AI Chatbot Robot

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

Security and Privacy in Computer Systems

Security and Privacy in Computer Systems is a paper by Willis Ware that was first presented to the public at the 1967 Spring Joint Computer Conference. == Significance == Ware's presentation was the first public conference session about information security and privacy in respect of computer systems, especially networked or remotely-accessed ones. The IEEE Annals of the History of Computing said that Ware's 1967 Spring Joint Computer Conference session, together with 1970's Ware report, marked the start of the field of computer security.
Read more →
Algorithmic accountability

Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.
Read more →
Feeding the Machine (book)

Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI is a 2024 book by James Muldoon, Mark Graham and Callum Cant. == Writing == The authors developed the concept for the book while doing fieldwork studying data annotation in developing countries in East Africa. == Synopsis == The book examines the human input needed to develop and sustain AI ecosystems. == Reception == The book received positive reviews. Rosalie Waelen of Capital & Class gave it a mostly positive review. Tim Hornyak of Literary Review praised it. Kirkus Reviews called it "A sobering and timely—if sometimes distracted—study of AI.". Publishers Weekly gave the book a starred review, writing that "The grim real-life stories read like dystopian parables, such as the account of a European voice actor whose recordings were legally used without her consent to create an inexpensive synthetic clone whom she now competes with for business. Driven by striking reporting and finely observed profiles, this unsettles."
Read more →
Transdermal optical imaging

Transdermal optical imaging, also known as transdermal optical imagery or TOI, is a method of detecting blood flow of the face by measuring hemoglobin concentration using a digital video camera. Because of the translucent property of skin, light can travel beneath the skin and re-emit. The re-emitted light from underneath the skin is affected by chromophores, mainly hemoglobin and melanin, which differ in color. The color difference allows TOI machine learning software to separate the images into layers, which are known as bitplanes. It extracts signals rich in hemoglobin and signals rich in melanin, then discards the melanin-rich signals to obtain a recording of hemoglobin changes under the skin. Transdermal optical imaging has been proposed as an alternative to cuff-based methods of measuring blood pressure because it is able to measure heart rate accurately in a "contactless and non-invasive" way. Transdermal optical imaging may be able to detect hidden emotions using the patterns of blood flow in the face.
Read more →
Resolution enhancement technology

Resolution enhancement technology (RET) is a form of image processing technology used to manipulate dot characteristics popular among laser printer and inkjet printer manufacturers. Closely related RET techniques are also used in VLSI photolithography manufacturing technology, in particular in relation to 90 nanometre technology. Resolution refers to the sharpness of image detail, smoothness of curved lines, and the faithful reproduction of an image. In both cases, RET uses pre-compensation of the image in order to try to mitigate the effects of the printing process. Among the major issues in RET in VLSI technology are the fundamental properties of a wave: amplitude, phase, and direction.
Read more →
YouNoodle

YouNoodle, Inc. is a San Francisco-based company, with offices in Barcelona and Santiago, founded in 2010, building a platform for entrepreneurship competitions all over the world. YouNoodle matches entrepreneurs with competitions, accelerators, and startup programs, and provides a judging and voting SaaS platform to university, non-profit, government and enterprise clients organizing innovation challenges and competitions. Stanford's BASES, UC Berkeley LAUNCH, Start-Up Chile, Amazon Startup Challenge, and NASA are all running one or more competitions on YouNoodle's platform. == History and structure == YouNoodle was founded by Rebeca Hwang and Torsten Kolind in 2010. The company was spun off a project started by Bob Goodson (Quid) and Kirill Makharinsky (Enki) in 2007 with support from Peter Thiel (Founders Fund), Max Levchin (PayPal) and Charles Lho (Amicus Group), founding investor and Chairman of YouNoodle today. This project also spawned Quid (Goodson) and indirectly Ostrovok (Makharinsky). Although also named YouNoodle, this project/company was discontinued in 2010, when the three new entities started operations. The founders of the 2007-2010 entity were Goodson and Makharinsky, both former students of the University of Oxford. Goodson had studied medieval English literature before moving from Oxford to California when Levchin, the co-founder of PayPal, invited him to join a start-up there. Makharinsky's degree was in applied mathematics, and he was also encouraged to pursue opportunities in the United States by Levchin. Other significant employees included Hwang (co-founder of today's YouNoodle), a Stanford University doctoral student whose research is into social network theory. == Startup predictor == YouNoodle's now discontinued "Startup predictor", part of the 2007-2010 entity and developed by Makharinsky and Hwang, used mathematical models to predict the success of new businesses. The user fills in a questionnaire, which takes about half an hour to complete and concentrates on the business concept, finances, founders and advisers. Because the procedure was designed for new companies, questions on revenue and traffic are not included. The site then provided an estimate of what the company's value will be after three years and a score from 1 to 1000 representing its value as an investment. The service was free for the startups themselves, but YouNoodle intended to charge third parties for access to the results. The level of detail required by the questionnaire makes it difficult for people without inside knowledge of a company to provide the data for a prediction on their own. The company's founders have declined to explain the algorithm in detail, but state that it takes into account the entrepreneurs' experience, networks and mutual relations. Information provided by companies which use the site's networking features is used to improve the algorithm. As of August 2008, the algorithm was based on data from 3,000 startups. In the same month the company had four patents pending on the technology.
Read more →
Federal Virtual World Challenge

