AI Avatar Generator Online Free

AI Avatar Generator Online Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

D4Science

D4Science is a Data Infrastructure offering services by community-driven virtual research environments. In particular, it supports communities of practice willing to implement open science practices, thus it is an Open Science Infrastructure. The infrastructure follows the system of systems approach, where the constituent systems (Service providers) offer "resources" (namely services and by them data, computing, storage) assembled together to implement the overall set of D4Science services. In particular, D4Science aggregates "domain agnostic" service providers as well as community-specific ones to build a unifying space where the aggregated resources can be exploited via Virtual research Environments and their services. It is spread across several sites, the primary one is hosted by the Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione of National Research Council (Italy). At the earth of this infrastructure there is an Open Source Software named gCube system. == Services == D4Science offers: Virtual Research Environment as a Service providing any community of practice with a dedicated working environment supporting any knowledge production process in a collaborative way, in fact every VRE enables computer-supported cooperative work by design. D4Science-based VREs are web-based, community-oriented, collaborative, user-friendly, open-science-enabler working environments for scientists and practitioners willing to work together to perform a set of (research) task. From the end-user perspective, each VRE manifests in a unifying web application (and a set of application programming interfaces (APIs)): (a) comprising several applications organised in specific menu items and (b) running in a plain web browser. Every application is providing VRE users with facilities implemented by relying on one or more services provisioned by diverse providers. Among the basic services every VRE is equipped with there are a Social Networking area enabling collaborative and open discussions on any topic and disseminating information of interest for the community, for example, the availability of a research outcome; a Workspace for storing, organizing and sharing any version of a research artifact, including dataset and model implementation; a User Management dashboard for managing membership and roles; a Catalogue Service recording the assets worth being published thus to make it possible for others to be informed and make use of these assets. Science Gateway as a Service providing a community of practice with a dedicated science gateway hosting a selected set of virtual research environments. Data Analytics at scale for data analytics including: a proprietary data analytics platform (DataMiner) to execute analytics tasks either by relying on methods provided by the user or by others. It is endowed with importing and sharing facilities for analytics methods implemented in heterogeneous forms including R, Java, Python, and KNIME. The platform enacts tasks execution by a distributed and hybrid computing infrastructure. Moreover, one of the worth highlighting feature of this platform is its open science-friendliness. All the analytics methods integrated in it are exposed by a standard protocol (the OGC WPS protocol) clients can use to get informed on available methods as well as to start processes, monitor their execution and access results. Every analytics task performed by the platform automatically produces a provenance record catering for the reproducibility of the task; an RStudio-based development environment for R enabling to perform statistical computing tasks in the cloud. This RStudio environment is (i) preconfigured with libraries and packages to ease the execution of common data analytics tasks, and (ii) provides seamless access to the VRE Workspace enabling sharing of resources with other members of the same working environment. a Jupyter-based notebook environment for developing and executing interactive computing by JupyterLab instances. Each JupyterLab is (i) preconfigured with libraries and packages to ease the execution of common data analytics tasks, and (ii) provides access to the VRE Workspace enabling sharing of resources with other members of the same working environment. == Community == The D4Science Infrastructure serves more than 24,000 registered users (August 2024) through 177 active VREs offered via 20 Science gateways. This extensive infrastructure not only supports a diverse range of scientific communities but also fosters significant engagement and collaboration among researchers worldwide. Engagement within the D4Science community is robust, with users benefiting from user-friendly application environments tailored to their specific needs. The platform allows users to securely preserve, access, and share their data from anywhere, fostering a collaborative and inclusive research environment. Additionally, groups of users can create their own virtual environments and customise them with the applications they need, further enhancing the platform's flexibility and usability. Supported communities and cases range from Agri-food to Social Data Science, Earth Science and Marine Science. These diverse applications demonstrate the versatility and broad applicability of the D4Science Infrastructure, making it an invaluable resource for researchers across various scientific domains. == History == The D4Science development has been supported by several European-funded projects. DILIGENT (2004-2007) in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development was the forerunner where a testbed infrastructure built by integrating digital library and grid computing technologies and resources was conceived and developed to serve the needs of communities of practice involved in knowledge development. In the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration the development of the D4Science initiative. In this period the infrastructure was established and developed to serve communities of practices from domains ranging from Earth Science to Marine Science with worldwide scope In the context of the H2020 research and innovation programme the maturity level of the D4Science infrastructure was high enough to allow a large and very diverse set of communities of practice to benefit from it and its services and further contribute to its development. Moreover, the services offered by the infrastructure have been developed to support open science practices. The operation and improvement of the D4Science infrastructure facilities are still ongoing while its exploitation is progressively growing.
Read more →
Composite Capability/Preference Profiles

Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP) is a specification for defining capabilities and preferences of user agents (also known as "delivery context"). The delivery context can be used to guide the process of tailoring content for a user agent. CC/PP is a vocabulary extension of the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The CC/PP specification is maintained by the W3C's Ubiquitous Web Applications Working Group (UWAWG) Working Group. == History == Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and Vocabularies 1.0 became a W3C recommendation on 15 January 2004. A "Last-Call Working-Draft" of CC/PP 2.0 was issued in April 2007
Read more →
POSC Caesar

