiword expressions (MWE) are 5,797 (12,638 tokens). == Specific features == All words in BulSemCor are assigned a sense, while according to established practice only simple content words or content word classes (typically nouns and verbs) are annotated. Since 2000 the development of language resources, has broadened to include annotation of function words and multiword expressions covering particular senses or types of words and expressions. In this respect, BulSemCor's annotation is more exhaustive and hence provides greater opportunities for linguistic observations and non-linear programming (NLP) applications. Annotated items inherit the linguistic information associated with the corresponding synset, which along with morphological and semantic tags may include annotation on one or more of the following additional levels: Partial information about the syntactic structure of MWE types – particularly, information about syntactic heads and their dependents; Information about the category of the named entities – names, locations, organisations, dates, numbers, etc.; Information about the taxonomic category of adverbs, such as time, place, manner, degree, quantity, etc.; Information about the type of the syntactic relationships – coordination or subordination – expressed by conjunctions; Information about the original part-of-speech of substantivised words (non-nouns that act as nouns in a particular context); Stylistic/register, grammatical and other information about synsets or individual synset members;

    Read more →
  • Tales from the Loop (role-playing game)

    Tales from the Loop (role-playing game)

    Tales from the Loop (Swedish: Ur Varselklotet), subtitled "Roleplaying in the '80s That Never Was", is an alternative history science fiction tabletop role-playing game published in 2017 by Free League Publishing, the international arm of Swedish game and book publisher Fria Ligan AB, and Modiphius Entertainment. The game, based on the art of Simon Stålenhag, envisions an alternative world where a group of bored and ignored preteens and teens solve mysteries caused by new technology near their hometown. == Description == === Setting === Tales from the Loop is set in an alternative history world taken from the artwork of Simon Stålenhag. According to this alternative timeline, back in the 1940s, research began on particle accelerators. In the 1960s, two massive underground particle accelerators were built in Sweden and Colorado with the promise of a harvest of technological marvels that would change everyone's lives. Tales from the Loop is set twenty years later, in the late 1980s, and the better life has not materialized. Although the particle accelerators have created robots and large skyships, the detritus of failed experiments and the ruins of abandoned high tech company buildings litter the landscape. Generally the life of the average family has not changed for the better. A campaign can either be set in the Mälaren Islands, west of the Swedish capital of Stockholm, or in a city in the Southwest United States that resembles Boulder City, Nevada. There is also a step-by-step guide for the gamemaster to use their own hometown. === Character generation === Player characters are preteens and young teenagers age 10–15 who live in a society where they are bored and largely left to themselves. Players can choose archetypes for their characters including Bookworm, Jock, Troublemaker, Popular Kid and Weirdo. Unlike most role-playing games, characters in Tales from the Loop cannot be killed, although in an ongoing campaign or due to an in-game effect, they are removed from the game if they reach the age of sixteen. === Game system === The game uses the Year Zero Engine first developed by Tomas Härenstam for the post-apocalyptic role-playing game Mutant: Year Zero. (Härenstam served as the editor and project manager for Tales from the Loop.) Problems are resolved by rolling a pool of six-sided dice, with any 6 rolled marking success. Attributes and skills (Sneak, Force, Move, Build, Tinker, Calculate, Contact, Charm, Lead, Investigate, Comprehend, and Empathize) may allow the player to add more dice to the dice pool, increasing the chances of success. However, if a character has earned a condition such as Scared or Injured, dice are removed from the dice pool. === Gameplay === The game principles are that life for the characters is dull and boring, but the area around the town is full of wonderful, mysterious things. An adventure is set up as a Mystery, and in order to successfully resolve the Mystery, characters must overcome a series of Troubles, which can range from having to be home by a certain time to dealing with a bully to disarming or otherwise overcoming a booby-trap on a door that must be opened. Each Mystery is played as a series of scenes, much like a TV drama. Although the gamemaster leads the players into the Mystery, each scene is set collaboratively with the players before action continues. As critic Jukka Kauppinen noted, "The players and the gamemaster take turns verbally staging a new scene — where we are, what it's like there — and only then what we do." === Campaign === The