AI Assistant Jobs Remote

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

• 

  Automatic scorer

  An automatic scorer is the computerized scoring system to keep track of scoring in ten-pin bowling. It was introduced en masse in bowling alleys in the 1970s and combined with mechanical pinsetters to detect overturned pins. By eliminating the need for manual score-keeping, these systems have introduced new bowlers into the game who otherwise would not participate because they had to count the score themselves, as many do not understand the mathematical formula involved in bowler scoring. At first, people were skeptical about whether a computer could keep an accurate score. In the twenty-first century, automatic scorers are used in most bowling centers around the world. The three manufacturers of these specialty computers have been Brunswick Bowling, AMF Bowling (later QubicaAMF), and RCA. == History == Automatic equipment is considered a cornerstone of the modern bowling center. The traditional bowling center of the early 20th century was advanced in automation when the pinsetter person ("pin boy"), who set back up by hand the bowled down pins, was replaced by a machine that automatically replaced the pins in their proper play positions. This machine came out in the 1950s. A detection system was developed from the pinsetter mechanism in the 1960s that could tell which pins had been knocked down, and that information could be transferred to a digital computer. Automatic electronic scoring was first conceived by Robert Reynolds, who was described by a newspaper story at the time as "a West Coast electronics calculator expert." He worked with the technical staff of Brunswick Bowling to develop it. The goal was realized in the late 1960s when a specialized computer was designed for the purpose of automatic scorekeeping for bowling. The field test for the automatic scorer took place at Village Lanes bowling center, Chicago in 1967. The scoring machine received approval for official use by the American Bowling Congress in August of that year. They were first used in national official league gaming on October 10, 1967. In November, Brunswick announced that they were accepting orders for the new digital computer, which cost around $3,000 per bowling lane. Bowling centers that installed these new automatic scoring devices in the 1970s charged a ten cents extra per line of scoring for the convenience. == Description == Each Automatic Scorer computer unit kept score for four lanes. It had two bowler identification panels serving two lanes each. The bowler pushed it into his named position when his turn came up so the computer knew who was bowling and score accordingly. After the bowler rolled the bowling ball down the lane and knocked down pins, the pinsetter detected which pins were down and relayed this information back to the computer for scoring. The result was then printed on a scoresheet and projected overhead onto a large screen for all to see. The Automatic Scorer digital computer was mathematically accurate, however the detection system at the pinsetter mechanism sometimes reported the wrong number of pins knocked down. The computer could be corrected manually for any errors in the system; similarly, human errors, such as neglecting to move the bowler identification mechanism, could be corrected for by manual action. The scorer could take into account bowlers' handicaps and could adjust for late-arriving bowlers. The automatic scorer is directly connected to the foul detection unit. As a result, foul line violations are automatically scored. Brunswick had put ten years of research and development into the Automatic Scorer, and by 1972 there were over 500 of these computers installed in bowling centers around the world. AMF Bowling, competitor to Brunswick, entered into the automatic scorer computer field during the 1970s and their systems were installed into their brand of bowling centers. By 1974, RCA was also making these computers for automatic scoring. == Reception and further developments == The purposes of the computerized scoring were to avoid errors by human scorers and to prevent cheating. It had the side benefit of speeding up the progress of the game and introducing new bowlers to the game. Score-keeping for bowling is based on a formula that many new to bowling were not familiar with and thought difficult to learn. These casual bowlers unfamiliar with the formula thought the scores given by the computers were confusing. Some bowlers were not comfortable with automatic scorers when they were introduced in the 1970s, so kept score using the traditional method on paper score sheets. The introduction of this device increased the popularity of the sport. Automatic scorers came to be considered a normal part of modern bowling installations worldwide, with owners and managers saying that bowlers expect such equipment to be present in bowling establishments and that business increased following their introduction. Brunswick introduced a color television style automatic scorer in 1983. Bowling center owners could use these style automatic scorers for advertising, management, videos, and live television. By the 2010s, these types of electronic visual displays could show bowler avatars and social media connections to publicize the bowlers' scores. Some are capable of being extended entertainment systems of games for children and adults. Some scoring systems support variations on traditional bowling, such as different kinds of bingo games where certain pins have to be knocked down at certain times or practice regimes where certain spares have to be accomplished. By this point, QubicaAMF Worldwide, an outgrowth of AMF, was one of the leading providers of bowling scoring equipment.

  Read more →
• 

  NeOn Toolkit

  The NeOn Toolkit is an open source, multi-platform ontology editor, which supports the development of ontologies in F-Logic and OWL/RDF. The editor is based on the Eclipse platform and provides a set of plug-ins (currently 20 plug-ins are available for the latest version, v2.4) covering a number of ontology engineering activities, including Annotation and Documentation, Modularization and Customization, Reuse, Ontology Evolution, translation and others. The NeOn Toolkit has been developed in the course of the EU-funded NeOn project and is currently maintained and distributed by the NeOn Technologies Foundation.

