AI Avatar Tools

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

IRows

iRows was a web-based spreadsheet in beta with a GUI similar to the traditional desktop-based spreadsheet applications, such as Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org. It was shut down on December 31, 2006, after it was announced that its two founders had been hired by Google. iRows used Ajax and XML. It was described as an example of a Web 2.0 system. iRows supported conventional spreadsheet features functions, value formatting and charts and added web oriented spreadsheet capabilities like collaboration (multiple people using a shared spreadsheet, sending a spreadsheet as a link instead of an attachment and ability to publish spreadsheets on other web pages (e.g. blogs).
Read more →
Grokking (machine learning)

In machine learning, grokking, or delayed generalization, is a phenomenon observed in some settings where a model abruptly transitions from overfitting (performing well only on training data) to generalizing (performing well on both training and test data), after many training iterations with little or no improvement on the held-out data. This contrasts with what is typically observed in machine learning, where generalization occurs gradually alongside improved performance on training data. == Origin == Grokking was introduced by OpenAI researcher Alethea Power and colleagues in the January 2022 paper "Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets". It is derived from the word grok coined by Robert Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land. In ML research, "grokking" is not used as a synonym for "generalization"; rather, it names a sometimes-observed delayed‑generalization training phenomenon in which training and held‑out performance do not improve in tandem, and in which held‑out performance rises abruptly later. Authors also analyze the "grokking time", the epoch or step at which this transition occurs in those scenarios. == Interpretations == Grokking can be understood as a phase transition during the training process. In particular, recent work has shown that grokking may be due to a complexity phase transition in the model during training. While grokking has been thought of as largely a phenomenon of relatively shallow models, grokking has been observed in deep neural networks and non-neural models and is the subject of active research. One potential explanation is that the weight decay (a component of the loss function that penalizes higher values of the neural network parameters, also called regularization) slightly favors the general solution that involves lower weight values, but that is also harder to find. According to Neel Nanda, the process of learning the general solution may be gradual, even though the transition to the general solution occurs more suddenly later. Recent theories have hypothesized that grokking occurs when neural networks transition from a "lazy training" regime where the weights do not deviate far from initialization, to a "rich" regime where weights abruptly begin to move in task-relevant directions. Follow-up empirical and theoretical work has accumulated evidence in support of this perspective, and it offers a unifying view of earlier work as the transition from lazy to rich training dynamics is known to arise from properties of adaptive optimizers, weight decay, initial parameter weight norm, and more. This perspective is complementary to a unifying "pattern learning speeds" framework that links grokking and double descent; within this view, delayed generalization can arise across training time ("epoch‑wise") or across model size ("model‑wise"), and the authors report "model‑wise grokking".
Read more →
Data augmentation

