AI Chatbot Jailbreak Prompt Reddit

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

• 

  Sprayprinter

  SprayPrinter is a device that attaches to aerosol paint cans whereby users can print images via Bluetooth from a smartphone onto a wall or almost any surface. == History == The technology behind SprayPrinter was developed by Mihkel Joala. He explained in a 2016 interview with New Atlas that his idea was inspired by the modern car engine and the Nintendo Wii console. "Engines nowadays use extremely fast valves to spray fuel to [the] combustion chamber," says Joala. "I realized I can use them to shoot paint with pinpoint accuracy." As of December 2021, the company appears to be no longer selling products. == Awards and Recognitions == In 2015, SprayPrinter received €8,000 from the Estonian prototyping contest Prototron for its initial prototype. In 2016, the SprayPrinter team won the grand prize of €30,000 from the televised pitching competition Ajujaht.

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →
• 

  Komodo (chess)

  Komodo and Dragon by Komodo Chess (also known as Dragon or Komodo Dragon) are UCI chess engines developed by Komodo Chess, which is a part of Chess.com. The engines were originally authored by Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman. Dragon is a commercial chess engine, but Komodo is free for non-commercial use. Dragon is consistently ranked near the top of most major chess engine rating lists, along with Stockfish and Leela Chess Zero. == History == === Komodo === Komodo was derived from Don Dailey's former engine Doch in January 2010. The first multiprocessor version of Komodo was released in June 2013 as Komodo 5.1 MP. This version was a major rewrite and a port of Komodo to C++11. A single-processor version of Komodo (which won the CCT15 tournament in February earlier that year) was released as a stand-alone product shortly before the 5.1 MP release. This version, named Komodo CCT, was still based on the older C code, and was approximately 30 Elo stronger than the 5.1 MP version, as the latter was still undergoing massive code-cleanup work. With the release of Komodo 6 on October 4, 2013, Don Dailey announced that he was suffering from an acute form of leukaemia, and would no longer contribute to the future development of Komodo. On October 8, Don made an announcement on the Talkchess forum that Mark Lefler would be joining the Komodo team and would continue its development. Komodo TCEC was released on December 4, 2013. This was the same version that had won TCEC Season 5, and was the last with input from Don Dailey, to whom it was dedicated. Komodo 7 was released on May 21, 2014, adding Syzygy tablebase support. On May 24, 2018, Chess.com announced that it has acquired Komodo and that the Komodo team have joined Chess.com. The Komodo team is now called Komodo Chess. On December 17, 2018, Komodo Chess released Komodo 12.3 MCTS, a version of the Komodo 12.3 engine that uses Monte Carlo tree search instead of alpha–beta pruning/minimax. The last version, Komodo 14.3, was released on October 4, 2023. === Dragon === On November 9, 2020, Komodo Chess released Dragon by Komodo Chess 1.0, which features the use of efficiently updatable neural networks in its evaluation function. Dragon is derived from Komodo in the same way that Komodo was derived from Doch. Dragon is also called Komodo Dragon in certain tournaments such as the Top Chess Engine Championship and the World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC) but not in the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship (CCC). A Chess.com staff member named Dmitry Pervov joined the Dragon development team to write the NNUE code for Dragon, and Dietrich Kappe joined the Dragon development team to help Larry Kaufman and Mark Lefter train Dragon's neural networks. On March 17, 2023, Larry Kaufman announced that he and Mark Lefter have stepped down from Dragon development and from ownership of Komodo Chess, and that Chess.com have taken full control of Komodo Chess. As of March 17, 2023, Dietrich Kappe is the only person responsible for the development of Dragon, but Chess.com are looking for more programmers to help with Dragon development. The final version, Dragon 3.3, was released on October 4, 2023. == Competition results == === Komodo === Komodo has played in the ICT 2010 in Leiden, and further in the CCT12 and CCT14. Komodo had its first tournament success in 1999, when it won the CCT15 with a score of 6½/7. Komodo won both the World Computer Chess Championship and World Computer Software Championship in 2016. Komodo once again won the World Computer Chess Championship and World Blitz in 2017. In TCEC competition, Komodo was historically one of the strongest engines. In Season 4, it lost only eight out of its 53 games and managed to reach Stage 4 (Quarterfinals), against very strong competition which were running on eight cores (Komodo was running on a single processor). The next season, Komodo won the superfinal against Stockfish. The two engines jockeyed for the championship over the next few seasons: Stockfish won in Season 6, while Komodo won Seasons 7 and 8. Komodo failed to make the superfinal in Season 9, losing out to Houdini; but after Houdini was later disqualified for containing code plagiarized from Stockfish, Komodo was promoted to the runner-up. Komodo retrospectively won Season 10 in the same way. Starting from Season 11 however, Stockfish improved at a rate that left its rivals behind, crushing Komodo in Season 12 and 13. The advent of the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero meant Komodo has largely failed to qualify for the superfinal since, with a single exception in Season 22, when it lost to Stockfish. Although Komodo has not qualified for the superfinal, it has cemented itself as the third-strongest engine in the competition, finishing in that position for five of the last six seasons. ==== Chess.com Computer Chess Championship ==== === Dragon === ==== Chess.com Computer Chess Championship ==== ==== Top Chess Engine Championship ==== == Notable games == Komodo vs Hannibal, nTCEC - Stage 2b - Season 1, Round 4.1, ECO: A10, 1–0 Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine Komodo sacrifices an exchange for positional gain. Gull vs Komodo, nTCEC - Stage 3 - Season 2, Round 2.2, ECO: E10, 0–1 Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine

