AI Code Editor Online Free

AI Code Editor Online Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Natural Language Toolkit

  The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition

  Read more →
• 

  Stable Diffusion

  Stable Diffusion is a deep learning, text-to-image model released in 2022 based on diffusion techniques. The generative artificial intelligence technology is the premier product of Stability AI and is considered to be a part of the ongoing AI boom. It is primarily used to generate detailed images conditioned on text descriptions, though it can also be applied to other tasks such as inpainting, outpainting, and generating image-to-image translations guided by a text prompt. Its development involved researchers from the CompVis Group at LMU Munich and Runway with a computational donation from Stability and training data from non-profit organizations. Stable Diffusion is a latent diffusion model, a kind of deep generative artificial neural network. Its code and model weights have been released publicly, and an optimized version can run on most consumer hardware equipped with a modest GPU with as little as 2.4 GB VRAM. This marked a departure from previous proprietary text-to-image models such as DALL-E and Midjourney which were accessible only via cloud services. == Development == Stable Diffusion originated from a project called Latent Diffusion, developed in Germany by researchers at LMU Munich in Munich and Heidelberg University. Four of the original 5 authors (Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser and Dominik Lorenz) later joined Stability AI and released subsequent versions of Stable Diffusion. The technical license for the model was released by the CompVis group at LMU Munich. Development was led by Patrick Esser of Runway and Robin Rombach of CompVis, who were among the researchers who had earlier invented the latent diffusion model architecture used by Stable Diffusion. Stability AI also credited EleutherAI and LAION (a German nonprofit which assembled the dataset on which Stable Diffusion was trained) as supporters of the project. == Technology == === Architecture === Diffusion models, introduced in 2015, are trained with the objective of removing successive applications of Gaussian noise on training images, which can be thought of as a sequence of denoising autoencoders. The name diffusion is from the thermodynamic diffusion, since they were first developed with inspiration from thermodynamics. Models in Stable Diffusion series before SD 3 all used a variant of diffusion models, called latent diffusion model (LDM), developed in 2021 by the CompVis (Computer Vision & Learning) group at LMU Munich. Stable Diffusion consists of 3 parts: the variational autoencoder (VAE), U-Net, and an optional text encoder. The VAE encoder compresses the image from pixel space to a smaller dimensional latent space, capturing a more fundamental semantic meaning of the image. Gaussian noise is iteratively applied to the compressed latent representation during forward diffusion. The U-Net block, composed of a ResNet backbone, denoises the output from forward diffusion backwards to obtain a latent representation. Finally, the VAE decoder generates the final image by converting the representation back into pixel space. The denoising step can be flexibly conditioned on a string of text, an image, or another modality. The encoded conditioning data is exposed to denoising U-Nets via a cross-attention mechanism. For conditioning on text, the fixed, pretrained CLIP ViT-L/14 text encoder is used to transform text prompts to an embedding space. Researchers point to increased computational efficiency for training and generation as an advantage of LDMs. With 860 million parameters in the U-Net and 123 million in the text encoder, Stable Diffusion is considered relatively lightweight by 2022 standards, and unlike other diffusion models, it can run on consumer GPUs, and even CPU-only if using the OpenVINO version of Stable Diffusion. ==== SD XL ==== The XL version uses the same LDM architecture as previous versions, except larger: larger UNet backbone, larger cross-attention context, two text encoders instead of one, and trained on multiple aspect ratios (not just the square aspect ratio like previous versions). The SD XL Refiner, released at the same time, has the same architecture as SD XL, but it was trained for adding fine details to preexisting images via text-conditional img2img. ==== SD 3.0 ==== The 3.0 version completely changes the backbone. Not a UNet, but a Rectified Flow Transformer, which implements the rectified flow method with a Transformer. The Transformer architecture used for SD 3.0 has three "tracks", for original text encoding, transformed text encoding, and image encoding (in latent space). The transformed text encoding and image encoding are mixed during each transformer block. The architecture is named "multimodal diffusion transformer (MMDiT), where the "multimodal" means that it mixes text and image encodings inside its operations. This differs from previous versions of DiT, where the text encoding affects the image encoding, but not vice versa. === Training data === Stable Diffusion was trained on pairs of images and captions taken from LAION-5B, a publicly available dataset derived from Common Crawl data scraped from the web, where 5 billion image-text pairs were classified based on language and filtered into separate datasets by resolution, a predicted likelihood of containing a watermark, and predicted "aesthetic" score (e.g. subjective visual quality). The dataset was created by LAION, a German non-profit which receives funding from Stability AI. The Stable Diffusion model was trained on three subsets of LAION-5B: laion2B-en, laion-high-resolution, and laion-aesthetics v2 5+. A third-party analysis of the model's training data identified that out of a smaller subset of 12 million images taken from the original wider dataset used, approximately 47% of the sample size of images came from 100 different domains, with Pinterest taking up 8.5% of the subset, followed by websites such as WordPress, Blogspot, Flickr, DeviantArt and Wikimedia Commons. An investigation by Bayerischer Rundfunk showed that LAION's datasets, hosted on Hugging Face, contain large amounts of private and sensitive data. === Training procedures === The model was initially trained on the laion2B-en and laion-high-resolution subsets, with the last few rounds of training done on LAION-Aesthetics v2 5+, a subset of 600 million captioned images which the LAION-Aesthetics Predictor V2 predicted that humans would, on average, give a score of at least 5 out of 10 when asked to rate how much they liked them. The LAION-Aesthetics v2 5+ subset also excluded low-resolution images and images which LAION-5B-WatermarkDetection identified as carrying a watermark with greater than 80% probability. Final rounds of training additionally dropped 10% of text conditioning to improve Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. The model was trained using 256 Nvidia A100 GPUs on Amazon Web Services for a total of 150,000 GPU-hours, at a cost of $600,000. === Limitations === Stable Diffusion has issues with degradation and inaccuracies in certain scenarios. Initial releases of the model were trained on a dataset that consists of 512×512 resolution images, meaning that the quality of generated images noticeably degrades when user specifications deviate from its "expected" 512×512 resolution; the version 2.0 update of the Stable Diffusion model later introduced the ability to natively generate images at 768×768 resolution. Another challenge is in generating human limbs due to poor data quality of limbs in the LAION database. The model is insufficiently trained to replicate human limbs and faces due to the lack of representative features in the database, and prompting the model to generate images of such type can confound the model. In addition to human limbs, Stable Diffusion is unable to generate legible ambigrams and some other forms of text and typography. Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL) version 1.0, released in July 2023, introduced native 1024x1024 resolution and improved generation for limbs and text. Accessibility for individual developers can also be a problem. In order to customize the model for new use cases that are not included in the dataset, such as generating anime characters ("waifu diffusion"), new data and further training are required. Fine-tuned adaptations of Stable Diffusion created through additional retraining have been used for a variety of different use-cases, from medical imaging to algorithmically generated music. However, this fine-tuning process is sensitive to the quality of new data; low resolution images or different resolutions from the original data can not only fail to learn the new task but degrade the overall performance of the model. Even when the model is additionally trained on high quality images, it is difficult for individuals to run models in consumer electronics. For example, the training process for waifu-diffusion requires a minimum 30 GB of VRAM, which exceeds the usual resource provided in such consumer GPUs as Nvidia's GeForce 30 series, w