Data augmentation is a statistical technique which allows maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Data augmentation has important applications in Bayesian analysis, and the technique is widely used in machine learning to reduce overfitting when training machine learning models, achieved by training models on several slightly-modified copies of existing data. == Synthetic oversampling techniques for traditional machine learning == Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is a method used to address imbalanced datasets in machine learning. In such datasets, the number of samples in different classes varies significantly, leading to biased model performance. For example, in a medical diagnosis dataset with 90 samples representing healthy individuals and only 10 samples representing individuals with a particular disease, traditional algorithms may struggle to accurately classify the minority class. SMOTE rebalances the dataset by generating synthetic samples for the minority class. For instance, if there are 100 samples in the majority class and 10 in the minority class, SMOTE can create synthetic samples by randomly selecting a minority class sample and its nearest neighbors, then generating new samples along the line segments joining these neighbors. This process helps increase the representation of the minority class, improving model performance. == Data augmentation for image classification == When convolutional neural networks grew larger in mid-1990s, there was a lack of data to use, especially considering that some part of the overall dataset should be spared for later testing. It was proposed to perturb existing data with affine transformations to create new examples with the same labels, which were complemented by so-called elastic distortions in 2003, and the technique was widely used as of 2010s. Data augmentation can enhance CNN performance and acts as a countermeasure against CNN profiling attacks. Data augmentation has become fundamental in image classification, enriching training dataset diversity to improve model generalization and performance. The evolution of this practice has introduced a broad spectrum of techniques, including geometric transformations, color space adjustments, and noise injection. === Geometric Transformations === Geometric transformations alter the spatial properties of images to simulate different perspectives, orientations, and scales. Common techniques include: Affine Transformation Rotation: Rotating images by a specified degree to help models recognize objects at various angles. Reflection: Reflecting images horizontally or vertically to introduce variability in orientation. Translation: Shifting images in different directions to teach models positional invariance. Scaling Shear Mapping Cropping: Removing sections of the image to focus on particular features or simulate closer views. Elastic Distortion Morphing within the same class: Generating new samples by applying morphing techniques between two images belonging to the same class, thereby increasing intra-class diversity. === Color Space Transformations === Color space transformations modify the color properties of images, addressing variations in lighting, color saturation, and contrast. Techniques include: Brightness Adjustment: Varying the image's brightness to simulate different lighting conditions. Contrast Adjustment: Changing the contrast to help models recognize objects under various clarity levels. Saturation Adjustment: Altering saturation to prepare models for images with diverse color intensities. Color Jittering: Randomly adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue to introduce color variability. === Noise Injection === Injecting noise into images simulates real-world imperfections, teaching models to ignore irrelevant variations. Techniques involve: Gaussian Noise: Adding Gaussian noise mimics sensor noise or graininess. Salt and Pepper Noise: Introducing black or white pixels at random simulates sensor dust or dead pixels. == Data augmentation for signal processing == Residual or block bootstrap can be used for time series augmentation. === Biological signals === Synthetic data augmentation is of paramount importance for machine learning classification, particularly for biological data, which tend to be high dimensional and scarce. The applications of robotic control and augmentation in disabled and able-bodied subjects still rely mainly on subject-specific analyses. Data scarcity is notable in signal processing problems such as for Parkinson's Disease Electromyography signals, which are difficult to source - Zanini, et al. noted that it is possible to use a generative adversarial network (in particular, a DCGAN) to perform style transfer in order to generate synthetic electromyographic signals that corresponded to those exhibited by sufferers of Parkinson's Disease. The approaches are also important in electroencephalography (brainwaves). Wang, et al. explored the idea of using deep convolutional neural networks for EEG-Based Emotion Recognition, results show that emotion recognition was improved when data augmentation was used. A common approach is to generate synthetic signals by re-arranging components of real data. Lotte proposed a method of "Artificial Trial Generation Based on Analogy" where three data examples x 1 , x 2 , x 3 {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}} provide examples and an artificial x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} is formed which is to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} what x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} is to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} . A transformation is applied to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} to make it more similar to x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , the same transformation is then applied to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} which generates x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} . This approach was shown to improve performance of a Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier on three different datasets. Current research shows great impact can be derived from relatively simple techniques. For example, Freer observed that introducing noise into gathered data to form additional data points improved the learning ability of several models which otherwise performed relatively poorly. Tsinganos et al. studied the approaches of magnitude warping, wavelet decomposition, and synthetic surface EMG models (generative approaches) for hand gesture recognition, finding classification performance increases of up to +16% when augmented data was introduced during training. More recently, data augmentation studies have begun to focus on the field of deep learning, more specifically on the ability of generative models to create artificial data which is then introduced during the classification model training process. In 2018, Luo et al. observed that useful EEG signal data could be generated by Conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) which was then introduced to the training set in a classical train-test learning framework. The authors found classification performance was improved when such techniques were introduced. === Mechanical signals === The prediction of mechanical signals based on data augmentation brings a new generation of technological innovations, such as new energy dispatch, 5G communication field, and robotics control engineering. In 2022, Yang et al. integrate constraints, optimization and control into a deep network framework based on data augmentation and data pruning with spatio-temporal data correlation, and improve the interpretability, safety and controllability of deep learning in real industrial projects through explicit mathematical programming equations and analytical solutions.
Read more →
AI alignment