  Read more →
• 

  Embodied cognition

  Embodied cognition represents a diverse group of theories which investigate how cognition is shaped by the bodily state and capacities of the organism. These embodied factors include the motor system, the perceptual system, bodily interactions with the environment (situatedness), and the assumptions about the world that shape the functional structure of the brain and body of the organism. Embodied cognition suggests that these elements are essential to a wide spectrum of cognitive functions, such as perception biases, memory recall, comprehension and high-level mental constructs (such as meaning attribution and categories) and performance on various cognitive tasks (reasoning or judgment). The embodied mind thesis challenges other theories, such as cognitivism, computationalism, and Cartesian dualism. It is closely related to the extended mind thesis, situated cognition, and enactivism. The modern version depends on understandings drawn from up-to-date research in psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, dynamical systems, artificial intelligence, robotics, animal cognition, plant cognition, and neurobiology. == Theory == Proponents of the embodied cognition thesis emphasize the active and significant role the body plays in the shaping of cognition and in the understanding of an agent's mind and cognitive capacities. In philosophy, embodied cognition holds that an agent's cognition, rather than being the product of mere (innate) abstract representations of the world, is strongly influenced by aspects of an agent's body beyond the brain itself. An embodied model of cognition opposes the disembodied Cartesian model, according to which all mental phenomena are non-physical and, therefore, not influenced by the body. With this opposition the embodiment thesis intends to reintroduce an agent's bodily experiences into any account of cognition. It is a rather broad thesis and encompasses both weak and strong variants of embodiment. In an attempt to reconcile cognitive science with human experience, the enactive approach to cognition defines "embodiment" as follows: By using the term embodied we mean to highlight two points: first that cognition depends upon the kinds of experience that come from having a body with various sensorimotor capacities, and second, that these individual sensorimotor capacities are themselves embedded in a more encompassing biological, psychological and cultural context. This double sense attributed to the embodiment thesis emphasizes the many aspects of cognition that researchers in different fields—such as philosophy, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, psychology, and neuroscience—are involved with. This general characterization of embodiment faces some difficulties: a consequence of this emphasis on the body, experience, culture, context, and the cognitive mechanisms of an agent in the world is that often distinct views and approaches to embodied cognition overlap. The theses of extended cognition and situated cognition, for example, are usually intertwined and not always carefully separated. And since each of the aspects of the embodiment thesis is endorsed to different degrees, embodied cognition should be better seen "as a research program rather than a well-defined unified theory". Some authors explain the embodiment thesis by arguing that cognition depends on an agent's body and its interactions with a determined environment. From this perspective, cognition in real biological systems is not an end in itself; it is constrained by the system's goals and capacities. Such constraints do not mean cognition is set by adaptive behavior (or autopoiesis) alone, but instead that cognition requires "some kind of information processing... the transformation or communication of incoming information". The acquiring of such information involves the agent's "exploration and modification of the environment". It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that cognition consists simply of building maximally accurate representations of input information...the gaining of knowledge is a stepping stone to achieving the more immediate goal of guiding behavior in response to the system's changing surroundings. Another approach to understanding embodied cognition comes from a narrower characterization of the embodiment thesis. The following narrower view of embodiment avoids any compromises to external sources other than the body and allows differentiating between embodied cognition, extended cognition, and situated cognition. Thus, the embodiment thesis can be specified as follows: Many features of cognition are embodied in that they are deeply dependent upon characteristics of the physical body of an agent, such that the agent's beyond-the-brain body plays a significant causal role, or a physically constitutive role, in that agent's cognitive processing. This thesis points out the core idea that an agent's body plays a significant role in shaping different features of cognition, such as perception, attention, memory, reasoning—among others. Likewise, these features of cognition depend on the kind of body an agent has. The thesis omits direct mention of some aspects of the "more encompassing biological, psychological and cultural context" included in the enactive definition, making it possible to separate embodied cognition, extended cognition, and situated cognition. In contrast to the embodiment thesis, the extended mind thesis limits cognitive processing neither to the brain nor even to the body, it extends it outward into the agent's world. Situated cognition emphasizes that this extension is not just a matter of including resources outside the head but stressing the role of probing and changing interactions with the agent's world. Cognition is situated in that it is inherently dependent upon the cultural and social contexts within which it takes place. This conceptual reframing of cognition as an activity influenced by the body has had significant implications. For instance, the view of cognition inherited by most contemporary cognitive neuroscience is internalist in nature. An agent's behavior along with its capacity to maintain (accurate) representations of the surrounding environment were considered as the product of "powerful brains that can maintain the world models and devise plans". From this perspective, cognizing was conceived as something that an isolated brain did. In contrast, accepting the role the body plays during cognitive processes allows us to account for a more encompassing view of cognition. This shift in perspective within neuroscience suggests that successful behavior in real-world scenarios demands the integration of several sensorimotor and cognitive (as well as affective) capacities of an agent. Thus, cognition emerges in the relationship between an agent and the affordances provided by the environment rather than in the brain alone. In 2002, a collection of positive characterizations summarizing what the embodiment thesis entails for cognition were offered. Professor of Cognitive Psychology Margaret Wilson argues that the general outlook of embodied cognition "displays an interesting co-variation of multiple observations and houses a number of different claims: (1) cognition is situated; (2) cognition is time-pressured; (3) we off-load cognitive work onto the environment; (4) the environment is part of the cognitive system; (5) cognition is for action; (6) offline cognition is bodily-based". According to Wilson, the first three and the fifth claim appear to be at least partially true, while the fourth claim is deeply problematic in that all things that have an impact on the elements of a system are not necessarily considered part of the system. The sixth claim has received the least attention in the literature on embodied cognition, yet it might be the most significant of the six claims as it shows how certain human cognitive capabilities, that previously were thought to be highly abstract, now appear to be leaning towards an embodied approach for their explanation. Wilson also describes at least five main (abstract) categories that combine both sensory and motor skills (or sensorimotor functions). The first three are working memory, episodic memory, and implicit memory; the fourth is mental imagery, and finally, the fifth concerns reasoning and problem solving. == History == The theory of embodied cognition, along with the multiple aspects it comprises, can be regarded as the imminent result of an intellectual skepticism towards the flourishment of the disembodied theory of mind put forth by René Descartes in the 17th century. According to Cartesian dualism, the mind is entirely distinct from the body and can be successfully explained and understood without reference to the body or to its processes. Research has been done to identify the set of ideas that would establish what could be considered as the early stages of embodied cognition around inquiries regarding the mind-body-soul rel

  Read more →
• 

  STIT logic

  STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds

  Read more →
• 

  Cleverpath AION Business Rules Expert

  Cleverpath AION Business Rules Expert (formerly Platinum AIONDS, and before that Trinzic AIONDS, and originally Aion) is an expert system and Business rules engine owned by Computer Associates by 2000. == History == The product was created around 1986 as "Aion" by the Aion company. In its initial release Aion was multi-platform and continues to be deliverable to the PC, Unixs, and Mainframe computer's. In addition it ties in seamlessly with a variety of databases including Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and ODBC. Aion was founded by Harry Reinstein, Larry Cohn, Garry Hallee, Scott Grinis, and others. From Scott Grinis's bio: Scott founded Aion, a company that developed expert systems and whose advanced inference engine and object technology were used by financial services and insurance firms to develop risk-scoring and underwriting applications. Harry Reinstein was quoted as saying: “Our biggest competitor was not AICorp, it was COBOL” Trinzic owned AION by 1993. A reference in a 1993 announcement indicates that Trinzic's formation was the result of a merger (paraphased): Trinzic set three development initiatives shortly after its formation from the merger of Aion Corp. and AICorp. The other initiatives -- adding SQL extensions to Aion/DS and evaluating the unbundling of some of that product's object-oriented programming capabilities -- are still active. Writing in 1993 Judith Hodges and Deborah Melewski give the date for the merger: Two rival artificial intelligence software vendors -- AICorp, Inc. and Aion Corp. -- merged in September 1992 to form Trinzic Corp. As part of the merger, redundant jobs were eliminated (20% of the combined work force), leaving a total work force of 245 employees worldwide. The new firm also boasted a combined installed base of more than 1,200 sites representing more than 10,000 software licenses. Although in the merger, technically AICorp bought Aion, as AICorp was a public company and Aion was still private, the reality was that Aion's leadership and technology subsumed AICorp's. Jim Gagnard, the CEO of Aion, became CEO of Trinzic and AICorp's flagship product, KBMS, was discontinued, while the Aion Development System continued to be enhanced and KBMS customers were assisted in converting to AIONDS, under the continued technical leadership of Garry Hallee and Scott Grinis. On August 1, 1994 Trinzic released version 6.4 of AIONDS saying, in part: Trinzic Corp., Palo Alto, Calif., has unveiled The Aion Development System (AionDS) Version 6.4, an upgrade to the company's development environment for building business process automation applications. Version 6.4 provides a visual development environment for Microsoft Windows or OS/2 PM applications using business rules. Trinzic was acquired by PLATINUM Technologies in 1995 which retained at least some of Trinzic's acquisitions Platinum Technologies was acquired by Computer Associates in 1999. CA changed the system's name to CA Aion Business Rules Expert" on or before 2009. It is currently (June 2011) at Release 11 on a wide range of supported platforms. == Applications using Aion == Aion has been used in a variety of industries including Energy, Insurance, Military, Aviation, and Banking. At one point an Aion expert system application written by Covia, LLC existed to do airport gate assignment. Colossus, a computer program, developed by Computer Sciences Corporation is the insurance industry’s leading expert system for assisting adjusters in the evaluation of bodily injury claims (aka "pain and suffering"). Colossus helps adjusters reduce variance in payouts on similar bodily injury claims through objective use of industry standard rules.

