AI Avatar For Zoom Meetings

AI Avatar For Zoom Meetings — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Smartphone kill switch

A smartphone kill switch is a software-based security feature that allows a smartphone's owner to remotely render it inoperable if it is lost or stolen, thereby deterring theft. There have been a number of initiatives to legally require kill switches on smartphones. Smartphones have high resale value, and are therefore often the target of theft, with thieves selling them to cartels for resale. A kill switch can deter theft by making devices worthless. == Legal requirements == In the United States, Minnesota was the first state to pass a bill requiring smartphones to have such a feature, and California was the first to require that the feature be turned on by default. The California law requires the kill switch to be resistant to reinstallation of the phone's operating system. The CTIA initially resisted the legislation, fearing that it would make phones easier to hack, but later supported kill switches. There is evidence that this legislation has been effective, with smartphone theft declining by 50% between 2013 and 2017 in San Francisco. Secure Our Smartphones (S.O.S.), a New York State and San Francisco initiative started by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. The initiative is co-chaired by Schneiderman, Gascón and Boris Johnson, and has 105 members. == Examples == An Android phone signed into a Google account can be remotely locked and erased via Google's Find My Device service, as long as it is connected to the Internet. To prevent this, a thief must sign the device out of Google before the owner locks or erases it. iPhones have a similar service.
Read more →
Ensemble averaging (machine learning)

In machine learning, ensemble averaging is the process of creating multiple models (typically artificial neural networks) and combining them to produce a desired output, as opposed to creating just one model. Ensembles of models often outperform individual models, as the various errors of the ensemble constituents "average out". == Overview == Ensemble averaging is one of the simplest types of committee machines. Along with boosting, it is one of the two major types of static committee machines. In contrast to standard neural network design, in which many networks are generated but only one is kept, ensemble averaging keeps the less satisfactory networks, but with less weight assigned to their outputs. The theory of ensemble averaging relies on two properties of artificial neural networks: In any network, the bias can be reduced at the cost of increased variance In a group of networks, the variance can be reduced at no cost to the bias. This is known as the bias–variance tradeoff. Ensemble averaging creates a group of networks, each with low bias and high variance, and combines them to form a new network which should theoretically exhibit low bias and low variance. Hence, this can be thought of as a resolution of the bias–variance tradeoff. The idea of combining experts can be traced back to Pierre-Simon Laplace. == Method == The theory mentioned above gives an obvious strategy: create a set of experts with low bias and high variance, and average them. Generally, what this means is to create a set of experts with varying parameters; frequently, these are the initial synaptic weights of a neural network, although other factors (such as learning rate, momentum, etc.) may also be varied. Some authors recommend against varying weight decay and early stopping. The steps are therefore: Generate N experts, each with their own initial parameters (these values are usually sampled randomly from a distribution) Train each expert separately Combine the experts and average their values. Alternatively, domain knowledge may be used to generate several classes of experts. An expert from each class is trained, and then combined. A more complex version of ensemble average views the final result not as a mere average of all the experts, but rather as a weighted sum. If each expert is y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , then the overall result y ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}} can be defined as: y ~ ( x ; α ) = ∑ j = 1 p α j y j ( x ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {\alpha } )=\sum _{j=1}^{p}\alpha _{j}y_{j}(\mathbf {x} )} where α {\displaystyle \mathbf {\alpha } } is a set of weights. The optimization problem of finding alpha is readily solved through neural networks, hence a "meta-network" where each "neuron" is in fact an entire neural network can be trained, and the synaptic weights of the final network is the weight applied to each expert. This is known as a linear combination of experts. It can be seen that most forms of neural network are some subset of a linear combination: the standard neural net (where only one expert is used) is simply a linear combination with all α j = 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}=0} and one α k = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{k}=1} . A raw average is where all α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are equal to some constant value, namely one over the total number of experts. A more recent ensemble averaging method is negative correlation learning, proposed by Y. Liu and X. Yao. This method has been widely used in evolutionary computing. == Benefits == The resulting committee is almost always less complex than a single network that would achieve the same level of performance The resulting committee can be trained more easily on smaller datasets The resulting committee often has improved performance over any single model The risk of overfitting is lessened, as there are fewer parameters (e.g. neural network weights) which need to be set.
Read more →
Generative engine optimization

Generative engine optimization (GEO) is one of the names given to the practice of structuring digital content and managing online presence to improve visibility in responses generated by generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The practice influences the way large language models (LLMs) retrieve, summarize, and present information in response to user queries. Related terms include answer engine optimization (AEO) and artificial intelligence optimization (AIO). The concept of GEO first appeared in response to generative AI technologies being integrated into mainstream search and information retrieval systems. Tools are used to monitor how websites and brands are cited, referenced, or incorporated into responses produced by large language models. == Terminology == Several overlapping terms describe related practices, and usage varies across practitioners, vendors, and publications. No consensus definition distinguishing these terms had been established in the academic literature as of early 2026, and the terms are frequently used interchangeably in trade and practitioner contexts. Other terms for the same concept include answer engine optimization (AEO), large language model optimization (LLMO), artificial intelligence optimization (AIO), and AI SEO. In 2026, Google released documentation entitled "Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search." According to this documentation, "optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO.” This position had previously been shared at conferences, with 2026 being the first time Google released official documentation stating it. == Factors influencing generative engine optimization == By early 2026, the focus of GEO practitioners shifted from simple keyword placement to "semantic relevance", a metric driven by the integration of advertising into conversational AI. OpenAI and Google began monetizing AI search results, which is not currently considered an aspect of generative engine optimization but is adjacent.
