AI Chatbot Social Network

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

• 

  Noom

  Noom is an American privately held digital health company that provides weight management and behavioral health services through a subscription-based mobile application. Founded in 2008, the company combines behavior change psychology with access to weight loss medications and dietary supplements. The platform incorporates elements of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and goal-setting strategies, and its programs are designed to support users in developing healthier habits. In addition to its weight management services, Noom has expanded to offer products related to stress management and general wellness. Noom has received both praise and criticism. Supporters cite its focus on mental and behavioral aspects of health, while critics have raised concerns about the accuracy of its calorie goals, the use of algorithmically determined weight loss targets, and questions about the qualifications of some of its coaching staff. == History == Noom was founded in 2008 by friends Artem Petakov and Saeju Jeong. The company's mobile app officially launched in 2016. In 2025, Noom relocated its headquarters from New York City to Princeton, New Jersey. Petakov, a former software engineer at Google, currently leads Noom Ventures, while Jeong serves as Noom's Chairman. In 2023, Geoff Cook was appointed CEO of Noom. In 2019, Noom partnered with Novo Nordisk to offer patients prescribed the diabetes medication Saxenda one year of free access to the Noom platform. In 2020, Noom reported $400 million in revenue. As of April 2021, the company stated it employed approximately 3,000 people, including 2,700 coaches. == Services == === Noom App === The Noom app is the primary platform through which users engage with the company's services. Upon creating an account, users are prompted to provide physical information such as weight, height, and age, along with experiential data including lifestyle habits, personal goals, and perceived obstacles. Users log their meals and physical activity, and in return, the app delivers feedback through multiple channels: algorithmically generated insights, guidance from a human coach, peer interaction, educational articles, and interactive quizzes. The app has been reviewed by a range of media outlets, including newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and USA Today; health information sources such as WebMD; and lifestyle magazines including Good Housekeeping. === Other services === In 2024, Noom launched Noom Vibe, a mobile application that encourages users to develop healthy habits by awarding "vibes"—a form of points—for activities such as walking or meeting step goals. That same year, Noom introduced a 3D body scanning feature within its app, designed to help users monitor physical changes and prevent muscle atrophy during weight loss. Also in 2024, Noom began offering a compounded GLP-1 medication as part of its weight management program. The formulation includes the same active ingredient found in the anti-obesity medications Wegovy and Ozempic. == Research == In 2016, a study published in Scientific Reports analyzed data from approximately 36,000 users of the Noom app, of whom 78% were female and 22% male. The data were collected between October 2012 and April 2014. To be included in the analysis, users had to log their weight at least twice per month over a period of six consecutive months. The study found that 78% of participants self-reported weight loss while using the app. The median duration of weight reporting was 267 days (approximately nine months). The frequency of data logging was positively correlated with weight loss. Additionally, male users had a higher average starting BMI and reported greater average weight loss compared to female users. In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognized Noom as a certified diabetes prevention program, making it the first mobile health application to receive such designation. == Criticisms == === Health programs === Noom has been criticized for promoting elements of diet culture in its advertising campaigns. The app has also faced criticism for setting calorie goals that some users and experts have deemed inappropriately low, and for employing coaches who may lack formal qualifications as registered dietitians. Coaching has been described as relying heavily on canned responses. Upon sign-up, users are prompted to complete a questionnaire consisting of over 50 questions, which is used to generate a personalized program. In 2021, the UK-based organization Privacy International alleged that Noom, along with other diet platforms, used such lengthy surveys to attract users but did not always tailor the resulting programs to the collected data. The organization claimed that many users received the same or highly similar programs regardless of their answers. It also raised concerns about the handling of potentially sensitive health data, alleging a lack of transparency regarding the sharing of such data with third parties, including Facebook, potentially in violation of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a follow-up investigation in 2023, Privacy International reported that Noom had made "significant positive changes" to its data handling practices. However, the organization noted that data was still being shared with Facebook and concluded that "there is still room for improvement." === Billing issues lawsuit === In August 2020, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) issued a warning to consumers regarding Noom's subscription practices. The BBB reported that numerous customers had filed complaints about difficulties canceling their subscriptions after the free trial period, as well as challenges in contacting the company to request refunds. In February 2022, Noom agreed to a $62 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit that alleged the company had used deceptive billing practices related to automatic subscription renewals. Qualifying claimants received approximately $167 each. During the case, a former senior software engineer at Noom testified that the cancellation process was intentionally designed to be difficult, with the goal of generating revenue from customers who failed to cancel in time. In response, Noom stated that it had taken steps to improve transparency around its pricing and policies, including the implementation of self-service cancellation tools.

  Read more →
• 

  Ari Holtzman

  Ari Holtzman is a professor of Computer Science at the University of Chicago and an expert in the area of natural language processing and computational linguistics. Previously, Holtzman was a PhD student at the University of Washington where he was advised by Luke Zettlemoyer. In 2017, he was a member of the winning team for the inaugural Alexa Prize for developing a conversational AI system for the Amazon Alexa device. Holtzman has made multiple contributions in the area of text generation and language models such as the introduction of nucleus sampling in 2019, his work on AI safety and neural fake news detection, and the fine-tuning of quantized large language models.