book presents a chronologically-linked set of four Mysteries called "The Four Seasons of Mad Science" that take place over a calendar year: "Summer Break and Killer Birds": The Kids hears pigeons having a conversation and investigate "Grown-Up Attraction": Adults start disappearing without any sign of struggle. "Creatures from the Cretaceous": The search for a missing dog leads to the discovery of creatures that don't belong in our time "I, Wagner": The Kids discover a body in a stream, and are drawn into a Mystery with robots and humans that may affect them closely. == Publication history == In 2017, Swedish artist Simon Stålenhag was raising money on Kickstarter to publish a book of his art titled Tales from the Loop. One of the stretch goals offered was the creation of a role-playing game. A second Kickstarter campaign to publish the role-playing game was initiated by Fria Ligan AB, who surpassed their crowdfunding goal and raised a total of 3,745,896 kr from 5,600 backers. The role-playing game Tales from the Loop was subsequently published as a 184-page hardcover book in 2017 by Free League Publishing, the international arm of Swedish game and book publisher Fria Ligan AB, and Modiphius Entertainment. Cover art and interior art were by Stålenhag, and cartography was by Christian Granath. A stand-alone expansion, Things from the Flood (Swedish: Flodskörden), based on Stålenhag's art book of the same name, was created by Nils Hintze, Rickard Antroia, and Tomas Härenstam. The 216-page hardcover book was published in 2019 with cover art by Stålenhag, interior art by Stålenhag and Reine Rosenberg, and cartography by Christian Granath. In 2020, the setting of the role-playing game was transferred to the TV series Tales from the Loop developed by Nathanial Halpern and Simon Stålenhag. The series tells eight stories of children's encounters with strange technology. == Reception == Shut Up & Sit Down praised Tales from the Loop for its comfortable, contemporary setting, simple rules that make the game easy to run, and the alternation between sci-fi and the kids' lives, but criticized the Type system for characters, noting "a suggested 'Pride' for the Weirdo involved being homosexual –– the only mention of queerness in the entire game. Those of us who identify as GLBTQ bristled at that: why was only the Weirdo queer, with queerness as a (possibly secret) Pride? Why not more fully address being a GLBTQ kid in the 1980s?" The review concluded, "For new RPG players, Tales is a decent game that you'll enjoy and that will make your heart burst. But you need an experienced GM who’s able to either alter the book’s mysteries or create their own, and who can put in work when poor dice rolls hold the players back." Rob Weiland of Geek & Sundry named Tales from the Loop 2017's best RPG release and praised Stålenhag's art, the collaborative nature between the GM and players, and the simplicity of running the game. Weiland concluded, "It has a simple system that is easy to explain but holds up under several plays. It has a setting that’s immediately evocative but also leaves plenty of room for GMs to build out their own world. It offers players a chance to experience the rush of memory, the pain of childhood and the wonder of movies." In a review of Tales from the Loop in Black Gate, Andrew Zimmerman Jones said, "Though not based directly on an established franchise, it draws richly from elements of popular culture that will make it resonate with many players. The focus on narrative play also means it’s a good game for people who aren’t necessarily big into learning a ton of new rules." Jukka Kauppinen, writing for the Finnish games magazine Skrolli, called the game, "downright delicious in its diversity. The science fiction world created by the Swedish artist Simon Stälenhag is, after all, both delightful vintage and tickling novelty." Kauppinen concluded, "This mutual storytelling and interaction makes this game more of a campfire circle than a traditional role-playing game. At the same time, its setting in the real world, tinged with science fiction and even horror, creates a delicious and unique adventure environment." In his 2023 book Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground, RPG historian Stu Horvath noted that the game system "pushes the players to constantly reevaluate their characters' relationships with the everyday world, for better or worse. It won't be long before navigating entanglements with parents, teachers, siblings and bullies proves just as risky to the characters, and central to the players' experience, as trying to find out what happened with the time portal or dealing with a rampaging robot." Horvath concluded, "The appeal of Tales from the Loop is Stålenhag's deep shadows and purple dusks. They hide the dangers and mysteries that often act [as] an escape hatch, a way to avoid prosaic problems." == Awards == At the 2017 Golden Geek Awards, Tales of the Loop won "RPG of the Year", and was a finalist for " Best RPG Artwork/Presentation" At the 2017 ENnie Awards, Tales from the Loops won five Gold Medals: Product of the Year Best Writing Best Setting Best Game Best Art, Interior

