AI Chat UI Design

AI Chat UI Design — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Text Retrieval Conference

The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is an ongoing series of workshops focusing on a list of different information retrieval (IR) research areas, or tracks. It is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (part of the office of the Director of National Intelligence), and began in 1992 as part of the TIPSTER Text program. Its purpose is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to increase the speed of lab-to-product transfer of technology. TREC's evaluation protocols have improved many search technologies. A 2010 study estimated that "without TREC, U.S. Internet users would have spent up to 3.15 billion additional hours using web search engines between 1999 and 2009." Hal Varian the Chief Economist at Google wrote that "The TREC data revitalized research on information retrieval. Having a standard, widely available, and carefully constructed set of data laid the groundwork for further innovation in this field." Each track has a challenge wherein NIST provides participating groups with data sets and test problems. Depending on track, test problems might be questions, topics, or target extractable features. Uniform scoring is performed so the systems can be fairly evaluated. After evaluation of the results, a workshop provides a place for participants to collect together thoughts and ideas and present current and future research work.Text Retrieval Conference started in 1992, funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Project) and run by NIST. Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. == Goals == Encourage retrieval search based on large text collections Increase communication among industry, academia, and government by creating an open forum for the exchange of research ideas Speed the transfer of technology from research labs into commercial products by demonstrating substantial improvements retrieval methodologies on real world problems To increase the availability of appropriate evaluation techniques for use by industry and academia including development of new evaluation techniques more applicable to current systems TREC is overseen by a program committee consisting of representatives from government, industry, and academia. For each TREC, NIST provide a set of documents and questions. Participants run their own retrieval system on the data and return to NIST a list of retrieved top-ranked documents. NIST pools the individual result judges the retrieved documents for correctness and evaluates the results. The TREC cycle ends with a workshop that is a forum for participants to share their experiences. == Relevance judgments in TREC == TREC defines relevance as: "If you were writing a report on the subject of the topic and would use the information contained in the document in the report, then the document is relevant." Most TREC retrieval tasks use binary relevance: a document is either relevant or not relevant. Some TREC tasks use graded relevance, capturing multiple degrees of relevance. Most TREC collections are too large to perform complete relevance assessment; for these collections it is impossible to calculate the absolute recall for each query. To decide which documents to assess, TREC usually uses a method call pooling. In this method, the top-ranked n documents from each contributing run are aggregated, and the resulting document set is judged completely. == Various TRECs == In 1992 TREC-1 was held at NIST. The first conference attracted 28 groups of researchers from academia and industry. It demonstrated a wide range of different approaches to the retrieval of text from large document collections .Finally TREC1 revealed the facts that automatic construction of queries from natural language query statements seems to work. Techniques based on natural language processing were no better no worse than those based on vector or probabilistic approach. TREC2 Took place in August 1993. 31 group of researchers participated in this. Two types of retrieval were examined. Retrieval using an ‘ad hoc’ query and retrieval using a ‘routing' query In TREC-3 a small group experiments worked with Spanish language collection and others dealt with interactive query formulation in multiple databases TREC-4 they made even shorter to investigate the problems with very short user statements TREC-5 includes both short and long versions of the topics with the goal of carrying out deeper investigation into which types of techniques work well on various lengths of topics In TREC-6 Three new tracks speech, cross language, high precision information retrieval were introduced. The goal of cross language information retrieval is to facilitate research on system that are able to retrieve relevant document regardless of language of the source document TREC-7 contained seven tracks out of which two were new Query track and very large corpus track. The goal of the query track was to create a large query collection TREC-8 contain seven tracks out of which two –question answering and web tracks were new. The objective of QA query is to explore the possibilities of providing answers to specific natural language queries TREC-9 Includes seven tracks In TREC-10 Video tracks introduced Video tracks design to promote research in content based retrieval from digital video In TREC-11 Novelty tracks introduced. The goal of novelty track is to investigate systems abilities to locate relevant and new information within the ranked set of documents returned by a traditional document retrieval system TREC-12 held in 2003 added three new tracks; Genome track, robust retrieval track, HARD (Highly Accurate Retrieval from Documents) == Tracks == === Current tracks === New tracks are added as new research needs are identified, this list is current for TREC 2018. CENTRE Track – Goal: run in parallel CLEF 2018, NTCIR-14, TREC 2018 to develop and tune an IR reproducibility evaluation protocol (new track for 2018). Common Core Track – Goal: an ad hoc search task over news documents. Complex Answer Retrieval (CAR) – Goal: to develop systems capable of answering complex information needs by collating information from an entire corpus. Incident Streams Track – Goal: to research technologies to automatically process social media streams during emergency situations (new track for TREC 2018). The News Track – Goal: partnership with The Washington Post to develop test collections in news environment (new for 2018). Precision Medicine Track – Goal: a specialization of the Clinical Decision Support track to focus on linking oncology patient data to clinical trials. Real-Time Summarization Track (RTS) – Goal: to explore techniques for real-time update summaries from social media streams. === Past tracks === Chemical Track – Goal: to develop and evaluate technology for large scale search in chemistry-related documents, including academic papers and patents, to better meet the needs of professional searchers, and specifically patent searchers and chemists. Clinical Decision Support Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for linking medical cases to information relevant for patient care Contextual Suggestion Track – Goal: to investigate search techniques for complex information needs that are highly dependent on context and user interests. Crowdsourcing Track – Goal: to provide a collaborative venue for exploring crowdsourcing methods both for evaluating search and for performing search tasks. Genomics Track – Goal: to study the retrieval of genomic data, not just gene sequences but also supporting documentation such as research papers, lab reports, etc. Last ran on TREC 2007. Dynamic Domain Track – Goal: to investigate domain-specific search algorithms that adapt to the dynamic information needs of professional users as they explore in complex domains. Enterprise Track – Goal: to study search over the data of an organization to complete some task. Last ran on TREC 2008. Entity Track – Goal: to perform entity-related search on Web data. These search tasks (such as finding entities and properties of entities) address common information needs that are not that well modeled as ad hoc document search. Cross-Language Track – Goal: to investigate the ability of retrieval systems to find documents topically regardless of source language. After 1999, this track spun off into CLEF. FedWeb Track – Goal: to select best resources to forward a query to, and merge the results so that most relevant are on the top. Federated Web Search Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for the selection and combination of search results from a large number of real on-line web search services. Filtering Track – Goal: to binarily decide retrieval of new
Read more →
Multi-exposure HDR capture