  Read more →
• 

  Turing test

  The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human. In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine's ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic). The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'." Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the "imitation game", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think". Since Turing introduced his test, it has been highly influential in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, resulting in substantial discussion and controversy, as well as criticism from philosophers like John Searle, who argue against the test's ability to detect consciousness. == History == === Philosophical background === The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes: [H]ow many different automata or moving machines could be made by the industry of man ... For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. Denis Diderot formulates in his 1746 book Pensées philosophiques a Turing-test criterion, though with the important implicit limiting assumption maintained, of the participants being natural living beings, rather than considering created artifacts: If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation. This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties) and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined". (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. === Cultural background === A rudimentary idea of the Turing test appears in the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. When Gulliver is brought before the king of Brobdingnag, the king thinks at first that Gulliver might be a "a piece of clock-work (which is in that country arrived to a very great perfection) contrived by some ingenious artist". Even when he hears Gulliver speaking, the king still doubts whether Gulliver was taught "a set of words" to make him "sell at a better price". Gulliver tells that only after "he put several other questions to me, and still received rational answers" the king became satisfied that Gulliver was not a machine. Tests where a human judges whether a computer or an alien is intelligent were an established convention in science fiction by the 1940s, and it is likely that Turing would have been aware of these. Stanley G. Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey" (1934) provides an example of how nuanced such tests could be. Earlier examples of machines or automatons attempting to pass as human include the Ancient Greek myth of Pygmalion who creates a sculpture of a woman that is animated by Aphrodite, Carlo Collodi's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio, about a puppet who wants to become a real boy, and E. T. A. Hoffmann's 1816 story "The Sandman," where the protagonist falls in love with an automaton. In all these examples, people are fooled by artificial beings that—up to a point—pass as human. === Alan Turing and the imitation game === Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. In Turing's report, "Intelligent Machinery," he investigated "the question of whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behaviour" and, as part of that investigation, proposed what may be considered the forerunner to his later tests: It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play a not very bad game of chess. Now get three men A, B and C as subjects for the experiment. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. ... Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (1950) was the first published paper by Turing to focus exclusively on machine intelligence. Turing begins the 1950 paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'Can machines think?'" As he highlights, the traditional approach to such a question is to start with definitions, defining both the terms "machine" and "think". Turing chooses not to do so; instead, he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". In essence he proposes to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" The advantage of the new question, Turing argues, is that it draws "a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man". To demonstrate this approach Turing proposes a test inspired by a party game, known as the "imitation game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they ar

  Read more →
• 

  Group concept mapping

  Group concept mapping is a structured methodology for organizing the ideas of a group on any topic of interest and representing those ideas visually in a series of interrelated maps. It is a type of integrative mixed method, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis. Group concept mapping allows for a collaborative group process with groups of any size, including a broad and diverse array of participants. Since its development in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University, it has been applied to various fields and contexts, including community and public health, social work, health care, human services,, instructional interventions, and biomedical research and evaluation. == Overview == Group concept mapping integrates qualitative group processes with multivariate analysis to help a group organize and visually represent its ideas on any topic of interest through a series of related maps. It combines the ideas of diverse participants to show what the group thinks and values in relation to the specific topic of interest. It is a type of structured conceptualization used by groups to develop a conceptual framework, often to help guide evaluation and planning efforts. Group concept mapping is participatory in nature, allowing participants to have an equal voice and to contribute through various methods. A group concept map visually represents all the ideas of a group and how they relate to each other, and depending on the scale, which ideas are more relevant, important, or feasible. == Process == Group concept mapping involves a structured multi-step process, including brainstorming, sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, and the generation and interpretation of multiple maps. The first step requires participants to brainstorm a large set of statements relevant to the topic of interest, usually in response to a focus prompt. Participants are then asked to individually sort those statements into categories based on their perceived similarity and rate each statement on one or more scales, such as importance or feasibility. The data is then analyzed using The Concept System software, which creates a series of interrelated maps using multidimensional scaling (MDS) of the sort data, hierarchical clustering of the MDS coordinates applying Ward's method, and the computation of average ratings for each statement and cluster of statements. The resulting maps display the individual statements in two-dimensional space with more similar statements located closer to each other, and grouped into clusters that partition the space on the map. The Concept System software also creates other maps that show the statements in each cluster rated on one or more scales, and absolute or relative cluster ratings between two cluster sets. As a last step in the process, participants are led through a structured interpretation session to better understand and label all the maps. == History == Group concept mapping was developed as a methodology in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University. Trochim is considered to be a leading evaluation expert, and he has taught evaluation and research methods at Cornell since 1980. Originally called "concept mapping", the methodology has evolved since its inception with the maturation of the field and the continued advancement of the software, which is now a Web application. == Uses == Group concept mapping can be used with any group for any topic of interest. It is often used by government agencies, academic institutions, national associations, not-for-profit and community-based organizations, and private businesses to help turn the ideas of the group into measurable actions. This includes in the areas of organizational development, strategic planning, needs assessment, curriculum development, research, and evaluation. Group concept mapping is well-documented, well-established methodology, and it has been used in hundreds of published papers. == Versus concept mapping and mind mapping == More generally, concept mapping is any process used for visually representing relationships between ideas in pictures or diagrams. A concept map is typically a diagram of multiple ideas, often represented as boxes or circles, linked in a graph (network) structure through arrows and words where each idea is connected to another. The technique was originally developed in the 1970s by Joseph D. Novak at Cornell University. Concept mapping may be done by an individual or a group. A mind map is a diagram used to visually represent information, centering on one word or idea with categories and sub-categories radiating off of it in a tree structure. Popularized by Tony Buzan in the 1970s, mind mapping is often a spontaneous exercise done by an individual or group to gather information about what they think around a single topic. Unlike Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps, group concept mapping has a structured mathematical process (sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis) for organizing and visually representing multiple ideas of a group through a series of specific steps. In other words, in group concept mapping, the resulting visual representations are mathematically generated from mixed (qualitative and quantitative) data collected from a group of research subjects, whereas in Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps the visual representations are drawn directly by the subjects resulting in diagrams that are qualitative data and final product at the same time.