    Read more →
  • Conference on Artificial General Intelligence

    Conference on Artificial General Intelligence

    The Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a meeting of researchers in the field of artificial general intelligence (AGI) organized by the AGI Society steered by Marcus Hutter and Ben Goertzel. It has been held annually since 2008. The conference was initiated by the 2006 Bethesda Artificial General Intelligence Workshop and has since been hosted at various international venues. == Locations and history == AGI-2026 San Francisco State University, California, USA AGI-2025 Reykjavík University, Reykjavík, Iceland AGI-2024 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA AGI-2023 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden AGI-2022 The Crocodile, Seattle, Washington, USA AGI-2021 Computer History Museum, Mountain View, California, USA AGI-2020 Virtual Conference AGI-2019 Sheraton Shenzhen Futian, Shenzhen, China AGI-2018 Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic AGI-2017 ibis Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia AGI-2016 The New School, New York, New York, USA AGI-2015 Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Berlin, Germany AGI-2014 Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada (sponsored by the Cognitive Science Society and the AAAI) AGI-2013 Peking University, Beijing, China (sponsored by the Cognitive Science Society and the AAAI) AGI-2012 University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (sponsored by the Future of Humanity Institute and Ray Kurzweil) AGI-2011 Google Headquarters, Mountain View, California, USA (sponsored by Google, AAAI, and Ray Kurzweil) AGI-2010 University of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland (In Memoriam Ray Solomonoff and sponsored by AAAI and Ray Kurzweil) AGI-2009 Crowne Plaza Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia, USA (sponsored by AAAI and Ray Kurzweil) AGI-2008 University of Memphis, Tennessee, USA (sponsored by AAAI) == Notable speakers == The conference has attracted many speakers over the years including Turing Award winners Yoshua Bengio and Richard S. Sutton as well as Ben Goertzel, Marcus Hutter, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Gary Marcus, John E. Laird, Peter Norvig, Joscha Bach, François Chollet, John L. Pollock, Bill Hibbard, Hugo de Garis, Stan Franklin, Steve Omohundro, Randal A. Koene, Ernst Dickmanns, Margaret Boden, David Hanson, Roman Yampolskly, Selmer Bringsjord, Kristinn R. Thórisson and Nick Bostrom.

    Read more →
  • Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis

    Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis

    Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis (FASA) (also fuzzy inference system (FIS) based architectural space analysis or fuzzy spatial analysis) is a spatial analysis method of analysing the spatial formation and architectural space intensity within any architectural organization. Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis is used in architecture, interior design, urban planning and similar spatial design fields. == Overview == Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis was developed by Burcin Cem Arabacioglu (2010) from the architectural theories of space syntax and visibility graph analysis, and is applied with the help of a fuzzy system with a Mamdani inference system based on fuzzy logic within any architectural space. Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis model analyses the space by considering the perceivable architectural element by their boundary and stress characteristics and intensity properties. The method is capable of taking all sensorial factors into account during analyses in conformably with the perception process of architectural space which is a multi-sensorial act.