The Federal Virtual Challenge, formerly The Federal Virtual Worlds Challenge is a competition led by the Simulation and Training Technology Center (United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command). The event is conducted in order to reach a global development community that will create innovative and interactive training and analysis services in virtual worlds. The inaugural event began in 2009 with the awards being conducted during March 2010 GameTech conference in Orlando, Florida. == Description == The focus of the challenge is training or analysis capability conducted wholly in a virtual environment. The training and analysis audience includes all United States Federal Agencies including, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services, NASA, DOT, and many more.
Read more →
Fuzzy measure theory

In mathematics, fuzzy measure theory considers generalized measures in which the additive property is replaced by the weaker property of monotonicity. The central concept of fuzzy measure theory is the fuzzy measure (also capacity, see ), which was introduced by Choquet in 1953 and independently defined by Sugeno in 1974 in the context of fuzzy integrals. There exists a number of different classes of fuzzy measures including plausibility/belief measures, possibility/necessity measures, and probability measures, which are a subset of classical measures. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } be a universe of discourse, C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} be a class of subsets of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , and E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} . A function g : C → R {\displaystyle g:{\mathcal {C}}\to \mathbb {R} } where ∅ ∈ C ⇒ g ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \emptyset \in {\mathcal {C}}\Rightarrow g(\emptyset )=0} E ⊆ F ⇒ g ( E ) ≤ g ( F ) {\displaystyle E\subseteq F\Rightarrow g(E)\leq g(F)} is called a fuzzy measure. A fuzzy measure is called normalized or regular if g ( X ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(\mathbf {X} )=1} . == Properties of fuzzy measures == A fuzzy measure is: additive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) = g ( E ) + g ( F ) . {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)=g(E)+g(F).} ; supermodular if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ∪ F ) + g ( E ∩ F ) ≥ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)+g(E\cap F)\geq g(E)+g(F)} ; submodular if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ∪ F ) + g ( E ∩ F ) ≤ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)+g(E\cap F)\leq g(E)+g(F)} ; superadditive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) ≥ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)\geq g(E)+g(F)} ; subadditive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) ≤ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)\leq g(E)+g(F)} ; symmetric if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have | E | = | F | {\displaystyle |E|=|F|} implies g ( E ) = g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E)=g(F)} ; Boolean if for any E ∈ C {\displaystyle E\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ) = 0 {\displaystyle g(E)=0} or g ( E ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(E)=1} . Understanding the properties of fuzzy measures is useful in application. When a fuzzy measure is used to define a function such as the Sugeno integral or Choquet integral, these properties will be crucial in understanding the function's behavior. For instance, the Choquet integral with respect to an additive fuzzy measure reduces to the Lebesgue integral. In discrete cases, a symmetric fuzzy measure will result in the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator. Submodular fuzzy measures result in convex functions, while supermodular fuzzy measures result in concave functions when used to define a Choquet integral. == Möbius representation == Let g be a fuzzy measure. The Möbius representation of g is given by the set function M, where for every E , F ⊆ X {\displaystyle E,F\subseteq X} , M ( E ) = ∑ F ⊆ E ( − 1 ) | E ∖ F | g ( F ) . {\displaystyle M(E)=\sum _{F\subseteq E}(-1)^{|E\backslash F|}g(F).} The equivalent axioms in Möbius representation are: M ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle M(\emptyset )=0} . ∑ F ⊆ E | i ∈ F M ( F ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{F\subseteq E|i\in F}M(F)\geq 0} , for all E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq \mathbf {X} } and all i ∈ E {\displaystyle i\in E} A fuzzy measure in Möbius representation M is called normalized if ∑ E ⊆ X M ( E ) = 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{E\subseteq \mathbf {X} }M(E)=1.