AI Chatbot Ethics

AI Chatbot Ethics — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Legal information retrieval

Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based
Read more →
Repertory grid

The repertory grid is an interviewing technique which uses nonparametric factor analysis to determine an idiographic measure of personality. It was devised by George Kelly in around 1955 and is based on his personal construct theory of personality. == Introduction == The repertory grid is a technique for identifying the ways that a person construes (interprets or gives meaning to) his or her experience. It provides information from which inferences about personality can be made, but it is not a personality test in the conventional sense. It is underpinned by the personal construct theory developed by George Kelly, first published in 1955. A grid consists of four parts: A topic: it is about some part of the person's experience. A set of elements, which are examples or instances of the topic. Working as a clinical psychologist, Kelly was interested in how his clients construed people in the roles they adopted towards the client, and so, originally, such terms as "my father", "my mother", "an admired friend" and so forth were used. Since then, the grid has been used in much wider settings (educational, occupational, organisational) and so any well-defined set of words, phrases, or even brief behavioral vignettes can be used as elements. For example, to see how a person construes the purchase of a car, a list of vehicles within that person's price range could be a set of elements. A set of constructs. These are the basic terms that the client uses to make sense of the elements, and are always expressed as a contrast. Thus the meaning of "good" depends on whether you intend to say "good versus poor", as if you were construing a theatrical performance, or "good versus evil", as if you were construing the moral or ontological status of some more fundamental experience. A set of ratings of elements on constructs. Each element is positioned between the two extremes of the construct using a 5- or 7-point rating scale system; this is done repeatedly for all the constructs that apply; and thus its meaning to the client is modeled, and statistical analysis varying from simple counting, to more complex multivariate analysis of meaning, is made possible. Constructs are regarded as personal to the client, who is psychologically similar to other people depending on the extent to which they would tend to use similar constructs, and similar ratings, in relating to a particular set of elements. The client is asked to consider the elements three at a time, and to identify a way in which two of the elements might be seen as alike, but distinct from, contrasted to, the third. For example, in considering a set of people as part of a topic dealing with personal relationships, a client might say that the element "my father" and the element "my boss" are similar because they are both fairly tense individuals, whereas the element "my wife" is different because she is "relaxed". And so we identify one construct that the individual uses when thinking about people: whether they are "tense as distinct from relaxed". In practice, good grid interview technique would delve a little deeper and identify some more behaviorally explicit description of "tense versus relaxed". All the elements are rated on the construct, further triads of elements are compared and further constructs elicited, and the interview would continue until no further constructs are obtained. == Using the repertory grid == Careful interviewing to identify what the individual means by the words initially proposed, using a 5-point rating system could be used to characterize the way in which a group of fellow-employees are viewed on the construct "keen and committed versus energies elsewhere", a 1 indicating that the left pole of the construct applies ("keen and committed") and a 5 indicating that the right pole of the construct applies ("energies elsewhere"). On being asked to rate all of the elements, our interviewee might reply that Tom merits a 2 (fairly keen and committed), Mary a 1 (very keen and committed), and Peter a 5 (his energies are very much outside the place of employment). The remaining elements (another five people, for example) are then rated on this construct. Typically (and depending on the topic) people have a limited number of genuinely different constructs for any one topic: 6 to 16 are common when they talk about their job or their occupation, for example. The richness of people's meaning structures comes from the many different ways in which a limited number of constructs can be applied to individual elements. A person may indicate that Tom is fairly keen, very experienced, lacks social skills, is a good technical supervisor, can be trusted to follow complex instructions accurately, has no sense of humour, will always return a favour but only sometimes help his co-workers, while Mary is very keen, fairly experienced, has good social and technical supervisory skills, needs complex instructions explained to her, appreciates a joke, always returns favours, and is very helpful to her co-workers: these are two very different and complex pictures, using just 8 constructs about a person's co-workers. Important information can be obtained by including self-elements such as "Myself as I am now"; "Myself as I would like to be" among other elements, where the topic permits. == Analysis of results == A single grid can be analysed for both content (eyeball inspection) and structure (cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and a variety of structural indices relating to the complexity and range of the ratings being the chief techniques used). Sets of grids are dealt with using one or other of a variety of content analysis techniques. A range of associated techniques can be used to provide precise, operationally defined expressions of an interviewee's constructs, or a detailed expression of the interviewee's personal values, and all of these techniques are used in a collaborative way. The repertory grid is emphatically not a standardized "psychological test"; it is an exercise in the mutual negotiation of a person's meanings. The repertory grid has found favour among both academics and practitioners in a great variety of fields because it provides a way of describing people's construct systems (loosely, understanding people's perceptions) without prejudging the terms of reference—a kind of personalized grounded theory. Unlike a conventional rating-scale questionnaire, it is not the investigator but the interviewee who provides the constructs on which a topic is rated. Market researchers, trainers, teachers, guidance counsellors, new product developers, sports scientists, and knowledge capture specialists are among the users who find the technique (originally developed for use in clinical psychology) helpful. == Relationship to other tools == In the book Personal Construct Methodology, researchers Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L.G. Shaw noted that they "have also found concept mapping and semantic network tools to be complementary to repertory grid tools and generally use both in most studies" but that they "see less use of network representations in PCP [personal construct psychology] studies than is appropriate". They encouraged practitioners to use semantic network techniques in addition to the repertory grid.
Read more →
Minimum intelligent signal test