    Read more →
  • Neural scaling law

    Neural scaling law

    In machine learning, a neural scaling law is an empirical scaling law that describes how neural network performance changes as key factors are scaled up or down. These factors typically include the number of parameters, training dataset size, and training cost. Some models also exhibit performance gains by scaling inference through increased test-time compute (TTC), extending neural scaling laws beyond training to the deployment phase. == Introduction == In general, a deep learning model can be characterized by four parameters: model size, training dataset size, training cost, and the post-training error rate (e.g., the test set error rate). Each of these variables can be defined as a real number, usually written as N , D , C , L {\displaystyle N,D,C,L} (respectively: parameter count, dataset size, computing cost, and loss). A neural scaling law is a theoretical or empirical statistical law between these parameters. There are also other parameters with other scaling laws. === Size of the model === In most cases, the model's size is simply the number of parameters. However, one complication arises with the use of sparse models, such as mixture-of-expert models. With sparse models, during inference, only a fraction of their parameters are used. In comparison, most other kinds of neural networks, such as transformer models, always use all their parameters during inference. === Size of the training dataset === The size of the training dataset is usually quantified by the number of data points within it. Larger training datasets are typically preferred, as they provide a richer and more diverse source of information from which the model can learn. This can lead to improved generalization performance when the model is applied to new, unseen data. However, increasing the size of the training dataset also increases the computational resources and time required for model training. With the "pretrain, then finetune" method used for most large language models, there are two kinds of training dataset: the pretraining dataset and the finetuning dataset. Their sizes have different effects on model performance. Generally, the finetuning dataset is less than 1% the size of pretraining dataset. In some cases, a small amount of high quality data suffices for finetuning, and more data does not necessarily improve performance. Many scaling laws, due to their inherent diminishing returns nature, value data based on a submodular set function which was shown in a paper on this topic. === Cost of training === Training cost is typically measured in terms of time (how long it takes to train the model) and computational resources (how much processing power and memory are required). It is important to note that the cost of training can be significantly reduced with efficient training algorithms, optimized software libraries, and parallel computing on specialized hardware such as GPUs or TPUs. The cost of training a neural network model is a function of several factors, including model size, training dataset size, the training algorithm complexity, and the computational resources available. In particular, doubling the training dataset size does not necessarily double the cost of training, because one may train the model for several times over the same dataset (each being an "epoch"). === Performance === The performance of a neural network model is evaluated based on its ability to accurately predict the output given some input data. Common metrics for evaluating model performance include: Negative log-likelihood per token (logarithm of perplexity) for language modeling; Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for classification tasks; Mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) for regression tasks; Elo rating in a competition against other models, such as gameplay or preference by a human judge. Performance can be improved by using more data, larger models, different training algorithms, regularizing the model to prevent overfitting, and early stopping using a validation set. When the performance is a number bounded within the range of [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , such as accuracy, precision, etc., it often scales as a sigmoid function of cost, as seen in the figures. == Examples == === (Hestness, Narang, et al, 2017) === The 2017 paper is a common reference point for neural scaling laws fitted by statistical analysis on experimental data. Previous works before the 2000s, as cited in the paper, were either theoretical or orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Whereas previous works generally found the