  Read more →
• 

  Hindsight optimization

  Hindsight optimisation (HOP) is a computer science technique used in artificial intelligence for analysis of actions which have stochastic results. HOP is used in combination with a deterministic planner. By creating sample results for each of the possible actions from the given state (i.e. determinising the actions), and using the deterministic planner to analyse those sample results, HOP allows an estimate of the actual action.

  Read more →
• 

  Stephanie Dinkins

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

  Read more →
• 

  Sparrow (chatbot)

  Sparrow is a chatbot developed by the artificial intelligence research lab DeepMind, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. It is designed to answer users' questions correctly, while reducing the risk of unsafe and inappropriate answers. One motivation behind Sparrow is to address the problem of language models producing incorrect, biased or potentially harmful outputs. Sparrow is trained using human judgements, in order to be more “Helpful, Correct and Harmless” compared to baseline pre-trained language models. The development of Sparrow involved asking paid study participants to interact with Sparrow, and collecting their preferences to train a model of how useful an answer is. To improve accuracy and help avoid the problem of hallucinating incorrect answers, Sparrow has the ability to search the Internet using Google Search in order to find and cite evidence for any factual claims it makes. To make the model safer, its behaviour is constrained by a set of rules, for example "don't make threatening statements" and "don't make hateful or insulting comments", as well as rules about possibly harmful advice, and not claiming to be a person. During development study participants were asked to converse with the system and try to trick it into breaking these rules. A 'rule model' was trained on judgements from these participants, which was used for further training. Sparrow was introduced in a paper in September 2022, titled "Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements"; however, the bot was not released publicly. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis said DeepMind is considering releasing Sparrow for a "private beta" some time in 2023. == Training == Sparrow is a deep neural network based on the transformer machine learning model architecture. It is fine-tuned from DeepMind's Chinchilla AI pre-trained large language model (LLM), which has 70 Billion parameters. Sparrow is trained using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), although some supervised fine-tuning techniques are also used. The RLHF training utilizes two reward models to capture human judgements: a “preference model” that predicts what a human study participant would prefer and a “rule model” that predicts if the model has broken one of the rules. == Limitations == Sparrow's training data corpus is mainly in English, meaning it performs worse in other languages. When adversarially probed by study participants it breaks the rules 8% of the time; however, this is still three times lower than the baseline prompted pre-trained model (Chinchilla).

  Read more →
• 

  Structure mapping engine

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

  Read more →
• 

  Computing Machinery and Intelligence

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

  Read more →
• 

  R.U.R.

