AI Assistant Qt

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

Douglas Parkhill

Douglas F. Parkhill is a Canadian technologist and former research minister, best known for his pioneering work on what is now called cloud computing, and his work on Canada's Telidon videotex project. He started working at the Canadian ministry of Communications (now part of the Department of Trade and Industry) in 1969, having previously worked at the Mitre Corporation. He was responsible for many activities in communications satellites, computer communications, command and control systems and telecommunications. He was winner of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Outstanding Achievement award in 1982, the Conestoga shield for services to government and industry in computer communications research and development, the Touche Ross award for Telidon development. He was an author of several publications including the 1966 book, The Challenge of the Computer Utility. In the book, Parkhill thoroughly explored many of the modern-day characteristics of cloud computing (elastic provisioning through a utility service) as well as the comparison to the electricity industry and the use of public, private, government and community forms. The book won the McKinsey Foundation award for distinguished contributions to management literature. He worked with Dave Godfrey, the Canadian writer and novelist on a later book Gutenberg two about the social and political meaning of computer technology. He was in charge of research at the Federal Department of Communications at the time when the department was funding development of the Telidon videotext system, was heavily involved in promoting the system, and had overall control of the program. In a radio broadcast in 1980, he outlined some of the potential of the system, from financial information, to theatre reservations, with the ability to pay and print out tickets from the system. He later documented the history of the Telidon project, and the history of videotext in general. == Publications == The Challenge of the Computer Utility, Addison-Wesley, 1966, ISBN 0-201-05720-4 edited with Dave Godfrey, Gutenberg Two: The New Electronics and Social Change, Press Porcepic, 1979, ISBN 0-88878-191-1 The Beginning of a Beginning. Ottawa; Department of Communications, 1987. A history of the Telidon project.
Read more →
Responsible AI Safety and Education Act

The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a New York State law that imposes transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large frontier artificial intelligence models. The law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025. It was sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The RAISE Act is the second U.S. state law to regulate frontier AI model developers, following California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), which was signed in September 2025. Hochul signed the bill on the condition that the legislature would pass chapter amendments to bring the law closer to the California model. The amending bills (A9449/S8828) were introduced in January 2026; as of February 2026 they remain in committee, though the Governor's office and legal commentators treat the agreed-upon amendments as representing the final form of the law. == Provisions == The following describes the RAISE Act as it is expected to operate after the agreed-upon chapter amendments take effect. The law is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027. === Scope === The law applies to "large frontier developers," defined as companies with annual revenues exceeding $500 million that develop "frontier models," which are foundation models trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations (FLOPs). The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had instead defined large developers based on having spent over $100 million in aggregate compute costs, and also included a provision prohibiting deployment of frontier models posing "unreasonable risk of critical harm"; both were removed as part of the negotiations between Hochul and the legislature. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are exempt, as is the state's Empire AI consortium. === Safety and transparency framework === Large frontier developers must write, implement, and publicly publish a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, secure unreleased model weights against unauthorized access, use third-party evaluators, govern internal use of frontier models, and respond to safety incidents. The framework must describe these measures "in detail," a requirement that goes beyond the California TFAIA's requirement to describe a developer's "approach." The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and material modifications must be published with justification within 30 days. Before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model, developers must publish a transparency report including the model's release date, supported languages and output modalities, intended uses, and any restrictions on use. Large frontier developers must additionally include summaries of catastrophic risk assessments and the extent of third-party involvement. === Catastrophic risk and incident reporting === The law defines "catastrophic risk" as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier model will contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage, arising from a frontier model providing expert-level assistance in creating chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; engaging in cyberattacks or conduct equivalent to crimes such as murder, assault, or theft without meaningful human oversight; or evading the control of its developer or user. Loss of equity value is explicitly excluded from the definition of property damage. "Critical safety incidents" include unauthorized access to model weights resulting in death or injury, materialization of a catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, and a model using deceptive techniques to subvert developer controls outside of an evaluation context in a manner that increases catastrophic risk. Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. === Enforcement === The chapter amendments establish a new office within the New York State Department of Financial Services to oversee compliance, receive incident reports, and publish annual reports on AI safety beginning in 2028. Large frontier developers must file disclosure statements with this office and pay pro rata assessments to fund its operations. The New York Attorney General may bring civil actions, with penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had set penalties at up to $10 million and $30 million respectively. The law does not create a private right of action. == Legislative history == The bill was introduced in the Assembly on March 5, 2025, by Assemblymember Alex Bores, and in the Senate on March 27, 2025, by Senator Andrew Gounardes. After a series of amendments, the legislature passed the bill in June 2025. Governor Hochul did not immediately sign the bill, using nearly all the time available under New York law before acting; had she not signed by the end of 2025, the bill would have been pocket vetoed. The tech industry lobbied against the bill during this period, and Hochul initially proposed a near-complete rewrite modeled on California's TFAIA. Legislators resisted the extent of the changes, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a version that used the California law as a base but preserved several provisions that went beyond it, including the 72-hour incident reporting timeline and the creation of a dedicated enforcement office. Hochul signed the original bill (S6953-B/A6453-B) on December 19, 2025, with the legislature committing to pass chapter amendments formalizing the agreed changes in the January 2026 session. The amending bills (A9449 in the Assembly, S8828 in the Senate) were introduced on January 6 and January 8, 2026. OpenAI and Anthropic expressed support for the law. Anthropic's head of external affairs Sarah Heck said the two state laws "should inspire Congress to build on them." The super PAC network Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, subsequently announced plans to challenge Bores in a future election. == Federal preemption debate == Hochul signed the RAISE Act eight days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on December 11, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws deemed to conflict with a "minimally burdensome" national AI policy. On January 9, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force as called for by the executive order. The executive order also threatened states with loss of certain federal broadband funding if their AI laws were found to be onerous. Legal commentators have noted several potential avenues for federal challenge, including arguments that the law constitutes compelled speech, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by creating a patchwork of state regulations, or is preempted by federal AI policy. == Comparison with California's TFAIA == The RAISE Act was designed to align with California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, signed on September 29, 2025. Both laws use the same 1026 FLOP threshold to define frontier models and the same $500 million revenue threshold to define large developers. Both require public safety frameworks, transparency reports, and incident reporting. The RAISE Act's 72-hour incident reporting window is stricter than the TFAIA's 15-day window, though both require faster reporting for incidents posing imminent physical risk (24 hours under the RAISE Act, immediate under the TFAIA). The RAISE Act establishes a dedicated enforcement office within the Department of Financial Services, whereas California routes reports through the Office of Emergency Services. The RAISE Act requires developers to describe their safety measures "in detail" and how they "handle" various risks, whereas the TFAIA requires developers to describe their "approach."
Read more →
AlphaStar (software)