POSC Caesar Association (PCA) is an international, open and not-for-profit, member organization that promotes the development of open specifications to be used as standards for enabling the interoperability of data, software and related matters. PCA is the initiator of ISO 15926 "Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities" and is committed to its maintenance and enhancement. Nils Sandsmark has been the General Manager of POSC Caesar Association since 1999 and Thore Langeland, Norwegian Oil Industry Association (Norwegian: Oljeindustriens Landsforening, OLF), is the chairman of the board. == History == === Caesar Offshore === The first predecessor of POSC Caesar Association, the Caesar Offshore program, started in 1993. The original focus was on standardizing technical data definitions for capital intensive projects at the handover from the EPC contractor to the owner/operators of onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities. The program was sponsored by The Research Council of Norway, two EPC contractors (Aker Maritime and Kværner), three owners/operators (Norsk Hydro, Saga Petroleum and Statoil) and DNV as service provider and project owner. === POSC Caesar project === During the period 1994–96, Caesar Offshore Program was defined as a project of Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation (POSC) (now Energistics), and changed its name to the POSC Caesar Project. In 1995 the project was joined by BP, Brown and Root and Elf Aquitaine and in 1997 by Intergraph, IBM, Oracle, Lloyd's, Shell, ABB and UMOE Technologies. During that time, POSC Caesar also became a member of European Process Industries STEP Technical Liaison Executive (EPISTLE) where it collaborates with PISTEP (UK), and USPI-NL (The Netherlands) on the development of ISO 10303, also known as "Standard for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP)". === POSC Caesar Association === In 1997, POSC Caesar Association was founded as an independent, global, non-profit, member organization. POSC Caesar Association serves an international membership and collaborates with other international organizations. It has its main office in Norway. Albeit the name of POSC Caesar Association still hints to its past as a project within the Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation (POSC) (now Energistics), from 1997 onwards, the organization has been independent. Energistics and POSC Caesar Association do collaborate, and are formally member in each other's organization. == Membership == POSC Caesar Association has with its current 36 members from around the world and has established an international footprint (with a strong membership in Norway) that includes a variety of backgrounds, from academia and solution providers to engineering contractors and owners/operators. The members are (subdivided by organization type): Associations: Energistics (USA) and The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF, Norway); Universities and Research Institutes: International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS, Norway), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU, Norway), Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST, Korea), SINTEF (Norway), University of Bergen (Norway), University of Oslo (Norway), University of Stavanger (Norway), University of Tromsø (Norway) and Western Norway Research Institute (Norway); Oil and Gas Companies: BP (UK), Petronas (Malaysia) and Statoil (Norway); Engineering contractors and consultants: Akvaplan-niva (Norway), Aker Solutions (Norway), Asset Life Cycle Information Management (ALCIM, Malaysia), CAESAR systems (USA), Bechtel (USA), Det Norske Veritas (DNV, Norway), Information Logic (USA) and iXIT Engineering Technology (Germany), Phusion IM Ltd (UK); Solution providers: Aveva (UK), Bentley Systems (USA), Jotne EPM Technology (Norway), Epsis (Norway), Eurostep (Sweden), International Business Machines Corporation (IBM, USA), Siemens - Comos Industry Solutions (before Innotec) (Germany), Intergraph (USA), Invenia (Norway), Keel Solution (Denmark), Noumenon (UK), NRX (Canada), Octaga (Norway) and Tektonisk (Norway). In general, the organization holds three membership meetings a year; one in January / February in North-America (typically USA), one in April / May in Europe (typically Norway) and one in October in Asia (typically Malaysia). == Activities and services == === Initiator and custodian of ISO 15926 === In consultation with the other EPISTLE members and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), it was decided in 2003 (some say already in 1997) that for modeling-technical reasons it was better to discontinue the development of ISO 10303 and to initiate the development of ISO 15926 "Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities." Over the years, the scope of the standard has increased from the initial capital-intensive projects in the upstream oil and gas industry, to include also relevant terminology for downstream oil and gas industry applications and to deal with real-time data related to the actual oil and gas production. ISO 15926 has also over the years evolved from a dictionary (a list of terms with definitions), over a taxonomy (added hierarchy) to an ontology (a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts). ISO 15926 is therefore sometimes nicknamed the "Oil and Gas Ontology", for some considered to be an essential prerequisite together with Semantic Web technologies to get to better interoperability, an optimal use of all available data across boundaries and an increase in efficiency. This is what some call the next generation of Integrated Operations. === Reference data services === Placeholders: Flow scheme of WIP - RDS - ISO and role of SIGs RDS Standards in database pilot (ISO) === Special interest groups === Placeholders: Overview of SIGs Drilling and Completion Reservoir and Production Operations and Maintenance == Projects == There are a number of projects (co-)organized by POSC Caesar Association working on the extension of the ISO 15926 standard in different application areas. === Capital intensive projects application domain === The following projects are running at the moment (August 2009): The ADI Project of FIATECH, to build the tools (which will then be made available in the public domain) The IDS Project of POSC Caesar Association, to define product models required for data sheets A joint collaboration project between FIATECH POSC Caesar Association is the ADI-IDS project is the ISO 15926 WIP === Upstream oil and gas industry application domain === The following projects are currently running (August 2009): The Integrated Operations in the High North (IOHN) project is working on extending ISO 15926 to handle real-time data transmission and (pre-)processing to enable the next generation of Integrated Operations. The Environment Web project to include environmental reporting terms and definitions as used in EPIM's EnvironmentWeb in ISO 15926. Finalised projects include: The Integrated Information Platform (IIP) project working on establishing a real-time information pipeline based on open standards. It worked among others on: Daily Drilling Report (DDR) to including all terms and definitions in ISO 15926. This standard became mandatory on February 1, 2008 for reporting on the Norwegian Continental Shelf by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) and Safety Authority Norway (PSA). NPD says that the quality of the reports has improved considerably since. Daily Production Report (DPR) to including all terms and definitions in ISO 15926. This standard was tested successfully on the Valhall (BP-operated) and Åsgard (StatoilHydro-operated) fields offshore Norway. The terminology and XML schemata developed have also been included in Energistics’ PRODML standard. == Conferences and events == === Semantic Days === === Sogndal academic network meeting === == Collaborations == POSC Caesar is collaborating with a number of standardization bodies, including: Mimosa: collaboration on open information standards for Operations and Maintenance mainly for the downstream oil and gas industry; FIATECH: collaboration on open information standards for life cycle data of capital projects; Energistics: collaboration on information standards for the upstream oil and gas industry, including WITSML and PRODML; OASIS: collaboration on e-business standards; ISO TC184/SC4: the host of the ISO 15926 standard.
Read more →
OpenVX