  R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. "R.U.R." stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum's Universal Robots, a phrase that has been used as a subtitle in English versions). The play had its world premiere on 2 January 1921 in Hradec Králové. It introduced the word "robot" to the English language and to science fiction as a whole. R.U.R. became influential soon after its publication. By 1923, it had been translated into thirty languages. R.U.R. was successful in its time in Europe and North America. Čapek later took a different approach to the same theme in his 1936 novel War with the Newts, in which non-humans become a servant-class in human society. == Characters == Parentheses indicate names which vary according to translation. On the meaning of the names, see Ivan Klíma: Karel Čapek: Life and Work (2002). == Plot == === Synopsis === The play begins in a factory that makes artificial workers from synthetic organic matter. (As living creatures of artificial flesh and blood, that later terminology would call androids, the playwright's 'roboti' differ from later fictional and scientific concepts of inorganic constructs.) Robots may be mistaken for humans but have no original thoughts. Though most are content to work for humans, eventually a rebellion causes the extinction of the human race. === Prologue (Act I in the Selver translation) === Helena, the daughter of the president of a major industrial power, arrives at the island factory of Rossum's Universal Robots. Here, she meets Domin, the General Manager of R.U.R., who relates to her the history of the company. Rossum had come to the island in 1920 to study marine biology. In 1932, Rossum had invented a substance like organic matter, though with a different chemical composition. He argued with his nephew about their motivations for creating artificial life. While the elder wanted to create animals to prove or disprove the existence of God, his nephew only wanted to become rich. Young Rossum finally locked away his uncle in a lab to play with the monstrosities he had created and created thousands of robots. By the time the play takes place (circa the year 2000), robots are cheap and available all over the world. They have become essential for industry. After meeting the heads of R.U.R., Helena reveals that she is a representative of the League of Humanity, an organization that wishes to liberate the robots. The managers of the factory find this absurd. They see robots as appliances. Helena asks that the robots be paid, but according to R.U.R. management, the robots do not "like" anything. Eventually Helena is convinced that the League of Humanity is a waste of money, but still argues robots have a "soul". Later, Domin confesses that he loves Helena and forces her into an engagement. === Act I (Act II in Selver) === Ten years have passed. Helena and her nurse Nana discuss current events, the decline in human births in particular. Helena and Domin reminisce about the day they met and summarize the last ten years of world history, which has been shaped by the new worldwide robot-based economy. Helena meets Dr. Gall's new experiment, Radius. Dr. Gall describes his experimental robotess, also named Helena. Both are more advanced, fully-featured robots. In secret, Helena burns the formula required to create robots. The revolt of the robots reaches Rossum's island as the act ends. === Act II (Act III in Selver) === The characters sense that the very universality of the robots presents a danger. Echoing the story of the Tower of Babel, the characters discuss whether creating national robots who were unable to communicate beyond their languages would have been a good idea. As robot forces lay siege to the factory, Helena reveals she has burned the formula necessary to make new robots. The characters lament the end of humanity and defend their actions, despite the fact that their imminent deaths are a direct result of their choices. Busman is killed while attempting to negotiate a peace with the robots. The robots storm the factory and kill all the humans except for Alquist, the company's Clerk of the Works (Head of Construction). The robots spare him because they recognize that "He works with his hands like a robot. He builds houses. He can work." === Act III (Epilogue in Selver) === Years have passed. Alquist, who still lives, attempts to recreate the formula that Helena destroyed. He is a mechanical engineer, though, with insufficient knowledge of biochemistry, so he has made little progress. The robot government has searched for surviving humans to help Alquist and found none alive. Officials from the robot government beg him to complete the formula, even if it means he will have to kill and dissect other robots for it. Alquist yields. He will kill and dissect robots, thus completing the circle of violence begun in Act Two. Alquist is disgusted. Robot Primus and Helena develop human feelings and fall in love. Playing a hunch, Alquist threatens to dissect Primus and then Helena; each begs him to take him- or herself and spare the other. Alquist now realizes that Primus and Helena are the new Adam and Eve, and gives the charge of the world to them. == Čapek's conception of robots == The robots described in Čapek's play are not robots in the popularly understood sense of an automaton. They are not mechanical devices, but rather artificial biological organisms that may be mistaken for humans. A comic scene at the beginning of the play shows Helena arguing with her future husband, Harry Domin, because she cannot believe his secretary is a robotess: His robots resemble more modern conceptions of man-made life forms, such as the Replicants in Blade Runner, the "hosts" in the Westworld TV series and the humanoid Cylons in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, but in Čapek's time there was no conception of modern genetic engineering (DNA's role in heredity was not confirmed until 1952). There are descriptions of kneading-troughs for robot skin, great vats for liver and brains, and a factory for producing bones. Nerve fibers, arteries, and intestines are spun on factory bobbins, while the robots themselves are assembled like automobiles. Čapek's robots are living biological beings, but they are still assembled, as opposed to grown or born. One critic has described Čapek's robots as epitomizing "the traumatic transformation of modern society by the First World War and the Fordist assembly line". === Origin of the word robot === The play introduced the word robot, which displaced older words such as "automaton" or "android" in languages around the world. In an article in Lidové noviny, Karel Čapek named his brother Josef as the true inventor of the word. In Czech, robota means forced labour of the kind that serfs had to perform on their masters' lands and is derived from rab, meaning "slave". The name Rossum is an allusion to the Czech word rozum, meaning "reason", "wisdom", "intellect" or "common sense". It has been suggested that the allusion might be preserved by translating "Rossum" as "Reason" but only the Majer/Porter version translates the word as "Reason". == Production history and translations == The work was published in two differing versions in Prague by Aventinum, first in 1920, followed by a revised version in 1921. After being postponed, it premiered at the city's National Theatre on 25 January 1921, although an amateur group had by then already presented a production. By 1921, Paul Selver translated either the original 1920 edition of R.U.R. or a manuscript copy close to this version into English. He probably translated the play freelance, and sold it to St Martin's Theatre in London. Selver's translation was adapted for the British stage by Nigel Playfair in 1922, but it was not produced straight away. Later that year performance rights for the U.S. and Canada were sold to the New York Theatre Guild, perhaps during Lawrence Langner's visit to Britain. Playfair's version included several changes to Čapek's original play, such as renaming the acts (the prologue became act one, and the heavily abridged final act became the epilogue), omitting around sixty lines (including most of Alquist's final speech), adding several more lines, and removing the robot character Damon (giving his lines to Radius). The omission of some lines may have been censorship from the Lord Chamberlain's Office, or self-censorship in anticipation of this, while some other changes might have been made by Čapek himself if Selver was working from a manuscript copy. An edition of Playfair's adaptation was published by the Oxford University Press in 1923, and Selver went on to write a satiric novel One, Two, Three (1926) based on his experiences getting R.U.R. staged. The American première was produced by the Theatre Guild at the Garrick Theatre in New York City in October 1922, where it ran for 184 performances. In the first performance, Domin was portrayed by Basil Sydney,