  Read more →
• 

  General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

  The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (GPAI CoP) is a compliance tool released by the European Commission on 10 July 2025 to support compliance with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). It provides operational guidance for providers of general-purpose AI models, particularly in relation to Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act, which entered into application on 2 August 2025. The Code is organised into three chapters (Transparency, Copyright, and Safety and Security) and outlines how providers can meet the Act's relevant obligations. Although non-binding, providers can rely on adherence to the Code, meaning that EU regulators will assume that providers following the Code meet the corresponding legal requirements of the AI Act. As such, signatories to the Code will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and increased legal certainty compared to providers that prove compliance in other ways. While adherence to the Code is voluntary, compliance with the AI Act is not. == Background == The EU AI Act, adopted in 2024, established a risk-based regulatory regime for artificial intelligence in the European Union. The rationale for the GPAI CoP stems from Article 56 of the AI Act, which empowers the EU AI Office to develop a voluntary rulebook to guide how AI model providers can meet their legal obligations – specifically those found in Articles 53 and 55. Under Articles 53 and 55, developers of general-purpose AI models whose training compute exceeds 1023 floating-point operations (FLOPs) and that are placed on the EU market must meet transparency obligations and put in place a policy for EU copyright law. Models trained with more than 1025 FLOPs are classified as presenting systemic risk and are subject to enhanced safety requirements. The Commission may also designate a model as presenting systemic risk if it has equivalent impact or capabilities (Annex XIII criteria), even below that compute figure. Because the AI Act is relatively vague on how model providers should implement these requirements, the Code is meant to help by detailing processes and practices for compliance. == Drafting process == The development of the GPAI CoP was drawn up by 13 independent experts and involved four thematic working groups: Transparency & Copyright, Risk assessment for systemic risk, Technical risk mitigation for systemic risk, and Governance risk mitigation for systemic risk. Each group was coordinated by the European Union Artificial Intelligence Office (EU AI Office), drawing on contributions from nearly 1,000 stakeholders, including AI developers, academics, civil society organisations, national authorities, and international observers. The Code underwent three earlier iterations in November 2024, December 2024, and March 2025, before the final version was published on 10 July 2025, more than two months later than initially planned. The GPAI CoP will likely be updated continuously by the EU AI Office, alongside other tools such as the training data summary template. == Signatories == Among U.S.-based technology companies, Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI have signed the GPAI CoP. xAI, founded by Elon Musk, has signed only one of the three chapters, namely the safety and security chapter. Prominent European AI companies that have signed include Aleph Alpha and Mistral AI. The European Commission maintains an updated list of signatories. As of January 2026, Meta is the most notable company that has declined to sign the Code. Major Chinese AI companies, such as Alibaba, Baidu or Deepseek, have also not signed. Providers that do not sign the GPAI CoP will still have to adhere to the binding requirements of the EU AI Act. The European Commission has indicated that it may take tougher action against companies that didn't sign the Code. == Transparency and Copyright chapters == The first two chapters of the GPAI CoP address transparency and copyright compliance and apply to all GPAI providers. They offer a way to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under Article 53 AI Act. The Transparency chapter addresses the documentation of a model's capabilities, limitations, and points of contact, and expects providers to make key documentation available to downstream providers. Signatories must also publish summaries of the content used to train their models. In the Copyright chapter, Signatories commit to follow a policy that aligns with EU copyright law. For example, they commit to mitigating the risk of copyright-infringing output. == Safety and Security chapter == The Safety and Security chapter is the most extensive chapter of the Code, and it applies to GPAI models with systemic risk, meaning it's only relevant to the small number of providers of the most advanced models. It specifies how Signatories commit to meeting Article 55(1) obligations to: Conduct model evaluations to identify systemic risks Assess and mitigate those risks Track and report serious incidents Ensure the cyber and physical security of their models The chapter outlines a comprehensive risk management process that must be applied before major deployment decisions, such as releasing a new systemic-risk GPAI model in the EU market, or substantially updating an existing one. Signatories commit to identifying systemic risks of their model, analysing and evaluating them, determining whether risk levels are acceptable, and implementing mitigation measures if necessary. This process should be repeated until models achieve an acceptable level of risk across all identified risks. === Risk identification === Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating at least four “specified” categories of systemic risk: CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) Loss of control Cyber offence Harmful manipulation They are also expected to identify other systemic risks to public health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Code instructs providers to consider model capabilities, propensities, and affordances in this identification. Signatories commit to developing risk scenarios illustrating how identified risks could materialise in real-world conditions. === Risk analysis and risk evaluation === After identifying potential systemic risks, Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating the risks in order to determine whether they are acceptable or not, drawing on scientific literature, training data analysis, incident databases, expert consultation, and other sources. They also commit to conducting state-of-the-art model evaluations such as benchmarking, red teaming, and human uplift studies, targeting each risk. The risk analysis process is interconnected: insights from risk modelling should inform model evaluation design, while post-market monitoring should feed back into ongoing analysis. Signatories commit to ultimately estimating the likelihood and severity of each systemic risk. ==== Independent external model evaluations ==== Appendix 3.5 of the Safety and Security chapter requires signatories to ensure that independent external evaluators conduct model evaluations. Signatories may claim an exemption from this requirement only if they can demonstrate that their model is “similarly safe” to another model that has already been shown to comply with the Code, or if they are unable to appoint an appropriately qualified evaluator. The determination of “similarly safe” is based on comparable performance on benchmarks and the similarity of other model characteristics, such as their architecture. The CoP acknowledges that this kind of information is typically available only for models by the same provider, or potentially for open-weights or open-source models. === Risk acceptance criteria === The Code requires providers to compare estimated risks against predefined acceptance criteria, which must be measurable, based on model capabilities, and defined preemptively. While providers get to determine the level of risk they deem acceptable themselves, the pre-defined criteria and acceptance thresholds ensure providers cannot adjust their level of tolerance flexibly ahead of deployment decisions. Only if all risks are below acceptable levels should a model be deployed. === Continuous risk management and governance === The Code mandates ongoing risk management throughout the model lifecycle, including light-touch evaluations, continuous mitigation, post-market monitoring, and incident tracking and reporting. It further requires organisational governance structures assigning responsibility for risk management and expects providers to promote a “healthy risk culture,” including informing employees about the whistleblower protection policy, allowing internal challenges of decisions concerning systemic risk management, and committing to not retaliating against employees who disclose concerns about systemic risks to oversight authorities. === Documentation and transparency === Signatories commit to creating two types of documentation: Safety and Security Frame