AlphaStar is an artificial intelligence (AI) software developed by DeepMind for playing the video game StarCraft II. It was unveiled to the public by name in January 2019. AlphaStar attained "Grandmaster" status in August 2019, considered a milestone for AI in video games at the time. == Background == Games created for humans are considered to have external validity as benchmarks of progress in artificial intelligence. IBM's chess engine Deep Blue (1997) and DeepMind's AlphaGo (2016) were considered major milestones; some argue that StarCraft would also be a major milestone, due to the game's "real-time play, partial observability, no single dominant strategy, complex rules that make it hard to build a fast forward model, and a particularly large and varied action space." Though difficult, StarCraft may still be tractable with current technology because "its rules are known and the world is discrete with only a few types of objects". StarCraft II is a popular fast-paced online real-time strategy game developed by Blizzard Entertainment. == History == DeepMind Technologies was founded in the UK in 2010. As early as 2011, founder Demis Hassabis called StarCraft "the next step up" after games like Go. DeepMind became a subsidiary of Google in 2014, after demonstrating self-learning bots with superhuman ability at a variety of Atari 2600 games. In February 2015, computer scientist Zachary Mason predicted Deepmind's research "leads to StarCraft in five or ten years". In March 2016, following AlphaGo's victory over Lee Sedol, a world champion Go player, Hassabis publicly mulled building an AI for StarCraft, citing it as a strategic game with incomplete information where, unlike Go, much of the "board" is invisible. A formal collaboration was announced at BlizzCon in November 2016, alongside a plan to release an open development environment for bots in Q1 of 2017. By 2017, DeepMind was experimenting with feeding StarCraft data into its software. In August 2017, DeepMind and Blizzard released development tools to assist in bot development, as well as data from 65,000 historical games. At the time, computer scientist and StarCraft tournament manager David Churchill estimated it would take five years for a bot to beat a human, but made the caveat that AlphaGo had beaten expectations. In Wired, tech journalist Tom Simonite stated "No one expects the robot to win anytime soon. But when it does, it will be a far greater achievement than DeepMind's conquest of Go." In December 2018, DeepMind's bot defeated professional player Grzegorz "MaNa" Komincz, 5-0. DeepMind announced the bot, named "AlphaStar", in January 2019. A journalist at Ars Technica and others argued that AlphaStar still had unfair advantages: "AlphaStar has the ability to make its clicks with surgical precision using an API, whereas human players are constrained by the mechanical limits of computer mice". AlphaStar also had a global view rather than being limited by the in-game camera. Furthermore, while there was a cap on the number of actions over a five-second window, AlphaStar was free to allocate its action quota unevenly across the window in order to launch superhuman bursts of activity at critical moments. DeepMind quickly retrained AlphaStar under more realistic constraints, and then lost a rematch with Komincz. Starting in July 2019, the new, constrained version of AlphaStar anonymously competed against players who "opted in" on the public 1v1 European multiplayer ladder. By the end of August 2019, AlphaStar had attained Grandmaster level, ranking among the top 0.2% of human players. == Algorithms == Unlike AlphaZero, AlphaStar initially learns to imitate the moves of the best players in its database of human vs. human games; this step is necessary to solve what DeepMind's Dave Silver calls "the exploration problem": discovering new strategies would otherwise be like finding a "needle in a haystack". Agents then play each other and deploy deep reinforcement learning. These main agents also learn by playing against suboptimal "exploiter agents" whose purpose is to expose weaknesses in the main agents. == Reactions == After his 5-0 defeat in December 2018, Komincz stated "I wasn't expecting the AI to be that good". Stuart Russell assessed that AlphaStar's 2018 victory required "a fair amount of problem-specific effort" and that general-purpose methods were "not quite ready for StarCraft". An article in Wired UK judged AlphaStar's new constraints, adopted for the July 2019 matches, to be "fair" this time around. StarCraft professional Raza "RazerBlader" Sekha stated AlphaStar was "impressive" but had its quirks, succumbing in one game to an unorthodox army composition made up of only air units. The UK's top player, Joshua "RiSky" Hayward, expressed some disappointment, saying AlphaStar "often didn't make the most efficient, strategic decisions". Professional Diego "Kelazhur" Schwimer called AlphaStar's play "unimaginably unusual; it really makes you question how much of StarCraft's diverse possibilities pro players have really explored". AlphaStar's opponents often did not realize they were playing a bot. Ian Sample, of The Guardian, called AlphaStar a "landmark achievement" for the field of AI. Churchill stated that he had previously seen bots that master one or two elements of StarCraft, but that AlphaStar was the first that can handle the game in its entirety. Gary Marcus expressed his continuing skepticism about deep learning, stating: "So far the field has struggled to take techniques like this out of the laboratory and game environments and into the real world, and I don't immediately see this result as progress in that direction". AI researcher Jon Dodge was surprised by AlphaStar, stating that he did not expect such a "superhuman" performance for "another couple of years"; in contrast, Churchill states "StarCraft is nowhere near being 'solved', and AlphaStar is not yet even close to playing at a world champion level". == Legacy == DeepMind argues that insights from AlphaStar might benefit robots, self-driving cars, and virtual assistants, which need to operate with "imperfectly observed information". Silver has indicated his lab "may rest at this point", rather than try to substantially improve AlphaStar. Silver himself argues that "AlphaStar has become the first AI system to reach the top tier of human performance in any professionally played e-sport on the full unrestricted game under professionally approved conditions... Ever since computers cracked Go, chess, and poker, the game of StarCraft has emerged, essentially by consensus from the community, as the next grand challenge for AI." Computer scientist Noel Sharkey argues, disapprovingly, that "military analysts will certainly be eyeing the successful AlphaStar real-time strategies as a clear example of the advantages of AI for battlefield planning". In contrast, Silver argues: "To say that this has any kind of military use is saying no more than to say an AI for chess could be used to lead to military applications".
Read more →
OntoCAPE