In photography and videography, multi-exposure HDR capture is a technique that creates high dynamic range (HDR) images (or extended dynamic range images) by taking and combining multiple exposures of the same subject matter at different exposures. Combining multiple images in this way results in an image with a greater dynamic range than what would be possible by taking one single image. The technique can also be used to capture video by taking and combining multiple exposures for each frame of the video. The term "HDR" is used frequently to refer to the process of creating HDR images from multiple exposures. Many smartphones have an automated HDR feature that relies on computational imaging techniques to capture and combine multiple exposures. A single image captured by a camera provides a finite range of luminosity inherent to the medium, whether it is a digital sensor or film. Outside this range, tonal information is lost and no features are visible; tones that exceed the range are "burned out" and appear pure white in the brighter areas, while tones that fall below the range are "crushed" and appear pure black in the darker areas. The ratio between the maximum and the minimum tonal values that can be captured in a single image is known as the dynamic range. In photography, dynamic range is measured in exposure value (EV) differences, also known as stops. The human eye's response to light is non-linear: halving the light level does not halve the perceived brightness of a space, it makes it look only slightly dimmer. For most illumination levels, the response is approximately logarithmic. Human eyes adapt fairly rapidly to changes in light levels. HDR can thus produce images that look more like what a human sees when looking at the subject. This technique can be applied to produce images that preserve local contrast for a natural rendering, or exaggerate local contrast for artistic effect. HDR is useful for recording many real-world scenes containing a wider range of brightness than can be captured directly, typically both bright, direct sunlight and deep shadows. Due to the limitations of printing and display contrast, the extended dynamic range of HDR images must be compressed to the range that can be displayed. The method of rendering a high dynamic range image to a standard monitor or printing device is called tone mapping; it reduces the overall contrast of an HDR image to permit display on devices or prints with lower dynamic range. == Benefits == One aim of HDR is to present a similar range of luminance to that experienced through the human visual system. The human eye, through non-linear response, adaptation of the iris, and other methods, adjusts constantly to a broad range of luminance present in the environment. The brain continuously interprets this information so that a viewer can see in a wide range of light conditions. Most cameras are limited to a much narrower range of exposure values within a single image, due to the dynamic range of the capturing medium. With a limited dynamic range, tonal differences can be captured only within a certain range of brightness. Outside of this range, no details can be distinguished: when the tone being captured exceeds the range in bright areas, these tones appear as pure white, and when the tone being captured does not meet the minimum threshold, these tones appear as pure black. Images captured with non-HDR cameras that have a limited exposure range (low dynamic range, LDR), may lose detail in highlights or shadows. Modern CMOS image sensors have improved dynamic range and can often capture a wider range of tones in a single exposure reducing the need to perform multi-exposure HDR. Color film negatives and slides consist of multiple film layers that respond to light differently. Original film (especially negatives versus transparencies or slides) feature a very high dynamic range (in the order of 8 for negatives and 4 to 4.5 for positive transparencies). Multi-exposure HDR is used in photography and also in extreme dynamic range applications such as welding or automotive work. In security cameras the term "wide dynamic range" is used instead of HDR. === Limitations === A fast-moving subject, or camera movement between the multiple exposures, will generate a "ghost" effect or a staggered-blur strobe effect due to the merged images not being identical. Unless the subject is static and the camera mounted on a tripod there may be a tradeoff between extended dynamic range and sharpness. Sudden changes in the lighting conditions (strobed LED light) can also interfere with the desired results, by producing one or more HDR layers that do have the luminosity expected by an automated HDR system, though one might still be able to produce a reasonable HDR image manually in software by rearranging the image layers to merge in order of their actual luminosity. Because of the nonlinearity of some sensors image artifacts can be common. Camera characteristics such as gamma curves, sensor resolution, noise, photometric calibration and color calibration affect resulting high-dynamic-range images. == Process == High-dynamic-range photographs are generally composites of multiple standard dynamic range images, often captured using exposure bracketing. Afterwards, photo manipulation software merges the input files into a single HDR image, which is then also tone mapped in accordance with the limitations of the planned output or display. === Capturing multiple images (exposure bracketing) === Any camera that allows manual exposure control can perform multi-exposure HDR image capture, although one equipped with automatic exposure bracketing (AEB) facilitates the process. Some cameras have an AEB feature that spans a far greater dynamic range than others, from ±0.6 in simpler cameras to ±18 EV in top professional cameras, as of 2020. The exposure value (EV) refers to the amount of light applied to the light-sensitive detector, whether film or digital sensor such as a CCD. An increase or decrease of one stop is defined as a doubling or halving of the amount of light captured. Revealing detail in the darkest of shadows requires an increased EV, while preserving detail in very bright situations requires very low EVs. EV is controlled using one of two photographic controls: varying either the size of the aperture or the exposure time. A set of images with multiple EVs intended for HDR processing should be captured only by altering the exposure time; altering the aperture size also would affect the depth of field and so the resultant multiple images would be quite different, preventing their final combination into a single HDR image. Multi-exposure HDR photography generally is limited to still scenes because any movement between successive images will impede or prevent success in combining them afterward. Also, because the photographer must capture three or more images to obtain the desired luminance range, taking such a full set of images takes extra time. Photographers have developed calculation methods and techniques to partially overcome these problems, but the use of a sturdy tripod is advised to minimize framing differences between exposures. === Merging the images into an HDR image === Tonal information and details from shadow areas can be recovered from images that are deliberately overexposed (i.e., with positive EV compared to the correct scene exposure), while similar tonal information from highlight areas can be recovered from images that are deliberately underexposed (negative EV). The process of selecting and extracting shadow and highlight information from these over/underexposed images and then combining them with image(s) that are exposed correctly for the overall scene is known as exposure fusion. Exposure fusion can be performed manually, relying on the HDR operator's judgment, experience, and training, but usually, fusion is performed automatically by software. === Storing === Information stored in high-dynamic-range images typically corresponds to the physical values of luminance or radiance that can be observed in the real world. This is different from traditional digital images, which represent colors as they should appear on a monitor or a paper print. Therefore, HDR image formats are often called scene-referred, in contrast to traditional digital images, which are device-referred or output-referred. Furthermore, traditional images are usually encoded for the human visual system (maximizing the visual information stored in the fixed number of bits), which is usually called gamma encoding or gamma correction. The values stored for HDR images are often gamma compressed using mathematical functions such as power laws logarithms, or floating point linear values, since fixed-point linear encodings are increasingly inefficient over higher dynamic ranges. HDR images often do not use fixed ranges per color channel, other than traditional images, to represent many more colors over a much wi
Read more →
Physical information security