  Read more →
• 

  Linguistic value

  In artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic operations research, and related fields, a linguistic value is a natural language term which is derived using quantitative or qualitative reasoning such as with probability and statistics or fuzzy sets and systems. Variables that take linguistic values are called linguistic variables. == Examples of linguistic variables and values == For example, "age" may be a linguistic variable if its values are not numerical, e.g. very young, quite young, not young, old, not very old etc. These values could be derived from the numeric values for age. As another example, if a shuttle heat shield is deemed of having a linguistic value of a "very low" percentage of damage in re-entry, based upon knowledge from experts in the field, that probability would be given a value of say, 5%. From there on out, if it were to be used in an equation, the variable of percentage of damage will be at 5% if it deemed very low percentage.

  Read more →
• 

  Neighborhood operation

  In computer vision and image processing a neighborhood operation is a commonly used class of computations on image data which implies that it is processed according to the following pseudo code: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N) } This general procedure can be applied to image data of arbitrary dimensionality. Also, the image data on which the operation is applied does not have to be defined in terms of intensity or color, it can be any type of information which is organized as a function of spatial (and possibly temporal) variables in p. The result of applying a neighborhood operation on an image is again something which can be interpreted as an image, it has the same dimension as the original data. The value at each image point, however, does not have to be directly related to intensity or color. Instead it is an element in the range of the function f, which can be of arbitrary type. Normally the neighborhood N is of fixed size and is a square (or a cube, depending on the dimensionality of the image data) centered on the point p. Also the function f is fixed, but may in some cases have parameters which can vary with p, see below. In the simplest case, the neighborhood N may be only a single point. This type of operation is often referred to as a point-wise operation. == Examples == The most common examples of a neighborhood operation use a fixed function f which in addition is linear, that is, the computation consists of a linear shift invariant operation. In this case, the neighborhood operation corresponds to the convolution operation. A typical example is convolution with a low-pass filter, where the result can be interpreted in terms of local averages of the image data around each image point. Other examples are computation of local derivatives of the image data. It is also rather common to use a fixed but non-linear function f. This includes median filtering, and computation of local variances. The Nagao-Matsuyama filter is an example of a complex local neighbourhood operation that uses variance as an indicator of the uniformity within a pixel group. The result is similar to a convolution with a low-pass filter with the added effect of preserving sharp edges. There is also a class of neighborhood operations in which the function f has additional parameters which can vary with p: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N, parameters(p)) } This implies that the result is not shift invariant. Examples are adaptive Wiener filters. == Implementation aspects == The pseudo code given above suggests that a neighborhood operation is implemented in terms of an outer loop over all image points. However, since the results are independent, the image points can be visited in arbitrary order, or can even be processed in parallel. Furthermore, in the case of linear shift-invariant operations, the computation of f at each point implies a summation of products between the image data and the filter coefficients. The implementation of this neighborhood operation can then be made by having the summation loop outside the loop over all image points. An important issue related to neighborhood operation is how to deal with the fact that the neighborhood N becomes more or less undefined for points p close to the edge or border of the image data. Several strategies have been proposed: Compute result only for points p for which the corresponding neighborhood is well-defined. This implies that the output image will be somewhat smaller than the input image. Zero padding: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to zero. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Border extension: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to the image value at the closest image point. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Mirror extension: Extend the image sufficiently much by mirroring the image at the image boundaries. This method is less sensitive to local variations at the image boundary than border extension. Wrapping: The image is tiled, so that going off one edge wraps around to the opposite side of the image. This method assumes that the image is largely homogeneous, for example a stochastic image texture without large textons.

  Read more →
• 

  Common Crawl

  The Common Crawl Foundation (Common Crawl) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that crawls the web and freely provides its archives and datasets to the public. Common Crawl was founded by Gil Elbaz. The data had mostly been primarily used by researchers and some startups until the 2020s, when AI companies started training large language models using the data. In November 2025, an investigation by The Atlantic revealed that Common Crawl misled publishers when it claimed it respected paywalls in its scraping and it was not honoring requests from publishers to have their content removed from its databases. == History == Common Crawl was founded in 2007 in San Francisco. It began publishing its crawls in 2011. By 2013, sites like TinEye were building their products off of Common Crawl. The crawl reduces the reliance of companies and researchers on Google, which has the biggest dataset. Common Crawl was designed to have more and fresher data that was more efficient to analyze and utilize than the Wayback Machine created by the Internet Archive. By 2015, 1.8 billion webpages were on the Common Crawl, which started by crawling a list of URLs donated by the search engine Blekko. They use Amazon Web Services, which provides some of its services for free, allowing computing costs to average $2-4000/month. The Common Crawl website listed 30 studies based on Common Crawl data. Before 2023, Common Crawl was not very well known outside of academic researchers who utilize the data. Common Crawl received its first requests to redact information in 2023 and increasingly started seeing its crawler, CCBot, blocked. In 2023, it began receiving significant financial support from AI companies, including Anthropic and OpenAI, each of which donated $250,000. It was also used to train Google DeepMind's large language model Gemini. By April 2023, Common Crawl was capturing 3.1 billion webpages, with an estimated 5% of pages before 2021 containing hate speech or slurs. As of 2024, Common Crawl had been cited in more than 10,000 academic studies. By 2024, The Pile and Common Crawl had been the two main training datasets being used to train AI models. In November 2025, an investigation by technology journalist Alex Reisner for The Atlantic revealed that Common Crawl misled publishers when it claimed it respected paywalls in its scraping and when it said that it was honoring requests from publishers to have their content removed from its databases. It included misleading results in the public search function on its website that showed no entries for websites that had requested their archives be removed, when in fact those sites were still included in its scrapes used by AI companies. As of 2025, Reisner found that CCBot was the most widely-blocked bot by the top 1000 websites. A 2026 article in LWN.net discussed an advantage to services like Common Crawl being that it can limit the scraping costs to websites by allowing companies and researchers to download the data from Common Crawl instead of scraping it themselves. In April 2026, Common Crawl experimentally began to distribute its data through Hugging Face Storage Bucket, in addition to its standard storage on Amazon S3. == Organization == Peter Norvig and Joi Ito have served on the advisory board. Rich Skrenta is the executive director. It has received funding almost exclusively from the Elbaz Family Foundation Trust until 2023 when it started receiving donations from the AI industry. == Refined versions == A number of organizations take raw Common Crawl data and refine it into datasets that exclude edgy content or are otherwise higher-quality for their purposes, such as FineWeb, DCLM and C4. === Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus === Google version of the Common Crawl is called the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus, or C4 for short. It was constructed for the training of the T5 language model series in 2019. As of 2023, there were some concerns over copyrighted content in the C4 as well as racist content. A 2024 study found that 45% of content was explicitly restricted by websites' terms of service to be used for purposes like AI training by for-profit companies.