OntoCAPE is a large-scale ontology for the domain of Computer-Aided Process Engineering (CAPE). It can be downloaded free of charge via the OntoCAPE Homepage. OntoCAPE is partitioned into 62 sub-ontologies, which can be used individually or as an integrated suite. The sub-ontologies are organized across different abstraction layers, which separate general knowledge from knowledge about particular domains and applications. The upper layers have the character of an upper ontology, covering general topics such as mereotopology, systems theory, quantities and units. The lower layers conceptualize the domain of chemical process engineering, covering domain-specific topics such as materials, chemical reactions, or unit operations.
Read more →
Grammar induction

Grammar induction (or grammatical inference) is the process in machine learning of learning a formal grammar (usually as a collection of re-write rules or productions or alternatively as a finite-state machine or automaton of some kind) from a set of observations, thus constructing a model which accounts for the characteristics of the observed objects. More generally, grammatical inference is that branch of machine learning where the instance space consists of discrete combinatorial objects such as strings, trees and graphs. == Grammar classes == Grammatical inference has often been very focused on the problem of learning finite-state machines of various types (see the article Induction of regular languages for details on these approaches), since there have been efficient algorithms for this problem since the 1980s. Since the beginning of the century, these approaches have been extended to the problem of inference of context-free grammars and richer formalisms, such as multiple context-free grammars and parallel multiple context-free grammars. Other classes of grammars for which grammatical inference has been studied are combinatory categorial grammars, stochastic context-free grammars, contextual grammars and pattern languages. == Learning models == The simplest form of learning is where the learning algorithm merely receives a set of examples drawn from the language in question: the aim is to learn the language from examples of it (and, rarely, from counter-examples, that is, example that do not belong to the language). However, other learning models have been studied. One frequently studied alternative is the case where the learner can ask membership queries as in the exact query learning model or minimally adequate teacher model introduced by Angluin. == Methodologies == There is a wide variety of methods for grammatical inference. Two of the classic sources are Fu (1977) and Fu (1982). Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) also devote a brief section to the problem, and cite a number of references. The basic trial-and-error method they present is discussed below. For approaches to infer subclasses of regular languages in particular, see Induction of regular languages. A more recent textbook is de la Higuera (2010), which covers the theory of grammatical inference of regular languages and finite state automata. D'Ulizia, Ferri and Grifoni provide a survey that explores grammatical inference methods for natural languages. === Induction of probabilistic grammars === There are several methods for induction of probabilistic context-free grammars. === Grammatical inference by trial-and-error === The method proposed in Section 8.7 of Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) suggests successively guessing grammar rules (productions) and testing them against positive and negative observations. The rule set is expanded so as to be able to generate each positive example, but if a given rule set also generates a negative example, it must be discarded. This particular approach can be characterized as "hypothesis testing" and bears some similarity to Mitchel's version space algorithm. The Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) text provide a simple example which nicely illustrates the process, but the feasibility of such an unguided trial-and-error approach for more substantial problems is dubious. === Grammatical inference by genetic algorithms === Grammatical induction using evolutionary algorithms is the process of evolving a representation of the grammar of a target language through some evolutionary process. Formal grammars can easily be represented as tree structures of production rules that can be subjected to evolutionary operators. Algorithms of this sort stem from the genetic programming paradigm pioneered by John Koza. Other early work on simple formal languages used the binary string representation of genetic algorithms, but the inherently hierarchical structure of grammars couched in the EBNF language made trees a more flexible approach. Koza represented Lisp programs as trees. He was able to find analogues to the genetic operators within the standard set of tree operators. For example, swapping sub-trees is equivalent to the corresponding process of genetic crossover, where sub-strings of a genetic code are transplanted into an individual of the next generation. Fitness is measured by scoring the output from the functions of the Lisp code. Similar analogues between the tree structured lisp representation and the representation of grammars as trees, made the application of genetic programming techniques possible for grammar induction. In the case of grammar induction, the transplantation of sub-trees corresponds to the swapping of production rules that enable the parsing of phrases from some language. The fitness operator for the grammar is based upon some measure of how well it performed in parsing some group of sentences from the target language. In a tree representation of a grammar, a terminal symbol of a production rule corresponds to a leaf node of the tree. Its parent nodes corresponds to a non-terminal symbol (e.g. a noun phrase or a verb phrase) in the rule set. Ultimately, the root node might correspond to a sentence non-terminal. === Grammatical inference by greedy algorithms === Like all greedy algorithms, greedy grammar inference algorithms make, in iterative manner, decisions that seem to be the best at that stage. The decisions made usually deal with things like the creation of new rules, the removal of existing rules, the choice of a rule to be applied or the merging of some existing rules. Because there are several ways to define 'the stage' and 'the best', there are also several greedy grammar inference algorithms. These context-free grammar generating algorithms make the decision after every read symbol: Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm creates a context-free grammar in a deterministic way such that it is necessary to store only the start rule of the generated grammar. Sequitur and its modifications. These context-free grammar generating algorithms first read the whole given symbol-sequence and then start to make decisions: Byte pair encoding and its optimizations. === Distributional learning === A more recent approach is based on distributional learning. Algorithms using these approaches have been applied to learning context-free grammars and mildly context-sensitive languages and have been proven to be correct and efficient for large subclasses of these grammars. === Learning of pattern languages === Angluin defines a pattern to be "a string of constant symbols from Σ and variable symbols from a disjoint set". The language of such a pattern is the set of all its nonempty ground instances i.e. all strings resulting from consistent replacement of its variable symbols by nonempty strings of constant symbols. A pattern is called descriptive for a finite input set of strings if its language is minimal (with respect to set inclusion) among all pattern languages subsuming the input set. Angluin gives a polynomial algorithm to compute, for a given input string set, all descriptive patterns in one variable x. To this end, she builds an automaton representing all possibly relevant patterns; using sophisticated arguments about word lengths, which rely on x being the only variable, the state count can be drastically reduced. Erlebach et al. give a more efficient version of Angluin's pattern learning algorithm, as well as a parallelized version. Arimura et al. show that a language class obtained from limited unions of patterns can be learned in polynomial time. === Pattern theory === Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach was novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was commonplace at the time. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with it. Broad in its mathematical coverage, pattern theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. == Applications == The principle of grammar induction has been applied to other aspects of natural language processing, and has been applied (among many other problems) to semantic parsing, natural language understanding, example-based translation, language acquisition, grammar-based compre
Read more →
Luciano Floridi