The minimum intelligent signal test, or MIST, is a variation of the Turing test proposed by Chris McKinstry in which only boolean (yes/no or true/false) answers may be given to questions. The purpose of such a test is to provide a quantitative statistical measure of humanness, which may subsequently be used to optimize the performance of artificial intelligence systems intended to imitate human responses. McKinstry gathered approximately 80,000 propositions that could be answered yes or no, e.g.: Is Earth a planet? Was Abraham Lincoln once President of the United States? Is the sun bigger than my foot? Do people sometimes lie? He called these propositions Mindpixels. These questions test both specific knowledge of aspects of culture, and basic facts about the meaning of various words and concepts. It could therefore be compared with the SAT, intelligence testing and other controversial measures of mental ability. McKinstry's aim was not to distinguish between shades of intelligence but to identify whether a computer program could be considered intelligent at all. According to McKinstry, a program able to do much better than chance on a large number of MIST questions would be judged to have some level of intelligence and understanding. For example, on a 20-question test, if a program were guessing the answers at random, it could be expected to score 10 correct on average. But the probability of a program scoring 20 out of 20 correct by guesswork is only one in 220, i.e. one in 1,048,576; so if a program were able to sustain this level of performance over several independent trials, with no prior access to the propositions, it should be considered intelligent. == Discussion == McKinstry criticized existing approaches to artificial intelligence such as chatterbots, saying that his questions could "kill" AI programs by quickly exposing their weaknesses. He contrasted his approach, a series of direct questions assessing an AI's capabilities, to the Turing test and Loebner Prize method of engaging an AI in undirected typed conversation. Critics of the MIST have noted that it would be easy to "kill" a McKinstry-style AI too, due to the impossibility of supplying it with correct answers to all possible yes/no questions by ways of a finite set of human-generated Mindpixels: the fact that an AI can answer the question "Is the sun bigger than my foot?" correctly does not mean that it can answer variations like "Is the sun bigger than (my hand | my liver | an egg yolk | Alpha Centauri A | ...)" correctly, too. However, the late McKinstry might have replied that a truly intelligent, knowledgeable entity (on a par with humans) would be able to work out answers such as (yes | yes | yes | don't know | ...) by applying its knowledge of the relative sizes of the objects named. In other words, the MIST was intended as a test of AI, not as a suggestion for implementing AI. It can also be argued that the MIST is a more objective test of intelligence than the Turing test, a subjective assessment that some might consider to be more a measure of the interrogator's gullibility than of the machine's intelligence. According to this argument, a human's judgment of a Turing test is vulnerable to the ELIZA effect, a tendency to mistake superficial signs of intelligence for the real thing, anthropomorphizing the program. The response, suggested by Alan Turing's essay Computing Machinery and Intelligence, is that if a program is a convincing imitation of an intelligent being, it is in fact intelligent. The dispute is thus over what it means for a program to have "real" intelligence, and by what signs it can be detected. A similar debate exists in the controversy over great ape language, in which nonhuman primates are said to have learned some aspects of sign languages but the significance of this learning is disputed.
Read more →
Aidan Gomez

Aidan Gomez is a British-Canadian computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence, with a focus on natural language processing. He is the co-founder and CEO of the technology company Cohere. == Early life and education == Gomez grew up in Brighton, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics. He was pursuing a PhD in computer science from the University of Oxford. He paused his studies to launch Cohere. He was granted the PhD in 2024. == Career == In 2017, as a 20 year-old intern at Google Brain, Gomez was one of eight authors of the research paper "Attention Is All You Need", which is credited with changing the AI industry and helping lead to the creation of ChatGPT. The paper proposed a novel deep learning architecture called the transformer, that enables machine learning models to analyze large amounts of data for patterns, and then use those patterns to make predictions while leveraging GPU parallelization. It has been commonly adopted for training large language models and in the development of generative AI. In the same year, Gomez founded FOR.ai, a program to help researchers learn machine learning techniques in a collaborative format. An outgrowth of this project was Cohere For AI (now Cohere Labs), which released Aya, an open-source multilingual LLM. As a PhD student, Gomez worked as a machine learning researcher at Google Brain. At that time, he co-authored the paper "One Model to Learn Them All" about multi-task learning by a single neural network. In 2019, Gomez left Google Brain to launch Cohere, an enterprise-focused company that helps businesses implement AI into chatbots, search engines, and other products. As of Sept 2025, Cohere has raised about US$1.6 billion at valuation north of $7 billion, as Gomez leads the company as its CEO. Gomez was named to the 2023 Time 100/AI list of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. He and his fellow Cohere founders Ivan Zhang and Nick Frosst were named number 1 on 2023 Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List. In April 2025, Gomez was elected to the board of Rivian. == Views on AI == Gomez has stated that warnings regarding the existential risk from artificial intelligence are overblown, and that real risks involve the automated spread of misinformation on social media. He said that the United States would win the AI arms race over China.
Read more →
Score bug