OpenVX is an open, royalty-free standard for cross-platform acceleration of computer vision applications. It is designed by the Khronos Group to facilitate portable, optimized and power-efficient processing of methods for vision algorithms. This is aimed for embedded and real-time programs within computer vision and related scenarios. It uses a connected graph representation of operations. == Overview == OpenVX specifies a higher level of abstraction for programming computer vision use cases than compute frameworks such as OpenCL. The high level makes the programming easy and the underlying execution will be efficient on different computing architectures. This is done while having a consistent and portable vision acceleration API. OpenVX is based on a connected graph of vision nodes that can execute the preferred chain of operations. It uses an opaque memory model, allowing to move image data between the host (CPU) memory and accelerator, such as GPU memory. As a result, the OpenVX implementation can optimize the execution through various techniques, such as acceleration on various processing units or dedicated hardware. This architecture facilitates applications programmed in OpenVX on different systems with different power and performance, including battery-sensitive, vision-enabled, wearable displays. OpenVX is complementary to the open source vision library OpenCV. OpenVX in some applications offers a better optimized graph management than OpenCV. == History == OpenVX 1.0 specification was released in October 2014. OpenVX sample implementation was released in December 2014. OpenVX 1.1 specification was released on May 2, 2016. OpenVX 1.2 was released on May 1, 2017. Updated OpenVX adopters program and OpenVX 1.2 conformance test suite was released on November 21, 2017. OpenVX 1.2.1 was released on November 27, 2018. OpenVX 1.3 was released on October 22, 2019. == Implementations, frameworks and libraries == AMD MIVisionX Archived 2019-08-05 at the Wayback Machine - for AMD's CPUs and GPUs. Cadence - for Cadence Design Systems's Tensilica Vision DSPs. Imagination - for Imagination Technologies's PowerVR GPUs Synopsys - for Synopsys' DesignWare EV Vision Processors Texas Instruments’ OpenVX (TIOVX) - for Texas Instruments’ Jacinto™ ADAS SoCs. NVIDIA VisionWorks - for CUDA-capable Nvidia GPUs and SoCs. OpenVINO - for Intel's CPUs, GPUs, VPUs, and FPGAs.
Read more →
Irwin Sobel

Irwin Sobel (born September 12, 1940) is a scientist and researcher in digital image processing. == Biography == Irwin Sobel was born in New York City. He graduated from MIT in 1961 and completed his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project (SAIL) with thesis Camera Models and Machine Perception. His Ph.D. advisor was Jerome A. Feldman. Starting in 1973, he spent nine years doing postdoctoral research at Columbia University. After 1982, he worked as a Senior Researcher at HP Labs. == Sobel operator == In 1968, Sobel gave a talk entitled "An Isotropic 3x3 Image Gradient Operator" at SAIL; this method became known as the Sobel operator. It was developed jointly with a colleague, Gary Feldman, also at SAIL.
Read more →
Thinking Machines Lab