  Read more →
• 

  Greg Brockman

  Gregory Brockman (born November 29, 1987) is an American entrepreneur and software engineer. He is co-founder and president of OpenAI. He began his career at Stripe in 2010, upon leaving MIT, and became CTO in 2013. He left Stripe in 2015 to co-found OpenAI, where he also served as CTO. == Early life == Brockman was born in Thompson, North Dakota, and attended Red River High School, where he excelled in mathematics, chemistry, and computer science. He won a silver medal in the 2006 International Chemistry Olympiad and became the first finalist from North Dakota to participate in the Intel science talent search since 1973. In 2003, 2005, and 2007, he attended Canada/USA Mathcamp, a summer program for mathematically talented high-school students. In 2008, Brockman enrolled at Harvard University but left a year later, briefly enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. == Career == In 2010, he dropped out of MIT to join Stripe, a company founded by Patrick Collison, his MIT classmate, and John Collison. In 2013, he became Stripe's first CTO, while the company grew from 5 to 205 employees. Brockman left Stripe in May 2015. === OpenAI === Brockman met with Sam Altman and Elon Musk, and led the recruiting of the OpenAI founding team. Many of its members, including Ilya Sutskever, were top AI research talent that left high paying jobs for the opportunity at OpenAI. He co-founded OpenAI in December 2015 alongside Altman, Sutskever and others. The company initially operated from Brockman's living room. He led various projects at OpenAI, including OpenAI Gym and OpenAI Five, a Dota 2 bot. On February 14, 2019, OpenAI announced that they had developed a new large language model called GPT-2, but kept it private due to their concern for its potential misuse. They released the model to a limited group of beta testers in May 2019. On March 14, 2023, in a live video demo, Brockman unveiled GPT-4, the fourth iteration in the GPT series. On November 17, 2023, alongside the firing of Sam Altman, Brockman was told he had been removed from the board. Sutskever supplied the board with a document of alleged bullying by Brockman. Mira Murati said Brockman's relationship with Altman made it impossible for her to do her job, and Altman had already "fielded many requests from OpenAI employees to rein in Brockman". Brockman was to report to Murati, but on November 17, he announced that he had quit the company. On November 20, 2023, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella announced that Brockman and Altman would join Microsoft to lead a new advanced AI research team. The following day, after a deal was reached to reinstate Altman as CEO, Brockman returned to OpenAI. Brockman took a sabbatical from August to November 2024. === Elon Musk lawsuit === Jury selection for OpenAI cofounder Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI and its current executives, including Brockman, began on April 27, 2026. On April 28, 2026, trial testimony was by now underway, with Elon Musk beginning his testimony against Altman and OpenAI. On April 30, 2026 Musk would enter his third day of testimony. == Personal life == In November 2019 after a year of dating, Brockman married Anna at OpenAI's offices on a workday. Ilya Sutskever officiated. == Political activities == Brockman and his wife were the biggest donors to Donald Trump's Super PAC, MAGA Inc., in 2025 with each of them donating US$12.5 million. Brockman and his wife also donated $50 million to Leading the Future, a super PAC dedicated to AI deregulation that he helped found with Andreessen Horowitz co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. OpenAI publicly expressed openness to increased regulatory oversight and has a policy against donating to such Super PACs.

  Read more →
• 

  Cleverpath AION Business Rules Expert

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

  Read more →
• 

  YrWall

  YrWall is a Digital Graffiti Wall developed by event company Luma, where designs are created on a large wall using a modified spray paint can. The can contains no paint, instead it has an IR light which is tracked by a computer vision system and the image immediately back-projected onto the wall. The inbuilt YrWall software has much of the functionality of a typical computer paint program, with a pop-out interface which enables users to change colour, spray width, opacity, work with stencils and use animated items such as swirls, stars, drips and splats. Recent additions to YrWall include options to email a JPEG of the completed design and create personalised stickers and T-shirts. == Dragons' Den == The inventor of YrWall, Tom Hogan, and his business partner, Tim Williams, appeared on Episode 4 of Series 8 of the BBC show Dragons' Den. Seeking investment in YrWall, the entrepreneurs were successful in gaining £50,000 for 40% of the YrWall parent company Lumacoustics from Dragons Deborah Meaden and Peter Jones. == World's Largest Interactive Graffiti Wall == In September 2009 YrWall was used to create the 'World's Largest Interactive Graffiti Wall' at the Bristol Festival, UK. Artists used the standard 3.5 m2 YrWall to produce artwork which was in turn projected live onto a 26m x 10m space on the side of the iconic Lloyds amphitheatre building.