Physical information security is the intersection or common ground between physical security and information security. It primarily concerns the protection of tangible information-related assets such as computer systems and storage media against physical, real-world threats such as unauthorized physical access, theft, fire and flood. It typically involves physical controls such as protective barriers and locks, uninterruptible power supplies, and shredders. Information security controls in the physical domain complement those in the logical domain (such as encryption), and procedural or administrative controls (such as information security awareness and compliance with policies and laws). == Background == Asset are inherently valuable and yet vulnerable to a wide variety of threats, both malicious (e.g. theft, arson) and accidental/natural (e.g. lost property, bush fire). If threats materialize and exploit those vulnerabilities causing incidents, there are likely to be adverse impacts on the organizations or individuals who legitimately own and utilize the assets, varying from trivial to devastating in effect. Security controls are intended to reduce the probability or frequency of occurrence and/or the severity of the impacts arising from incidents, thus protecting the value of the assets. Physical security involves the use of controls such as smoke detectors, fire alarms and extinguishers, along with related laws, regulations, policies and procedures concerning their use. Barriers such as fences, walls and doors are obvious physical security controls, designed to deter or prevent unauthorized physical access to a controlled area, such as a home or office. The moats and battlements of Mediaeval castles are classic examples of physical access controls, as are bank vaults and safes. Information security controls protect the value of information assets, particularly the information itself (i.e. the intangible information content, data, intellectual property, knowledge etc.) but also computer and telecommunications equipment, storage media (including papers and digital media), cables and other tangible information-related assets (such as computer power supplies). The corporate mantra "Our people are our greatest assets" is literally true in the sense that so-called knowledge workers qualify as extremely valuable, perhaps irreplaceable information assets. Health and safety measures and even medical practice could therefore also be classed as physical information security controls since they protect humans against injuries, diseases and death. This perspective exemplifies the ubiquity and value of information. Modern human society is heavily reliant on information, and information has importance and value at a deeper, more fundamental level. In principle, the subcellular biochemical mechanisms that maintain the accuracy of DNA replication could even be classed as vital information security controls, given that genes are 'the information of life'. Malicious actors who may benefit from physical access to information assets include computer crackers, corporate spies, and fraudsters. The value of information assets is self-evident in the case of, say, stolen laptops or servers that can be sold-on for cash, but the information content is often far more valuable, for example encryption keys or passwords (used to gain access to further systems and information), trade secrets and other intellectual property (inherently valuable or valuable because of the commercial advantages they confer), and credit card numbers (used to commit identity fraud and further theft). Furthermore, the loss, theft or damage of computer systems, plus power interruptions, mechanical/electronic failures and other physical incidents prevent them being used, typically causing disruption and consequential costs or losses. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, and even the coercive threat of such disclosure, can be damaging as we saw in the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack at the end of 2014 and in numerous privacy breach incidents. Even in the absence of evidence that disclosed personal information has actually been exploited, the very fact that it is no longer secured and under the control of its rightful owners is itself a potentially harmful privacy impact. Substantial fines, adverse publicity/reputational damage and other noncompliance penalties and impacts that flow from serious privacy breaches are best avoided, regardless of cause! == Examples of physical attacks to obtain information == There are several ways to obtain information through physical attacks or exploitations. A few examples are described below. === Dumpster diving === Dumpster diving is the practice of searching through trash in the hope of obtaining something valuable such as information carelessly discarded on paper, computer disks or other hardware. === Overt access === Sometimes attackers will simply go into a building and take the information they need. Frequently when using this strategy, an attacker will masquerade as someone who belongs in the situation. They may pose as a copy room employee, remove a document from someone's desk, copy the document, replace the original, and leave with the copied document. Individuals pretending to building maintenance may gain access to otherwise restricted spaces. They might walk right out of the building with a trash bag containing sensitive documents, carrying portable devices or storage media that were left out on desks, or perhaps just having memorized a password on a sticky note stuck to someone's computer screen or called out to a colleague across an open office. == Examples of Physical Information Security Controls == Shredding paper documents prior to their disposal can prevent unintended information leakage. Digital data can be encrypted or securely wiped. Offices may require visitors to present valid identification cards or valid access keys. Office workers may be required to obey "clear desk" policies, protecting documents and other storage media (including portable IT devices) by tidying them away out of sight (for example in locked drawers, filing cabinets, safes or a Bank vault). Workers may be required to memorize their passwords or use a password manager instead of writing passwords on paper. Computers are vulnerable to outages caused by power cuts, accidental disconnection, flat batteries, brown-outs, surges, spikes, electrical interference and electronic failures. Physical information security controls to address the associated risks include: fuses, no-break battery-backed power supplies, electrical generators, redundant power sources and cabling, "Do not remove" warning signs on plugs, surge protectors, power quality monitoring, spare batteries, professional design and installation of power circuits plus regular inspections/tests and preventive maintenance.
Read more →
Zero-knowledge service