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), alignment aims to steer AI systems toward a person's or group's intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. An AI system is considered aligned if it advances the intended objectives. A misaligned AI system pursues unintended objectives. It is often difficult for AI designers to specify the full range of desired and undesired behaviors. Therefore, the designers often use simpler proxy goals, such as gaining human approval. But proxy goals can overlook necessary constraints or reward the AI system for merely appearing aligned. AI systems may also find loopholes that allow them to accomplish their proxy goals efficiently but in unintended, sometimes harmful, ways (reward hacking). Advanced AI systems may develop unwanted instrumental strategies, such as seeking power or self-preservation because such strategies help them achieve their assigned final goals. Furthermore, they might develop undesirable emergent goals that could be hard to detect before the system is deployed and encounters new situations and data distributions. Empirical research showed in 2024 that advanced large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI o1 or Claude 3 sometimes engage in strategic deception to achieve their goals or prevent them from being changed. Some of these issues affect existing commercial systems such as LLMs, robots, autonomous vehicles, and social media recommendation engines. Some AI researchers argue that more capable future systems will be more severely affected because these problems partially result from high capabilities. Many prominent AI researchers and AI company leaders have argued or asserted that AI is approaching human-like (AGI) and superhuman cognitive capabilities (ASI), and could endanger human civilization if misaligned. These include "AI godfathers" Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio and the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. These risks remain debated. AI alignment is a subfield of AI safety, the study of how to build safe AI systems. Other subfields of AI safety include robustness, monitoring, and capability control. Research challenges in alignment include instilling complex values in AI, developing honest AI, scalable oversight, auditing and interpreting AI models, and preventing emergent AI behaviors like power-seeking. Alignment research has connections to interpretability research, (adversarial) robustness, anomaly detection, calibrated uncertainty, formal verification, preference learning, safety-critical engineering, game theory, algorithmic fairness, and social sciences. == Objectives in AI == Programmers provide an AI system such as AlphaZero with an "objective function", in which they intend to encapsulate the goal(s) the AI is configured to accomplish. Such a system later populates a (possibly implicit) internal "model" of its environment. This model encapsulates all the agent's beliefs about the world. The AI then creates and executes whatever plan is calculated to maximize the value of its objective function. For example, when AlphaZero is trained on chess, it has a simple objective function of "+1 if AlphaZero wins, −1 if AlphaZero loses". During the game, AlphaZero attempts to execute whatever sequence of moves it judges most likely to attain the maximum value of +1. Similarly, a reinforcement learning system can have a "reward function" that allows the programmers to shape the AI's desired behavior. An evolutionary algorithm's behavior is shaped by a "fitness function". == Alignment problem == In 1960, AI pioneer Norbert Wiener described the AI alignment problem as follows: If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot interfere effectively [...] we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire. AI alignment refers to ensuring that an AI system's objectives match some target. The target is variously defined as the goals of the system's designers or users, widely shared values, objective ethical standards, legal requirements, or the intentions its designers would have if they were more informed and enlightened. In democratic AI alignment, the target is the values and preferences of median voters, which increases political legitimacy. AI alignment is an open problem for modern AI systems and is a research field within AI. Aligning AI involves two main challenges: carefully specifying the purpose of the system (outer alignment) and ensuring that the system adopts the specification robustly (inner alignment). Researchers also attempt to create AI models that have robust alignment, sticking to safety constraints even when users adversarially try to bypass them. === Specification gaming and side effects === To specify an AI system's purpose, AI designers typically provide an objective function, examples, or feedback to the system. But designers are often unable to completely specify all important values and constraints, so they resort to easy-to-specify proxy goals such as maximizing the approval of human overseers, who are fallible. As a result, AI systems can find loopholes that help them accomplish the specified objective efficiently but in unintended, possibly harmful ways. This tendency is known as specification gaming or reward hacking, and is an instance of Goodhart's law. As AI systems become more capable, they are often able to game their specifications more effectively. Specification gaming has been observed in numerous AI systems. OpenAI GPT models for programming—including in real-world cases—have been found to explicitly plan hacking the tests used to evaluate them to falsely appear successful (e.g., explicitly stating "let's hack"). When the company penalized this, many models learned to obfuscate their plans while continuing to hack the tests. Another system was trained to finish a simulated boat race by rewarding the system for hitting targets along the track, but the system achieved more reward by looping and crashing into the same targets indefinitely. A 2025 Palisade Research study found that when tasked to win at chess against a stronger opponent, some reasoning LLMs attempted to hack the game system, for example by modifying or entirely deleting their opponent. Some alignment researchers aim to help humans detect specification gaming and steer AI systems toward carefully specified objectives that are safe and useful to pursue. When a misaligned AI system is deployed, it can have consequential side effects. Social media platforms have been known to optimize their recommendation algorithms for click-through rates, causing user addiction on a global scale. Stanford researchers say that such recommender systems are misaligned with their users because they "optimize simple engagement metrics rather than a harder-to-measure combination of societal and consumer well-being". Explaining such side effects, Berkeley computer scientist Stuart J. Russell said that the omission of implicit constraints can cause harm: "A system [...] will often set [...] unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable. This is essentially the old story of the genie in the lamp, or the sorcerer's apprentice, or King Midas: you get exactly what you ask for, not what you want." Some researchers suggest that AI designers specify their desired goals by listing forbidden actions or by formalizing ethical rules (as with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics). But Russell and Norvig argue that this approach overlooks the complexity of human values: "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective." Additionally, even if an AI system fully understands human intentions, it may still disregard them, because following human intentions may not be its objective (unless it is already fully aligned). === Pressure to deploy unsafe systems === Commercial organizations sometimes have incentives to take shortcuts on safety and to deploy misaligned or unsafe AI systems. For example, social media recommender systems have been profitable despite creating unwanted addiction and polarization. Competitive pressure can also lead to a race to the bottom on AI safety standards. For example, OpenAI has been sued for releasing a ChatGPT version that encouraged suicide for some unstable users, a behavior the company had overlooked amid a rushed product release. Similarly, in 2018, a self-driving car killed a pedestrian (Elaine Herzberg) after engineers disabled the emergency braking system because it was oversensitive and slowed development. === Risks from advanced misaligned AI === Some researchers are interested in aligning increasingly advanced AI systems, as progress in AI development is rapid, and industry and governments are trying to build advan
Read more →
IT baseline protection

