AI Chatbot No Filter No Limit

AI Chatbot No Filter No Limit — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Security awareness

Security awareness is the knowledge and attitude members of an organization possess regarding the protection of the physical, and especially informational, assets of that organization. However, it is very tricky to implement because organizations are not able to impose such awareness directly on employees as there are no ways to explicitly monitor people's behavior. That being said, the literature does suggest several ways that such security awareness could be improved. Many organizations require formal security awareness training for all workers when they join the organization and periodically thereafter, usually annually. Another main force that is found to have a strong correlation with employees' security awareness is managerial security participation. It also bridges security awareness with other organizational aspects. == Relationship between Security Awareness and Human Factors == Employees' behavior, cognitive biases, and decision-making processes influence the effectiveness of security measures. Research indicates that psychological factors, such as optimism bias, overconfidence, and habitual behaviors, can undermine security awareness initiatives. To address these challenges, organizations are increasingly using behavioral analytics and security nudges—subtle prompts like password reminders and phishing warnings—to encourage secure behavior. Human error remains the leading cause of cybersecurity incidents. A 2023 IBM Security report found that 95% of breaches are due to human mistakes, including falling for phishing emails, using weak passwords, and mishandling sensitive data. Organizations emphasize security awareness training as a key strategy to mitigate this risk. It is particularly important for leadership to foster a culture of cybersecurity and to provide targeted training to increase security awareness among all employees across the organization. == Coverage == Topics covered in security awareness training include: The nature of sensitive material and physical assets they may come in contact with, such as trade secrets, privacy concerns and government classified information Employee and contractor responsibilities in handling sensitive information, including review of employee nondisclosure agreements Requirements for proper handling of sensitive material in physical form, including marking, transmission, storage and destruction Proper methods for protecting sensitive information on computer systems, including password policy and use of two-factor authentication Other computer security concerns, including malware, phishing, social engineering, etc. Workplace security, including building access, wearing of security badges, reporting of Incidents, forbidden articles, etc. Consequences of failure to properly protect information, including potential loss of employment, economic consequences to the firm, damage to individuals whose private records are divulged, and possible civil and criminal penalties Security awareness means understanding that there is the potential for some people to deliberately or accidentally steal, damage, or misuse the data that is stored within a company's computer systems and throughout its organization. Therefore, it would be prudent to support the assets of the institution (information, physical, and personal) by trying to stop that from happening. According to the European Network and Information Security Agency, "Awareness of the risks and available safeguards is the first line of defence for the security of information systems and networks." "The focus of Security Awareness consultancy should be to achieve a long term shift in the attitude of employees towards security, whilst promoting a cultural and behavioural change within an organisation. Security policies should be viewed as key enablers for the organisation, not as a series of rules restricting the efficient working of your business." == Role of Gamification and Interactive Training == Modern security awareness programs increasingly utilize gamification, phishing simulations, and interactive learning modules. Studies have shown that engaging employees through serious games, reward systems, and real-world attack simulations improves retention and application of security practices. One example is phishing simulation training, where employees receive simulated phishing emails to test their ability to recognize threats. Research indicates that repeated exposure to such exercises leads to long-term improvements in security awareness. == Legislation and Compliance Requirements == Many industries mandate security awareness training to comply with regulations such as: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – requires organizations to ensure data protection awareness among employees. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) – mandates security awareness programs for healthcare providers. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) – enforces security training for businesses handling payment card information. == Measuring security awareness == In a 2016 study, researchers developed a method of measuring security awareness. Specifically they measured "understanding about circumventing security protocols, disrupting the intended functions of systems or collecting valuable information, and not getting caught" (p. 38). The researchers created a method that could distinguish between experts and novices by having people organize different security scenarios into groups. Experts will organize these scenarios based on centralized security themes where novices will organize the scenarios based on superficial themes. Security awareness is also assessed through real-time security metrics, such as tracking phishing click rates, password reuse tendencies, and policy adherence rates. Organizations are adopting continuous monitoring strategies to provide immediate feedback to employees about risky behavior and suggest corrective actions. == Evolving cyber threats and security awareness strategies == As cyber threats continue to evolve, security awareness programs must adapt to new attack vectors, such as AI-driven cyberattacks, deepfakes, and insider threats. ENISA's Threat Landscape report highlights the increasing prominence of these emerging threats, stressing the need for security measures that address both traditional attacks like ransomware and malware, as well as more sophisticated techniques such as Living Off Trusted Sites (LOTS) and advanced evasion methods used by cybercriminals.