Read more →
IJCAI Computers and Thought Award

The IJCAI Computers and Thought Award is presented every two years by the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), recognizing outstanding young scientists in artificial intelligence. It was originally funded with royalties received from the book Computers and Thought (edited by Edward Feigenbaum and Julian Feldman), and is currently funded by IJCAI. It is considered to be "the premier award for artificial intelligence researchers under the age of 35". == Laureates == Terry Winograd (1971) Patrick Winston (1973) Chuck Rieger (1975) Douglas Lenat (1977) David Marr (1979) Gerald Sussman (1981) Tom Mitchell (1983) Hector Levesque (1985) Johan de Kleer (1987) Henry Kautz (1989) Rodney Brooks (1991) Martha E. Pollack (1991) Hiroaki Kitano (1993) Sarit Kraus (1995) Stuart Russell (1995) Leslie Kaelbling (1997) Nicholas Jennings (1999) Daphne Koller (2001) Tuomas Sandholm (2003) Peter Stone (2007) Carlos Guestrin (2009) Andrew Ng (2009) Vincent Conitzer (2011) Malte Helmert (2011) Kristen Grauman (2013) Ariel D. Procaccia (2015) Percy Liang (2016) for his contributions to both the approach of semantic parsing for natural language understanding and better methods for learning latent-variable models, sometimes with weak supervision, in machine learning. Devi Parikh (2017) Stefano Ermon (2018) Guy Van den Broeck (2019) for his contributions to statistical and relational artificial intelligence, and the study of tractability in learning and reasoning. Piotr Skowron (2020) for his contributions to computational social choice, and to the theory of committee elections. Fei Fang (2021) for her contributions to integrating machine learning with game theory and the use of these novel techniques to tackle societal challenges such as more effective deployment of security resources, enhancing environmental sustainability, and reducing food insecurity. Bo Li (2022) for her contributions to uncovering the underlying connections among robustness, privacy, and generalization in AI, showing how different models are vulnerable to malicious attacks, and how to eliminate these vulnerabilities using mathematical tools that provide robustness guarantees for learning models and privacy protection. Pin-Yu Chen (2023) for his contributions to consolidating properties of trust, robustness and safety into rigorous algorithmic procedures and computable metrics for improving AI systems. Nisarg Shah (2024) for his contributions to AI and society, in particular foundational work on the theory of algorithmic fairness using principles from social choice theory. Aditya Grover (2025) for his foundational contributions uniting deep generative models, representation learning, and reinforcement learning, and for their applications in advancing scientific reasoning.
Read more →
Z-order

Z-order is an ordering of overlapping two-dimensional objects, such as windows in a stacking window manager, shapes in a vector graphics editor, or objects in a 3D application. One of the features of a typical GUI is that windows may overlap, so that one window hides part or all of another. When two windows overlap, their Z-order determines which one appears on top of the other. == Definition == The term "Z-order" refers to the order of objects along the Z-axis. In coordinate geometry, X typically refers to the horizontal axis (left to right), Y to the vertical axis (up and down), and Z refers to the axis perpendicular to the other two (forward or backward). One can think of the windows in a GUI as a series of planes parallel to the surface of the monitor. The windows are therefore stacked along the Z-axis, and the Z-order information thus specifies the front-to-back ordering of the windows on the screen. An analogy would be some sheets of paper scattered on top of a table, each sheet being a window, the table your computer screen, and the top sheet having the highest Z value. == Use == Typically, users of a GUI can affect the Z-order by selecting a window to be brought to the foreground (that is, "above" or "in front of" all the other windows). Some window managers allow interaction with windows while they are not in the foreground, while others will bring a window to the front whenever it receives input from the user. It is also possible for special windows to be designated "always on top"; these are then fixed to the top of the Z-order so that (with few exceptions) no other window can overlap them. When dealing with visual objects on a computer screen, an object with a Z-order of 1 would be visually "underneath" an object with a Z-order of 2 or greater. This is the same as making "layers" of objects where the Z-order determines what object is on top of another. An HTML page can use CSS to specify the Z-order so that some objects can be layered over others. Z-ordering is also used in 3D applications to determine object visibility based on overlap from other objects. This confers a speed advantage to the user as the computer does not need to render unseen objects. In practice, of course, some objects may be only partially obscured, and this is a complication that must be taken into account. In early real-time 3D graphics, Z-order was applied on a per-polygon basis to avoid using Z-buffer, which was considered expensive at the time. In modern 3D graphics, Z-order is used for order-dependent rendering, for example with semi-transparent objects. It can also be used to reduce the problem of Z-fighting, by either rendering farther objects first and then using weak inequality as the depth test or, conversely, rendering front-to-back and using strict inequality. == z-index == The actual number assigned to a particular place in the Z-order is sometimes known as the z-index. In particular the CSS property that sets the stack order of specific elements is known as the z-index. An element with greater stack order is always in front of another element with lower stack order. Negative values can also be used in the same manner. A negative value will appear behind a positive one. z-index only works on elements that have a position value (e.g. position: relative;) and for many coders, this one of the first things to investigate when debugging why the z-index isn't working. Like all other CSS properties, it can be set with JavaScript, with the following syntax:
Read more →
European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology

The European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT) is a scientific association with the aims to disseminate and promote fuzzy logic and related subjects (sometimes comprised under the collective terms soft computing or computational intelligence) and to provide a platform for exchange between scientists and engineers working in these fields. The society is both open for academic and industrial members. == History == EUSFLAT was founded in 1998 in Spain as the successor of the National Spanish Fuzzy Logic Society, ESTYLF, with the aim to open the society for members from other European countries. Since then, the society managed to attract a large share of members from outside Spain, and even beyond Europe, with the Spanish members still being the largest group inside EUSFLAT. For these historical reasons, the society is officially registered in Spain. == Conferences == Starting with 1999, EUSFLAT has been organizing its biannual conferences in odd years. Previous meetings: Palma de Mallorca, Balearic Islands, Spain, September 22–25, 1999 (jointly with National Spanish conference, ESTYLF) Leicester, United Kingdom, September 5–7, 2001 Zittau, Germany, September 10–12, 2003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, September 7–9, 2005 (jointly with 11th Rencontres Francophones sur la Logique Floue et ses Applications) Ostrava, Czech Republic, September 11–14, 2007 Lisbon, Portugal, July 20–24, 2009 (jointly with 13th World Congress of the International Fuzzy Systems Association) Aix-les-Bains, France, July 18–22, 2011 (jointly with Les Rencontres Francophones sur la Logique Floue et ses Applications) Milan, Italy, September 11–13, 2013 Gijón, Spain, June, 30–3 July 2015 == Publications == EUSFLAT publishes the proceedings of its conferences in an open access manner. Until 2010, Mathware & Soft Computing was the official journal of EUSFLAT. On July 1, 2010, the International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems (Atlantis Press, ISSN 1875-6891 (print) / ISSN 1875-6883 (on-line)) became the official journal of EUSFLAT. EUSFLAT publishes an electronic newsletter with three issues a year. == Presidents == EUSFLAT is led by the President, who is elected for a two-year period, and cannot serve for more than two consecutive periods. Francesc Esteva (1998–2011) Luis Magdalena (2001–2005) Ulrich Bodenhofer (2005–2009) Javier Montero (2009–2013) Gabriella Pasi (2013–present)