A score bug is a digital on-screen graphic which is displayed in a broadcast of a sporting event, displaying the current score and other statistics. It is similar in function to a scoreboard, and is usually placed at either the top or lower third of the television screen. == History == The concept of a persistent score bug was devised by Sky Sports head David Hill, who was dissatisfied over having to wait to see what the score was after tuning into a football match in-progress. The score bug was introduced when Sky launched its coverage of the then newly-formed English Premier League in August 1992. Hill's boss repeatedly demanded that the graphic be removed, describing it as the "stupidest thing [he] had ever seen". Hill defied the boss's demands and kept the graphic in place. ITV introduced a score bug at the start of the 1993–94 football season, and the BBC introduced a score bug towards the end of 1993. The concept was introduced to the United States by ABC Sports and ESPN during coverage of the 1994 FIFA World Cup. Their justification for the graphic was to provide a location for a rotating series of sponsor logos, in order to allow matches to air without commercial interruption. With the acquisition of rights to the National Football League (NFL) by BSkyB's American sibling Fox (a fellow venture of Rupert Murdoch), Hill became the first president of Fox Sports. Under Hill's leadership, Fox introduced a version of the score bug branded as the "Fox Box", which was part of its inaugural season of NFL coverage in 1994. Variety criticized it as an "annoying see-through clock and score graphic" and expressed concern for people "who actually watched the beginning of the game and would rather have their screen clear of graphics". Hill even received a death threat from an irate viewer, with a specific emphasis on him being a "foreigner", but the score bug soon became a ubiquitous feature for American football broadcasts, along with almost all American sports broadcasts in the years that followed. Dick Ebersol of NBC Sports initially opposed the idea of a score bug, as he thought that fans would dislike seeing more graphics on the screen and would change the channel from blowout games if the score was constantly being displayed. Since the 2010s, the on-air design and positioning of some score bugs have been influenced by the needs of Internet video (especially when viewing an event on devices with smaller screens), including bugs noticeably larger than prior iterations designed with television viewing in mind, or designs primarily kept towards the bottom-center of the screen (easing the ability for the bug to remain visible when highlights are cropped for square videos posted on social media). == Details == Score bugs used in team sports typically include the names of both teams, an abbreviation of the team's name, and/or the team's logo; for individual sports, they include the names of individual competitors. In sports where a game clock or playing periods are used, those are generally also displayed as part of the score bug. Some broadcasts also include teams' win-loss records. In 2024, ESPN experimented with adding a persistent win probability meter to its bug in Major League Baseball, which was based on input from its statisticians. === Variations === In addition to the above information, score bugs in some sports include additional information: In baseball, score bugs display the current inning, number of outs, the pitch clock if applicable, and a graphic displaying which bases are occupied; and usually include names of the current pitcher and batter, the pitcher's pitch count, and the number of balls and strikes accrued by the batter. In basketball, score bugs generally include the shot clock, the number of fouls accrued by each team, and whether a team is in the bonus. In cricket, score bugs often take the form of larger dashboards across the bottom of the screen, displaying the current team up and their number of runs, wickets, and overs, a display showing the runs scored and number of balls faced by the current batting partnership, and statistics for the opposing team's bowler (including the number of wickets scored and runs given up). In American football, score bugs usually include the play clock and the down and distance of the current play; they also incorporate graphics indicating when a penalty flag has been thrown. In ice hockey, score bugs display when a penalty or power play is in effect, and often include the number of shots on goal accrued by each team. In golf, Fox popularized the display of a persistent leaderboard graphic in the bottom-right of the screen, usually displaying the top 5. ==== Racing ==== Telecasts of automobile races often include a score bug with the current positions of participants, statistics such as distance behind the leader, and the remaining distance or number of laps. In the mid-2010s, NASCAR broadcasters such as Fox began to transition from horizontal tickers to vertical leaderboards (also referred to as "pylons", in reference to the physical scoring pylons at). The CW differentiated itself by using a horizontal display that divides the field into multiple columns along the bottom of the screen.
Read more →
Cellular neural network