Thinking Machines Lab Inc. is an American artificial intelligence (AI) startup founded by Mira Murati, the former chief technology officer of OpenAI. The company was founded in February 2025, and by July had completed an early-stage funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, raising $2 billion at a valuation of $12 billion overall from investors such as Nvidia, AMD, Cisco, and Jane Street. The company is based in San Francisco and structured as a public benefit corporation. == History == By its launch in February 2025, Thinking Machines Lab was reported to have hired about 30 researchers and engineers from competitors including OpenAI, Meta AI, and Mistral AI. Its founding team members include Barret Zoph, former OpenAI VP of Research (Post-Training), Lilian Weng, former OpenAI VP, and OpenAI cofounder John Schulman, who joined after a brief stint at the lab's competitor Anthropic. In January 2026, it was reported that Barret Zoph and Luke Metz, departed the startup to return to OpenAI. Other former OpenAI employees who have been hired include Jonathan Lachman and Andrew Tulloch (although Tulloch departed after getting recruited for Meta Superintelligence Labs). Thinking Machines Lab's advisers include Bob McGrew, previously OpenAI's chief research officer, and Alec Radford, who was a lead researcher for OpenAI. On October 1, 2025, it announced Tinker, an API for fine-tuning language models. Users would submit jobs through the API for fine-tuning one of the various open-weight models supported. The Lab would run the jobs on its internal clusters and training infrastructure. == Business structure == Thinking Machines Lab grants Mira Murati a deciding vote on board matters, weighted to provide her with a majority decision-making capability. Additionally, founding shareholders possess votes weighted 100 times greater than those of regular shareholders. In July 2025, Andreessen Horowitz was reported to have led the company's initial funding round, raising "about $2 billion at a valuation of $12 billion". The government of Albania (Murati's country of origin) was also included in this round, making a $10 million investment which required an amendment to the country's 2025 budget. == Partnership == In March 2026, Thinking Machines Lab announced a strategic partnership with NVIDIA involving an undisclosed investment and a multi-year agreement to deploy one gigawatt of Vera Rubin computing capacity.
Read more →
Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, also referred to as SB-53, is a 2025 California law which mandates increased transparency for companies building artificial intelligence. SB-53 is primarily focused on assessing and reducing potential catastrophic risks from AI, and is the first bill addressing such risks to be passed into law in America. The bill requires companies to create publicly accessible documents assessing potential "catastrophic risk[s]" from their AI models, as well as publishing documentation on how the model incorporates national and international safety standards. SB-53 also sets up whistleblower protections and procedures for alerting the government to a "critical safety incident". == History == SB-53 was preceded in 2024 by the unsuccessful Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act ("SB-1047"), a proposed bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Afterwords, Newsom created a "Joint California AI Policy Working Group" to provide recommendations for AI regulation, which guided the drafting of SB-53. Senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill on January 7, 2025, and after a series of amendments, SB-53 passed the Senate 29-8 on September 13. Governor Gavin Newsom approved the bill on September 25, passing it into law. == Provisions == SB-53 applies primarily to companies making at least $500 million in yearly gross revenue. It defines a “frontier model” as any AI trained with over 1026 FLOPS (including fine-tuning), including unreleased internal models. Both the financial and computational thresholds must be met before most of the law is applied, although the threshold can be lowered or otherwise updated by the California Department of Technology in an annual review starting in 2027. Most of the bill's provisions are focused on "catastrophic risks" from AI, which are defined as incidents in which a model contributes to more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or causes more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in economic damage from AI-assisted acts (such as cyberattacks or the creation of biological weapons). The bill requires companies to provide publicly accessible safety frameworks for frontier AI models, describing how the company tests for catastrophic risk from its AI, and how it implements protections against such risks. This includes addressing the possibility that the AI may attempt to circumvent internal guardrails or oversight mechanisms. (Certain safety incidents, such as dangerously deceptive model behavior, physical injury, or death, must be reported to California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within 15 days, unless the incident poses imminent physical risk, in which case it must be reported immediately.) The company must follow its published framework, and if any changes are made, the framework should be updated within 30 days, and justification for said changes must also be made public. Additionally, all frontier companies are required to publish basic information about newly released frontier models (such as terms of service, supported languages, and intended use), although only large companies (making over $500 million annually) need to publish full safety frameworks. SB-53 also establishes various whistleblower protections for covered employees. Large companies must have anonymous whistleblowing channels in place which protect employees from retaliation from reporting risks to state or federal authorities if they have reasonable cause to believe that their employer is substantially risking public health and safety.
Read more →
Marco Camisani Calzolari

Marco Camisani Calzolari (born March 1969) is an Italian British university professor, author, and television personality specializing in digital communications, transformation, and artificial intelligence. He advises the Italian government and police on ethical AI and digital safety and hosts the digital segment of the Italian news show Striscia la Notizia. His research gained international attention in 2012 after creating an algorithm claiming to identify real Twitter users from fake users of bots. Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded as an Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police and the Knight of the Italian Republic. == Biography == Camisani Calzolari was born in Milan, Italy where he began his television career, hosting on local provider LA7 in (2001). In 2008 Camisani Calzolari moved to the UK where he founded multiple digital start-ups. He is now a naturalised British citizen and applied to become a "Freeman of the City" in June 2022. In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari began serving as the Chair and Adjunct Professor of the elective course Cyber-Humanities within the Degree Programme in Medicine and Surgery at Università Vita-Salute S.Raffaele in Milan. On the 14th of May 2024, Camisani Calzolari was awarded the Knight of the Italian Republic (Order of the Star of Italy). In 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari was awarded the title of Honorary Police Officer by the Italian State Police for his commitment to combating cybercrime and promoting digital security. He also received the Keynes Sraffa Award 2024 from the Italian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the UK. Additionally, he was honored with the University Seal by Università degli Studi della Tuscia (Viterbo) for his efforts in disseminating knowledge both in Italy and abroad. == Academic career == Camisani Calzolari began his academic career at the Università Statale di Milano in 2007, until chairing a course on Corporate Communication and Digital Languages at the IULM University of Milan between 2007 and 2010. During this time Camisani Calzolari published his first written work under the title 'Impresa 4.0'. After moving to London, Camisani Calzolari focussed on digital start-ups including 'Digitalevaluation ltd' where he would publish the results of his Twitter algorithm study. Following its publication, he accepted a role as Affiliate Practitioner at the Centre for Culture Media & Regulation (CCMR), University of Brunel London, and subsequently another role at a British University as Lecturer in Digital Communication at the LCA Business School. Camisani Calzolari returned to Italy to lecture on Interactive Digital Communication at the University of Milan. From 2017 to 2023, he held various roles at the European University of Rome, including Adjunct Professor and Chair in Digital Communication, and published The Fake News Bible in 2018. In 2024 he became the Scientific Coordinator for a Master's program at Università San Raffaele in Milan. === Twitter fake followers study === In 2012, Camisani Calzolari's research came into the focus of the public eye following the publication of his findings in a study analysing the followers of high-profile public figures and corporations. He developed a computer algorithm claiming to be able to distinguish real followers from computer-generated "bots". The algorithm compiled data correlative of human activity such as having a name, image, physical address, using punctuation and cross-account activity. Genuine Twitter users were considered to have written at least 50 posts and possessed over 30 followers themselves. The findings led to scrutiny of several individuals and corporations for allegedly purchasing followers. === Publications === Camisani Calzolari is best for known for his work in improving accessibility to digital and tech solutions for everyday business and personal use. His work in digital and communications has been included in several publications including: Cyberhumanism (2023) The Fake News Bible (2018), First Digital Aid for Business (2015), The Digital World (2013), Escape from Facebook (2012), Enterprise 4.0. Camisani Calzolari was also the subject of a University College London (UCL) case study titled Marco Camisani-Calzolari: the Digital Renaissance Man. == Government work == Since 2023, he is a member of the Coordination Committee on Artificial Intelligence at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and an advisor in Digital Skills and Designer of initiatives for the Department for Digital Transformation. He also serves as the official spokesperson for the State Police, educating the public on preventing digital threats, avoiding digital scams, and explaining criminal case. Since August 2024, Marco Camisani Calzolari has served as an expert for the Italian Agency for the National Cybersecurity (ACN). In October of the same year, he also became a member of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice working group for the European Commission. == Television work == Camisani Calzolari hosts a digital segment for Striscia la Notizia, an Italian satirical television program on the Mediaset-controlled Canale 5. He presented on weekly segments that include: RAI 1 – Digital First Aid (TV Program – 2014 to 2017) in the program "Uno Mattina" as a digital expert; RTL 102.5 – Technology Space (Radio Program – 2012 to 2017) in the morning news program as a digital expert (100 episodes from 2012 to 2017); DIGITALK Talkshow (2004) as host of Digitalk; Misterweb (TV Program – 2001 to 2002), he presented the TV program “MisterWeb”, on "LA7". Marco Camisani Calzolari was a testimonial for several institutional communication campaigns by the Italian Department of Digital Transformation. These include initiatives promoting the Punti Digitale Facile, raising awareness about the NIS2 Directive for cybersecurity, and advocating for the adoption of the Electronic Identity Card (CIE).
Read more →
Operational image

