AI Assistant Grok

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

Commitment ordering

Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo
Read more →
AlphaGo Zero

AlphaGo Zero is a version of DeepMind's Go software AlphaGo. AlphaGo's team published an article in Nature in October 2017 introducing AlphaGo Zero, a version created without using data from human games, and stronger than any previous version. By playing games against itself, AlphaGo Zero: surpassed the strength of AlphaGo Lee in three days by winning 100 games to 0; reached the level of AlphaGo Master in 21 days; and exceeded all previous versions in 40 days. Training artificial intelligence (AI) without datasets derived from human experts has significant implications for the development of AI with superhuman skills, as expert data is "often expensive, unreliable, or simply unavailable." Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of DeepMind, said that AlphaGo Zero was so powerful because it was "no longer constrained by the limits of human knowledge". Furthermore, AlphaGo Zero performed better than standard deep reinforcement learning models (such as Deep Q-Network implementations) due to its integration of Monte Carlo tree search. David Silver, one of the first authors of DeepMind's papers published in Nature on AlphaGo, said that it is possible to have generalized AI algorithms by removing the need to learn from humans. Google later developed AlphaZero, a generalized version of AlphaGo Zero that could play chess and shōgi in addition to Go. In December 2017, AlphaZero beat the 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero by winning 60 games to 40, and with 8 hours of training it outperformed AlphaGo Lee on an Elo scale. AlphaZero also defeated a top chess program (Stockfish) and a top Shōgi program (Elmo). == Architecture == The network in AlphaGo Zero is a ResNet with two heads. The stem of the network takes as input a 17x19x19 tensor representation of the Go board. 8 channels are the positions of the current player's stones from the last eight time steps. (1 if there is a stone, 0 otherwise. If the time step go before the beginning of the game, then 0 in all positions.) 8 channels are the positions of the other player's stones from the last eight time steps. 1 channel is all 1 if black is to move, and 0 otherwise. The body is a ResNet with either 20 or 40 residual blocks and 256 channels. There are two heads, a policy head and a value head. Policy head outputs a logit array of size 19 × 19 + 1 {\displaystyle 19\times 19+1} , representing the logit of making a move in one of the points, plus the logit of passing. Value head outputs a number in the range ( − 1 , + 1 ) {\displaystyle (-1,+1)} , representing the expected score for the current player. -1 represents current player losing, and +1 winning. == Training == AlphaGo Zero's neural network was trained using TensorFlow, with 64 GPU workers and 19 CPU parameter servers. Only four TPUs were used for inference. The neural network initially knew nothing about Go beyond the rules. Unlike earlier versions of AlphaGo, Zero only perceived the board's stones, rather than having some rare human-programmed edge cases to help recognize unusual Go board positions. The AI engaged in reinforcement learning, playing against itself until it could anticipate its own moves and how those moves would affect the game's outcome. In the first three days AlphaGo Zero played 4.9 million games against itself in quick succession. It appeared to develop the skills required to beat top humans within just a few days, whereas the earlier AlphaGo took months of training to achieve the same level. According to Epoch.ai, training cost 3e23 FLOPs. For comparison, the researchers also trained a version of AlphaGo Zero using human games, AlphaGo Master, and found that it learned more quickly, but actually performed more poorly in the long run. DeepMind submitted its initial findings in a paper to Nature in April 2017, which was then published in October 2017. == Hardware cost == The hardware cost for a single AlphaGo Zero system in 2017, including the four TPUs, has been quoted as around $25 million. == Applications == According to Hassabis, AlphaGo's algorithms are likely to be of the most benefit to domains that require an intelligent search through an enormous space of possibilities, such as protein folding (see AlphaFold) or accurately simulating chemical reactions. AlphaGo's techniques are probably less useful in domains that are difficult to simulate, such as learning how to drive a car. DeepMind stated in October 2017 that it had already started active work on attempting to use AlphaGo Zero technology for protein folding, and stated it would soon publish new findings. == Reception == AlphaGo Zero was widely regarded as a significant advance, even when compared with its groundbreaking predecessor, AlphaGo. Oren Etzioni of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence called AlphaGo Zero "a very impressive technical result" in "both their ability to do it—and their ability to train the system in 40 days, on four TPUs". The Guardian called it a "major breakthrough for artificial intelligence", citing Eleni Vasilaki of Sheffield University and Tom Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University, who called it an impressive feat and an “outstanding engineering accomplishment" respectively. Mark Pesce of the University of Sydney called AlphaGo Zero "a big technological advance" taking us into "undiscovered territory". Gary Marcus, a psychologist at New York University, has cautioned that for all we know, AlphaGo may contain "implicit knowledge that the programmers have about how to construct machines to play problems like Go" and will need to be tested in other domains before being sure that its base architecture is effective at much more than playing Go. In contrast, DeepMind is "confident that this approach is generalisable to a large number of domains". In response to the reports, South Korean Go professional Lee Sedol said, "The previous version of AlphaGo wasn’t perfect, and I believe that’s why AlphaGo Zero was made." On the potential for AlphaGo's development, Lee said he will have to wait and see but also said it will affect young Go players. Mok Jin-seok, who directs the South Korean national Go team, said the Go world has already been imitating the playing styles of previous versions of AlphaGo and creating new ideas from them, and he is hopeful that new ideas will come out from AlphaGo Zero. Mok also added that general trends in the Go world are now being influenced by AlphaGo's playing style. "At first, it was hard to understand and I almost felt like I was playing against an alien. However, having had a great amount of experience, I’ve become used to it," Mok said. "We are now past the point where we debate the gap between the capability of AlphaGo and humans. It’s now between computers." Mok has reportedly already begun analyzing the playing style of AlphaGo Zero along with players from the national team. "Though having watched only a few matches, we received the impression that AlphaGo Zero plays more like a human than its predecessors," Mok said. Chinese Go professional Ke Jie commented on the remarkable accomplishments of the new program: "A pure self-learning AlphaGo is the strongest. Humans seem redundant in front of its self-improvement." == Comparison with predecessors == == AlphaZero == On 5 December 2017, DeepMind team released a preprint on arXiv, introducing AlphaZero, a program using generalized AlphaGo Zero's approach, which achieved within 24 hours a superhuman level of play in chess, shogi, and Go, defeating world-champion programs, Stockfish, Elmo, and 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero in each case. AlphaZero (AZ) is a more generalized variant of the AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) algorithm, and is able to play shogi and chess as well as Go. Differences between AZ and AGZ include: AZ has hard-coded rules for setting search hyperparameters. The neural network is now updated continually. Chess (unlike Go) can end in a tie; therefore AZ can take into account the possibility of a tie game. An open source program, Leela Zero, based on the ideas from the AlphaGo papers is available. It uses a GPU instead of the TPUs recent versions of AlphaGo rely on.
Read more →
Karen Hao