  Read more →
• 

  Shakey the robot

  Shakey the Robot was the first general-purpose mobile robot able to reason about its own actions. While other robots would have to be instructed on each individual step of completing a larger task, Shakey could analyze commands and break them down into basic chunks by itself. Due to its nature, the project combined research in robotics, computer vision, and natural language processing. Because of this, it was the first project that melded logical reasoning and physical action. Shakey was developed at the Artificial Intelligence Center of Stanford Research Institute (now called SRI International). Some of the most notable results of the project include the A search algorithm, the Hough transform, and the visibility graph method. == History == Shakey was developed from approximately 1966 through 1972 with Charles Rosen, Nils Nilsson and Peter Hart as project managers. Other major contributors included Alfred Brain, Sven Wahlstrom, Bertram Raphael, Richard Duda, Richard Fikes, Thomas Garvey, Helen Chan Wolf and Michael Wilber. The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) based on a SRI proposal submitted in April 1964 for research in "Intelligent Automata", later "Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance". It was originally designed to have two retractable arms. Now retired from active duty, Shakey is currently on view in a glass display case at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. The project inspired numerous other robotics projects, most notably the Centibots. == Software == The robot's programming was primarily done in LISP. The Stanford Research Institute Problem Solver (STRIPS) planner it used was conceived as the main planning component for the software it utilized. As the first robot that was a logical, goal-based agent, Shakey experienced a limited world. A version of Shakey's world could contain a number of rooms connected by corridors, with doors and light switches available for the robot to interact with. Shakey had a short list of available actions within its planner. These actions involved traveling from one location to another, turning the light switches on and off, opening and closing the doors, climbing up and down from rigid objects, and pushing movable objects around. The STRIPS automated planner could devise a plan to enact all the available actions, even though Shakey himself did not have the capability to execute all the actions within the plan personally. An example mission for Shakey might be something like, an operator types the command "push the block off the platform" at a computer console. Shakey looks around, identifies a platform with a block on it, and locates a ramp in order to reach the platform. Shakey then pushes the ramp over to the platform, rolls up the ramp onto the platform, and pushes the block off the platform. == Hardware == Physically, the robot was particularly tall, and had an antenna for a radio link, sonar range finders, a television camera, on-board processors, and collision detection sensors ("bump detectors"). The robot's tall stature and tendency to shake resulted in its name: We worked for a month trying to find a good name for it, ranging from Greek names to whatnot, and then one of us said, 'Hey, it shakes like hell and moves around, let’s just call it Shakey.' == Research results == The development of Shakey provided far-reaching impact on the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as computer science in general. Some of the more notable results include the development of the A search algorithm, which is widely used in pathfinding and graph traversal, the process of plotting an efficiently traversable path between points; the Hough transform, which is a feature extraction technique used in image analysis, computer vision, and digital image processing; and the visibility graph method for finding Euclidean shortest paths among obstacles in the plane. == Media and awards == In 1969 the SRI published "SHAKEY: Experimentation in Robot Learning and Planning", a 24-minute video. The project then received media attention. This included an article in the New York Times on April 10, 1969. In 1970, Life referred to Shakey as the "first electronic person"; and in November 1970 National Geographic Magazine covered Shakey and the future of computers. The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's AI Video Competition's awards are named "Shakeys" because of the significant impact of the 1969 video. Shakey was inducted into Carnegie Mellon University's Robot Hall of Fame in 2004 alongside such notables as ASIMO and C-3PO. Shakey has been honored with an IEEE Milestone in Electrical Engineering and Computing. Shakey was showcased in the BBC's Towards Tomorrow: Robot (1967) documentary.

  Read more →
• 

  Reason maintenance

  Reason maintenance is a knowledge representation approach to efficient handling of inferred information that is explicitly stored. Reason maintenance distinguishes between base facts, which can be defeated, and derived facts. As such it differs from belief revision which, in its basic form, assumes that all facts are equally important. Reason maintenance was originally developed as a technique for implementing problem solvers. It encompasses a variety of techniques that share a common architecture: two components—a reasoner and a reason maintenance system—communicate with each other via an interface. The reasoner uses the reason maintenance system to record its inferences and justifications of ("reasons" for) the inferences. The reasoner also informs the reason maintenance system which are the currently valid base facts (assumptions). The reason maintenance system uses the information to compute the truth value of the stored derived facts and to restore consistency if an inconsistency is derived. == Truth maintenance system == A truth maintenance system, or TMS, is a knowledge representation method for representing both beliefs and their dependencies and an algorithm called the "truth maintenance algorithm" that manipulates and maintains the dependencies. The name truth maintenance is due to the ability of these systems to restore consistency. A truth maintenance system maintains consistency between old believed knowledge and current believed knowledge in the knowledge base (KB) through revision. If the current believed statements contradict the knowledge in the KB, then the KB is updated with the new knowledge. It may happen that the same data will again be believed, and the previous knowledge will be required in the KB. If the previous data are not present, but may be required for new inference. But if the previous knowledge was in the KB, then no retracing of the same knowledge is needed. The use of TMS avoids such retracing; it keeps track of the contradictory data with the help of a dependency record. This record reflects the retractions and additions which makes the inference engine (IE) aware of its current belief set. == Algorithm == Each statement having at least one valid justification is made a part of the current belief set. When a contradiction is found, the statement(s) responsible for the contradiction are identified and the records are appropriately updated. This process is called dependency-directed backtracking. The TMS algorithm maintains the records in the form of a dependency network. Each node in the network is an entry in the KB (a premise, antecedent, or inference rule etc.) Each arc of the network represent the inference steps through which the node was derived. A premise is a fundamental belief which is assumed to be true. They do not need justifications. The set of premises are the basis from which justifications for all other nodes will be derived. == Justification == There are two types of justification for a node. They are: Support list [SL] Conditional proof (CP) == Examples == Many kinds of truth maintenance systems exist. Two major types are single-context and multi-context truth maintenance. In single context systems, consistency is maintained among all facts in memory (KB) and relates to the notion of consistency found in classical logic. Multi-context systems support paraconsistency by allowing consistency to be relevant to a subset of facts in memory, a context, according to the history of logical inference. This is achieved by tagging each fact or deduction with its logical history. Multi-agent truth maintenance systems perform truth maintenance across multiple memories, often located on different machines. de Kleer's assumption-based truth maintenance system (ATMS, 1986) was utilized in systems based upon KEE on the Lisp Machine. The first multi-agent TMS was created by Mason and Johnson. It was a multi-context system. Bridgeland and Huhns created the first single-context multi-agent system.