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology components

  Contemporary ontologies share many structural similarities, regardless of the ontology language in which they are expressed. Most ontologies describe individuals (instances), classes (concepts), attributes, and relations. == List == Common components of ontologies include: Individuals instances or objects (the basic or "ground level" objects; the tokens). Classes sets, collections, concepts, types of objects, or kinds of things. Attributes aspects, properties, features, characteristics, or parameters that individuals (and classes and relations) can have. Relations ways in which classes and individuals can be related to one another. Relations can carry attributes that specify the relation further. Function terms complex structures formed from certain relations that can be used in place of an individual term in a statement. Restrictions formally stated descriptions of what must be true in order for some assertion to be accepted as input. Rules statements in the form of an if-then (antecedent-consequent) sentence that describe the logical inferences that can be drawn from an assertion in a particular form. Axioms assertions (including rules) in a logical form that together comprise the overall theory that the ontology describes in its domain of application. This definition differs from that of "axioms" in generative grammar and formal logic. In these disciplines, axioms include only statements asserted as a priori knowledge. As used here, "axioms" also include the theory derived from axiomatic statements. Events the changing of attributes or relations. Actions types of events. Ontologies are commonly encoded using ontology languages. == Individuals == Individuals (instances) are the basic, "ground level" components of an ontology. The individuals in an ontology may include concrete objects such as people, animals, tables, automobiles, molecules, and planets, as well as abstract individuals such as numbers and words (although there are differences of opinion as to whether numbers and words are classes or individuals). Strictly speaking, an ontology need not include any individuals, but one of the general purposes of an ontology is to provide a means of classifying individuals, even if those individuals are not explicitly part of the ontology. In formal extensional ontologies, only the utterances of words and numbers are considered individuals – the numbers and names themselves are classes. In a 4D ontology, an individual is identified by its spatio-temporal extent. Examples of formal extensional ontologies are BORO, ISO 15926 and the model in development by the IDEAS Group. == Classes == == Attributes == Objects in an ontology can be described by relating them to other things, typically aspects or parts. These related things are often called attributes, although they may be independent things. Each attribute can be a class or an individual. The kind of object and the kind of attribute determine the kind of relation between them. A relation between an object and an attribute express a fact that is specific to the object to which it is related. For example, the Ford Explorer object has attributes such as: ⟨has as name⟩ Ford Explorer ⟨as by definition as part⟩ 6-speed transmission ⟨as by definition as part⟩ door (with as minimum and maximum cardinality: 4) ⟨as by definition as part one of⟩ {4.0L engine, 4.6L engine} The value of an attribute can be a complex data type; in this example, the related engine can only be one of a list of subtypes of engines, not just a single thing. Ontologies are only true ontologies if concepts are related to other concepts (the concepts do have attributes). If that is not the case, then you would have either a taxonomy (if hyponym relationships exist between concepts) or a controlled vocabulary. These are useful, but are not considered true ontologies. == Relations == Relations (also known as relationships) between objects in an ontology specify how objects are related to other objects. Typically a relation is of a particular type (or class) that specifies in what sense the object is related to the other object in the ontology. For example, in the ontology that contains the concept Ford Explorer and the concept Ford Bronco might be related by a relation of type ⟨is defined as a successor of⟩. The full expression of that fact then becomes: Ford Explorer is defined as a successor of : Ford Bronco This tells us that the Explorer is the model that replaced the Bronco. This example also illustrates that the relation has a direction of expression. The inverse expression expresses the same fact, but with a reverse phrase in natural language. Much of the power of ontologies comes from the ability to describe relations. Together, the set of relations describes the semantics of the domain: that is, its various semantic relations, such as synonymy, hyponymy and hypernymy, coordinate relation, and others. The set of used relation types (classes of relations) and their subsumption hierarchy describe the expression power of the language in which the ontology is expressed. An important type of relation is the subsumption relation (is-a-superclass-of, the converse of is-a, is-a-subtype-of or is-a-subclass-of). This defines which objects are classified by which class. For example, we have already seen that the class Ford Explorer is-a-subclass-of 4-Wheel Drive Car, which in turn is-a-subclass-of Car. The addition of the is-a-subclass-of relationships creates a taxonomy; a tree-like structure (or, more generally, a partially ordered set) that clearly depicts how objects relate to one another. In such a structure, each object is the 'child' of a 'parent class' (Some languages restrict the is-a-subclass-of relationship to one parent for all nodes, but many do not). Another common type of relations is the mereology relation, written as part-of, that represents how objects combine to form composite objects. For example, if we extended our example ontology to include concepts like Steering Wheel, we would say that a "Steering Wheel is-by-definition-a-part-of-a Ford Explorer" since a steering wheel is always one of the components of a Ford Explorer. If we introduce meronymy relationships to our ontology, the hierarchy that emerges is no longer able to be held in a simple tree-like structure since now members can appear under more than one parent or branch. Instead this new structure that emerges is known as a directed acyclic graph. As well as the standard is-a-subclass-of and is-by-definition-a-part-of-a relations, ontologies often include additional types of relations that further refine the semantics they model. Ontologies might distinguish between different categories of relation types. For example: relation types for relations between classes relation types for relations between individuals relation types for relations between an individual and a class relation types for relations between a single object and a collection relation types for relations between collections Relation types are sometimes domain-specific and are then used to store specific kinds of facts or to answer particular types of questions. If the definitions of the relation types are included in an ontology, then the ontology defines its own ontology definition language. An example of an ontology that defines its own relation types and distinguishes between various categories of relation types is the Gellish ontology. For example, in the domain of automobiles, we might need a made-in type relationship which tells us where each car is built. So the Ford Explorer is made-in Louisville. The ontology may also know that Louisville is-located-in Kentucky and Kentucky is-classified-as-a state and is-a-part-of the U.S. Software using this ontology could now answer a question like "which cars are made in the U.S.?"