Read more →
Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the judge, the parties and the prosecutor, in presenting and testing the validity of evidences. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. == Key components of argumentation == Some key components of argumentation are: Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the No true Scotsman fallacy: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Well perhaps, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the interlocutor, and so the proposer offers a modification of the premise, which is designed only to evade the challenge provided. == Internal structure of arguments == Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following: a set of assumptions or premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion or point. An argument has one or more premises and one conclusion. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore, it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A non-classical approach to argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken into account. == Types of dialogue == In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other, but there are various types of dialogue: Persuasion dialogue aims to resolve conflicting points of view of different positions. Negotiation aims to resolve conflicts of interests by cooperation and dealmaking. Inquiry aims to resolve general ignorance by the growth of knowledge. Deliberation aims to resolve a need to take action by reaching a decision. Information seeking aims to reduce one party's ignorance by requesting information from another party that is in a position to know something. Eristic aims to resolve a situation of antagonism through verbal fighting. == Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge == Argumentation theory had its origins in foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures. But argument scholars gradually rejected Aristotle's systematic philosophy and the idealism in Plato and Kant. They questioned and ultimately discarded the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems. The field thus broadened. One of the original contributors to this trend was the philosopher Chaïm Perelman, who together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced the French term la nouvelle rhetorique in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of formal rules of inference. Perelman's view of argumentation is much closer to a juridical one, in which rules for presenting evidence and rebuttals play an important role. Karl R. Wallace's seminal essay, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1963) 44, led many scholars to study "marketplace argumentation" – the ordinary arguments of ordinary people. The seminal essay on marketplace argumentation is Ray Lynn Anderson's and C. David Mortensen's "Logic and Marketplace Argumentation" Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn". In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge. == Kinds of argumentation == === Conversational argumentation === The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversation analysis (CA). Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech. Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement. === Mathematical argumentation === The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in th
Read more →
Tensor network

Tensor networks or tensor network states are a class of variational wave functions used in the study of many-body quantum systems and fluids. Tensor networks extend one-dimensional matrix product states to higher dimensions while preserving some of their useful mathematical properties. The wave function is encoded as a tensor contraction of a network of individual tensors. The structure of the individual tensors can impose global symmetries on the wave function (such as antisymmetry under exchange of fermions) or restrict the wave function to specific quantum numbers, like total charge, angular momentum, or spin. It is also possible to derive strict bounds on quantities like entanglement and correlation length using the mathematical structure of the tensor network. This has made tensor networks useful in theoretical studies of quantum information in many-body systems. They have also proved useful in variational studies of ground states, excited states, and dynamics of strongly correlated many-body systems. == Diagrammatic notation == In general, a tensor network diagram (Penrose diagram) can be viewed as a graph where nodes (or vertices) represent individual tensors, while edges represent summation over an index. Free indices are depicted as edges (or legs) attached to a single vertex only. Sometimes, there is also additional meaning to a node's shape. For instance, one can use trapezoids for unitary matrices or tensors with similar behaviour. This way, flipped trapezoids would be interpreted as complex conjugates to them. == History == Foundational research on tensor networks began in 1971 with a paper by Roger Penrose. In "Applications of negative dimensional tensors" Penrose developed tensor diagram notation, describing how the diagrammatic language of tensor networks could be used in applications in physics. In 1992, Steven R. White developed the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) for quantum lattice systems. The DMRG was the first successful tensor network and associated algorithm. In 2002, Guifré Vidal and Reinhard Werner attempted to quantify entanglement, laying the groundwork for quantum resource theories. This was also the first description of the use of tensor networks as mathematical tools for describing quantum systems. In 2004, Frank Verstraete and Ignacio Cirac developed the theory of matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems. In 2006, Vidal developed the multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA). In 2007 he developed entanglement renormalization for quantum lattice systems. In 2010, Ulrich Schollwock developed the density-matrix renormalization group for the simulation of one-dimensional strongly correlated quantum lattice systems. In 2014, Román Orús introduced tensor networks for complex quantum systems and machine learning, as well as tensor network theories of symmetries, fermions, entanglement and holography. == Connection to machine learning == Tensor networks have been adapted for supervised learning, taking advantage of similar mathematical structure in variational studies in quantum mechanics and large-scale machine learning. This crossover has spurred collaboration between researchers in artificial intelligence and quantum information science. In June 2019, Google, the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and X (company), released TensorNetwork, an open-source library for efficient tensor calculations. The main interest in tensor networks and their study from the perspective of machine learning is to reduce the number of trainable parameters (in a layer) by approximating a high-order tensor with a network of lower-order ones. Using the so-called tensor train technique (TT), one can reduce an N-order tensor (containing exponentially many trainable parameters) to a chain of N tensors of order 2 or 3, which gives us a polynomial number of parameters.