  Read more →
• 

  Ian Goodfellow

  Ian J. Goodfellow (born 1987) is an American computer scientist, engineer, and executive, most noted for his work on artificial neural networks and deep learning. He is a research scientist at Google DeepMind, was previously employed as a research scientist at Google Brain and director of machine learning at Apple as well as one of the first employees at OpenAI, and has made several important contributions to the field of deep learning, including the invention of the generative adversarial network (GAN). Goodfellow co-wrote, as the first author, the textbook Deep Learning (2016) and wrote the chapter on deep learning in the authoritative textbook of the field of artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (used in more than 1,500 universities in 135 countries). == Education == Goodfellow obtained his BSc and MSc in computer science from Stanford University under the supervision of Andrew Ng, and his PhD in machine learning from the Université de Montréal in February 2015, under the supervision of Yoshua Bengio and Aaron Courville. Goodfellow's thesis is titled Deep learning of representations and its application to computer vision. == Career == After graduation, Goodfellow joined Google as part of the Google Brain research team. In March 2016, he left Google to join the newly founded OpenAI research laboratory. 11 months later, in March 2017, Goodfellow returned to Google Research, but left again in 2019. In 2019, Goodfellow joined Apple as director of machine learning in the Special Projects Group. He resigned from Apple in April 2022 to protest Apple's plan to require in-person work for its employees. Shortly after, Goodfellow then joined Google DeepMind as a research scientist. In 2025, Goodfellow left Google. As of July 2026, based on information on Goodfellow's LinkedIn profile, he is co-founding a startup company. == Research == Goodfellow is best known for inventing generative adversarial networks (GANs), using deep learning to generate images. This approach uses two neural networks to competitively improve an image's quality. A “generator” network creates a synthetic image based on an initial set of images such as a collection of faces. A “discriminator” network tries to determine whether images are authentic or created by the generator. The generate-detect cycle is repeated. For each iteration, the generator and the discriminator use the other's feedback to improve or detect the generated images, until the discriminator can no longer distinguish between generated and authentic images. However, GANs have also been used to create deepfakes. At Google, Goodfellow developed a system enabling Google Maps to automatically transcribe addresses from photos taken by Street View cars and demonstrated security vulnerabilities of machine learning systems. == Recognition == In 2017, Goodfellow was cited in MIT Technology Review's 35 Innovators Under 35. In 2019, he was included in Foreign Policy's list of 100 Global Thinkers.

  Read more →
• 

  Corona-Warn-App

  Corona-Warn-App was the official and open-source COVID-19 contact tracing app used for digital contact tracing in Germany made by SAP and Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems. It had been downloaded 22.8 million times as of 19 November 2020 and 26.2 million times as of 18 March 2021. The app has been promoted by billboard and broadcast advertisements, e.g. in cooperation with the German Football Association (DFB) and other prominent companies. The German government has announced that the app would no longer exchange tracing information as of April 30, 2023 & would enter hibernation as of June 1, 2023. == Effectiveness == Experts believe that time saved by using the app can be critical for improving the effectiveness contact tracing efforts. Some virologists say when at least 60% of people in Germany use it, it would be very effective. == Functioning == The app works with the Exposure Notification Framework (what is implemented in Google Play Services for Android and in iOS) by using Bluetooth to exchange codes with app users that are within 1.5 meters of each other for a period of at least 10 minutes. Anyone who tests positive for COVID-19 can share this information voluntarily with the app. Other app users are then notified about when, how long and at what distance they had contact with the infected person within a 14-day period. Testing is available for persons on a voluntary basis. === Server architecture === Based on the Client–server model five servers are operated within the app backend: the Corona-Warn-App server. It stores the authorized keys of infected users, referred to as diagnosis keys, from the past 14 days in its database. Stored diagnosis keys are grouped into regularly updated blocks which are transmitted to the Content Delivery Network. This interface supplies the keys for the app clients to download and locally compute a potential exposure risk. the Verification server. It is responsible for documenting the approval of the user to share their positive test result with the app and also to verify the test result. the Portal Server. It generates a so-called teleTAN token if the user did not give their consent to share their test result with the app at first but then changed their mind or if the local public health authority or test laboratory is not connected to the app system yet. the Test Result Server. It saves the test results provided by the local public health authorities or test laboratories for further use within the backend. the Federation Gateway Server. It connects to the national Corona-Warn-App servers of participating EU countries to enable transnational key exchange. By the distribution of the data on different servers the decoupling of the data becomes possible and results in an obstructed tracing of the app users. ==== Report of a positive COVID-19 test ==== The app provides a function to warn other app users by uploading their positive test result on a voluntarily and anonymous basis to the Corona-Warn-App server. In case the local public health authority or test laboratory is already connected to the app system, the user receives a QR-Code when the swab specimen is taken that can be scanned in the app. After scanning the QR-Code und the user getting authorized by the Verification server, the app receives an individual Registration token which gets stored locally and with which the status and the result of the test can be checked manually as well as automatically. If the local public health authority or test laboratory is not connected to the app system yet and the user wants to share their positive test result with other app users, it is required to request a teleTAN token by calling the verification hotline of the app. In both cases, the user can upload their diagnosis keys of the last 14 days to the Corona-Warn-App server in case their consent to share the information is given. The Corona-Warn-App server then verifies the uploaded keys by asking the Verification server if the keys are valid and if they are, the Corona-Warn-App server stores them in its database. == Privacy == The use of the app is voluntary. The app implements decentralized data storage to ensure data privacy. Employers can require that Corona-Warn be installed on company phones, but can not compel its use on private phones. == Funding == The open source app, which costs €20 million to develop is intended to supplement human contact tracing efforts, which Germany put in place during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. In August 2022, a spokesperson for the German ministry of health announced that the total costs including all additional developments are now estimated to be closer to €150m. == Interoperability == At its start the app only worked in Germany, and Jens Spahn, than Federal Minister of Health (CDU), has said the development of a Europe-wide system is a future goal. With the update published on 19 October 2020 the app supports key-exchanges with the EU Interoperability Gateway and is therefore able to communicate with contact tracing apps from Ireland and Italy. Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland had joined the gateway as well and are also able to exchange keys with Corona-Warn-App. The app can be downloaded in many App stores outside of Germany. However, as of August 2021, the app is still unavailable for those of notable national German minorities like Turks, Russians or Ukrainians, who use App stores of their home countries. == Software variants == An unofficial Corona-Warn-App has been released on F-Droid, making the app available without proprietary components on Android phones. == Literature == Thomas Köllmann: Die Corona-Warn-App – Schnittstelle zwischen Datenschutz- und Arbeitsrecht. In: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht. Nr. 13, 10. Juli 2020, S. 831–836.