  Read more →
• 

  Weak supervision

  Weak supervision (also known as semi-supervised learning) is a paradigm in machine learning, the relevance and notability of which increased with the advent of large language models due to the large amount of data required to train them. It is characterized by using a combination of a small amount of human-labeled data (exclusively used in more expensive and time-consuming supervised learning paradigm), followed by a large amount of unlabeled data (used exclusively in unsupervised learning paradigm). In other words, the desired output values are provided only for a subset of the training data. The remaining data is unlabeled or imprecisely labeled. Intuitively, it can be seen as an exam and labeled data as sample problems that the teacher solves for the class as an aid in solving another set of problems. In the transductive setting, these unsolved problems act as exam questions. In the inductive setting, they become practice problems of the sort that will make up the exam. == Problem == The acquisition of labeled data for a learning problem often requires a skilled human agent (e.g. to transcribe an audio segment) or a physical experiment (e.g. determining the 3D structure of a protein or determining whether there is oil at a particular location). The cost associated with the labeling process thus may render large, fully labeled training sets infeasible, whereas acquisition of unlabeled data is relatively inexpensive. In such situations, semi-supervised learning can be of great practical value. Semi-supervised learning is also of theoretical interest in machine learning and as a model for human learning. == Technique == More formally, semi-supervised learning assumes a set of l {\displaystyle l} independently identically distributed examples x 1 , … , x l ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{l}\in X} with corresponding labels y 1 , … , y l ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{l}\in Y} and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples x l + 1 , … , x l + u ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}\in X} are processed. Semi-supervised learning combines this information to surpass the classification performance that can be obtained either by discarding the unlabeled data and doing supervised learning or by discarding the labels and doing unsupervised learning. Semi-supervised learning may refer to either transductive learning or inductive learning. The goal of transductive learning is to infer the correct labels for the given unlabeled data x l + 1 , … , x l + u {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}} only. The goal of inductive learning is to infer the correct mapping from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . It is unnecessary (and, according to Vapnik's principle, imprudent) to perform transductive learning by way of inferring a classification rule over the entire input space; however, in practice, algorithms formally designed for transduction or induction are often used interchangeably. == Assumptions == In order to make any use of unlabeled data, some relationship to the underlying distribution of data must exist. Semi-supervised learning algorithms make use of at least one of the following assumptions: === Continuity / smoothness assumption === Points that are close to each other are more likely to share a label. This is also generally assumed in supervised learning and yields a preference for geometrically simple decision boundaries. In the case of semi-supervised learning, the smoothness assumption additionally yields a preference for decision boundaries in low-density regions, so few points are close to each other but in different classes. === Cluster assumption === The data tend to form discrete clusters, and points in the same cluster are more likely to share a label (although data that shares a label may spread across multiple clusters). This is a special case of the smoothness assumption and gives rise to feature learning with clustering algorithms. === Manifold assumption === The data lie approximately on a manifold of much lower dimension than the input space. In this case learning the manifold using both the labeled and unlabeled data can avoid the curse of dimensionality. Then learning can proceed using distances and densities defined on the manifold. The manifold assumption is practical when high-dimensional data are generated by some process that may be hard to model directly, but which has only a few degrees of freedom. For instance, human voice is controlled by a few vocal folds, and images of various facial expressions are controlled by a few muscles. In these cases, it is better to consider distances and smoothness in the natural space of the generating problem, rather than in the space of all possible acoustic waves or images, respectively. == History == The heuristic approach of self-training (also known as self-learning or self-labeling) is historically the oldest approach to semi-supervised learning, with examples of applications starting in the 1960s. The transductive learning framework was formally introduced by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1970s. Interest in inductive learning using generative models also began in the 1970s. A probably approximately correct learning bound for semi-supervised learning of a Gaussian mixture was demonstrated by Ratsaby and Venkatesh in 1995. == Methods == === Generative models === Generative approaches to statistical learning first seek to estimate p ( x | y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)} , the distribution of data points belonging to each class. The probability p ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p(y|x)} that a given point x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} is then proportional to p ( x | y ) p ( y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)p(y)} by Bayes' rule. Semi-supervised learning with generative models can be viewed either as an extension of supervised learning (classification plus information about p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} ) or as an extension of unsupervised learning (clustering plus some labels). Generative models assume that the distributions take some particular form p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x|y,\theta )} parameterized by the vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } . If these assumptions are incorrect, the unlabeled data may actually decrease the accuracy of the solution relative to what would have been obtained from labeled data alone. However, if the assumptions are correct, then the unlabeled data necessarily improves performance. The unlabeled data are distributed according to a mixture of individual-class distributions. In order to learn the mixture distribution from the unlabeled data, it must be identifiable, that is, different parameters must yield different summed distributions. Gaussian mixture distributions are identifiable and commonly used for generative models. The parameterized joint distribution can be written as p ( x , y | θ ) = p ( y | θ ) p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x,y|\theta )=p(y|\theta )p(x|y,\theta )} by using the chain rule. Each parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is associated with a decision function f θ ( x ) = argmax y p ( y | x , θ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)={\underset {y}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(y|x,\theta )} . The parameter is then chosen based on fit to both the labeled and unlabeled data, weighted by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } : argmax Θ ( log ⁡ p ( { x i , y i } i = 1 l | θ ) + λ log ⁡ p ( { x i } i = l + 1 l + u | θ ) ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\Theta }{\operatorname {argmax} }}\left(\log p(\{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{l}|\theta )+\lambda \log p(\{x_{i}\}_{i=l+1}^{l+u}|\theta )\right)} === Low-density separation === Another major class of methods attempts to place boundaries in regions with few data points (labeled or unlabeled). One of the most commonly used algorithms is the transductive support vector machine, or TSVM (which, despite its name, may be used for inductive learning as well). Whereas support vector machines for supervised learning seek a decision boundary with maximal margin over the labeled data, the goal of TSVM is a labeling of the unlabeled data such that the decision boundary has maximal margin over all of the data. In addition to the standard hinge loss ( 1 − y f ( x ) ) + {\displaystyle (1-yf(x))_{+}} for labeled data, a loss function ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displaystyle (1-|f(x)|)_{+}} is introduced over the unlabeled data by letting y = sign ⁡ f ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\operatorname {sign} {f(x)}} . TSVM then selects f ∗ ( x ) = h ∗ ( x ) + b {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=h^{}(x)+b} from a reproducing kernel Hilbert space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} by minimizing the regularized empirical risk: f ∗ = argmin f ( ∑ i = 1 l ( 1 − y i f ( x i ) ) + + λ 1 ‖ h ‖ H 2 + λ 2 ∑ i = l + 1 l + u ( 1 − | f ( x i ) | ) + ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left(\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{l}(1-y_{i}f(x_{i}))_{+}+\lambda _{1}\|h\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\sum _{i=l+1}^{l+u}(1-|f(x_{i})|)_{+}\right)} An exact solution is intractable due to the non-convex term ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displayst