An operational image, also known as operative image, is an image that serves a functional, rather than aesthetic, purpose. Operational images are not intended to be viewed by people as representations of the real world; they are created to be used as instruments in performing some task or operation, often by machine automation. Operational images are used in a wide variety of applications, such as weapons targeting and guidance systems, and assisting surgeons performing robot-assisted surgery. The term "operational image" was first coined in 2000 by German filmmaker Harun Farocki in the first part of his three-part audiovisual installation, Eye/Machine. Farocki's installation included operational images used by militaries, such as weapons guidance and targeting systems. Eye/Machine featured images shown to the public by the United States military from the cameras used by laser-guided missiles in the Gulf War. Farocki defined operational images as "Images without a social goal, not for edification, not for reflection," and that they "do not represent an object, but rather are part of an operation." According to Volker Pantenburg, operational images are more accurately characterized as "visualizations of data". He describes operational images as a "working image" or an image that "performs work". Operational images are ubiquitous in modern society, used for a variety of military and non-military applications, such as inspecting sewer piping, and assisting surgeons performing robotic surgery.
Read more →
Computer game bot Turing test

The computer game bot Turing test is a variant of the Turing test, where a human judge viewing and interacting with a virtual world must distinguish between other humans and video game bots, both interacting with the same virtual world. This variant was first proposed in 2008 by Associate Professor Philip Hingston of Edith Cowan University, and implemented through a tournament called the 2K BotPrize. == History == The computer game bot Turing test was proposed to advance the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and computational intelligence with respect to video games. It was considered that a poorly implemented bot implied a subpar game, so a bot that would be capable of passing this test, and therefore might be indistinguishable from a human player, would directly improve the quality of a game. It also served to debunk a flawed notion that "game AI is a solved problem." Emphasis is placed on a game bot that interacts with other players in a multiplayer environment. Unlike a bot that simply needs to make optimal human-like decisions to play or beat a game, this bot must make the same decisions while also convincing another in-game player of its human-likeness. == Implementation == The computer game bot Turing test was designed to test a bot's ability to interact with a game environment in comparison with a human player; simply 'winning' was insufficient. This evolved into a contest with a few important goals in mind: There are three participants: a human player, a computer-game bot, and a judge. The bot needs to appear more human-like than the human player. Judge scores are not bipolar — both human and bot can be scored anywhere on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=not humanlike, 5=human). All three participants are to be indistinguishable in the arena, with the exception of a randomly generated name tag, so as to reduce the chance of random elements such as name or appearance influencing the judges. Chat is disabled throughout the match. Bots were not given omniscient powers as they may be in other games. Bots must react only to the data that might be reasonably available to a human player. Human participants were of a moderate skill range, with no participant either ignorant to the game or capable of playing at a professional level. In 2008, the first 2K BotPrize tournament took place. The contest was held with the game Unreal Tournament 2004 as the platform. Contestants created their bots in advance using the GameBots interface. GameBots had some modifications made so as to adhere to the above conditions, such as removing data about vantage points or weapon damage that unfairly informed the bots of relevant strengths/weaknesses that a human would otherwise need to learn. == Tournament == The first BotPrize Tournament was held on 17 December 2008, as part of the 2008 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games in Australia. Each competing team was given time to set up and adjust their bots to the modified game client, although no coding changes were allowed at that point. The tournament was run in rounds, each a 10-minute death match. Judges were the last to join the server and every judge observed every player and every bot exactly once, although the pairing of players and bots did change. When the tournament ended, no bot was rated as more human than any player. In subsequent tournaments, run during 2009–2011, bots achieved scores that were increasingly human-like, but no contestant had won the BotPrize in any of these contests. In 2012, the 2K BotPrize was held once again, and two teams programmed bots that achieved scores greater than those of human players. == Successful bots == To date, there have been two successfully programmed bots that passed the computer game bot Turing test: UT^2, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, emphasized a bot that adjusted its behaviour based on previously observed human behaviour and neuroevolution. The team has made their bot available, although a copy of Unreal Tournament 2004 is required. Mihai Polceanu, a doctoral student from Romania, focused on creating a bot that would mimic opponent reactions, in a sense 'borrowing' the human-like nature of the opponent. These victors succeeded in the year 2012, Alan Turing's centenary year. == Aftermath == The outcome of a bot that appears more human-like than a human player is possibly overstated, since in the tournament in which the bots succeeded, the average 'humanness' rating of the human players was only 41.4%. This showcases some limits of this Turing test, since the results demonstrate that human behaviour is more complicated and quantitative than was accounted for. In light of this, the BotPrize competition organizers will increase the difficulty in upcoming years with new challenges, forcing competitors to improve their bots. It is also believed that methods and techniques developed for the computer game bot Turing test will be useful in fields other than video games, such as virtual training environments and in improving Human–robot interaction. == Contrasts to the Turing test == The computer game bot Turing test differs from the traditional or generic Turing test in a number of ways: Unlike the traditional Turing test, for example the Chatterbot-style contest held annually by the Loebner Prize competition, the humans who played against the Computer Game Bots are not trying to convince judges they are the human; rather, they want to win the game (i.e., by achieving the highest kill score). Judges are not restricted to awarding only one participant in a match as the 'human' and the other as the 'non-human.' This emphasizes more qualitative rather than polarized findings. With regards to a successful video game bot, this is not to be confused with a claim that the bot is 'intelligent,' whereas a machine that 'passed' the Turing test would arguably have some evidence for its Chatterbot's 'intelligence.' The game Unreal Tournament 2004 was chosen for its commercial availability and its interface for creating bots, GameBots. This limitation on medium is a sharp contrast to the Turing test, which emphasizes a conversation, where possible questions are vastly more numerous than the set of possible actions available in any specific video game. The available information to the participants, humans and bots, is not equal. Humans interact through vision and sound, whereas bots interact with data and events. The judges cannot introduce new events (e.g., a lava pit) to aid in differentiating between human and bot, whereas in a Chatterbot designed system, judges may theoretically ask any question in any manner. The two participants and the judge take part in a three-way interaction, unlike, for example, the paired two-way interaction of the Loebner Prize Contest.
Read more →
Logico-linguistic modeling