Read more →
ARD Sounds

ARD Sounds (until March 2026: ARD Audiothek) is the joint audio portal of the state broadcasting stations of the ARD and Deutschlandradio on the Internet. The service was officially launched as a mobile app on November 8, 2017, on the occasion of the ARD Radio Play Days in Karlsruhe. A beta web version has also been available since November 2018; it replaces the radio features in the ARD Mediathek, which has since offered only video content. Editorial support for the ARD Audiothek is provided by the ARD, the online editorial team in Mainz. In April 2018, the ARD Audiothek won the German Digital Award in silver in the category "Mobile Apps - User Experience / Usability". Within a year, the mobile app version had been installed more than 510,000 times and had around 21 million audio views. The Android app recorded more than 100,000 downloads in October 2019, according to the Google Play Store.
Read more →
Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the judge, the parties and the prosecutor, in presenting and testing the validity of evidences. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. == Key components of argumentation == Some key components of argumentation are: Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the No true Scotsman fallacy: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Well perhaps, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the interlocutor, and so the proposer offers a modification of the premise, which is designed only to evade the challenge provided. == Internal structure of arguments == Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following: a set of assumptions or premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion or point. An argument has one or more premises and one conclusion. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore, it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A non-classical approach to argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken into account. == Types of dialogue == In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other, but there are various types of dialogue: Persuasion dialogue aims to resolve conflicting points of view of different positions. Negotiation aims to resolve conflicts of interests by cooperation and dealmaking. Inquiry aims to resolve general ignorance by the growth of knowledge. Deliberation aims to resolve a need to take action by reaching a decision. Information seeking aims to reduce one party's ignorance by requesting information from another party that is in a position to know something. Eristic aims to resolve a situation of antagonism through verbal fighting. == Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge == Argumentation theory had its origins in foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures. But argument scholars gradually rejected Aristotle's systematic philosophy and the idealism in Plato and Kant. They questioned and ultimately discarded the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems. The field thus broadened. One of the original contributors to this trend was the philosopher Chaïm Perelman, who together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced the French term la nouvelle rhetorique in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of formal rules of inference. Perelman's view of argumentation is much closer to a juridical one, in which rules for presenting evidence and rebuttals play an important role. Karl R. Wallace's seminal essay, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1963) 44, led many scholars to study "marketplace argumentation" – the ordinary arguments of ordinary people. The seminal essay on marketplace argumentation is Ray Lynn Anderson's and C. David Mortensen's "Logic and Marketplace Argumentation" Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn". In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge. == Kinds of argumentation == === Conversational argumentation === The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversation analysis (CA). Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech. Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement. === Mathematical argumentation === The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in th
Read more →
Shyster (expert system)

SHYSTER is a legal expert system developed at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1993. It was written as the doctoral dissertation of James Popple under the supervision of Robin Stanton, Roger Clarke, Peter Drahos, and Malcolm Newey. A full technical report of the expert system, and a book further detailing its development and testing have also been published. SHYSTER emphasises its pragmatic approach, and posits that a legal expert system need not be based upon a complex model of legal reasoning in order to produce useful advice. Although SHYSTER attempts to model the way in which lawyers argue with cases, it does not attempt to model the way in which lawyers decide which cases to use in those arguments. SHYSTER is of a general design, permitting its operation in different legal domains. It was designed to provide advice in areas of case law that have been specified by a legal expert using a bespoke specification language. Its knowledge of the law is acquired, and represented, as information about cases. It produces its advice by examining, and arguing about, the similarities and differences between cases. It derives its name from Shyster: a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics. == Methods == SHYSTER is a specific example of a general category of legal expert systems, broadly defined as systems that make use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to solve legal problems. Legal AI systems can be divided into two categories: legal retrieval systems and legal analysis systems. SHYSTER belongs to the latter category of legal analysis systems. Legal analysis systems can be further subdivided into two categories: judgment machines and legal expert systems. SHYSTER again belongs to the latter category of legal expert systems. A legal expert system, as Popple uses the term, is a system capable of performing at a level expected of a lawyer: "AI systems which merely assist a lawyer in coming to legal conclusions or preparing legal arguments are not here considered to be legal expert systems; a legal expert system must exhibit some legal expertise itself." Designed to operate in more than one legal domain, and be of specific use to the common law of Australia, SHYSTER accounts for statute law, case law, and the doctrine of precedent in areas of private law. Whilst it accommodates statute law, it is primarily a case-based system, in contradistinction to rule-based systems like MYCIN. More specifically, it was designed in a manner enabling it to be linked with a rule-based system to form a hybrid system. Although case-based reasoning possesses an advantage over rule-based systems by the elimination of complex semantic networks, it suffers from intractable theoretical obstacles: without some further theory it cannot be predicted what features of a case will turn out to be relevant. Users of SHYSTER therefore require some legal expertise. Richard Susskind argues