Karen Hao (born in the United States c. 1993) is an American journalist and author. Currently a freelancer for publications like The Atlantic and previously a foreign correspondent based in Hong Kong for The Wall Street Journal and senior artificial intelligence editor at the MIT Technology Review, she is best known for her coverage on AI research, technology ethics and the social impact of AI. Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust and wrote the newsletter The Algorithm. Previously, she worked at Quartz as a tech reporter and data scientist and was an application engineer at the first startup to spin out of X Development. Hao's writing has also appeared in Mother Jones, Sierra Magazine, The New Republic, and other publications. == Early life and education == Hao is the daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, and grew up in New Jersey. She is a native speaker of both English and Mandarin Chinese. She graduated from The Lawrenceville School in 2011. She then studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a minor in energy studies in 2015. == Career == Hao is known in the technology world for her coverage of new AI research findings and their societal and ethical impacts. Her writing has spanned research and issues regarding big tech data privacy, misinformation, deepfakes, facial recognition, and AI healthcare tools. In March 2021, Hao published a piece that uncovered previously unknown information about how attempts to combat misinformation by different teams at Facebook using machine learning were impeded and constantly at odds with Facebook's drive to grow user engagement. Upon its release, leaders at Facebook including Mike Schroepfer and Yann LeCun immediately criticized the piece through Twitter responses. AI researchers and AI ethics experts Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell responded in support of Hao's writing and advocated for more change and improvement for all. Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust, which discusses the rise of AI with people developing, researching, and using AI technologies. The podcast won the 2020 Front Page Award in investigative reporting. Hao has occasionally created data visualizations that have been featured in her work at the MIT Technology Review and elsewhere. In 2018, her "What is AI?" flowchart visualization was exhibited as an installation at the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. She has been an invited speaker at TEDxGateway, the United Nations Foundation, EmTech, WNPR, and many other conferences and podcasts. Her TEDx talk discussed the importance of democratizing how AI is built. In March 2022, she was hired by The Wall Street Journal to cover China technology and society, while being based in Hong Kong. She left the WSJ in 2023. In May 2025, Hao released the book Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI. The book became a New York Times Bestseller and was named a Book of the Year by the Financial Times. In December 2025, after criticism from readers, Hao issued a correction to her book where she had previously overestimated the water consumption of a data center in Chile compared to the community's water consumption by factor of 1,000, due to an error in a government document. In April 2026 the book won the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism. === Selected awards and honors === 2019 Webby Award nominee for best newsletter, as a writer of The Algorithm 2021 Front Page Award in investigative reporting, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2021 Ambies Award nominee for best knowledge and science podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2021 Webby Award nominee for best technology podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2024 American Humanist Media Award 2025 TIME100 AI, named by TIME magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in artificial intelligence 2026 New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism 2026 Whiting Award in Non-fiction
Read more →
Reification (knowledge representation)

Reification in knowledge representation is the process of turning a predicate or statement into an addressable object. Reification allows the representation of assertions so that they can be referred to or qualified by other assertions, i.e., meta-knowledge. The message "John is six feet tall" is an assertion involving truth that commits the speaker to its factuality, whereas the reified statement "Mary reports that John is six feet tall" defers such commitment to Mary. In this way, the statements can be incompatible without creating contradictions in reasoning. For example, the statements "John is six feet tall" and "John is five feet tall" are mutually exclusive (and thus incompatible), but the statements "Mary reports that John is six feet tall" and "Paul reports that John is five feet tall" are not incompatible, as they are both governed by a conclusive rationale that either Mary or Paul is (or both are), in fact, incorrect. In linguistics, reporting, telling, and saying are recognized as verbal processes that project a wording (or locution). If a person says that "Paul told x" and "Mary told y", this person stated only that the telling took place. In this case, the person who made these two statements did not represent a person inconsistently. In addition, if two people are talking to each other, let's say Paul and Mary, and Paul tells Mary "John is five feet tall" and Mary rejects Paul's statement by saying "No, he is actually six feet tall", the socially constructed model of John does not become inconsistent. The reason for that is that statements are to be understood as an attempt to convince the addressee of something (Austin's How to do things with words), alternatively as a request to add some attribute to the model of Paul. The response to a statement can be an acknowledgement, in which case the model is changed, or it can be a statement rejection, in which case the model does not get changed. Finally, the example above for which John is said to be "five feet tall" or "six feet tall" is only incompatible because John can only be a single number of feet tall. If the attribute were a possession as in "he has a dog" or "he also has a cat", a model inconsistency would not happen. In other words, the issue of model inconsistency has to do with our model of the domain element (John) and not with the ascription of different range elements (measurements such as "five feet tall" or "six feet tall").
Read more →
IruSoft