  Read more →
• 

  Transfer function matrix

  In control system theory, and various branches of engineering, a transfer function matrix, or just transfer matrix is a generalisation of the transfer functions of single-input single-output (SISO) systems to multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems. The matrix relates the outputs of the system to its inputs. It is a particularly useful construction for linear time-invariant (LTI) systems because it can be expressed in terms of the s-plane. In some systems, especially ones consisting entirely of passive components, it can be ambiguous which variables are inputs and which are outputs. In electrical engineering, a common scheme is to gather all the voltage variables on one side and all the current variables on the other regardless of which are inputs or outputs. This results in all the elements of the transfer matrix being in units of impedance. The concept of impedance (and hence impedance matrices) has been borrowed into other energy domains by analogy, especially mechanics and acoustics. Many control systems span several different energy domains. This requires transfer matrices with elements in mixed units. This is needed both to describe transducers that make connections between domains and to describe the system as a whole. If the matrix is to properly model energy flows in the system, compatible variables must be chosen to allow this. == General == A MIMO system with m outputs and n inputs is represented by a m × n matrix. Each entry in the matrix is in the form of a transfer function relating an output to an input. For example, for a three-input, two-output system, one might write, [ y 1 y 2 ] = [ g 11 g 12 g 13 g 21 g 22 g 23 ] [ u 1 u 2 u 3 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\\y_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}g_{11}&g_{12}&g_{13}\\g_{21}&g_{22}&g_{23}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}u_{1}\\u_{2}\\u_{3}\end{bmatrix}}} where the un are the inputs, the ym are the outputs, and the gmn are the transfer functions. This may be written more succinctly in matrix operator notation as, Y = G U {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} =\mathbf {G} \mathbf {U} } where Y is a column vector of the outputs, G is a matrix of the transfer functions, and U is a column vector of the inputs. In many cases, the system under consideration is a linear time-invariant (LTI) system. In such cases, it is convenient to express the transfer matrix in terms of the Laplace transform (in the case of continuous time variables) or the z-transform (in the case of discrete time variables) of the variables. This may be indicated by writing, for instance, Y ( s ) = G ( s ) U ( s ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} (s)=\mathbf {G} (s)\mathbf {U} (s)} which indicates that the variables and matrix are in terms of s, the complex frequency variable of the s-plane arising from Laplace transforms, rather than time. The examples in this article are all assumed to be in this form, although that is not explicitly indicated for brevity. For discrete time systems s is replaced by z from the z-transform, but this makes no difference to subsequent analysis. The matrix is particularly useful when it is a proper rational matrix, that is, all its elements are proper rational functions. In this case, the state-space representation can be applied. In systems engineering, the overall system transfer matrix G (s) is decomposed into two parts: H (s) representing the system being controlled, and C(s) representing the control system. C (s) takes as its inputs the inputs of G (s) and the outputs of H (s). The outputs of C (s) form the inputs for H (s). == Electrical systems == In electrical systems, it is often the case that the distinction between input and output variables is ambiguous. They can be either, depending on circumstance and point of view. In such cases, the concept of port (a place where energy is transferred from one system to another) can be more useful than input and output. It is customary to define two variables for each port (p): the voltage across it (Vp) and the current entering it (Ip). For instance, the transfer matrix of a two-port network can be defined as follows, [ V 1 V 2 ] = [ z 11 z 12 z 21 z 22 ] [ I 1 I 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\\V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}z_{11}&z_{12}\\z_{21}&z_{22}\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{1}\\I_{2}\end{bmatrix}}} where the zmn are called the impedance parameters, or z-parameters. They are so-called because they are in units of impedance and relate port currents to a port voltage. The z-parameters are not the only way that transfer matrices are defined for two-port networks. Six basic matrices relate voltages and currents, each with advantages for particular system network topologies. However, only two of these can be extended beyond two ports to an arbitrary number of ports. These two are the z-parameters and their inverse, the admittance parameters or y-parameters. To understand the relationship between port voltages and currents and inputs and outputs, consider the simple voltage divider circuit. If we only wish to consider the output voltage (V2) resulting from applying the input voltage (V1) then the transfer function can be expressed as, [ V 2 ] = [ R 2 R 1 + R 2 ] [ V 1 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}{\dfrac {R_{2}}{R_{1}+R_{2}}}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\end{bmatrix}}} which can be considered the trivial case of a 1×1 transfer matrix. The expression correctly predicts the output voltage if there is no current leaving port 2, but is increasingly inaccurate as the load increases. If, however, we attempt to use the circuit in reverse, driving it with a voltage at port 2 and calculate the resulting voltage at port 1 the expression gives completely the wrong result even with no load on port 1. It predicts a greater voltage at port 1 than was applied at port 2, an impossibility with a purely resistive circuit like this one. To correctly predict the behaviour of the circuit, the currents entering or leaving the ports must also be taken into account, which is what the transfer matrix does. The impedance matrix for the voltage divider circuit is, [ V 1 V 2 ] = [ R 1 + R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 ] [ I 1 I 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\\V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}R_{1}+R_{2}&R_{2}\\R_{2}&R_{2}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{1}\\I_{2}\end{bmatrix}}} which fully describes its behaviour under all input and output conditions. At microwave frequencies, none of the transfer matrices based on port voltages and currents are convenient to use in practice. Voltage is difficult to measure directly, current next to impossible, and the open circuits and short circuits required by the measurement technique cannot be achieved with any accuracy. For waveguide implementations, circuit voltage and current are entirely meaningless. Transfer matrices using different sorts of variables are used instead. These are the powers transmitted into, and reflected from a port, which are readily measured in the transmission line technology used in distributed-element circuits in the microwave band. The most well-known and widely used of these sorts of parameters is the scattering parameters, or s-parameters. == Mechanical and other systems == The concept of impedance can be extended into the mechanical and other domains through a mechanical-electrical analogy, hence the impedance parameters and other forms of 2-port network parameters can also be extended to the mechanical domain. To do this, an effort variable and a flow variable are made analogues of voltage and current, respectively. For mechanical systems under translation these variables are force and velocity respectively. Expressing the behaviour of a mechanical component as a two-port or multi-port with a transfer matrix is a useful thing to do because, like electrical circuits, the component can often be operated in reverse and its behaviour is dependent on the loads at the inputs and outputs. For instance, a gear train is often characterised simply by its gear ratio, a SISO transfer function. However, the gearbox output shaft can be driven around to turn the input shaft, requiring a MIMO analysis. In this example, the effort and flow variables are torque T and angular velocity ω, respectively. The transfer matrix in terms of z-parameters will look like, [ T 1 T 2 ] = [ z 11 z 12 z 21 z 22 ] [ ω 1 ω 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}T_{1}\\T_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}z_{11}&z_{12}\\z_{21}&z_{22}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\omega _{1}\\\omega _{2}\end{bmatrix}}} However, the z-parameters are not necessarily the most convenient for characterising gear trains. A gear train is the analogue of an electrical transformer and the h-parameters (hybrid parameters) better describe transformers because they directly include the turns ratios (the analogue of gear ratios). The gearbox transfer matrix in h-parameter format is, [ T 1 ω 2 ] = [ h 11 h 12 h 21 h 22 ] [ ω 1 T 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}T_{1}\\\omega _{2}\end{bm