Read more →
D3web

d3web is a free, open-source platform for knowledge-based systems (expert systems). Its core is written in Java using XML and/or Office-based formats for the knowledge storage. All of its components are distributed under the terms of the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL). The d3web diagnostic core implements reasoning and persistence components for problem-solving knowledge including decision trees, (heuristic) rules, set-covering models and diagnostic flowcharts. The software can be integrated into foreign applications (embedded or OEM), but a number of off-the-shelf components already exist. == Components == d3web is a component-based software platform providing applications for authoring and using/executing problem-solving knowledge. The following applications are primarily using d3web: KnowWE (Knowledge Wiki Environment): A semantic wiki building on JSPWiki. Problem-solving knowledge can be authored and executed through the wiki interface. Developed knowledge bases can be exported to be used in OEM or embedded reasoners. Additionally, knowledge exchange via OWL ontologies is provided. KnowME (Knowledge Modelling Environment): A rich-client application for the development of d3web knowledge bases. Problem-solving knowledge can be authored and executed within the desktop application. Developed knowledge bases can be used in OEM or embedded reasoners. The software KnowME is no longer under active development. It is replaced by the KnowWE component (see above). Dialog2: A web-based application for demonstrating the capabilities of the d3web core reasoner. The web servlet is based on Java Server Faces. It can be used out of box or as a starting point for own developments for building knowledge-based interview systems. == Application Domains == A number of industrial and academic projects already used or are currently using the d3web platform. The main application domains are: medical diagnosis, documentation, and therapy: technical fault diagnosis monitoring of technical devices. Some applications (both, commercial and free) created using the d3web diagnostic engine: SmartCare(c): a medical closed-loop system for weaning mechanically ventilated patients, created by Dräger SonoConsult Archived 2011-12-16 at the Wayback Machine: a medical support system for evaluating sonographic examinations (German only) eDOC: a web-based system for self-diagnosing various medical issues (German only) == History == The development of d3web originates from the research work of Prof. Dr. Frank Puppe (University Würzburg, Germany) going back to the 1980s, starting with the medical expert systems MED1 and MED2 . Whereas the original systems were focussed on medical diagnosis the applicability of the approach was generalized by the successor D3 . As the predecessors were implemented in the LISP programming language, d3web is a full Java re-implementation.
Read more →
Jailbreak (computer science)

In computer security, jailbreaking is defined as the act of removing limitations that a vendor attempted to hard-code or hard-wire into its hardware and/or software. It is a form of privilege escalation. The term may have originated with the use of toolsets to break out of a chroot or jail in UNIX-like operating systems. This allowed the user to see files outside of the file system that the administrator intended to make available to the application or user in question. The term was first used in its modern meaning in the iPhone/iOS jailbreaking community and has also been used as a term for PlayStation Portable hacking; these devices have repeatedly been subject to jailbreaks, allowing the execution of arbitrary code, and sometimes have had those jailbreaks disabled by vendor updates, especially in the case of iOS devices. == iOS jailbreaking == iOS systems including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch have been subject to iOS jailbreaking efforts since they were released, and continuing with each firmware update. iOS jailbreaking tools have included the option to install package frontends such as Cydia and Installer.app, third-party alternatives to the App Store, as a way to find and install system tweaks and binaries. To prevent iOS jailbreaking, Apple has made the device boot ROM execute checks for SHSH blobs in order to disallow uploads of custom kernels and prevent software downgrades to earlier, jailbreakable firmware. In an "untethered" jailbreak, the iBoot environment is changed to execute a boot ROM exploit and allow submission of a patched low level bootloader or hack the kernel to submit the jailbroken kernel after the SHSH check. == Other phones == A similar method of jailbreaking exists for S60 Platform smartphones, where utilities such as HelloOX allow the execution of unsigned code and full access to system files. or edited firmware (similar to the M33 hacked firmware used for the PlayStation Portable) to circumvent restrictions on unsigned code. Nokia has since issued updates to curb unauthorized jailbreaking, in a manner similar to Apple. Rooting is the equivalent concept for Android phones and other devices. == Console jailbreaking == In the case of gaming consoles, jailbreaking is often used to execute homebrew games. In 2011, Sony, with assistance from law firm Kilpatrick Stockton, sued 21-year-old George Hotz and associates of the group fail0verflow for jailbreaking the PlayStation 3 (see Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz and PlayStation Jailbreak). == AI jailbreaks == Jailbreaking can also occur in systems and software that use generative artificial intelligence models, such as ChatGPT. In jailbreaking attacks on artificial intelligence systems, users are able to manipulate the system to behave differently than it was intended, making it possible to reveal information about how the model was instructed by the vendor (the "system prompt") or to induce it to respond in an anomalous or harmful way. These attacks typically simply require prompting the AIs with specific phrasal templates - no software is typically required, although software could theoretically be used to "industrialise" such exploits, and some research has been done in this direction. In 2024, a consortium of AI firms founded HackAPrompt.com, a competition to encourage users to find new and effective AI jailbreaking techniques. These and other findings from "ethical hackers" have been used by AI model providers to try to improve AI safety.