IruSoft (Arabic: آيروسوفت) is an insurance regulatory platform designated for licensing, supervision and inspection of the insurance sector within a country. The platform introduced unique supervision-technology (suptech), insurance-technology (insurtech) and regulatory-technology (regtech) automated modules by which a regulator requires less resources to ensure fairness, transparency and competition and to prevent conflicts of interest in the sector. IruSoft was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and owned by the Insurance Regulatory Unit in Kuwait. The Insurance Regulatory Unit optimized processing insurance-sector's customer complaints by issuing Resolution No. (1) of 2022 that introduced IruSoft's complaints public module; an automated resolution center, by which the process of receiving submitted complaints, passing them on to the platforms of licensed insurance companies, tracking matter-related discussions and updates and getting them escalated if unresolved to be discussed by a committee assigned by the unit is integrally automated and analyzed for better key performance indicators.
Read more →
Aidan Gomez

Aidan Gomez is a British-Canadian computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence, with a focus on natural language processing. He is the co-founder and CEO of the technology company Cohere. == Early life and education == Gomez grew up in Brighton, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics. He was pursuing a PhD in computer science from the University of Oxford. He paused his studies to launch Cohere. He was granted the PhD in 2024. == Career == In 2017, as a 20 year-old intern at Google Brain, Gomez was one of eight authors of the research paper "Attention Is All You Need", which is credited with changing the AI industry and helping lead to the creation of ChatGPT. The paper proposed a novel deep learning architecture called the transformer, that enables machine learning models to analyze large amounts of data for patterns, and then use those patterns to make predictions while leveraging GPU parallelization. It has been commonly adopted for training large language models and in the development of generative AI. In the same year, Gomez founded FOR.ai, a program to help researchers learn machine learning techniques in a collaborative format. An outgrowth of this project was Cohere For AI (now Cohere Labs), which released Aya, an open-source multilingual LLM. As a PhD student, Gomez worked as a machine learning researcher at Google Brain. At that time, he co-authored the paper "One Model to Learn Them All" about multi-task learning by a single neural network. In 2019, Gomez left Google Brain to launch Cohere, an enterprise-focused company that helps businesses implement AI into chatbots, search engines, and other products. As of Sept 2025, Cohere has raised about US$1.6 billion at valuation north of $7 billion, as Gomez leads the company as its CEO. Gomez was named to the 2023 Time 100/AI list of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. He and his fellow Cohere founders Ivan Zhang and Nick Frosst were named number 1 on 2023 Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List. In April 2025, Gomez was elected to the board of Rivian. == Views on AI == Gomez has stated that warnings regarding the existential risk from artificial intelligence are overblown, and that real risks involve the automated spread of misinformation on social media. He said that the United States would win the AI arms race over China.
Read more →
ComfyUI

ComfyUI is an open source, node-based program that allows users to generate images from a series of text prompts. It uses free diffusion models such as Stable Diffusion as the base model for its image capabilities combined with other tools such as ControlNet and LCM Low-rank adaptation with each tool being represented by a node in the program. == History == ComfyUI was released on GitHub in January 2023. According to comfyanonymous, the creator, a major goal of the project was to improve on existing software designs in terms of the user interface. The creator had been involved with Stability AI but by 3 June 2024 that involvement had ended and an organization called Comfy Org had been created along with the core developers. In July 2024, Nvidia announced support for ComfyUI within its RTX Remix modding software. In August 2024, support was added for the Flux diffusion model developed by Black Forest Labs, and Comfy Org joined the Open Model Initiative created by the Linux Foundation. As of Sept 2025, the project has 89.2k stars on GitHub. ComfyUI is one of the most popular user interfaces for Stable Diffusion, along with Automatic1111. == Features == ComfyUI's main feature is that it is node based. Each node has a function such as "load a model" or "write a prompt". The nodes are connected to form a control-flow graph called a workflow. When a prompt is queued, a highlighted frame appears around the currently executing node, starting from "load checkpoint" and ending with the final image and its save location. Workflows commonly consist of tens of nodes, forming a complex directed acyclic graph. Node types include loading a model, specifying prompts, samplers, schedulers, VAE decoders, face restoration and upscaling models, LoRAs, embeddings, and ControlNets. Several samplers are supported, such as Euler, Euler_a, dpmpp_2m_sde and dpmpp_3m_sde. Workflows can be saved to a file, allowing users to re-use node workflows and share them with other users. The file format for the workflows is in JSON and can be embedded in the generated images. Users have also created custom extensions to the base system which are exposed as new nodes, such as the extension for AnimateDiff, which aims to create videos. ComfyUI has been described as more complex compared to other diffusion UIs such as Automatic1111. A default node group is also included with the program. As of December 2024, 1,674 nodes were supported. ComfyUI Supports multiple text-to-image models including, Stable Diffusion, Flux and Tencent's Hunyuan-DiT, as well as custom models from Civitai like Pony. == LLMVision extension compromise == In June 2024, a hacker group called "Nullbulge" compromised an extension of ComfyUI to add malicious code to it. The compromised extension, called ComfyUI_LLMVISION, was used for integrating the interface with AI language models GPT-4 and Claude 3, and was hosted on GitHub. Nullbulge hosted a list of hundreds of ComfyUI users' login details across multiple services on its website, while users of the extension reported receiving numerous login notifications. vpnMentor conducted security research on the extension and claimed it could "steal crypto wallets, screenshot the user’s screen, expose device information and IP addresses, and steal files that contain certain keywords or extensions". Nullbulge's website claims they targeted users who committed "one of our sins", which included AI-art generation, art theft, promoting cryptocurrency, and any other kind of theft from artists such as from Patreon. They claimed that they were "a collective of individuals who believe in the importance of protecting artists' rights and ensuring fair compensation for their work" and that they believed that "AI-generated artwork is detrimental to the creative industry and should be discouraged".
Read more →
AlphaGo Zero