Logico-linguistic modeling is a method for building knowledge-based systems with a learning capability using conceptual models from soft systems methodology, modal predicate logic, and logic programming languages such as Prolog. == Overview == Logico-linguistic modeling is a six-stage method developed primarily for building knowledge-based systems (KBS), but it also has application in manual decision support systems and information source analysis. Logico-linguistic models have a superficial similarity to John F. Sowa's conceptual graphs; both use bubble style diagrams, both are concerned with concepts, both can be expressed in logic and both can be used in artificial intelligence. However, logico-linguistic models are very different in both logical form and in their method of construction. Logico-linguistic modeling was developed in order to solve theoretical problems found in the soft systems method for information system design. The main thrust of the research into has been to show how soft systems methodology (SSM), a method of systems analysis, can be extended into artificial intelligence. == Background == SSM employs three modeling devices i.e. rich pictures, root definitions, and conceptual models of human activity systems. The root definitions and conceptual models are built by stakeholders themselves in an iterative debate organized by a facilitator. The strengths of this method lie, firstly, in its flexibility, the fact that it can address any problem situation, and, secondly, in the fact that the solution belongs to the people in the organization and is not imposed by an outside analyst. Information requirements analysis (IRA) took the basic SSM method a stage further and showed how the conceptual models could be developed into a detailed information system design. IRA calls for the addition of two modeling devices: "Information Categories", which show the required information inputs and outputs from the activities identified in an expanded conceptual model; and the "Maltese Cross", a matrix which shows the inputs and outputs from the information categories and shows where new information processing procedures are required. A completed Maltese Cross is sufficient for the detailed design of a transaction processing system. The initial impetus to the development of logico-linguistic modeling was a concern with the theoretical problem of how an information system can have a connection to the physical world. This is a problem in both IRA and more established methods (such as SSADM) because none base their information system design on models of the physical world. IRA designs are based on a notional conceptual model and SSADM is based on models of the movement of documents. The solution to these problems provided a formula that was not limited to the design of transaction processing systems but could be used for the design of KBS with learning capability. == The six stages of logico-linguistic modeling == The logico-linguistic modeling method comprises six stages. === 1. Systems analysis === In the first stage logico-linguistic modeling uses SSM for systems analysis. This stage seeks to structure the problem in the client organization by identifying stakeholders, modelling organizational objectives and discussing possible solutions. At this stage it not assumed that a KBS will be a solution and logico-linguistic modeling often produces solutions that do not require a computerized KBS. Expert systems tend to capture the expertise, of individuals in different organizations, on the same topic. By contrast a KBS, produced by logico-linguistic modeling, seeks to capture the expertise of individuals in the same organization on different topics. The emphasis is on the elicitation of organizational or group knowledge rather than individual experts. In logico-linguistic modeling the stakeholders become the experts. The end point of this stage is an SSM style conceptual models such as figure 1. === 2. Language creation === According to the theory behind logico-linguistic modeling the SSM conceptual model building process is a Wittgensteinian language-game in which the stakeholders build a language to describe the problem situation. The logico-linguistic model expresses this language as a set of definitions, see figure 2. === 3. Knowledge elicitation === After the model of the language has been built putative knowledge about the real world can be added by the stakeholders. Traditional SSM conceptual models contain only one logical connective (a necessary condition). In order to represent causal sequences, "sufficient conditions" and "necessary and sufficient conditions" are also required. In logico-linguistic modeling this deficiency is remedied by two addition types of connective. The outcome of stage three is an empirical model, see figure 3. === 4. Knowledge representation === Modal predicate logic (a combination of modal logic and predicate logic) is used as the formal method of knowledge representation. The connectives from the language model are logically true (indicated by the "L" modal operator) and connective added at the knowledge elicitation stage are possibility true (indicated by the "M" modal operator). Before proceeding to stage 5, the models are expressed in logical formulae. === 5. Computer code === Formulae in predicate logic translate easily into the Prolog artificial intelligence language. The modality is expressed by two different types of Prolog rules. Rules taken from the language creation stage of model building process are treated as incorrigible. While rules from the knowledge elicitation stage are marked as hypothetical rules. The system is not confined to decision support but has a built in learning capability. === 6. Verification === A knowledge based system built using this method verifies itself. Verification takes place when the KBS is used by the clients. It is an ongoing process that continues throughout the life of the system. If the stakeholder beliefs about the real world are mistaken this will be brought out by the addition of Prolog facts that conflict with the hypothetical rules. It operates in accordance to the classic principle of falsifiability found in the philosophy of science == Applications == === Knowledge-based computer systems === Logico-linguistic modeling has been used to produce fully operational computerized knowledge based systems, such as one for the management of diabetes patients in a hospital out-patients department. === Manual decision support === In other projects the need to move into Prolog was considered unnecessary because the printed logico-linguistic models provided an easy-to-use guide to decision making. For example, a system for mortgage loan approval === Information source analysis === In some cases a KBS could not be built because the organization did not have all the knowledge needed to support all their activities. In these cases logico-linguistic modeling showed shortcomings in the supply of information and where more was needed. For example, a planning department in a telecoms company == Criticism == While logico-linguistic modeling overcomes the problems found in SSM's transition from conceptual model to computer code, it does so at the expense of increased stakeholder constructed model complexity. The benefits of this complexity are questionable and this modeling method may be much harder to use than other methods. This contention has been exemplified by subsequent research. An attempt by researchers to model buying decisions across twelve companies using logico-linguistic modeling required simplification of the models and removal of the modal elements.
Read more →
The Machine Question

