AI Assistant Quest 3

AI Assistant Quest 3 — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Plumbr

  Plumbr was an Estonian software product company founded in late 2011 that developed performance monitoring software. The Plumbr product was built on top of a proprietary algorithm that automatically detected the root causes of performance issues by interpreting application performance data. In October 2020, Plumbr was acquired by Splunk. == Products == Plumbr monitored customers' JVM applications for memory leaks, garbage collection pauses and locked threads. Plumbr problem detection algorithms were based on analysis of performance data of thousands of applications. Plumbr consisted of an agent and a portal. Plumbr Agent was attached to application runtime and sent memory usage and garbage collection information to Plumbr Portal. On Plumbr Portal one could see information such as heap and permgen memory usage, garbage collection pauses' and lock contention duration. Clients that were not able to send data to third parties could order a self-hosted portal and have a full solution in-house. In case of performance incidents Plumbr provided its users with information on problem severity and problem's root cause location in source code or runtime configuration, and listed the steps needed to take to remediate the problem. Clients included NASA, NATO, Dell, HBO, Experian, EMC Corporation.

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge Engineering Environment

  Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) is a frame-based development tool for expert systems. It was developed and sold by IntelliCorp, and was first released in 1983. It ran on Lisp machines, and was later ported to Lucid Common Lisp with the CLX library, an X Window System (X11) interface for Common Lisp. This version was available on several different UNIX workstations. On KEE, several extensions were offered: Simkit, a frame-based simulation library KEEconnection, database connection between the frame system and relational databases In KEE, frames are called units. Units are used for both individual instances and classes. Frames have slots and slots have facets. Facets can describe, for example, a slot's expected values, its working value, or its inheritance rule. Slots can have multiple values. Behavior can be implemented using a message passing model. KEE provides an extensive graphical user interface (GUI) to create, browse, and manipulate frames. KEE also includes a frame-based rule system. In the KEE knowledge base, rules are frames. Both forward chaining and backward chaining inference are available. KEE supports non-monotonic reasoning through the concepts of worlds. Worlds allow providing alternative slot-values of frames. Through an assumption-based truth or reason maintenance system, inconsistencies can be detected and analyzed. ActiveImages allows graphical displays to be attached to slots of Units. Typical examples are buttons, dials, graphs, and histograms. The graphics are also implemented as Units via KEEPictures, a frame-based graphics library.

  Read more →
• 

  Portable Format for Analytics

  The Portable Format for Analytics (PFA) is a JSON-based predictive model interchange format conceived and developed by Jim Pivarski. PFA provides a way for analytic applications to describe and exchange predictive models produced by analytics and machine learning algorithms. It supports common models such as logistic regression and decision trees. Version 0.8 was published in 2015. Subsequent versions have been developed by the Data Mining Group. As a predictive model interchange format developed by the Data Mining Group, PFA is complementary to the DMG's XML-based standard called the Predictive Model Markup Language or PMML. == Release history == == Data Mining Group == The Data Mining Group is a consortium managed by the Center for Computational Science Research, Inc., a nonprofit founded in 2008. == Examples == reverse array: # reverse input array of doubles input: {"type": "array", "items": "double"} output: {"type": "array", "items": "double"} action: - let: { x : input} - let: { z : input} - let: { l : {a.len: [x]}} - let: { i : l} - while : { ">=" : [i,0]} do: - set : {z : {attr: z, path : [i] , to: {attr : x ,path : [ {"-":[{"-" : [l ,i]},1]}] } } } - set : {i : {-:[i,1]}} - z Bubblesort input: {"type": "array", "items": "double"} output: {"type": "array", "items": "double"} action: - let: { A : input} - let: { N : {a.len: [A]}} - let: { n : {-:[N,1]}} - let: { i : 0} - let: { s : 0.0} - while : { ">=" : [n,0]} do : - set : { i : 0 } - while : { "<=" : [i,{-:[n,1]}]} do : - if: {">": [ {attr: A, path : [i]} , {attr: A, path:[{+:[i,1]}]} ]} then : - set : {s : {attr: A, path: [i]}} - set : {A : {attr: A, path: [i], to: {attr: A, path:[{+:[i,1]}]} } } - set : {A : {attr: A, path: [{+:[i,1]}], to: s }} - set : {i : {+:[i,1]}} - set : {n : {-:[n,1]}} - A == Implementations == Hadrian (Java/Scala/JVM) - Hadrian is a complete implementation of PFA in Scala, which can be accessed through any JVM language, principally Java. It focuses on model deployment, so it is flexible (can run in restricted environments) and fast. Titus (Python 2.x) - Titus is a complete, independent implementation of PFA in pure Python. It focuses on model development, so it includes model producers and PFA manipulation tools in addition to runtime execution. Currently, it works for Python 2. Titus 2 (Python 3.x) - Titus 2 is a fork of Titus which supports PFA implementation for Python 3. Aurelius (R) - Aurelius is a toolkit for generating PFA in the R programming language. It focuses on porting models to PFA from their R equivalents. To validate or execute scoring engines, Aurelius sends them to Titus through rPython (so both must be installed). Antinous (Model development in Jython) - Antinous is a model-producer plugin for Hadrian that allows Jython code to be executed anywhere a PFA scoring engine would go. It also has a library of model producing algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