AlphaGo Zero is a version of DeepMind's Go software AlphaGo. AlphaGo's team published an article in Nature in October 2017 introducing AlphaGo Zero, a version created without using data from human games, and stronger than any previous version. By playing games against itself, AlphaGo Zero: surpassed the strength of AlphaGo Lee in three days by winning 100 games to 0; reached the level of AlphaGo Master in 21 days; and exceeded all previous versions in 40 days. Training artificial intelligence (AI) without datasets derived from human experts has significant implications for the development of AI with superhuman skills, as expert data is "often expensive, unreliable, or simply unavailable." Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of DeepMind, said that AlphaGo Zero was so powerful because it was "no longer constrained by the limits of human knowledge". Furthermore, AlphaGo Zero performed better than standard deep reinforcement learning models (such as Deep Q-Network implementations) due to its integration of Monte Carlo tree search. David Silver, one of the first authors of DeepMind's papers published in Nature on AlphaGo, said that it is possible to have generalized AI algorithms by removing the need to learn from humans. Google later developed AlphaZero, a generalized version of AlphaGo Zero that could play chess and shōgi in addition to Go. In December 2017, AlphaZero beat the 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero by winning 60 games to 40, and with 8 hours of training it outperformed AlphaGo Lee on an Elo scale. AlphaZero also defeated a top chess program (Stockfish) and a top Shōgi program (Elmo). == Architecture == The network in AlphaGo Zero is a ResNet with two heads. The stem of the network takes as input a 17x19x19 tensor representation of the Go board. 8 channels are the positions of the current player's stones from the last eight time steps. (1 if there is a stone, 0 otherwise. If the time step go before the beginning of the game, then 0 in all positions.) 8 channels are the positions of the other player's stones from the last eight time steps. 1 channel is all 1 if black is to move, and 0 otherwise. The body is a ResNet with either 20 or 40 residual blocks and 256 channels. There are two heads, a policy head and a value head. Policy head outputs a logit array of size 19 × 19 + 1 {\displaystyle 19\times 19+1} , representing the logit of making a move in one of the points, plus the logit of passing. Value head outputs a number in the range ( − 1 , + 1 ) {\displaystyle (-1,+1)} , representing the expected score for the current player. -1 represents current player losing, and +1 winning. == Training == AlphaGo Zero's neural network was trained using TensorFlow, with 64 GPU workers and 19 CPU parameter servers. Only four TPUs were used for inference. The neural network initially knew nothing about Go beyond the rules. Unlike earlier versions of AlphaGo, Zero only perceived the board's stones, rather than having some rare human-programmed edge cases to help recognize unusual Go board positions. The AI engaged in reinforcement learning, playing against itself until it could anticipate its own moves and how those moves would affect the game's outcome. In the first three days AlphaGo Zero played 4.9 million games against itself in quick succession. It appeared to develop the skills required to beat top humans within just a few days, whereas the earlier AlphaGo took months of training to achieve the same level. According to Epoch.ai, training cost 3e23 FLOPs. For comparison, the researchers also trained a version of AlphaGo Zero using human games, AlphaGo Master, and found that it learned more quickly, but actually performed more poorly in the long run. DeepMind submitted its initial findings in a paper to Nature in April 2017, which was then published in October 2017. == Hardware cost == The hardware cost for a single AlphaGo Zero system in 2017, including the four TPUs, has been quoted as around $25 million. == Applications == According to Hassabis, AlphaGo's algorithms are likely to be of the most benefit to domains that require an intelligent search through an enormous space of possibilities, such as protein folding (see AlphaFold) or accurately simulating chemical reactions. AlphaGo's techniques are probably less useful in domains that are difficult to simulate, such as learning how to drive a car. DeepMind stated in October 2017 that it had already started active work on attempting to use AlphaGo Zero technology for protein folding, and stated it would soon publish new findings. == Reception == AlphaGo Zero was widely regarded as a significant advance, even when compared with its groundbreaking predecessor, AlphaGo. Oren Etzioni of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence called AlphaGo Zero "a very impressive technical result" in "both their ability to do it—and their ability to train the system in 40 days, on four TPUs". The Guardian called it a "major breakthrough for artificial intelligence", citing Eleni Vasilaki of Sheffield University and Tom Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University, who called it an impressive feat and an “outstanding engineering accomplishment" respectively. Mark Pesce of the University of Sydney called AlphaGo Zero "a big technological advance" taking us into "undiscovered territory". Gary Marcus, a psychologist at New York University, has cautioned that for all we know, AlphaGo may contain "implicit knowledge that the programmers have about how to construct machines to play problems like Go" and will need to be tested in other domains before being sure that its base architecture is effective at much more than playing Go. In contrast, DeepMind is "confident that this approach is generalisable to a large number of domains". In response to the reports, South Korean Go professional Lee Sedol said, "The previous version of AlphaGo wasn’t perfect, and I believe that’s why AlphaGo Zero was made." On the potential for AlphaGo's development, Lee said he will have to wait and see but also said it will affect young Go players. Mok Jin-seok, who directs the South Korean national Go team, said the Go world has already been imitating the playing styles of previous versions of AlphaGo and creating new ideas from them, and he is hopeful that new ideas will come out from AlphaGo Zero. Mok also added that general trends in the Go world are now being influenced by AlphaGo's playing style. "At first, it was hard to understand and I almost felt like I was playing against an alien. However, having had a great amount of experience, I’ve become used to it," Mok said. "We are now past the point where we debate the gap between the capability of AlphaGo and humans. It’s now between computers." Mok has reportedly already begun analyzing the playing style of AlphaGo Zero along with players from the national team. "Though having watched only a few matches, we received the impression that AlphaGo Zero plays more like a human than its predecessors," Mok said. Chinese Go professional Ke Jie commented on the remarkable accomplishments of the new program: "A pure self-learning AlphaGo is the strongest. Humans seem redundant in front of its self-improvement." == Comparison with predecessors == == AlphaZero == On 5 December 2017, DeepMind team released a preprint on arXiv, introducing AlphaZero, a program using generalized AlphaGo Zero's approach, which achieved within 24 hours a superhuman level of play in chess, shogi, and Go, defeating world-champion programs, Stockfish, Elmo, and 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero in each case. AlphaZero (AZ) is a more generalized variant of the AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) algorithm, and is able to play shogi and chess as well as Go. Differences between AZ and AGZ include: AZ has hard-coded rules for setting search hyperparameters. The neural network is now updated continually. Chess (unlike Go) can end in a tie; therefore AZ can take into account the possibility of a tie game. An open source program, Leela Zero, based on the ideas from the AlphaGo papers is available. It uses a GPU instead of the TPUs recent versions of AlphaGo rely on.
Read more →
Cyber and Information Domain Service