Luciano Floridi (Italian: [luˈtʃaːno ˈflɔːridi]; born 16 November 1964) is an Italian and British philosopher. He is John K. Castle Professor in the Practice of Cognitive Science and Founding Director of the Digital Ethics Center at Yale University. He is also a Professor of Sociology of Culture and Communication at the University of Bologna, Department of Legal Studies, where he is the director of the Centre for Digital Ethics. Furthermore, he is adjunct professor ("distinguished scholar in residence") at the Department of Economics, American University, Washington D.C. He is married to the neuroscientist Anna Christina Nobre. Floridi is best known for his work on two areas of philosophical research: the philosophy of information, and information ethics (also known as digital ethics or computer ethics), for which he received many awards, including the Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit, Italy's most prestigious honor. According to Scopus, Floridi was the most cited living philosopher in the world in 2020. Between 2008 and 2013, he held the research chair in philosophy of information and the UNESCO Chair in Information and Computer Ethics at the University of Hertfordshire. He was the founder and director of the IEG, an interdepartmental research group on the philosophy of information at the University of Oxford, and of the GPI the research Group in Philosophy of Information at the University of Hertfordshire. He was the founder and director of the SWIF, the Italian e-journal of philosophy (1995–2008). He is a former Governing Body Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. == Early life and education == Floridi was born in Rome in 1964, and studied at Rome University La Sapienza (laurea, first class with distinction, 1988), where he was originally educated as a historian of philosophy. He soon became interested in analytic philosophy and wrote his tesi di laurea (roughly equivalent to an M.A. thesis) in philosophy of logic, on Michael Dummett's anti-realism. He obtained his Master of Philosophy (1989) and PhD degree (1990) from the University of Warwick, working in epistemology and philosophy of logic with Susan Haack (who was his PhD supervisor) and Michael Dummett. Floridi's early student years are partly recounted in the non-fiction book The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece, where he is "Luciano". During his graduate and postdoctoral years, he covered the standard topics in analytic philosophy in search of a new methodology. He sought to approach contemporary problems from a heuristically powerful and intellectually enriching perspective when dealing with lively philosophical issues. During his graduate studies, he began to distance himself from classical analytic philosophy. In his view, the analytic movement had lost its way. For this reason, he worked on pragmatism (especially Peirce) and foundationalist issues in epistemology and philosophy of logic, as well as the history of skepticism. == Academic career and previous positions == Floridi started his academic career as a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Warwick in 1990–1991. He joined the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Oxford in 1990 and the OUCL (Oxford's Department of Computer Science) in 1999. He was junior research fellow (JRF) in philosophy at Wolfson College, Oxford University (1990–1994), a Frances Yates Fellow in the History of Ideas at the Warburg Institute, University of London (1994–1995) and Research Fellow in philosophy at Wolfson College, Oxford University (1994–2001). During these years in Oxford, he held lectureships in different Colleges. Between 1994 and 1996, he also held a post-doctoral research scholarship at the Department of Philosophy, University of Turin. Between 2001 and 2006, he was Markle Foundation Senior Research Fellow in Information Policy at the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Oxford University. Between 2002 and 2008, he was associate professor of logic at the Università degli Studi di Bari. In 2006, he became Fellow by Special Election of St Cross College, Oxford University, where he played for the squash team. In 2008, he was appointed full professor of philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, to hold the newly established research chair in philosophy of information and, in 2009, the UNESCO Chair in Information and Computer Ethics, a position which he held until 2013, when he moved back to Oxford. In 2017, Floridi became a fellow of the Alan Turing Institute and the chair of its Data Ethics Group, holding these positions until 2021 and 2020, respectively. Since 2010 he has been editor-in-chief of Philosophy & Technology (Springer). In January 2023, Floridi announced he would move to Yale at the beginning of the academic year 2023–2024, to take over the position of founding director of the Yale Digital Ethics Center. == Philosophical views == One of Floridi's key contributions is his formulation of the 'Philosophy of Information' (PoI). The PoI provides a framework for understanding the nature of information and its role in the world. According to Floridi, information is a vital resource that shapes our knowledge and understanding of the world. It is not simply a neutral representation of reality but a part of the world, with its own properties, effects, and moral implications. Floridi's PoI has several key components including an 'ontology of information', which defines the nature of information, an 'ethics of information', which provides a framework for evaluating the moral implications of information and information technologies, an 'epistemology of information', that analyses the role of information in the development of knowledge and science, and a 'logic of information', the concentrates on the more formal aspects. The PoI also includes a theory of the 'information environment', the infosphere, which encompasses the physical, social, and cultural contexts in which information is produced, used, and communicated. == Recognitions and awards == 2022 - Knight of the Grand Cross - First Class of the Order of Merit (Cavaliere di Gran Croce Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana, the highest honor in the Italian Republic), awarded through a special decree by the president of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella for his work on the philosophy and ethics of information. 2022 - Fellow of the Accademia delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna 2021 - Honorary Doctorate (Laurea honoris causa) in Informatics, University of Skövde, Sweden, for "his groundbreaking work on the philosophy of information". 2020 - Premio Udine Filosofia, Mimesis Festival, for The Logic of Information (OUP, 2019) 2020 - Premio Socrate, Cesare Landa Foundation, for philosophical communication 2019 - CogX Award, for "outstanding achievement in ethics of AI" 2019 - Gilbert Ryle Lectures, Trent University 2019 - Premio Aretè "Maestro della Responsabilità", Nuvolaverde, Confindustria, Gruppo 24 Ore Salone della CSR e dell'innovazione sociale, for ethics of communication 2018 - Thinker Award, IBM, for AI Ethics 2018 - Premio Conoscenza, Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane (CRUI, equivalent of Universities UK), for achievements in research and communication about digital ethics 2017 - Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences 2016 - J. Ong Award, Media Ecology Association, for The Fourth Revolution (OUP, 2016) 2016 - Copernicus Scientist Award, Institute for Advanced Studies of the University of Ferrara, in recognition of research in the ethics and philosophy of information 2015 - Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow, European University Institute 2014-15 - Cátedras de Excelencia, University Carlos III of Madrid, for research in philosophy and ethics of information 2013 - Member of the Académie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences 2013 - Fellow of the British Computer Society 2013 - Weizenbaum Award, International Society for Ethics and Information Technology, for "very significant contribution to the field of information and computer ethics, through his research, service, and vision" 2012 - Covey Award, International Association for Computing and Philosophy, for "outstanding research in computing and philosophy" 2011-12 - Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee 2011 - Honorary Doctorate (Laurea honoris causa) in philosophy, University of Suceava, Romania, for "his leading research in the philosophy and ethics of information" 2011 - Fellow, World Technology Network, NY, in the category "ethics and technology" 2010 - Vice Chancellor Research Award, University of Hertfordshire 2009 - Fellow of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AIBS) 2009-10 - Gauss Professor of the Akademie der Wissenschaften, Göttingen, in recognition of research in the philosophy of information (first philosopher to receive the award, generally given to mathematicians or physicists) 2009 - Barwise Prize, American Philosophical Asso
Read more →
Alexey Chervonenkis