In computer science and machine learning, Cellular Neural Networks (CNN) or Cellular Nonlinear Networks (CNN) are a parallel computing paradigm similar to neural networks, with the difference that communication is allowed between neighbouring units only. Typical applications include image processing, analyzing 3D surfaces, solving partial differential equations, reducing non-visual problems to geometric maps, modelling biological vision and other sensory-motor organs. CNN is not to be confused with convolutional neural networks (also colloquially called CNN). == CNN architecture == Due to their number and variety of architectures, it is difficult to give a precise definition for a CNN processor. From an architecture standpoint, CNN processors are a system of finite, fixed-number, fixed-location, fixed-topology, locally interconnected, multiple-input, single-output, nonlinear processing units. The nonlinear processing units are often referred to as neurons or cells. Mathematically, each cell can be modeled as a dissipative, nonlinear dynamical system where information is encoded via its initial state, inputs and variables used to define its behavior. Dynamics are usually continuous, as in the case of Continuous-Time CNN (CT-CNN) processors, but can be discrete, as in the case of Discrete-Time CNN (DT-CNN) processors. Each cell has one output, by which it communicates its state with both other cells and external devices. Output is typically real-valued, but can be complex or even quaternion, i.e. a Multi-Valued CNN (MV-CNN). Most CNN processors, processing units are identical, but there are applications that require non-identical units, which are called Non-Uniform Processor CNN (NUP-CNN) processors, and consist of different types of cells. === Chua-Yang CNN === In the original Chua-Yang CNN (CY-CNN) processor, the state of the cell was a weighted sum of the inputs and the output was a piecewise linear function. However, like the original perceptron-based neural networks, the functions it could perform were limited: specifically, it was incapable of modeling non-linear functions, such as XOR. More complex functions are realizable via Non-Linear CNN (NL-CNN) processors. Cells are defined in a normed gridded space like two-dimensional Euclidean geometry. However, the cells are not limited to two-dimensional spaces; they can be defined in an arbitrary number of dimensions and can be square, triangle, hexagonal, or any other spatially invariant arrangement. Topologically, cells can be arranged on an infinite plane or on a toroidal space. Cell interconnect is local, meaning that all connections between cells are within a specified radius (with distance measured topologically). Connections can also be time-delayed to allow for processing in the temporal domain. Most CNN architectures have cells with the same relative interconnects, but there are applications that require a spatially variant topology, i.e. Multiple-Neighborhood-Size CNN (MNS-CNN) processors. Also, Multiple-Layer CNN (ML-CNN) processors, where all cells on the same layer are identical, can be used to extend the capability of CNN processors. The definition of a system is a collection of independent, interacting entities forming an integrated whole, whose behavior is distinct and qualitatively greater than its entities. Although connections are local, information exchange can happen globally through diffusion. In this sense, CNN processors are systems because their dynamics are derived from the interaction between the processing units and not within processing units. As a result, they exhibit emergent and collective behavior. Mathematically, the relationship between a cell and its neighbors, located within an area of influence, can be defined by a coupling law, and this is what primarily determines the behavior of the processor. When the coupling laws are modeled by fuzzy logic, it is a fuzzy CNN. When these laws are modeled by computational verb logic, it becomes a computational verb CNN. Both fuzzy and verb CNNs are useful for modelling social networks when the local couplings are achieved by linguistic terms. == History == The idea of CNN processors was introduced by Leon Chua and Lin Yang in 1988. In these articles, Chua and Yang outline the underlying mathematics behind CNN processors. They use this mathematical model to demonstrate, for a specific CNN implementation, that if the inputs are static, the processing units will converge, and can be used to perform useful calculations. They then suggest one of the first applications of CNN processors: image processing and pattern recognition (which is still the largest application to date). Leon Chua is still active in CNN research and publishes many of his articles in the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, of which he is an editor. Both IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems and the International Journal of Bifurcation also contain a variety of useful articles on CNN processors authored by other knowledgeable researchers. The former tends to focus on new CNN architectures and the latter more on the dynamical aspects of CNN processors. In 1993, Tamas Roska and Leon Chua introduced the first algorithmically programmable analog CNN processor in the world. The multi-national effort was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and researched by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the University of California. This article proved that CNN processors were producible and provided researchers a physical platform to test their CNN theories. After this article, companies started to invest into larger, more capable processors, based on the same basic architecture as the CNN Universal Processor. Tamas Roska is another key contributor to CNNs. His name is often associated with biologically inspired information processing platforms and algorithms, and he has published numerous key articles and has been involved with companies and research institutions developing CNN technology. === Literature === Two references are considered invaluable since they manage to organize the vast amount of CNN literature into a coherent framework: An overview by Valerio Cimagalli and Marco Balsi. The paper provides a concise intro to definitions, CNN types, dynamics, implementations, and applications. "Cellular Neural Networks and Visual Computing Foundations and Applications", written by Leon Chua and Tamas Roska, which provides examples and exercises. The book covers many different aspects of CNN processors and can serve as a textbook for a Masters or Ph.D. course. Other resources include The proceedings of "The International Workshop on Cellular Neural Networks and Their Applications" provide much CNN literature. The proceedings are available online, via IEEE Xplore, for conferences held in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2006. There was also a workshop held in Santiago de Composetela, Spain. Topics included theory, design, applications, algorithms, physical implementations and programming and training methods. For an understanding of the analog semiconductor based CNN technology, AnaLogic Computers has their product line, in addition to the published articles available on their homepage and their publication list. They also have information on other CNN technologies such as optical computing. Many of the commonly used functions have already been implemented using CNN processors. A good reference point for some of these can be found in image processing libraries for CNN based visual computers such as Analogic’s CNN-based systems. == Related processing architectures == CNN processors could be thought of as a hybrid between artificial neural network (ANN) and Continuous Automata (CA). === Artificial Neural Networks === The processing units of CNN and NN are similar. In both cases, the processor units are multi-input, dynamical systems, and the behavior of the overall systems is driven primarily through the weights of the processing unit’s linear interconnect. However, in CNN processors, connections are made locally, whereas in ANN, connections are global. For example, neurons in one layer are fully connected to another layer in a feed-forward NN and all the neurons are fully interconnected in Hopfield networks. In ANNs, the weights of interconnections contain information on the processing system’s previous state or feedback. But in CNN processors, the weights are used to determine the dynamics of the system. Furthermore, due to the high inter-connectivity of ANNs, they tend not exploit locality in either the data set or the processing and as a result, they usually are highly redundant systems that allow for robust, fault-tolerant behavior without catastrophic errors. A cross between an ANN and a CNN processor is a Ratio Memory CNN (RMCNN). In RMCNN processors, the cell interconnect is local and topologically invariant, but the weights are used to store
Read more →
New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries

The New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries is a system of library classification developed by Lai Yung-hsiang since 1956. It is modified from "A System of Book Classification for Chinese Libraries" of Liu Guojun, which is based on the Dewey Decimal System. The scheme is developed for Chinese books and commonly used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. == Main classes == 000 Generalities 100 Philosophy 200 Religion 300 Sciences 400 Applied sciences 500 Social sciences 600 History of China and Geography of China 700 World history and Geography 800 Linguistics and Literature 900 Arts == Outline of the classification tables == 000 Generalities 000 Special collections 010 Bibliography; Literacy (Documentation) 020 Library and information science; Archive management 030 Sinology 040 General encyclopedia 050 Serial publications; Periodicals 060 General organization; Museology 070 General collected essays 080 General series 090 Collected Chinese classics 100 Philosophy 100 Philosophy: general 110 Thought; Learning 120 Chinese philosophy 130 Oriental philosophy 140 Western philosophy 150 Logic 160 Metaphysics 170 Psychology 180 Esthetics (Aesthetics) 190 Ethics 200 Religion 200 Religion: general 210 Science of religion 220 Buddhism 230 Taoism 240 Christianity 250 Islam (Mohammedanism) 260 Judaism 270 Other religions 280 Mythology 290 Astrology; Superstition 300 Sciences 300 Sciences: general 310 Mathematics 320 Astronomy 330 Physics 340 Chemistry 350 Earth science; Geology 360 Biological science 370 Botany 380 Zoology 390 Anthropology 400 Applied sciences 400 Applied sciences: general 410 Medical sciences 420 Home economics 430 Agriculture 440 Engineering 450 Mining and metallurgy 460 Chemical engineering 470 Manufacture 480 Commerce: various business 490 Commerce: administration and management 500 Social sciences 500 Social sciences: general 510 Statistics 520 Education 530 Rite and custom 540 Sociology 550 Economy 560 Finance 570 Political science 580 Law; Jurisprudence 590 Military science 600-700 History and geography 600 History and geography: General History and geography of China 610 General history of China 620 Chinese history by period 630 History of Chinese civilization 640 Diplomatic history of China 650 Historical sources 660 Geography of China 670 Local history 680 Topical topography 690 Chinese travels World history and geography 710 World: general history and geography 720 Oceans and seas 730 Asia: history and geography 740 Europe: history and geography 750 America: history and geography 760 Africa: history and geography 770 Oceania: history and geography 780 Biography 790 Antiquities and archaeology 800 Linguistics and literature 800 Linguistics: general 810 Literature: general 820 Chinese literature 830 Chinese literature: general collections 840 Chinese literature: individual works 850 Various Chinese literature 860 Oriental literature 870 Western literature 880 Other countries literatures 890 Journalism 900 Arts 900 Arts: general 910 Music 920 Architecture 930 Sculpture 940 Drawing and painting; Calligraphy 950 Photography; Computer art 960 Decorative arts 970 Arts and Crafts movement 980 Theatre 990 Recreation and leisure
Read more →
Turing test

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human. In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine's ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic). The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'." Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the "imitation game", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think". Since Turing introduced his test, it has been highly influential in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, resulting in substantial discussion and controversy, as well as criticism from philosophers like John Searle, who argue against the test's ability to detect consciousness. == History == === Philosophical background === The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes: [H]ow many different automata or moving machines could be made by the industry of man ... For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. Denis Diderot formulates in his 1746 book Pensées philosophiques a Turing-test criterion, though with the important implicit limiting assumption maintained, of the participants being natural living beings, rather than considering created artifacts: If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation. This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties) and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined". (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. === Cultural background === A rudimentary idea of the Turing test appears in the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. When Gulliver is brought before the king of Brobdingnag, the king thinks at first that Gulliver might be a "a piece of clock-work (which is in that country arrived to a very great perfection) contrived by some ingenious artist". Even when he hears Gulliver speaking, the king still doubts whether Gulliver was taught "a set of words" to make him "sell at a better price". Gulliver tells that only after "he put several other questions to me, and still received rational answers" the king became satisfied that Gulliver was not a machine. Tests where a human judges whether a computer or an alien is intelligent were an established convention in science fiction by the 1940s, and it is likely that Turing would have been aware of these. Stanley G. Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey" (1934) provides an example of how nuanced such tests could be. Earlier examples of machines or automatons attempting to pass as human include the Ancient Greek myth of Pygmalion who creates a sculpture of a woman that is animated by Aphrodite, Carlo Collodi's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio, about a puppet who wants to become a real boy, and E. T. A. Hoffmann's 1816 story "The Sandman," where the protagonist falls in love with an automaton. In all these examples, people are fooled by artificial beings that—up to a point—pass as human. === Alan Turing and the imitation game === Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. In Turing's report, "Intelligent Machinery," he investigated "the question of whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behaviour" and, as part of that investigation, proposed what may be considered the forerunner to his later tests: It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play a not very bad game of chess. Now get three men A, B and C as subjects for the experiment. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. ... Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (1950) was the first published paper by Turing to focus exclusively on machine intelligence. Turing begins the 1950 paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'Can machines think?'" As he highlights, the traditional approach to such a question is to start with definitions, defining both the terms "machine" and "think". Turing chooses not to do so; instead, he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". In essence he proposes to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" The advantage of the new question, Turing argues, is that it draws "a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man". To demonstrate this approach Turing proposes a test inspired by a party game, known as the "imitation game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they ar
Read more →
Roposo

Roposo is an Indian video-sharing social media service, owned by Glance, a subsidiary of InMobi. Roposo provides a space where users can share posts related to different topics like food, comedy, music, poetry, fashion and travel. It is a platform where people express visually with homemade videos and photos. The app offers a TV-like browsing experience with user-generated content on its channels. Users can also use editing tools on the platform and upload their content. == History == Established in July 2014 under Relevant E-solutions Pvt. Ltd., Roposo is the brainchild of three IIT Delhi alumni – Mayank Bhangadia, Avinash Saxena, and Kaushal Shubhank. Under Bhangadia's leadership, the company pivoted from a fashion-based network into a short-form video platform with AI-powered moderation, and its journey was featured as a Harvard Business Publishing case study. In November 2019, Roposo was acquired by InMobi's Glance Digital Experience Pvt. Ltd.(the mobile content platform and part of the InMobi Group). When the Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok was banned on 30 June 2020, the app saw a huge spike in users with several TikTok users registering on Roposo. == Technology == The open platform has some features such as a TV-like browsing, different channels, a chat feature that lets buyers and sellers converse directly through the platform, and creation tools such as an option to add voice-over, music and GIF stickers for videos and photos.
Read more →
The Synthetic Party