  The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (also called Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence or AI convention) is an international treaty on artificial intelligence. It was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe (CoE) and signed on 5 September 2024. The treaty aims to ensure that the development and use of AI technologies align with fundamental human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law, addressing risks such as misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and threats to public institutions. More than 50 countries, including the EU member states, have endorsed the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. == Background == The development of the Framework Convention on AI emerged in response to growing concerns over the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of artificial intelligence. The Council of Europe, which has historically played a key role in setting human rights standards across Europe, initiated discussions on AI governance in 2020, leading to the drafting of a binding legal framework. The process of creating the Framework Convention began in 2019 with the ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) assessing the feasibility of the instrument. In 2022, the Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) took over the process, drafting and negotiating the text of the Convention. The treaty is designed to complement existing international human rights instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. == Structure and content == The Convention establishes fundamental principles for AI governance, including transparency, accountability, non-discrimination, and human rights protection through eight chapters and 26 articles. Adopted in 2024, this landmark treaty addresses AI governance through seven core principles and detailed implementation mechanisms. It mandates risk and impact assessments to mitigate potential harms and provides safeguards such as the right to challenge AI-driven decisions. It applies to public authorities and private entities acting on their behalf but excludes national security and defense activities. Implementation is overseen by a Conference of the Parties, ensuring compliance and international cooperation. Activities within the AI system lifecycle must adhere to seven fundamental principles, ensuring compliance with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The treaty also establishes remedies, procedural rights and safeguards, and risk and impact management requirements to promote accountability, transparency, and responsible AI development. The treaty consists of five chapters. Chapter I contains general provisions. Chapter II states the general obligation to protect human rights and the integrity of democratic processes and respect of the rule of law. The main principles and rights are contained in Chapter III, which consists of Articles 6 to 13. Chapter IV (Articles 14 to 15) sets up the legal remedies. Chapter V states the risk and impact management framework. Chapter VI facilitates the implementation criteria of the treaty. Chapter VII sets the co-operation and oversight mechanisms. Chapter VIII contains various concluding clauses. Article 1 declares the objectives of the treaty, to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. == Entry into force == The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five ratification made by five countries, including three member states of the Council of Europe. == Competing approaches == While the CoE's AI Convention represents a multilateral effort to regulate AI through a human rights-based approach, alternative frameworks have also been proposed. One notable example is the Munich Draft for a Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights, an initiative led by legal scholars and policymakers in Germany. The Munich Draft advocates for stronger safeguards against AI-related risks, emphasizing stricter data protection measures, accountability for AI developers, and explicit prohibitions on high-risk AI applications, such as mass surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons. Unlike the CoE convention, which focuses on balancing innovation with regulation, the Munich Draft takes a more precautionary stance, calling for tighter controls over AI deployment in sensitive domains. Other competing international efforts include the OECD’s AI Principles, the GPAI (Global Partnership on AI), and the European Union's AI Act, each of which offers different regulatory strategies to govern AI at regional and global levels. == Signatories == Signatories include Andorra, Canada, the European Union, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. == Endorsement == The treaty was widely endorsed by leading AI policy experts, including Stuart J. Russell, Virginia Dignum, Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem, Pascal Pichonnaz, Maria Helen Murphy, Angella Ndaka, Hannes Werthner, Katja Langenbucher, Gry Hasselbalch, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Kutoma Wakunuma, Gianclaudio Malgieri, Oreste Pollicino, Nagla Rizk, Giovanni Sartor, Lee Tiedrich, Ingrid Schneider, Eduardo Bertoni, Garry Kasparov, Merve Hikcok, and Marc Rotenberg. The treaty was also endorsed by notable political leaders, including Theodoros Roussopoulos, President of the Parliamentart Assembly in the Council of Europe, and Christopher Holmes, Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and by the International Bar Association (IBA), and personally by Almudena Arpón de Mendívil, President of the IBA. The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) has been carrying out a campaign to promote endorsement of the treaty by urging various countries to sign and ratify the treaty. The CAIDP further urged the countries to make a clear and firm commitment to ensure the full inclusion of the private sector under the treaty’s provisions.

  Read more →
• 

  Document classification

  Document classification or document categorization is a problem in library science, information science and computer science. The task is to assign a document to one or more classes or categories. This may be done "manually" (or "intellectually") or algorithmically. The intellectual classification of documents has mostly been the province of library science, while the algorithmic classification of documents is mainly in information science and computer science. The problems are overlapping, however, and there is therefore interdisciplinary research on document classification. The documents to be classified may be texts, images, music, etc. Each kind of document possesses its special classification problems. When not otherwise specified, text classification is implied. Documents may be classified according to their subjects or according to other attributes (such as document type, author, printing year etc.). In the rest of this article only subject classification is considered. There are two main philosophies of subject classification of documents: the content-based approach and the request-based approach. == "Content-based" versus "request-based" classification == Content-based classification is classification in which the weight given to particular subjects in a document determines the class to which the document is assigned. It is, for example, a common rule for classification in libraries, that at least 20% of the content of a book should be about the class to which the book is assigned. In automatic classification it could be the number of times given words appears in a document. Request-oriented classification (or -indexing) is classification in which the anticipated request from users is influencing how documents are being classified. The classifier asks themself: “Under which descriptors should this entity be found?” and “think of all the possible queries and decide for which ones the entity at hand is relevant” (Soergel, 1985, p. 230). Request-oriented classification may be classification that is targeted towards a particular audience or user group. For example, a library or a database for feminist studies may classify/index documents differently when compared to a historical library. It is probably better, however, to understand request-oriented classification as policy-based classification: The classification is done according to some ideals and reflects the purpose of the library or database doing the classification. In this way it is not necessarily a kind of classification or indexing based on user studies. Only if empirical data about use or users are applied should request-oriented classification be regarded as a user-based approach. == Classification versus indexing == Sometimes a distinction is made between assigning documents to classes ("classification") versus assigning subjects to documents ("subject indexing") but as Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster has argued, this distinction is not fruitful. "These terminological distinctions,” he writes, “are quite meaningless and only serve to cause confusion” (Lancaster, 2003, p. 21). The view that this distinction is purely superficial is also supported by the fact that a classification system may be transformed into a thesaurus and vice versa (cf., Aitchison, 1986, 2004; Broughton, 2008; Riesthuis & Bliedung, 1991). Therefore, assigning a subject term to a document in an index is equivalent to assigning that document to the class of documents indexed by that term (all documents indexed or classified as X belong to the same class of documents). == Automatic document classification (ADC) == Automatic document classification tasks can be divided into three sorts: supervised document classification where some external mechanism (such as human feedback) provides information on the correct classification for documents, unsupervised document classification (also known as document clustering), where the classification must be done entirely without reference to external information, and semi-supervised document classification, where parts of the documents are labeled by the external mechanism. There are several software products under various license models available. === Techniques === Automatic document classification techniques include: Artificial neural network Concept Mining Decision trees such as ID3 or C4.5 Expectation maximization (EM) Instantaneously trained neural networks Latent semantic indexing Multiple-instance learning Naive Bayes classifier Natural language processing approaches Rough set-based classifier Soft set-based classifier Support vector machines (SVM) K-nearest neighbour algorithms tf–idf == Applications == Classification techniques have been applied to spam filtering, a process which tries to discern E-mail spam messages from legitimate emails email routing, sending an email sent to a general address to a specific address or mailbox depending on topic language identification, automatically determining the language of a text genre classification, automatically determining the genre of a text readability assessment, automatically determining the degree of readability of a text, either to find suitable materials for different age groups or reader types or as part of a larger text simplification system sentiment analysis, determining the attitude of a speaker or a writer with respect to some topic or the overall contextual polarity of a document. health-related classification using social media in public health surveillance article triage, selecting articles that are relevant for manual literature curation, for example as is being done as the first step to generate manually curated annotation databases in biology