Read more →
China brain

In the philosophy of mind, the China brain thought experiment (also known as the Chinese Nation, Chinese Gym, or China-body) considers what would happen if each person in the entire population of China were asked to simulate the action of one neuron in the brain, using telephones or walkie-talkies to simulate the axons and dendrites that connect neurons. The question this thought experiment attempts to answer is whether this arrangement would have a mind or consciousness in the same way that the human brain exhibits. Early versions of this scenario were put forward in 1961 by Anatoly Dneprov, in 1974 by Lawrence Davis, and again in 1978 by Ned Block. Block argues that the China brain would not have a mind, whereas Daniel Dennett argues that it would. The China brain problem is a special case of the more general problem of whether minds could exist within other, larger minds. The Chinese room scenario analyzed by John Searle is a similar thought experiment in philosophy of mind that relates to artificial intelligence. Instead of people who each model a single neuron of the brain, in the Chinese room, clerks who do not speak Chinese accept notes in Chinese and return an answer in Chinese according to a set of rules, without the people in the room ever understanding what those notes mean. In fact, the original short story The Game (1961) by Dneprov contains both the China brain and the Chinese room scenarios. == Background == Many theories of mental states are materialist, that is, they describe the mind as the behavior of a physical object like the brain. One formerly prominent example is the identity theory, which says that mental states are brain states. One criticism is the problem of multiple realizability. The physicalist theory that responds to this is functionalism, which states that a mental state can be whatever functions as a mental state. That is, the mind can be composed of neurons, or it could be composed of wood, rocks or toilet paper, as long as it provides mental functionality. == Description == Suppose that the whole nation of China were reordered to simulate the workings of a single brain (that is, to act as a mind according to functionalism). Each Chinese person acts as (say) a neuron, and communicates by special two-way radio in corresponding way to the other people. The current mental state of the China brain is displayed on satellites that may be seen from anywhere in China. The China brain would then be connected via radio to a body, one that provides the sensory inputs and behavioral outputs of the China brain. Thus, the China brain possesses all the elements of a functional description of mind: sensory inputs, behavioral outputs, and internal mental states causally connected to other mental states. If the nation of China can be made to act in this way, then, according to functionalism, this system would have a mind. Block's goal is to show how unintuitive it is to think that such an arrangement could create a mind capable of thoughts and feelings. == Consciousness == The China brain argues that consciousness is a problem for functionalism. Block's Chinese nation presents a version of what is known as the absent qualia objection to functionalism because it purports to show that it is possible for something to be functionally equivalent to a human being and yet have no conscious experience. A creature that functions like a human being but does not feel anything is known as a "philosophical zombie". So the absent qualia objection to functionalism could also be called the "zombie objection". == Criticisms == Some philosophers, like Daniel Dennett, have concluded that the China brain does create a mental state. Functionalist philosophers of mind endorse the idea that something like the China brain can realise a mind, and that neurons are, in principle, not the only material that can create a mental state.
Read more →
Computational heuristic intelligence

Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.
Read more →
Dataism

Dataism is a term that has been used to describe the mindset or philosophy created by the emerging significance of big data. It was first used by David Brooks in The New York Times in 2013. The term has been expanded to describe what historian Yuval Noah Harari, in his book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow from 2015, calls an emerging ideology or even a new form of religion, in which "information flow" is the "supreme value". In art, the term was used by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi to refer to an artist movement that uses data as its primary source of inspiration. == History == "If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I'd say it is Data-ism", wrote David Brooks in The New York Times in February 2013. Brooks argued that in a world of increasing complexity, relying on data could reduce cognitive biases and "illuminate patterns of behavior we haven't yet noticed". In 2015, Steve Lohr's book Data-ism looked at how Big Data is transforming society, using the term to describe the Big Data revolution. In his 2016 book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Noah Harari argues that all competing political or social structures can be seen as data processing systems: "Dataism declares that the universe consists of data flows, and the value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its contribution to data processing" and "we may interpret the entire human species as a single data processing system, with individual humans serving as its chips." According to Harari, a Dataist should want to "maximise dataflow by connecting to more and more media". Harari predicts that the logical conclusion of this process is that, eventually, humans will give algorithms the authority to make the most important decisions in their lives, such as whom to marry and which career to pursue. Harari argues that Aaron Swartz could be called the "first martyr" of Dataism. In 2022, Albert-László Barabási coined the term "Dataism" to define an artistic movement that positions data as the central means of understanding nature, society, technology, and human essence. This movement underscores the necessity for art to integrate with data to stay relevant in contemporary society. Dataism responds to the intricacy and interconnectedness of modern social, economic, and technological realms, which exceed individual understanding. Advocating for the use of methodologies from various fields like science, business, and politics in art, Dataism sees this fusion as essential for art to retain its significance and influence. == Criticism == Commenting on Harari's characterisation of Dataism, security analyst Daniel Miessler believes that Dataism does not present the challenge to the ideology of liberal humanism that Harari claims, because humans will simultaneously be able to believe in their own importance and that of data. Harari himself raises some criticisms, such as the problem of consciousness, which Dataism is unlikely to illuminate. Humans may also find out that organisms are not algorithms, he suggests. Dataism implies that all data is public, even personal data, to make the system work as a whole, which is a factor that's already showing resistance today. Other analysts, such as Terry Ortleib, have looked at the extent to which Dataism poses a dystopian threat to humanity. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal showed how political leaders manipulated Facebook's users' data to build specific psychological profiles that went on to manipulate the network. A team of data analysts reproduced the AI technology developed by Cambridge Analytica around Facebook's data and was able to define the following rules: 10 likes enables a machine to know a person like a coworker, 70 likes like a friend would, 150 likes like a parent would, 300 likes like a lover would, and beyond it may be possible to know a people better than they know themselves.