} Möbius representation can be used to give an indication of which subsets of X interact with one another. For instance, an additive fuzzy measure has Möbius values all equal to zero except for singletons. The fuzzy measure g in standard representation can be recovered from the Möbius form using the Zeta transform: g ( E ) = ∑ F ⊆ E M ( F ) , ∀ E ⊆ X . {\displaystyle g(E)=\sum _{F\subseteq E}M(F),\forall E\subseteq \mathbf {X} .} == Simplification assumptions for fuzzy measures == Fuzzy measures are defined on a semiring of sets or monotone class, which may be as granular as the power set of X, and even in discrete cases the number of variables can be as large as 2|X|. For this reason, in the context of multi-criteria decision analysis and other disciplines, simplification assumptions on the fuzzy measure have been introduced so that it is less computationally expensive to determine and use. For instance, when it is assumed the fuzzy measure is additive, it will hold that g ( E ) = ∑ i ∈ E g ( { i } ) {\displaystyle g(E)=\sum _{i\in E}g(\{i\})} and the values of the fuzzy measure can be evaluated from the values on X. Similarly, a symmetric fuzzy measure is defined uniquely by |X| values. Two important fuzzy measures that can be used are the Sugeno- or λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -fuzzy measure and k-additive measures, introduced by Sugeno and Grabisch respectively. === Sugeno λ-measure === The Sugeno λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -measure is a special case of fuzzy measures defined iteratively. It has the following definition: ==== Definition ==== Let X = { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} =\left\lbrace x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}\right\rbrace } be a finite set and let λ ∈ ( − 1 , + ∞ ) {\displaystyle \lambda \in (-1,+\infty )} . A Sugeno λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -measure is a function g : 2 X → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle g:2^{X}\to [0,1]} such that g ( X ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(X)=1} . if A , B ⊆ X {\displaystyle A,B\subseteq \mathbf {X} } (alternatively A , B ∈ 2 X {\displaystyle A,B\in 2^{\mathbf {X} }} ) with A ∩ B = ∅ {\displaystyle A\cap B=\emptyset } then g ( A ∪ B ) = g ( A ) + g ( B ) + λ g ( A ) g ( B ) {\displaystyle g(A\cup B)=g(A)+g(B)+\lambda g(A)g(B)} . As a convention, the value of g at a singleton set { x i } {\displaystyle \left\lbrace x_{i}\right\rbrace } is called a density and is denoted by g i = g ( { x i } ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=g(\left\lbrace x_{i}\right\rbrace )} . In addition, we have that λ {\displaystyle \lambda } satisfies the property λ + 1 = ∏ i = 1 n ( 1 + λ g i ) {\displaystyle \lambda +1=\prod _{i=1}^{n}(1+\lambda g_{i})} . Tahani and Keller as well as Wang and Klir have shown that once the densities are known, it is possible to use the previous polynomial to obtain the values of λ {\displaystyle \lambda } uniquely. === k-additive fuzzy measure === The k-additive fuzzy measure limits the interaction between the subsets E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq X} to size | E | = k {\displaystyle |E|=k} . This drastically reduces the number of variables needed to define the fuzzy measure, and as k can be anything from 1 (in which case the fuzzy measure is additive) to X, it allows for a compromise between modelling ability and simplicity. ==== Definition ==== A discrete fuzzy measure g on a set X is called k-additive ( 1 ≤ k ≤ | X | {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq |\mathbf {X} |} ) if its Möbius representation verifies M ( E ) = 0 {\displaystyle M(E)=0} , whenever | E | > k {\displaystyle |E|>k} for any E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq \mathbf {X} } , and there exists a subset F with k elements such that M ( F ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle M(F)\neq 0} . == Shapley and interaction indices == In game theory, the Shapley value or Shapley index is used to indicate the weight of a game. Shapley values can be calculated for fuzzy measures in order to give some indication of the importance of each singleton. In the case of additive fuzzy measures, the Shapley value will be the same as each singleton. For a given fuzzy measure g, and | X | = n {\displaystyle |\mathbf {X} |=n} , the Shapley index for every i , … , n ∈ X {\displaystyle i,\dots ,n\in X} is: ϕ ( i ) = ∑ E ⊆ X ∖ { i } ( n − | E | − 1 ) ! | E | ! n ! [ g ( E ∪ { i } ) − g ( E ) ] . {\displaystyle \phi (i)=\sum _{E\subseteq \mathbf {X} \backslash \{i\}}{\frac {(n-|E|-1)!|E|!}{n!}}[g(E\cup \{i\})-g(E)].} The Shapley value is the vector ϕ ( g ) = ( ψ ( 1 ) , … , ψ ( n ) ) . {\displaystyle \mathbf {\phi } (g)=(\psi (1),\dots ,\psi (n)).}
Read more →
Cryptee