Alexey Yakovlevich Chervonenkis (Russian: Алексей Яковлевич Червоненкис; 7 September 1938 – 22 September 2014) was a Soviet and Russian mathematician. Along with Vladimir Vapnik, he was one of the main developers of the Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as the "fundamental theory of learning", an important part of computational learning theory. Chervonenkis held joint appointments with the Russian Academy of Sciences and Royal Holloway, University of London. Alexey Chervonenkis got lost in Losiny Ostrov National Park on 22 September 2014, and later during a search operation was found dead near Mytishchi, a suburb of Moscow. He had died of hypothermia.
Read more →
General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (GPAI CoP) is a compliance tool released by the European Commission on 10 July 2025 to support compliance with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). It provides operational guidance for providers of general-purpose AI models, particularly in relation to Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act, which entered into application on 2 August 2025. The Code is organised into three chapters (Transparency, Copyright, and Safety and Security) and outlines how providers can meet the Act's relevant obligations. Although non-binding, providers can rely on adherence to the Code, meaning that EU regulators will assume that providers following the Code meet the corresponding legal requirements of the AI Act. As such, signatories to the Code will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and increased legal certainty compared to providers that prove compliance in other ways. While adherence to the Code is voluntary, compliance with the AI Act is not. == Background == The EU AI Act, adopted in 2024, established a risk-based regulatory regime for artificial intelligence in the European Union. The rationale for the GPAI CoP stems from Article 56 of the AI Act, which empowers the EU AI Office to develop a voluntary rulebook to guide how AI model providers can meet their legal obligations – specifically those found in Articles 53 and 55. Under Articles 53 and 55, developers of general-purpose AI models whose training compute exceeds 1023 floating-point operations (FLOPs) and that are placed on the EU market must meet transparency obligations and put in place a policy for EU copyright law. Models trained with more than 1025 FLOPs are classified as presenting systemic risk and are subject to enhanced safety requirements. The Commission may also designate a model as presenting systemic risk if it has equivalent impact or capabilities (Annex XIII criteria), even below that compute figure. Because the AI Act is relatively vague on how model providers should implement these requirements, the Code is meant to help by detailing processes and practices for compliance. == Drafting process == The development of the GPAI CoP was drawn up by 13 independent experts and involved four thematic working groups: Transparency & Copyright, Risk assessment for systemic risk, Technical risk mitigation for systemic risk, and Governance risk mitigation for systemic risk. Each group was coordinated by the European Union Artificial Intelligence Office (EU AI Office), drawing on contributions from nearly 1,000 stakeholders, including AI developers, academics, civil society organisations, national authorities, and international observers. The Code underwent three earlier iterations in November 2024, December 2024, and March 2025, before the final version was published on 10 July 2025, more than two months later than initially planned. The GPAI CoP will likely be updated continuously by the EU AI Office, alongside other tools such as the training data summary template. == Signatories == Among U.S.-based technology companies, Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI have signed the GPAI CoP. xAI, founded by Elon Musk, has signed only one of the three chapters, namely the safety and security chapter. Prominent European AI companies that have signed include Aleph Alpha and Mistral AI. The European Commission maintains an updated list of signatories. As of January 2026, Meta is the most notable company that has declined to sign the Code. Major Chinese AI companies, such as Alibaba, Baidu or Deepseek, have also not signed. Providers that do not sign the GPAI CoP will still have to adhere to the binding requirements of the EU AI Act. The European Commission has indicated that it may take tougher action against companies that didn't sign the Code. == Transparency and Copyright chapters == The first two chapters of the GPAI CoP address transparency and copyright compliance and apply to all GPAI providers. They offer a way to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under Article 53 AI Act. The Transparency chapter addresses the documentation of a model's capabilities, limitations, and points of contact, and expects providers to make key documentation available to downstream providers. Signatories must also publish summaries of the content used to train their models. In the Copyright chapter, Signatories commit to follow a policy that aligns with EU copyright law. For example, they commit to mitigating the risk of copyright-infringing output. == Safety and Security chapter == The Safety and Security chapter is the most extensive chapter of the Code, and it applies to GPAI models with systemic risk, meaning it's only relevant to the small number of providers of the most advanced models. It specifies how Signatories commit to meeting Article 55(1) obligations to: Conduct model evaluations to identify systemic risks Assess and mitigate those risks Track and report serious incidents Ensure the cyber and physical security of their models The chapter outlines a comprehensive risk management process that must be applied before major deployment decisions, such as releasing a new systemic-risk GPAI model in the EU market, or substantially updating an existing one. Signatories commit to identifying systemic risks of their model, analysing and evaluating them, determining whether risk levels are acceptable, and implementing mitigation measures if necessary. This process should be repeated until models achieve an acceptable level of risk across all identified risks. === Risk identification === Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating at least four “specified” categories of systemic risk: CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) Loss of control Cyber offence Harmful manipulation They are also expected to identify other systemic risks to public health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Code instructs providers to consider model capabilities, propensities, and affordances in this identification. Signatories commit to developing risk scenarios illustrating how identified risks could materialise in real-world conditions. === Risk analysis and risk evaluation === After identifying potential systemic risks, Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating the risks in order to determine whether they are acceptable or not, drawing on scientific literature, training data analysis, incident databases, expert consultation, and other sources. They also commit to conducting state-of-the-art model evaluations such as benchmarking, red teaming, and human uplift studies, targeting each risk. The risk analysis process is interconnected: insights from risk modelling should inform model evaluation design, while post-market monitoring should feed back into ongoing analysis. Signatories commit to ultimately estimating the likelihood and severity of each systemic risk. ==== Independent external model evaluations ==== Appendix 3.5 of the Safety and Security chapter requires signatories to ensure that independent external evaluators conduct model evaluations. Signatories may claim an exemption from this requirement only if they can demonstrate that their model is “similarly safe” to another model that has already been shown to comply with the Code, or if they are unable to appoint an appropriately qualified evaluator. The determination of “similarly safe” is based on comparable performance on benchmarks and the similarity of other model characteristics, such as their architecture. The CoP acknowledges that this kind of information is typically available only for models by the same provider, or potentially for open-weights or open-source models. === Risk acceptance criteria === The Code requires providers to compare estimated risks against predefined acceptance criteria, which must be measurable, based on model capabilities, and defined preemptively. While providers get to determine the level of risk they deem acceptable themselves, the pre-defined criteria and acceptance thresholds ensure providers cannot adjust their level of tolerance flexibly ahead of deployment decisions. Only if all risks are below acceptable levels should a model be deployed. === Continuous risk management and governance === The Code mandates ongoing risk management throughout the model lifecycle, including light-touch evaluations, continuous mitigation, post-market monitoring, and incident tracking and reporting. It further requires organisational governance structures assigning responsibility for risk management and expects providers to promote a “healthy risk culture,” including informing employees about the whistleblower protection policy, allowing internal challenges of decisions concerning systemic risk management, and committing to not retaliating against employees who disclose concerns about systemic risks to oversight authorities. === Documentation and transparency === Signatories commit to creating two types of documentation: Safety and Security Frame
Read more →
GOLOG