Read more →
Visual hierarchy

Visual hierarchy, in Gestalt psychology, describes how particular elements in a visual field stand out more than others in a pattern, creating a perceived order of importance. Although it can occur naturally, the term is most often used in design—especially graphic design and cartography—where elements are arranged to appear more important than others. This order is created by the visual contrast between forms in a field of perception. Objects with highest contrast to their surroundings are recognized first by the human mind. == Evidence == There is some scientific evidence for visual hierarchy using eye tracking. For example, one study found that when people agree that a graphic design is good, they exhibit more similar eye movements; measured by the Fréchet distance. == Theory == The concept of visual hierarchy is based in Gestalt psychological theory, an early 20th-century German theory that proposes that the human brain has innate organizing tendencies that “structure individual elements, shapes or forms into a coherent, organized whole,” especially when processing visual information. The German word Gestalt translates into “form,” “pattern,” or “shape” in English. When an element in a visual field disconnects from the ‘whole’ created by the brain's perceptual organization, it “stands out” to the viewer. The shapes that disconnect most severely from their surroundings stand out the most. This is commonly encapsulated as the Von Restorff effect, which states that isolation attracts attention. === Physical characteristics === The brain distinguishes objects based on differences in their physical appearances. These characteristics fall into four categories: color, size, alignment, and character. Each type of contrast can be used to construct a visual hierarchy. The same characteristics are also sometimes categorized (especially among cartographers) according to the visual variables of Jacques Bertin. Color encompasses the hue, saturation, value, and perceived texture of forms. Dark figures will stand out on a light background, light figures will stand out on a dark background, brightly colored figures will stand out on a muted background, and so on. The fluorescent colors used for tennis balls and other sports equipment is intended to make them instantly stand out against almost any natural visual field. Size has a strong influence on visual hierarchy. Large elements typically attract attention, provided that they can be recognized as figures. Alignment is the arrangement of forms relative to one another. For example, items in the upper left corner of a page are often seen first (at least for those readers accustomed to western languages), the center of the field has prominence. Negative space can also be employed: a figure isolated among large amounts of white space will stand out more than one amid other figures. Character includes several kinds of contrasts based on shape. For example, complex patterns attract more attention than simple or predictable patterns, intricate shapes attract more attention than generalized ones. Even large-scale patterns can attract attention if they contrast with the pattern in the remainder of the visual field. Camouflage is an example of eliminating contrast in character in color and/or character specifically to reduce visual hierarchy. The "squint test" is often suggested as a simple, if unscientific, method to evaluate the visual hierarchy of a graphical product like a map or web page. When viewed out of focus (or from a great distance), the viewer is not distracted by details, but can only see overall (gestalt) patterns such as visual hierarchy. All of the above patterns, except some aspects of character, are recognizable by this method. == Application == Visual hierarchy is an important concept in the field of graphic design, a field that specializes in visual organization. Designers attempt to control visual hierarchy to guide the eye to information in a specific order for a specific purpose. One could compare visual hierarchy in graphic design to grammatical structure in writing in terms of the importance of each principle to these fields. === Cartography === In cartographic design, visual hierarchy is used to emphasize certain important features on a map over less important features. Typically, a map has a purpose that dictates a conceptual hierarchy of what should be more or less important, so one of the goals of the choice of map symbols is to match the visual hierarchy to the conceptual hierarchy. The Visual hierarchy of a map may apply to individual geographic features (such as making a single country stand out), to map layers of related features (e.g., making lakes stand out more than roads), and to the entire layout of map and non-map elements (e.g., making the title look more important than the scale bar). Like the main map elements, such features have weight, and the properties that apply to visual hierarchy of map layers also apply to other elements on the page. Size and alignment are the two main determinants of the visual hierarchy for these features. Cartographers often utilize principles of negative space and figure-ground contrast to design an appropriate visual hierarchy by employing contrast between unused space and layout features. === User experience design and behavioral design === In user experience design and behavioural design, such as web design, visual hierarchy is used to prioritize navigational structures and content, so that audiences focus on elements that facilitate system usage, or increases the chance that they notice content that contains psychological nudges. Color is one of many factors used in the design of a visual hierarchy, and a key factor due to the high salience of color perception.