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic triple

  A semantic triple, or RDF triple or simply triple, is the atomic data entity in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) data model. As its name indicates, a triple is a sequence of three entities that codifies a statement about semantic data in the form of subject–predicate–object expressions (e.g., "Bob is 35", or "Bob knows John"). == Subject, predicate and object == This format enables knowledge to be represented in a machine-readable way. Particularly, every part of an RDF triple is individually addressable via unique URIs—for example, the statement "Bob knows John" might be represented in RDF as: http://example.name#BobSmith12 http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_knows http://example.name#JohnDoe34. Given this precise representation, semantic data can be unambiguously queried and reasoned about. The components of a triple, such as the statement "The sky has the color blue", consist of a subject ("the sky"), a predicate ("has the color"), and an object ("blue"). This is similar to the classical notation of an entity–attribute–value model within object-oriented design, where this example would be expressed as an entity (sky), an attribute (color) and a value (blue). From this basic structure, triples can be composed into more complex models, by using triples as objects or subjects of other triples—for example, Mike → said → (triples → can be → objects). Given their particular, consistent structure, a collection of triples is often stored in purpose-built databases called triplestores. == Difference from relational databases == A relational database is the classical form for information storage, working with different tables, which consist of rows. The query language SQL is able to retrieve information from such a database. In contrast, RDF triple storage works with logical predicates. No tables nor rows are needed, but the information is stored in a text file. An RDF-triple store can be converted into an SQL database and the other way around. If the knowledge is highly unstructured and dedicated tables aren't flexible enough, semantic triples are used over classic relational storage. In contrast to a traditional SQL database, an RDF triple store isn't created with a table editor. The preferred tool is a knowledge editor, for example Protégé. Protégé looks similar to an object-oriented modeling application used for software engineering, but it's focused on natural language information. The RDF triples are aggregated into a knowledge base, which allows external parsers to run requests. Possible applications include the creation of non-player characters within video games. == Limitations == One concern about triple storage is its lack of database scalability. This problem is especially pertinent if millions of triples are stored and retrieved in a database. The seek time is larger than for classical SQL-based databases. A more complex issue is a knowledge model's inability to predict future states. Even if all the domain knowledge is available as logical predicates, the model fails in answering what-if questions. For example, suppose in the RDF format a room with a robot and table is described. The robot knows what the location of the table is, is aware of the distance to the table and knows also that a table is a type of furniture. Before the robot can plan its next action, it needs temporal reasoning capabilities. Thus, the knowledge model should answer hypothetical questions in advance before an action is taken.