In cloud computing, the term zero-knowledge (or occasionally no-knowledge or zero-access) is a commonly used term for online services that store, transfer or manipulate data with a high level of confidentiality, where the data is only accessible to the data's owner (the client), and not to the service provider. However, unlike "end-to-end encryption", the term "zero-knowledge" does not imply any specific threat model or security notion, and its use is commonly frowned-upon by the security community. The term "zero-knowledge" was popularized by backup service SpiderOak, which later switched to using the term "no knowledge", acknowledging that the previous terminology was not technically accurate. == Disadvantages == Most cloud storage services keep a copy of the client's password on their servers, allowing clients who have lost their passwords to retrieve and decrypt their data using alternative means of authentication; but since zero-knowledge services do not store copies of clients' passwords, if a client loses their password then their data cannot be decrypted, making it practically unrecoverable. Most of the most used cloud storage services, such as Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive or iCloud, are also able to furnish access requests from law enforcement agencies for similar reasons; zero-knowledge services, however, are unable to do so, since their systems are designed to make clients' data inaccessible without the client's explicit cooperation.
Read more →
Pronunciation assessment

Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju
Read more →
Sprite multiplexing

Sprite multiplexing is a computer graphics technique where additional sprites (moving images) can be drawn on the screen, beyond the nominal maximum. It is largely historical, applicable principally to older hardware, where limited resources (such as CPU speed and memory) meant only a relatively small number of sprites were supported. On the other hand, it is also true that without multiplexing, the sprite circuitry would be idle much of the time, and limited resources were wasted. == Description == The sprite multiplexing technique is based on the idea that while the hardware may only support a finite number of sprites, it is sometimes possible to re-use the same sprite "slots" more than once per frame or scan line. The program will first use the hardware to draw one or more sprite(s), as normal. Before the next frame (or next scanline) needs to be drawn, the software reprograms the hardware to display additional sprites, in other positions. For example, the Nintendo Entertainment System explicitly supports hardware sprite multiplexing, where it has 64 hardware sprites, but is only capable of rendering 8 of them per scanline. On the older Atari 2600, sprite multiplexing was not intentionally designed in, but programmers discovered they could reset the TIA graphics chip to draw additional sprites on the same scanline. The sprite multiplexing technique relies on the program being able to identify what part of the video screen is being drawn at the moment, or being triggered by the video hardware to run a subroutine at the crucial moment. The programmer must carefully consider the layout of the screen. If the video graphics hardware is not reprogrammed in time for the extra sprites to be displayed, they will not appear, or will be drawn incorrectly. Modern video graphics hardware typically does not use hardware sprites, since modern computer systems do not have the kind of limitations that sprite hardware is designed to circumvent. == Implementations == Systems that allow the programmer to employ the sprite multiplexing technique include: Atari 2600 Atari 8-bit computers Amiga Commodore 64 MSX Nintendo Entertainment System Super Nintendo Entertainment System Master System Sega Genesis/Mega Drive
Read more →
Elasticity (data store)