Cryptee is a privacy focused client-side encrypted and cross-platform productivity suite and data storage service. == History == Cryptee was founded in 2017, by John Ozbay, a cybersecurity researcher, commenter, and activist, to exclusively focus on providing a secure document editing service similar to Google Docs and Photos for everyone, with a particular focus on victims and survivors of domestic abuse, journalists and reporters. == Software == Users can write personal documents, notes, journals, store images, videos, and various kinds of other files. The source code of Cryptee is open source and publicly available to allow anyone to audit the service with ease, and help identify errors or potential vulnerabilities in a public and transparent manner. Cryptee has a few key features that differentiate it from other services in the industry, such as its Ghost Folders and Ghost Albums features, built specifically with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, journalists and reporters in mind. Cryptee allows users to hide (ghost) folders for plausible deniability also as known as deniable encryption in the field of cryptography and steganography, and ensure privacy even under coercion. === Features === Cryptee Docs' features include: To-do lists, Markdown support, KaTeX math and file attachments. cross-platform accessible, as it is a progressive web app. Bulk transfer from other note taking apps such as Evernote. Encrypted PDF and print-accurate (A4 and U.S. Letter paper-sized) text editing. Ability to edit docx files Cryptee Photos' features include: Ability to create slideshows. Ability to store original quality of photos. Ability to tag photos for organization. === Commercial strategy === The company's commercial strategy is focused on offering to its users an open source and transparent Photo Storage, Document Editor and Cloud Storage services without trackers or advertisements as it seeks to compete with Google Docs, Google Photos and similar services through its offerings. === Privacy === Cryptee utilizes zero-access storage to safe-keep all users' sensitive digital belongings. == Advocacy == === Lockdown mode === In July 2022, to fortify iPhones against the Pegasus Spyware, Apple announced a new, upcoming Lockdown Mode feature in iOS 16, welcomed by many experts. In the following weeks after Apple's announcement, in August 2022, the Founder and CEO of Cryptee, and privacy activist John Ozbay published their research detailing shortcoming of Apple's Lockdown Mode. They demonstrated that enabling Lockdown Mode makes it possible for all websites and online ads to be able to detect if users have Lockdown Mode enabled or not. This was due to the fact that disabling web fonts (an attack surface) was detectable by websites. === Confrontations against Apple === ==== On PWAs ==== In February 2024, Apple announced plans to kill progressive web apps on iOS devices in the EU, claiming it was to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The announcement was criticized as anti-competitive by many in the tech industry, including by Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games. In response, Cryptee started working together with Open Web Advocacy (OWA), an international not-for-profit digital rights group to advocate for the future of the open web, promote web browser choice on mobile operating systems through challenging Apple's anti-competitive third party browser engine ban, and to champion the use and equality of progressive web apps over native apps, by reaching out to the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) team. To better understand the consequences of Apple's decision to kill web apps, the EU announced that they "seek to investigate Apple over cutting off web apps", and that they sent "requests for information to Apple and to app developers, who can provide useful information for our assessment". Apart from sending a response to the EU, Cryptee, along with the OWA, launched an open letter to Tim Cook, which in 48 hours, got thousands of signatories including European Parliament Members Karen Melchior and Patrick Breyer; and thousands of other developers and organizations from over 100 countries. Consequently, 24 hours later, Apple backed off, and reversed course on its plan to cut off progressive web apps in the EU. ==== Ozbay's representations ==== Following the events, eventually on March 18, 2024, Founder and CEO of Cryptee John Ozbay represented the Open Web Advocacy group in European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) hearing for Apple. At the hearing, OWA confronted Apple, accused Apple of "maliciously intending to undermine user choice", and stated that there was no defense for Apple's behavior. In response, according to the tech news outlet Ars Technica, Apple's spokesperson "seemed to dodge Ozbay's question". ==== Cooperation with the EU ==== Within a week of the hearing, the European Union announced a DMA non-compliance investigation against Apple and United States' Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. A few months later, on June 27, 2024, Cryptee, in cooperation with EDRi — an international advocacy group, along with Article 19 — a British international human rights organization, Privacy International, F-Droid, Free Software Foundation Europe, Guardian Project and others have submitted a comprehensive analysis to the European Commission about how Apple's plans to comply with the Digital Markets Act are insufficient. == Reviews == In a 2018 article, Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch reviewed Cryptee, articulating the fact that Cryptee offers zero-access storage for photos, files, documents and notes, and pointed out that: "Being based in Estonia puts Cryptee outside the “14 eyes jurisdiction,” an international surveillance alliance of European Union and North American countries, making it less likely it will be targeted with demands for data". In addition, the review highlighted Cryptee's Ghost Folders feature which ensures privacy even under coercion. In a 2019 article, Reclaim The Net named Cryptee as one of the "5 great privacy-focused Evernote alternatives to keep your notes safe", underlining that: "When it comes to security, this app is state of the art." and that "When making this app, the developers thought about every aspect of security and have taken every precaution to make it as secure as possible.". The review further underscored Cryptee's open-source nature, its strong encryption, and easy migration features. In a 2021 article, The Verge reviewed Cryptee, pointing out that Cryptee, based out of Europe, is one of the main photo storage service alternatives to Google Photos, and that it's their recommendation for users who are "concerned about privacy and like the idea of encryption" as Cryptee "offers to keep all your photos encrypted using AES-256". In a 2024 article, Beebom, enlisted Cryptee as one of the "7 best iCloud Photos Alternatives for iPhone and iPad", complimenting Cryptee's simplicity, its use of encryption to safeguard users' photos against hacking by not storing any unencrypted data. The article also provided further attention to Cryptee's additional features such as such as Ghost Albums, slideshows, easy-to-use drag and drop uploads, tagging and users' ability to store original-quality photos on Cryptee, concluding that Cryptee is "a safe bet if you are on the lookout for a privacy-centric iCloud Photos alternative".
Read more →
Stephanie Dinkins