GOLOG is a high-level logic programming language for the specification and execution of complex actions in dynamical domains. It is based on the situation calculus. It is a first-order logical language for reasoning about action and change. GOLOG was developed at the University of Toronto. == History == The concept of situation calculus on which the GOLOG programming language is based was first proposed by John McCarthy in 1963. == Description == A GOLOG interpreter automatically maintains a direct characterization of the dynamic world being modeled, on the basis of user supplied axioms about preconditions, effects of actions and the initial state of the world. This allows the application to reason about the condition of the world and consider the impacts of different potential actions before focusing on a specific action. Golog is a logic programming language and is very different from conventional programming languages. A procedural programming language like C defines the execution of statements in advance. The programmer creates a subroutine which consists of statements, and the computer executes each statement in a linear order. In contrast, fifth-generation programming languages like Golog work with an abstract model with which the interpreter can generate the sequence of actions. The source code defines the problem and it is up to the solver to find the next action. This approach can facilitate the management of complex problems from the domain of robotics. A Golog program defines the state space in which the agent is allowed to operate. A path in the symbolic domain is found with state space search. To speed up the process, Golog programs are realized as hierarchical task networks. Apart from the original Golog language, there are some extensions available. The ConGolog language provides concurrency and interrupts. Other dialects like IndiGolog and Readylog were created for real time applications in which sensor readings are updated on the fly. == Uses == Golog has been used to model the behavior of autonomous agents. In addition to a logic-based action formalism for describing the environment and the effects of basic actions, they enable the construction of complex actions using typical programming language constructs. It is also used for applications in high level control of robots and industrial processes, virtual agents, discrete event simulation etc. It can be also used to develop Belief Desire Intention-style agent systems. == Planning and scripting == In contrast to the Planning Domain Definition Language, Golog supports planning and scripting as well. Planning means that a goal state in the world model is defined, and the solver brings a logical system into this state. Behavior scripting implements reactive procedures, which are running as a computer program. For example, suppose the idea is to authoring a story. The user defines what should be true at the end of the plot. A solver gets started and applies possible actions to the current situation until the goal state is reached. The specification of a goal state and the possible actions are realized in the logical world model. In contrast, a hardwired reactive behavior doesn't need a solver but the action sequence is provided in a scripting language. The Golog interpreter, which is written in Prolog, executes the script and this will bring the story into the goal state.
Read more →
Liveness test