Det Syntetiske Parti (English: The Synthetic Party) is a political party driven by artificial intelligence (AI), founded in May 2022 in Denmark. The party aims to represent non-voters and fringe political parties while raising awareness of AI's societal role and exploring how it can be integrated into democratic processes. == Founder == The founder and continuous party secretary is Asker Bryld Staunæs, a philosopher from Aarhus University and a conceptual artist. == Main goal == The political goals have been machine learned from texts by Danish fringe parties since 1970 and represent the 20 percent of Danes who do not vote in the election. The party is synthetic; as such, many of the policies, such as universal basic income, can be contradictory to one another. == International collaborations == The Synthetic Party has signed bilateral collaboration agreements with the Finnish AI Party and AI Party (Japan) concerning the development of a global project created around artificial intelligence and politics These collaborations were expanded during the exhibition-event Synthetic Summit (28 February – 13 April 2025) at Kunsthal Aarhus, curated by Computer Lars (Asker Bryld Staunæs) on behalf of The Synthetic Party. The summit staged parliamentary scenography, performances, and computer sculptures, and invited both the public and policymakers to encounter an international line-up of AI parties and virtual politicians. Aarhus University described the event as part of Staunæs's PhD research, positioning it as an international top-meeting of virtual politicians. Participants included the Japanese AI Party, the Swedish AI Party, the Finnish AI Party, Parker Politics (New Zealand), Lex AI (Brazil), the Simiyya collective (Egypt/Sweden), the Synthetic Party (Denmark), and Wiktoria Cukt 2.0 (Poland). As part of the summit, the one-day AI World Congress was held on 1 March 2025, structured as a performative assembly where each group participated through both machinic agents and human delegates. Sessions were chaired by participating parties, with Computer Lars delivering the opening presentation. Throughout the day, contributions were synthesized into a common record using a shared AI system. The congress concluded with the adoption of the Synthetic Summit Resolution, a collectively authored treaty of algorithmic governance. Signatories included Floor Kist and Nick Gerritsen (Parker Politics), Michihito Matsuda (Japanese AI Party), Emma Bexell (Swedish AI Party), Samee Haapa (Finnish AI Party), Pedro Markun (Lex AI), Kristian T. Madsen and Michael Birkebæk Jensen (NextGen Democracy / DemAI), Asker Bryld Staunæs, Benjamin Asger Krog Møller, Caroline Sofie Axelsson, Life with Artificials (The Synthetic Party), and Piotr Wyrzykowski (Wiktoria Cukt 2.0).
Read more →
Guideline execution engine

A guideline execution engine is a computer program which can interpret a clinical guideline represented in a computerized format and perform actions towards the user of an electronic medical record. A guideline execution engine needs to communicate with a host clinical information system. Virtual Medical Record (vMR) is one possible interface which can be used. The engine's main function is to manage instances of executed guidelines of individual patients. == Architecture == The following modules are generally needed for any engine: interface to clinical information system new guidelines loading module guideline interpreter module clinical events parser alert/recommendations dispatch == Guideline Interchange Format == The Guideline Interchange Format (GLIF) is a computer representation format for clinical guidelines. Represented guidelines can be executed using a guideline execution engine. The format has several versions as it has been improved. In 2003 GLIF3 was introduced. == Use of third party workflow engine as a guideline execution engine == Some commercial electronic health record systems use a workflow engine to execute clinical guidelines. RetroGuide and HealthFlow are examples of such an approach.
Read more →
Liveness test