The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics is a 2012 nonfiction book by David J. Gunkel that discusses the evolution of the theory of human ethical responsibilities toward non-human things and to what extent intelligent, autonomous machines can be considered to have legitimate moral responsibilities and what legitimate claims to moral consideration they can hold. The book was awarded as the 2012 Best Single Authored Book by the Communication Ethics Division of the National Communication Association. == Content == The book is spread across three chapters, with the first two chapters focusing on an overall review of the history of philosophy and its discussion of moral agency, moral rights, human rights, and animal rights and the third chapter focusing on what defines "thingness" and why machines have been excluded from moral and ethical consideration due to a misuse of the patient/agent binary. The first chapter, titled Moral Agency, breaks down the history of said agency based on what it included and excluded in various parts of history. Gunkel also raises the conflict between discussing the morality of humans toward objects and the theory of the philosophy of technology that "technology is merely a tool: a means to an end". The main issue, he explains, in defining what constitutes an appropriate moral agent is that there will be things left outside of what is included, as the definition is based on a set of characteristics that will inherently not be all-encompassing. The subject of consciousness is broached and subsequently derided by Gunkel because of it being one of the main arguments against machine rights, while Gunkel points out that no "settled definition" of the term exists and that he considers it no better than a synonym used for "the occultish soul". In addition, the issue of the other minds problem entails that no proper understanding of consciousness can come to pass due to the inability to properly understand the mind of a being that is not oneself. The second chapter, titled Moral Patiency, focuses on the patient end of the topic and discusses the expansion of the fields of animal studies and environmental studies. Gunkel describes moral patients as the ones that are to be the object of moral consideration and deserve such consideration even if they lack their own agency, such as animals, thus allowing moral consideration itself to be broader and more inclusive. The topic of other minds is discussed again when examining the question of whether animals can suffer, a question that Gunkel ultimately abandons because it encounters the same problems that the topic of consciousness does. Especially because the subject of animal rights is often only afforded for the animals deemed to be "cute", but often not including "reptiles, insects, or microbes". Gunkel continues on to examine environmental ethics and information ethics, but finds them to be too anthropocentric, just as all the other examined models have been. The third chapter, titled Thinking Otherwise, proposes a combination of Heideggerian ontology and Levinasian ethics to properly discuss the otherness of technology and machines, but finds that the patient/agent binary is unable to be properly extended to confine the extent of "the machine question". In discussing the land ethic philosophy espoused by Aldo Leopold, Gunkel proposes that it is the entire relationship between agent and patient that should have moral consideration and not a specific definition based on either side, as each part contributes to the relationship as a whole and cannot be removed without breaking that relationship. == Critical reception == Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries writer R. S. Stansbury explained that the book is able to use simple examples to discuss difficult topics and separate ideas and that it would be "useful for philosophy students, and for engineering students interested in exploring the ethical implications of their work". Dominika Dzwonkowska, writing for International Philosophical Quarterly, stated that the "unprecedented value of the book is that Gunkel not only analyzes important aspects of the immediate problem but also that he places his discussion in the context of philosophical discussions on such related issues as rights discourse." Mark Coeckelbergh in Ethics and Information Technology noted that focusing on the question itself of the machine question allows further exploration of machine ethics and the expansion of general ethics and that the book's questions point out that "good, critical philosophical reflection on machines is not only about how we should cope with machines, but also about how we (should) think and what role technology plays (and should play) in this thinking." A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews by Colin Allen criticized some of Gunkel's methodology and the indecisiveness of his ultimate answer to the machine question, but also acknowledged that the book "succeeded in connecting the ethics of robots and AI to a much broader ethical discussion than has been represented in the literature on machine ethics to date". Blay Whitby, in a review for AISB Quarterly, lauded The Machine Question for its "clear exposition" and wide range of references to other works, concluding that the book is "essential reading for philosophers interested in AI, robot ethics, or animal ethics". In a twin review of The Machine Question and Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robots by Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology reviewer Jeff Shaw called Gunkel's book a good introduction to the "complex field of robot ethics" and that both books are "highly recommended to both the general reader as well as to experts in the field of robotics, philosophy, and ethics." In a 2017 paper for Ethics and Information Technology, Katharyn Hogan investigated whether the machine question presented by Gunkel in the book is any different from the longstanding animal question. She concludes that the real question that is revealed from this discussion is whether humans deserve any moral preference over artificial life in the first place.
Read more →
Argumentation framework