  Read more →
• 

  Z.ai

  Knowledge Atlas Technology Joint Stock Co., Ltd., branded internationally as Z.ai, is a Chinese technology company specializing in artificial intelligence (AI). The company was formerly known as Zhipu AI outside China until its rebranding in 2025. Z.ai's flagship product is the GLM (General Language Model) family of large language models, which the company has released under the free and open-source MIT License since July 2025. As of 2024, it is one of China's "AI tiger" companies by investors and considered to be the third-largest LLM market player in China's AI industry according to the International Data Corporation. In January 2025, the United States Commerce Department blacklisted the company in its Entity List due to national security concerns. == History == Founded in 2019, the startup company began from Tsinghua University and was later spun out as an independent company. Researchers published an Association for Computational Linguistics conference paper in May 2022 introducing the GLM (General Language Model) training algorithm, which uses an "autoregressive blank infilling" strategy that creates cloze tests by randomly removing segments of input text and trains the model to autoregressively regenerate the removed text. In 2023, it raised 2.5 billion yuan (approx. 350 million in USD) from Alibaba Group and Tencent, along with Meituan, Ant Group, Xiaomi, and HongShan. In March 2024, Zhipu AI announced it was developing a Sora-like technology to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI). In May 2024, the Saudi Arabian finance firm Prosperity7 Ventures, LLC participated in a USD $400 million financing round for Zhipu AI with a valuation of approximately 3 billion USD. In July 2024, they debuted the Ying text-to-video model. Zhipu released GLM-4-Plus in August 2024. In October 2024, Zhipu released GLM-4-Voice, an end-to-end speech large language model that can adjust its tone or dialect. Zhipu disclosed in April 2025 that it had started preparing for its initial public offering (IPO) and released two models under the free and open-source MIT License. In May 2025, the company sealed a 61.28 million yuan deal from the Chinese government for city projects in Hangzhou. In July 2025, Zhipu AI released GLM-4.5 and GLM-4.5 Air, their next generation language models, and the company rebranded itself as Z.ai internationally. In August 2025, Z.ai announced that their GLM models are compatible with Huawei's Ascend processors. On August 11, 2025, Z.ai released a new vision-language model (VLM) with a total of 106B parameters, GLM-4.5V. In late September 2025, the company released GLM-4.6 using China's domestic chips such as those from Cambricon Technologies. Z.ai released GLM-4.6V and GLM-4.7 in December 2025. That same year, the company changed its official name to Knowledge Atlas Technology JSC Ltd. On 8 January 2026, Z.ai held its IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange to become a listed company. It is considered to be China's first major LLM company that went through an IPO. On February 11, 2026, Z.ai released GLM-5. In late February 2026, Z.ai's shares fell by 23%, and had a shortage of compute resources, leading to user complaints and Z.ai issuing a public call for support. Z.ai also restricted new user signups. In late March, 2026, Z.ai released the GLM-5.1 model to subscription users. On April 8th, 2026, Z.ai released GLM-5.1 as open-source. The same day, Z.ai increased its API prices by 10%, but maintained a lower price than its United States competitor Anthropic's Opus 4.6 model. On release, the company's share price increased 11.5%. == Description == Z.ai provides the following products and services: General Language Model (commonly abbreviated as GLM; formerly known as ChatGLM), a series of pre-trained dialogue models initially developed by Zhipu AI and Tsinghua KEG in 2023. GLM 4.5, released in July 2025 by Z.ai, can run on eight NVIDIA H20 chips. The release of GLM-4.6 in late September 2025 marked the first integration of FP8 and Int4 quantization on Cambricon chips. It also supports native FP8 on Moore Threads GPUs. Ying, a text-to-video model that generates image and text prompts into a six-second video clip for around 30 seconds. AutoGLM, an AI agent application that uses voice commands to complete tasks within a smartphone. The app can analyze complex tasks such as ordering an item from a nearby store and repeating an order based from the user's shopping history. AMiner, created by Jie Tang (co-founder of Z.ai) in March 2006, now owned by Z.ai. Z.ai has offices in the Middle East, United Kingdom, Singapore, and Malaysia, along with innovation center projects across Southeast Asia (2025). In January 2025, the United States Commerce Department added the company to its Entity List, citing national security concerns. == Models ==

  Read more →
• 

  Stanza Living

  Stanza Living is the common brand name for Dtwelve Spaces Private Limited. It provides fully-managed shared living accommodations to students and young professionals. Founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia, the company is present across 23 cities including Delhi, NCR, Bangalore, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore, Indore, Pune, Baroda, Vijayawada, and Dehradun, Kota in India, with a capacity of 70,000 beds. Stanza Living is a technology-enabled housing concept which provides fully-furnished residences with amenities like meals, internet, laundry services, housekeeping, security and community engagement programmes. The company has an asset-light business model under which it engages in long-term lease agreements with property owners/developers, who convert their assets into shared living residences as per company guidelines. These assets are subsequently operated by Stanza Living. == Industry background == A report by Cushman & Wakefield (C&W) titled 'Exploring the Student Housing Universe in India City Insights', estimates that there were over 9.08 million migrant student enrolments in India's higher educational institutions (HEIs) for the year 2018-19 who need quality accommodation facilities. According to the report, Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, and Pune are the three biggest markets for student housing in the country, and these cities require an additional 4.75 lakh beds from organized co-living operators to meet the current demand. == History == Stanza Living provides tech-enabled, fully managed community living facilities for students and working professionals. The company was launched as a student housing business in Delhi NCR with a capacity of 100 beds, and grew to 14 cities by 2019. By early 2020, the company began catering to working professionals as well. The company has a combined inventory of 70,000 beds under management for both students and working professionals. Stanza Living is currently valued at $300 million. It has raised a capital of about $70 million from leading global investors like Falcon Edge Capital, Sequoia Capital, Matrix Partners and Accel Partners. November 2017 – Seed funding, September 2018 – Series A, March 2019 – Debt financing, July 2019 – Series C round, December 2019 - Debt financing. The company has invested in building technology products for business efficiency and consumer experience, like the Stanza Resident App and Stanza Real Estate App. Stanza Living has close to 1,500 employees across India. It is recognized among Top Real Estate Tech Startups of 2020 across the globe by research and analysis company Tracxn. The company has been shortlisted among Top 25 Start-ups of India in 2019 by LinkedIn == Founders == Stanza Living was co-founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia. Sandeep Dalmia is an alumnus of Delhi College of Engineering and IIM Ahmedabad. Prior to Stanza, he was a Principal at Boston Consulting Group, working across India, US and South East Asia markets. Anindya Dutta was previously a Real Estate investor with Oaktree Capital and prior to that, he worked at Goldman Sachs in London. He is an alumnus of IIT Kharagpur and IIM Ahmedabad.