  Read more →
• 

  Logic Theorist

  Logic Theorist is a computer program completed in 1956 by Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon, and Cliff Shaw. It was the first program deliberately engineered to perform automated reasoning, and has been described as "the first artificial intelligence program". Logic Theorist proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter two of Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, and found new and shorter proofs for some of them. == History == In 1955, when Newell and Simon began to work on the Logic Theorist, the field of artificial intelligence did not yet exist; the term "artificial intelligence" would not be coined until the following summer. Simon was a political scientist who had previously studied the way bureaucracies function as well as developing his theory of bounded rationality (for which he would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978). He believed the study of business organizations requires, like artificial intelligence, an insight into the nature of human problem solving and decision making. Simon has stated that when consulting at RAND Corporation in the early 1950s, he saw a printer typing out a map, using ordinary letters and punctuation as symbols. This led him to think that a machine that could manipulate symbols could simulate decision making and possibly even the process of human thought. The program that printed the map had been written by Newell, a RAND scientist studying logistics and organization theory. For Newell, the decisive moment was in 1954 when Oliver Selfridge came to RAND to describe his work on pattern matching. Watching the presentation, Newell suddenly understood how the interaction of simple, programmable units could accomplish complex behavior, including the intelligent behavior of human beings. "It all happened in one afternoon," he would later say. It was a rare moment of scientific epiphany. "I had such a sense of clarity that this was a new path, and one I was going to go down. I haven't had that sensation very many times. I'm pretty skeptical, and so I don't normally go off on a toot, but I did on that one. Completely absorbed in it—without existing with the two or three levels consciousness so that you're working, and aware that you're working, and aware of the consequences and implications, the normal mode of thought. No. Completely absorbed for ten to twelve hours." Newell and Simon began to talk about the possibility of teaching machines to think. Their first project was a program that could prove mathematical theorems like the ones used in Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. They enlisted the help of computer programmer Cliff Shaw, also from RAND, to develop the program. (Newell says "Cliff was the genuine computer scientist of the three".) The first version was hand-simulated: they wrote the program onto 3x5 cards and, as Simon recalled:In January 1956, we assembled my wife and three children together with some graduate students. To each member of the group, we gave one of the cards, so that each one became, in effect, a component of the computer program ... Here was nature imitating art imitating nature. They succeeded in showing that the program could successfully prove theorems as well as a talented mathematician. Eventually Shaw was able to run the program on the computer at RAND's Santa Monica facility. In the summer of 1956, John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon and Nathan Rochester organized a conference on the subject of what they called "artificial intelligence" (a term coined by McCarthy for the occasion). Newell and Simon proudly presented the group with the Logic Theorist. It was met with a lukewarm reception. Pamela McCorduck writes "the evidence is that nobody save Newell and Simon themselves sensed the long-range significance of what they were doing." Simon confides that "we were probably fairly arrogant about it all" and adds: They didn't want to hear from us, and we sure didn't want to hear from them: we had something to show them! ... In a way it was ironic because we already had done the first example of what they were after; and second, they didn't pay much attention to it. Logic Theorist soon proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter 2 of the Principia Mathematica. The proof of theorem 2.85 was actually more elegant than the proof produced laboriously by hand by Russell and Whitehead (2026-03-20: What is called here Theorem 2.85 is, in fact, numbered as 2.53 in the page 107 of the 1963 Cambridge University Press edition (https://www.uhu.es/francisco.moreno/gii_mac/docs/Principia_Mathematica_vol1.pdf) and which appears, under the same 2.53 number, on page 112 of the 1910 CUP Edition, according to the digitalization on wikibooks (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Russell_%26_Whitehead%27s_Principia_Mathematica/Part_1/Section_A#Discussion_2)). Simon was able to show the new proof to Russell himself who "responded with delight". They attempted to publish the new proof in The Journal of Symbolic Logic, but it was rejected on the grounds that a new proof of an elementary mathematical theorem was not notable, apparently overlooking the fact that one of the authors was a computer program. Newell and Simon formed a lasting partnership, founding one of the first AI laboratories at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and developing a series of influential artificial intelligence programs and ideas, including the General Problem Solver, Soar, and their unified theory of cognition. == Architecture == The Logic Theorist is a program that performs logical processes on logical expressions. The Logic Theorist operates on the following principles: === Expressions === An expression is made of elements. There are two kinds of memories: working and storage. Each working memory contains a single element. The Logic Theorist usually uses 1 to 3 working memories. Each storage memory is a list representing a full expression or a set of elements. In particular, it contains all the axioms and proven logical theorems. An expression is an abstract syntax tree, each node being an element with up to 11 attributes. For example, the logical expression ¬ P → ( Q ∧ ¬ P ) {\displaystyle \neg P\to (Q\wedge \neg P)} is represented as a tree with a root element representing → {\displaystyle \to } . Among the attributes of the root element are pointers to the two elements representing the subexpressions ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} and Q ∧ ¬ P {\displaystyle Q\wedge \neg P} . === Processes === There are four kinds of processes, from the lowest to the highest level. Instruction: These are similar to assembly code. They may either perform a primitive operation on an expression in working memory, or perform a conditional jump to another instruction. An example is "put the right sub-element of working-memory 1 to working-memory 2" Elementary process: These are similar to subroutines. A sequence of instructions that can be called. Method: A sequence of elementary processes. There are 4 methods: substitution: given an expression, it attempts to transform it to a proven theorem or axiom by substitutions of variables and logical connectives. detachment: given expression B {\displaystyle B} , it attempts to find a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B ′ {\displaystyle A\to B'} , where B ′ {\displaystyle B'} yields B {\displaystyle B} after substitution, then attempts to prove A {\displaystyle A} by substitution. chaining forward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} , then attempt to prove B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} by substitution. chaining backward: given expression A → C {\displaystyle A\to C} , it attempts to find for a proven theorem or axiom of form B → C {\displaystyle B\to C} , then attempt to prove A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} by substitution. executive control method: This method applies each of the 4 methods in sequence to each theorem to be proved. == Logic Theorist's influence on AI == Logic Theorist introduced several concepts that would be central to AI research: Reasoning as search Logic Theorist explored a search tree: the root was the initial hypothesis, each branch was a deduction based on the rules of logic. Somewhere in the tree was the goal: the proposition the program intended to prove. The pathway along the branches that led to the goal was a proof – a series of statements, each deduced using the rules of logic, that led from the hypothesis to the proposition to be proved. Heuristics Newell and Simon realized that the search tree would grow exponentially and that they needed to "trim" some branches, using "rules of thumb" to determine which pathways were unlikely to lead to a solution. They called these ad hoc rules "heuristics", using a term introduced by George Pólya in his classic book on mathematical proof, How to Solve It. (Newell had taken courses from Pólya at Stanford). Heuristics would become an important area o