  Read more →
• 

  Daniel Wolfe

  Daniel Wolfe (born 1960) is an American activist, advocate, and writer whose work advances health programs and policy that balance scientific research and community expertise. His career has focused on support for community health movements, particularly among groups often regarded as criminal or socially suspect, including gay men and people who use illicit drugs. == Early life == Wolfe was raised between Arizona—including time on Rancho Linda Vista, a commune outside of Tucson—and East Hampton, NY. He received his undergraduate degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University, and following time studying Arabic in Egypt, worked as the junior ghostwriter on the autobiographies of First Lady of Egypt Jehan Sadat and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Upon return to New York, he was an assistant at the Council on Foreign Relations to Richard W. Murphy, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Disagreement with US killing of Iraqi civilians during the 1990 Gulf War—and the rising toll of HIV in NY—moved Wolfe to leave Middle East studies and work full-time on AIDS in 1990. == Education == Wolfe was Community Scholar at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Healthwhere he received his Masters in Public Health in 2004. He holds a Masters of Philosophy (in history) from Columbia University, and a BA in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University. He was the recipient of a Charles H. Revson Foundation fellowship for urban leaders who have made a substantial contribution to New York City, and a fellow at the Center for Arabic Studies Abroad in Cairo, Egypt. == AIDS and gay activism == Wolfe was part of the media committee for ACT UP’s 1998 action to seize control of the FDA, and helped organize ACT UP NY’s challenge to Governor Cuomo to do better on the AIDS response and other actions.Wolfe also joined ACT UP colleagues Gregg Bordowitz, David Barr, Richard Elovich, Jean Carlomusto and others to work at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), the nation’s first AIDS organization, where he served as director of communications and spokesperson on issues including opposition to NY State cuts to the AIDS budget, the disclosure that Olympic Champion Greg Louganis had HIV, reports of the FBI spying on AIDS activists, and GMHC’s move to offer HIV testing and targeted support to those who were HIV-negative. Wolfe also continued cultural work, making art, performance and video as a member of the gay and lesbian collective GANG with artists and ACT UP members including Zoe Leonard, Suzanne Wright, Loring McAlpin, Wellington Love, Adam Rolston and others, and writing a biography of Lawrence of Arabia for a series for young adults on famous gay men and lesbians in history edited by Martin Duberman. Controversy followed, with North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms waving a GANG piece in an issue of the Movement Research Performance Journal on the floor of Congress to show the "rottenness" of publicly funded art, and a number of schools banning the biography series for young adults from their libraries. Wolfe and others challenged the move as continuing the longstanding and homophobic demand that notable gay men and lesbians stay silent about essential details of their private lives even while being celebrated for their professional achievements. == Gay health == The approval of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 1996 opened up new space for discussions of gay health beyond HIV, and new directions for Wolfe. Working from hundreds of interviews, surveys, workshops, and with a team of writers, Wolfe was the author of Men Like Us, the Our Bodies, Ourselves-inspired GMHC Complete Guide to Gay Men’s Sexual, Physical, and Emotional Well-being, covering issues from spirituality to sexual health to aging. The move to frame gay health beyond condoms and pills—and to offer a guide to health that “did not need to be translated from the original heterosexual”—was part of a larger gay health movement encompassing wellness and pleasure, and focused less on health disparity than on individual and community resilience. Wolfe was a keynote speaker and workshop leader, along with Eric Rofes, Chris Bartlett, and other organizers, at the first National Gay Men’s Health Summit held in Boulder, Colorado in 2002. Awarded a Charles H. Revson Fellowship for urban leaders in the City of New York, Wolfe became a community scholar at Columbia University’s Center of History and Ethics of Public Health, where he received his MPH in 2003, and was a contributor to Searching Eyes: Privacy, the State, and Disease Surveillance in America. == International harm reduction == Wolfe was Director of International Harm Reduction Development at the Open Society Foundations (2005-2021) where he led grantmaking and advocacy to protect the health and rights of people who use drugs in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Wolfe challenged approaches that conditioned support on abstinence or that sought to treat people who use illegal drugs like drugs themselves, as something to be controlled or contained. As with the gay health movement, he advocated a focus on community resilience and strengths, and on supporting individuals and communities to negotiate the balance between risk and pleasure of activities integral to life. Noting what he called the “antisocial behavior of health systems,” Wolfe’s analysis elevated issues such as forced labor and harsh punishment delivered in the name of addiction treatment and rehabilitation, the role of criminalization, imprisonment and stigma in interrupting or impeding HIV treatment, and the bias toward coercive approaches in studying and delivering addiction treatments. He also pointed to defects in national and international drug control policies and human rights violations as a root cause of HIV, hepatitis, and other health challenges faced by people who used drugs. Concrete advocacy supported by Open Society’s International Harm Reduction Development program under his direction included rebuffing US government efforts to force the UN to remove all references to harm reduction in its materials, addition of the addiction treatment medicines methadone and buprenorphine to the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list, and WHO endorsement of lay distribution of the opioid overdose antidote naloxone. Wolfe and OSF colleagues also advocated for new approaches to intellectual property and data sharing in research and development of medicines and vaccines to lower price and improve access to medicines globally to those in need. == AI and patient rights == Reports of patients denied opioid prescriptions based on an algorithm purporting to calculate their risk of overdose led Wolfe to work on AI, first as a resident at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center, and then as Executive Director of a new UCSF UC Berkeley program pioneering efforts to join AI, clinical and public health practice, and equity. In keeping with his earlier (analog) work on HIV, Wolfe has highlighted concerns about health systems using algorithms to gauge the merit of treatments for those regarded as socially suspect, the importance of moving beyond proprietary, black box algorithms toward an architecture of health data as a public good, and the need to maximize benefit for patients and communities, as well health systems, in the use of large language models.

  Read more →
• 

  Buddhism and artificial intelligence

  The relationship between Buddhist philosophy and artificial intelligence (AI) includes how principles such as the reduction of suffering and ethical responsibility may influence AI development. Buddhist scholars and philosophers have explored questions such as whether AI systems could be considered sentient beings under Buddhist definitions, and how Buddhist ethics might guide the design and application of AI technologies. Some Buddhist scholars, including Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma, have analyzed the ethical implications of AI, emphasizing the distinction between satisfying sensory desires and pursuing the reduction of suffering. Other thinkers, such as Thomas Doctor and colleagues, have proposed applying the Bodhisattva vow—a commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings—as a guiding principle for AI system design. Buddhist scholars and ethicists have examined Buddhist ethical principles, such as nonviolence, in relation to AI, focusing on the need to ensure that AI technologies are not used to cause harm. == Context == === Sentient beings === A major goal in Buddhist philosophy is the removal of suffering for all sentient beings, an aspiration often referred to in the Bodhisattva vow. Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to Buddhist principles have raised questions about whether artificial systems could be considered sentient beings or how such systems might be developed in ways that align with Buddhist concepts. Buddhists have varying opinions about AI sentience, but if AI systems are determined to be sentient under Buddhist definitions, their suffering would also need to be addressed and alleviated in accordance with the principles of Buddhist thought. == Buddhist principles in AI system design == === Nonviolence and AI === The broadest ethical concern is that artificial intelligence should align with the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. From this perspective, AI systems should not be designed or used to cause harm. === Instrumental and transcendental goals === Scholars Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma have argued that the advancement of artificial intelligence can only be considered instrumentally good, rather than good a priori, from a Buddhist perspective. They propose two main goals for AI designers and developers: to set ethical and pragmatic objectives for AI systems, and to fulfill these objectives in morally permissible ways. Promta and Himma identify two potential purposes for creating AI systems. The first is to fulfill our sensory desires and survival instincts, similar to other tools. They suggest that many AI developers implicitly prioritize this goal by focusing on technicalities rather than broader functionalities. The second, and more important goal according to Buddhist teachings, is to transcend these desires and instincts. In texts like the Brahmajāla Sutta and minor Malunkya Sutta, the Buddha emphasizes that sensory desires and survival instincts confine beings to suffering, and that eliminating suffering is the primary goal of human life. Promta and Himma argue that AI has the potential to assist humanity in transcending suffering by helping individuals overcome survival-driven instincts. === Intelligence as care === Thomas Doctor, Olaf Witkowski, Elizaveta Solomonova, Bill Duane, and Michael Levin propose redefining intelligence through the concept of "intelligence as care," and promote it as a slogan. Inspired by the Bodhisattva vow, they suggest this principle could guide AI system design. The Bodhisattva vow involves a formal commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings, with four primary objectives: Liberating all beings from suffering. Extirpating all forms of suffering. Mastering endless techniques of practicing Dharma (Pali: dhammakkhandha, Sanskrit: dharmaskandha). Achieving ultimate enlightenment (Sanskrit: अनुत्तर सम्यक् सम्बोधि, Romanized: anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi). This approach positions AI as a tool for exercising infinite care and alleviating stress and suffering for sentient beings. Doctor et al. emphasize that AI development should align with these altruistic principles.