that "jurisprudence can and ought to supply the models of law and legal reasoning that are required for computerized [sic] implementation in the process of building all expert systems in law". Popple, however, believes jurisprudence is of limited value to developers of legal expert systems. He posits that a lawyer must have a model of the law (maybe unarticulated) which includes assumptions about the nature of law and legal reasoning, but that model need not rest on basic philosophical foundations. It may be a pragmatic model, developed through experience within the legal system. Many lawyers perform their work with little or no jurisprudential knowledge, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are worse, or better, at their jobs than lawyers well-versed in jurisprudence. The fact that many lawyers have mastered the process of legal reasoning, without having been immersed in jurisprudence, suggests that it may indeed be possible to develop legal expert systems of good quality without jurisprudential insight. As a pragmatic legal expert system SHYSTER is the embodiment of this belief. A further example of SHYSTER’s pragmatism is its simple knowledge representation structure. This structure was designed to facilitate specification of different areas of case law using a specification language. Areas of case law are specified in terms of the cases and attributes of importance in those areas. SHYSTER weights its attributes and checks for dependence between them. In order to choose cases upon which to construct its opinions, SHYSTER calculates distances between cases and uses these distances to determine which of the leading cases are nearest to the instant case. To this end SHYSTER can be seen to adopt and expand upon nearest neighbor search methods used in pattern recognition. These nearest cases are used to produce an argument (based on similarities and differences between the cases) about the likely outcome in the instant case. This argument relies on the doctrine of precedent; it assumes that the instant case will be decided the same way as was the nearest case. SHYSTER then uses information about these nearest cases to construct a report. The report that SHYSTER generates makes a prediction and justifies that prediction by reference only to cases and their similarities and differences: the calculations that SHYSTER performs in coming to its opinion do not appear in that opinion. Safeguards are employed to warn users if SHYSTER doubts the veracity of its advice. == Results == SHYSTER was tested in four different and disparate areas of case law. Four specifications were written, each representing an area of Australian law: an aspect of the law of trover; the meaning of "authorization [sic]" in copyright law of Australia; the categorisation of employment contracts; and the implication of natural justice in administrative decision-making. SHYSTER was evaluated under five headings: its usefulness, its generality, the quality of its advice, its limitations, and possible enhancements that could be made to it. Despite its simple knowledge representation structure, it has shown itself capable of producing good advice, and its simple structure has facilitated the specification of different areas of law. Appreciating the difficulties encountered by legal expert systems developers in adequately representing legal knowledge can assist in appreciating the shortcomings of digital rights management technologies. Some academics believe future digital rights management systems may become sophisticated enough to permit exceptions to copyright law. To this end SHYSTER's attempt to model "authorization [sic]" in the Copyright Act can be viewed as pioneering work in this field. The term "authorization [sic]" is undefined in the Copyright Act. Consequently, a number of cases have been before the courts seeking answers as to what conduct amounts to authorisation. The main contexts in which the issue has arisen are analogous to permitted exceptions to copyright currently prevented by most digital rights management technologies: "home taping of recorded materials, photocopying in educational institutions and performing works in public". When applied to one case concerning compact cassettes, SHYSTER successfully agreed that Amstrad did not authorise the infringement. 'shyster-myci'n Popple highlighted the most obvious avenue of future research using SHYSTER as the development of a rule-based system, and the linking together of that rule-based system with the existing case-based system to form a hybrid system. This intention was eventually realised by Thomas O’Callaghan, the creator of SHYSTER-MYCIN: a hybrid legal expert system first presented at ICAIL '03, 24–28 June 2003 in Edinburgh, Scotland. MYCIN is an existing medical expert system, which was adapted for use with SHYSTER. MYCIN’s controversial "certainty factor" is not used in SHYSTER-MYCIN. The reason for this is the difficulty in scientifically establishing how certain a fact is in a legal domain. The rule-based approach of the MYCIN part is used to reason with the provisions of an Act of Parliament only. This hybrid system enables the case-based system (SHYSTER) to determine open textured concepts when required by the rule-based system (MYCIN). The ultimate conclusion of this joint endeavour is that a hybrid approach is preferred in the creation of legal expert systems where "it is appropriate to use rule-based reasoning when dealing with statutes, and…case-based reasoning when dealing with cases".
Read more →
Land of Memories

Land of Memories (Chinese: 机忆之地) is a Chinese science-fiction novel by Shen Yang (沈阳), a professor at Tsinghua University's School of Journalism and Communication. The story revolves around a former neuroscientist trying to recover her memories from the metaverse after suffering amnesia due to an accident. It contains almost 6,000 Chinese characters and was shortened from an AI-generated draft that was 43,000 characters long. The process involved 66 prompts spanning almost three hours. The novel was among 18 submissions that won the level-two prize at the Fifth Jiangsu Youth Science Education and Science Fiction Competition (第五届江苏省青年科普科幻作品大赛). The contest was restricted to participants between the age of 14 and 45 but did not forbid entries generated by AI. One of its organizers reached out to Shen after finding out that the professor had been experimenting with writing science fiction using AI. The judges were not told about the novel's origin in advance. Three of them, out of the six, approved the work. One judge, who had worked with AI models before, recognized that the novel was written by AI and criticized the work for lacking emotional appeal. The organizer who had contacted Shen said the novel's introduction was not bad but the story did not develop well. It would not meet the usual standards for publication. However, he still plans to allow AI-generated submissions in 2024. Fu Ruchu, editorial department director of the People's Literature Publishing House, said the novel was not easily identifiable as AI-generated and applauded its logical consistency. She warned that artificial intelligence could endanger the jobs of fiction writers and cause permanent damage to literary language.