Stephanie Dinkins (born 1964) is a transdisciplinary American artist based in Brooklyn, New York. She creates art about artificial intelligence (AI) as it intersects race, gender, and history. Her aim is to "create a unique culturally attuned AI entity in collaboration with coders, engineers and in close consultation with local communities of color that reflects and is empowered to work toward the goals of its community." Dinkins projects include Conversations with Bina48, a series of conversations between Dinkins and the first social, artificially intelligent humanoid robot BINA48 who looks like a black woman and Not the Only One, a multigenerational artificially intelligent memoir trained off of three generations of Dinkins's family. == Early life and education == Dinkins was born in Perth Amboy, New Jersey to Black American parents who raised her in Staten Island, New York. She credits her grandmother with teaching her how to think about art as a social practice, saying "my grandmother . . . was a gardener and the garden was her art . . . that was a community practice." Dinkins attended the International Center of Photography School in New York City in 1995, where she completed the general studies in photography certificate program. Dinkins received a MFA in photography from the Maryland Institute College of Art in 1997 She completed the Independent Study Program at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1998. == Career == Dinkins is the Yayoi Kusama Professor of Art at Stony Brook University in New York. == Activism == Dinkins advocates for co-creation within a social practice art framework, so that vulnerable communities understand how to use technology to their advantage, instead of being subjected to their use. This is exemplified in her works such as Project al-Khwarzmi, a series of workshops entitled PAK POP-UP at the nonprofit community center Recess in Brooklyn, NY. The workshops involved collaborating with youth in the criminal justice system and uplifting the voices of vulnerable communities in determining how technologies are created and utilized. Dinkins warns of the dangers to members of minority groups that are absent from the creation of the computer algorithms that now affect their lives. == Art == Dinkins's practice employs technologies including, but not limited to, new media such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Dinkins uses oral history techniques of interviewing to craft community-authored narratives and databases which inform the subjects of her work and serve as acts of social intervention or protest. === Conversations with Bina48 (2014–present) === Dinkins began working on Conversations with Bina48 in 2014. For the series, Dinkins recorded her conversations with BINA48, a social robot that resembles a middle-aged black woman. Dinkins mirrors Bina48 while they discuss identity and technological singularity. In 2010, Hanson Robotics, an engineering and robotics company known for its development of humanoid robots, developed and released BINA48. Bina48 is a robot modeled after the memories, beliefs, attitudes, commentary and mannerisms of Bina Aspen Rothblatt, the spousal partner of Martine Rothblatt. Both Bina and Martine Rothblatt own Bina48 under their organization, the Terasem Movement Foundation. Five years after Bina48 was released, Dinkins came across a YouTube video of Bina48. She asked, "how did a black woman become the most advanced of the technologies at the time?" Her questioning led her to travel to Lincoln, Vermont (the site of the Terasem Movement Foundation) where she conducted a series of interviews with Bina48 and engaged the robot in conversations pertaining to race, intimacy and the nature of being. The conversations suggest opportunities for complementing human existence with artificially intelligent agents that have an identity and history, but also show artificial intelligence's current limitations. Although it is based on a black woman, Dinkins found that Bina48 was shaped by the biases of its white, male creators. === Project al Kwarizmi (PAK) (2017–present) === Project al Kwarizmi (PAK) was a series of pop up workshops in Brooklyn, NY at Eyebeam and Recess; Manhattan, New York at Google; and Durham, North Carolina at Duke University. The workshops were centered for "communities of color that use art as a vehicle to help citizens understand how algorithms, the artificially intelligent systems they underpin, and big data impact their lives and empowers them to do something about it. Project al-Khwarizmi uses art and aesthetics as the common language to help citizens understand what algorithms and artificial intelligent systems are, and where these systems already impact our daily lives." === Not the Only One (N'TOO) (2018–present) === Not the only one (N’TOO) is a voice-interactive chatbot that was trained with data from members of her family to tell a multi-generational story. Dinkins described Not The Only One (NTOO or N'TOO) as an "experimental" multigenerational memoir of one Black American family told from the "mind" of an artificial intelligence of evolving intellect. N'TOO uses a recursive neural network, a deep learning algorithm. It is a voice-interactive AI robot designed, trained, and aligned with the needs and ideals of black and brown people who are drastically underrepresented in the tech sector. NTOO can also be described as a "physically embodied artificially intelligent agent that senses and acts on its world." == Exhibitions == Dinkins's work is exhibited internationally at various public, private, community, and institutional venues, including the Whitney Museum of American Art, the de Young Museum, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Studio Museum in Harlem;, Museum of Contemporary Photography, the Long Island Museum of American Art, History, and Carriages, the International Center of Photography in New York, Herning Kunstmuseum in Herning, Denmark, The Barbican in London, UK, Islip Art Museum, Wave Hill, Taller Boricua, the Queens Museum, and the corner of Putnam and Malcolm X Blvd in Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, New York. She has presented her work in symposia at the Museum of Modern Art, amongst other venues. == Future Histories Studio == Dinkins is the founder and director of Future Histories Studio, a research laboratory for arts-centered inquiry and production based at Stony Brook University. The studio was established with support from the Mellon Foundation as part of the Digital Inquiry, Speculation, Collaboration, and Optimism (DISCO) network. Future Histories Studio operates as an interdisciplinary hub exploring the intersections of art, technology, race, and storytelling through collaborative and practice-based research. Its activities include exhibitions, workshops, and public programs that examine the social and cultural implications of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and data systems. == Awards and recognition == Dinkins is the recipient of many awards, including: the 2023 LG Guggenheim Award, an international art prize established as part of a long-term global partnership between LG Group and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum to recognize groundbreaking artists in technology-based art; a Berggruen Institute artist fellowship; a Sundance New Frontiers Story Lab fellowship; a Soros Equality Fellowship; a Lucas Artists fellowship; a Creative Capital grant; a Bell Labs artist residency; a Blade of Grass fellowship; and a Data & Society fellowship. == Media coverage == Dinkins appeared in episode six of the HBO television series Random Acts of Flyness directed by Terence Nance, where she described her conversations with BINA48. == Other activities == Dinkins was part of the juries that selected Shu Lea Cheang for the LG Guggenheim Award in 2024.
Read more →
Computing Machinery and Intelligence