The elasticity of a data store relates to the flexibility of its data model and clustering capabilities. The greater the number of data model changes that can be tolerated, and the more easily the clustering can be managed, the more elastic the data store is considered to be. == Types == === Clustering elasticity === Clustering elasticity is the ease of adding or removing nodes from the distributed data store. Usually, this is a difficult and delicate task to be done by an expert in a relational database system. Some NoSQL data stores, like Apache Cassandra have an easy solution, and a node can be added/removed with a few changes in the properties and by adding specifying at least one seed. === Data-modelling elasticity === Relational databases are most often very inelastic, as they have a predefined data model that can only be adapted through redesign. Most NoSQL data stores, however, do not have a fixed schema. Each row can have a different number and even different type of columns. Concerning the data store, modifications in the schema are no problem. This makes this kind of data stores more elastic concerning the data model. The drawback is that the programmer has to take into account that the data model may change over time.
Read more →
Sprite multiplexing

Sprite multiplexing is a computer graphics technique where additional sprites (moving images) can be drawn on the screen, beyond the nominal maximum. It is largely historical, applicable principally to older hardware, where limited resources (such as CPU speed and memory) meant only a relatively small number of sprites were supported. On the other hand, it is also true that without multiplexing, the sprite circuitry would be idle much of the time, and limited resources were wasted. == Description == The sprite multiplexing technique is based on the idea that while the hardware may only support a finite number of sprites, it is sometimes possible to re-use the same sprite "slots" more than once per frame or scan line. The program will first use the hardware to draw one or more sprite(s), as normal. Before the next frame (or next scanline) needs to be drawn, the software reprograms the hardware to display additional sprites, in other positions. For example, the Nintendo Entertainment System explicitly supports hardware sprite multiplexing, where it has 64 hardware sprites, but is only capable of rendering 8 of them per scanline. On the older Atari 2600, sprite multiplexing was not intentionally designed in, but programmers discovered they could reset the TIA graphics chip to draw additional sprites on the same scanline. The sprite multiplexing technique relies on the program being able to identify what part of the video screen is being drawn at the moment, or being triggered by the video hardware to run a subroutine at the crucial moment. The programmer must carefully consider the layout of the screen. If the video graphics hardware is not reprogrammed in time for the extra sprites to be displayed, they will not appear, or will be drawn incorrectly. Modern video graphics hardware typically does not use hardware sprites, since modern computer systems do not have the kind of limitations that sprite hardware is designed to circumvent. == Implementations == Systems that allow the programmer to employ the sprite multiplexing technique include: Atari 2600 Atari 8-bit computers Amiga Commodore 64 MSX Nintendo Entertainment System Super Nintendo Entertainment System Master System Sega Genesis/Mega Drive
Read more →
Wunderlist