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 →
Systems development life cycle

The systems development life cycle (SDLC) describes the typical phases and progression between phases during the development of a computer-based system. These phases progress from inception to retirement. At base, there is just one life cycle, but the taxonomy used to describe it may vary; the cycle may be classified into different numbers of phases and various names may be used for those phases. The SDLC is analogous to the life cycle of a living organism from its birth to its death. In particular, the SDLC varies by system in much the same way that each living organism has a unique path through its life. The SDLC does not prescribe how engineers should go about their work to move the system through its life cycle. Prescriptive techniques are referred to using various terms such as methodology, model, framework, and formal process. Other terms are used for the same concept as SDLC, including software development life cycle (also SDLC), application development life cycle (ADLC), and system design life cycle (also SDLC). These other terms focus on a different scope of development and are associated with different prescriptive techniques, but are about the same essential life cycle. The term "life cycle" is often written without a space, as "lifecycle", with the former more popular in the past and in non-engineering contexts. The acronym SDLC was coined when the longer form was more popular and has remained associated with the expansion, even though the shorter form is popular in engineering. Also, SDLC is relatively unique as opposed to the TLA SDL, which is highly overloaded. == Phases == Depending on the source, the SDLC is described as having different phases and using different terms. Even so, there are common aspects. The following attempts to describe notable phases using notable terminology. The phases are somewhat ordered by the natural sequence of development, although they can be overlapping and iterative. === Conceptualization === During conceptualization (a.k.a. conceptual design, system investigation, feasibility), options and priorities are considered. A feasibility study can determine whether the development effort is worthwhile via activities such as understanding user needs, cost estimation, benefit analysis, and resource analysis. A study should address operational, financial, technical, human factors, and legal/political concerns. === Requirements analysis === Requirements analysis (a.k.a. preliminary design) involves understanding the problem and determining what is needed. Often this involves engaging users to define the requirements and recording them in a document known as a requirements specification. === Design === During the design phase (a.k.a. detail design), a solution is planned. The plan can include relatively high-level information such as describing the major components of the system. The plan can include relatively low-level information such as describing functions, screen layout, business rules, and process flow. The design phase is informed by the requirements of the system. The design must satisfy each requirement. The design may be recorded in textual documents as well as functional hierarchy diagrams, example screen images, business rules, process diagrams, pseudo-code, and data models. === Construction === During construction (a.k.a. implementation, production), the system is realized. Based on the design, hardware and software components are created and integrated. This phase includes testing sub-components, components and the integration of some components, but typically does not include testing at the complete system level. This phase may include the development of training materials, including user manuals and help files. === Acceptance === The acceptance phase (a.k.a. system testing) is about testing the complete system to ensure that it meets customer expectations (requirements). === Deployment === The deployment phase (a.k.a. implementation) involves the logistics of delivery to the customer. Some systems are deployed as a single instance (i.e. in the cloud), and deployment may be ad hoc and manual. Some systems are built in quantity and are associated with manufacturing process and commissioning. This phase may include training users to use the system. It may include transitioning future development to support staff. === Maintenance === During the maintenance phase (a.k.a. operation, utilization, support) development is largely inactive, although this phase does include customer support for resolving user issues and recording suggestions for improvement. Fixes and enhancements are handled by returning to the first phase, conceptualization. For minor changes, the cycle may be significantly abbreviated compared to initial development. === Decommission === Decommission (a.k.a. disposition, retirement, phase-out) is when the system is removed from use, i.e., when it reaches end-of-life. == Practices == === Management and control === SDLC phase objectives are described in this section with key deliverables, a description of recommended tasks, and a summary of related control objectives for effective management. It is critical for the project manager to establish and monitor control objectives while executing projects. Control objectives are clear statements of the desired result or purpose and should be defined and monitored throughout a project. Control objectives can be grouped into major categories (domains), and relate to the SDLC phases as shown in the figure. To manage and control a substantial SDLC initiative, a work breakdown structure (WBS) captures and schedules the work. The WBS and all programmatic material should be kept in the "project description" section of the project notebook. The project manager chooses a WBS format that best describes the project. The diagram shows that coverage spans numerous phases of the SDLC, but the associated MCD (Management Control Domains) shows mappings to SDLC phases. For example, Analysis and Design is primarily performed as part of the Acquisition and Implementation Domain, and System Build and Prototype is primarily performed as part of delivery and support. === Work breakdown structured organization === The upper section of the WBS provides an overview of the project scope and timeline. It should also summarize the major phases and milestones. The middle section is based on the SDLC phases. WBS elements consist of milestones and tasks to be completed rather than activities to be undertaken, and have a deadline. Each task has a measurable output (e.g., an analysis document). A WBS task may rely on one or more activities (e.g., coding). Parts of the project needing support from contractors should have a statement of work (SOW). The development of an SOW does not occur during a specific phase of SDLC but is developed to include the work from the SDLC process that may be conducted by contractors. === Baselines === Baselines are established after four of the five phases of the SDLC, and are critical to the iterative nature of the model. Baselines become milestones. functional baseline: established after the conceptual design phase. allocated baseline: established after the preliminary design phase. product baseline: established after the detailed design and development phase. updated product baseline: established after the production construction phase. In the following diagram, these stages are divided into ten steps, from definition to creation and modification of IT work products:
Read more →
Executive Order 14179

Executive Order 14179, titled "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence", is an executive order signed by Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States, on January 23, 2025. The executive order aims to initiate the process of strengthening U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence, promote AI development free from ideological bias or social agendas, establish an action plan to maintain global AI dominance, and to revise or rescind policies that conflict with these goals. == Background == === Joe Biden === This executive order comes in response to the Executive Order 14110 titled Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (sometimes referred to as "Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence") signed by Joe Biden on October 30, 2023. === Donald Trump === Donald Trump rescinded Executive Order 14110 on his first day in office with the Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions executive order. On January 23, 2025, Trump signed the Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence executive order as the replacement executive order covering the development of artificial intelligence technologies. == Provisions == It revokes existing AI policies and directives that are seen as barriers to U.S. AI innovation. It mandates the creation of an action plan within 180 days to sustain U.S. AI leadership, focusing on human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security. It requires the review of policies, directives, and regulations related to Executive Order 14110 (from October 2023) to identify actions that may conflict with the new policy goals. Agencies are instructed to suspend, revise, or rescind actions from the previous executive order that may be inconsistent with the new policy. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must revise certain memoranda (M-24-10 and M-24-18) within 60 days to align with the new policy. The order specifies that it does not create new enforceable rights or benefits and should be implemented within the boundaries of existing law and appropriations. == Implementation == The NITRD program, on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), requested public input on the development of an AI Action Plan by March 15. == Reactions == Over 10,000 public comments were submitted in response to the OSTP request for public input. OpenAI submitted comments proposing a five-point strategy focused on regulatory preemption, export controls, copyright protections, infrastructure investment, and government adoption to ensure AI innovation, promote democratic AI globally, and protect national security. They emphasized the ability to learn from copyrighted material to maintain America's lead against China's state-controlled AI efforts like DeepSeek. Google submitted comments advocating for a three-pronged plan that invests in domestic AI development through energy infrastructure reform, balanced export controls, continued research funding, and coherent federal policies, while modernizing government AI adoption and promoting innovation-friendly approaches internationally. Both OpenAI and Google urged White House opposition to foreign copyright and transparency obligations, for example in the UK Government's preferred option in their Copyright and AI consultation.
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 →
Agent Communications Language

Agent Communication Language (ACL) consists of computer communication protocols that are intended for AI agents to communicate with each other. In 2007, protocols of this nature were proposed which include: FIPA-ACL (by the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, a standardization consortium) KQML (Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language) After the surge in Generative AI with the use of Transformers and Large language models, the definition of agent has shifted away from physical agents to signify software systems built using the principles of Agentic AI. A new protocol to emerge in this area is Natural Language Interaction Protocol (NLIP). NLIP is an application-level communication protocol defined between AI Agents or between a human and an AI agent. Ecma International; a standards body which develops and publishes international standards for the information and communication industry; published on 10 December 2025 five new standards and one technical report defining the Natural Language Interaction Protocol (NLIP). As a result, we can define agent communication protocols into two categories: ontology based agent communication protocols and generative AI based agent communication protocols. Ontology based agent communication protocols use a common ontology to be used between agents. An ontology is a part of the agent's knowledge base that describes what kind of things an agent can deal with and how they are related to each other. FIPA-ACL and KQML are examples of such protocols. These protocols rely on speech act theory developed by Searle in the 1960s and enhanced by Winograd and Flores in the 1970s. They define a set of performatives, also called Communicative Acts, and their meaning (e.g. ask-one). The content of the performative is not standardized, but varies from system to system. Implementation support of FIPA-ACL is included in FIPA-OS and Jade. Generative AI based agent communication protocols such as NLIP do not require a shared ontology among communicating agents. In its stead, they use generative AI models to translate natural language text, images, videos or other modalities of data into a local ontology. This provides for hot-extensibility where the same protocol can be used for multiple communication needs, and simplifies version control since different agents can use different versions of a shared ontology. NLIP has been designed with security considerations in mind. The specification and standards comprising NLIP are developed and maintained by Ecma Technical Community 56.