Read more →
Observability (software)

In software engineering, more specifically in distributed computing, observability is the ability to collect data about programs' execution, modules' internal states, and the communication among components. To improve observability, software engineers use a wide range of logging and tracing techniques to gather telemetry information, and tools to analyze and use it. Observability is foundational to site reliability engineering, as it is the first step in triaging a service outage. One of the goals of observability is to minimize the amount of prior knowledge needed to debug an issue. == Etymology, terminology and definition == The term is borrowed from control theory, where the "observability" of a system measures how well its state can be determined from its outputs. Similarly, software observability measures how well a system's state can be understood from the obtained telemetry (metrics, logs, traces, profiling). The definition of observability varies by vendor: Observability is the process of making a system’s internal state more transparent. Systems are made observable by the data they produce, which in turn helps you to determine if your infrastructure or application is healthy and functioning normally. a measure of how well you can understand and explain any state your system can get into, no matter how novel or bizarre [...] without needing to ship new code software tools and practices for aggregating, correlating and analyzing a steady stream of performance data from a distributed application along with the hardware and network it runs onobservability starts by shipping all your raw data to central service before you begin analysisthe ability to measure a system’s current state based on the data it generates, such as logs, metrics, and traces Observability is tooling or a technical solution that allows teams to actively debug their system. Observability is based on exploring properties and patterns not defined in advance. proactively collecting, visualizing, and applying intelligence to all of your metrics, events, logs, and traces—so you can understand the behavior of your complex digital system The term is frequently referred to as its numeronym o11y (where 11 stands for the number of letters between the first letter and the last letter of the word). This is similar to other computer science abbreviations such as i18n and l10n and k8s. === Observability vs. monitoring === Observability and monitoring are sometimes used interchangeably. As tooling, commercial offerings and practices evolved in complexity, "monitoring" was re-branded as observability in order to differentiate new tools from the old. The terms are commonly contrasted in that systems are monitored using predefined sets of telemetry, and monitored systems may be observable. Majors et al. suggest that engineering teams that only have monitoring tools end up relying on expert foreknowledge (seniority), whereas teams that have observability tools rely on exploratory analysis (curiosity). == Telemetry types == Observability relies on three main types of telemetry data: metrics, logs and traces. Those are often referred to as "pillars of observability". === Metrics === A metric is a point in time measurement (scalar) that represents some system state. Examples of common metrics include: number of HTTP requests per second; total number of query failures; database size in bytes; time in seconds since last garbage collection. Monitoring tools are typically configured to emit alerts when certain metric values exceed set thresholds. Thresholds are set based on knowledge about normal operating conditions and experience. Metrics are typically tagged to facilitate grouping and searchability. Application developers choose what kind of metrics to instrument their software with, before it is released. As a result, when a previously unknown issue is encountered, it is impossible to add new metrics without shipping new code. Furthermore, their cardinality can quickly make the storage size of telemetry data prohibitively expensive. Since metrics are cardinality-limited, they are often used to represent aggregate values (for example: average page load time, or 5-second average of the request rate). Without external context, it is impossible to correlate between events (such as user requests) and distinct metric values. === Logs === Logs, or log lines, are generally free-form, unstructured text blobs that are intended to be human readable. Modern logging is structured to enable machine parsability. As with metrics, an application developer must instrument the application upfront and ship new code if different logging information is required. Logs typically include a timestamp and severity level. An event (such as a user request) may be fragmented across multiple log lines and interweave with logs from concurrent events. === Traces === ==== Distributed traces ==== A cloud native application is typically made up of distributed services which together fulfill a single request. A distributed trace is an interrelated series of discrete events (also called spans) that track the progression of a single user request. A trace shows the causal and temporal relationships between the services that interoperate to fulfill a request. Instrumenting an application with traces means sending span information to a tracing backend. The tracing backend correlates the received spans to generate presentable traces. To be able to follow a request as it traverses multiple services, spans are labeled with unique identifiers that enable constructing a parent-child relationship between spans. Span information is typically shared in the HTTP headers of outbound requests. === Continuous profiling === Continuous profiling is another telemetry type used to precisely determine how an application consumes resources. === Instrumentation === To be able to observe an application, telemetry about the application's behavior needs to be collected or exported. Instrumentation means generating telemetry alongside the normal operation of the application. Telemetry is then collected by an independent backend for later analysis. In fast-changing systems, instrumentation itself is often the best possible documentation, since it combines intention (what are the dimensions that an engineer named and decided to collect?) with the real-time, up-to-date information of live status in production. Instrumentation can be automatic, or custom. Automatic instrumentation offers blanket coverage and immediate value; custom instrumentation brings higher value but requires more intimate involvement with the instrumented application. Instrumentation can be native - done in-code (modifying the code of the instrumented application) - or out-of-code (e.g. sidecar, eBPF). Verifying new features in production by shipping them together with custom instrumentation is a practice called "observability-driven development". == "Pillars of observability" == Metrics, logs and traces are most commonly listed as the pillars of observability. Majors et al. suggest that the pillars of observability are high cardinality, high-dimensionality, and explorability, arguing that runbooks and dashboards have little value because "modern systems rarely fail in precisely the same way twice." == Self monitoring == Self monitoring is a practice where observability stacks monitor each other, in order to reduce the risk of inconspicuous outages. Self monitoring may be put in place in addition to high availability and redundancy to further avoid correlated failures.
Read more →
List of Tesla Autopilot crashes