Wunderlist is a discontinued cloud-based task management application. It allowed users to create lists to manage their tasks from a smartphone, tablet, computer and smartwatch. Wunderlist was free; additional collaboration features were available in a paid version known as Wunderlist Pro, released April 2013. Wunderlist was created in 2011 by Berlin-based startup 6Wunderkinder (Engl.: 6Prodigies). The company was acquired by Microsoft in June 2015, at which time the app had over 13 million users. In April 2017, Microsoft announced that Wunderlist would eventually be discontinued in favor of Microsoft To Do, a new multi-platform app developed by the Wunderlist team that has direct integration with the company's Office 365 service. On December 6, 2019, Microsoft announced that it would shut down Wunderlist on May 6, 2020. After this date, the application would no longer sync but users could still import their content into Microsoft To Do. == History == In 2009, Wunderlist's CEO Christian Reber called on the social network platform XING for business partners to create a new to-do app. Frank Thelen responded and together Reber and Thelen developed first concepts for Wunderlist. The necessary seed funding was granted by High-Tech Gründerfonds and e42 GmbH. The first version of Wunderlist was launched on November 9, 2010. Initially, the program was created for desktop PCs and platforms such as Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. In December 2011, the app received approval for the iPhone. Subsequently, the developers released a version prepared for the iPad with the name Wunderlist HD. In September 2012, the developers announced a shutdown of their service Wunderkit. Instead they wanted to focus on creating a new version of Wunderlist, which was later on released in December 2012 under the name Wunderlist 2. In September 2013, the company announced it had over 5 million users. In July 2014, a new major update was released under the name of Wunderlist 3, with a new real-time sync architecture. Wunderlist reached 10 million users in December 2014. On June 1, 2015, it was announced that Microsoft had acquired 6Wunderkinder, makers of Wunderlist, for between US$100 million and US$200 million (~$258 million in 2024). Following its acquisition of the app, Microsoft announced in April 2017 a preview of To-Do, a multi-platform task management app developed by the Wunderlist team that was intended to eventually replace Wunderlist and incorporate most of its features. As of January 2019, To-Do had not yet reached feature parity with Wunderlist, with its team citing that the service had to be completely re-written to use Microsoft Azure instead of Amazon Web Services. Frustrated by the perceived lack of roadmap, in September 2019, Reber began to publicly ask Microsoft-related accounts on Twitter whether he could buy Wunderlist back. Shortly afterward, however, Microsoft unveiled updates to To-Do that make it more closely resemble Wunderlist. In December 2019, Microsoft announced that it would fully shut down Wunderlist as of May 6, 2020. The team responsible for creating Wunderlist, led by co-founder Christian Reber, created that Superlist app in early 2024. == Finances == In its initial round of funding, 100,000 euro was invested in 6Wunderkinder by Frank Thelen and others. In December 2010, High-Tech Gründerfonds invested 500,000 euro (approximately US$660,000) in the company. T-Venture also invested an undisclosed amount in the startup. In its Series A round of funding in November 2011, Atomico invested $4.2 million (~$5.76 million in 2024) while High-Tech Gründerfonds invested an undisclosed additional amount. In May 2012, High-Tech Gründerfonds sold off its stake in 6Wunderkinder to Earlybird Venture Capital. In November 2013, $19 million (~$25.2 million in 2024) was raised in a Series B round led by Sequoia Capital with participation from Earlybird and Atomico. == Awards == In 2013, Wunderlist for Mac was named App of the Year. Wunderlist was selected as a Google Play Top Developer in 2013. In 2014, Wunderlist won the "Golden Mi" award from Xiaomi, and also named as one of its Best Apps of 2014 was given a "Google Play Editor's Choice" award, and was named in Google Play's Best Apps of 2014 as well as Apple's Best of 2014.
Read more →
Blanking (video)

In analog video, blanking occurs between horizontal lines and between frames. In raster scan equipment, an image is built up by scanning an electron beam from left to right across a screen to produce a visible trace of one scan line, reducing the brightness of the beam to zero (horizontal blanking), moving it back as fast as possible to the left of the screen at a slightly lower position (the next scan line), restoring the brightness, and continuing until all the lines have been displayed and the beam is at the bottom right of the screen. Its intensity is then reduced to zero again (vertical blanking), and it is rapidly moved to the top left to start again, creating the next frame. In television, in particular, the vertical blanking interval is long to accommodate the slow equipment available at the time the standard was set. Fast modern electronics allows digital information to be encoded into the signal during the vertical blanking interval; it is not displayed on screen as the beam is blanked, but can be processed by appropriate circuitry.
Read more →
Transparency in the software supply chain

Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par
Read more →
Tessellation (computer graphics)

In computer graphics, tessellation is the dividing of datasets of polygons (sometimes called vertex sets) presenting objects in a scene into suitable structures for rendering. Especially for real-time rendering, data is tessellated into triangles, for example in OpenGL 4.0 and Direct3D 11. == In graphics rendering == A key advantage of tessellation for realtime graphics is that it allows detail to be dynamically added and subtracted from a 3D polygon mesh and its silhouette edges based on control parameters (often camera distance). In previously leading realtime techniques such as parallax mapping and bump mapping, surface details could be simulated at the pixel level, but silhouette edge detail was fundamentally limited by the quality of the original dataset. In Direct3D 11 pipeline (a part of DirectX 11), the graphics primitive is the patch. The tessellator generates a triangle-based tessellation of the patch according to tessellation parameters such as the TessFactor, which controls the degree of fineness of the mesh. The tessellation, along with shaders such as a Phong shader, allows for producing smoother surfaces than would be generated by the original mesh. By offloading the tessellation process onto the GPU hardware, smoothing can be performed in real time. Tessellation can also be used for implementing subdivision surfaces, level of detail scaling and fine displacement mapping. OpenGL 4.0 uses a similar pipeline, where tessellation into triangles is controlled by the Tessellation Control Shader and a set of four tessellation parameters. == In computer-aided design == In computer-aided design the constructed design is represented by a boundary representation topological model, where analytical 3D surfaces and curves, limited to faces, edges, and vertices, constitute a continuous boundary of a 3D body. Arbitrary 3D bodies are often too complicated to analyze directly. So they are approximated (tessellated) with a mesh of small, easy-to-analyze pieces of 3D volume—usually either irregular tetrahedra, or irregular hexahedra. The mesh is used for finite element analysis. The mesh of a surface is usually generated per individual faces and edges (approximated to polylines) so that original limit vertices are included into mesh. To ensure that approximation of the original surface suits the needs of further processing, three basic parameters are usually defined for the surface mesh generator: The maximum allowed distance between the planar approximation polygon and the surface (known as "sag"). This parameter ensures that mesh is similar enough to the original analytical surface (or the polyline is similar to the original curve). The maximum allowed size of the approximation polygon (for triangulations it can be maximum allowed length of triangle sides). This parameter ensures enough detail for further analysis. The maximum allowed angle between two adjacent approximation polygons (on the same face). This parameter ensures that even very small humps or hollows that can have significant effect to analysis will not disappear in mesh. An algorithm generating a mesh is typically controlled by the above three and other parameters. Some types of computer analysis of a constructed design require an adaptive mesh refinement, which is a mesh made finer (using stronger parameters) in regions where the analysis needs more detail.
Read more →
Hallucination (artificial intelligence)