  Read more →
• 

  Omar Al Olama

  Omar Sultan Al Olama (Arabic: عمر سلطان العلماء; born 16 February 1990) is Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications in the United Arab Emirates. He was appointed in October 2017 by Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. The UAE was the first country to appoint a minister for artificial intelligence. == Early life and education == Al Olama was born on 16 February 1990 in Dubai. He has a bachelor's degree in Business and Administration and Management from the American University in Dubai, and a Diploma in Excellence and Project Management from the American University in Sharjah. == Career == Between February 2012 and May 2014, Al Olama was member of the corporate planning at the UAE's Prime Minister's Office. From November 2015 to November 2016, he was Deputy Head of Minister's Office at the UAE's Prime Minister's Office. Between December 2015 and October 2017, he was Secretary General of the World Organization of Racing Drones. In November 2017, he was appointed member of the Board of Trustees of Dubai Future Foundation and Deputy Managing Director of the Foundation. In July 2016, Al Olama was appointed the managing director, and later in 2021 appointed Vice-Chair of the World Government Summit. In 2021, Al Olama was appointed as the Chairman of the Dubai Chamber of Digital Economy, a sub-section of Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry. During the cabinet reshuffle in 2023, Al Olama was appointed as the Director General of the Prime Minister's Office, concurrently maintaining his role as the Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications. == Memberships == In November 2017, Al Olama was appointed as a member of the Future of Digital Economy and Society Council, part of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Later in 2023, the World Economic Forum selected Al Olama to join the steering committee of the AI Governance Alliance, a group comprising 10 global leaders in the digital and technological fields. In 2019, Al Olama was appointed as Chair of the Advisory Board of the Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence. In 2022, Al Olama was appointed by the UAE Cabinet as Vice-Chair of the Higher Committee for Government Digital Transformation, and also appointed by the Government of Dubai as Vice-Chair of the Higher Committee for Future Technology. In 2022, Al Olama was appointed Chairman of the oversight committee of the Dubai Future District Fund. Since 2023, Al Olama has been on the High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence. In 2023, Al Olama, recognized as the world's first minister for artificial intelligence, was included in Time Magazine's inaugural list of the 100 most influential people in AI.

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →
• 

  Apertus (LLM)

  Apertus is a public large language model, developed by the Swiss AI Initiative (a collaboration between EPFL, ETH Zurich, and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre). It was released on September 2, 2025, under the free and open-source Apache 2.0 license. Designed initially for business and research use cases around the world, Apertus was trained on over 1800 languages, and comes in 8 billion or 70 billion parameter versions and is available on Hugging Face for download. The model was developed aiming to adhere to European copyright law, and is one of the first examples of AI as a public good in the vein of AI Sovereignty. It is also the first large model to comply with the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act. At its launch, the model creators emphasized multilinguality, transparency, and auditability as priorities in contrast to commercial frontier model. While international reception was largely positive, the first iteration was significantly behind the capabilities of frontier models and needs adaptation for many use cases with chatbots being a secondary but not a primary use case. As of late 2025, it was considered the largest and most capable fully open model. The capability of future models will depend in part on how much more funding can be secured.