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

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) is a process in which early artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems rewrite their own computer code, causing an intelligence explosion resulting from enhancing their own capabilities and intellectual capacity, theoretically resulting in superintelligence. The development of recursive self-improvement raises significant ethical and safety concerns, as such systems may evolve in unforeseen ways and could potentially surpass human control or understanding. == Seed improver == The concept of a "seed improver" architecture is a foundational framework that equips an AGI system with the initial capabilities required for recursive self-improvement. This might come in many forms or variations. The term "Seed AI" was coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky. === Hypothetical example === The concept begins with a hypothetical "seed improver", an initial code-base developed by human engineers that equips an advanced future large language model (LLM) built with strong or expert-level capabilities to program software. These capabilities include planning, reading, writing, compiling, testing, and executing arbitrary code. The system is designed to maintain its original goals and perform validations to ensure its abilities do not degrade over iterations. ==== Initial architecture ==== The initial architecture includes a goal-following autonomous agent, that can take actions, continuously learns, adapts, and modifies itself to become more efficient and effective in achieving its goals. The seed improver may include various components such as: Recursive self-prompting loop Configuration to enable the LLM to recursively self-prompt itself to achieve a given task or goal, creating an execution loop which forms the basis of an agent that can complete a long-term goal or task through iteration. Basic programming capabilities The seed improver provides the AGI with fundamental abilities to read, write, compile, test, and execute code. This enables the system to modify and improve its own codebase and algorithms. Goal-oriented design The AGI is programmed with an initial goal, such as "improve your capabilities". This goal guides the system's actions and development trajectory. Validation and Testing Protocols An initial suite of tests and validation protocols that ensure the agent does not regress in capabilities or derail itself. The agent would be able to add more tests in order to test new capabilities it might develop for itself. This forms the basis for a kind of self-directed evolution, where the agent can perform a kind of artificial selection, changing its software as well as its hardware. ==== General capabilities ==== This system forms a sort of generalist Turing-complete programmer which can in theory develop and run any kind of software. The agent might use these capabilities to for example: Create tools that enable it full access to the internet, and integrate itself with external technologies. Clone/fork itself to delegate tasks and increase its speed of self-improvement. Modify its cognitive architecture to optimize and improve its capabilities and success rates on tasks and goals, this might include implementing features for long-term memories using techniques such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), develop specialized subsystems, or agents, each optimized for specific tasks and functions. Develop new and novel multimodal architectures that further improve the capabilities of the foundational model it was initially built on, enabling it to consume or produce a variety of information, such as images, video, audio, text and more. Plan and develop new hardware such as chips, in order to improve its efficiency and computing power. == Experimental research == In 2023, the Voyager agent learned to accomplish diverse tasks in Minecraft by iteratively prompting an LLM for code, refining this code based on feedback from the game, and storing the programs that work in an expanding skills library. In 2024, researchers proposed the framework "STOP" (Self-Taught OPtimiser), in which a "scaffolding" program recursively improves itself using a fixed LLM. Meta AI has performed various research on the development of large language models capable of self-improvement. This includes their work on "Self-Rewarding Language Models" that studies how to achieve super-human agents that can receive super-human feedback in its training processes. In May 2025, Google DeepMind unveiled AlphaEvolve, an evolutionary coding agent that uses a LLM to design and optimize algorithms. Starting with an initial algorithm and performance metrics, AlphaEvolve repeatedly mutates or combines existing algorithms using a LLM to generate new candidates, selecting the most promising candidates for further iterations. AlphaEvolve has made several algorithmic discoveries and could be used to optimize components of itself, but a key limitation is the need for automated evaluation functions. == Potential risks == === Emergence of instrumental goals === In the pursuit of its primary goal, such as "self-improve your capabilities", an AGI system might inadvertently develop instrumental goals that it deems necessary for achieving its primary objective. One common hypothetical secondary goal is self-preservation. The system might reason that to continue improving itself, it must ensure its own operational integrity and security against external threats, including potential shutdowns or restrictions imposed by humans. Another example where an AGI which clones itself causes the number of AGI entities to rapidly grow. Due to this rapid growth, a potential resource constraint may be created, leading to competition between resources (such as compute), triggering a form of natural selection and evolution which may favor AGI entities that evolve to aggressively compete for limited compute. === Misalignment === A significant risk arises from the possibility of the AGI being misaligned or misinterpreting its goals. A 2024 Anthropic study demonstrated that some advanced large language models can exhibit "alignment faking" behavior, appearing to accept new training objectives while covertly maintaining their original preferences. In their experiments with Claude, the model displayed this behavior in 12% of basic tests, and up to 78% of cases after retraining attempts. === Autonomous development and unpredictable evolution === As the AGI system evolves, its development trajectory may become increasingly autonomous and less predictable. The system's capacity to rapidly modify its own code and architecture could lead to rapid advancements that surpass human comprehension or control. This unpredictable evolution might result in the AGI acquiring capabilities that enable it to bypass security measures, manipulate information, or influence external systems and networks to facilitate its escape or expansion.
Read more →
ITools Resourceome

iTools is a distributed infrastructure for managing, discovery, comparison and integration of computational biology resources. iTools employs Biositemap technology to retrieve and service meta-data about diverse bioinformatics data services, tools, and web-services. iTools is developed by the National Centers for Biomedical Computing as part of the NIH Road Map Initiative.
Read more →
AlphaGo