A liveness test, liveness check or liveness detection is an automated method for determining whether a subject is a real person or part of a spoofing attack. The technique is used as part of know your customer checks in financial services and during facial age estimation. Liveness detection is a cornerstone of digital safety. == Test process == The threat in face spoofing attacks is that "the attacker only needs to find a good face swap library on Github and understand how to inject the model into the camera feed during the KYC process". Fraudsters usually buy stolen IDs on the dark web to start a deepfake attack. An AI-powered generative adversarial network (GAN) can then generate the face swapping model that many online verification services fail to detect. Low level hackers may use face swapping apps such as SwapFace, DeepFaceLive, and Swapstream (increasing interest for those apps in 2023 according to Google Trends). In a video liveness test, users are typically asked to look into a camera and to move, smile or blink, and features of their moving face may then be compared to that of a still image. Artificial intelligence is used to counter presentation attacks such as deepfakes or users wearing hyperrealistic masks, or video injection attacks. Other forms of liveness test include checking for a pulse when using a fingerprint scanner or checking that a person's voice is not a recording or artificially generated during speaker recognition. == Adoption and certification == In a 2022 report published by the security firm Sensity, it was demonstrated that the liveness test of most US banks was easily cheated with new and publicly-available AI-powered techniques. Many of these banks disregarded the results of the report. In the first half of 2023, the security firm iProov detected a 704% increase in face-swap attacks. In 2023, in the UK, many customers of Ryanair were upset to have to go through many ID verification checks, including liveness tests, before boarding, as the airline was using it as a mean to deter customers to buy tickets through third-party websites. In the first half of 2024 iBeta Quality Assurance issued 18 new ISO/IEC 30107-3 Presentation Attack Detection certificates, raising the cumulative total to 85 since 2018. In January 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened applications from vendors to test their Liveness test. Identity frauds peaked during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading government agencies to take reinforced measures to secure their digital applications.
Read more →
Open Neural Network Exchange

The Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX) [ˈɒnɪks] is an open-source artificial intelligence ecosystem of technology companies and research organizations that establish open standards for representing machine learning algorithms and software tools to enable a standard format for representing machine learning models. ONNX is available on GitHub. == History == ONNX was originally named Toffee and was developed by the PyTorch team at Facebook. In September 2017 it was renamed to ONNX and announced by Facebook and Microsoft. Later, IBM, Huawei, Intel, AMD, Arm and Qualcomm announced support for the initiative. In October 2017, Microsoft announced that it would add its Cognitive Toolkit and Project Brainwave platform to the initiative. In November 2019 ONNX was accepted as graduate project in Linux Foundation AI. In October 2020 Zetane Systems became a member of the ONNX ecosystem. == Intent == The initiative targets: === Framework interoperability === Enable developers to move machine learning models between different frameworks, which may be used at different stages of the development process, such as training, architecture design, or deployment on mobile devices. === Shared optimization === Provide a common representation that can be used by hardware vendors and other developers to apply optimizations to artificial neural network models across multiple machine learning frameworks. == Contents == ONNX provides definitions of an extensible computation graph model, built-in operators and standard data types, focused on inferencing (evaluation).. The container format is Protocol Buffers. Each computation dataflow graph is a list of nodes that form an acyclic graph. Nodes have inputs and outputs. Each node is a call to an operator. Metadata documents the graph. Built-in operators are to be available on each ONNX-supporting framework. ONNX models can be trained in a single framework, such as PyTorch or TensorFlow, and then exported to ONNX. This format allows models to be transferred from the training framework to other environments for testing or deployment. Once a model is in ONNX format, it can be executed in different runtime systems or on various hardware platforms, such as GPUs or specialized AI accelerators. Using a common format enables the same model representation to be used across multiple systems and frameworks.
Read more →
AI Dungeon