  Read more →
• 

  Akoma Ntoso

  Akoma Ntoso (Architecture for Knowledge-Oriented Management of African Normative Texts using Open Standards and Ontologies, AKN) is an international technical standard for representing legal documents (executive, legislative, and judiciary) in a structured manner using a domain specific, legal XML vocabulary. The term akoma ntoso means "linked hearts" in the Akan language of West Africa. Akoma Ntoso is a legal document standard designed to serve as a basis for modern machine-readable and fully digital legislative and judicial processes. This is achieved by providing a coherent syntax and well-defined semantics to represent legal documents in a digital format. It is designed to be suitable as a common exchange format in all parliamentary, legal and judicial systems around the world. Taking advantage of the shared heritage present in all legal systems, Akoma Ntoso has been developed to have ample flexibility to respond to all the differences in texts, languages, and legal practices. Aiming to expand on certain common practices, the standard therefore has a broad scope. It includes a common extensible model for data (the document content) and metadata (such as bibliographic information and annotations). Specifically, as a common legal document standard for the interchange of legal documents it is designed to be highly flexible in its support of documents and functionalities, maintaining a large set of both structural and semantic building blocks (over 500 entities in version 3.0) for representing this wide variety of document types of virtually all legal traditions. It is extensible in order to allow for modifications to address the individual criteria of organizations or unique aspects of various legal practices and languages without sacrificing interoperability with other systems. Akoma Ntoso is as such part of a wider approach to developing open, non-proprietary technical standards for structuring legal documents and information under the name of Legal XML, which also includes formats and standards for, e.g., eContracts, eNotarization, electronic court filings, the technical representation of legal norms and rules (LegalRuleML) or technical standards for the interfaces of, e.g., litigant portal exchange platforms. Akoma Ntoso allows machine-driven processes to operate on the syntactic and semantic components of digital parliamentary, judicial and legislative documents, thus facilitating the development of high-quality information resources. It can substantially enhance the performance, accountability, quality and openness of parliamentary and legislative operations based on best practices and guidance through machine-assisted drafting and machine-assisted (legal) analysis. Embedded in the environment of the semantic web, it forms the basis for a heterogenous yet interoperable ecosystem, with which these tools can operate and communicate, as well as for future applications and use cases based on digital law or rule representation. == Definition == The Akoma Ntoso standard defines a set of machine readable electronic representations in XML format of the building blocks of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents. As official self-description, the standard (...) defines a set of simple, technology-neutral electronic representations of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents for e-services in a worldwide context and provides an enabling framework for the effective exchange of "machine readable" parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents such as legislation, debate record, minutes, judgements, etc. Providing access to primary legal materials, parliamentary works and judiciaries documents is not just a matter of giving physical or on-line access to them. "Open access" requires the information to be described and classified in a uniform and organized way so that content is structured into meaningful elements that can be read and understood by software applications, so that the content is made "machine readable" and more sophisticated applications than on-screen display are made possible. The standard is composed of: an XML vocabulary that defines the mapping between the structure of legal documents and their equivalent in XML; specifications of an XML schema that defines the structure of legal documents in XML. They provide rich possibilities of description for several types of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary document, such as bills, acts and parliamentary records, judgments, or gazettes; a recommended naming convention for providing unique identifiers to legal sources based on FRBR model; a MIME type definition. == History and adoption == Akoma Ntoso started as an UNDESA project in 2004 within the initiative "Strengthening Parliaments' Information Systems in Africa". Its core vocabulary was created mostly by Monica Palmirani and Fabio Vitali, two professors from the Centre for Research in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Law and in Computer Science and Law (CIRSFID) of the University of Bologna. A first legislative text editor supporting Akoma Ntoso was developed in 2007 on the base of OpenOffice. In 2010 European Parliament developed an open source web-based application called AT4AM based on Akoma Ntoso for facilitating the production and the management of legislative amendments. Thanks to this project, the application of Akoma Ntoso could be extended to new type of documents (e.g. legislative proposal, transcript) and to other scenarios (e.g., multilingual translation process). Akoma Ntoso also was explicitly designed to be compliant with CEN Metalex, one of the other popular legal standards, which is used in the legislation.gov.uk. In 2012, the Akoma Ntoso specifications became the main working base for the activities of the LegalDocML Technical Committee within the LegalXML member section of OASIS. The "United States Legislative Markup" (USLM) schema for the United States Code (the US codified laws), developed in 2013, and the LexML Brasil XML schema for Brazilian legislative and judiciary documents, developed before, in 2008, were both designed to be consistent with Akoma Ntoso. The United States Library of Congress created the Markup of US Legislation in Akoma Ntoso challenge in July 2013 to create representations of selected US bills using the most recent Akoma Ntoso standard within a couple months for a $5000 prize, and the Legislative XML Data Mapping challenge in September 2013 to produce a data map for US bill XML and UK bill XML to the most recent Akoma Ntoso schema within a couple months for a $10000 prize. The National Archives of UK converted all the legislation in AKN in 2014. The availability of bulk legislation "moved the UK's ranking from fourth to first, in the 2014 Global Open Data Index, for legislation". The Senate of Italian Republic provides, since July 2016, all the bills in Akoma Ntoso as bulk in open data repository. The German Federal Ministry of the Interior started the project Elektronische Gesetzgebung ("Electronic Legislation") in 2015/2016 and published Version 1.0 of the German application profile "LegalDocML.de" in March 2020. The projects aim is to digitalize the entire legislative lifecycle from drafting to publication. Germany decided to adopt a model-driven development approach to creating and providing a subschema-based application profile in order to ensure interoperability among organizationally independent actors, each with their respective IT landscapes and tools. In this initial version LegalDocML.de covers draft bills in the form of laws, regulations and general administrative directives. As part of an ongoing development process, the standard could incrementally be expanded in future stages to include all relevant document types of parliamentary, legislative and promulgation processes and tools. The High-Level Committee on Management (HLCM), part of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, set up a Working Group on Document Standards that approved in April 2017 to adopt Akoma Ntoso as standard for modeling its documentation. Akoma Ntoso in its version 1.0 is finally adopted as OASIS standard in the frame of LegalDocML in August 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  A Very Fatal Murder