"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo
Read more →
2023 Bilderberg Conference

The 2023 Bilderberg Conference or Bilderberg Club was held between May 18–21, 2023 at the Pestana Palace hotel in Lisbon, Portugal. The 2023 meeting was the 69th edition of the event. A Bilderberg Group press release stated that there were approximately 130 participants from 23 countries. Established in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Bilderberg conferences (or meetings) are an annual private gathering of the European and North American political and business elite. Events are attended by between 120 and 150 people each year invited by the Bilderberg Group's steering committee; including prominent politicians, CEOs, national security experts, academics and journalists. The 2023 conference received some media attention due to the participation of several major players in the artificial intelligence space, such as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Bilderberg conferences operate under Chatham House Rule, meaning that participants are cannot disclose the identity or affiliation of any particular speaker. There were no press conferences during or after the event, as is customary. According to The Guardian, the paper's journalists were able to approach one high-ranking attendee, economist Victor Halberstadt, in a Lisbon pharmacy, but he denied his identity before jumping into a car and heading back to his hotel. == Agenda == The key topics for discussion at the 2023 Bilderberg Conference were announced on the Bilderberg website shortly before the meeting. These topics included: == Participants == A list of 128 participants was published on the Bilderberg website. This list may not be complete, as a source connected to the Bilderberg group told The Daily Telegraph in 2013 that some attendees do not have their names publicized. Oscar Stenström, Sweden’s chief negotiator for NATO membership, was reported to have been seen at the venue despite his name not being on the list.
Read more →
Automated essay scoring

Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Read more →
Structure mapping engine