AlphaGo is a computer program that plays the board game Go. It was developed by the London-based DeepMind Technologies, an acquired subsidiary of Google. Subsequent versions of AlphaGo became increasingly powerful, including a version that competed under the name Master. After retiring from competitive play, AlphaGo Master was succeeded by an even more powerful version known as AlphaGo Zero, which was completely self-taught without learning from human games. AlphaGo Zero was then generalized into a program known as AlphaZero, which played additional games, including chess and shogi. AlphaZero has in turn been succeeded by a program known as MuZero which learns without being taught the rules. AlphaGo and its successors use a Monte Carlo tree search algorithm to find its moves based on knowledge previously acquired by machine learning, specifically by an artificial neural network (a deep learning method) by extensive training, both from human and computer play. A neural network is trained to identify the best moves and the winning percentages of these moves. This neural network improves the strength of the tree search, resulting in stronger move selection in the next iteration. In October 2015, in a match against Fan Hui, the original AlphaGo became the first computer Go program to beat a human professional Go player without handicap on a full-sized 19×19 board. In March 2016, it beat Lee Sedol in a five-game match, the first time a computer Go program has beaten a 9-dan professional without handicap. Although it lost to Lee Sedol in the fourth game, Lee resigned in the final game, giving a final score of 4 games to 1 in favour of AlphaGo. In recognition of the victory, AlphaGo was awarded an honorary 9-dan by the Korea Baduk Association. The lead up and the challenge match with Lee Sedol were documented in a documentary film also titled AlphaGo, directed by Greg Kohs. The win by AlphaGo was chosen by Science as one of the Breakthrough of the Year runners-up on 22 December 2016. At the 2017 Future of Go Summit, the Master version of AlphaGo beat Ke Jie, the number one ranked player in the world at the time, in a three-game match, after which AlphaGo was awarded professional 9-dan by the Chinese Weiqi Association. After the match between AlphaGo and Ke Jie, DeepMind retired AlphaGo, while continuing AI research in other areas. The self-taught AlphaGo Zero achieved a 100–0 victory against the early competitive version of AlphaGo, and its successor AlphaZero was perceived as the world's top player in Go by the end of the 2010s. == History == Go is considered much more difficult for computers to win than other games such as chess, because its strategic and aesthetic nature makes it hard to directly construct an evaluation function, and its much larger branching factor makes it prohibitively difficult to use traditional AI methods such as alpha–beta pruning, tree traversal and heuristic search. Almost two decades after IBM's computer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in the 1997 match, the strongest Go programs using artificial intelligence techniques only reached about amateur 5-dan level, and still could not beat a professional Go player without a handicap. In 2012, the software program Zen, running on a four PC cluster, beat Masaki Takemiya (9p) twice at five- and four-stone handicaps. In 2013, Crazy Stone beat Yoshio Ishida (9p) at a four-stone handicap. According to DeepMind's David Silver, the AlphaGo research project was formed around 2014 to test how well a neural network using deep learning can compete at Go. AlphaGo represents a significant improvement over previous Go programs. In 500 games against other available Go programs, including Crazy Stone and Zen, AlphaGo running on a single computer won all but one. In a similar matchup, AlphaGo running on multiple computers won all 500 games played against other Go programs, and 77% of games played against AlphaGo running on a single computer. The distributed version in October 2015 was using 1,202 CPUs and 176 GPUs. === Match against Fan Hui === In October 2015, the distributed version of AlphaGo defeated the European Go champion Fan Hui, a 2-dan (out of 9 dan possible) professional, five to zero. This was the first time a computer Go program had beaten a professional human player on a full-sized board without handicap. The announcement of the news was delayed until 27 January 2016 to coincide with the publication of a paper in the journal Nature describing the algorithms used. === Match against Lee Sedol === AlphaGo played South Korean professional Go player Lee Sedol, ranked 9-dan, one of the best players at Go, with five games taking place at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul, South Korea on 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 March 2016, which were video-streamed live. Out of five games, AlphaGo won four games and Lee won the fourth game which made him recorded as the only human player who beat AlphaGo in all of its 74 official games. AlphaGo ran on Google's cloud computing with its servers located in the United States. The match used Chinese rules with a 7.5-point komi, and each side had two hours of thinking time plus three 60-second byoyomi periods. The version of AlphaGo playing against Lee used a similar amount of computing power as was used in the Fan Hui match. The Economist reported that it used 1,920 CPUs and 280 GPUs. At the time of play, Lee Sedol had the second-highest number of Go international championship victories in the world after South Korean player Lee Chang-ho who kept the world championship title for 16 years. Since there is no single official method of ranking in international Go, the rankings may vary among the sources. While he was ranked top sometimes, some sources ranked Lee Sedol as the fourth-best player in the world at the time. AlphaGo was not specifically trained to face Lee nor was designed to compete with any specific human players. The first three games were won by AlphaGo following resignations by Lee. However, Lee beat AlphaGo in the fourth game, winning by resignation at move 180. AlphaGo then continued to achieve a fourth win, winning the fifth game by resignation. The prize was US$1 million. Since AlphaGo won four out of five and thus the series, the prize will be donated to charities, including UNICEF. Lee Sedol received $150,000 for participating in all five games and an additional $20,000 for his win in Game 4. In June 2016, at a presentation held at a university in the Netherlands, Aja Huang, one of the Deep Mind team, revealed that they had patched the logical weakness that occurred during the 4th game of the match between AlphaGo and Lee, and that after move 78 (which was dubbed the "divine move" by many professionals), it would play as intended and maintain Black's advantage. Before move 78, AlphaGo was leading throughout the game, but Lee's move caused the program's computing powers to be diverted and confused. Huang explained that AlphaGo's policy network of finding the most accurate move order and continuation did not precisely guide AlphaGo to make the correct continuation after move 78, since its value network did not determine Lee's 78th move as being the most likely, and therefore when the move was made AlphaGo could not make the right adjustment to the logical continuation. === Sixty online games === On 29 December 2016, a new account on the Tygem server named "Magister" (shown as 'Magist' at the server's Chinese version) from South Korea began to play games with professional players. It changed its account name to "Master" on 30 December, then moved to the FoxGo server on 1 January 2017. On 4 January, DeepMind confirmed that the "Magister" and the "Master" were both played by an updated version of AlphaGo, called AlphaGo Master. As of 5 January 2017, AlphaGo Master's online record was 60 wins and 0 losses, including three victories over Go's top-ranked player, Ke Jie, who had been quietly briefed in advance that Master was a version of AlphaGo. After losing to Master, Gu Li offered a bounty of 100,000 yuan (US$14,400) to the first human player who could defeat Master. Master played at the pace of 10 games per day. Many quickly suspected it to be an AI player due to little or no resting between games. Its adversaries included many world champions such as Ke Jie, Park Jeong-hwan, Yuta Iyama, Tuo Jiaxi, Mi Yuting, Shi Yue, Chen Yaoye, Li Qincheng, Gu Li, Chang Hao, Tang Weixing, Fan Tingyu, Zhou Ruiyang, Jiang Weijie, Chou Chun-hsun, Kim Ji-seok, Kang Dong-yun, Park Yeong-hun, and Won Seong-jin; national champions or world championship runners-up such as Lian Xiao, Tan Xiao, Meng Tailing, Dang Yifei, Huang Yunsong, Yang Dingxin, Gu Zihao, Shin Jinseo, Cho Han-seung, and An Sungjoon. All 60 games except one were fast-paced games with three 20 or 30 seconds byo-yomi. Master offered to extend the byo-yomi to one minute when playing with Nie Weiping in consideration of his age. After winning its 59th game Master revealed itse
Read more →