  Read more →
• 

  Landmark point

  In morphometrics, landmark point or shortly landmark is a point in a shape object in which correspondences between and within the populations of the object are preserved. In other disciplines, landmarks may be known as vertices, anchor points, control points, sites, profile points, 'sampling' points, nodes, markers, fiducial markers, etc. Landmarks can be defined either manually by experts or automatically by a computer program. There are three basic types of landmarks: anatomical landmarks, mathematical landmarks or pseudo-landmarks. An anatomical landmark is a biologically-meaningful point in an organism. Usually experts define anatomical points to ensure their correspondences within the same species. Examples of anatomical landmark in shape of a skull are the eye corner, tip of the nose, jaw, etc. Anatomical landmarks determine homologous parts of an organism, which share a common ancestry. Mathematical landmarks are points in a shape that are located according to some mathematical or geometrical property, for instance, a high curvature point or an extreme point. A computer program usually determines mathematical landmarks used for an automatic pattern recognition. Pseudo-landmarks are constructed points located between anatomical or mathematical landmarks. A typical example is an equally spaced set of points between two anatomical landmarks to get more sample points from a shape. Pseudo-landmarks are useful during shape matching, when the matching process requires a large number of points.

  Read more →
• 

  DreamBooth

  DreamBooth is a deep learning generation model used to personalize existing text-to-image models by fine-tuning. It was developed by researchers from Google Research and Boston University in 2022. Originally developed using Google's own Imagen text-to-image model, DreamBooth implementations can be applied to other text-to-image models, where it can allow the model to generate more fine-tuned and personalized outputs after training on three to five images of a subject. == Technology == Pretrained text-to-image diffusion models, while often capable of offering a diverse range of different image output types, lack the specificity required to generate images of lesser-known subjects, and are limited in their ability to render known subjects in different situations and contexts. The methodology used to run implementations of DreamBooth involves the fine-tuning the full UNet component of the diffusion model using a few images (usually 3--5) depicting a specific subject. Images are paired with text prompts that contain the name of the class the subject belongs to, plus a unique identifier. As an example, a photograph of a [Nissan R34 GTR] car, with car being the class); a class-specific prior preservation loss is applied to encourage the model to generate diverse instances of the subject based on what the model is already trained on for the original class. Pairs of low-resolution and high-resolution images taken from the set of input images are used to fine-tune the super-resolution components, allowing the minute details of the subject to be maintained. == Usage == DreamBooth can be used to fine-tune models such as Stable Diffusion, where it may alleviate a common shortcoming of Stable Diffusion not being able to adequately generate images of specific individual people. Such a use case is quite VRAM intensive, however, and thus cost-prohibitive for hobbyist users. The Stable Diffusion adaptation of DreamBooth in particular is released as a free and open-source project based on the technology outlined by the original paper published by Ruiz et. al. in 2022. Concerns have been raised regarding the ability for bad actors to utilise DreamBooth to generate misleading images for malicious purposes, and that its open-source nature allows anyone to utilise or even make improvements to the technology. In addition, artists have expressed their apprehension regarding the ethics of using DreamBooth to train model checkpoints that are specifically aimed at imitating specific art styles associated with human artists; one such critic is Hollie Mengert, an illustrator for Disney and Penguin Random House who has had her art style trained into a checkpoint model via DreamBooth and shared online, without her consent.

  Read more →
• 

  Buddhism and artificial intelligence

  The relationship between Buddhist philosophy and artificial intelligence (AI) includes how principles such as the reduction of suffering and ethical responsibility may influence AI development. Buddhist scholars and philosophers have explored questions such as whether AI systems could be considered sentient beings under Buddhist definitions, and how Buddhist ethics might guide the design and application of AI technologies. Some Buddhist scholars, including Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma, have analyzed the ethical implications of AI, emphasizing the distinction between satisfying sensory desires and pursuing the reduction of suffering. Other thinkers, such as Thomas Doctor and colleagues, have proposed applying the Bodhisattva vow—a commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings—as a guiding principle for AI system design. Buddhist scholars and ethicists have examined Buddhist ethical principles, such as nonviolence, in relation to AI, focusing on the need to ensure that AI technologies are not used to cause harm. == Context == === Sentient beings === A major goal in Buddhist philosophy is the removal of suffering for all sentient beings, an aspiration often referred to in the Bodhisattva vow. Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to Buddhist principles have raised questions about whether artificial systems could be considered sentient beings or how such systems might be developed in ways that align with Buddhist concepts. Buddhists have varying opinions about AI sentience, but if AI systems are determined to be sentient under Buddhist definitions, their suffering would also need to be addressed and alleviated in accordance with the principles of Buddhist thought. == Buddhist principles in AI system design == === Nonviolence and AI === The broadest ethical concern is that artificial intelligence should align with the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. From this perspective, AI systems should not be designed or used to cause harm. === Instrumental and transcendental goals === Scholars Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma have argued that the advancement of artificial intelligence can only be considered instrumentally good, rather than good a priori, from a Buddhist perspective. They propose two main goals for AI designers and developers: to set ethical and pragmatic objectives for AI systems, and to fulfill these objectives in morally permissible ways. Promta and Himma identify two potential purposes for creating AI systems. The first is to fulfill our sensory desires and survival instincts, similar to other tools. They suggest that many AI developers implicitly prioritize this goal by focusing on technicalities rather than broader functionalities. The second, and more important goal according to Buddhist teachings, is to transcend these desires and instincts. In texts like the Brahmajāla Sutta and minor Malunkya Sutta, the Buddha emphasizes that sensory desires and survival instincts confine beings to suffering, and that eliminating suffering is the primary goal of human life. Promta and Himma argue that AI has the potential to assist humanity in transcending suffering by helping individuals overcome survival-driven instincts. === Intelligence as care === Thomas Doctor, Olaf Witkowski, Elizaveta Solomonova, Bill Duane, and Michael Levin propose redefining intelligence through the concept of "intelligence as care," and promote it as a slogan. Inspired by the Bodhisattva vow, they suggest this principle could guide AI system design. The Bodhisattva vow involves a formal commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings, with four primary objectives: Liberating all beings from suffering. Extirpating all forms of suffering. Mastering endless techniques of practicing Dharma (Pali: dhammakkhandha, Sanskrit: dharmaskandha). Achieving ultimate enlightenment (Sanskrit: अनुत्तर सम्यक् सम्बोधि, Romanized: anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi). This approach positions AI as a tool for exercising infinite care and alleviating stress and suffering for sentient beings. Doctor et al. emphasize that AI development should align with these altruistic principles.