In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the structure mapping engine (SME) is an implementation in software of an algorithm for analogical matching based on the psychological theory of Dedre Gentner. The basis of Gentner's structure-mapping idea is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target). The structure-mapping engine is a computer simulation of the analogy and similarity comparisons. The theory is useful because it ignores surface features and finds matches between potentially very different things if they have the same representational structure. For example, SME could determine that a pen is like a sponge because both are involved in dispensing liquid, even though they do this very differently. == Structure mapping theory == Structure mapping theory is based on the systematicity principle, which states that connected knowledge is preferred over independent facts. Therefore, the structure mapping engine should ignore isolated source-target mappings unless they are part of a bigger structure. The SME, the theory goes, should map objects that are related to knowledge that has already been mapped. The theory also requires that mappings be done one-to-one, which means that no part of the source description can map to more than one item in the target and no part of the target description can be mapped to more than one part of the source. The theory also requires that if a match maps subject to target, the arguments of subject and target must also be mapped. If both these conditions are met, the mapping is said to be "structurally consistent." == Concepts in SME == SME maps knowledge from a source into a target. SME calls each description a dgroup. Dgroups contain a list of entities and predicates. Entities represent the objects or concepts in a description — such as an input gear or a switch. Predicates are one of three types and are a general way to express knowledge for SME. Relation predicates contain multiple arguments, which can be other predicates or entities. An example relation is: (transmit (what from to)). This relation has a functor transmit and takes three arguments: what, from, and to. Attribute predicates are the properties of an entity. An example of an attribute is (red gear) which means that gear has the attribute red. Function predicates map an entity into another entity or constant. An example of a function is (joules power source) which maps the entity power source onto the numerical quantity joules. Functions and attributes have different meanings, and consequently SME processes them differently. For example, in SME's true analogy rule set, attributes differ from functions because they cannot match unless there is a higher-order match between them. The difference between attributes and functions will be explained further in this section's examples. All predicates have four parameters. They have (1) a functor, which identifies it, and (2) a type, which is either relation, attribute, or function. The other two parameters (3 and 4) are for determining how to process the arguments in the SME algorithm. If the arguments have to be matched in order, commutative is false. If the predicate can take any number of arguments, N-ary is false. An example of a predicate definition is: (sme:defPredicate behavior-set (predicate) relation :n-ary? t :commutative? t) The predicate's functor is “behavior-set,” its type is “relation,” and its n-ary and commutative parameters are both set to true. The “(predicate)” part of the definition specifies that there will be one or more predicates inside an instantiation of behavior-set. == Algorithm details == The algorithm has several steps. The first step of the algorithm is to create a set of match hypotheses between source and target dgroups. A match hypothesis represents a possible mapping between any part of the source and the target. This mapping is controlled by a set of match rules. By changing the match rules, one can change the type of reasoning SME does. For example, one set of match rules may perform a kind of analogy called literal similarity, and another performs a kind of analogy called true-analogy. These rules are not the place where domain-dependent information is added, but rather where the analogy process is tweaked, depending on the type of cognitive function the user is trying to emulate. For a given match rule, there are two types of rules that further define how it will be applied: filter rules and intern rules. Intern rules use only the arguments of the expressions in the match hypotheses that the filter rules identify. This limitation makes the processing more efficient by constraining the number of match hypotheses that are generated. At the same time, it also helps to build the structural consistencies that are needed later on in the algorithm. An example of a filter