Tesla Autopilot, a Level 2 advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), was released in October 2015 and the first fatal crashes involving the system occurred less than one year later. The fatal crashes attracted attention from news publications and United States government agencies, including the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has argued the Tesla Autopilot death rate is higher than the reported estimates. In addition to fatal crashes, there have been many nonfatal ones. Causes behind the incidents include the ADAS failing to recognize other vehicles, insufficient Autopilot driver engagement, and violating the operational design domain. As of October 2025, there have been hundreds of nonfatal incidents involving versions of Autopilot and sixty-five reported fatalities, fifty-four of which NHTSA investigations or expert testimony later verified and two that NHTSA's Office of Defect Investigations determined as happening during the engagement of Full Self-Driving (FSD) after 2022. Collectively, these cases culminated in a general recall in December 2023 of all vehicles equipped with Autopilot, which Tesla claims it resolved by an over-the-air software update. Immediately after closing its investigation in April 2024, NHTSA opened a recall query to determine the effectiveness of the recall. == Notable fatal crashes == === Handan, Hebei, China (January 20, 2016) === On January 20, 2016, Gao Yaning, the driver of a Tesla Model S in Handan, Hebei, China, was killed when his car crashed into a stationary truck. The Tesla was following a car in the far left lane of a multi-lane highway; the car in front moved to the right lane to avoid a truck stopped on the left shoulder, and the Tesla, which the driver's father believes was in Autopilot mode, did not slow before colliding with the stopped truck. According to footage captured by a dashboard camera, the stationary street sweeper on the left side of the expressway partially extended into the far left lane, and the driver did not appear to respond to the unexpected obstacle. Initially, Yaning was held responsible for the collision by local traffic police and, in September 2016, his family filed a lawsuit in July against the Tesla dealer who sold the car. The family's lawyer stated the suit was intended "to let the public know that self-driving technology has some defects. We are hoping Tesla when marketing its products, will be more cautious. Do not just use self-driving as a selling point for young people." Tesla released a statement which said they "have no way of knowing whether or not Autopilot was engaged at the time of the crash" since the car telemetry could not be retrieved remotely due to damage caused by the crash. In 2018, the lawsuit was stalled because telemetry was recorded locally to a SD card and was not able to be given to Tesla, who provided a decoding key to a third party for independent review. Tesla stated that "while the third-party appraisal is not yet complete, we have no reason to believe that Autopilot on this vehicle ever functioned other than as designed." Chinese media later reported that the family sent the information from that card to Tesla, which admitted Autopilot was engaged two minutes before the crash. Tesla since then removed the term "Autopilot" from its Chinese website. === Williston, Florida, US (May 7, 2016) === On May 7, 2016, Tesla driver Joshua Brown was killed in a crash with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer in Williston, Florida. By late June 2016, the NHTSA opened a formal investigation into the fatal autonomous accident, working with the Florida Highway Patrol. According to the NHTSA, preliminary reports indicate the crash occurred when the tractor-trailer made a left turn in front of the 2015 Tesla Model S at an intersection on a non-controlled access highway, and the car failed to apply the brakes. The car continued to travel after passing under the truck's trailer. The Tesla was eastbound in the rightmost lane of US 27, and the westbound tractor-trailer was turning left at the intersection with NE 140th Court, approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) west of Williston; the posted speed limit is 65 mph (105 km/h). The diagnostic log of the Tesla indicated it was traveling at a speed of 74 mi/h (119 km/h) when it collided with and traveled under the trailer, which was not equipped with a side underrun protection system. A reconstruction of the accident estimated the driver would have had approximately 10.4 seconds to detect the truck and take evasive action. The underride collision sheared off the Tesla's greenhouse, destroying everything above the beltline, and caused fatal injuries to the driver. In the approximately nine seconds after colliding with the trailer, the Tesla traveled another 886.5 feet (270.2 m) and came to rest after colliding with two chain-link fences and a utility pole. The NHTSA's preliminary evaluation was opened to examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash, which involves a population of an estimated 25,000 Model S cars. On July 8, 2016, the NHTSA requested Tesla Inc. to hand over to the agency detailed information about the design, operation and testing of its Autopilot technology. The agency also requested details of all design changes and updates to Autopilot since its introduction, and Tesla's planned updates scheduled for the next four months. According to Tesla, "neither autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor-trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied." The car attempted to drive full speed under the trailer, "with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S". Tesla also stated that this was Tesla's first known Autopilot-related death in over 130 million miles (208 million km) driven by its customers while Autopilot was activated. According to Tesla there is a fatality every 94 million miles (150 million km) among all type of vehicles in the U.S. It is estimated that billions of miles will need to be traveled before Tesla Autopilot can claim to be safer than humans with statistical significance. Researchers say that Tesla and others need to release more data on the limitations and performance of automated driving systems if self-driving cars are to become safe and understood enough for mass-market use. The truck's driver told the Associated Press that he could hear a Harry Potter movie playing in the crashed car, and said the car was driving so quickly that "he went so fast through my trailer I didn't see him. [The film] was still playing when he died and snapped a telephone pole a quarter-mile down the road." According to the Florida Highway Patrol, they found in the wreckage an aftermarket portable DVD player. (It is not possible to watch videos on the Model S touchscreen display while the car is moving.) A laptop computer was recovered during the post-crash examination of the wreck, along with an adjustable vehicle laptop mount attached to the front passenger's seat frame. The NHTSA concluded the laptop was probably mounted, and the driver may have been distracted at the time of the crash. In January 2017, the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) released a preliminary evaluation, finding that the driver in the crash had seven seconds to see the truck and identifying no defects in the Autopilot system; the ODI also found that the Tesla car crash rate dropped by 40 percent after Autosteer installation, but later also clarified that it did not assess the effectiveness of this technology or whether it was engaged in its crash rate comparison. The NHTSA Special Crash Investigation team published its report in January 2018. According to the report, for the drive leading up to the crash, the driver engaged Autopilot for 37 minutes and 26 seconds, and the system provided 13 "hands not detected" alerts, to which the driver responded after an average delay of 16 seconds. The report concluded "Regardless of the operational status of the Tesla's ADAS technologies, the driver was still responsible for maintaining ultimate control of the vehicle. All evidence and data gathered concluded that the driver neglected to maintain complete control of the Tesla leading up to the crash." In July 2016, the NTSB announced it had opened a formal investigation into the fatal accident while Autopilot was engaged. The NTSB is an investigative body that only has the power to make policy recommendations. An agency spokesman said, "It's worth taking a look and seeing what we can learn from that event, so that as that automation is more widely introduced we can do it in the safest way possible." The NTSB opens annually about 25 to 30 highway investigations. In September 2017, the NTSB released its report, determining that "the probable cause of the Williston, Florida, crash was the truck driver's failure to yield the right of way to the car, combine
Read more →
Midjourney