  Read more →
• 

  MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

  Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) is a research institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) formed by the 2003 merger of the Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS) and the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab). Housed within the Ray and Maria Stata Center, CSAIL is the largest on-campus laboratory as measured by research scope and membership. It is part of the Schwarzman College of Computing but is also overseen by the MIT Vice President of Research. == Research activities == CSAIL's research activities are organized around a number of semi-autonomous research groups, each of which is headed by one or more professors or research scientists. These groups are divided up into seven general areas of research: Artificial intelligence Computational biology Graphics and vision Language and learning Theory of computation Robotics Systems (includes computer architecture, databases, distributed systems, networks and networked systems, operating systems, programming methodology, and software engineering, among others) == History == Computing Research at MIT began with Vannevar Bush's research into a differential analyzer and Claude Shannon's electronic Boolean algebra in the 1930s, the wartime MIT Radiation Laboratory, the post-war Project Whirlwind and the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE), and MIT Lincoln Laboratory's SAGE in the early 1950s. At MIT, research in the field of artificial intelligence began in the late 1950s. === Project MAC === On July 1, 1963, Project MAC (the Project on Mathematics and Computation, later backronymed to Multiple Access Computer, Machine Aided Cognitions, or Man and Computer) was launched with a $2 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Project MAC's original director was Robert Fano of MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). Fano decided to call MAC a "project" rather than a "laboratory" for reasons of internal MIT politics – if MAC had been called a laboratory, then it would have been more difficult to raid other MIT departments for research staff. The program manager responsible for the DARPA grant was J. C. R. Licklider, who had previously been at MIT conducting research in RLE, and would later succeed Fano as director of Project MAC. Project MAC would become famous for groundbreaking research in operating systems, artificial intelligence, and the theory of computation. Its contemporaries included Project Genie at Berkeley, the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and (somewhat later) University of Southern California's (USC's) Information Sciences Institute. An "AI Group" including Marvin Minsky (the director), John McCarthy (inventor of Lisp), and a talented community of computer programmers were incorporated into Project MAC. They were interested principally in the problems of vision, mechanical motion and manipulation, and language, which they view as the keys to more intelligent machines. In the 1960s and 1970s the AI Group developed a time-sharing operating system called Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) which ran on PDP-6 and later PDP-10 computers. The early Project MAC community included Fano, Minsky, Licklider, Fernando J. Corbató, and a community of computer programmers and enthusiasts among others who drew their inspiration from former colleague John McCarthy. These founders envisioned the creation of a computer utility whose computational power would be as reliable as an electric utility. To this end, Corbató brought the first computer time-sharing system, Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS), with him from the MIT Computation Center, using the DARPA funding to purchase an IBM 7094 for research use. One of the early focuses of Project MAC would be the development of a successor to CTSS, Multics, which was to be the first high availability computer system, developed as a part of an industry consortium including General Electric and Bell Laboratories. In 1966, Scientific American featured Project MAC in the September thematic issue devoted to computer science, that was later published in book form. At the time, the system was described as having approximately 100 TTY terminals, mostly on campus but with a few in private homes. Only 30 users could be logged in at the same time. The project enlisted students in various classes to use the terminals simultaneously in problem solving, simulations, and multi-terminal communications as tests for the multi-access computing software being developed. === AI Lab and LCS === In the late 1960s, Minsky's artificial intelligence group was seeking more space, and was unable to get satisfaction from project director Licklider. Minsky found that although Project MAC as a single entity could not get the additional space he wanted, he could split off to form his own laboratory and then be entitled to more office space. As a result, the MIT AI Lab was formed in 1970, and many of Minsky's AI colleagues left Project MAC to join him in the new laboratory, while most of the remaining members went on to form the Laboratory for Computer Science. Talented programmers such as Richard Stallman, who used TECO to develop EMACS, flourished in the AI Lab during this time. Those researchers who did not join the smaller AI Lab formed the Laboratory for Computer Science and continued their research into operating systems, programming languages, distributed systems, and the theory of computation. Two professors, Hal Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman, chose to remain neutral—their group was referred to variously as Switzerland and Project MAC for the next 30 years. Among much else, the AI Lab led to the invention of Lisp machines and their attempted commercialization by two companies in the 1980s: Symbolics and Lisp Machines Inc. === CSAIL === On the fortieth anniversary of Project MAC's establishment, July 1, 2003, LCS was merged with the AI Lab to form the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, or CSAIL. This merger created the largest laboratory (over 600 personnel) on the MIT campus. In 2018, CSAIL launched a five-year collaboration program with IFlytek, a company sanctioned the following year for allegedly using its technology for surveillance and human rights abuses in Xinjiang. In October 2019, MIT announced that it would review its partnerships with sanctioned firms such as iFlyTek and SenseTime. In April 2020, the agreement with iFlyTek was terminated. CSAIL moved from the School of Engineering to the newly formed Schwarzman College of Computing by February 2020. == Offices == From 1963 to 2004, Project MAC, LCS, the AI Lab, and CSAIL had their offices at 545 Technology Square, taking over more and more floors of the building over the years. In 2004, CSAIL moved to the new Ray and Maria Stata Center, which was built specifically to house it and other departments. == Outreach activities == The IMARA (from Swahili word for "power") group sponsors a variety of outreach programs that bridge the global digital divide. Its aim is to find and implement long-term, sustainable solutions which will increase the availability of educational technology and resources to domestic and international communities. These projects are run under the aegis of CSAIL and staffed by MIT volunteers who give training, install and donate computer setups in greater Boston, Massachusetts, Kenya, Native American Indian tribal reservations in the American Southwest such as the Navajo Nation, the Middle East, and Fiji Islands. The CommuniTech project strives to empower under-served communities through sustainable technology and education and does this through the MIT Used Computer Factory (UCF), providing refurbished computers to under-served families, and through the Families Accessing Computer Technology (FACT) classes, it trains those families to become familiar and comfortable with computer technology. == Notable researchers == (Including members and alumni of CSAIL's predecessor laboratories) MacArthur Fellows Tim Berners-Lee, Erik Demaine, Dina Katabi, Daniela L. Rus, Regina Barzilay, Peter Shor, Richard Stallman, and Joshua Tenenbaum Turing Award recipients Leonard M. Adleman, Fernando J. Corbató, Shafi Goldwasser, Butler W. Lampson, John McCarthy, Silvio Micali, Marvin Minsky, Ronald L. Rivest, Adi Shamir, Barbara Liskov, and Michael Stonebraker IJCAI Computers and Thought Award recipients Terry Winograd, Patrick Winston, David Marr, Gerald Jay Sussman, Rodney Brooks Rolf Nevanlinna Prize recipients Madhu Sudan, Peter Shor, Constantinos Daskalakis Gödel Prize recipients Shafi Goldwasser (two-time recipient), Silvio Micali, Maurice Herlihy, Charles Rackoff, Johan Håstad, Peter Shor, and Madhu Sudan Grace Murray Hopper Award recipients Robert Metcalfe, Shafi Goldwasser, Guy L. Steele, Jr., Richard Stallman, and W. Daniel Hillis Textbook authors Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman, Richard Stallman, Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Patrick Winston, Ronald L.