scaling exponent to scale like L ∝ D − α {\displaystyle L\propto D^{-\alpha }} , with α ∈ { 0.5 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \alpha \in \{0.5,1,2\}} , the paper found that α ∈ [ 0.07 , 0.35 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.07,0.35]} . Of the factors they varied, only task can change the exponent α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Changing the architecture optimizers, regularizers, and loss functions, would only change the proportionality factor, not the exponent. For example, for the same task, one architecture might have L = 1000 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=1000D^{-0.3}} while another might have L = 500 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=500D^{-0.3}} . They also found that for a given architecture, the number of parameters necessary to reach lowest levels of loss, given a fixed dataset size, grows like N ∝ D β {\displaystyle N\propto D^{\beta }} for another exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . They studied machine translation with LSTM ( α ∼ 0.13 {\displaystyle \alpha \sim 0.13} ), generative language modelling with LSTM ( α ∈ [ 0.06 , 0.09 ] , β ≈ 0.7 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.06,0.09],\beta \approx 0.7} ), ImageNet classification with ResNet ( α ∈ [ 0.3 , 0.5 ] , β ≈ 0.6 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.3,0.5],\beta \approx 0.6} ), and speech recognition with two hybrid (LSTMs complemented by either CNNs or an attention decoder) architectures ( α ≈ 0.3 {\displaystyle \alpha \approx 0.3} ). === (Henighan, Kaplan, et al, 2020) === A 2020 analysis studied statistical relations between C , N , D , L {\displaystyle C,N,D,L} over a wide range of values and found similar scaling laws, over the range of N ∈ [ 10 3 , 10 9 ] {\displaystyle N\in [10^{3},10^{9}]} , C ∈ [ 10 12 , 10 21 ] {\displaystyle C\in [10^{12},10^{21}]} , and over multiple modalities (text, video, image, text to image, etc.). In particular, the scaling laws it found are (Table 1 of ): For each modality, they fixed one of the two C , N {\displaystyle C,N} , and varying the other one ( D {\displaystyle D} is varied along using D = C / 6 N {\displaystyle D=C/6N} ), the achievable test loss satisfies L = L 0 + ( x 0 x ) α {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+\left({\frac {x_{0}}{x}}\right)^{\alpha }} where x {\displaystyle x} is the varied variable, and L 0 , x 0 , α {\displaystyle L_{0},x_{0},\alpha } are parameters to be found by statistical fitting. The parameter α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the most important one. When N {\displaystyle N} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.037 {\displaystyle 0.037} to 0.24 {\displaystyle 0.24} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the α = 0.34 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.34} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. When C {\displaystyle C} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.048 {\displaystyle 0.048} to 0.19 {\displaystyle 0.19} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the β = 0.28 {\displaystyle \beta =0.28} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. Given fixed computing budget, optimal model parameter count is consistently around N o p t ( C ) = ( C 5 × 10 − 12 petaFLOP-day ) 0.7 = 9.0 × 10 − 7 C 0.7 {\displaystyle N_{opt}(C)=\left({\frac {C}{5\times 10^{-12}{\text{petaFLOP-day}}}}\right)^{0.7}=9.0\times 10^{-7}C^{0.7}} The parameter 9.0 × 10 − 7 {\displaystyle 9.0\times 10^{-7}} varies by a factor of up to 10 for different modalities. The exponent parameter 0.7 {\displaystyle 0.7} varies from 0.64 {\displaystyle 0.64} to 0.75 {\displaystyle 0.75} for different modalities. This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. It's "strongly suggested" (but not statistically checked) that D o p t ( C ) ∝ N o p t ( C ) 0.4 ∝ C 0.28 {\displaystyle D_{opt}(C)\propto N_{opt}(C)^{0.4}\propto C^{0.28}} . This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. The scaling law of L = L 0 + ( C 0 / C ) 0.048 {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+(C_{0}/C)^{0.048}} was confirmed during the training of GPT-3 (Figure 3.1 ). === Chinchilla scaling (Hoffmann, et al, 2022) === One particular scaling law ("Chinchilla scaling") states that, for a large language model (LLM) autoregressively trained for one epoch, with a cosine learning rate schedule, we have: { C = C 0 N D L = A N α + B D β + L 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}C=C_{0}ND\\L={\frac {A}{N^{\alpha }}}+{\frac {B}{D^{\beta }}}+L_{0}\end{cases}}} where the variables are C {\displaystyle C} is the cost o