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), a hallucination or artificial hallucination (also called bullshitting, confabulation, or delusion) is a response generated by AI that contains false or misleading information presented as fact. This term draws a loose analogy with human psychology, where a hallucination typically involves false percepts. For example, a chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content. Detecting and mitigating errors and hallucinations pose significant challenges for practical deployment and reliability of LLMs in high-stakes scenarios, such as chip design, supply chain logistics, and medical diagnostics. Some software engineers and statisticians have criticized the specific term "AI hallucination" for unreasonably anthropomorphizing computers. Symbolic artificial intelligence models generally do not produce hallucinations, unlike large language models. == Term == === Origin === Since the 1980s, the term "hallucination" has been used in computer vision with a positive connotation to describe the process of adding detail to an image. For example, the task of generating high-resolution face images from low-resolution inputs is called face hallucination. The first documented use of the term "hallucination" in this sense is in the PhD thesis of Eric Mjolsness in 1986. A notable work is the face hallucination algorithm by Simon Baker and Takeo Kanade published in 1999. In the 2000s, hallucinations were described in statistical machine translation as a failure mode. Since the 2010s, the term has undergone a semantic shift to signify the generation of factually incorrect or misleading outputs by AI systems in tasks like machine translation and object detection. In 2015, hallucinations were identified in visual semantic role labeling tasks by Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. In 2015, computer scientist Andrej Karpathy used the term "hallucinated" in a blog post to describe his recurrent neural network (RNN) language model generating an incorrect citation link. In 2017, Google researchers used the term to describe the responses generated by neural machine translation (NMT) models when they are not related to the source text, and in 2018, the term was used in computer vision to describe instances where non-existent objects are erroneously detected because of adversarial attacks. In July 2021, Meta warned during its release of BlenderBot 2 that the system is prone to "hallucinations", which Meta defined as "confident statements that are not true". Following OpenAI's ChatGPT release in beta version in November 2022, some users complained that such chatbots often seem to pointlessly embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within their generated content. Many news outlets, including The New York Times, started to use the term "hallucinations" to describe these models' frequently incorrect or inconsistent responses. In 2023, the Cambridge dictionary updated its definition of hallucination to include this new sense specific to the field of AI. Some researchers have highlighted a lack of consistency in how the term is used, but also identified several alternative terms in the literature, such as confabulations, fabrications, and factual errors. === Definitions and alternatives === Uses, definitions and characterizations of the term "hallucination" in the context of LLMs include: "a tendency to invent facts in moments of uncertainty" (OpenAI, May 2023) "a model's logical mistakes" (OpenAI, May 2023) "fabricating information entirely, but behaving as if spouting facts" (CNBC, May 2023) "making up information" (The Verge, February 2023) "probability distributions" (in scientific contexts) Journalist Benj Edwards, in Ars Technica, writes that the term "hallucination" is controversial, but that some form of metaphor remains necessary; Edwards suggests "confabulation" as an analogy for processes that involve "creative gap-filling". In July 2024, a White House report on fostering public trust in AI research mentioned hallucinations only in the context of reducing them. Notably, when acknowledging David Baker's Nobel Prize-winning work with AI-generated proteins, the Nobel committee avoided the term entirely, instead referring to "imaginative protein creation". Hicks, Humphries, and Slater, in their article in Ethics and Information Technology, argue that the output of LLMs is "bullshit" under Harry Frankfurt's definition of the term, and that the models are "in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs", with true statements only accidentally true, and false ones accidentally false. Some researchers also use the derogatory term "botshit", often referring to uncritical use of AI. === Criticism === In the scientific community, some researchers avoid the term "hallucination", seeing it as potentially misleading. It has been criticized by Usama Fayyad, executive director of the Institute for Experimental Artificial Intelligence at Northeastern University, on the grounds that it misleadingly personifies large language models and is vague. Mary Shaw said, "The current fashion for calling generative AI's errors 'hallucinations' is appalling. It anthropomorphizes the software, and it spins actual errors as somehow being idiosyncratic quirks of the system even when they're objectively incorrect." In Salon, statistician Gary Smith argues that LLMs "do not understand what words mean" and consequently that the term "hallucination" unreasonably anthropomorphizes the machine. Murray Shanahan argues that anthropomorphic framing of LLM capabilities, including terms like "hallucination", encourages users and researchers to attribute cognitive processes to systems that operate through statistical pattern completion, and advocates for more careful linguistic practices when discussing LLM behavior. Kristina Šekrst argues that applying psychological vocabulary to LLM outputs obscures the difference between the appearance of mental properties and their genuine presence. Förster & Skop assert that tech companies use the hallucination metaphor to anthropomorphize models and deflect responsibility for non-factual outputs. Some see the AI outputs not as illusory but as prospective—that is, having some chance of being true, similar to early-stage scientific conjectures. The term has also been criticized for its association with psychedelic drug experiences. == In natural language generation == In natural language generation, there are several reasons why natural language models hallucinate: === Hallucination from data === Hallucinations can stem from incomplete, inaccurate or unrepresentative data sets. === Modeling-related causes === The pre-training of generative pretrained transformers (GPT) involves predicting the next word. It incentivizes GPT models to "give a guess" about what the next word is, even when they lack information. Some researchers take an anthropomorphic perspective and posit that hallucinations arise from a tension between novelty and usefulness. For instance, Amabile and Pratt define human creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas. By extension, a focus on novelty in machine creativity can lead to the production of original but inaccurate responses—that is, falsehoods—whereas a focus on usefulness may result in memorized content lacking originality. By 2022, newspapers such as The New York Times expressed concern that, as the adoption of bots based on large language models continued to grow, unwarranted user confidence in bot output could lead to problems. === Interpretability research === In 2025, interpretability research by Anthropic on the LLM Claude identified internal circuits that cause it to decline to answer questions unless it knows the answer. By default, the circuit is active and the LLM doesn't answer. When the LLM has sufficient information, these circuits are inhibited and the LLM answers the question. Hallucinations were found to occur when this inhibition happens incorrectly, such as when Claude recognizes a name but lacks sufficient information about that person, causing it to generate plausible but untrue responses. === Examples === On 15 November 2022, researchers from Meta AI published Galactica, designed to "store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge". Content generated by Galactica came with the warning: "Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text." In one case, when asked to draft a paper on creating avatars, Galactica cited a fictitious paper from a real author who works in the relevant area. Meta withdrew Galactica on 17 November due to offensiveness and inaccuracy. OpenAI's ChatGPT, released in beta version to the public on November 30, 2022, was based on the foundation model GPT-3.5 (a revision of GPT-3). Professor Ethan Mollick of Wharton called it an "omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you". Data scientist Teresa Kuba
Read more →
Fantavision