The Cyber and Information Domain Service (CIDS; German: Cyber- und Informationsraum, lit. 'Cyber and Information space', pronounced [ˈsaɪbɐ ʔʊnt ʔɪnfɔʁmaˈtsi̯oːnsʁaʊm] ; CIR) is the youngest branch of the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr. The decision to form an organizational unit was presented by Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on 26 April 2016, becoming operational on 1 April 2017. It is headquartered in Bonn. == History == In November 2015, the German Ministry of Defense activated a Staff Group within the ministry tasked with developing plans for a reorganization of the Cyber, IT, military intelligence, geo-information, and operative communication units of the Bundeswehr. On 26 April 2016, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen presented the plans for the new military branch to the public and on 5 October 2016 the command's staff became operational as a department within the ministry of defense. On 1 April 2017, the Cyber and Information Domain Service (CIDS) was activated as a "military organizational unit" (Organisationsbereich), indicating its status below a full service branch. The CIDS Headquarters took command of all existing electronic warfare, signals, IT, military intelligence, geoinformation, and psychological operations units. As part of a wider restructuring of higher command in the Bundeswehr in 2024, it was decided to upgrade it from a military organizational unit to the fourth full military service branch, alongside Heer (army), Luftwaffe (air force) and Deutsche Marine (navy). == Organisation == The CIDS is commanded by the Chief of the Cyber and Information Domain Service (Inspekteur des Cyber- und Informationsraum InspCIR), a three-star general position, based in Bonn. As of April 2023, it is structured as follows: Cyber and Information Domain Service Command (Kommando Cyber- und Informationsraum KdoCIR), in Bonn Reconnaissance and Effects Command (Kommando Aufklärung und Wirkung KdoAufkl/Wirk), in Gelsdorf 911th Electronic Warfare Battalion 912th Electronic Warfare Battalion, mans the Oste-class SIGINT/ELINT and reconnaissance ships 931st Electronic Warfare Battalion 932nd Electronic Warfare Battalion, provides airborne troops for operations in enemy territory Cyber-Operations Centre (Zentrum Cyber-Operationen ZSO) Central Imaging Reconnaissance (Zentrale Abbildende Aufklärung ZAbbAufkl), operating the SAR-Lupe satellites Central Bundeswehr Investigation Authority for Technical Reconnaissance (Zentrale Untersuchungsstelle der Bundeswehr für Technische Aufklärung ZU-StelleBwTAufkl) Signals Reconnaissance Centre North (Fernmeldeaufklärungszentrale Nord FmAufklZentr NORD) Signals Reconnaissance Centre South (Fernmeldeaufklärungszentrale Süd FmAufklZentr SÜD) Information Technology Services Command (Kommando Informationstechnik-Services der Bundeswehr KdoIT-SBw), in Bonn 281st Information Technology Battalion 282nd Information Technology Battalion 292nd Information Technology Battalion 293rd Information Technology Battalion 381st Information Technology Battalion 383rd Information Technology Battalion Bundeswehr Geoinformation Centre (Zentrum für Geoinformationswesen der Bundeswehr), in Euskirchen Bundeswehr Cyber-Security Centre (Zentrum für Cyber-Sicherheit der Bundeswehr ZCSBw) Bundeswehr Software Digitalisation Centre (Zentrum Digitalisierung der Bundeswehr und Fähigkeitsentwicklung Cyber- und Informationsraum ZDigBw) Bundeswehr Operational Communications Centre (Zentrum Operative Kommunikation der Bundeswehr ZOpKomBw) Training Centre CIDS (Ausbildungszentrum CIR AusbZ CIR)
Read more →
Region connection calculus

The region connection calculus (RCC) is intended to serve for qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. RCC abstractly describes regions (in Euclidean space, or in a topological space) by their possible relations to each other. RCC8 consists of 8 basic relations that are possible between two regions: disconnected (DC) externally connected (EC) equal (EQ) partially overlapping (PO) tangential proper part (TPP) tangential proper part inverse (TPPi) non-tangential proper part (NTPP) non-tangential proper part inverse (NTPPi) From these basic relations, combinations can be built. For example, proper part (PP) is the union of TPP and NTPP. == Axioms == RCC is governed by two axioms. for any region x, x connects with itself for any region x, y, if x connects with y, y connects with x == Remark on the axioms == The two axioms describe two features of the connection relation, but not the characteristic feature of the connect relation. For example, we can say that an object is less than 10 meters away from itself and that if object A is less than 10 meters away from object B, object B will be less than 10 meters away from object A. So, the relation 'less-than-10-meters' also satisfies the above two axioms, but does not talk about the connection relation in the intended sense of RCC. == Composition table == The composition table of RCC8 are as follows: "" denotes the universal relation, no relation can be discarded. Usage example: if a TPP b and b EC c, (row 4, column 2) of the table says that a DC c or a EC c. == Examples == The RCC8 calculus is intended for reasoning about spatial configurations. Consider the following example: two houses are connected via a road. Each house is located on an own property. The first house possibly touches the boundary of the property; the second one surely does not. What can we infer about the relation of the second property to the road? The spatial configuration can be formalized in RCC8 as the following constraint network: house1 DC house2 house1 {TPP, NTPP} property1 house1 {DC, EC} property2 house1 EC road house2 { DC, EC } property1 house2 NTPP property2 house2 EC road property1 { DC, EC } property2 road { DC, EC, TPP, TPPi, PO, EQ, NTPP, NTPPi } property1 road { DC, EC, TPP, TPPi, PO, EQ, NTPP, NTPPi } property2 Using the RCC8 composition table and the path-consistency algorithm, we can refine the network in the following way: road { PO, EC } property1 road { PO, TPP } property2 That is, the road either overlaps (PO) property2, or is a tangential proper part of it. But, if the road is a tangential proper part of property2, then the road can only be externally connected (EC) to property1. That is, road PO property1 is not possible when road TPP property2. This fact is not obvious, but can be deduced once we examine the consistent "singleton-labelings" of the constraint network. The following paragraph briefly describes singleton-labelings. First, we note that the path-consistency algorithm will also reduce the possible properties between house2 and property1 from { DC, EC } to just DC. So, the path-consistency algorithm leaves multiple possible constraints on 5 of the edges in the constraint network. Since each of the multiple constraints involves 2 constraints, we can reduce the network to 32 (25) possible unique constraint networks, each containing only single labels on each edge ("singleton labelings"). However, of the 32 possible singleton labelings, only 9 are consistent. (See qualreas for details.) Only one of the consistent singleton labelings has the edge road TPP property2 and the same labeling includes road EC property1. Other versions of the region connection calculus include RCC5 (with only five basic relations - the distinction whether two regions touch each other are ignored) and RCC23 (which allows reasoning about convexity). == RCC8 use in GeoSPARQL == RCC8 has been partially implemented in GeoSPARQL as described below: == Implementations == GQR is a reasoner for RCC-5, RCC-8, and RCC-23 (as well as other calculi for spatial and temporal reasoning) qualreas is a Python framework for qualitative reasoning over networks of relation algebras, such as RCC-8, Allen's interval algebra and more.
Read more →
Business rules engine