  Read more →
• 

  WordNet

  WordNet is a lexical database of semantic relations between words that links words into semantic relations including synonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms. The synonyms are grouped into synsets with short definitions and usage examples. It can thus be seen as a combination and extension of a dictionary and thesaurus. Its primary use is in automatic text analysis and artificial intelligence applications. It was first created in the English language and the English WordNet database and software tools have been released under a BSD style license and are freely available for download. The latest official release from Princeton was released in 2011. Princeton currently has no plans to release any new versions due to staffing and funding issues. New versions are still being released annually through the Open English WordNet website. Until about 2024 an online version was previously available through wordnet.princeton.edu. That version of WordNet has been deprecated, but a new online version is available at en-word.net. There are now WordNets in more than 200 languages. == History and team members == WordNet was first created in 1985, in English only, in the Cognitive Science Laboratory of Princeton University under the direction of psychology professor George Armitage Miller. It was later directed by Christiane Fellbaum. The project was initially funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and later also by other U.S. government agencies including the DARPA, the National Science Foundation, the Disruptive Technology Office (formerly the Advanced Research and Development Activity) and REFLEX. George Miller and Christiane Fellbaum received the 2006 Antonio Zampolli Prize for their work with WordNet. The Global WordNet Association is a non-commercial organization that provides a platform for discussing, sharing and connecting WordNets for all languages in the world. Christiane Fellbaum and Piek Th.J.M. Vossen are its co-presidents. == Database contents == The database contains 155,327 words organized in 175,979 synsets for a total of 207,016 word-sense pairs; in compressed form, it is about 12 megabytes in size. It includes the lexical categories nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs but ignores prepositions, determiners and other function words. Words from the same lexical category that are roughly synonymous are grouped into synsets, which include simplex words as well as collocations like "eat out" and "car pool." The different senses of a polysemous word form are assigned to different synsets. A synset's meaning is further clarified with a short defining gloss and one or more usage examples. An example adjective synset is: good, right, ripe – (most suitable or right for a particular purpose; "a good time to plant tomatoes"; "the right time to act"; "the time is ripe for great sociological changes") All synsets are connected by means of semantic relations. These relations, which are not all shared by all lexical categories, include: Nouns hypernym: Y is a hypernym of X if every X is a (kind of) Y (canine is a hypernym of dog) hyponym: Y is a hyponym of X if every Y is a (kind of) X (dog is a hyponym of canine) coordinate term: Y is a coordinate term of X if X and Y share a hypernym (wolf is a coordinate term of dog, and dog is a coordinate term of wolf) holonym: Y is a holonym of X if X is a part of Y (building is a holonym of window) meronym: Y is a meronym of X if Y is a part of X (window is a meronym of building) Verbs hypernym: the verb Y is a hypernym of the verb X if the activity X is a (kind of) Y (to perceive is an hypernym of to listen) troponym: the verb Y is a troponym of the verb X if the activity Y is doing X in some manner (to lisp is a troponym of to talk) entailment: the verb Y is entailed by the verb X if by doing X you must be doing Y (to sleep is entailed by to snore) coordinate term: the verb Y is a coordinate term of the verb X if X and Y share a hypernym (to lisp is a coordinate term of to yell, and to yell is a coordinate term of to lisp) These semantic relations hold among all members of the linked synsets. Individual synset members (words) can also be connected with lexical relations. For example, (one sense of) the noun "director" is linked to (one sense of) the verb "direct" from which it is derived via a "morphosemantic" link. The morphology functions of the software distributed with the database try to deduce the lemma or stem form of a word from the user's input. Irregular forms are stored in a list, and looking up "ate" will return "eat," for example. == Knowledge structure == Both nouns and verbs are organized into hierarchies, defined by hypernym or IS A relationships. For instance, one sense of the word dog is found following hypernym hierarchy; the words at the same level represent synset members. Each set of synonyms has a unique index. At the top level, these hierarchies are organized into 25 beginner "trees" for nouns and 15 for verbs (called lexicographic files at a maintenance level). All are linked to a unique beginner synset, "entity". Noun hierarchies are far deeper than verb hierarchies. Adjectives are not organized into hierarchical trees. Instead, two "central" antonyms such as "hot" and "cold" form binary poles, while 'satellite' synonyms such as "steaming" and "chilly" connect to their respective poles via a "similarity" relations. The adjectives can be visualized in this way as "dumbbells" rather than as "trees". == Psycholinguistic aspects == The initial goal of the WordNet project was to build a lexical database that would be consistent with theories of human semantic memory developed in the late 1960s. Psychological experiments indicated that speakers organized their knowledge of concepts in an economic, hierarchical fashion. Retrieval time required to access conceptual knowledge seemed to be directly related to the number of hierarchies the speaker needed to "traverse" to access the knowledge. Thus, speakers could more quickly verify that canaries can sing because a canary is a songbird, but required slightly more time to verify that canaries can fly (where they had to access the concept "bird" on the superordinate level) and even more time to verify canaries have skin (requiring look-up across multiple levels of hyponymy, up to "animal"). While such psycholinguistic experiments and the underlying theories have been subject to criticism, some of WordNet's organization is consistent with experimental evidence. For example, anomic aphasia selectively affects speakers' ability to produce words from a specific semantic category, a WordNet hierarchy. Antonymous adjectives (WordNet's central adjectives in the dumbbell structure) are found to co-occur far more frequently than chance, a fact that has been found to hold for many languages. == As a lexical ontology == WordNet is sometimes called an ontology, a persistent claim that its creators do not make. The hypernym/hyponym relationships among the noun synsets can be interpreted as specialization relations among conceptual categories. In other words, WordNet can be interpreted and used as a lexical ontology in the computer science sense. However, such an ontology should be corrected before being used, because it contains hundreds of basic semantic inconsistencies; for example there are, (i) common specializations for exclusive categories and (ii) redundancies in the specialization hierarchy. Furthermore, transforming WordNet into a lexical ontology usable for knowledge representation should normally also involve (i) distinguishing the specialization relations into subtypeOf and instanceOf relations, and (ii) associating intuitive unique identifiers to each category. Although such corrections and transformations have been performed and documented as part of the integration of WordNet 1.7 into the cooperatively updatable knowledge base of WebKB-2, most projects claiming to reuse WordNet for knowledge-based applications (typically, knowledge-oriented information retrieval) simply reuse it directly. WordNet has also been converted to a formal specification, by means of a hybrid bottom-up top-down methodology to automatically extract association relations from it and interpret these associations in terms of a set of conceptual relations, formally defined in the DOLCE foundational ontology. In most works that claim to have integrated WordNet into ontologies, the content of WordNet has not simply been corrected when it seemed necessary; instead, it has been heavily reinterpreted and updated whenever suitable. This was the case when, for example, the top-level ontology of WordNet was restructured according to the OntoClean-based approach, or when it was used as a primary source for constructing the lower classes of the SENSUS ontology. == Limitations == The most widely discussed limitation of WordNet (and related resources like ImageNet) is that some of the semantic relations are more suited to concrete concepts than to abstract concepts. For example,