  Read more →
• 

  AgMES

  The AgMES (Agricultural Metadata Element set) initiative was developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and aims to encompass issues of semantic standards in the domain of agriculture with respect to description, resource discovery, interoperability, and data exchange for different types of information resources. There are numerous other metadata schemas for different types of information resources. The following list contains a list of a few examples: Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs): Dublin Core, Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) Events: VCalendar Geographic and Regional Information: Geographic information—Metadata ISO/IEC 11179 Standards Persons: Friend-of-a-friend (FOAF), vCard Plant Production and Protection: Darwin Core (1.0 and 2.0) (DwC) AgMES as a namespace is designed to include agriculture specific extensions for terms and refinements from established standard metadata namespaces like Dublin Core, AGLS etc. Thus, to be used for Document-like Information Objects, for example like publications, articles, books, web sites, papers, etc., it will have to be used in conjunction with the standard namespaces mentioned before. The AgMES initiative strives to achieve improved interoperability between information resources in agricultural domain by enabling means for exchange of information. Describing a DLIO with AgMES means exposing its major characteristics and contents in a standard way that can be reused easily in any information system. The more institutions and organizations in the agricultural domain that use AgMES to describe their DLIOs, the easier it will be to interchange data in between information systems like digital libraries and other repositories of agricultural information. == Use of AgMES == Metadata on agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs) can be created and stored in various formats: embedded in a web site (in the manner as with the HTML meta tag) in a separate metadata database in an XML file in an RDF file AgMES defines elements that can be used to describe a DLIO that can be used together with other metadata standards such as the Dublin Core, the Australian Government Locator Service. A complete list of all elements, refinements and schemes endorsed by AgMES is available from the AgMES website. === Creating application profiles === Application profiles are defined as schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces, combined by implementers, and optimized for a particular local application. Application profiles share the following four characteristics: They draw upon existing pool of metadata definition standards to extract suitable application- or requirement oriented elements. An application profile cannot create new elements. Application profiles specify the application specific details such as the schemes or controlled vocabularies. An application profile also contains information such as the format for the element value, cardinality or data type. Lastly, an application profile can refine standardized definitions as long as it is "semantically narrower or more specific". This capability of application profiles caters to situations where a domain specific terminology is needed to replace a more general one. === Sample application profiles using AgMES === The AGRIS Application Profile is a standard created specifically to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a format that allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems and is based on well-known and accepted metadata standards. The Event Application Profile is a standard created to allow members of the Agricultural community to 'know' about an upcoming event and guide them to the event Web site where they can find further information. The information communicated is thus minimum yet interoperable across domains and organizations. == AgMES and the semantic web == One of the advantages of the AgMES metadata schema is the ability to link between the metadata element and controlled vocabularies. The use of controlled vocabulary provides a "known" set of options to the indexer (and the search programmer) as to how the field can be filled out. Often the values may come from a specific thesaurus (e.g. AGROVOC) or classification schemes (e.g. the AGRIS/CARIS classification scheme) etc. Thanks to the possibility to use controlled vocabularies for metadata elements, the user is provided with the most precise information. In this context, work is also being carried out on exploiting the power of controlled vocabularies expressed as using URIs and machine-understandable semantics. In this context, FAO is promoting the Agricultural Ontology Service (AOS) initiative with the objective of expressing more semantics within the traditional thesaurus AGROVOC and build a Concept Server as a repository from which it will be always possible to extract traditional KOS.

  Read more →
• 

  Computational theory of mind

  In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri

  Read more →
• 

  Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation

  Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, originally the Microelectronics and Computer Consortium and widely seen by the acronym MCC, was the first, and at one time one of the largest, computer industry research and development consortia in the United States. MCC ceased operations in 2000 and was formally dissolved in 2004. == Divisions == MCC did research and development in the following areas: [1] System Architecture and Design (optimise hardware and software design, provide for scalability and interoperability, allow rapid prototyping for improved time-to-market, and support the re-engineering of existing systems for open systems). Advanced Microelectronics Packaging and Interconnection (smaller, faster, more powerful, and cost-competitive). Hardware Systems Engineering (tools and methodologies for cost-efficient, up-front design of advanced electronic systems, including modelling and design-for-test techniques to improve cost, yield, quality, and time-to-market). Environmentally Conscious Technologies (process control and optimisation tools, information management and analysis capabilities, and non-hazardous material alternatives supporting cost-efficient production, waste minimisation, and reduced environmental impact). Distributed Information Technology (managing and maintaining physically distributed corporate information resources on different platforms, building blocks for the national information infrastructure, networking tools and services for integration within and between companies, and electronic commerce). Intelligent Systems (systems that "intelligently" support business processes and enhance performance, including decision support, data management, forecasting and prediction). == History == The MCC was a response to the announcement of Japan's Fifth Generation Project, a large Japanese research project launched in 1982 aimed at producing a new kind of computer by 1991. The Japanese had formed similar industrial research consortia as early as 1956.[2] Many European and American computer companies saw this new Japanese initiative as an attempt to take full control of the world's high-end computer market, and MCC was created, in part, as a defensive move against that threat. In late 1982, several major computer and semiconductor manufacturers in the United States banded together and founded MCC under the leadership of Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, whose previous positions had been Director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Such formations were illegal in the United States until the 1984 Congressional passage of the "National Cooperative Research Act". Several sites with relevant universities were considered, including Atlanta, Georgia (Georgia Tech), the Research Triangle, N.C. (UNC), the Washington, D.C. area (George Mason), Stanford University and Austin, Texas (UT) which was the final selection. The University of Texas offered land upon which they would construct a new building specifically designed for the MCC within their Austin campus. Ross Perot also offered the use of his private plane for 2 years for staff recruitment. Austin was selected as the site for MCC in 1983. Despite this purpose and the background of Inman and his senior staff, MCC accepted no government funding for many years and was a refuge for some avoiding work on Strategic Defense Initiative projects. MCC was part of the Artificial Intelligence boom of the 1980s, reportedly the single largest customer of both Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. (and like Symbolics, was one of the first companies to register a .com domain). In the 1980s its major programs were packaging, software engineering, CAD, and advanced computer architectures. The latter comprised artificial intelligence, human interface, database, and parallel processing, the latter two merging in the late 1980s. Many of the early shareholder companies were mainframe computer companies under stress in the 1980s. Over the years, MCC's membership diversified to include a broad range of high-profile corporations involved in information technology products, as well as government research and development agencies and leading universities. In June, 2000 the MCC Board of Directors voted to dissolve the consortium, and the few remaining employees held a wake at Scholz's Beer Garden in Austin on October 25. Formal dissolution papers were reportedly not filed until 2004. == Spinoffs == While multiple technologies were transferred to member companies and government agencies in the final years, fourteen companies were spun out of MCC. Those spinoffs include: TeraVicta Technologies, Austin's first MEMS company; its focus was to develop microscopic switch technology for fiber optic switching and radiofrequency switching in mobile phones specifically to dynamically switch between the future 3G-4GLTE-future5G wireless communication frequencies and ensure mobile phones were communicating over the strongest wireless signal to reduce dropped calls. Robert Miracky was the founding CEO who spun out the first commercial metal micromachining technology developed by MCC researchers Brent Lunceford, Jason Reed, Richard Nelson, K.Hu, and C. Hilbert in a collaborative development program with IBM in a novel implementation and operational paradigm for solid-state integrated circuit coolers integrated with conductive MEMS switches. TeraVicta was liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in 2015. The Austin region subsequently built up a MEMS & Sensors value chain in the billions of dollars comprising companies such as 3M, Cypress Semiconductor, NXP Semiconductor, Cirrus Logic, Silicon Labs, and the Austin division of the now-defunct Silicon Valley Technology Center. Portelligent, a company that provides reverse engineering teardown services. At the time, Portelligent was the first company to commercialize such services; they had been provided by MCC to its member companies. Today, there are at least twelve companies worldwide that sell reports known as "reverse engineering teardown reports." Modern day teardown reports provide detailed information about technology products such as the bill of materials, microchip, and printed circuit board design specifics, manufacturing details including manufacturing location details for the entire value chain responsible for making electronics, including the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy smartphones. Portelligent was acquired by CMP Technology in 2007. Evolutionary Technologies International, a company focused on developing database tools and data warehousing. It was spun off from MCC in 1990.