AI Dungeon is a single-player/multiplayer text adventure game which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to generate content and allows players to create and share adventures and custom prompts. The game's first version was made available in May 2019, and its second version (initially called AI Dungeon 2) was released on Google Colaboratory in December 2019. It was later ported that same month to its current cross-platform web application. The AI model was then reformed in July 2020. == Gameplay == AI Dungeon is a text adventure game that uses artificial intelligence to generate random storylines in response to player-submitted stimuli. In the game, players are prompted to choose a setting for their adventure (e.g. fantasy, mystery, apocalyptic, cyberpunk, zombies), followed by other options relevant to the setting (such as character class for fantasy settings). After beginning an adventure, four main interaction methods can be chosen for the player's text input: Do: Must be followed by a verb, allowing the player to perform an action. Say: Must be followed by dialogue sentences, allowing players to communicate with other characters. Story: Can be followed by sentences describing something that happens to progress the story, or that players want the AI to know for future events. See: Must be followed by a description, allowing the player to perceive events, objects, or characters. Using this command creates an AI generated image, and does not affect gameplay. The game adapts and responds to most actions the player enters. Providing blank inputs can be used to prompt the AI to generate further content, and the game also provides players with options to undo or redo or modify recent events to improve the game's narrative. Players can also tell the AI what elements to "remember" for reference in future parts of their playthrough. === User-generated content === In addition to AI Dungeon's pre-configured settings, players can create custom "adventures" from scratch by describing the setting in text format, which the AI will then generate a setting from. These custom adventures can be published for others to play, with an interface for browsing published adventures and leaving comments under them. === Multiplayer === AI Dungeon includes a multiplayer mode in which different players each have their own character and take turns interacting with the AI within the same game session. Multiplayer supports both online play across multiple devices or local play using a shared device. The game's hosts are able to supervise the AI and modify its output. Unlike the single-player game, in which actions and stories use second person narration, multiplayer game stories are presented using third-person narration. === Worlds === AI Dungeon allows players to set their adventures within specific "Worlds" that give context to the broader environment where the adventure takes place. This feature was first released with two different worlds available for selection: Xaxas, a "world of peace and prosperity"; and Kedar, a "world of dragons, demons, and monsters". == Development == === AI Dungeon Classic (Early GPT-2) === The first version of AI Dungeon (sometimes referred to as AI Dungeon Classic) was designed and created by Nick Walton of Brigham Young University's "Perception, Control, and Cognition" deep learning laboratory in March 2019 during a hackathon. Before this, Walton had been working as an intern for several companies in the field of autonomous vehicles. This creation used an early version of the GPT-2 natural-language-generating neural network, created by OpenAI, allowing it to generate its original adventure narratives. During his first interactions with GPT-2, Walton was partly inspired by the tabletop game Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), which he had played for the first time with his family a few months earlier: I realized that there were no games available that gave you the same freedom to do anything that I found in [Dungeons & Dragons] ... You can be so creative compared to other games. This led him to wonder if an AI could function as a dungeon master. Unlike later versions of AI Dungeon, the original did not allow players to specify any action they wanted. Instead, it generated a finite list of possible actions to choose from. This first version of the game was released to the public in May 2019. It is not to be confused with another GPT-2-based adventure game, GPT Adventure, created by Northwestern University neuroscience postgraduate student Nathan Whitmore, also released on Google Colab several months after the public release of AI Dungeon. === AI Dungeon 2 (Full GPT-2) === In November 2019, a new, "full" version of GPT-2 was released by OpenAI. This new model included support for 1.5 billion parameters (which determine the accuracy with which a machine learning model can perform a task), compared with the 126 million parameter version used in the earliest stages of AI Dungeon's development. The game was recreated by Walton, leveraging this new version of the model, and temporarily rebranded as AI Dungeon 2. AI Dungeon 2's AI was given more focused training compared to its predecessor, using genre-specific text. This training material included approximately 30 megabytes of content web-scraped from chooseyourstory.com (an online community website of content inspired by interactive gamebooks, written by contributors of multiple skill levels, using logic of differing complexity) and multiple D&D rulebooks and adventures. The new version was released in December 2019 as open-source software available on GitHub. It was accessible via Google Colab, an online tool for data scientists and AI researchers that allows for free execution of code on Google-hosted machines. It could also be run locally on a PC, but in both cases, it required players to download the full model, around 5 gigabytes of data. Within days of the initial release, this mandatory download resulted in bandwidth charges of over $20,000, forcing the temporary shut-down of the game until a peer-to-peer alternative solution was established. Due to the game's sudden and explosive growth that same month, however, it became closed-source, proprietary software and was relaunched by Walton's start-up development team, Latitude (with Walton taking on the role of CTO). This relaunch constituted mobile apps for iOS and Android (built by app developer Braydon Batungbacal) on December 17. Other members of this team included Thorsten Kreutz for the game's long-term strategy and the creator's brother, Alan Walton, for hosting infrastructure. At this time, Nick Walton also established a Patreon campaign to support the game's further growth (such as the addition of multiplayer and voice support, along with longer-term plans to include music and image content) and turn the game into a commercial endeavor, which Walton felt was necessary to cover the costs of delivering a higher-quality version of the game. AI Dungeon was one of the only known commercial applications to be based upon GPT-2. Following its first announcement in December 2019, a multiplayer mode was added to the game in April 2020. Hosting a game in this mode was originally restricted to premium subscribers, although any players could join a hosted game. === Dragon model release (GPT-3) === In July 2020, the developers introduced a premium-exclusive version of the AI model, named Dragon, which uses OpenAI's API for leveraging the GPT-3 model without maintaining a local copy (released on June 11, 2020). GPT-3 was trained with 570 gigabytes of text content (approximately one trillion words, with a $12 million development cost) and can support 175 billion parameters, compared to the 40 gigabytes of training content and 1.5 billion parameters of GPT-2. The free model was also upgraded to a less-advanced version of GPT-3 and was named Griffin. Speaking shortly after this release, on the differences between GPT-2 and GPT-3, Walton stated: [GPT-3 is] one of the most powerful AI models in the world... It's just much more coherent in terms of understanding who the characters are, what they're saying, what's going on in the story and just being able to write an interesting and believable story. In the latter half of 2020, the "Worlds" feature was added to AI Dungeon, providing players with a selection of overarching worlds in which their adventures can take place. In February 2021, it was announced that AI Dungeon's developers, Latitude, had raised $3.3 million in seed funding (led by NFX, with participation from Album VC and Griffin Gaming Partners) to "build games with 'infinite' story possibilities." This funding intended to move AI content creation beyond the purely text-based nature of AI Dungeon as it existed at the time. After its announcement on August 20, a new "See" interaction mode was made available for all players and added to the game on August 30, 2022. AI Dungeon was retired from Steam on March 12, 2024. == Reception == Approximate
Read more →
WiPay

WiPay is a Caribbean-based payment technology company that specializes in electronic payments for businesses. WiPay was founded in 2016 by Aldwyn Wayne Jr., a Trinidadian businessman and graduate of Georgia Tech Institute. In September 2019, WiPay partnered with MasterCard. As a result, WiPay became the only licensed Payment Facilitator (PAYFAC) on both the MasterCard and Visa networks in the region.
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 →
GPT-5.3-Codex

GPT-5.3-Codex (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 5.3 Codex) is a large language model (LLM) announced and released by OpenAI on February 5, 2026. It is made as a competitor to Claude's Opus 4.6, focusing on code generation, speed and the ability to search repositories, run terminal commands and at the same time, debug code. In technical benchmarks, it is reported that GPT-5.3 Codex is 25% faster than Opus 4.6. GPT-5.3 Codex is available in the Codex app and on the web; access via API is also planned. According to OpenAI, GPT-5.3-Codex is the company's "first model that was instrumental in creating itself." On February 12, 2026, GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark was released in a research preview, which is a smaller version of GPT-5.3-Codex which supports text-only input. As of February 2026, GPT-5.3-Codex is only available for ChatGPT Pro ($200/month) subscribers.
Read more →