A business rules engine is a software system that executes one or more business rules in a runtime production environment. The rules might come from legal regulation ("An employee can be fired for any reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason"), company policy ("All customers that spend more than $100 at one time will receive a 10% discount"), or other sources. A business rule system enables these company policies and other operational decisions to be defined, tested, executed and maintained separately from application code. Rule engines typically support rules, facts, priority (score), mutual exclusion, preconditions, and other functions. Rule engine software is commonly provided as a component of a business rule management system which, among other functions, provides the ability to: register, define, classify, and manage all the rules, verify consistency of rules definitions (”Gold-level customers are eligible for free shipping when order quantity > 10” and “maximum order quantity for Silver-level customers = 15” ), define the relationships between different rules, and relate some of these rules to IT applications that are affected or need to enforce one or more of the rules. == IT use case == In any IT application, business rules can change more frequently than other parts of the application code. Rules engines or inference engines serve as pluggable software components which execute business rules that a business rules approach has externalized or separated from application code. This externalization or separation allows business users to modify the rules without the need for IT intervention. The system as a whole becomes more easily adaptable with such external business rules, but this does not preclude the usual requirements of QA and other testing. == History == An article in Computerworld traces rules engines to the early 1990s and to products from the likes of Pegasystems, Fair Isaac Corp, ILOG and eMerge from Sapiens. == Design strategies == Many organizations' rules efforts combine aspects of what is generally considered workflow design with traditional rule design. This failure to separate the two approaches can lead to problems with the ability to re-use and control both business rules and workflows. Design approaches that avoid this quandary separate the role of business rules and workflows as follows: Business rules produce knowledge; Workflows perform business work. Concretely, that means that a business rule may do things like detect that a business situation has occurred and raise a business event (typically carried via a messaging infrastructure) or create higher level business knowledge (e.g., evaluating the series of organizational, product, and regulatory-based rules concerning whether or not a loan meets underwriting criteria). On the other hand, a workflow would respond to an event that indicated something such as the overloading of a routing point by initiating a series of activities. This separation is important because the same business judgment (mortgage meets underwriting criteria) or business event (router is overloaded) can be reacted to by many different workflows. Embedding the work done in response to rule-driven knowledge creation into the rule itself greatly reduces the ability of business rules to be reused across an organization because it makes them work-flow specific. To create an architecture that employs a business rules engine it is essential to establish the integration between a BPM (Business Process Management) and a BRM (Business Rules Management) platform that is based upon processes responding to events or examining business judgments that are defined by business rules. There are some products in the marketplace that provide this integration natively. In other situations this type of abstraction and integration will have to be developed within a particular project or organization. Most Java-based rules engines provide a technical call-level interface, based on the JSR-94 application programming interface (API) standard, in order to allow for integration with different applications, and many rule engines allow for service-oriented integrations through Web-based standards such as WSDL and SOAP. Most rule engines provide the ability to develop a data abstraction that represents the business entities and relationships that rules should be written against. This business entity model can typically be populated from a variety of sources including XML, POJOs, flat files, etc. There is no standard language for writing the rules themselves. Many engines use a Java-like syntax, while some allow the definition of custom business-friendly languages. Most rules engines function as a callable library. However, it is becoming more popular for them to run as a generic process akin to the way that RDBMSs behave. Most engines treat rules as a configuration to be loaded into their process instance, although some are actually code generators for the whole rule execution instance and others allow the user to choose. == Types of rule engines == There are a number of different types of rule engines. These types (generally) differ in how Rules are scheduled for execution. Most rules engines used by businesses are forward chaining, which can be further divided into two classes: The first class processes so-called production/inference rules. These types of rules are used to represent behaviors of the type IF condition THEN action. For example, such a rule could answer the question: "Should this customer be allowed a mortgage?" by executing rules of the form "IF some-condition THEN allow-customer-a-mortgage". The other type of rule engine processes so-called reaction/Event condition action rules. The reactive rule engines detect and react to incoming events and process event patterns. For example, a reactive rule engine could be used to alert a manager when certain items are out of stock. The biggest difference between these types is that production rule engines execute when a user or application invokes them, usually in a stateless manner. A reactive rule engine reacts automatically when events occur, usually in a stateful manner. Many (and indeed most) popular commercial rule engines have both production and reaction rule capabilities, although they might emphasize one class over another. For example, most business rules engines are primarily production rules engines, whereas complex event processing rules engines emphasize reaction rules. In addition, some rules engines support backward chaining. In this case a rules engine seeks to resolve the facts to fit a particular goal. It is often referred to as being goal driven because it tries to determine if something exists based on existing information. Another kind of rule engine automatically switches between back- and forward-chaining several times during a reasoning run, e.g. the Internet Business Logic system, which can be found by searching the web. A fourth class of rules engine might be called a deterministic engine. These rules engines may forgo both forward chaining and backward chaining, and instead utilize domain-specific language approaches to better describe policy. This approach is often easier to implement and maintain, and provides performance advantages over forward or backward chaining systems. There are some circumstance where fuzzy logic based inference may be more appropriate, where heuristics are used in rule processing, rather than Boolean rules. Examples might include customer classification, missing data inference, customer value calculations, etc. The DARL language and the associated inference engine and editors is an example of this approach. == Rules engines for access control / authorization == One common use case for rules engines is standardized access control to applications. OASIS defines a rules engine architecture and standard dedicated to access control called XACML (eXtensible Access Control Markup Language). One key difference between a XACML rule engine and a business rule engine is the fact that a XACML rule engine is stateless and cannot change the state of any data. The XACML rule engine, called a Policy Decision Point (PDP), expects a binary Yes/No question e.g. "Can Alice view document D?" and returns a decision e.g. Permit / deny.
Read more →
Rule-based system