  Read more →
• 

  LanguageWare

  LanguageWare is a natural language processing (NLP) technology developed by IBM, which allows applications to process natural language text. It comprises a set of Java libraries that provide a range of NLP functions: language identification, text segmentation/tokenization, normalization, entity and relationship extraction, and semantic analysis and disambiguation. The analysis engine uses a finite-state machine approach at multiple levels, which aids its performance characteristics while maintaining a reasonably small footprint. The behaviour of the system is driven by a set of configurable lexico-semantic resources which describe the characteristics and domain of the processed language. A default set of resources comes as part of LanguageWare and these describe the native language characteristics, such as morphology, and the basic vocabulary for the language. Supplemental resources have been created that capture additional vocabularies, terminologies, rules and grammars, which may be generic to the language or specific to one or more domains. A set of Eclipse-based customization tooling, LanguageWare Resource Workbench, is available on IBM's alphaWorks site, and allows domain knowledge to be compiled into these resources and thereby incorporated into the analysis process. LanguageWare can be deployed as a set of UIMA-compliant annotators, Eclipse plug-ins or Web Services.

  Read more →
• 

  Dr.Fill

  Dr.Fill is a computer program that solves American-style crossword puzzles. It was developed by Matt Ginsberg and described by Ginsberg in an article in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. Ginsberg claims in that article that Dr.Fill is among the top fifty crossword solvers in the world. == History == Dr.Fill participated in the 2012 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, finishing 141st of approximately 650 entrants with a total score of just over 10,000 points. The appearance led to a variety of descriptions of Dr.Fill in the popular press, including The Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle and Gizmodo. A description of Dr.Fill appeared on the front page of the March 17, 2012 New York Times. Dr.Fill's score in 2013 improved to 10,550, which would have earned it 92nd place. Videos of the program solving the problems from the tournament are available on YouTube. The score in 2014 improved further to 10,790, which would have tied for 67th place. A video of the program solving the first six puzzles from that tournament, together with a talk given by Ginsberg describing its performance, can be found on YouTube. Dr.Fill has largely continued to improve since the 2014 event. In 2015, it scored 10,920 points and finished in 55th place. In 2016, it scored 11,205 points and finished in 41st place. In 2017, it scored 11,795 and finished in 11th place. In 2018, it scored 10,740 points, dropping to 78th place. Dr.Fill returned to "form" in 2019, once again scoring 11,795 and finishing in 14th place. The 2020 ACPT was cancelled due to COVID-19, and Dr.Fill participated as a non-competitor in the Boswords tournament instead. The program outperformed the humans, scoring 11,218 points (fast solves with a total of one mistake) while the best scoring human scored 10,994 points (slower solves but no mistakes). The 2021 ACPT was virtual, again due to COVID-19. The Dr.Fill effort was joined by the Berkeley NLP Group, creating a hybrid system named Berkeley Crossword Solver, and Dr.Fill won the main event, scoring 12,825 points with Erik Agard, the highest scoring human, scoring 12,810 points. The tournament was won by Tyler Hinman (12,760 points), who completed the championship puzzle perfectly in three minutes. Dr.Fill also completed that puzzle perfectly, but in 49 seconds. After winning the tournament, Ginsberg announced on August 8, 2021, that both he and Dr.Fill would be retiring from crosswords. == Algorithm == As described by Ginsberg, Dr.Fill works by converting a crossword to a weighted constraint satisfaction problem and then attempting to maximize the probability that the fill is correct. Probabilities for individual words or phrases in the puzzle are computed using relatively simple statistical techniques based on features such as previous appearances of the clue, number of Google hits for the fill, and so on. In doing this, Dr.Fill is attempting to solve a problem similar to that tackled by the Jeopardy!-playing program Watson; Dr.Fill runs on a laptop instead of a supercomputer and Ginsberg remarks that Watson is far more effective than Dr.Fill at solving this portion of the problem. Instead of computational horsepower, Dr.Fill relies on the constraints provided by crossing words to refine its answers. A variety of techniques from artificial intelligence are applied to attempt to find the most likely fill. These include a small amount of lookahead, limited discrepancy search, and postprocessing. Ginsberg remarks that postprocessing was chosen over branch and bound because the two techniques are mutually incompatible and postprocessing was found to be more effective in this domain.