  Read more →
• 

  CrewAI

  CrewAI is an open-source software framework and platform for building AI agents and multi-agent systems. Written primarily in Python, it is used to define artificial-intelligence agents, assign tasks to them, and coordinate their work through agent teams and workflows. The framework is associated with CrewAI Inc., a startup developing enterprise tools for automating business workflows with large language model-based agents. == History == CrewAI was first released on the Python Package Index in December 2023. The project was created by João Moura and later developed by CrewAI Inc. and open-source contributors. In October 2024, TechCrunch reported that CrewAI had raised $18 million across seed and Series A funding rounds from investors including Boldstart Ventures, Craft Ventures, Earl Grey Capital, and Insight Partners. The report also stated that Andrew Ng and HubSpot co-founder Dharmesh Shah had invested in the company. SiliconANGLE described the company as the developer of an open-source framework for building artificial-intelligence agents and reported that the funding consisted of a seed round led by Boldstart Ventures and a Series A led by Insight Partners. By late 2024, CrewAI had introduced commercial enterprise products built on top of its open-source components. TechCrunch reported that the company's enterprise offering added access controls, analytics, support, and templates for workflow automation. == Features == CrewAI is designed around groups of agents, sometimes called "crews", that can be assigned roles, goals, and tasks. The framework supports agent collaboration, task delegation, tool use, memory, and knowledge sources for retrieval-augmented generation workflows. The project describes two main building blocks: "Crews", which are used for autonomous agent collaboration, and "Flows", which are used for more controlled event-driven workflows. The framework is independent of LangChain and is released under the MIT License. It can be installed as a Python package and is commonly used with external large language model APIs or local models, depending on the developer's configuration. == Business model == CrewAI combines an open-source framework with commercial enterprise products. Its enterprise products are intended for organizations that need to build, monitor, and manage agent-based automations with additional security, observability, and administrative controls.

  Read more →
• 

  Sarvam AI

  Sarvam AI is an Indian artificial intelligence company headquartered in Bengaluru, Karnataka. Founded in 2023, the company develops large language models (LLMs) and multimodal AI systems with a focus on Indian languages and region-specific use cases. The company has received venture capital backing and has participated in government-supported AI initiatives, including India's sovereign large language model programme under the IndiaAI Mission. == History == Sarvam AI was founded in August 2023 by Vivek Raghavan and Pratyush Kumar, who were previously associated with AI4Bharat at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras. In December 2023, the company announced a combined seed and Series A funding round of approximately US$41 million. The round was led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, with participation from Peak XV Partners and Khosla Ventures. In April 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) selected Sarvam AI as one of the companies to develop an indigenous foundational model under the IndiaAI Mission. As part of the initiative, the company received access to government-supported computing infrastructure, including GPUs allocated for model training over a specified period. In February 2026, Sarvam AI introduced two large language models at the AI Impact Summit held at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi. == Products and technology == Sarvam AI develops language models trained on datasets that include multiple Indian languages and code-mixed text. The company uses mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures in some of its models. === Foundational language models === On 18 February 2026, the company announced the release of two foundational models: Sarvam-30B – A 30-billion parameter model based on a mixture-of-experts design. According to company disclosures reported by the media, the model activates approximately 1 billion parameters per token and supports a 32,000-token context window. Sarvam-105B – A 105-billion parameter model activating approximately 9 billion parameters per token, with a 128,000-token context window. The model is positioned for complex reasoning and enterprise applications. On 20th February 2026, the company released a beta version of the Sarvam-105B model which is named Indus. It is available on the Apple App Store, Google Play Store and the web. === Speech and vision systems === Sarvam AI has also developed multimodal systems including speech-to-text and vision-language models. Its speech model, referred to as Saaras V3 in company materials, supports multiple Indian languages. The company has also introduced a vision-language model known as Sarvam Vision, intended for document understanding and optical character recognition (OCR) in Indian scripts. === Devices === 'Sarvam Kaze' is an indigenous AI-powered wearable glass that listens, understands, and captures what users see the world through their eyes in real time. The device supports more than 10 Indian languages, enabling voice-based interaction and potentially real-time translation. The company plans to launch the device in May 2026. == Startup support == In March 2026, Sarvam AI launched the Sarvam Startup Program, an initiative providing selected early-stage companies with 6–12 months of API credits scaled to their needs, priority engineering support, and access to production infrastructure for developing multilingual AI applications in areas such as speech, translation, and large language models. == Open-source release == In February 2026, Sarvam AI announced and open-sourced two large language models: Sarvam 30B (30 billion parameters) and Sarvam 105B (105 billion parameters, using a Mixture-of-Experts architecture with 10.3 billion active parameters). Both models were trained from scratch on datasets focused on Indian languages and support advanced reasoning, multilingual tasks, mathematics, and coding. The models are hosted on Hugging Face under the Apache License and are intended for enterprise and developer applications in Indian languages. The models were subsequently released as open source under the Apache License 2.0, with model weights made available on Hugging Face (sarvamai/sarvam-30b and sarvamai/sarvam-105b) and AIKosh in early March 2026. == Government and institutional collaborations == In 2025, Sarvam AI was selected to contribute to India's sovereign AI model initiative under the IndiaAI Mission. The initiative aims to support domestic AI infrastructure and model development. In March 2025, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) announced a collaboration with Sarvam AI to integrate AI-based voice interactions and multilingual support into Aadhaar-related services. Sarvam AI has also worked with AI4Bharat and academic institutions on language datasets and speech research projects. == Industry participation == Sarvam AI presented its foundational models at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi. The company has also been listed among Indian members of the AI Alliance, a consortium focused on open-source artificial intelligence initiatives. == List of models ==