  Read more →
• 

  Yale shooting problem

  The Yale shooting problem is a conundrum or scenario in formal situational logic on which early logical solutions to the frame problem fail. The name of this problem comes from a scenario proposed by its inventors, Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott, working at Yale University when they proposed it. In this scenario, Fred (later identified as a turkey) is initially alive and a gun is initially unloaded. Loading the gun, waiting for a moment, and then shooting the gun at Fred is expected to kill Fred. However, if inertia is formalized in logic by minimizing the changes in this situation, then it cannot be uniquely proved that Fred is dead after loading, waiting, and shooting. In one solution, Fred indeed dies; in another (also logically correct) solution, the gun becomes mysteriously unloaded and Fred survives. Technically, this scenario is described by two fluents (a fluent is a condition that can change truth value over time): a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} and l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} . Initially, the first condition is true and the second is false. Then, the gun is loaded, some time passes, and the gun is fired. Such problems can be formalized in logic by considering four time points 0 {\displaystyle 0} , 1 {\displaystyle 1} , 2 {\displaystyle 2} , and 3 {\displaystyle 3} , and turning every fluent such as a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} into a predicate a l i v e ( t ) {\displaystyle alive(t)} depending on time. A direct formalization of the statement of the Yale shooting problem in logic is the following one: a l i v e ( 0 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)} ¬ l o a d e d ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \neg loaded(0)} t r u e → l o a d e d ( 1 ) {\displaystyle true\rightarrow loaded(1)} l o a d e d ( 2 ) → ¬ a l i v e ( 3 ) {\displaystyle loaded(2)\rightarrow \neg alive(3)} The first two formulae represent the initial state. The third formula formalizes the effect of loading the gun at time 1 {\displaystyle 1} . The fourth formula formalizes the effect of shooting at Fred at time 2 {\displaystyle 2} . This is a simplified formalization in which action names are neglected and the effects of actions are directly specified for the time points in which the actions are executed. See situation calculus for details. The formulae above, while being direct formalizations of the known facts, do not suffice to correctly characterize the domain. Indeed, ¬ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \neg alive(1)} is consistent with all these formulae, although there is no reason to believe that Fred dies before the gun has been shot. The problem is that the formulae above only include the effects of actions, but do not specify that all fluents not changed by the actions remain the same. In other words, a formula a l i v e ( 0 ) ≡ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)\equiv alive(1)} must be added to formalize the implicit assumption that loading the gun only changes the value of l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} and not the value of a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} . The necessity of a large number of formulae stating the obvious fact that conditions do not change unless an action changes them is known as the frame problem. An early solution to the frame problem was based on minimizing the changes. In other words, the scenario is formalized by the formulae above (that specify only the effects of actions) and by the assumption that the changes in the fluents over time are as minimal as possible. The rationale is that the formulae above enforce all effect of actions to take place, while minimization should restrict the changes to exactly those due to the actions. In the Yale shooting scenario, one possible evaluation of the fluents in which the changes are minimized is the following one. This is the expected solution. It contains two fluent changes: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} becomes false at time 3. The following evaluation also satisfies all formulae above. In this evaluation, there are still two changes only: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and false at time 2. As a result, this evaluation is considered a valid description of the evolution of the state, although there is no valid reason to explain l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} being false at time 2. The fact that minimization of changes leads to wrong solution is the motivation for the introduction of the Yale shooting problem. While the Yale shooting problem has been considered a severe obstacle to the use of logic for formalizing dynamical scenarios, solutions to it have been known since the late 1980s. One solution involves the use of predicate completion in the specification of actions: in this solution, the fact that shooting causes Fred to die is formalized by the preconditions: alive and loaded, and the effect is that alive changes value (since alive was true before, this corresponds to alive becoming false). By turning this implication into an if and only if statement, the effects of shooting are correctly formalized. (Predicate completion is more complicated when there is more than one implication involved.) A solution proposed by Erik Sandewall was to include a new condition of occlusion, which formalizes the “permission to change” for a fluent. The effect of an action that might change a fluent is therefore that the fluent has the new value, and that the occlusion is made (temporarily) true. What is minimized is not the set of changes, but the set of occlusions being true. Another constraint specifying that no fluent changes unless occlusion is true completes this solution. The Yale shooting scenario is also correctly formalized by the Reiter version of the situation calculus, the fluent calculus, and the action description languages. In 2005, the 1985 paper in which the Yale shooting scenario was first described received the AAAI Classic Paper award. In spite of being a solved problem, that example is still sometimes mentioned in recent research papers, where it is used as an illustrative example (e.g., for explaining the syntax of a new logic for reasoning about actions), rather than being presented as a problem.