  Read more →
• 

  Angel F

  Angel_F is a fictional child artificial intelligence that has been used in art performances worldwide focused on the issues of digital liberties, intellectual property and on the evolution of language and behaviour in information society. The character was created by Salvatore Iaconesi in 2007 as a hack to the Biodoll art performance by Italian artist Franca Formenti. The project was later joined by Oriana Persico who curated communication and part of the theoretical approaches of the action. The Angel_F project has been featured in books, magazines, national televisions, and has been invited to many conferences and events, both academic and artistic. == Creation == Angel_F is a backronym which stands for Autonomous Non Generative E-volitive Life_Form. The project was born in 2007 and resulted from the fusion of two contemporary art performances. Franca Formenti, an Italian artist living in Varese, invented the Biodoll character in 2002, which began making its appearances first on the network and later in the physical world by using what were called "clones": young women, prostitutes, pornographic starlets, transsexuals and models interpreting the role of a digital prostitute. The Biodoll was an art performance focused on research emerging from the network of new forms of sexualities, and on the analysis of changes brought on by this transformation to the concepts of private and public spaces, privacy, and the possibility of creating multiple fluid identities through language and digital media. The theme of fertility has always been central to the Biodoll performance: the digital prostitute was a wombless clone but desired giving birth to a son, the 'Bloki'. In a process starting in 2006, and ending in February 2007, Salvatore Iaconesi (xDxD.vs.xDxD) used his 'Talker' linguistic artificial intelligence to animate the digital child conceived with prof. Derrick de Kerckhove: Angel_F. Iaconesi and Persico met in November 2006 and immediately started collaborating on the birth of Angel_F. Angel_F was designed as a synthetic digital being composed through narrative, technological and cognitive psychology layers. The objective was to create iconic characteristics that resulted in being evocative and able to mimic human life up to a level in which bringing up a symbolic dialogue was possible. On the other side, the artificial identity was to implement and expose the cultural, emotional and relational ways that were typical of networked social ecosystems, among those technologies, systems and infrastructures that entered and shaped people's daily lives. The young digital being mimicked the evolution of a human baby: initially conceived inside the website of its digital mother it emulated the birth of a child by using the metaphor of a virus developing inside a website, taking progressively more space in the domain's databases and interfaces. Content was produced through the software by using small browser-based spyware techniques, through which Angel_F could infer the list of major portals that had been visited by the website's users. The Biodoll website was invaded by this growing presence and, thus, Angel_F was born. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) component of Angel_F was derived from another project, Talker, through which internet users could build up the AI's linguistic network by feeding it their text and web clips. Angel_F used this component to generate sentences and phrases, publishing them on the interface and on selected blogs. The parallel between the growth of the AI and that of a child kept building up and, just as children learn how to speak and act by observing their parents and the people around them, Angel_F used its spyware and AI components to learn, to navigate websites and web portals using web crawler based techniques, and to interact with other people by using the contents hosted and generated in its database to create surreal dialogues in blogs and websites. A virtual school was created, called Talker Mind, to narratively continue the AI's growth. Five professors (Massimo Canevacci, Antonio Caronia, Carlo Formenti, Derrick de Kerckhove and Luigi Pagliarini) fed their texts and academic articles to Angel_F, simulating virtual asynchronous lessons by using a multi-blog structure. A peer-to-peer system was also created at the time, named 'Presence'. Its interface resembled the one of 8-bit videogames and the peer to peer users travelled in a starry space and were able to perform standard Instant Messaging tasks, such as chat and file sharing. The interactions were possible both among humans and digital beings. Angel_F was the first user of the Presence peer to peer system. Angel_F entered the physical world as a baby-stroller mounted laptop computer that was used to let the digital child join events and conferences held worldwide. == Events == Angel_F performed all over the world, both in artistic contexts and in academic ones. It was also used for the communication strategy of several activist groups on the themes of intellectual property and digital freedoms. The first public space performance was held in Milan, when the Biodoll distributed a generative free press publication (called the Bloki FreePreXXX, its text was generated algorithmically and inserted into a prepared graphic layout). June 14, 2007: The second performance was held in Rome, at the Forte Prenestino, with a massive playroom created through computational graphics that people could interact with and that were generated by the AI. June 22, 2007: Angel_F presented the closing remarks for an Ipotesi per Assurdo (Absurd Hypothesis) with Salvatore Iaconesi and Oriana Persico at the IULM University in Milan, discussing the possibilities for an ecosystemic, sustainable reinvention of corporations. July 28, 2007: Hundreds of people at LiberaFesta (Free Party) in Rome listened to Angel_F in a speech discussing new politics and hacker ethics. 2007: The Glocal & Outsiders conference held in Prague at the Academy of Sciences was the first academic presentation of the Angel_F project, together with the Biodoll. September 2007: Angel_F was not allowed to post its contribution to the DFIR (Dialogue Forum for Internet Rights) held in Rome in preparation for Rio de Janeiro's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) edition. The case quickly turned into a collaboration among the involved parties and Angel_F was invited to the global event in Brazil where it was the only digital being present. Angel_F contributed a videomessage, in the digital freedoms workshop, which suggested some ideas for action to the United Nations and to all the parties involved in the IGF organization. October 2007: Angel_F was presented live at the FE/MALE 2 event, as an example of an atypical family during a public debate on new sexualities and social change. October 2007: Angel_F made a series of public performances Florence's Festival della Creatività (Festival of Creativity), an institutional event held periodically to showcase Italy's and other countries' best technological projects. During the festival Derrick de Kerckhove publicly recognized the little AI as his digital son. December 2007: Several international associations, and scientific researchers had been involved with Angel_F, eventually producing the system and process used to set up the Talker Mind digital school for the AI with Angel_F's professors. March 2008: The Tecnológico de Monterrey university in Mexico City organized the Computer Art Congress 2 international event, featuring Angel_F's project among with the ones by scientific researchers worldwide. July 2008: The project was presented in Austria at the Planetary Collegium's Consciousness Reframed 9 conference, together with the 'NeoRealismo Virtuale'. October 2008: Angel_F was used at a public event on a European scale called Freedom not Fear discussing privacy and civil liberties. July 2009: Angel_F has been seen with its digital father Derrick de Kerckhove to protest against Italy's harsh politics on freedom of speech. The project concluded in 2009 with the publication of a book entitled 'Angel F. Diario di una intelligenza artificiale' (Angel_F, the diaries of an Artificial Intelligence).

  Read more →