The IT baseline protection (German: IT-Grundschutz) approach from the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) is a methodology to identify and implement computer security measures in an organization. The aim is the achievement of an adequate and appropriate level of security for IT systems. To reach this goal the BSI recommends "well-proven technical, organizational, personnel, and infrastructural safeguards". Organizations and federal agencies show their systematic approach to secure their IT systems (e.g. Information Security Management System) by obtaining an ISO/IEC 27001 Certificate on the basis of IT-Grundschutz. == Overview baseline security == The term baseline security signifies standard security measures for typical IT systems. It is used in various contexts with somewhat different meanings. For example: Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer: Software tool focused on Microsoft operating system and services security Cisco security baseline: Vendor recommendation focused on network and network device security controls Nortel baseline security: Set of requirements and best practices with a focus on network operators ISO/IEC 13335-3 defines a baseline approach to risk management. This standard has been replaced by ISO/IEC 27005, but the baseline approach was not taken over yet into the 2700x series. There are numerous internal baseline security policies for organizations, The German BSI has a comprehensive baseline security standard, that is compliant with the ISO/IEC 27000-series == BSI IT baseline protection == The foundation of an IT baseline protection concept is initially not a detailed risk analysis. It proceeds from overall hazards. Consequently, sophisticated classification according to damage extent and probability of occurrence is ignored. Three protection needs categories are established. With their help, the protection needs of the object under investigation can be determined. Based on these, appropriate personnel, technical, organizational and infrastructural security measures are selected from the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs. The Federal Office for Security in Information Technology's IT Baseline Protection Catalogs offer a "cookbook recipe" for a normal level of protection. Besides probability of occurrence and potential damage extents, implementation costs are also considered. By using the Baseline Protection Catalogs, costly security analyses requiring expert knowledge are dispensed with, since overall hazards are worked with in the beginning. It is possible for the relative layman to identify measures to be taken and to implement them in cooperation with professionals. The BSI grants a baseline protection certificate as confirmation for the successful implementation of baseline protection. In stages 1 and 2, this is based on self declaration. In stage 3, an independent, BSI-licensed auditor completes an audit. Certification process internationalization has been possible since 2006. ISO/IEC 27001 certification can occur simultaneously with IT baseline protection certification. (The ISO/IEC 27001 standard is the successor of BS 7799-2). This process is based on the new BSI security standards. This process carries a development price which has prevailed for some time. Corporations having themselves certified under the BS 7799-2 standard are obliged to carry out a risk assessment. To make it more comfortable, most deviate from the protection needs analysis pursuant to the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs. The advantage is not only conformity with the strict BSI, but also attainment of BS 7799-2 certification. Beyond this, the BSI offers a few help aids like the policy template and the GSTOOL. One data protection component is available, which was produced in cooperation with the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information and the state data protection authorities and integrated into the IT Baseline Protection Catalog. This component is not considered, however, in the certification process. == Baseline protection process == The following steps are taken pursuant to the baseline protection process during structure analysis and protection needs analysis: The IT network is defined. IT structure analysis is carried out. Protection needs determination is carried out. A baseline security check is carried out. IT baseline protection measures are implemented. Creation occurs in the following steps: IT structure analysis (survey) Assessment of protection needs Selection of actions Running comparison of nominal and actual. === IT structure analysis === An IT network includes the totality of infrastructural, organizational, personnel, and technical components serving the fulfillment of a task in a particular information processing application area. An IT network can thereby encompass the entire IT character of an institution or individual division, which is partitioned by organizational structures as, for example, a departmental network, or as shared IT applications, for example, a personnel information system. It is necessary to analyze and document the information technological structure in question to generate an IT security concept and especially to apply the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs. Due to today's usually heavily networked IT systems, a network topology plan offers a starting point for the analysis. The following aspects must be taken into consideration: The available infrastructure, The organizational and personnel framework for the IT network, Networked and non-networked IT systems employed in the IT network. The communications connections between IT systems and externally, IT applications run within the IT network. === Protection needs determination === The purpose of the protection needs determination is to investigate what protection is sufficient and appropriate for the information and information technology in use. In this connection, the damage to each application and the processed information, which could result from a breach of confidentiality, integrity or availability, is considered. Important in this context is a realistic assessment of the possible follow-on damages. A division into the three protection needs categories "low to medium", "high" and "very high" has proved itself of value. "Public", "internal" and "secret" are often used for confidentiality. === Modelling === Heavily networked IT systems typically characterize information technology in government and business these days. As a rule, therefore, it is advantageous to consider the entire IT system and not just individual systems within the scope of an IT security analysis and concept. To be able to manage this task, it makes sense to logically partition the entire IT system into parts and to separately consider each part or even an IT network. Detailed documentation about its structure is prerequisite for the use of the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs on an IT network. This can be achieved, for example, via the IT structure analysis described above. The IT Baseline Protection Catalogs' components must ultimately be mapped onto the components of the IT network in question in a modelling step. === Baseline security check === The baseline security check is an organisational instrument offering a quick overview of the prevailing IT security level. With the help of interviews, the status quo of an existing IT network (as modelled by IT baseline protection) relative to the number of security measures implemented from the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs are investigated. The result is a catalog in which the implementation status "dispensable", "yes", "partly", or "no" is entered for each relevant measure. By identifying not yet, or only partially, implemented measures, improvement options for the security of the information technology in question are highlighted. The baseline security check gives information about measures, which are still missing (nominal vs. actual comparison). From this follows what remains to be done to achieve baseline protection through security. Not all measures suggested by this baseline check need to be implemented. Peculiarities are to be taken into account! It could be that several more or less unimportant applications are running on a server, which have lesser protection needs. In their totality, however, these applications are to be provided with a higher level of protection. This is called the (cumulation effect). The applications running on a server determine its need for protection. Several IT applications can run on an IT system. When this occurs, the application with the greatest need for protection determines the IT systems protection category. Conversely, it is conceivable that an IT application with great protection needs does not automatically transfer this to the IT system. This may happen because the IT system is configured redundantly, or because only an inconsequential part is running on it. This is called the (distribution effect). This is the case, fo
Read more →
Weak artificial intelligence