  Read more →
• 

  GOFAI

  In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, GOFAI (good old-fashioned artificial intelligence) is classical symbolic AI, as opposed to other approaches, such as neural networks, situated robotics, narrow symbolic AI or neuro-symbolic AI. The term was coined by philosopher John Haugeland in his 1985 book Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Haugeland coined the term to address two questions: Can GOFAI produce human-level artificial intelligence in a machine? Is GOFAI the primary method that brains use to display intelligence? AI founder Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1963 that the answers to both these questions was "yes". His evidence was the performance of programs he had co-written, such as Logic Theorist and the General Problem Solver, and his psychological research on human problem solving. AI research in the 1950s and 60s had an enormous influence on intellectual history: it inspired the cognitive revolution, led to the founding of the academic field of cognitive science, and was the essential example in the philosophical theories of computationalism, functionalism and cognitivism in ethics and the psychological theories of cognitivism and cognitive psychology. The specific aspect of AI research that led to this revolution was what Haugeland called "GOFAI". In AI development and technology, GOFAI is used to refer to programs that are built with deliberate, explicit instructions for a single task. This is in contrast to approaches that use machine learning. Examples of GOFAI applications include AlphaGo and Apple's initial Siri design. == Western rationalism == Haugeland places GOFAI within the rationalist tradition in western philosophy, which holds that abstract reason is the "highest" faculty, that it is what separates man from the animals, and that it is the most essential part of our intelligence. This assumption is present in Plato and Aristotle, in Shakespeare, Hobbes, Hume and Locke, it was central to the Enlightenment, to the logical positivists of the 1930s, and to the computationalists and cognitivists of the 1960s. As Shakespeare wrote: What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty ... In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. Symbolic AI in the 1960s was able to successfully simulate the process of high-level reasoning, including logical deduction, algebra, geometry, spatial reasoning and means-ends analysis, all of them in precise English sentences, just like the ones humans used when they reasoned. Many observers, including philosophers, psychologists and the AI researchers themselves became convinced that they had captured the essential features of intelligence. This was not just hubris or speculation -- this was entailed by rationalism. If it was not true, then it brings into question a large part of the entire Western philosophical tradition. Continental philosophy, which included Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger and others, rejected rationalism and argued that our high-level reasoning was limited and prone to error, and that most of our abilities come from our intuitions, culture, and instinctive feel for the situation. Philosophers who were familiar with this tradition were the first to criticize GOFAI and the assertion that it was sufficient for intelligence, such as Hubert Dreyfus and Haugeland. == Haugeland's GOFAI == Critics and supporters of Haugeland's position, from philosophy, psychology, or AI research have found it difficult to define "GOFAI" precisely, and thus the literature contains a variety of interpretations. Drew McDermott, for example, finds Haugeland's description of GOFAI "incoherent" and argues that GOFAI is a "myth". Haugeland coined the term GOFAI in order to examine the philosophical implications of “the claims essential to all GOFAI theories”, which he listed as: 1. our ability to deal with things intelligently is due to our capacity to think about them reasonably (including sub-conscious thinking); and 2. our capacity to think about things reasonably amounts to a faculty for internal “automatic” symbol manipulation This is very similar to the sufficient side of the physical symbol systems hypothesis proposed by Herbert A. Simon and Allen Newell in 1963: "A physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action." It is also similar to Hubert Dreyfus' "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules. " Haugeland's description of GOFAI refers to symbol manipulation governed by a set of instructions for manipulating the symbols. The "symbols" he refers to are discrete physical things that are assigned a definite semantics -- like and . They do not refer to signals, or unidentified numbers, or matrixes of unidentified numbers, or the zeros and ones of digital machinery. Thus, Haugeland's GOFAI does not include "good old fashioned" techniques such as cybernetics, perceptrons, dynamic programming or control theory or modern techniques such as neural networks or support vector machines. These questions ask if GOFAI is sufficient for general intelligence -- they ask if there is nothing else required to create fully intelligent machines. Thus GOFAI, for Haugeland, does not include systems that combine symbolic AI with other techniques, such as neuro-symbolic AI, and also does not include narrow symbolic AI systems that are designed only to solve a specific problem and are not expected to exhibit general intelligence. == Replies == === Replies from AI scientists === Russell and Norvig wrote, in reference to Dreyfus and Haugeland:The technology they criticized came to be called Good Old-Fashioned AI (GOFAI). GOFAI corresponds to the simplest logical agent design ... and we saw ... that it is indeed difficult to capture every contingency of appropriate behavior in a set of necessary and sufficient logical rules; we called that the qualification problem. Later symbolic AI work after the 1980's incorporated more robust approaches to open-ended domains such as probabilistic reasoning, non-monotonic reasoning, and machine learning. Currently, most AI researchers believe deep learning, and more likely, a synthesis of neural and symbolic approaches (neuro-symbolic AI), will be required for general intelligence.

  Read more →