Midjourney is a generative artificial intelligence program and service created and hosted by the San Francisco–based "independent research lab" Midjourney, Inc. Midjourney generates images from natural language descriptions, called prompts, similar to OpenAI's DALL-E and Stability AI's Stable Diffusion. It is one of the technologies of the AI boom. The tool was launched into open beta on July 12, 2022. The Midjourney team is led by David Holz, who co-founded Leap Motion. Holz told The Register in August 2022 that the company was already profitable. Users generate images with Midjourney using Discord bot commands or the official website. == History == Midjourney, Inc. was founded in San Francisco, California, by David Holz, previously a co-founder of Leap Motion. The Midjourney image generation platform entered open beta on July 12, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the Midjourney Discord server launched with a request to post high-quality photographs to Twitter and Reddit for systems training. === Model versions === The company has been working on improving its algorithms, releasing new model versions every few months. Version 2 of their algorithm was launched in April 2022, and version 3 on July 25. On November 5, 2022, the alpha iteration of version 4 was released to users. Starting from the 4th version, MJ models were trained on Google TPUs. On March 15, 2023, the alpha iteration of version 5 was released. The 5.1 model is more opinionated than version 5, applying more of its own stylization to images, while the 5.1 RAW model adds improvements while working better with more literal prompts. The version 5.2 included a new "aesthetics system", and the ability to "zoom out" by generating surroundings to an existing image. On December 21, 2023, the alpha iteration of version 6 was released. The model was trained from scratch over a nine month period. Support was added for better text rendition and a more literal interpretation of prompts. == Functionality == Midjourney is accessible through a Discord bot or by accessing their website. Users can use Midjourney through Discord either through their official Discord server, by directly messaging the bot, or by inviting the bot to a third-party server. To generate images, users use the /imagine command and type in a prompt; the bot then returns a set of four images, which users are given the option to upscale. To generate images on the website, users initially needed to have generated at least 1,000 images through the bot; this limitation has since been removed. === Vary (Region) + remix feature === Midjourney released a Vary (Region) feature on September 5, 2023, as part of MidJourney V5.2. This feature allows users to select a specific area of an image and apply variations only to that region while keeping the rest of the image unchanged. === Midjourney web interface === Midjourney introduced its web interface to make its tools more accessible, moving beyond its initial reliance on Discord. This web-based platform was launched in August 2024 alongside the release of Midjourney version 6.1. The web editor consolidates tools such as image editing, panning, zooming, region variation, and inpainting into a single interface. The introduction of the web interface also syncs conversations between Midjourney's Discord channels and web rooms, further enhancing collaboration across both platforms. This shift was in response to growing competition from other AI image generation platforms like Adobe Firefly and Google’s Imagen, which had already launched as native web apps with integration into popular design tools. === Image Weight === This feature lets users control how much influence an uploaded image has on the final output. By adjusting the "image weight" parameter, users can prioritize either the content of the prompt or the characteristics of the image. For instance, setting a higher weight will ensure that the generated result closely follows the image's structure and details, while a lower weight allows the text prompt to have more influence over the final output. === Style Reference === With Style Reference, users can upload an image to use as a stylistic guide for their creation. This tool enables MidJourney to extract the style—whether it is the color palette, texture, or overall atmosphere—from the reference image and apply it to a newly generated image. The feature allows users to fine-tune the aesthetics of their creations by integrating specific artistic styles or moods. === Character Reference === The Character Reference feature allows for a more targeted approach in defining characters. Users can upload an image of a character, and the system uses that image as a reference to generate similar characters in the output. This feature is particularly useful in maintaining consistency in appearance for characters across different images. == Uses == Midjourney's founder, David Holz, told The Register that artists use Midjourney for rapid prototyping of artistic concepts to show to clients before starting work themselves. The advertising industry quickly adopted AI tools such as Midjourney, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion to create original content and brainstorm ideas. Architects have described using the software to generate mood boards for the early stages of projects, as an alternative to searching Google Images. === Notable usage and controversy === The program was used by the British magazine The Economist to create the front cover for an issue in June 2022. In Italy, the leading newspaper Corriere della Sera published a comic created with Midjourney by writer Vanni Santoni in August 2022. Charlie Warzel used Midjourney to generate two images of Alex Jones for Warzel's newsletter in The Atlantic. The use of an AI-generated cover was criticised by people who felt it was taking jobs from artists. Warzel called his action a mistake in an article about his decision to use generated images. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver included a 10-minute segment on Midjourney in an episode broadcast in August 2022. A Midjourney image called Théâtre D'opéra Spatial won first place in the digital art competition at the 2022 Colorado State Fair. Jason Allen, who wrote the prompt that led Midjourney to generate the image, printed the image onto a canvas and entered it into the competition using the name Jason M. Allen via Midjourney. Other digital artists were upset by the news. Allen was unapologetic, insisting that he followed the competition's rules. The two category judges were unaware that Midjourney used AI to generate images, although they later said that had they known this, they would have awarded Allen the top prize anyway. In December 2022, Midjourney was used to generate the images for an AI-generated children's book that was created over a weekend. Titled Alice and Sparkle, the book features a young girl who builds a robot that becomes self-aware. The creator, Ammaar Reeshi, used Midjourney to generate a large number of images, from which he chose 13 for the book. Both the product and process drew criticism. One artist wrote that "the main problem... is that it was trained off of artists' work. It's our creations, our distinct styles that we created, that we did not consent to being used." In 2023, the realism of AI-based text-to-image generators, such as Midjourney, DALL-E, or Stable Diffusion, reached such a high level that it led to a significant wave of viral AI-generated photos. Widespread attention was gained by a Midjourney-generated photo of Pope Francis wearing a white puffer coat, the fictional arrest of Donald Trump, and a hoax of an attack on the Pentagon, as well as the usage in professional creative arts. Research has suggested that the images Midjourney generates can be biased. For example, even neutral prompts in one study returned unequal results on the aspects of gender, skin color, and location. A study by researchers at the nonprofit group Center for Countering Digital Hate found the tool to be easy to use to generate racist and conspiratorial images. In October 2023, Rest of World reported that Midjourney tends to generate images based on national stereotypes. In 2024, a Frontiers journal published a paper which contained gibberish figures generated with Midjourney, one of which was a diagram of a rat with large testicles and a large penis towering over himself. The paper was retracted a day after the images went viral on Twitter. ==== Content moderation and censorship in Midjourney ==== Prior to May 2023, Midjourney implemented a moderation mechanism predicated on a banned word system. This method prohibited the use of language associated with explicit content, such as sexual or pornographic themes, as well as extreme violence. Moreover, the system also banned certain individual words, including those of religious and political figures, such as Allah or General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping. This practice occasionally stirred controversy due to perceiv
Read more →