In computer science, a rule-based system is a computer system in which domain-specific knowledge is represented in the form of rules and general-purpose reasoning is used to solve problems in the domain. Two different kinds of rule-based systems emerged within the field of artificial intelligence in the 1970s: Production systems, which use if-then rules to derive actions from conditions. Logic programming systems, which use conclusion if conditions rules to derive conclusions from conditions. The differences and relationships between these two kinds of rule-based system has been a major source of misunderstanding and confusion. Both kinds of rule-based systems use either forward or backward chaining, in contrast with imperative programs, which execute commands listed sequentially. However, logic programming systems have a logical interpretation, whereas production systems do not. == Production system rules == A classic example of a production rule-based system is the domain-specific expert system that uses rules to make deductions or choices. For example, an expert system might help a doctor choose the correct diagnosis based on a cluster of symptoms, or select tactical moves to play a game. Rule-based systems can be used to perform lexical analysis to compile or interpret computer programs, or in natural language processing. Rule-based programming attempts to derive execution instructions from a starting set of data and rules. This is a more indirect method than that employed by an imperative programming language, which lists execution steps sequentially. === Construction === A typical rule-based system has four basic components: A list of rules or rule base, which is a specific type of knowledge base. An inference engine or semantic reasoner, which infers information or takes action based on the interaction of input and the rule base. The interpreter executes a production system program by performing the following match-resolve-act cycle: Match: In this first phase, the condition sides of all productions are matched against the contents of working memory. As a result a set (the conflict set) is obtained, which consists of instantiations of all satisfied productions. An instantiation of a production is an ordered list of working memory elements that satisfies the condition side of the production. Conflict-resolution: In this second phase, one of the production instantiations in the conflict set is chosen for execution. If no productions are satisfied, the interpreter halts. Act: In this third phase, the actions of the production selected in the conflict-resolution phase are executed. These actions may change the contents of working memory. At the end of this phase, execution returns to the first phase. Temporary working memory, which is a database of facts. A user interface or other connection to the outside world through which input and output signals are received and sent. Whereas the matching phase of the inference engine has a logical interpretation, the conflict resolution and action phases do not. Instead, "their semantics is usually described as a series of applications of various state-changing operators, which often gets quite involved (depending on the choices made in deciding which ECA rules fire, when, and so forth), and they can hardly be regarded as declarative". == Logic programming rules == The logic programming family of computer systems includes the programming language Prolog, the database language Datalog and the knowledge representation and problem-solving language Answer Set Programming (ASP). In all of these languages, rules are written in the form of clauses: A :- B1, ..., Bn. and are read as declarative sentences in logical form: A if B1 and ... and Bn. In the simplest case of Horn clauses (or "definite" clauses), which are a subset of first-order logic, all of the A, B1, ..., Bn are atomic formulae. Although Horn clause logic programs are Turing complete, for many practical applications, it is useful to extend Horn clause programs by allowing negative conditions, implemented by negation as failure. Such extended logic programs have the knowledge representation capabilities of a non-monotonic logic. == Differences and relationships between production rules and logic programming rules == The most obvious difference between the two kinds of systems is that production rules are typically written in the forward direction, if A then B, and logic programming rules are typically written in the backward direction, B if A. In the case of logic programming rules, this difference is superficial and purely syntactic. It does not affect the semantics of the rules. Nor does it affect whether the rules are used to reason backwards, Prolog style, to reduce the goal B to the subgoals A, or whether they are used, Datalog style, to derive B from A. In the case of production rules, the forward direction of the syntax reflects the stimulus-response character of most production rules, with the stimulus A coming before the response B. Moreover, even in cases when the response is simply to draw a conclusion B from an assumption A, as in modus ponens, the match-resolve-act cycle is restricted to reasoning forwards from A to B. Reasoning backwards in a production system would require the use of an entirely different kind of inference engine. In his Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard includes logic and rules as alternative approaches to modelling human thinking. He does not consider logic programs in general, but he considers Prolog to be, not a rule-based system, but "a programming language that uses logic representations and deductive techniques" (page 40). He argues that rules, which have the form IF condition THEN action, are "very similar" to logical conditionals, but they are simpler and have greater psychological plausibility (page 51). Among other differences between logic and rules, he argues that logic uses deduction, but rules use search (page 45) and can be used to reason either forward or backward (page 47). Sentences in logic "have to be interpreted as universally true", but rules can be defaults, which admit exceptions (page 44). He does not observe that all of these features of rules apply to logic programming systems.
Read more →
OrCam device