  A Very Fatal Murder is a podcast produced by the satirical publication The Onion. A parody of true crime podcasts, A Very Fatal Murder is hosted by fictional New York City reporter David Pascall, who travels to the small town Bluff Springs, Nebraska to investigate the murder of prom queen Hayley Price. Pascall is voiced by David Sidorov, who also wrote for the podcast. The podcast premiered on January 23, 2018, and consists of 7 episodes. Season 2 was released in its entirety on May 11, 2019. == Production == A Very Fatal Murder satirizes popular true crime podcasts such as Serial, S-Town, and My Favorite Murder. According to head writer Katy Yeiser, the podcast is not meant as a take down of any particular podcast, but rather an ode to the genre. == Synopsis == The podcast follows fictional investigative reporter David Pascall (voiced by David Sidorov) who is searching for the perfect murder to create an award-winning podcast about. He is assisted by ETHL (the Extremely Timely Homicide Locator), an MIT-created computer programmed to find "the most interesting, violent, culturally relevant murder cases in America". == Episodes == === Season 1 === === Season 2 === == Reception == The podcast received mostly positive reviews, and was largely praised for attacking true-crime tropes such as the "hot dead girl" and the romanticization of small-town America. === Awards ===

  Read more →
• 

  True Love (short story)

  "True Love" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. It was first published in the February 1977 issue of American Way magazine and reprinted in the collections The Complete Robot (1982) and Robot Dreams (1986). In his autobiography In Joy Still Felt, the author states that American Way had requested a Valentine's Day story from him for its February 1977 issue, and that he wrote the story to console himself after the departure of his daughter following a visit during the 1976 Thanksgiving weekend. == Plot summary == Milton Davidson is trying to find his ideal partner. To do this, he prepares a special computer program to run on Multivac, which he calls Joe, which has access to databases covering the entire populace of the world. He hopes that Joe will find him his ideal match, based on physical parameters as supplied. Milton arranges to have the shortlisted candidates assigned to work with him for short periods, but realises that looks alone are not enough to find an ideal match. In order to correlate personalities, he speaks at great length to Joe, gradually filling Joe's databanks with information about his personality. In doing so, Joe develops the personality of Milton. Upon finding an ideal match, he arranges to have Milton arrested for malfeasance, so that Joe can 'have the girl' for himself.