Fantavision is an animation program by Scott Anderson for the Apple II and published by Broderbund in 1985. Versions were released for the Apple IIGS (1987), Amiga (1988), and MS-DOS (1988). Fantavision allows the creation of vector graphics animations using the mouse and keyboard. The user creates frames, and the software generates the frames between them. Because this is done in real-time, it allows for creative exploration and quick changes. The program uses a graphical user interface in the style of the Macintosh with pull-down menus and black text on a white background. Advertisements claimed Fantavision a revolutionary breakthrough that brings the animation features of "tweening" and "transforming" to home computers. == Reception == Compute! in 1989 called Fantavision the best animation program for the IBM PC, although it noted the inability to draw curves. == Reviews == Games #70
Read more →
Resilience week

Resilience week is an annual symposium established to enable cross-disciplinary and role based discussions to advance strategies and research that engenders resilience in critical infrastructure systems and communities. Damaging storms, cyber attack and the interconnection of critical infrastructure systems can lead to cascading events that not only affect local but also across regions. However, many of these interdependencies are not easily recognized and obscure and complicate the mitigation of risk. The purpose of the symposia series is hence to facilitate best practice in managing critical infrastructure risks, by bringing together businesses, government and researchers. == Background == Originally organized in 2008 as a focus on the new research area of resilient control systems, including the disciplinary areas of control system, cyber-security, cognitive psychology and any number of critical infrastructure domains. Resilience has long been recognized as an area that requires not only the contributions of multiple disciplines or multidisciplinary participation, but interdisciplinary interaction where there is a common language and familiarity of the contributors to what other disciplines (and roles) contribute. The resulting interactions developed by Resilience Week and associated activities are intended to culture this sharing environment as a safe zone for inclusion; more importantly, an environment that lends to developing the new science and practice. As the attributes of resilience are complex, the contributions and topics for the event have included both the disciplinary and the project considerations, in keynotes, panels and research presentations. Keynotes have included senior leadership in the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies in addition to National Academy and professional organization fellows and senior industry leaders. Project panels and research presentations include emergent topics in resilience to climate change, cyber attack, damaging storms and the energy assurance. Topics Areas of focus have included: Control Systems Cyber Systems Cognitive Systems Communications Systems Communities and Infrastructure Project Focus Areas have included: Dependencies and Interdependencies Cyber Resilience for Operating Technology Commercializing Research and Development Building Critical Infrastructure Resilience through Distributed Energy Resources Energy Equity and Community Resilience Proceedings are developed for each year of the event, documenting the diversity of the research and engagements within these topical areas. == Impacts for the future == Since its inception, the Resilience Week community has evolved from one that primarily included only university researchers to one that includes many government laboratories, universities and private industries in the US and internationally. This type of collaboration forms a feedback loop that informs the research with the current needs and hones best practices. The future of the event is to further advance discussions that advance investment, recognize priorities and expedite technologies and tools to proactively address our energy future, in light of the natural and manmade challenges, and rationalizing the complex relationships that exist in critical infrastructure.
Read more →