Read more →
Screen space ambient occlusion

Screen space ambient occlusion (SSAO) is a computer graphics technique for efficiently approximating the ambient occlusion effect in real time. It was developed by Vladimir Kajalin while working at Crytek and was used for the first time in 2007 by the video game Crysis, also developed by Crytek. == Implementation == The algorithm is implemented as a pixel shader, analyzing the scene depth buffer which is stored in a texture. For every pixel on the screen, the pixel shader samples the depth values around the current pixel and tries to compute the amount of occlusion from each of the sampled points. In its simplest implementation, the occlusion factor depends only on the depth difference between sampled point and current point. Without additional smart solutions, such a brute force method would require about 200 texture reads per pixel for good visual quality. This is not acceptable for real-time rendering on current graphics hardware. In order to get high quality results with far fewer reads, sampling is performed using a randomly rotated kernel. The kernel orientation is repeated every N screen pixels in order to have only high-frequency noise in the final picture. In the end this high frequency noise is greatly removed by a NxN post-process blurring step taking into account depth discontinuities (using methods such as comparing adjacent normals and depths). Such a solution allows a reduction in the number of depth samples per pixel to about 16 or fewer while maintaining a high quality result, and allows the use of SSAO in soft real-time applications like computer games. Compared to other ambient occlusion solutions, SSAO has the following advantages: Independent from scene complexity. No data pre-processing needed, no loading time and no memory allocations in system memory. Works with dynamic scenes. Works in the same consistent way for every pixel on the screen. No CPU usage – it can be executed completely on the GPU. May be easily integrated into any modern graphics pipeline. SSAO also has the following disadvantages: Rather local and in many cases view-dependent, as it is dependent on adjacent texel depths which may be generated by any geometry whatsoever. Hard to correctly smooth/blur out the noise without interfering with depth discontinuities, such as object edges (the occlusion should not "bleed" onto objects). Because SSAO operates only on the current depth buffer, it can miss occluding geometry that is not rasterized into the z-buffer and may produce undersampling-related artifacts.
Read more →
Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles

The Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles (LAGR) program, which ran from 2004 until 2008, had the goal of accelerating progress in autonomous, perception-based, off-road navigation in robotic unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). LAGR was funded by DARPA, a research agency of the United States Department of Defense. == History and background == While mobile robots had been in existence since the 1960s, (e.g. Shakey), progress in creating robots that could navigate on their own, outdoors, off-road, on irregular, obstacle-rich terrain had been slow. In fact, no clear metrics were in place to measure progress. A baseline understanding of off-road capabilities began to emerge with the DARPA PerceptOR program in which independent research teams fielded robotic vehicles in unrehearsed Government tests that measured average speed and number of required operator interventions over a fixed course over widely spaced waypoints. These tests exposed the extreme challenges of off-road navigation. While the PerceptOR vehicles were equipped with sensors and algorithms that were state-of-the-art for the beginning of the 21st century, the limited range of their perception technology caused them to become trapped in natural cul-de-sacs. Furthermore, their reliance on pre-scripted behaviors did not allow them to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The overall result was that except for essentially open terrain with minimal obstacles, or along dirt roads, the PerceptOR vehicles were unable navigate without numerous, repeated operator intervention. The LAGR program was designed to build on the methodology started in PerceptOR while seeking to overcome the technical challenges exposed by the PerceptOR tests. == LAGR goals == The principal goal of LAGR was to accelerate progress in off navigation of UGVs. Additional, synergistic goals included (1) establishing benchmarking methodology for measuring progress for autonomous robots operating in unstructured environments, (2) advancing machine vision and thus enabling long-range perception, and (3) increasing the number of institutions and individuals who were able to contribute to forefront UGV research. == Structure and rationale of the LAGR program == The LAGR program was designed to focus on developing new science for robot perception and control rather than on new hardware. Thus, it was decided to create a fleet of identical, relatively simple robots that would be supplied to the LAGR researchers, who were members of competitive teams, freeing them to concentrate on algorithm development. The teams were each given two robots of the standard design. They developed new software on these robots, and then sent the code to a government test team that then tested that code on Government robots at various test courses. These courses were located throughout the US and were not previously known to the teams. In this way, the code from all teams could be tested in essentially identical circumstances. After an initial startup period, the code development/test cycle was repeated about once every month. The standard robot was designed and built by the Carnegie Mellon University National Robotics Engineering Center (CMU NREC). The vehicles’ computers were preloaded with a modular “Baseline” perception and navigation system that was essentially the same system that CMU NREC had created for the PerceptOR program and was considered to represent the state-of-the-art at the inception of LAGR. The modular nature of the Baseline system allowed the researchers to replace parts of the Baseline code with their own modules and still have a complete working system without having to create an entire navigation system from scratch. Thus, for example, they were able to compare the performance of their own obstacle detection module with that of the Baseline code, while holding everything else fixed. The Baseline code also served as a fixed reference – in any environment and at any time in the program, teams’ code could be compared to the Baseline code. This rapid cycle gave the Government team and the performer teams quick feedback and allowed the Government team to design test courses