    Read more →
  • India AI Impact Summit 2026

    India AI Impact Summit 2026

    The India AI Impact Summit 2026 (also abbreviated as the AI Impact Summit) was an international summit on artificial intelligence held at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi, India, from 16 to 21 February 2026. It is the fourth in a series of global AI summits following the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024, and the AI Action Summit in Paris in 2025. Organised under the IndiaAI Mission by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, it is the first summit in the series to be hosted by a Global South nation. This series of AI summits will continue with the AI Summit in Geneva to be hosted by Switzerland in 2027. The summit was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 19 February 2026. The opening ceremony was also addressed by French President Emmanuel Macron and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. The summit was attended by over 20 heads of state and a delegation of global technology leaders including Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Demis Hassabis (DeepMind). The event faced criticism for organisational issues, misrepresentation of non-Indian products as Indian, and a perceived focus on trade fair activities over substantive governance. == Background == The AI Impact Summit was an international summit on artificial intelligence (AI) held in New Delhi from 16 to 20 February 2026. It followed the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024 and the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023. According to Crowell & Moring, the changing summit titles seemed to reflect a broader shift in focus away from AI safety and governance toward practical impact, implementation, and measurable outcomes. Ahead of the summit, an international panel of experts published the second International AI Safety Report. The summit was structured around three foundational pillars, termed "Sutras": People, Planet, and Progress. Seven thematic working groups were established to deliver outcomes across these pillars, covering AI for economic growth and social good; democratising AI resources; inclusion for social empowerment; safe and trusted AI; human capital; science; and resilience, innovation, and efficiency. == Programme == The summit ran over five days, later extended to six following overwhelming public response. Originally scheduled to conclude on 20 February, the event was extended to 21 February with expanded evening hours for the exhibition. === India AI Impact Expo === The India AI Impact Expo, inaugurated by Prime Minister Modi on 16 February, featured over 300 exhibitors from 30 countries across more than 10 thematic pavilions. Pavilions were organised across thematic zones aligned with the summit's three pillars, showcasing AI applications in healthcare, agriculture, education, and sustainable industry. === Leaders' Plenary and CEO Roundtable === The Leaders' Plenary on 19 February brought together heads of state, ministers, and representatives from multilateral institutions to outline national and global priorities on AI governance, infrastructure, and international cooperation. A CEO Roundtable, held the same evening, convened senior executives from global technology and industry firms with government leaders to discuss investment, research collaboration, and deployment of AI systems. === Research Symposium === A Research Symposium on AI and its Impact was held on 18 February, with the IIIT Hyderabad as knowledge partner. Discussions covered sovereign AI infrastructure, global adoption challenges, research breakthroughs, and policy priorities. == Participants == The summit drew delegations from over 100 countries, including more than 20 heads of state and 60 ministers. Notable attendees from the technology industry included Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind), and Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries). Representatives from multilateral institutions included Sangbu Kim of the World Bank. == Announcements and outcomes == === Indian AI models === Several Indian AI models and products were unveiled during the summit. Sarvam AI, an Indian AI laboratory, launched a new generation of large language models, including 30-billion and 105-billion parameter models using a mixture of experts architecture, as well as text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and vision models. Sarvam also introduced the Kaze smartglasses, described as the company's first hardware product, which Prime Minister Modi tested at the expo. The government-backed BharatGen Param2 model, a 17-billion parameter model supporting 22 Indian languages with multimodal capabilities, was also launched at the summit. === Infrastructure commitments === Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw outlined India's "whole-of-nation" AI strategy, describing plans to build a "frugal, sovereign and scalable" AI ecosystem. The government announced plans to add more than 20,000 GPUs to India's existing base of 38,000 under the IndiaAI Compute Portal. Microsoft announced at the summit that it was on track to invest US$50 billion by the end of the decade to bring AI to lower-income countries. Goa reaffirmed its commitment to artificial intelligence at the India AI Impact Summit 2026. === Guinness World Record === During the summit, India set a Guinness World Record for the most pledges received for an AI responsibility campaign in 24 hours, with 250,946 valid pledges collected between 16 and 17 February 2026. The campaign, conducted in partnership with Intel India as part of the IndiaAI Mission, exceeded its initial target of 5,000 pledges. == Controversies and criticisms == === Galgotias University incident === On 18 February, Galgotias University faced widespread criticism after a representative presented a robot dog at the university's exhibition pavilion as an indigenous development. Social media users identified the robot as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available product manufactured by Chinese company Unitree Robotics. IT Secretary S. Krishnan stated that the government did not want exhibitors to showcase items that were not their own, and the university was directed to vacate its stall. Galgotias University issued an apology, stating that the representative had been "ill-informed" and was not authorised to speak to the press. The incident drew political reactions, with the Indian National Congress using it to criticise the government. The controversy was amplified after Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had earlier shared a video clip of the robot on social media, which was subsequently deleted. === Organisational issues === On day 1 of the Summit, Dhananjay Yadav, a Bengaluru-based entrepreneur had alleged that his product was stolen in the Summit. He called it as a pain for the people in an X post. He further wrote, "Think about this: We paid for flights, accommodation, logistics and even the booth. Only to see our wearables disappear inside a high-security zone". Later, the stolen devices were recovered by The Delhi Police. Bloomberg reported that delegates were left stranded without food or water during a security lockdown ahead of the Prime Minister's visit on 19 February. The summit venue was closed to the public on 19 February for the Prime Minister's visit, leading to criticism from attendees who had registered for that day. === Protests by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) === On 20 February, some members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) carried out protests inside the venue with slogans such as "PM is compromised" and the criticism of the recent trade deal between India and the US. 4 of these members were sent to police custody by the court on 22 February. While Bharatiya Janta Party condemned these protests, with its spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla saying, "From being anti-BJP, you have gone to being anti-national? If you have a problem with the BJP, then protest at the BJP office, Jantar Mantar, or outside the PM's office. But the people of the country and their alliance partners condemn them for their attempt to defame India in front of the entire world at the AI Summit." Congress leader Harish Rawat defended the protests, saying "it's also a fact that AI might become a tool in the hands of a few individuals… It's the opposition's job to warn against that… It's not the first time such international events have been opposed. I know how the BJP protested during the Commonwealth Games… To say that such opposition has happened for the first time is not correct. The BJP has been doing this while in the opposition." These protestors were granted bail by the Delhi high court on 2 March. == Reception and analysis == Bloomberg News reported that Prime Minister Modi used the summit to assert India's global AI ambitions following a challenging year in foreign policy. TechPolicy.Press published several critical analyses of the summit. One article argued that the summit's structure granted "multinational corporations parity with sovereign governments