  Read more →
• 

  Partial-order planning

  Partial-order planning is an approach to automated planning that maintains a partial ordering between actions and only commits ordering between actions when forced to, that is, ordering of actions is partial. Also this planning doesn't specify which action will come out first when two actions are processed. By contrast, total-order planning maintains a total ordering between all actions at every stage of planning. Given a problem in which some sequence of actions is needed to achieve a goal, a partial-order plan specifies all actions that must be taken, but specifies an ordering between actions only where needed. Consider the following situation: a person must travel from the start to the end of an obstacle course. The course is composed of a bridge, a see-saw, and a swing-set. The bridge must be traversed before the see-saw and swing-set are reachable. Once reachable, the see-saw and swing-set can be traversed in any order, after which the end is reachable. In a partial-order plan, ordering between these obstacles is specified only when needed. The bridge must be traversed first. Second, either the see-saw or swing-set can be traversed. Third, the remaining obstacle can be traversed. Then the end can be traversed. Partial-order planning relies upon the principle of least commitment for its efficiency. == Partial-order plan == A partial-order plan or partial plan is a plan which specifies all actions that must be taken, but only specifies the order between actions when needed. It is the result of a partial-order planner. A partial-order plan consists of four components: A set of actions (also known as operators). A partial order for the actions. It specifies the conditions about the order of some actions. A set of causal links. It specifies which actions meet which preconditions of other actions. Alternatively, a set of bindings between the variables in actions. A set of open preconditions. It specifies which preconditions are not fulfilled by any action in the partial-order plan. To keep the possible orders of the actions as open as possible, the set of order conditions and causal links must be as small as possible. A plan is a solution if the set of open preconditions is empty. A linearization of a partial order plan is a total order plan derived from the particular partial order plan; in other words, both order plans consist of the same actions, with the order in the linearization being a linear extension of the partial order in the original partial order plan. === Example === For example, a plan for baking a cake might start: go to the store get eggs; get flour; get milk pay for all goods go to the kitchen This is a partial plan because the order for finding eggs, flour and milk is not specified, the agent can wander around the store reactively accumulating all the items on its shopping list until the list is complete. == Partial-order planner == A partial-order planner is an algorithm or program which will construct a partial-order plan and search for a solution. The input is the problem description, consisting of descriptions of the initial state, the goal and possible actions. The problem can be interpreted as a search problem where the set of possible partial-order plans is the search space. The initial state would be the plan with the open preconditions equal to the goal conditions. The final state would be any plan with no open preconditions, i.e. a solution. The initial state is the starting conditions, and can be thought of as the preconditions to the task at hand. For a task of setting the table, the initial state could be a clear table. The goal is simply the final action that needs to be accomplished, for example setting the table. The operators of the algorithm are the actions by which the task is accomplished. For this example there may be two operators: lay (tablecloth), and place (glasses, plates, and silverware). === Plan space === The plan space of the algorithm is constrained between its start and finish. The algorithm starts, producing the initial state and finishes when all parts of the goal have been achieved. In the setting a table example, two types of actions exist that must be addressed: the put-out and lay operators. Four unsolved operators also exist: Action 1, lay-tablecloth, Action 2, Put-out (plates), Action 3, Put-out (silverware), and Action 4, Put-out (glasses). However, a threat arises if Action 2, 3, or 4 comes before Action 1. This threat is that the precondition to the start of the algorithm will be unsatisfied as the table will no longer be clear. Thus, constraints exist that must be added to the algorithm that force Actions 2, 3, and 4 to come after Action 1. Once these steps are completed, the algorithm will finish and the goal will have been completed. === Threats === As seen in the algorithm presented above, partial-order planning can encounter certain threats, meaning orderings that threaten to break connected actions, thus potentially destroying the entire plan. There are two ways to resolve threats: Promotion Demotion Promotion orders the possible threat after the connection it threatens. Demotion orders the possible threat before the connection it threatens. Partial-order planning algorithms are known for being both sound and complete, with sound being defined as the total ordering of the algorithm, and complete being defined as the capability to find a solution, given that a solution does in fact exist. == Partial-order vs. total-order planning == Partial-order planning is the opposite of total-order planning, in which actions are sequenced all at once and for the entirety of the task at hand. The question arises when one has two competing processes, which one is better? Anthony Barret and Daniel Weld have argued in their 1993 book, that partial-order planning is superior to total-order planning, as it is faster and thus more efficient. They tested this theory using Korf’s taxonomy of subgoal collections, in which they found that partial-order planning performs better because it produces more trivial serializability than total-order planning. Trivial serializability facilitates a planner’s ability to perform quickly when dealing with goals that contain subgoals. Planners perform more slowly when dealing with laboriously serializable or nonserializable subgoals. The determining factor that makes a subgoal trivially or laboriously serializable is the search space of different plans. They found that partial-order planning is more adept at finding the quickest path, and is therefore the more efficient of these two main types of planning. == The Sussman anomaly == Partial-order plans are known to easily and optimally solve the Sussman anomaly. Using this type of incremental planning system solves this problem quickly and efficiently. This was a result of partial-order planning that solidified its place as an efficient planning system. == Disadvantages to partial-order planning == One drawback of this type of planning system is that it requires a lot more computational power for each node. This higher per-node cost occurs because the algorithm for partial-order planning is more complex than others. This has important artificial intelligence implications. When coding a robot to do a certain task, the creator needs to take into account how much energy is needed. Though a partial-order plan may be quicker it may not be worth the energy cost for the robot. The creator must be aware of and weigh these two options to build an efficient robot.

  Read more →
• 

  Chinese room

  The Chinese room argument holds that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented in a 1980 paper by the American philosopher John Searle, entitled "Minds, Brains, and Programs" and published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Similar arguments had been made previously by others, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Peter Winch, and Anatoly Dneprov. Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room". The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence. Specifically, the argument is intended to refute a position Searle calls the strong AI hypothesis: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Although its proponents originally presented the argument in reaction to statements of artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, it is not an argument against the goals of mainstream AI research because it does not show a limit in the amount of intelligent behavior a machine can display. The argument applies only to digital computers running programs and does not apply to machines in general. While widely discussed, the argument has been subject to significant criticism and remains controversial among philosophers of mind and AI researchers. == Chinese room thought experiment == Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker. The questions at issue are these: does the machine actually understand the conversation, or is it just simulating the ability to understand the conversation? Does the machine have a mind in exactly the same sense that people do, or is it just acting as if it had a mind? Now suppose that Searle is in a room with an English version of the program, along with sufficient pencils, paper, erasers and filing cabinets. Chinese characters are slipped in under the door, and he follows the program step-by-step, which eventually instructs him to slide other Chinese characters back out under the door. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows that Searle would do so as well, simply by running the program by hand. Searle can see no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either. Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the strong AI hypothesis is false: a computer running a program that simulates a mind would not have a mind in the same sense that human beings have a mind. == History == Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made a similar argument in 1713 against mechanism, the idea that everything that makes up a human being could, in principle, be explained in mechanical terms—in other words, that a person, including their mind, is merely a very complex machine. Leibniz used the thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. He found it difficult to imagine that a "mind" capable of "perception" could be constructed using only mechanical processes. British philosopher Peter Winch made the same point in his 1958 book The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, in which he argues that "a man who understands Chinese is not a man who has a firm grasp of the statistical probabilities for the occurrence of the various words in the Chinese language" (p. 108). Soviet cyberneticist Anatoly Dneprov made an essentially identical argument in 1961, in the form of his short story "The Game". In it, a stadium of people act as switches and memory cells implementing a program to translate a sentence from Portuguese, a language none of them know. The game was organized by a "Professor Zarubin" to answer the question "Can mathematical machines think?" Speaking through Zarubin, Dneprov writes that "the only way to prove that machines can think is to turn yourself into a machine and examine your thinking process", and he concludes, as Searle does, that "even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself." In 1974, Lawrence H. Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in 1978, Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This is known as the China brain thought experiment. Searle's version appeared in his 1980 article "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. It eventually became the journal's "most influential target article", generating an enormous number of commentaries and responses in the ensuing decades, and Searle had continued to defend and refine the argument in multiple papers, popular articles, and books. David Cole writes that "the Chinese Room argument has probably been the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear in the past 25 years". Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. "The overwhelming majority", notes Behavioral and Brain Sciences editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false". Searle's argument has become "something of a classic in cognitive science", according to Harnad. Varol Akman agrees, and has described the original paper as "an exemplar of philosophical clarity and purity". == Philosophy == Although the Chinese Room argument was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence researchers, philosophers have come to consider it as an important part of the philosophy of mind. It is a challenge to functionalism and the computational theory of mind, and is related to such questions as the mind–body problem, the problem of other minds, the symbol grounding problem, and the hard problem of consciousness. === Strong AI === Searle identified a philosophical position he calls "strong AI": The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds. The definition depends on the distinction between simulating a mind and actually having one. Searle writes that "according to Strong AI, the correct simulation really is a mind. According to Weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of the mind." The claim is implicit in some of the statements of early AI researchers and analysts. For example, in 1957, the economist and psychologist Herbert A. Simon declared that "there are now in the world machines that think, that learn and create". Simon, together with Allen Newell and Cliff Shaw, after having completed the first program that could do formal reasoning (the Logic Theorist), claimed that they had "solved the venerable mind–body problem, explaining how a system composed of matter can have the properties of mind." John Haugeland wrote that "AI wants only the genuine article: machines with minds, in the full and literal sense. This is not science fiction, but real science, based on a theoretical conception as deep as it is daring: namely, we are, at root, computers ourselves." Searle also ascribes the following claims to advocates of strong AI: AI systems can be used to explain the mind; The study of the brain is irrelevant to the study of the mind; and The Turing test is adequate for establishing the existence of mental states. === Strong AI as computationalism or functionalism === In more recent presentations of the Chinese room argument, Searle has identified "strong AI" as "computer functionalism" (a term he attributes to Daniel Dennett). Functionalism is a position in modern philosophy of mind that holds that we can define menta