  Read more →
• 

  Executive Order 14110

  Executive Order 14110, titled Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (sometimes referred to as "Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence") was the 126th executive order signed by former U.S. President Joe Biden. Signed on October 30, 2023, the order defines the administration's policy goals regarding artificial intelligence (AI), and orders executive agencies to take actions pursuant to these goals. The order is considered to be the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States regarding AI. It was rescinded by U.S. President Donald Trump within hours of his assuming office on January 20, 2025. Policy goals outlined in the executive order pertain to promoting competition in the AI industry, preventing AI-enabled threats to civil liberties and national security, and ensuring U.S. global competitiveness in the AI field. The executive order required a number of major federal agencies to create dedicated "chief artificial intelligence officer" positions within their organizations. == Background == The drafting of the order was motivated by the rapid pace of development in generative AI models in the 2020s, including the release of large language model ChatGPT. Executive Order 14110 is the third executive order dealing explicitly with AI, with two AI-related executive orders being signed by then-President Donald Trump. The development of AI models without policy safeguards has raised a variety of concerns among experts and commentators. These range from future existential risk from advanced AI models to immediate concerns surrounding current technologies' ability to disseminate misinformation, enable discrimination, and undermine national security. In August 2023, Arati Prabhakar, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, indicated that the White House was expediting its work on executive action on AI. A week prior to the executive order's unveiling, Prabhakar indicated that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the order would be released "soon" after. == Policy goals and provisions == The order has been characterized as an effort for the United States to capture potential benefits from AI while mitigating risks associated with AI technologies. Upon signing the order, Biden stated that AI technologies were being developed at "warp speed", and argued that to "realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology". Policy goals outlined by the order include the following: Promoting competition and innovation in the AI industry Upholding civil and labor rights and protecting consumers and their privacy from AI-enabled harms Specifying federal policies governing procurement and use of AI Developing watermarking systems for AI-generated content and warding off intellectual property theft stemming from the use of generative models Maintaining the nation's place as a global leader in AI == Impact on agencies == === Creation of chief AI officer positions === The executive order required a number of large federal agencies to appoint a chief artificial intelligence officer, with a number of departments having already appointed a relevant officer prior to the order. In the days following the order, news publication FedScoop confirmed that the General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States Department of Education appointed relevant chief AI officers. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also confirmed it had elevated an official to serve as its chief AI officer. === Department responsibilities === Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was responsible for developing AI-related security guidelines, including cybersecurity-related matters. The DHS will also work with private sector firms in sectors including the energy industry and other "critical infrastructure" to coordinate responses to AI-enabled security threats. Executive Order 14110 mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch an AI technology competition aimed at reducing occupational burnout among healthcare workers through AI-assisted tools for routine tasks. The order also mandated the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a generative artificial intelligence-focused resource to supplement the existing AI Risk Management Framework. == Analysis == The executive order has been described as the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States government pertaining to AI. Earlier in 2023 prior to the signing of the order, the Biden administration had announced a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, and had secured non-binding AI safety commitments from major tech companies. The issuing of the executive order comes at a time in which lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have pushed for legislation to regulate AI in the 118th United States Congress. According to Axios, despite the wide scope of the executive order, it notably does not touch upon a number of AI-related policy proposals. This includes proposals for a "licensing regime" to government advanced AI models, which has received support from industry leaders including Sam Altman. Additionally, the executive order does not seek to prohibit 'high-risk' uses of AI technology, and does not aim to mandate that tech companies release information surrounding AI systems' training data and models. == Reception == === Political and media reception === The editorial board of the Houston Chronicle described the order as a "first step toward protecting humanity". The issuing of the order received praise from Democratic members of Congress, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA). Representative Don Beyer (D-VA), who leads the House AI Caucus, praised the order as a "comprehensive strategy for responsible innovation", while arguing that Congress must take initiative to pass legislation on AI. The draft of the order received criticism from Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who described it as creating "barriers to innovation disguised as safety measures". === Public reception === Polling from the AI Policy Institute showed that 69% of all voters support the executive order, while 15% oppose it. Breaking it down by party, support was at 78% for Democrats, 65% for independents, and 64% for Republicans. === Industry reception === The executive order received strong criticism from the Chamber of Commerce as well as tech industry groups including NetChoice and the Software and Information Industry Association, all of which count "Big Tech" companies Amazon, Meta, and Google as members. Representatives from the organizations argued that the executive order threatens to hinder private sector innovation. === Civil society reception === According to CNBC, a number of leaders advocacy organizations praised the executive order for its provisions on "AI fairness", while simultaneously urging congressional action to strengthen regulation. Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, praised the order while urging Congress to take initiative to "ensure that innovation makes us more fair, just, and prosperous, rather than surveilled, silenced, and stereotyped". A representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised provisions of the order centered on combating AI-enabled discrimination, while also voiced concern over sections of the order focused on law enforcement and national security. === Second Trump administration === Hours after his inauguration as the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump rescinded the order, labeling it, among several other of Biden's executive orders and actions, as "unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices".

  Read more →