    Read more →
  • Mark I Perceptron

    Mark I Perceptron

    The Mark I Perceptron was a pioneering supervised image classification learning system developed by Frank Rosenblatt in 1958. It was the first implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) machine. It differs from the Perceptron which is a software architecture proposed in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, which was also employed in Mark I, and enhancements of which have continued to be an integral part of cutting edge AI technologies like the Transformer. == Architecture == The Mark I Perceptron was organized into three layers: A set of sensory units which receive optical input A set of association units, each of which fire based on input from multiple sensory units A set of response units, which fire based on input from multiple association units The connection between sensory units and association units were random. The working of association units was very similar to the response units. Different versions of the Mark I used different numbers of units in each of the layers. == Capabilities == In his 1957 proposal for funding for development of the "Cornell Photoperceptron", Rosenblatt claimed:"Devices of this sort are expected ultimately to be capable of concept formation, language translation, collation of military intelligence, and the solution of problems through inductive logic."With the first version of the Mark I Perceptron as early as 1958, Rosenblatt demonstrated a simple binary classification experiment, namely distinguishing between sheets of paper marked on the right versus those marked on the left side. One of the later experiments distinguished a square from a circle printed on paper. The shapes were perfect and their sizes fixed; the only variation was in their position and orientation. The Mark I Perceptron achieved 99.8% accuracy on a test dataset with 500 neurons in a single layer. The size of the training dataset was 10,000 example images. It took 3 seconds for the training pipeline to go through a single image. Higher accuracy was observed with thick outline figures compared to solid figures, likely because outline figures reduced overfitting. Another experiment distinguished between a square and a diamond for which 100% accuracy was achieved with only 60 training images, with a Perceptron having 1,000 neurons in a single layer. The time taken to process each training input for this larger perceptron was 15 seconds. The only variation was in position of the image, since rotation would have been ambiguous. In that same experiment, it could distinguish between the letters X and E with 100% accuracy when trained with only 20 images (10 images of each letter). Variations in the images included both position and rotation by up to 30 degrees. When variation in rotation was increased to any angle (both in training and test datasets), the accuracy reduced to 90% with 60 training images (30 images of each letter). For distinguishing between the letters E and F, a more challenging problem due to their similarity, the same 1,000 neuron perceptron achieved an accuracy of more than 80% with 60 training images. Variation was only in the position of the image, with no rotation.

    Read more →