OrCam devices such as OrCam MyEye are portable, artificial vision devices that allow visually impaired people to understand text and identify objects through audio feedback, describing what they are unable to see. Reuters described an important part of how it works as "a wireless smartcamera" which, when attached outside eyeglass frames, can read and verbalize text, and also supermarket barcodes. This information is converted to spoken words and entered "into the user’s ear." Face-recognition is also part of OrCam's feature set. == Devices == OrCam Technologies Ltd has created three devices; OrCam MyEye 2.0, OrCam MyEye 1, and OrCam MyReader. OrCam My Eye 2.0: OrCam debuted the second-generation model, the OrCam MyEye 2.0 in December 2017. About the size of a finger, the MyEye 2.0 is battery-powered, and has been compressed into a self-contained device. The device snaps onto any eyeglass frame magnetically. Orcam 2.0 is small and light (22.5 grams/0.8 ounces) with functionality to restore independence to the visually impaired. It comes in two versions. The basic model can read text, and a more advanced one adds features such as face recognition and barcode reading. As of July 2023, the retail cost is between $4000 and $6000 (USD). == Clinical Studies == JAMA Ophthalmology: In 2016 JAMA Ophthalmology conducted a study involving 12 legally blind participants to evaluate the usefulness of a portable artificial vision device (OrCam) for patients with low vision. The results showed that the OrCam device improved the patient's ability to perform tasks simulating those of daily living, such as reading a message on an electronic device, a newspaper article or a menu. Wills Eye: Wills Eye was a clinical study designed to measure the impact of the OrCam device on the quality of life of patients with End-stage Glaucoma. The conclusion was that OrCam, a novel artificial vision device using a mini-camera mounted on eyeglasses, allowed legally blind patients with end-stage glaucoma to read independently, subsequently improving their quality of life. == Employee testing == The New York Times described how a pre-release OrCam device was used by a Coloboma-impaired employee of the device's developer in 2013 for grocery shopping. It was the small size of the prototype rather than the functionality that gave her added mobility in an Israeli store's aisles. Added life-enhancement was described: "to both recognize and speak .. bus numbers .. traffic lights." == Social aspects == In contrast to an early version of Google Glass, which "failed ... because .. Glass wearers were ..mocked", early OrCam devices used designs that "clip unobtrusively on your shirt or perhaps your belt." In addition, it does not record sounds or images, what was called "the privacy puzzle that stumped Google. One 2018 technology reviewer wrote that he wished it had a headphone jack "so it would be less disruptive in places where others are working." An attempt was made to use bone conduction. == USA introduction == In 2018 a team headed by New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind introduced use of OrCam devices to ten individuals screened for what he termed "new Israeli technology that really makes a difference to the blind." Although not the first USA success, it was more focused than a publicly funded project that was authorized in 2016 by a California government agency. Also in 2016 the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind demonstrated its use. == Technology == In the area of hardware, miniaturization has been quite important, but one major area, software, was mentioned by Assemblyman Hikind, and reported by The Times of Israel is the "AI-driven algorithms" that "reports .. how many people are in a room. In addition to reading printed text, it can also aid in "seeing" what is on a television or computer screen. Although OrCam can't help with handwritten information, it can reuse information, the basis of recognizing "US currency, and even faces." === Features === While early language support was for English, French, German, Hebrew and Spanish, others now available include Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese and Swedish. == History == OrCam Technologies Ltd was founded in 2010 by Professor Amnon Shashua and Ziv Aviram. Before co-founding OrCam, the two in 1999 co-founded Mobileye, an Israeli company that develops vision-based advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) providing warnings for collision prevention and mitigation, which was acquired by Intel for $15.3 billion in 2017. OrCam launched OrCam MyEye in 2013 after years of development and testing, and began selling it commercially in 2015. In its early years, the company raised $22 million, $6 million of which came from Intel Capital. By 2014, Intel, which was also investing in Google Glass, had invested $15 million in Orcam. In March 2017, OrCam had raised $41 million in capital, making it worth $600 million. === Marketing === One outcome of initial marketing in the USA was that they "reached a deal with the California Department of Rehabilitation, ...qualifying blind and visually impaired state residents." == OrCam Technologies Ltd == OrCam Technologies Ltd. is the Israeli-based company producing these OrCam devices, which are wearable artificial intelligence space. The company develops and manufactures assistive technology devices for individuals who are visually impaired, partially sighted, blind, print disabilities, or have other disabilities. OrCam headquarters is located in Jerusalem, operating under the company name OrCam Technologies Ltd. OrCam has over 150 employees, is headquartered in Jerusalem, and has offices in New York, Toronto, and London. == Awards == 2018 Last Gadget Standing Winner 2018 CES Innovation Awards Honoree in Accessible Tech 2017 NAIDEX Innovation Award 2016 Louise Braille Corporate Recognition Award 2016 Silmo-d-Or Award
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 →
Graphics Turing test

In computer graphics the graphics Turing test is a variant of the Turing test, the twist being that a human judge viewing and interacting with an artificially generated world should be unable to reliably distinguish it from reality. The original formulation of the test is: "The subject views and interacts with a real or computer generated scene. The test is passed if the subject can not determine reality from simulated reality better than a random guess. (a) The subject operates a remotely controlled (or simulated) robotic arm and views a computer screen. (b) The subject enters a door to a controlled vehicle or motion simulator with computer screens for windows. An eye patch can be worn on one eye, as stereo vision is difficult to simulate." The "graphics Turing scale" of computer power is then defined as the computing power necessary to achieve success in the test. It was estimated in, as 1036.8 TFlops peak and 518.4 TFlops sustained. Actual rendering tests with a Blue Gene supercomputer showed that current supercomputers are not up to the task scale yet. A restricted form of the graphic Turing test has been investigated, where test subjects look into a box, and try to tell whether the contents are real or virtual objects. For the very simple case of scenes with a cardboard pyramid or a styrofoam sphere, subjects were not able to reliably tell reality and graphics apart.
Read more →