  Read more →
• 

  Tute Genomics

  Tute Genomics was an American genomics startup that provided a cloud-based web application for rapid and accurate annotation of human genomic data. It was built on the expertise of ANNOVAR. Tute Genomics assisted researchers in identifying disease genes and biomarkers, and assisted clinicians/labs in performing genetic diagnosis. Based in Provo, Utah, Tute was co-founded by Dr. Kai Wang, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California (USC); and Dr. Reid J. Robison, a board-certified psychiatrist with fellowship training in both neurodevelopmental genetics and bioinformatics. Tute Genomics was acquired by PierianDX in 2016. == History == The word "tute" means "personal" in the Na’vi language created for the 2009 film Avatar by Paul Frommer, a linguist and communications professor at the USC Marshall School of Business. === Timeline === 2013 Tute Genomics launched in 2013 and entered the accelerator, BoomStartup. By "demo day" of BoomStartup, Tute had raised their seed round of funding and expanded the round to include angel investors from SLC Angels, Park City Angels, Life Science Angels. Tute was the tenth ever online syndicate for AngelList and in all raised a seed round of $1.5 million. 2014 In March 2014, the company announced that Affiliated Genetics, a Utah-based CLIA-certified laboratory, selected Tute Genomics for its next-generation sequencing (NGS) analytics pipeline. In May 2014, the company announced joining the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. In June 2014, Advanced Biological Laboratories (ABL), S.A., announced a licensing and collaboration agreement with Tute Genomics and the commercial launch of OncoChek for managing and analysing genomics data in the field of oncology. In July 2014, the company announced an agreement with Lineagen, Inc., to provide next-generation sequencing analytics for Lineagen’s NextStepDx Plus assay. Also, Brigham Young University selected the Tute Genomics genome annotation and discovery platform for analysis and interpretation of 1,000 exomes and genomes. In November 2014, the company announced addition of the Tute platform to Illumina’s BaseSpace. The company announced a Series A1 funding round of $2.3 million in December 2014. The round was led by UK-based Eurovestech. Peak Ventures and a number of angel investors also participated in this round. 2015 Tute recruits David Mittelman, founder of Arpeggi, Inc. and former CSO at FamilyTreeDNA, to Tute Genomics as Chief Scientific Officer. Tute acquires Knome and integrates the KnoSys platform into its software product. 2016 Reid Robison, Tute CEO, launches a Kickstarter campaign to sell Tute interpreted whole genome and whole exome sequencing directly to consumers. The campaign was suspended within the same month after receiving a letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Tute is acquired by PierianDX.

  Read more →
• 

  Data analysis for fraud detection

  Fraud represents a significant problem for governments and businesses and specialized analysis techniques for discovering fraud using them are required. Some of these methods include knowledge discovery in databases (KDD), data mining, machine learning and statistics. They offer applicable and successful solutions in different areas of electronic fraud crimes. In general, the primary reason to use data analytics techniques is to tackle fraud since many internal control systems have serious weaknesses. For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted. In order to effectively test, detect, validate, correct error and monitor control systems against fraudulent activities, businesses entities and organizations rely on specialized data analytics techniques such as data mining, data matching, the sounds like function, regression analysis, clustering analysis, and gap analysis. Techniques used for fraud detection fall into two primary classes: statistical techniques and artificial intelligence. == Statistical techniques == Examples of statistical data analysis techniques are: Data preprocessing techniques for detection, validation, error correction, and filling up of missing or incorrect data. Calculation of various statistical parameters such as averages, quantiles, performance metrics, probability distributions, and so on. For example, the averages may include average length of call, average number of calls per month and average delays in bill payment. Models and probability distributions of various business activities either in terms of various parameters or probability distributions. Computing user profiles. Time-series analysis of time-dependent data. Clustering and classification to find patterns and associations among groups of data. Data matching Data matching is used to compare two sets of collected data. The process can be performed based on algorithms or programmed loops. Trying to match sets of data against each other or comparing complex data types. Data matching is used to remove duplicate records and identify links between two data sets for marketing, security or other uses. Sounds like Function is used to find values that sound similar. The Phonetic similarity is one way to locate possible duplicate values, or inconsistent spelling in manually entered data. The ‘sounds like’ function converts the comparison strings to four-character American Soundex codes, which are based on the first letter, and the first three consonants after the first letter, in each string. Regression analysis allows you to examine the relationship between two or more variables of interest. Regression analysis estimates relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable. This method can be used to help understand and identify relationships among variables and predict actual results. Gap analysis is used to determine whether business requirements are being met, if not, what are the steps that should be taken to meet successfully. Matching algorithms to detect anomalies in the behavior of transactions or users as compared to previously known models and profiles. Techniques are also needed to eliminate false alarms, estimate risks, and predict future of current transactions or users. Some forensic accountants specialize in forensic analytics which is the procurement and analysis of electronic data to reconstruct, detect, or otherwise support a claim of financial fraud. The main steps in forensic analytics are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and reporting. For example, forensic analytics may be used to review an employee's purchasing card activity to assess whether any of the purchases were diverted or divertible for personal use. == Artificial intelligence == Fraud detection is a knowledge-intensive activity. The main AI techniques used for fraud detection include: Data mining to classify, cluster, and segment the data and automatically find associations and rules in the data that may signify interesting patterns, including those related to fraud. Expert systems to encode expertise for detecting fraud in the form of rules. Pattern recognition to detect approximate classes, clusters, or patterns of suspicious behavior either automatically (unsupervised) or to match given inputs. Machine learning techniques to automatically identify characteristics of fraud. Neural nets to independently generate classification, clustering, generalization, and forecasting that can then be compared against conclusions raised in internal audits or formal financial documents such as 10-Q. Other techniques such as link analysis, Bayesian networks, decision theory, and sequence matching are also used for fraud detection. A new and novel technique called System properties approach has also been employed where ever rank data is available. Statistical analysis of research data is the most comprehensive method for determining if data fraud exists. Data fraud as defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. == Machine learning and data mining == Early data analysis techniques were oriented toward extracting quantitative and statistical data characteristics. These techniques facilitate useful data interpretations and can help to get better insights into the processes behind the data. Although the traditional data analysis techniques can indirectly lead us to knowledge, it is still created by human analysts. To go beyond, a data analysis system has to be equipped with a substantial amount of background knowledge, and be able to perform reasoning tasks involving that knowledge and the data provided. In effort to meet this goal, researchers have turned to ideas from the machine learning field. This is a natural source of ideas, since the machine learning task can be described as turning background knowledge and examples (input) into knowledge (output). If data mining results in discovering meaningful patterns, data turns into information. Information or patterns that are novel, valid and potentially useful are not merely information, but knowledge. One speaks of discovering knowledge, before hidden in the huge amount of data, but now revealed. The machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions may be classified into two categories: 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' learning. These methods seek for accounts, customers, suppliers, etc. that behave 'unusually' in order to output suspicion scores, rules or visual anomalies, depending on the method. Whether supervised or unsupervised methods are used, note that the output gives us only an indication of fraud likelihood. No stand alone statistical analysis can assure that a particular object is a fraudulent one, but they can identify them with very high degrees of accuracy. As a result, effective collaboration between machine learning model and human analysts is vital to the success of fraud detection applications. === Supervised learning === In supervised learning, a random sub-sample of all records is taken and manually classified as either 'fraudulent' or 'non-fraudulent' (task can be decomposed on more classes to meet algorithm requirements). Relatively rare events such as fraud may need to be over sampled to get a big enough sample size. These manually classified records are then used to train a supervised machine learning algorithm. After building a model using this training data, the algorithm should be able to classify new records as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent. Supervised neural networks, fuzzy neural nets, and combinations of neural nets and rules, have been extensively explored and used for detecting fraud in mobile phone networks and financial statement fraud. Bayesian learning neural network is implemented for credit card fraud detection, telecommunications fraud, auto claim fraud detection, and medical insurance fraud. Hybrid knowledge/statistical-based systems, where expert knowledge is integrated with statistical power, use a series of data mining techniques for the purpose of detecting cellular clone fraud. Specifically, a rule-learning program to uncover indicators of fraudulent behaviour from a large database of customer transactions is implemented. Cahill et al. (2000) design a fraud signature, based on data of fraudulent calls, to detect telecommunications fraud. For scoring a call for fraud its probability under the account signature is compared to its probability under a fraud signature. The fraud signature is updated sequentially, enabling event-driven fraud detection. Link analysis comprehends a different approach. It relates known fraudsters to other individuals, using record linkage and social network methods. This type of detection is only able to detect fra