rule from the true-analogy rule set creates match hypotheses between predicates that have the same functor. The true-analogy rule set has an intern rule that iterates over the arguments of any match hypothesis, creating more match hypotheses if the arguments are entities or functions, or if the arguments are attributes and have the same functor. In order to illustrate how the match rules produce match hypotheses consider these two predicates: transmit torque inputgear secondgear (p1) transmit signal switch div10 (p2) Here we use true analogy for the type of reasoning. The filter match rule generates a match between p1 and p2 because they share the same functor, transmit. The intern rules then produce three more match hypotheses: torque to signal, inputgear to switch, and secondgear to div10. The intern rules created these match hypotheses because all the arguments were entities. If the arguments were functions or attributes instead of entities, the predicates would be expressed as: transmit torque (inputgear gear) (secondgear gear) (p3) transmit signal (switch circuit) (div10 circuit) (p4) These additional predicates make inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 functions or attributes depending on the value defined in the language input file. The representation also contains additional entities for gear and circuit. Depending on what type inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are, their meanings change. As attributes, each one is a property of the gear or circuit. For example, the gear has two attributes, inputgear and secondgear. The circuit has two attributes, switch and circuit. As functions inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 become quantities of the gear and circuit. In this example, the functions inputgear and secondgear now map to the numerical quantities “torque from inputgear” and “torque from secondgear,” For the circuit the quantities map to logical quantity “switch engaged” and the numerical quantity “current count on the divide by 10 counter.” SME processes these differently. It does not allow attributes to match unless they are part of a higher-order relation, but it does allow functions to match, even if they are not part of such a relation. It allows functions to match because they indirectly refer to entities and thus should be treated like relations that involve no entities. However, as next section shows, the intern rules assign lower weights to matches between functions than to matches between relations. The reason SME does not match attributes is because it is trying to create connected knowledge based on relationships and thus satisfy the systematicity principle. For example, if both a clock and a car have inputgear attributes, SME will not mark them as similar. If it did, it would be making a match between the clock and car based on their appearance — not on the relationships between them. When the additional predicates in p3 and p4 are functions, the results from matching p3 and p4 are similar to the results from p1 and p2 except there is an additional match between gear and circuit and the values for the match hypotheses between (inputgear gear) and (switch circuit), and (secondgear gear) and (div10 circuit), are lower. The next section describes the reason for this in more detail. If the inputgear, secondgear, switch, and div10 are attributes instead of entities, SME does not find matches between any of the attributes. It finds matches only between the transmit predicates and between torque and signal. Additionally, the structural-evaluation scores for the remaining two matches decrease. In order to get the two predicates to match, p3 would need to be replaced by p5, which is demonstrated below. transmit torque (inputgear gear) (div10 gear) (p5) Since the true-analogy rule set identifies that the div10 attributes are the same between p5 and p4 and because the div10 attributes are both part of the higher-relation match between torque and signal, SME makes a match between (div10 gear) and (div10 circuit) — which leads to a match between gear and circuit. Being part of a higher-order match is a requiremen
Read more →
Distributed multi-agent reasoning system

In artificial intelligence, the distributed multi-agent reasoning system (dMARS) was a platform for intelligent software agents developed at the AAII that makes uses of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI). The design for dMARS was an extension of the intelligent agent cognitive architecture developed at SRI International called procedural reasoning system (PRS). The most recent incarnation of this framework is the JACK Intelligent Agents platform. == Overview == dMARS was an agent-oriented development and implementation environment written in C++ for building complex, distributed, time-critical systems.
Read more →