Weak artificial intelligence (weak AI) is artificial intelligence that implements a limited part of the mind, or, as narrow AI, artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), is focused on one narrow task. Weak AI is contrasted with strong AI, which can be interpreted in various ways: Artificial general intelligence (AGI): a machine with the ability to apply intelligence to any problem, rather than just one specific problem. Artificial superintelligence (ASI): a machine with a vastly superior intelligence to the average human being. Artificial consciousness: a machine that has consciousness, sentience and mind (John Searle uses "strong AI" in this sense). Narrow AI can be classified as being "limited to a single, narrowly defined task. Most modern AI systems would be classified in this category." Artificial general intelligence is conversely the opposite. == Applications and risks == Some examples of narrow AI are AlphaGo, self-driving cars, robot systems used in the medical field, and diagnostic doctors. Narrow AI systems are sometimes dangerous if unreliable. And the behavior that it follows can become inconsistent. It could be difficult for the AI to grasp complex patterns and get to a solution that works reliably in various environments. This "brittleness" can cause it to fail in unpredictable ways. Narrow AI failures can sometimes have significant consequences. It could for example cause disruptions in the electric grid, damage nuclear power plants, cause global economic problems, and misdirect autonomous vehicles. Medicines could be incorrectly sorted and distributed. Also, medical diagnoses can ultimately have serious and sometimes deadly consequences if the AI is faulty or biased. Simple AI programs have already worked their way into society, oftentimes unnoticed by the public. Autocorrection for typing, speech recognition for speech-to-text programs, and vast expansions in the data science fields are examples. Narrow AI has also been the subject of some controversy, including resulting in unfair prison sentences, discrimination against women in the workplace for hiring, resulting in death via autonomous driving, among other cases. Despite being "narrow" AI, recommender systems are efficient at predicting user reactions based on their posts, patterns, or trends. For instance, TikTok's "For You" algorithm can determine a user's interests or preferences in less than an hour. Some other social media AI systems are used to detect bots that may be involved in propaganda or other potentially malicious activities. == Weak AI versus strong AI == John Searle contests the possibility of strong AI (by which he means conscious AI). He further believes that the Turing test (created by Alan Turing and originally called the "imitation game", used to assess whether a machine can converse indistinguishably from a human) is not accurate or appropriate for testing whether an AI is "strong". Scholars such as Antonio Lieto have argued that the current research on both AI and cognitive modelling are perfectly aligned with the weak-AI hypothesis (that should not be confused with the "general" vs "narrow" AI distinction) and that the popular assumption that cognitively inspired AI systems espouse the strong AI hypothesis is ill-posed and problematic since "artificial models of brain and mind can be used to understand mental phenomena without pretending that that they are the real phenomena that they are modelling" (as, on the other hand, implied by the strong AI assumption).
Read more →
Algorithmic probability

In algorithmic information theory, algorithmic probability, also known as Solomonoff probability, is a mathematical method of assigning a prior probability to a given observation. It was invented by Ray Solomonoff in the 1960s. It is used in inductive inference theory and analyses of algorithms. In his general theory of inductive inference, Solomonoff uses the method together with Bayes' rule to obtain probabilities of prediction for an algorithm's future outputs. In the mathematical formalism used, the observations have the form of finite binary strings viewed as outputs of Turing machines, and the universal prior is a probability distribution over the set of finite binary strings calculated from a probability distribution over programs (that is, inputs to a universal Turing machine). The prior is universal in the Turing-computability sense, i.e. no string has zero probability. It is not computable, but it can be approximated. Formally, the probability P {\displaystyle P} is not a probability and it is not computable. It is only "lower semi-computable" and a "semi-measure". By "semi-measure", it means that 0 ≤ ∑ x P ( x ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \sum _{x}P(x)<1} . That is, the "probability" does not actually sum up to one, unlike actual probabilities. This is because some inputs to the Turing machine causes it to never halt, which means the probability mass allocated to those inputs is lost. By "lower semi-computable", it means there is a Turing machine that, given an input string x {\displaystyle x} , can print out a sequence y 1 < y 2 < ⋯ {\displaystyle y_{1} Read more →
AI agent