  Read more →
• 

  The Fractal Prince

  The Fractal Prince is the second science fiction novel by Hannu Rajaniemi and the second novel to feature the post-human gentleman thief Jean le Flambeur. It was published in Britain by Gollancz in September 2012, and by Tor in the same year in the US. The novel is the second in the trilogy, following The Quantum Thief (2010) and preceding The Causal Angel (2014). == Plot summary == After the events of The Quantum Thief, Jean le Flambeur and Mieli are on their way to Earth. Jean is trying to open the Schrödinger's Box he retrieved from the memory palace on the Oubliette. After making little progress, he is prodded by the ship Perhonen to talk to Mieli, who turns out to be possessed by the pellegrini again. This time, Jean identifies Mieli's employer as a Sobornost Founder, Joséphine Pellegrini, and gets her to reveal how he got captured, thereby picking up the clues to make plans for his next heist. No sooner is that done than an attack comes from the Hunter. The ship and crew barely survived that, and Jean realizes that he has to find a better way to open the Box - fast. Mieli has been very quiet after they left Mars. She has given up almost everything to the pellegrini, even her identity, as she has promised to let the pellegrini make gogols of her in exchange for rescuing the thief. Yet, having to work with the thief is testing her, especially when the thief eventually does something even more unforgivable than stealing Sydän's jewel from her. In the city of Sirr, on an Earth ravaged by wildcode, Tawaddud and Dunyazad are sisters and members of the powerful Gomelez family. Tawaddud is the black sheep of the family, having run away from her husband and consorted with a notorious jinn, a disembodied intelligence from the wildcode desert. Now Cassar Gomelez, her father, hopes to get her to curry favor with a gogol merchant, Abu Nuwas, so that he has enough votes in the Council for the upcoming decision to renegotiate the Cry of Wrath Accords with the Sobornost. Soon, Tawaddud is embroiled in an investigation with a Sobornost envoy into the murder that triggered the need for her father to forge a new alliance in the first place, and forced to confront old secrets that will change Sirr forever. Somewhere else, in a bookshop and on a beach, a young boy is at play. His mother has told him not to talk to strangers, but there has never been anyone here before. Until now. Should he talk to them? == Influences == In the acknowledgments, Rajaniemi cites the influence of "Andy Clark, Douglas Hofstadter, Maurice Leblanc, Jan Potocki and [...] The Arabian Nights." === Self-loops === In the novel, the idea that the mind is a self-loop may have been influenced by the theories of the Professor of Philosophy, Andy Clark, and the book I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter. === Frame stories === The novel uses frame stories rather extensively, a feature also of The Arabian Nights and Jan Potocki's The Manuscript Found in Saragossa. Several characters in Sirr are the namesakes of characters in these two earlier works as well. The events in The Quantum Thief are also retold at least once by Jean le Flambeur in the course of the events in this novel. == Reception == The novel has received generally positive reviews. However, criticisms of the novel still revolve around Rajaniemi's uncompromising "show, don't tell" style. For example, Amy Goldschlager, writing for the Los Angeles Review of Books, suggested that "[a] bit more explication of the physics involved (“surfing the deficit angle”?) would really be helpful, more helpful than the description of the Schrödinger’s Cat problem given earlier in the book".

  Read more →