  Read more →
• 

  RemObjects Software

  RemObjects Software is an American software company founded in 2002 by Alessandro Federici and Marc Hoffman. It develops and offers tools and libraries for software developers on a variety of development platforms, including Embarcadero Delphi, Microsoft .NET, Mono, and Apple's Xcode. == History == RemObjects Software was founded in the summer of 2002. Its first product was RemObjects SDK 1.0 for Delphi, the company's remoting solution which is now in its 6th version. In late 2003 RemObjects expanded its product portfolio to add Data Abstract for Delphi, a multi-tier database framework built on top of the SDK. In 2004, Carlo Kok, who would eventually become Chief Compiler Architect for Oxygene, joined the company, adding the open source Pascal Script library for Delphi to the company's portfolio. Initial development began on Oxygene (which was then named Chrome) based on Carlo's experience from writing the widely used Pascal Script scripting engine. Towards the end of 2004, RemObjects SDK for .NET was released, expanding the remoting framework to its second platform. Chrome 1.0 was released in mid-2005, providing support for .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0, which was still in beta at the time - making Chrome the first shipping language for .NET that supported features such as generics. It was followed by Chrome 1.5 when .NET 2.0 shipped in November of the same year. 2005 also saw the expansion of Data Abstract to .NET as a second platform. Data Abstract for .NET was the first RemObjects product (besides Oxygene itself) to be written in Oxygene. Hydra 3.0, was released for .NET in December 2006, bringing a paradigm shift to the product, away from a regular plugin framework, and focusing on interoperability between plugins and host applications written in either .NET or Delphi/Win32, essentially enabling the use of both managed and unmanaged code in the same project. In Summer 2007, RemObjects released Chrome 'Joyride' which added official support for .NET 3.0 and 3.5. Chrome once again was the first language to ship release level support for new .NET framework features supported by that runtime - most importantly Sequences and Queries (aka LINQ). Development continued and in May 2008 Oxygene 3.0 was released, dropping the "Chrome" moniker. Oxygene once again brought major language enhancements, including extensive support for concurrency and parallel programming as part of the language syntax. In October 2008, RemObjects Software and Embarcadero Technologies announced plans to collaborate and ship future versions of Oxygene under the Delphi Prism moniker, later changed to Embarcadero Prism. The first of these releases of Prism became available in December 2008. Over the course of 2009, RemObjects software completed the expansion of its Data Abstract and RemObjects SDK product combo to a third development platform - Xcode and Cocoa, for both Mac OS X and iPhone SDK client development. RemObjects SDK for OS X shipped in the spring of 2009, followed by Data Abstract for OS X in the fall. In 2011, Oxygene was expanded to add support for the Java platform, in addition to NET. In 2014, RemObjects introduced a C# compiler which runs as a Visual Studio 2013 plugin, that can output code for iOS, MacOS (Cocoa) and Android, in addition to .NET compatible code. In addition, an IDE called Fire was introduced for macOS which works with their C# and Oxygene compilers. Together, the compiler supporting both Oxygene and C# was rebranded as the Elements Compiler, with CE# having the Code name "Hydrogene". In February 2015, RemObjects introduced a beta version of a Swift compiler called Silver as part of its Elements effort. Silver, too, could create code that will execute on Android, the JVM, .NET platform and also create native Cocoa code. Silver added new features to the Swift language, such as exceptions and has a few differences and limitations compared to Apple's Swift. In February 2020, support for the Go programming language was introduced with RemObjects Gold, including the ability to compile Go language code for all Elements platforms, and a port of the extensive Go Base Library available to all Elements languages. In 2021, Mercury was added to the Elements compiler as the sixth language, providing a future for the Visual Basic .NET language recently deprecated by Microsoft. Mercury supports building and maintaining existing VB.NET projects, as well as using the language for new projects both on .NET and the other platforms. == Commercial products == Elements is a development toolchain that targets .NET runtime, Java/Android virtual machines, the Apple ecosystem (macOS, iOS, tvOS), WebAssembly and native and Windows/Linux/Android NDK processor-native machine code in conjunction with a runtime library that does automatic garbage collection on non-ARC environments and ARC on ARC-based environments, such as iOS and MacOS. Because Java, C#, Swift, and Oxygene all can import each other's APIs, Elements effectively functions as Java bonded together with C# bonded together with Swift bonded together with Oxygene as a confederation of languages cooperating together quite intimately. Oxygene, a unique programming language based on Object Pascal, which can import Java, C#, and Swift APIs from the runtime of the target operating system; RemObjects C#, an implementation of C# programming language, which can import Java, Swift, and Oxygene APIs from the runtime of the target operating system and which is intended as a competitor of Xamarin, but Hydrogene's C# targets JVM bytecode instead of Xamarin's C# compiling to only Common Language Infrastructure byte code and needing the accompanying Mono Common Language Runtime to be present in such JVM-centric environments as Android; Silver, a free implementation of the Swift programming language, which can import Java, C#, and Oxygene APIs from the runtime of the target operating system; Iodine, an implementation of the Java programming language. Gold, an implementation of the Go programming language. Mercury, an implementation of the Visual Basic .NET programming language. Fire an integrated development environment for macOS. Water an integrated development environment for Windows. Data Abstract Remoting SDK, a.k.a. RemObjects SDK Hydra Oxfuscator Oxidizer, an automatic translator from Java, C#, Objective-C, and Delphi to Oxygene, from Java, Objective-C, and C# to Swift, and from Java and Objective-C to C#. == Open source projects == Train is an open-source JavaScript-based tool for building and running build scripts and automation. Internet Pack for .NET is a free, open source library for building network clients and servers using TCP and higher level protocols such as HTTP or FTP, using the .NET or Mono platforms. It includes a range of ready to use protocol implementations, as well as base classes that allow the creation of custom implementations. RemObjects Script for .NET is a fully managed ECMAScript implementation for .NET and Mono. Pascal Script for Delphi is a widely used implementation of Pascal as scripting language. == Involvement of other projects == The Oxygene Compiler Oxygene is a language based on Object Pascal and designed to efficiently target the Microsoft .NET and Mono managed runtimes; it expands Object Pascal with a range of additional language features, such as Aspect Oriented Programming, Class Contracts and support for Parallelism. It integrates with the Microsoft Visual Studio and MonoDevelop IDEs.