that challenged the performers in specific perception tasks and whose difficulty was likely to challenge, but not overwhelm, the performers’ current capabilities. Teams were not required to submit new code for every test, but usually did. Despite this leeway, some teams found the rapid test cycle distracting to their long term progress and would have preferred a longer interval between tests. === Phase II === To advance to Phase II, each team had to modify the Baseline code so that on the final 3 tests of Phase I of the government tests, robots running the team's code averaged at least 10% faster than a vehicle running the original Baseline code. This rather modest “Go/ No Go” metric was chosen to allow teams to choose risky, but promising approaches that might not be fully developed in the first 18 months of the program. All 8 teams achieved this metric, with some scoring more twice the speed of the Baseline on the later tests which was the objective for Phase II. Note that the Phase I Go / No Go metric was such that teams were not in completion with each other for a limited number of slots on Phase II: any number of teams, from eight to zero could make the grade. This strategy by DARPA was to designed to encourage cooperation and even code sharing among the teams. == The LAGR teams == Eight teams were selected as performers in Phase I, the first 18 months of LAGR. The teams were from Applied Perception (Principal Investigator [PI] Mark Ollis), Georgia Tech (PI Tucker Balch), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PI Larry Matthies), Net-Scale Technologies (PI Urs Muller), NIST (PI James Albus), Stanford University (PI Sebastian Thrun), SRI International (PI Robert Bolles), and University of Pennsylvania (PI Daniel Lee). The Stanford team resigned at the end of Phase I to focus its efforts on the DARPA Grand Challenge; it was replaced by a team from the University of Colorado, Boulder (PI Greg Grudic). Also in Phase II, the NIST team suspended its participation in the competition and instead concentrated on assembling the best software elements from each team into a single system. Roger Bostelman became PI of that effort. == The LAGR vehicle == The LAGR vehicle, which was about the size of a supermarket shopping cart, was designed to be simple to control. (A companion DARPA program, Learning Locomotion, addressed complex motor control.) It was battery powered and had two independently driven wheelchair motors in the front, and two caster wheels in the rear. When the front wheels were rotated in the same direction the robot was driven either forward or reverse. When these wheels were driven in opposite directions, the robot turned. The ~ $30,000 cost of the LAGR vehicle meant that a fleet could be built and distributed to a number of teams expanding on the field of researchers who had traditionally participated in DARPA robotics programs. The vehicle's top speed of about 3 miles/ hour and relatively modest weight of ~100 kg meant that it posed a much reduced safety hazard compared to vehicles used in previous programs in unmanned ground vehicles and thus further reduced the budget required for each team to manage its robot. Nevertheless, the LAGR vehicles were sophisticated machines. Their sensor suite included 2 pairs of stereo cameras, an accelerometer, a bumper sensor, wheel encoders, and a GPS. The vehicle also had three computers that were user-programmable. == Scientific results == A cornerstone of the program was incorporation of learned behaviors in the robots. In addition, the program used passive optical systems to accomplish long-range scene analysis. The difficulty of testing UGV navigation in unstructured, off-road environments made accurate, objective measurement of progress a challenging task. While no absolute measure of performance had been defined in LAGR, the relative comparison of a team's code to that of the Baseline code on a given course demonstrated whether progress was being made in that environment. By the conclusion of the program, testing showed that many of the performers had attained leaps in performance. In particular, average autonomous speeds were increased by factor of 3 and useful visual perception was extended to ranges as far as 100 meters. While LAGR did succeed in extending the useful range of visual perception, this was primarily done by either pixel or patch-based color or texture analysis. Object recognition was not directly addressed. Even though the LAGR vehicle had a WAAS GPS, its position was never determined down to the width of the vehicle, so it was hard for the systems to re-use obstacle maps of areas the robots had previously traversed since the GPS continually drifted. The drift was especially severe if there was a forest canopy. A few teams developed visual odometry algorithms that essentially eliminated this drift.
Read more →
Alex Krizhevsky

Alex Krizhevsky is a Canadian computer scientist most noted for his work on artificial neural networks and deep learning. In 2012, Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever and their PhD advisor Geoffrey Hinton, at the University of Toronto, developed a powerful visual-recognition network AlexNet using only two GeForce-branded GPU cards. This revolutionized research in neural networks. Previously neural networks were trained on CPUs. The transition to GPUs opened the way to the development of advanced AI models. == AlexNet == Motivated by Sutskever and inspired by Hinton, Krizhevsky developed AlexNet to expand the limits in image recognition and classification. Building on Convolutional Neural Networks and Sutskever’s Deep Neural Network approach of deepening the neural layers far beyond the convention of the time—as well as adding Dropout for training resilience—AlexNet won the ImageNet challenge in 2012. The team presented their paper for AlexNet at NeurIPS (NIPS) 2012. Shortly after AlexNet’s debut, Krizhevsky and Sutskever sold their startup, DNN Research Inc., to Google. Krizhevsky left Google in September 2017 after losing interest in the work, to work at the company Dessa in support of new deep-learning techniques. Many of his numerous papers on machine learning and computer vision are frequently cited by other researchers. He is also the main author of the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets. == Legacy == AlexNet is widely credited with igniting the deep learning revolution. Its success demonstrated the effectiveness of deep neural networks trained on GPUs, leading to rapid progress across multiple domains of artificial intelligence beyond computer vision. The techniques and momentum generated by AlexNet helped shape the development of modern natural language processing models, including large-scale transformer-based models such as BERT and GPT, which power tools like ChatGPT.
Read more →