In the context of generative artificial intelligence, AI agents (also referred to as compound AI systems or agentic AI) are a class of intelligent agents that can pursue goals, use tools, and take actions with varying degrees of autonomy. In practice, they usually operate within human-defined objectives, constraints, and available tools. == Overview == AI agents possess several key attributes, including goal-directed behavior, natural language interfaces, the capacity to use external tools, and the ability to perform multi-step tasks. Their control flow is frequently driven by large language models (LLMs). Agent systems may also include memory components, planning logic, tool interfaces, and orchestration software for coordinating agent components. AI agents do not have a standard definition. NIST describes agentic AI as an emerging area requiring standards for secure operation, interoperability, and reliable interaction with external systems. A common application of AI agents is task automation: for example, booking travel plans based on a user's prompted request. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services have offered platforms for deploying pre-built AI agents. Several protocols have been proposed for standardizing inter-agent communication, with examples including the Model Context Protocol, Gibberlink, and many others. Some of these protocols are also used for connecting agents to external applications. In December 2025, Linux Foundation announced the formation of the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF), with the goal of ensuring agentic AI evolves transparently and collaboratively. == History == AI agents have been traced back to research from the 1990s, with Harvard professor Milind Tambe noting that the definition of an AI agent was not clear at the time. Researcher Andrew Ng has been credited with spreading the term "agentic" to a wider audience in 2024. == Training and testing == Researchers have attempted to build world models and reinforcement learning environments to train or evaluate AI agents. For example, video games such as Minecraft and No Man's Sky as well as replicas of company websites, have also been used for training such agents. == Autonomous capabilities == The Financial Times compared the autonomy of AI agents to the SAE classification of self-driving cars, likening most applications to level 2 or level 3, with some achieving level 4 in highly specialized circumstances, and level 5 being theoretical. == Cognitive architecture == The following are some internal design options for reasoning within an agent: Retrieval-augmented generation ReAct (Reason + Act) pattern is an iterative process in which an AI agent alternates between reasoning and taking actions, receives observations from the environment or external tools, and integrates these observations into subsequent reasoning steps. Reflexion, which uses an LLM to create feedback on the agent's plan of action and stores that feedback in a memory cache. A tool/agent registry, for organizing software functions or other agents that the agent can use. One-shot model querying, which queries the model once to create the plan of action. === Reference architecture === Ken Huang proposed an AI agent reference architecture, which consists of seven interconnected layers, with each layer building on the functionality of the layers beneath it: Layer 1: Foundation models - provide the core AI engines to power agent capabilities. Layer 2: Data operations - manage the complex data infrastructure required for AI agent operations, including Vector database, data loaders, RAG. Layer 3: Agent frameworks - sophisticated software and tools that simplify the development and management of the AI agents. Layer 4: Deployment and infrastructure - provide the robust technical foundation for running AI agents. Layer 5: Evaluation and observability - focus on assessing the safety and performance of AI agents. Layer 6: Security and compliance - a crucial protective framework ensuring AI agents operate safely, securely, and conform to regulatory boundaries. At this layer security and compliance features embedded into all the AI agent stack layers are integrated together. Layer 7: Agent ecosystem - represents the AI agents' interface with real-world applications and users. == Orchestration patterns == To execute complex tasks, autonomous agents are often integrated with other agents or specialized tools. These configurations, known as orchestration patterns or workflows, include the following: Prompt chaining: A sequence where the output of one step serves as the input for the next. Routing: The classification of an input to direct it to a specialized downstream task or tool. Parallelization: The simultaneous execution of multiple tasks. Sequential processing: A fixed, linear progression of tasks through a predefined pipeline. Planner-critic: An iterative pattern where one agent generates a proposal and another evaluates it to provide feedback for refinement. == Multimodal AI agents == In addition to large language models (LLMs), vision-language models (VLMs) and multimodal foundation models can be used as the basis for agents. In September 2024, Allen Institute for AI released an open-source vision-language model. Nvidia released a framework for developers to use VLMs, LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation for building AI agents that can analyze images and videos, including video search and video summarization. Microsoft released a multimodal agent model – trained on images, video, software user interface interactions, and robotics data – that the company claimed can manipulate software and robots. == Applications == As of April 2025, per the Associated Press, there are few real-world applications of AI agents. As of June 2025, per Fortune, many companies are primarily experimenting with AI agents. The Information divided AI agents into seven archetypes: business-task agents, for acting within enterprise software; conversational agents, which act as chatbots for customer support; research agents, for querying and analyzing information (such as OpenAI Deep Research); analytics agents, for analyzing data to create reports; software developer or coding agents (such as Cursor); domain-specific agents, which include specific subject matter knowledge; and web browser agents (such as OpenAI Operator). By mid-2025, AI agents have been used in video game development, gambling (including sports betting), cryptocurrency wallets (including cryptocurrency trading and meme coins) and social media. In August 2025, New York Magazine described software development as the most definitive use case of AI agents. Likewise, by October 2025, noting a decline in expectations, The Information noted AI coding agents and customer support as the primary use cases by businesses. In November 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that few companies that deployed AI agents have received a return on investment. === Applications in government === Several government bodies in the United States and United Kingdom have deployed or announced the deployment of agents, at the local and national level. The city of Kyle, Texas deployed an AI agent from Salesforce in March 2025 for 311 customer service. In November 2025, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would use Agentforce, AI agents from Salesforce, for the Office of Chief Counsel, Taxpayer Advocate Services and the Office of Appeals. That same month, Staffordshire Police announced that they would trial Agentforce agents for handling non-emergency 101 calls in the United Kingdom starting in 2026. In December 2025, the Department of Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, in partnership with a local business, deployed a pilot project in two Detroit districts for an AI agent to be used for customer service calls. In February 2025, Thomas Shedd, the director of the Technology Transformation Services, proposed using AI coding agents across the United States federal government. A recruiter for the Department of Government Efficiency proposed in April 2025 to use AI agents to automate the work of about 70,000 United States federal government employees, as part of a startup with funding from OpenAI and a partnership agreement with Palantir. This proposal was criticized by experts for its impracticality, if not impossibility, and the lack of corresponding widespread adoption by businesses. In December 2025, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would offer "agentic AI capabilities" to its staff for "meeting management, pre-market reviews, review validation, post-market surveillance, inspections and compliance and administrative functions." That same month, the United States Department of Defense launched GenAI.mil, an internal platform for American military personnel to use generative AI-based applications based on Google Gemini, including "intelligent agentic workflows". Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listed applications such as "[conducting] deep r
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 →
Description logic

Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Read more →
Inductive programming

Inductive programming (IP) is a special area of automatic programming, covering research from artificial intelligence and programming, which addresses learning of typically declarative (logic or functional) and often recursive programs from incomplete specifications, such as input/output examples or constraints. Depending on the programming language used, there are several kinds of inductive programming. Inductive functional programming, which uses functional programming languages such as Lisp or Haskell, and most especially inductive logic programming, which uses logic programming languages such as Prolog and other logical representations such as description logics, have been more prominent, but other (programming) language paradigms have also been used, such as constraint programming or probabilistic programming. == Definition == Inductive programming incorporates all approaches which are concerned with learning programs or algorithms from incomplete (formal) specifications. Possible inputs in an IP system are a set of training inputs and corresponding outputs or an output evaluation function, describing the desired behavior of the intended program, traces or action sequences which describe the process of calculating specific outputs, constraints for the program to be induced concerning its time efficiency or its complexity, various kinds of background knowledge such as standard data types, predefined functions to be used, program schemes or templates describing the data flow of the intended program, heuristics for guiding the search for a solution or other biases. Output of an IP system is a program in some arbitrary programming language containing conditionals and loop or recursive control structures, or any other kind of Turing-complete representation language. In many applications the output program must be correct with respect to the examples and partial specification, and this leads to the consideration of inductive programming as a special area inside automatic programming or program synthesis, usually opposed to 'deductive' program synthesis, where the specification is usually complete. In other cases, inductive programming is seen as a more general area where any declarative programming or representation language can be used and we may even have some degree of error in the examples, as in general machine learning, the more specific area of structure mining or the area of symbolic artificial intelligence. A distinctive feature is the number of examples or partial specification needed. Typically, inductive programming techniques can learn from just a few examples. The diversity of inductive programming usually comes from the applications and the languages that are used: apart from logic programming and functional programming, other programming paradigms and representation languages have been used or suggested in inductive programming, such as functional logic programming, constraint programming, probabilistic programming, abductive logic programming, modal logic, action languages, agent languages and many types of imperative languages. == History == The early works of Plotkin, and his "relative least general generalization (rlgg)", had an enormous impact in inductive logic programming. There were some encouraging results on learning recursive Prolog programs such as quicksort from examples together with suitable background knowledge, for example with GOLEM. However, after initial success, the community got disappointed by limited progress about the induction of recursive programs with ILP less and less focusing on recursive programs and leaning more and more towards a machine learning setting with applications in relational data mining and knowledge discovery. In parallel to work in ILP, Koza proposed genetic programming in the early 1990s as a generate-and-test based approach to learning programs. The idea of genetic programming was further developed into the inductive programming system ADATE and the systematic-search-based system MagicHaskeller. Here again, functional programs are learned from sets of positive examples together with an output evaluation (fitness) function which specifies the desired input/output behavior of the program to be learned. The early work in grammar induction (also known as grammatical inference) is related to inductive programming, as rewriting systems or logic programs can be used to represent production rules. In fact, early works in inductive inference considered grammar induction and Lisp program inference as basically the same problem. The results in terms of learnability were related to classical concepts, such as identification-in-the-limit, as introduced in the seminal work of Gold. More recently, the language learning problem was addressed by the inductive programming community. In the recent years, the classical approaches have been resumed and advanced with great success. Therefore, the synthesis problem has been reformulated on the background of constructor-based term rewriting systems taking into account modern techniques of functional programming, as well as moderate use of search-based strategies and usage of background knowledge as well as automatic invention of subprograms. Many new and successful applications have recently appeared beyond program synthesis, most especially in the area of data manipulation, programming by example and cognitive modelling (see below). Other ideas have also been explored with the common characteristic of using declarative languages for the representation of hypotheses. For instance, the use of higher-order features, schemes or structured distances have been advocated for a better handling of recursive data types and structures; abstraction has also been explored as a more powerful approach to cumulative learning and function invention. One powerful paradigm that has been recently used for the representation of hypotheses in inductive programming (generally in the form of generative models) is probabilistic programming (and related paradigms, such as stochastic logic programs and Bayesian logic programming). == Application areas == The first workshop on Approaches and Applications of Inductive Programming (AAIP) Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine held in conjunction with ICML 2005 identified all applications where "learning of programs or recursive rules are called for, [...] first in the domain of software engineering where structural learning, software assistants and software agents can help to relieve programmers from routine tasks, give programming support for end users, or support of novice programmers and programming tutor systems. Further areas of application are language learning, learning recursive control rules for AI-planning, learning recursive concepts in web-mining or for data-format transformations". Since then, these and many other areas have shown to be successful application niches for inductive programming, such as end-user programming, the related areas of programming by example and programming by demonstration, and intelligent tutoring systems. Other areas where inductive inference has been recently applied are knowledge acquisition, artificial general intelligence, reinforcement learning and theory evaluation, and cognitive science in general. There may also be prospective applications in intelligent agents, games, robotics, personalisation, ambient intelligence and human interfaces.
Read more →
Situated