In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Read more →
Shane Legg

Shane Legg (born 1973 or 1974) is a machine learning researcher and entrepreneur. With Demis Hassabis and Mustafa Suleyman, he cofounded DeepMind Technologies (later bought by Google and now called Google DeepMind), and works there as the chief AGI scientist. He is also known for his academic work on artificial general intelligence, including his thesis supervised by Marcus Hutter. == Early life and education == Legg attended Rotorua Lakes High School in Rotorua, on New Zealand's North Island. He completed his undergraduate studies at Waikato University in 1996. Also in 1996, he obtained his MSc degree with a thesis entitled "Solomonoff Induction", with Cristian S. Calude at the University of Auckland. == Research interests == In the early 2000s, Legg re-introduced and popularized with Ben Goertzel the term "artificial general intelligence" (AGI), to describe an AI that can do practically any cognitive task a human can do. At that time, talking about AGI "would put you on the lunatic fringe". Legg is known for his concern of existential risk from AI, highlighted in 2011 in an interview on LessWrong and in 2023 he signed the statement on AI risk of extinction. == Career == Before his PhD and before cofounding DeepMind, Shane Legg worked at "a number of software development positions at private companies", including the "big data firm Adaptive Intelligence" and the startup WebMind founded by Ben Goertzel. === Research === Legg later obtained a PhD at the Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research (IDSIA), a joint research institute of USI Università della Svizzera italiana and SUPSI. He worked on theoretical models of super intelligent machines (AIXI) with Marcus Hutter, and completed in 2008 his doctoral thesis entitled "Machine Super Intelligence". He then went on to complete a postdoctoral fellowship in finance at USI, and began a further fellowship at University College London's Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit. === DeepMind === Demis Hassabis and Shane Legg first met in 2009 at University College London, where Legg was a postdoctoral researcher. In 2010, Legg cofounded the start-up DeepMind Technologies along with Demis Hassabis and Mustafa Suleyman. DeepMind Technologies was bought in 2014 by Google. After the merge with Google Brain in 2023, the company is now known as Google DeepMind. According to a 2017 article, a significant part of his job as the chief scientist was to supervise recruitment, to decide where DeepMind should focus its efforts, and to lead DeepMind's AI safety work. As of July 2023, Legg works at Google DeepMind as the Chief AGI Scientist. == Awards and honors == Legg was awarded the $10,000 prize of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence for his PhD done in 2008. Legg was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2019 Birthday Honours for services to the science and technology sector and to investment.
Read more →
Semantic parameterization

Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process for expressing natural language descriptions of a domain in first-order predicate logic. The process yields a formalization of natural language sentences in Description Logic to answer the who, what and where questions in the Inquiry-Cycle Model (ICM) developed by Colin Potts and his colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The parameterization process complements the Knowledge Acquisition and autOmated Specification (KAOS) method, which formalizes answers to the when, why and how ICM questions in Temporal Logic, to complete the ICM formalization. The artifacts used in the parameterization process include a dictionary that aligns the domain lexicon with unique concepts, distinguishing between synonyms and polysemes, and several natural language patterns that aid in mapping common domain descriptions to formal specifications. == Relationship to other theories == Semantic Parameterization defines a meta-model consisting of eight roles that are domain-independent and reusable. Seven of these roles correspond to Jeffrey Gruber's thematic relations and case roles in Charles Fillmore's case grammar: The Inquiry-Cycle Model (ICM) was introduced to drive elicitation between engineers and stakeholders in requirements engineering. The ICM consists of who, what, where, why, how and when questions. All but the when questions, which require a Temporal Logic to represent such phenomena, have been aligned with the meta-model in semantic parameterization using Description Logic (DL). == Introduction with Example == The semantic parameterization process is based on Description Logic, wherein the TBox is composed of words in a dictionary, including nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and the ABox is partitioned into two sets of assertions: 1) those assertions that come from words in the natural language statement, called the grounding, and 2) those assertions that are inferred by the (human) modeler, called the meta-model. Consider the following unstructured natural language statement (UNLS) (see Breaux et al. for an extended discussion): UNLS1.0 The customer1,1 must not share2,2 the access-code3,3 of the customer1,1 with someone4,4 who is not the provider5,4. The modeler first identifies intensional and extensional polysemes and synonyms, denoted by the subscripts: the first subscript uniquely refers to the intensional index, i.e., the same first index in two or more words refer to the same concept in the TBox; the second subscript uniquely refers to the extensional index, i.e., two same second index in two or more words refer to the same individual in the ABox. This indexing step aligns words in the statement and concepts in the dictionary. Next, the modeler identifies concepts from the dictionary to compose the meta-model. The following table illustrates the complete DL expression that results from applying semantic parameterization.
Read more →