  Read more →
• 

  Modular Audio Recognition Framework

  Modular Audio Recognition Framework (MARF) is an open-source research platform and a collection of voice, sound, speech, text and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms written in Java and arranged into a modular and extensible framework that attempts to facilitate addition of new algorithms. MARF may act as a library in applications or be used as a source for learning and extension. A few example applications are provided to show how to use the framework. There is also a detailed manual and the API reference in the javadoc format as the project tends to be well documented. MARF, its applications, and the corresponding source code and documentation are released under the BSD-style license.

  Read more →
• 

  Darkforest

  Darkforest is a computer go program developed by Meta Platforms, based on deep learning techniques using a convolutional neural network. Its updated version Darkfores2 combines the techniques of its predecessor with Monte Carlo tree search. The MCTS effectively takes tree search methods commonly seen in computer chess programs and randomizes them. With the update, the system is known as Darkfmcts3. Darkforest is of similar strength to programs like CrazyStone and Zen. It has been tested against a professional human player at the 2016 UEC cup. Google's AlphaGo program won against a professional player in October 2015 using a similar combination of techniques. Darkforest is named after Liu Cixin's science fiction novel The Dark Forest. == Background == Competing with top human players in the ancient game of Go has been a long-term goal of artificial intelligence. Go's high branching factor makes traditional search techniques ineffective, even on cutting-edge hardware, and Go's evaluation function could change drastically with one stone change. However, by using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network designed for long-term predictions, Darkforest has been able to substantially improve the win rate for bots over more traditional Monte Carlo Tree Search based approaches. === Matches === Against human players, Darkfores2 achieves a stable 3d ranking on KGS Go Server, which roughly corresponds to an advanced amateur human player. However, after adding Monte Carlo Tree Search to Darkfores2 to create a much stronger player named darkfmcts3, it can achieve a 5d ranking on the KGS Go Server. ==== Against other AI ==== darkfmcts3 is on par with state-of-the-art Go AIs such as Zen, DolBaram and Crazy Stone, but lags behind AlphaGo. It won 3rd place in January 2016 KGS Bot Tournament against other Go AIs. === News coverage === After Google's AlphaGo won against Fan Hui in 2015, Facebook made its AI's hardware designs public, alongside releasing the code behind DarkForest as open-source, in addition to heavy recruiting to strengthen its team of AI engineers. == Style of play == Darkforest uses a neural network to sort through the 10100 board positions, and find the most powerful next move. However, neural networks alone cannot match the level of good amateur players or the best search-based Go engines, and so Darkfores2 combines the neural network approach with a search-based machine. A database of 250,000 real Go games were used in the development of Darkforest, with 220,000 used as a training set and the rest used to test the neural network's ability to predict the next moves played in the real games. This allows Darkforest to accurately evaluate the global state of the board, but local tactics were still poor. Search-based engines have poor global evaluation, but are good at local tactics. Combining these two approaches is difficult because search-based engines work much faster than neural networks, a problem which was solved in Darkfores2 by running the processes in parallel with frequent communication between the two. === Conventional strategies === Go is generally played by analyzing the position of the stones on the board. Various advanced players have described it as playing in some part subconsciously. Unlike chess and checkers, where AI players can simply look further forward at moves than human players, but with each round of Go having on average 250 possible moves, that approach is ineffective. Instead, neural networks copy human play by training the AI systems on images of successful moves, the AI can effectively learn how to interpret how the board looks, as many grandmasters do. In November 2015, Facebook demonstrated the combination of MCTS with neural networks, which played with a style that "felt human". === Flaws === It has been noted that Darkforest still has flaws in its playstyle. The bot sometimes plays tenuki ("move elsewhere") pointlessly when local powerful moves are required. When the bot is losing, it shows the typical behavior of MCTS, it plays bad moves and loses more. The Facebook AI team has acknowledged these as areas of future improvement. == Program architecture == The family of Darkforest computer go programs is based on convolution neural networks. The most recent advances in Darkfmcts3 combined convolutional neural networks with more traditional Monte Carlo tree search. Darkfmcts3 is the most advanced version of Darkforest, which combines Facebook's most advanced convolutional neural network architecture from Darkfores2 with a Monte Carlo tree search. Darkfmcts3 relies on a convolution neural networks that predicts the next k moves based on the current state of play. It treats the board as a 19x19 image with multiple channels. Each channel represents a different aspect of board information based upon the specific style of play. For standard and extended play, there are 21 and 25 different channels, respectively. In standard play, each players liberties are represented as six binary channels or planes. The respective plane is true if the player one, two, or three or more liberties available. Ko (i.e. illegal moves) is represented as one binary plane. Stone placement for each opponent and empty board positions are represented as three binary planes, and the duration since a stone has been placed is represented as real numbers on two planes, one for each player. Lastly, the opponents rank is represented by nine binary planes, where if all are true, the player is a 9d level, if 8 are true, an 8d level, and so forth. Extended play additionally considers the border (binary plane that is true at the border), position mask (represented as distance from the board center, i.e. x ( − 0.5 ∗ d i s t a n c e 2 ) {\displaystyle x^{(-0.5distance^{2})}} , where x {\displaystyle x} is a real number at a position), and each player's territory (binary, based on which player a location is closer to). Darkfmct3 uses a 12-layer full convolutional network with a width of 384 nodes without weight sharing or pooling. Each convolutional layer is followed by a rectified linear unit, a popular activation function for deep neural networks. A key innovation of Darkfmct3 compared to previous approaches is that it uses only one softmax function to predict the next move, which enables the approach to reduce the overall number of parameters. Darkfmct3 was trained against 300 random selected games from an empirical dataset representing different game stages. The learning rate was determined by vanilla stochastic gradient descent. Darkfmct3 synchronously couples a convolutional neural network with a Monte Carlo tree search. Since the convolutional neural network is computationally taxing, the Monte Carlo tree search focuses computation on the more likely game play trajectories. By running the neural network synchronously with the Monte Carlo tree search, it is possible to guarantee that each node is expanded by the moves predicted by the neural network. == Comparison with other systems == Darkfores2 beats Darkforest, its neural network-only predecessor, around 90% of the time, and Pachi, one of the best search-based engines, around 95% of the time. On the Kyu rating system, Darkforest holds a 1-2d level. Darkfores2 achieves a stable 3d level on KGS Go Server as a ranked bot. With the added Monte Carlo tree search, Darkfmcts3 with 5,000 rollouts beats Pachi with 10k rollouts in all 250 games; with 75k rollouts it achieves a stable 5d level in KGS server, on par with state-of-the-art Go AIs (e.g., Zen, DolBaram, CrazyStone); with 110k rollouts, it won the 3rd place in January KGS Go Tournament.

  Read more →