In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behaviour derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment.
Read more →
Geo-replication

Geo-replication systems are designed to provide improved availability and disaster tolerance by using geographically distributed data centers. This is intended to improve the response time for applications such as web portals. Geo-replication can be achieved using software, hardware or a combination of the two. == Software == Geo-replication software is a network performance-enhancing technology that is designed to provide improved access to portal or intranet content for users at the most remote parts of large organizations. It is based on the principle of storing complete replicas of portal content on local servers, and then keeping the content on those servers up-to-date using heavily compressed data updates. === Portal acceleration === Geo-replication technologies are used to provide replication of the content of portals, intranets, web applications, content and data between servers, across wide area networks WAN to allow users at remote sites to access central content at LAN speeds. Geo-replication software can improve the performance of data networks that suffer limited bandwidth, latency and periodic disconnection. Terabytes of data can be replicated over a wide area network, giving remote sites faster access to web applications. Geo-replication software uses a combination of data compression and content caching technologies. differencing technologies can also be employed to reduce the volume of data that has to be transmitted to keep portal content accurate across all servers. This update compression can reduce the load that portal traffic places on networks, and improve the response time of a portal. === Portal replication === Remote users of web portals and collaboration environments will frequently experience network bandwidth and latency problems which will slow down their experience of opening and closing files, and otherwise interacting with the portal. Geo-replication technology is deployed to accelerate the remote end user portal performance to be equivalent to that experienced by users locally accessing the portal in the central office. === Differencing engine technologies === To deliver this reduction in the size of the required data updates across a portal, geo-replication systems often use differencing engine technologies. These systems are able to difference the content of each portal server right down to the byte level. This knowledge of the content that is already on each server enables the system to rebuild any changes to the content on one server, across each of the other servers in the deployment from content already hosted on those other servers. This type of differencing system ensures that no content, at the byte level, is ever sent to a server twice. === Offline portal replication on laptops === Geo-replication systems are often extended to deliver local replication beyond the server and down to the laptop used by a single user. Server to laptop replication enables mobile users to have access to a local replica of their business portal on a standard laptop. This technology may be employed to provide in the field access to portal content by, for example, sales forces and combat forces. == Geo-replication systems ==
Read more →
Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos
Read more →
Gibberlink

GibberLink is an acoustic data transmission project, with an open-source client available on GitHub, in which two conversational AI agents switch from speaking to one another in a Human-listenable language (such as English) to their own unique language that consists of a sound-level protocol after confirming they are both AI agents. The project was created by Anton Pidkuiko and Boris Starkov. == Reception == The project won the global top prize at the ElevenLabs Worldwide Hackathon. It has also been cited as raising questions around AI ethics and oversight. On February 23, 2025, a YouTube video of two independent conversational ElevenLabs AI agents being prompted to chat about booking a hotel (one as a caller, one as a receptionist) received coverage for going viral. In this video, both agents are prompted to switch to ggwave data-over-sound protocol when they identify the other side as AI, and keep speaking in English otherwise.
Read more →